On 12-05-16 03:19 PM, David C Dawson wrote:
> certainly, my metaphor is flawed, but then, so is the whole TPM
> concept. Please, if the 'snare' metaphor is useful, I would
> like some feedback. Thanks
It is an interesting thought experiment to explain the harm from the
intended consequences of TPM policy. I think it will be useful in that
If I understand the analogy correctly, we are talking about a snare
trying to catch someone doing something "wrong" (IE: snare applied to
copyrighted content to catch a copyright infringer). You then discuss
the harm of that.
This would fall what I consider the "Harry Potter" version of the TPM
debate: that what we are talking about is an incantation that a
*copyright holder* does to *copyrighted content* to cause some activity
to happen (decision made about what can and can't happen).
We all know that content can't make decisions, any more than the
Monster Book of Monsters really attacked Harry Potter. If decisions are
made it is in software running on hardware, and who authored the
software (and their motivations and conflicts of interest) and who owns
the hardware are the critical issues.
At the point where decisions are actually made (in software running
on hardware), the copyright holder has no influence. They really are
technologically illiterate pawns in a much larger game being played by
the technologically literate. We should be offering them pity and
education, rather than fear or anger.
The snare analogy focuses on copyright holders, content, and a Harry
Potter incantation that we are using snares to clarify the harm.
But the larger harm isn't about copyright holders, content, or their
audiences: it is about software authors and hardware owners, and the
all-too-hidden interactions between them.
All that said: Elizabeth May gets a lot of points in my mind for
actually listening to Canadians and focusing her amendments on what a
majority of people said during the consultations. The #1 issue was
opposition to TPMs, and the #2 issue was controversy around educational
copyright : and that is what her amendments focused on http://c11.ca/5458
Whether she understands the technology or policy in detail doesn't
matter as much as the fact that she actually payed attention to
Canadians, something I can't say for any of the other MPs (even those I
consider to be strong allies in the fight against non-owner TPMs).
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/> Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property
rights as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition!
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or
portable media player from my cold dead hands!"