DRM and Threat Analysis 185
miladus writes "A timely and concise intervention by Ed Felten
on the topic of DRM and the models used (or not used) to represent the
threats to defeat. In brief, 2 models, one based on the potential of
large scale redistribution of copyrighted files implying defeat of DRM
if one user succeeds in bringing file inquestion to P2P network; the
other, refers to the majority of users who would casually copy files.
The implications of the schematization are most interesting because
they explain some the logic behind the often confused and confusing
rhetoric of DRM advocates and the necessity for rational grounding for
technologies."
DRM (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:DRM (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:DRM -- NEVER okay with DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
I am NEVER okay with DRM. As long as someone else holds the keys, they can change the rules anytime afterwards.
Consider, you buy DRM protected music this year.
Next year, through spending lots of money in Washington D.C., the industries are are granted the legal right to specify that the music you bought cannot be copied to any other form, and your DRM is automatically updated to enforce that without ever asking your consent.
The year after that they get a law where your purchased music will expire after ten years of use. Just won't play after that.
And the year after that, instead of unlimited plays allowed within your remaining eight years (the ten year limit was made retroactive, of course), you now have to pay a few pennies for each play. And btw, it now expires in seven (for you four) years.
You can't do anything because they own the keys and can change the conditions of their use any time they wish (true of any DRM system, to deal with compromised keys, if nothing else). Your only recourse is to the law -- and they've already preempted that route.
Let's be clear here: DRM IS NEVER OKAY. Got that?
And if you're foolish to think the rules never change on something after you've bought it, look at how copyrights on old music and movies continue to be extended beyond ever expiring? Even now, copyrighted material first published before you were born will never expire in your lifetime.
Bah! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Quite possible and 100% legitimate. The article ends with "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License." That's practicly a request to post it on kazaa.
-
Euphemisms (Score:5, Insightful)
"... leads to incoherent rhetoric
The only rhetoric I hear and see all the time are the many euphemisms used by the "DRM industry".
drm - I best manage my rights by deciding freely what to do with the data on my PC
copy *protection* - what does it protect?
piracy - I am not on a ship in the carribean sea.
etc.pp.
Re:Euphemisms (Score:1)
security - The average user is (or should be...) afraid of his/her emails being intercepted and has a positive view of email _security_. And credit card numbers don't like to be transferred unecrypted, hence _security_ for online shopping is needed.
trusted computing platform alliance - TRUST?
All this comes often along with a repeated mention of "the consumer", "the customer" or "customer
What happy are we - the consumers - about all this security and protection
Re:Euphemisms (Score:2, Insightful)
TRUST - managed, we 'manage' your PC.
"the consumer" - The tax payer.
Music - Somthing that's too bad to dance to and too droll to humm.
Rights - Something that hasn't been taken away yet.
"consumer durables" - things that are made to break after you get them home, not before.
Inovation - Anything that makes you fit into our little box.
"Internet Experiance" - We always make it better.
"the buyer" - The owner.
Re:Euphemisms (Score:5, Informative)
For grins once, I checked out a dictionary published in the 50s. One defination for piracy was copyright infringement.
I think that after 50+ years of common usage bitching that the term isn't accurate is pedantic. People here just don't like the connotation it carries. Get over it and find a better way to argue the point. Like calling the act "sharing" instead of usurping the copyright owner's distribution rights.
Re:Euphemisms (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we stick with accurate legal terms straight out of the lawbooks? I propose "copyright infringement" as a reasonable alternative. It points out that the act is illegal or otherwise disallowed and focuses on that as the basis for discussion. This way we can keep the discussion of the morality of copyrights, 3rd party duplication and derivation, and other such matters separate from the legal questions.
Right now this debate is hugely clouded by the existing legal framework and the language used in its enforcement. The average American doesn't mind a little "piracy", but when questioned closely on this topic will probably have strongly held opinions that equate some level of "piracy" with theft-- which copyright infringment is not (theft, that is). If information, ideas, stories, visual expressions, etc, were rivalrous resources such that my use of them would prevent your use of them, then the word "theft" might be appropriate. But since this is not the case, words like "piracy" and "theft" serve only to cloud the issue.
