Okay, stop right there.
In Political Philosophy there is an important distinction between whether a) we are all free to do whatever we like (except where laws exist to stop us doing certain things, such as socially unacceptable acts like theft or murder) or b) we are not free to do anything, and we require permission from the state to do something (such as being permitted to have sex or raise a family, for example).
Norway (unless I am very much mistaken) does not have any specific laws legitimising copying of DVDs and the like; there is simply an absence of a law prohibiting this.
In your example, you are assuming that no one has any rights, that these have to be specifically granted. This places us firmly in Category B of my two options. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with that position, you just have to understand the logical conclusion of your argument.
In terms of Trusted Computing, the logical conclusion is that no one would be free to do as they please with their computer hardware / software. You have to be specifically authorised to perform each and every action.
So the question is: do you want to have to ask permission every time you want to do something, or would you prefer to know just what you can't do, and avoid doing the things that are on that list?
)
