Read: [next] [previous] message

Re: [d@DCC] RE: Part II of Heritage TPM study released.

From: Russell McOrmond <russell _-at-_>
To: General Discussion <discuss (at)>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:55:14 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 19 Jun 2003, Chris Brand wrote:

> I was actually very impressed. Overall, the message is something like
> "TPMs are very new and we have no idea whether they are going to prove
> to give an advantage to users, producers or intermediaries, so the
> government should be very careful about introducing any legislation
> regarding them". There's an interesting part towards the end, though,
> mentioning various political reasons why the government may feel
> compelled to do so (e.g. so as to not annoy our trading partners).


  No mention of the fact that "Legal protection of TPM" is not a 
protection of the rights within copyright, but the granting of 
legal force to a replacement of copyright?

  Rather than having what is and is not allowed codified in an act of
parliament (the Copyright Act), Legal protection for TPM has what is and
is not allowed codified in software rules (code as law, code replacing
law).  As much as we may debate about the balance that exists in
copyright, all creators and citizens should step forward and reject the
total abandonment of copyright that Legal protection for TPM represents!

 Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <> 
 Governance software that controls ICT, automates government policy, or
 electronically counts votes, shouldn't be bought any more than 
 politicians should be bought.  --

For (un)subscription information, posting guidelines and
links to other related sites please see

Read: [next] [previous] message
List: [newer] [older] articles

You need to subscribe to post to this forum.
XML feed