-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > The term "owner" has a specific and well-defined legal meaning, and I > have (in the past) understood Marcus to be using this meaning when he > uses the term "owner". His position (as I understand it) might be > captured with two statements: > > 1. The legal owner should be able to read and write every bit of this > computer's ram (at any time). > 2. This right should be inalienable -- it should not be possible for > an owner to give up this right in whole or in part. > > [This is the part where Marcus and I disagree.] >
Just for this mail, let me define this (2-statement-definition) as "full ownership" and only point 1 as "partial" or "shared ownership". This is a bit misleading, because as long as the ownership is not given up whole or in part, these two are equal. > The TC/TCPM design that is currently being implemented on PCs is > entirely consistent with statement (1). It is not consistent with > statement (2). > So within this design, I own my computer only partially. And what's with the movies on it (that are protected?). I own them actually less than partially. I have no access to the bits. And if I play them, I partially give up ownership of my monitor and graphic card. Hell, what component of my computer _do_ I fully own? Despite the possibility of abusement, why should I pay the same price for something I own together with others I neither know nor trust? Would you think it is OK if government would have the legal right to prevent you from going into your kitchen if tv is running? - -- - -ness- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE9paLvD/ijq9JWhsRAuH0AJ4gBnkXNGBIFscjdSGh2q7GitGadgCbBKQr H6qSmIyU/oEvs8e2R6XnKJI= =1Erf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
