Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Fiondella who wrote (34806)	11/12/2000 8:30:39 PM
From: Scott C. Lemon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

Hello Paul, Good stuff ... ;-) > Paul: Scott, whether it is an original or a copy doesn't > matter. When one "owns" property one has rights to its > use. Hmmm ... I think it does. Only because there is no such thing as an "original" on the Internet. That's the only point. So then you really own a "copy" of that property, or right to use it. And then, since it's so easy to copy ... I'm suggesting that "one-use" tickets are much easier to do when everything isn't a copy. > These rights may be limited or exclusive but rarely are > they absolute. So your discussion of original vs copy is > irrelevant to the discussion. We obviously do not share the same opinion on this one. I see what you are getting at, but do not agree ... in a world where only copies exist, and these copies are made on an ongoing process for both legal and illegal distribution, I believe that it creates a technical hurdle that you do not yet recognize ... and I am failing to explain well. > Paul: Not if it is encrypted and double keyed. You can > have a transaction in which you grant rights and do not > share keys. These usually are one-use tickets ... not encrypted data. There is a big difference here ... > ALready Citibank and others are using one time credit card > keys for ecommerce transactions. So sharing doesn't > involve transacting unless one desogns an obtuse system. So a one-use ticket can be used to control a transaction, however this is not being used to encrypt data ... they are simply created signed keys, which have expiration and other parameters, and tracking them in a database. Once used, they are invalidated in the database. The same process doesn't work the same for unencrypting data, such as an MP3. Once unlocked ... it's gone forever. > Paul: Once again although this is interesting it is not > relevant to say a transaction in which I purchase the > right to listen to a music album over the internet and > store that right in the form of a key in my personal > directory for use wherever I happen to be. That is virtual > property --- something I own and purchase for use in > cyberspace. I agreed with you that storing the key, the credential, is no problem. My statement was: "The one issue with sharing is that once "shared" it can be copied ..." ... and I'll stand by this statement. I do not believe that you can find an example where this is not true. To consume the MP3, I have to listen to ... I can now record it, and it's out. One shared, it's out ... ;-) Scott C. Lemon