BTW, Slashbot hero Lawrence Lessig uses the word "thief" in his book "The Future of Ideas" to describe someone who would engage in whole copying of said book-- proving that even top notch IP lawyers who are presumably on "our" side have internalized this dangerous notion that an idea or an expression can be owned while still being shared.
We are never going to resolve this issue (unless technocrats resolve it for us by conspiring to remove our right to Fair Use entirely) by tossing about loaded words. We need to divest the discussion of any moralizing whatsoever... unless you want to make the case that there is a moral basis for copyright (the Constitution merely mention promoting the Arts and Sciences, not some support for an inherent human right to idea ownership)-- which no one has done yet, except by taking the existing legal framework and describing it using loaded, moralistic words.
Re:A Moral Basis for Copyrights (Score:2)
If I rent, borrow, or buy a book you have written, I have taken possession of a physical item which is the product of your labor. But if I copy the text of that book onto blank paper that I've made, then it is my labor which has fixed the ideas expressed in your book into a new
Re:Euphemisms (Score:2)
The only rhetoric I hear and see all the time are the many euphemisms used by the "DRM industry".
No kidding. While it's been mentioned before it bears repeating: the use of 'stealing' or 'theft' are not appropriate, when describing file copying.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but rather reclaim some of the skewed language the **AAs are using. Saying 'theft' neuters the fact that there is no necessary physical scarcity of the media in question. Theft means that the
Re:Euphemisms (Score:5, Funny)
Well I am on a ship in the carribean so thank you so much for assuming I'm a pirate. Its that sort of random classification and assumption that assumes all people on boats in the carribean are pirates that leads to real problems.
DRM is the threat. (Score:3, Interesting)
DRM is very simple. If there
Re:Euphemisms (Score:2)
But i want to be.
Arrrrrrrr!
Re:Piracy (Score:2)
People also talk about "ticket scalpers" and that term is probably more recent, but nobody seems confused about what they do.
MS wants to play both ways... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Either you choose the Napsterization model, and accept that your technology must be utterly bulletproof; or you choose the casual-copying model, and accept that you will not prevent Napsterization. You can't have it both ways"
If you're a big enough monopoloy, you can PRETEND to have a bulletproof model - sell the model to the copyright holders, and sell (indirectly) a cracking tool to the mass market. Build yet another platform (Palladium) to break the latter tool.
Re:MS wants to play both ways... (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think your argument is right, look at the traditional movie/audio market, it seems that they got crazy really after they discovered napster & co.
Re:MS wants to play both ways... (Score:2)
Ok, but palladium/tcpa is meant to be the *last* step in conquering the users PC in terms of copy protection.
A few points:
First, don't equate Palladium and TCPA. They are very different animals, at least according to the TCPA 1.1 spec (future specifications could do different things, of course). TCPA provides a set of security services to the operating system, but does not have any mechanism for controlling what code (OS or application) is allowed to run. Palladium does limit the machine to running
Re:MS wants to play both ways... (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolute and total HORSESHIT. TCPA is the foundation for a Palladium-like system... it is the basis for removing the ownership of a PC from the purchaser and giving it to someone else. Granted, TCPA alone is not DRM... but without a platform lockdown like TCPA... there is no real DRM.
I strongly suspect that you're trolling, but that's okay, I'll bite. Sort of.
You're wrong. Go read the TCPA 1.1 specification, then spend some time thinking about how it would be used for implemantation of DRM. The prob
Re:MS wants to play both ways... (Score:2)
One final comment on substance, though, because others may read this, and it occurs to me that I haven't been perfectly clear about why TCPA is a good thing:
All the misinformation and "oooh, look it can be used for security" put out by the whores at IBM/Microsoft/Intel/You doesn't change that
I'm a professional security engineer, and I can tell you there are hundreds of fundamentally hard problems in computer security (and I'm talking about protecting what the user wants p
Re:MS wants to play both ways... (Score:2)
Intel has been working on DRM systems specifically for media - such as encrypting data right out to the monitor and speakers, do some research, it has had working groups designing systems and making statements that the next problem in security is a user who has full control over their machine for seven years years now. This "way to avoid government regulated DRM" is relatively recent, and if you believe it is the primary motivator, then you are just a fucking fool.
