From: Hal Finney (hal@finney.org)
Date: Tue Apr 08 2003 - 00:08:26 MDT
Lee Crocker writes:
> [T]he point is that there's no reason to expect the
> technology of free computers and software to progress any more
> slowly than mass-market "trustworthy" ones. The only way the
> latter will sell is if there's some "killer app" that absolutely
> requires Palladium; I don't see such an app anytime soon, and
> it's already too late.
How about being able to legally download music and video content?
Couldn't that be a killer app for this technology?
(quoting Hal):
> > No one is forcing you to run such an app, and no one is forcing the
> > content companies to download the data to you. The trusted computing
> > technology makes possible a new kind of transaction which cannot occur
> > today. Consumers may choose to adopt this technology in order to take
> > part in these kinds of transactions. There is no need for coercion
> > or a legal mandate.
>
> That all true, I agree--but you could have said the same thing for
> a dozen other copy-protection techbologies that have been tried over
> the years. And all of them failed miserably. That's all I'm saying
> here: comsumers aren't stupid, and they know what copy-protection is,
> and they know not to buy into it, no matter what the sweet-sounding
> words of the creators are. All the double-speak of "enabling" new
> kinds of restricted transactions is easy to see through.
It's true that the copy-protection technologies have generally failed.
Software "dongles" and floppy-disk-based copy protection schemes were
widely hated by customers and vendors eventually largely abandoned them.
Consumer systems like the DivX DVD system, which would only play your
DVDs for 24 hours, or the Sony minidisk recorders which enforce many
restrictions, have also not succeeded. It's entirely possible that
trusted computing could fail in the same way. On the other hand, TC
technology is being backed by Microsoft, a company with considerable
market clout, which could make a big difference in its success.
> By "revolt" I mean simply to refuse to patronize it, and to work
> to create free alternatives. And the reason is simple: restricting
> the free exchange and use of information is inherently evil, no
> matter how it is justified.
Are you saying that a system which allows people to voluntarily agree to
bind themselves to restrictions on the exchange of information is evil?
Like, using Palladium to prove that I am running Windows Media Player,
as a condition for downloading some music? Which of us is being evil:
the server who will only download data to people who are running WMP;
the person who runs WMP and downloads data, accepting limitations on
its use; the person who designed and sold this technology?
> I'm not suggesting--nor is any libertarian I know--that
> we should forbid it, or that people shouldn't have the freedom to
> restrict themselves. All we're saying is that we haven't heard a good
> argument yet why someone would want to do that other than "we want
> producers of content to have more control and consumers less".
How about "we want both producers and consumers of content to have the
maximum flexibility and options for how they negotiate their mutually
acceptable exchanges"?
> If I am to willingly sign away my rights to something, I expect
> something big in return. I might sign an NDA with an employer, for
> example, trading some of my right to free speech for the compensation
> of a job. If I choose to run a "trustworthy" app on a Palladium-
> enabled computer, what am I getting for giving away my rights? Is
> it worth the price?
Of course these are exactly the questions which you or anyone else
should be asking in an exchange like this. I wish that you and other
libertarians would support a technology which gives people more ways to
answer it.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 08 2003 - 00:16:39 MDT