[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: DVD legal maneuvers (fwd)




Hi,

I chopped the text w/o noting the small pieces and various para's that I
felt were supportive or ancillary.

Excllent presentation dude!

----- Forwarded message from Randall Farmer -----

Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:02:27 -0600 (CST)
From: Randall Farmer <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: DVD legal maneuvers (fwd)

> Why does trust, respect, and mutual agreement eliminate anonymity?

Those things do not eliminate anonymity and privacy tools; in Anonymous's ideal
society, s/he says, "anti reverse engineering provisions are
entirely...enforceable," and the enforceability of the provisions is the
characteristic with which our anonymity and privacy tools cannot coexist. Lose
the enforceability of anti-reverse-engineering provisions; keep or scrap the
basis in trust, respect, and mutual agreement; and Mix-style anonymity and
cryptographically-ensured privacy may exist. (For some justification, read the
original post and the text below.)

[ That's nice. I'm asking you, not anonymous, why trust, respect, and mutual
  agreement eliminate anonymity. The fact that there are tools is really
  beside the point, anonymity doesn't rely on anything more difficult than
  refusing to give your name and everyone saying 'ok'. I don't care about
  anonymous' utopian dream. But to address the utopian aspect, of course
  they're fully enforcable, otherwise it wouldn't be a utopia. Rather begs
  the question. ]

> The reality is that in such a society you wouldn't need to reverse engineer
> in the first place. So your point is incorrect as worded

Under your interpretation and logic, yes -- but your interpretation is not the
only one, not one which uncovers the intent behind the words, and arguably not
the one which yields the most practically useful results.

[ My interpretation? This is your 'what if'. Let's examine the conclusions
  of the precepts you've offered (i.e. trust, respect, mutual agreement).
  In such a society the person selling it would trust your use and your
  word. Because of respect and mutual agreement the two parties would
  follow the intent of their agreement. In such a word where a literal
  handshake is as good as any other form of contract law exactly why would
  anyone reverse engineer anything? They'd just go to the author and ask
  for it and they'd get it.

  In such a world why would the rights holder refuse? Is there a threat
  their profit line is at stake? No. Is there a threat that they would
  lose recognition of their invention? No. In both of these cases the
  fact that we have trust, respect, and mutual agreement there is in fact
  no reason to reverse engineer. Most especialy there is no motive to
  reverse engineer without permission. ]

Part of my argument was that anti-reverse-engineering provisions would not be
enforceable in a society if that society had anonymity and privacy protected by
cryptography and related fields[2]. (This is logically equivalent to the
statement "a society would not have anonymity and privacy protected by
cryptography and related fields if anti-reverse-engineering provisions were
enforceable in that society," which is more like the way I've stated my claim
other times.)

[ Why wouldn't there be enforcability? Anonymity does not deny culpability,
  as many of the projects on this list have demonstrated over the years.
  That very cryptography can be used to prove without revealing the absolute
  parties identity if they've performed the requisite acts and if not then
  the offered payment could be canceled.

  With respect to your second argument, you have yet to demonstrate a
  link between the use of crypto and anonymity being driven in a significant
  way by the fear of reverse engineering. It is my experience that crypto
  and anonymity are driven in the vast majority of cases to shield the
  identity from retribution of one form or another. I have a hard time
  understanding how one can equate reverse engineering a word processor
  and having their house blown up because they are pro-choice. ]


[2] Some logical paperwork: if everyone in the society is trustworthy -- i.e.,
in a Utopian sort of world -- the provisions are as unenforceable as ever in
the presence of strong privacy/anonymity, even if the trustworthiness means
that no failed attempt to enforce them need be made.

[ If no attempt to break the agreement occurs why would you need an
  enforcer? In such a world why would you necessarily even have that concept
  in the society? ]

----- End of forwarded message from Randall Farmer -----

    ____________________________________________________________________

            The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?

                                        O[rphan] D[rift>]
                                        Cyber Positive

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      [email protected]
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------