--
On 1 Jul 2002 at 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
> The fact is that the market can't solve this kind of problem.
> That's right, markets are not perfect. [] But information
> objects, absent successful DRM restrictions, are effectively
> public goods. Markets do not handle public goods well.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Traffic Analysis is A Bitch, boys and girls. At 10:10 PM +0200 on
7/1/02, The Single-Remailer-Hop Anonymous Austrian Innumerate
returns, writing:
> They do fine for ordinary, private
> goods.
A signed, much less encrypted, copy of a piece of digita
On Monday, July 1, 2002, at 02:23 PM, Anonymous wrote:
> [Repost]
>
> Bear writes:
>
>> A few years ago merchants were equally adamant and believed
>> equally in the rightness of maintaining their "right" to not
>> do business with blacks, chicanos, irish, and women. It'll
>> pass as people wak
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Lackey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I consider DRM systems (even the not-secure, not-mandated versions)
> evil due to the high likelyhood they will be used as technical
> building blocks upon which to deploy mandated, draconian DRM systems.
The same argument ca
--
On 1 Jul 2002 at 15:06, Tim May wrote:
> I have strong views on all this DRM and TCPA stuff, and
> especially on the claim that some form of DRM is needed to
> prevent government from taking over control of the "arts."
>
> But we said everything that needed to be said _years_ ago. No
> p
[Repost]
Bear writes:
> A few years ago merchants were equally adamant and believed
> equally in the rightness of maintaining their "right" to not
> do business with blacks, chicanos, irish, and women. It'll
> pass as people wake up and smell the coffee. Unfortunately
> that won't be until aft
On Mon, Jul 01, at 10:10PM, Anonymous wrote:
| Brilliant. Let the market solve the problem. Why bother with the auction
| part, then? If the market's going to solve the problem for the 2nd guy
| to hold the copy, why not let it solve the problem for the 1st? The fact
| is, quot
Robert Hettinga writes:
> All they have to do is auction the first copy off for a lot of money, cash,
> and let the market take care of the rest. That, by the way, is what people
> do now, of course, with advances, record contracts, and so on.
Brilliant. Let the market solve the problem. Why b
> Evil = bad = counter to our goals. One of our goals is to have
> general-purpose computers widely available. A DRM layer between us
> and the hardware is counter to that goal, ergo, undesirable from this
> perspective.
>
> Its like a governor in a car. Do you want one in yours? Are you will
On Sun, 30 Jun 2002, Sandy Harris wrote:
> The companies involved have no more right to prevent such use than
> I have to sell copies of their book or film on the street corner.
Speaking of Scum, (not to pull a choate, but)
http://www.theregus.com/content/4/25435.html
MS security patch EULA gi
At 07:25 PM 6/30/02 -0500, xganon wrote:
>Ryan Lackey provides a detailed analysis, but he gets off to a bad
start
>right at the beginning:
>
>> DRM systems embedded in general purpose computers, especially if
>> mandated, especially if implemented in the most secure practical
>> manner (running t
At 7:25 PM -0500 on 6/30/02, xganon wrote:
> The only evil here is the viewpoint that people must not have choices,
> that they must be forced into a Communist from-each-according-to-his-
> ability system where creative people have no choice or control over the
> products of their minds.
All th
Barney Wolff wrote:
> My use of "anonym" was a joke. Sorry if it was too deadpan. But
> my serious point was that if a pseudonym costs nothing to get or
> give up, it makes one effectively anonymous, if one so chooses.
Well, yeah, I'd say that single-use pseudonyms are, in fact, the
definition
Ryan Lackey provides a detailed analysis, but he gets off to a bad start
right at the beginning:
> DRM systems embedded in general purpose computers, especially if
> mandated, especially if implemented in the most secure practical
> manner (running the system in system-high DRM mode and not allow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At 11:37 AM +0100 on 7/1/02, Ben Laurie wrote:
> Hmm. So present the appropriate definition?
Well, like I said, (and to be completely pedantic about it :-)), it
seems to me that logically there's no such thing as an "anonym" even
though you could d
My use of "anonym" was a joke. Sorry if it was too deadpan. But
my serious point was that if a pseudonym costs nothing to get or
give up, it makes one effectively anonymous, if one so chooses.
On Mon, Jul 01, 2002 at 11:37:28AM +0100, Ben Laurie wrote:
> R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> > At 12:06 AM +0
At 11:30 PM -0400 on 6/30/02, Barney Wolff wrote:
> anonym n : "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" when signed in a motel register.
No. Pseudonym(s). Subclass "Alias".
An anonym (literally, "no name", right?) is not signing the book at all,
and, thus, as "nyms" go, can't exist except in your mind. Somew
hi,
Thanx Mark, I was also wondering on the line of hash
functions too,me 2 dont see how it works securely.
Nor does the interlock protocol look secure to me.
Regards Data.
--- Marcel Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: "gfgs pedo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > One solution suggested agai
R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> At 12:06 AM +0100 on 7/1/02, Ben Laurie wrote:
>>No, a pseudonym can be linked to stuff (such as reputation,
>>publications, money). An anonym cannot.
>
> More to the point, there is no such "thing" as an "anonym", by definition.
Hmm. So present the appropriate definition
I think, frankly, that the only way to answer the arguments made below is
with financial cryptography.
Like I've said before, if it's encrypted, and only I (not Bill Gates and I
:-)) have the key then it's my property. The same can be said about the
abstractions of financial assets represented by
Quoting xganon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> So DRM systems are evil? Why? What makes them evil? There is no
> justification offered for this claim! Are we all supposed to accept it
> as obvious?
I consider DRM systems (even the not-secure, not-mandated versions)
evil due to the high likelyhood t
anonym n : "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" when signed in a motel register.
On Sun, Jun 30, 2002 at 09:55:58PM -0400, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
>
> More to the point, there is no such "thing" as an "anonym", by definition.
--
Barney Wolff
I never met a computer I didn't like.
22 matches
Mail list logo
