Larry Livestock, Re: Intel to include DRM in new Pentium 4 series processors

[Matthew Astley]

Background: Harry Homeowner is a character 'The Register' uses,
usually in the context of discussing whether a reasonably well
educated but not particularly computer literate user would be able to
install and use some software. Usually Linux. The answer is often
"no".

On Fri, Sep 13, 2002 at 04:12:32AM +0100, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> Brian Gladman wrote:
>  
> [much snips]
> > I expect the following to be true:
> 
> > (b) A remote agent requires the explicit permission of the PC
> >	owner in order to install a 'trusted box'.
> 
> So? Seen the recent Windoze EULA's? Dream on, if you think that'll
> make any difference.

Also, as Brian pointed out to me earlier in the thread, I have
conflated "user" and "owner".

TCPA appears to be quite strong on the "physical access to the box
will not give you 0wnersh1p", in a way that current hardware isn't.


The box shifters can wheedle this one very nicely, even if nobody else
gets in first.

If you tick the box saying "please attempt to keep my computer secure
against naughty hackers and viruses" when you buy the box, then you
have legally signed over 0wnersh1p at the time you buy the kit, even
if you still buy it at full price.

With properly trained sales shepherds, Larry Livestock will fall for
this one every time.

If the Dells of the world played their cards right, they can sell to
the software vendors (excluding Microsoft of course) the right to run
software. They can have the _user_ go through the "click to allow this
software to run" dialog, just to keep him happy, but it will be a
marketing toy not a legal or technical requirement.

Question is, what are Microsoft going to do to keep the Dells of the
world in their place (ie. down) over this one?


> > (d) A code of ethics on the use of these features will be published and
> > 'agreed' by the community at large.
> 
> But they aren't "ethical", are they, else why did M$ loose the case.
> A technologically enforced code of behaviour might be acceptable,
> but relying on the "ethics" of the likes of M$ and Disnae' is a road
> to slavery.

Larry Livestock is now so thoroughly addicted to Hollywood that he
will quite happily follow whichever route appears to be the cheapest
at the time, to get his fix.

Of course if Larry doesn't want to exercise his freedom to turn the
telly off, then that's fine.

Up to this point I've considered myself to be better than Larry. I
have free will! The problem is that in order to use the latest tech
(the latest Intel CPU), I will need to help fund the development of
TCPA. I have to realise that I'm just as strongly addicted to
hardware.

> What's needed is an EU law, like food labelling laws, to make it
> illegal to sell computer parts without publishing a complete
> specification of how they work/ what they do.

I think it needs to go slightly further than that, because even if
Larry bothers to read the spec and see "what it does", he won't see
the implications of the functionality.

It needs a campaign of government educational movies or whatever,
explaining _why_ the new TVs have a "you've just pushed my button"
button them these days.

> And outlawing closed, proprietary file formats. And outlawing NDA's,
> at least for products in production. Then the rest (non M$) of us
> can work on a level playing field, and ignore this monopolistic
> sh*t.

Wouldn't that be nice? 8-(


Matthew  #8-)