Am Donnerstag, 31. August 2006 09:58 schrieb Tom Bachmann: > 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. I suggest not to use the term "ownership" in this context at all. As discussed earlier, ownership in the real world does not neccessary mean that you can do everything: You own a pet, but you are not allowed to kill or excruciate it. You are the owner of your car, but you are not allowed to manipulate it. You are the owner of a radio, but you are not allowed to receive al frequencies (e.g., those used by the policy). > > 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. You own a house. You lease a flat. You are not allowed to enter the flat without permission of the leaser. -> You are not the owner of the house any more?
> 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. In the context you mean, you do not own the movie. You payed for a usage license. You can own a movie, but this may be more expensive. > 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? Bad example. You see every single bit on the screen, thus you have access to the content in this case. > Despite the possibility of abusement, why should I pay the same price > for something I own together with others I neither know nor trust? You do not pay the same price. Owning a DVD including permission to watch the movie is different from owning the movie. > 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? No. But this is exactly what we do not allow. Chris _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