That is the only argument I've heard fro
Re:MS wants to play both ways... (Score:2)
Not IBM's business segment, really. And I happen to know that the TCPA development team members are morally opposed to DRM (as I am), so I know they're not building any DRM systems. I'm not aware of anyone else in IBM doing any work in this space. That's not conclusive; it's a big company and it's impossible to know what everyone is doing, but I do have contacts in a lot of the relevant research groups.
By the way, I notice that you completely ignored my questions about Intel's motivations, about how to
Re:MS wants to play both ways... (Score:2)
I'm the less offensive one, and you had no response to MY comment.
Hmm. I thought I'd responded to all of them. Which did I miss? If you'll point it out, and if you're interested in a response, I'll answer.
And frankly, I don't give a fuck for your opinion of those who swear. I use whatever words *I* feel are appropriate, in spite of those who feel somehow superior for excluding arbitrary words from their vocabulary.
Thank you for making my point.
Re:MS wants to play both ways... (Score:2)
DRM (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DRM (Score:5, Insightful)
~Management
Scalia says "No, there aren't" (Score:3, Interesting)
Napsterization in the end (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Napsterization in the end (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, a 'bulletproof' DRM system infringes upon the long-standing principle of fair-use.
So we have two possibilities:
1) if DRM only solves the casual copying problem, the owners of the copyrights aren't happy.
2) if the DRM system is 'bulletproof', the users of the copyright content aren't happy.
Since there hasn't been an innovative compromise that defends against napsterization AND protects fair-use, no one is happy with the state of DRM.
Re:Napsterization in the end (Score:1)
It seems that to solve this problem, there is going to need to be a change in the media and/or the hardware that it is played on. Some sort of encryption key swapping comes to mind.
For instance, if each individual media sold had a unique "media" key associated with it, and the purchaser then validated the sale by downloading a "play" key for each piece of hardware where the media would be played, the problem of file-sharing woul
Re:Napsterization in the end (Score:2)
The idea behind DRM is that the computer needs to know things at one level which the user doesn't know.
Re:Napsterization in the end (Score:2)
1) I buy a CD with encrypted music
2) I tell the music company my hardware keys (direct or indirectly)
3) Based on my hardware key they give me a decryption key for the CD.
That solution is the classic solution assuming I'm trusted. What prevents me from using the hardware key plus the decryption key to just create a decrypted version of the audio?
The only way to get this to work is to have this dialogue occur on a machine that I don
partly correct, but: (Score:4, Insightful)
2) I haven't seen a bulletproof DRM system yet, not even a theoretical one.
Re:Napsterization in the end (Score:2)
Re:Napsterization in the end (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Napsterization in the end (Score:2)
So many problems become so much easier when you own a shelf full of Congresscritters..
Daniel
Re:Napsterization in the end (Score:2)
Yes, please! If the DRM advocates fail to see the fallacy of their completely-closed Rights Manglement model (that even content creators will lose fair use rights, which they must have to creating new works) then having consumer backlash force them out of the market in favor of *AA-independent creators might wake them up.
Oh, wait, you meant Napsterization is more damaging than Causual Copy....
Napsterization? (Score:3, Informative)
Gosh... Who would've thought? 'Napsterize' has become a verb... Kind've reminds me how William Gibson used the phrase "Watergated" as a verb in Neuromancer.
But enough about that. The article generalizes far too much IMHO; I find it hard to believe that a large percentage of threats can be categorized into either of the two models mentioned. There is a valid point being made, by all means... but someone needs to elaborate a little more on the subject...
I guess that's what Slashdot is for!
Re:Napsterization? (Score:3, Funny)
I see you don't read /. that much. This is the site where RTFM became RTFA.
Sorry (Score:5, Funny)
As a fellow security professional I find it puzzling to read this small, content-free, snippets found on the great ether. It helps to re-identify the issues at hand but does little to solve them. DRM is certainly an issue but it is time to stop complaining about it and offer real world solutions.
