Re: Retracting the term ownership (was: Re: Separate trusted computing designs)

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Mon, 2006-09-04 at 07:35 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> At Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:04:37 -0400,
> "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 20:34 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > 
> > > Well, it would be an interesting trick if you could change the nature
> > > of information by mere postulation of a believe about it.
> > 
> > But this is exactly the question at hand: *is* this the nature of
> > information, or is it a reflection of a correctable technological
> > limitation?

Hmm. Let me adapt my argument a bit, because in the limit I think you
are correct.

It does seem true that information which "escapes" to the world (as when
you actually *play* the movie) is intrinsically copyable (ignoring
issues of law). However, economies do not operate on perfect control.
They operate on relative convenience and differential quality. DRM is
more than sufficient to achieve that.

> 
> If you don't fancy my little information theoretical argument against
> your theory, let me suggest a very practical test.  I suggest the
> following "deal" as a thought experiment.

Actually, if I had a choice between copyright and TPM-based DRM, and I
wanted to keep information proprietary, there is **absolutely no
question** that I would choose TPM-based DRM. I couldn't do this within
the next year, but probably I would do it within the next 3 years.

[Note, however, that this is not my objective.]

> I think that this test easily shows that your theory is wrong.  In
> fact, the DMCA is a direct response to the systematic failure of
> technological restriction measures, and TC will not be an exception to
> this.

 DMCA is a response to the failure of **badly designed** technological
restrictions. TPM is not badly designed.