*countable infinities only

Jay Sulzberger jays at panix.com
Thu Jun 14 17:56:01 UTC 2012


> 
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, Michael Scherer <misc at zarb.org> wrote:
> 
> > Le mardi 12 juin 2012 à 10:58 -0400, Jay Sulzberger a écrit :
> > 
> > On Tue, 12 Jun 2012, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > No because secure boot does not limit your freedom in *any* way. If
> > > you want to hack on the kernel or other low level stuff flip a switch
> > > in the firmware.
> > > It is reasonable to expect this type of users to be able to do that.
> > 
> > Up until now, installing a free OS did not require the extra
> > moves, which Fedora admits are irksome. 
> 
> Not really my own experience, it took me 10 minutes just to find the way
> to boot on a usb keys on my 5 year old computer ( to reinstall it ). The
> interface is rather bad, first you need to plug the key, see how to
> enter the BIOS (not displayed, so I tried suppr, f2, f10, etc, I think
> it was Suppr), then make sure that say "boot on harddrive" is first
> ( that's the default ) and then select the order of the hard drives ( as
> I have 2 of them ), with my usb key being one of them.  And of course,
> since that's a setting, do not forget to save and exit.
> 
> While that's not hard, I do think that qualify as "extra move", and
> given the people coming to my LUG for help, I think that my motherboard
> is not a exception.

You are right that the old standard BIOSes are often difficult to
use.  But by extra I meant the new Microsoft imposed maneuvers.

> 
> > Of course the actions by Microsoft are against anti-trust law in
> > the US and in Europe grossly violate the rule against tying of
> > software and hardware. [...]
> > No.  Our side must here stand and fight.
> 
> Well, have you filled a complain yet against that ? Since there was news
> about secureboot since months, I think that you had plenty of time to do
> it. In fact, even now, since people have time to complain, they can
> spend time to do it.
> 
> -- 
> Michael Scherer

You are right that more action is required.

On Tuesday 5 June 2012, in Washington DC, in the Main Building of
the Library of Congress, Marcia Hofmann, Jay Sulzberger,
Aaron Williamson, and Brett Wynkoop argued against using the DMCA
as legal backup to Microsoft and Apple's plans to seize all home
computers in the world.  When a transcript of the arguments is
available, I will notify Fedorians.

Below my signature is a notice of the 5 June 2012 event.

On Tuesday 11 May 2012, several of us attended a "Tech Demo Day",
also in Washington, DC, in the new Madison Building of the
Library of Congress.  Brett Wynkoop and I, and other partisans in
the Cause, spoke and here is a video, in a perhaps inconvenient
format, of Brett and my "demonstrations":

   rtsp://rmserv1.loc.gov/avloc12/120511cop1130.rm

My "demonstration" was not as good as it should have been, and,
Heaven forwarding, a better version will be published, in the
next few weeks.

If Fedora appears to accept that Microsoft should have the
Hardware Root Key, our side's arguments, in several arenas, are
weakened.

Further action will be taken.

oo--JS.


<blockquote
   what="LXNY announcements list notice"
   edits="a typo corrected">

  Reply-To: secretary at lxny.org
  Subject: Tuesday 5 June 2012 Library of Congress: Argument before the Register of Copyrights For and Against the Right of Private Ownership of a Computer

  In Washington DC on Tuesday 5 June 2012 at 1:30 pm in the
  Jefferson Building, there will be a discussion of Proposed
  Exemption 4 to the "Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright
  Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" which
  prohibition is a part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

  Here is the page for the Jefferson Building of the Library of
  Congress:

    http://myloc.gov/exhibitspaces/jeffbuilding/pages/default.aspx

  Every three years citizens of the United States argue for
  exemptions to the ridiculous "Prohibition on Circumvention of
  Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies",
  which prohibition is a part of the Digital Millennium Copyright
  Act, the DMCA for short.

  If enforced, the "Prohibition on Circum..." ah, let us call it
  the Anti-Circumvention Clause of the DMCA, would give to Apple the
  power to bring a legal action which might result in jail time for
  some of the millions of people in the USA who today have root on
  the iPhones and iPads they use.  And this month, for the first
  time, Microsoft, in partnership with Dell, HP, and Lenovo, will
  be in the same legal position as Apple: Microsoft has arranged
  that all Microsoft Certified Home Computers will only boot an
  Officially Approved-by-Microsoft Operating System.  Under the
  Anti-Circumvention Clause of the DMCA getting root on an Microsoft
  Certified Home Computer will be a federal crime, punishable by
  imprisonment.  (There may be a small exception to this: if you get
  root on the box by yourself, with no one else's help, and you do
  not publish information about your work, getting root may be
  allowed.  In practice such engineering work is always a joint
  work of several, often, many people, and the results of such
  work, that is, the method to get root, is published.)