Me? I believe that copyright infringement is tatmount to terrorism and can only be addressed by regime change. I feel the only workable solution is the total elimination of the MIAA, RPAA and any other group involved in the creation, publication and distribution of copyrighted material. Also mandatory death sentences should be handed out to anyone who provides content.
Right now I have 3 squirrels in my pants.
Thank you for your support.
Re:Sorry (Score:3, Funny)
"It's _also_ illegal to put squirrels down
your pants for the purposes of gambling."
Re:Sorry (Score:1)
Terrorism = people dying and lots of property destruction (usually)
Copyright Infringement = People don't get all their royalties.
Seriously, the only person I've heard make a comment that inane recently was Valenti!
Re:Sorry (Score:2, Informative)
If you can't beat them accept the threat model? (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be far better to approach this problem on a social rather than a technical security basis.
I would perhaps like to see a model where you license a song for life. Something along the lines of paying $1.50 for a song and you get a digital certificate that licences you to own the song, no matter where you got it from.
That would mean that I could get the song quickly from my buddy down the road, and while that is downloading via the loacal bandwidth I could log on to BMI, Sony or whoever (The RIAA homepage!?!?), and pay my royalties.
No wait, I could just log on to the artist's homepage and pay the $.50 directly to him/her/them!!!
Re:If you can't beat them accept the threat model? (Score:1)
Re:If you can't beat them accept the threat model? (Score:4, Funny)
At least they'd be getting twice what they are now, so why not?
Re:If you can't beat them accept the threat model? (Score:1)
Blah. But yes, I'd love to be able to do this.
I invoke the Baen Defence as well - several times, despite an E-book being freely avaliable I've gone ahead and bought it anyway.
Re:If you can't beat them accept the threat model? (Score:2)
If you think artists actually get as much as $0.25 per song from RIAA companies then you're even more delusional then Valenti
-
Re:If you can't beat them accept the threat model? (Score:2)
Re:If you can't beat them accept the threat model? (Score:2)
napsterization easy to spot (Score:2, Insightful)
Can someone with more knowledge on the subject please ream my argument. I, unlike some slashdoters, enjoy intelectual discourse.
Re:napsterization easy to spot (Score:2)
P2P networks have to be paid for somehow. I don't know who pays right now -- if it's ad-supported or what. I suppose a reasonable subscription model could exist.
Let P2P and content providers work out a system such that the content owners could dump their own material onto the network, flagged so each download generates a micropayment from the P2P network to the owners, whoever that may be (artist, studio, whatever). Users don't
Huh? What's this guy on? (Score:2)
They complain about the problem, and use the Napsterization model.
Then they kill Napster.
What am I missing?
Re:Huh? What's this guy on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)
I just want to make the observation that in real life you don't get to choose your threat, of course; both threat models are present to some extent. You can only talk about which threat model $protection_measure addresses and to what extent.
Another thing is that *AA can hope to bring the Napster model closer to the small-scale copying model by persecuting individual users. Witness:
On most p2p networks there is no anonymity and so there is still a chance of preventing this scenario. But all that changes when freenet comes into the picture. If it gets widely used, an ugly, long-drawn, bloody clash between "content creators" and "pirates" is inevitable. There are two possible outcomes at the end of it: 1) a draconian world ruled by the evil side [gnu.org] 2) a severe reevaluation of our current notions on copyright, intellectual property, and revenue models. I dearly hope the clash occurs and the latter outcome results. The sooner we get out of the digital dark age the better.Re:Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)
The fox is guarding.. (Score:2)
Strategy (Score:2)
I just want to make the observation that in real life you don't get to choose your threat, of course; both threat models are present to some extent. You can only talk about which threat model $protection_measure addresses and to what extent.
