Cryptography Intellectual Property: Formalities of Cypherpunk
How, if at all, should cryptography IP be licensed, patented, and incentivised? (Hardware, software, books, etc.) How, if at all, to tune such formalities to Cypherpunk Theory? Are things like HESSLA of relevant basis?
If it’s encrypted, and I have the key, it’s my property. That’s it. Cheers, RAH
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:39 AM, Robert Hettinga <hettinga@gmail.com> wrote:
If it’s encrypted, and I have the key, it’s my property. That’s it.
Unless the NSA has backdoored the algorithm or Google/Apple/Amazon have their own keys to your cloud storage or the TLAs have tapped the unencrypted communications channels or ... -- Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet. -- Arnaud-Amaury, 1209
On Jan 13, 2015, at 9:57 AM, Steve Furlong <demonfighter@gmail.com> wrote:
Unless the NSA has backdoored the algorithm or Google/Apple/Amazon have their own keys to your cloud storage or the TLAs have tapped the unencrypted communications channels or ...
Then it’s not encrypted, is it? Cheers, RAH http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman ;-)
Dnia wtorek, 13 stycznia 2015 09:39:06 Robert Hettinga pisze:
If it’s encrypted, and I have the key, it’s my property. That’s it.
The question is not about encrypted materials, but about encryption algorithms and tools, as far as I understand. Anybody reading the BSD vs GPL thread knows what I would say: no patents; licensing under a strong colyleft free software license with patent granting/shielding clauses and clauses against TiVoization[1]. But hey, that's just me. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Jan 13, 2015, at 2:34 PM, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
The question is not about encrypted materials, but about encryption algorithms and tools, as far as I understand.
Patents and copyrights aren’t property. They’re government granted monopolies. They’re no more property than your driver’s license. Property is the application of mind to *matter*, to quote a great Flash animation. An idea can not be property. Ever. So. Again. If it’s *encrypted*, and I have the key, it’s my property. I control the physical bits. Otherwise it’s not my property. Cheers, RAH
Hi there, Dnia wtorek, 13 stycznia 2015 15:14:06 Robert Hettinga pisze:
The question is not about encrypted materials, but about encryption algorithms and tools, as far as I understand.
Patents and copyrights aren’t property. They’re government granted monopolies. They’re no more property than your driver’s license.
Well, I have posted this link on this list at least several times, but here it goes again: http://copyspeak.org/intellectual-property tl;dr we're agreed here
Property is the application of mind to *matter*, to quote a great Flash animation.
Yes.
An idea can not be property. Ever.
Absolutely.
So. Again. If it’s *encrypted*, and I have the key, it’s my property. I control the physical bits. Otherwise it’s not my property.
It is not, actually. If you're going for such a strong definition of property, with which I can agree, than let's stay coherent, shall we? The property of yours is the physical device the bits are saved on. The harddrive, DVD, pendrive, whatever. That's your *property*. The encrypted data is just this: encrypted data. Otherwise you would find yourself in an interesting world where applying encryption to data (both of which are not property, right) magically transforms something immaterial and "not-property" into "property". That's the world the MPAA's/RIAA's/MAFIAA's are trying to create, look no further than the DMCA, under which even the simplest encryption algorithm (say, ROT13) applied to copyrighted material by the rights holder makes it illegal for others to publish the key (in this case, 13), as it becomes the "property" of the encrypting party. Look it up. Data, encrypted or not, are not property; however, they can fall under a number of state-granted monopolies, as you have said. Here, I even changed the topic of this e-mail for your convenience. And in this vein my previous mail has been written -- as far as I understand, the original question was about how encryption *algorithms* (and *not* encrypted data itself) should be handled from the Imaginary Property Law standpoint (so: patents, copyrights, etc). And I have provided an answer from my perspective in said previous mail. -- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 08:31:03PM +0100, rysiek wrote:
Hi there,
Dnia wtorek, 13 stycznia 2015 15:14:06 Robert Hettinga pisze:
The question is not about encrypted materials, but about encryption algorithms and tools, as far as I understand.
Patents and copyrights aren’t property. They’re government granted monopolies. They’re no more property than your driver’s license.
Well, I have posted this link on this list at least several times, but here it goes again: http://copyspeak.org/intellectual-property
tl;dr we're agreed here
Property is the application of mind to *matter*, to quote a great Flash animation.
Yes.
An idea can not be property. Ever.
Absolutely.
So. Again. If it’s *encrypted*, and I have the key, it’s my property. I control the physical bits. Otherwise it’s not my property.
It is not, actually. If you're going for such a strong definition of property, with which I can agree, than let's stay coherent, shall we? The property of yours is the physical device the bits are saved on. The harddrive, DVD, pendrive, whatever. That's your *property*. The encrypted data is just this: encrypted data.
Otherwise you would find yourself in an interesting world where applying encryption to data (both of which are not property, right) magically transforms something immaterial and "not-property" into "property".
If I have an image I took of my farm, turn it into digital bits, and put the DVD in a safe, so nothing can copy it, it's my property. If encrypt the image, and keep the private key in my safe, so nothing can copy the original image, it's my property. Now maybe I install some robots with guns to defend the safe too.... If I slap a creative commons license on the image... well, that's asking the government (which is a lot like a robot) to hold a gun to anyone's head who tries to modify the image and pass it off as their 'property'. Is the last one still my property? I guess that depends on your viewpoint on the validity of the robots of buearocracy, and if they have their guns pointed at you or not.
That's the world the MPAA's/RIAA's/MAFIAA's are trying to create, look no further than the DMCA, under which even the simplest encryption algorithm (say, ROT13) applied to copyrighted material by the rights holder makes it illegal for others to publish the key (in this case, 13), as it becomes the "property" of the encrypting party. Look it up.
Data, encrypted or not, are not property; however, they can fall under a number of state-granted monopolies, as you have said. Here, I even changed the topic of this e-mail for your convenience.
And in this vein my previous mail has been written -- as far as I understand, the original question was about how encryption *algorithms* (and *not* encrypted data itself) should be handled from the Imaginary Property Law standpoint (so: patents, copyrights, etc).
And I have provided an answer from my perspective in said previous mail.
-- Pozdrawiam, Michał "rysiek" Woźniak
Zmieniam klucz GPG :: http://rys.io/pl/147 GPG Key Transition :: http://rys.io/en/147
-- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Benjegerdes 'da hozer' hozer@hozed.org 7 elements earth::water::air::fire::mind::spirit::soul grid.coop Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, nor try buy a hacker who makes money by the megahash
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 1:34 PM, rysiek <rysiek@hackerspace.pl> wrote:
Dnia wtorek, 13 stycznia 2015 09:39:06 Robert Hettinga pisze:
If it’s encrypted, and I have the key, it’s my property. That’s it.
The question is not about encrypted materials, but about encryption algorithms and tools, as far as I understand.
As in OP, it is. ,,,the ideas, expressed, and tuning their license etc to cypherpunk the same way gpl tunes to their vision of 'freedom'. Hessla theirs, etc. Robert could be viewed as that key is itself the definition of one plain answer to the question.
participants (5)
-
grarpamp -
Robert Hettinga -
rysiek -
Steve Furlong -
Troy Benjegerdes