  The situation is not without hope.  Congress at the passage of
  the DMCA feared that the Anti-Circumvention Clause would grant
  unjust powers to large malign entities such as Apple, Microsoft,
  and Sony.  So Congress asked the Librarian of Congress to look at
  the Anti-Circumvention Clause every three years, and issue formal
  legal Exemptions to the list of prohibited actions.  The Register
  of Copyrights, in cooperation with the Commerce Department, asks
  citizens to propose Exemptions to the Anti-Circumvention Clause.
  Then, after public comment and discussion, the Register of
  Copyrights makes a recommendation to the Librarian of
  Congress, who decides which Proposed Exemptions will be granted.

  The 5 June 2012 meeting in Washington is part of this process of
  proposing, commenting on, and discussing possible Exemptions to
  the Anti-Circumvention Clause.

  New Yorkers for Fair Use, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and
  The Software Freedom Law Center will argue that we should keep
  our right to own a computer.

  The Joint Creators and Copyright Owners Organization and the
  Motion Picture Association of America will argue that we should,
  by enforcement without exemption, of the Anti-Circumvention
  Clause of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, extinguish our
  right to own a computer.

  Below my signature are some pointers to information about the
  Anti-Circumvention Clause and about Palladium, the new, and now
  deployed, serious hardware and software system designed to keep
  root in the hands of Apple, for Apple devices, and Microsoft for
  Microsoft Certified hardware, and Sony, for Sony devices.

  If Palladium is forced into all computing devices, then with the
  backing of the Anti-Circumvention Clause of the Digital
  Millennium Copyright Act, it will be, in the United States of
  America, a crime to own a home computer.

  Come on down to the Jefferson Building on Tuesday 5 June 2012 and
  sit and stand in support of our right to own a computer.

  Jay Sulzberger <secretary at lxny.org>
  Corresponding Secretary LXNY
  LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
  http://www.lxny.org


  Wikipedia article on the DMCA:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
   [page was last modified on 1 June 2012 at 02:38]

  Neither Apple nor Microsoft have as yet invoked the
  Anti-Circumvention Clause of the DMCA.  But Sony has, against
  GeoHot, owner-operator of a Sony device, and a serious hacker:

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment_America_v._George_Hotz
   [page was last modified on 31 March 2012 at 22:08]

  Explanation of DRM:

    http://www.panix.com/~jays/what.is.drm.3
    [from 2003, still accurate]

  Explanation of Palladium:

    http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/palladium/
    [from 2003, therefore out of date with regard to immediate tactical
     situation; accurate as to what Palladium, now called "secure boot", is;
     present tactical situation worse, Palladium is in every Microsoft Certified
     Computer today, it is also in all iPhones and iPads]


  <blockquote
    what="What precisely will be discussed at the 1:30 pm
          Tuesday 5 June 2012 meeting">

    Proposed Exemption 4 was proposed by the Software Freedom Law Center.
    Here is the summary of 4:

      Computer programs that enable the installation and execution of
      lawfully obtained software on a personal computing device, where
      circumvention is performed by or at the request of the device's
      owner.

    from the list of all Proposed Exemptions at

      http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2011/initial/


    The complete full text of the Proposed Exemption 4 is at

      http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2011/initial/sflc.pdf

    The proposal is long and thorough in its argument and its citations.


    The comments on all the Proposed Exemptions may be seen at

      http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/comments/

    New Yorkers for Fair Use's plea in favor of
    Proposed Exemption 4 is at

      http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/comments/jay_sulzberger.pdf

    We are in good company.  Bunnie Huang's comment is at

      http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/comments/Andrew_Huang.pdf

    And Bunnie is joined by 25,000 people in his second comment:

      http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/comments/Andrew_Huang_2.pdf

    On the panel, our side is strong.  In addition to Brett Wynkoop
    and Jay Sulzberger of New Yorkers for Fair Use, we've got
    Aaron Williamson, of the Software Freedom Law Center, and
    Marcia Hofmann, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

  </blockquote>

</blockquote>


More information about the devel mailing list