Exactly, if anything - this article shows why it is an all or nothing game. Either they will half to try and controll all information, or none of it. But in all fairness we can't choose our threat either. The threat is not big media companies imposing overbear
Threat Model (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Threat Model (Score:3, Interesting)
I rejected 3 CD's for lack of a logo on my last trip to the CD section. I rejected 2 others for excessive price. It is a free market econo
Re:Threat Model (Score:2)
I've rejected hundreds of CDs for excessive price. I've made thousands of downloads for lack of availability.
Re:Fucking AC (Score:2)
An inexplicable "No", along with an equally inexplicable "They", combined with an utterly inexplicable italicized "not working" and a general assumption that there was a purpose behind your typing- Did you read what I said as saying that consumers like you reject CDs when they can do what they want with them? I have no idea wtf you were trying to say in your post.
Re:Completely untrue (Score:2)
And when you get right down to it, that's all the compact disc logo really does me. What I'm talking about is putting the logo on
A lot of CD Jewel cases have the logo. Sounds completely stupid, doesnt it? The Logo is meaningless on a jewel case: You can stick a DVD or a mini-pizza in it.
Some of my CD-Rs have the logo on i
Re:Completely untrue (Score:2)
For some reason people are reading my "returning a CD for lack of logo is stupid" post as saying "returning a CD which doesnt work is stupid". I have no idea where the fuck that leap comes from. Stop saying it.
Putting my CD in a case doesnt negate the logo. Buying a case which has the logo on it does. A CDR also has the logo in some cases. What does the logo mean in either of those cases? Squat. No
Re:Completely untrue (Score:2)
The CDs themselves are usually without the logo, But I have not seen a single CD or case which boasts "Data Storage"
I dont know why you're fighting me on the point that these standard cases which everyone uses regaurdless of content are sta
The problem with DRM'd music... (Score:4, Insightful)
So, if we accept the (logical) "Napsterization" model using any type of encryption/fair use deprivation sceme is going to be pointless when the music/film has to be percieved by the human eyes and ears in the same way it always has been.
Re:The problem with DRM'd music... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds silly?
Intel is on the way to integrate DRM into monitors so that you can't intercept the signal and record it (e.g. a movie). It's called HDCP -
High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection.
Look here:
http://www.digital-cp.com/
Re:The problem with DRM'd music... (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm not sure that would fly with the general public who only knows how to buy a CD and put it in their CD player. The RIAA/MPAA can get away with a lot as long as it doesn't effect Joe Public shopping at best buy for the newest Brittney Spears CD. Once it gets to the point that everyday non-technical people are effected is when the true backlash will begin.
Re:The problem with DRM'd music... (Score:2, Insightful)
And of course with the Napsterization model, once a single person does this it's "game over" for that protected work.
If people are allowed to freely distribute information then
Re:The problem with DRM'd music... (Score:1)
Commercial operating systems that won't play unsigned, unencrypted media? Soundcards and speakers that have to be unlocked and refuse to play music that does not have DRM waterstamps (which won't be reproduced by the speakers) in it?
So, even if you manage to make a copy of the protected media by recording it straight out of the speakers, you won't be able to play it back again.
All companies must remember- (Score:2)
Re:All companies must remember- (Score:2)
May I add... (Score:3, Insightful)
When we argue that DRM has no place in copyright law we need real understanding of its purpose and effect. Otherwise, we're just fighting windmills. Enough people doing that already...
For the n'th time (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:For the n'th time (Score:2)
Your analog impossibility argument still holds, though.
-Alison
What do they think (Score:2)
P2P networks are here and they're here to stay
False dichotomy? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, he has not convinced me that the two threat models that he describes are the only ones, or indeed separate threat models at all.
I would view p2p networks as a means to achieving "widespread, but small-scale and unorganized, copying," and not as a separate threat model at all.
I'm also not clear about whom he's addressing: Most DRM advocates are aware of the fact that today's systems will not stop a determined adversary, and only mildly deter a casual user.
