MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-04-25 |
| FROM | NYLUG NYLUG
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] [nylug-talk] [From NY Fair Use Mailing List] Linus on DRM
|
<can think of many situations where this could be useful.
Though I admit that the current (and worse the future) legislation does
not equally balance the interest of "user" and "stakeholder". There is
still a social and political problem to solve. For these problems of
course are no technical solutions. So Linus basically said that. He
wants to put technology in a "unpolitical zone". You can use linux as a
platform with or without DRM. Free or not free - the use defines the
context not the underlying kernel.>>
Woah!! Hold on their cowboy. You DON'T DISAGREE. I said everyone
needs to have basic rights in a democratic society regardless of your
'view'. Your response simply doesn't address this issue.
However, in addressing your response, and in response also to Marco,
let me say the following:
First: Marco is correct. Their is NO 'unpolitical zone' in any human
endevor, and especially one which is by design capable of creating
classes of people with varrying degrees of access to otherwise inexpenssive
cultural artifacts. Linus did NOT go apolitical. He made a very clear
political choice, one which divides the community in varrying levels.
This is the very DEFINITION of political.
Secondly, their is absolutely no need for DRM in order to restrict access
to sensitive information what so ever. We've done this for decades, and your
reply shows a fundemental lack of understanding what DRM is.
Restriction of file access is NOT DRM. Every GNU/Linux system does that
today.
DRM, in fact, the construction of hardware, in conjunction with operating
system which runs the hardware, to pre-emptively restrict users of access
of information based on the request of a third party. While you can make
an extreamly twisted arguement for legitimate need for this, say in a bank,
their is nothing that can be done with DRM which can not be done for banks
without hardware and oppurating system level constrainst to follow restrictions
placed by a third party.
In regard to consumer level systems, EVEN NON-COMPUTERS, DRM is theft, not just
from the public of their computers, but ALSO from the public of property :ie
information which they paid hard cash for. DVD's is an example of this, as well
as the Vital Book Viewer technology.
Lastly, inorder to DO DRM legal under the DMCA, it is NOT POSSIBLE under the
GPL...and Linus says so in plain technese. To translate this into english,
DRM requires on of two things:
A: For the OS to to run under another OS which monitors every key stroke
and enforces restrictions, preempting the OS (in a situation similar to UML
or Virtual Computing). Free Software under the GPL can not be distributed for the
underlining OS doing the pre-emptions because the distribution of the OS needs
to be followed with the source code which would include the COMMERCIAL non-gpled
keys.
B: For the Linux to implement the DRM directly, the same problem. Furthermore,
distribution of the information of the private keys would constitute a FELONY
ala - DeCSS.
Ruben
Sole Founder of NY Fair Use
NY Fair Use is a trade mark of NYLXS....
____________________________
NYLXS: New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
NYLXS is a trademark of NYLXS, Inc
|
|
