[olug] Fw: FC: Linus Torvalds on digital rights management in Linux kernel

[William E. Kempf]

Brian Wiese said:
> I like the Register's satirical commentary on the whole story...
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/30450.html
>
> What's great is the closing lines, similiar to our discussions about the
> (inevitable?) slippery slope of the argument...  =)
>
> ----------
> Larry McVoy did have a nice summary which, although he may have been
> talking about patent implications, resonates here:
>
> Me: Action A is leading to reaction B which you don't want.
> You: Action A is perfectly legal, etc., etc.
> Me: It's not about whether it is legal or not, it's about reaction B.
> You: Action A is perfectly legal, etc., etc.
> Me: Reaction B is what you don't want, it's behaviour A which is the
> cause. You: Action A is perfectly legal, etc., etc.
> Me: You keep missing the point about the reaction B.
> You: Action A is perfectly legal, etc., etc.
> Me: Err, umm, how many times do I have to tell you it is the reaction
> that is what you want to avoid? You: Action A is perfectly legal, etc.,
> etc. Me: Sigh.
> -------------

Absolutely flawed logic, and I agree with Linus.  Technology isn't "an
action", it's just technology.  By itself, it doesn't "lead to reation B".
 From a technical stand point, digital signing is A Good Thing (TM).  It
provides a mechanism by which you can be relatively confident that you can
trust the content.  It could, provided the signing were secure enough,
virtually eliminate viruses, for instance.  (Now, I don't begin to believe
the security can be totally infallable, and any security that works now
will have to evolve as other technology evolves and those bent on
circumventing the security evolve.)

What scares me, the "reaction B" you speak of, is that the technology can
be used to erode my rights.  Copyright holders can misuse this technology,
in the name of protecting their rights, to eliminate many of my own.  We
see them doing this today already.  Macrovision and other copy protection
schemes are used to protect the copyright holders right's of ownership of
the intellectual property, but this removes many of my rights under "fair
use", such as making archival copies to protect against loss or damage
(just one of a million fair use examples I could give).  This truly should
not be legal.  Our government appears to be clueless on this issue, and is
putting more weight on the side of the copyright holder then with the
legitimate owners of the end product.  Copyright laws and the directions
they are taking is in this digital age scare the $@$!*^$ out of me.  But
this isn't occuring because of the technology.

Imagine this technology, or the many other "copy protection" technologies,
didn't exist at all?  In the digital age, where a copy is as good as the
original, large corporations and other copy right holders would still be
pushing such laws through.  The only difference would be that it would be
easier for you to break the law.  But I don't see that as a good thing...
I prefer not to be a criminal, even if it's unlikely I'll be caught.  And
I have no tolerance for anyone who'd opt to be a criminal in this case...
after all, I'm the copyright holder under many circumstances, and it's
harmful to me when people violate my rights by making illegal copies.

On the other hand, imagine this technology existing, but the laws being
made intelligently, in a manner to protect both the copyright holder and
the consumer.  When I purchase something, the digital signature can be
used by myself to ensure I've bought a legal copy.  With out it, today, I
can be arrested for purchasing bootleg copies, even if I don't know that
the copies are bootlegged.  But since the laws protect me, as a consumer,
as well as the copyright holder, the copyright holder would be unable to
prevent me from making copies.  It would be my responsibility to ensure
any copies I make are legal, however, and illegal copies I make can be
tracked back to myself, via the signature, which helps to protect the
copyright holder.

So, the technology doesn't "lead" to what you and I both fear.  It really
has nothing to do with it, other than it's a mechanism that can be used to
enforce the real issue... bad laws.

-- 
William E. Kempf