Re:False dichotomy? (Score:2)
In his paper, 'widespread, but small-scale and unorganized' means that a copy from the original doesn't 'travel' very far. That is, from any one 'original' (legal, licensed) copy, only a few copies are made, but that many legal 'originals' have copies made from them. Ie, every person who purchases a copy makes one copy for their parents, but those parents don't give out further copies (after all, how many parents like their kids' music
I think he's addressing the DRM advocates who use the 'napsterizat
Napster, Casual Copying, and Capacitance (Score:5, Insightful)
But I want to add something to it. Everyone here knows what a capacitor is, right? It's two metal plates separated by a little insulator. When enough of a charge builds up between those two plates, the current will briefly jump the gap through the insulator.
The same applies to the Napsterizing/Casual-Copying model. Under casual copying, people make copies and distribute them to one or two friends. With Napsterization, one copy is made and broadcast to a great many people who want it.
The two are separated by a small gap. Will someone make one or two copies, or make it available for hundreds to download? That's where the capacitance comes in. If there's enough pressure, sooner or later a piece of media will jump the gap from casual copying and appear somewhere for everyone to grab a copy of.
What affects capacitance between the two? Well, the better the content is, the more people will want to show it to other people. The easier it is to show to other people, the more people will do so. P2P software today has cut the gap considerably. DRM is an attempt to add insulation and keep things from making the jump from casual copying to mass distribution.
It's been demonstrated, preventing any copies from being made is theoretically impossible, but the Content Cartels continue to try to prevent it. Likewise, preventing the jump to from casual copying to underground mass distribution is nearly impossible, but the Content Cartels continue suing every P2P, university, or network service that doesn't outlaw it outright.
It'd be interesting to see statistics on which results in more copies being made: P2P distribution or casual copying. Because it seems that P2P networks do more damage, but are much harder to prevent. And, in fact, if a DRM is put into place which prevents casual copying, I could see MORE people going to P2P systems to get copies from those who CAN break the "anti-fair-use technologies."
Thoughtful as the piece on different types of copying threat is, it becomes moot as the different types come closer together.
Re:Napster, Casual Copying, and Capacitance (Score:2)
P2Ping, Napstering, and posting are three different things. Napstering and posting share some similarities, but make no mistake they are different beasts.
1) In the strictest P2P model, one person has a file. Another person knows about it and wants it. Both go online. A connects up to B's computer, downloads the content, and sign off.
This is the technological equivalent
DRM Rhetoric... (Score:2)
"they explain some the logic behind the often confused and confusing rhetoric of DRM advocates"
Confusing rhetoric like, say, "inquestation" and "implications of the schematization?"
------
True but incomplete (Score:2, Interesting)
As for DRM technologies, no technology can withstand attack indefinitely, Palladium not withstanding. The question really boils down to who is attacking, how much time are they willing to spend on it and what resources they
The Core Fallacies of DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
First, Digital Rights Manglement schemes assume that the control over use of media offered to producers due to the virtue of being digital -- controls which they have never before possed in any other medium -- outstrip the value of fair use rights for their entire [potential] audience, despite the twin facts that fair use rights are established in law, and that [some of] the controls suggested violate other legal doctrines such as first sale. This alone is enough to dissuade me from supporting any such schemes.
Secondly, even if you are a prolific creator -- such as Steven King or the Beatles -- you cannot create as much media output as you have input. Even for a creator, the fair use rights lost to DRM will outweigh the additional rights gained. Any way you slice the question, the public rights lost to Manglement will outweigh the private ones gained, because even the few beneficiaries also lose -- on a scale far larger than they gain. (The rest of us just lose.)
Re:The Core Fallacies of DRM (Score:2)
I don't understand your use of "input" and "output". How do you measure them?
Even for a creator, the fair use rights lost to DRM will outweigh the additional rights gained.
Let's assume Stephens latest novel sells 10% better due to DRM. (A better assumption would be 99.999% worse, but nevermind) That could land him, say, extra $100.000. Are you really sayi
Re:The Core Fallacies of DRM (Score:2)
Well, I doubt Steven King doesn't listen to music or go out with his wife to a movie every so often... I'm just saying that even the producers of media content consume said content. You don't have to measure how much [for now] -- just whether they do or not. The answer is "yes", obviously. Now we ask, "could Steven King write a novel or movie script as fast as he takes in such things?" Again, the answer is obvious... if he takes m
Re:The Core Fallacies of DRM (Score:2)
I agree that widespread use of any realistically attainable DRM will harm society at large. However, your original position, was that "Even for a creator, the fair use rights lost to DRM will outweigh the additional rights gained." (My emph.) I disagree with this position because I find your use of "input" and "output" flawed. Why shouldn't you multiply Stephens "output"
Technical versus legal issues. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are just interested in having some sort of encription system and then have laws to protect it.
It just doesn't mather if the technical aspects of the encription methods are strong or weak.
They just want to have laws to be able to go after anybody suspect of breaking the encription systems.
My advice to all the people doing research on ecription and security is this: just be very carefull..
Rational Grounding? (Score:2)
hahahahahhaahhahaha
Rational Grounding:
1. The only possible solution is to not give information to people you do not trust with it.
2. Once you accept item 1, there is no item 2.
When I hear of DRM... (Score:3, Interesting)
Back then, many game producers used DRM in different ways. There was no internet, I had very little money, no access to BBS'es and copying a single game took several minutes swapping disks. Yet I knew a couple of guys who could lend me bunches of new games for copying, DRM cracked and all. Everyone I knew had boxes stuffed with illegal games and perhaps one or two originals tops. Darknet [quicktopic.com] indeed.
If that was the state of things back then, how can we reasonably expect that DRM will really limit copying today? I think we'll fare better informing people about the consequences of copyright infringement - both to themselves, but more importantly to the artists. I'd like an easy technological solution, but we don't have it, and we're not going to.
I was too bleak. (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, I suspect we do have one now: Easy and cheap online sale.
Smart content providers will beat the pirates on ease-of-use, not to mention good-conscience. It's not perfect, but I'm generally optimistic that it'll be good enough. While waiting for the un-smart content providers to die off we should fight to stop copyright law from becoming too badly "fixed".
"Darknet" paper... (Score:2, Informative)
This can be generalized (Score:3, Insightful)
The Complete Solution to Ending Copying (Score:2, Funny)
Considering the complete content of many CD's today, the industry is already 90% there.
A simple solution to DRM that will never happen... (Score:2)
Copyright is, after all, a deal between the copyright holder (CH) and the public - CH gets a limited monopoly, the public gets control after it expires. Anyone going beyond the limited monopoly is not following the rules, and shouldn't get th
DRM works (Score:5, Funny)
revenues: 1 x $40 = $40
losses due to piracy: 5 x $40 = $200
net: $40 - $200 = -$160
With DRM, the same person buys TaxCut and copies it for 5 friends:
revenues: $0
losses due to piracy: $0
net: $0
So by using DRM, Intuit saves $160.
Re:DRM works (Score:4, Interesting)
It may work in a monopoly like cable, but not where there are alternatives. I've dropped all subscription TV. I have alternatives on the internet. It's a great promotion Microsoft is giving the Open Source movement with the software subscription model. They couldn't have done a better thing to promote free software. They are driving developers to the new wide open market to promote their wares on Linux. The customers are there looking for the applications.
The music industry is doing great things for Inde Bands who otherwise would never get attention, but get lost in the sea of CD's.
I love a free market where the consumer is always right! Great inovations happen!
Re:DRM works (Score:1, Insightful)
1 customer is willing to pay $20
4 customers are willing to pay $5
With DRM, you can charge $20 and make $20 or charge $5 and make $25. But without DRM, you can charge $20 and make $40, because the one customer who is willing to pay $20 will buy his own copy, and the other 4 customers will chip in and buy another copy for $20 and pirate i
Re:DRM works (Score:2)
Two big words.. MARKET SHARE
Without DRM, MS took a bunch of the market share. With risisng prices and DRM, they are loosing market share. What's market share and the ability to set standards worth? In your example the market share went from 5 users to 1 when switching to the DRM model. 4 of the 5 are going to switch. The 5th will switch when the competition becomes the next standard with more features, is more up to date, and at a lower price.
Does Turbo Ta
Re:DRM? (Score:1)
We are talking about the Department Of Digiland Security, not Homeland Security.