On 08/02/07, Tim Thornton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 06/02/07, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > And yet it's still used...
> > > > Doesn't that say something?
> > > It says that record execs are stupid, but we all knew that already.
> >
> > I was going more for a "it might be broken by some, but it's good enough
> > for 'purpose'".
>
> And what is that purpose, exactely?
Deterring the general public from blatant file-sharing.
It fails at this purpose.
Firstly, file sharing in itself. Most importantly, this is very
unethical. Sharing is the basis of friendship, neccessary for
community, and important for a good society. To divide the basis of
friendship in the age of computer networks is deeply wrong. No
publishing is better than restricted publishing.
Secondly, deterrents. For the general public, the deterrents do more
harm than good because they cut into private use that is allowed in
the law (or should be, cf Gowers). I can download BBC shows
transmitted through analogue radio broadcasts onto a VHS tape. I can
keep the copy as long as I want, and copy it to my portable video
player. I can download BBC shows transmitted through digital radio
broadcasts onto a file in my computer. I can keep the copy as long as
I want, and copy it to my portable video player. I can download BBC
shows transmitted through the Internet onto a file in my computer,
and.... my computer deletes it after 7 days, and I can't copy it to
any other device. There is something deeply wrong here.
Note that given the above situation, anyone who wants to share BBC
shows can just download their copy some other way - just as you can
still go buy CDs in shops and share them all you want. DRM is already
purposeless if works are available in non-DRM formats anyway.
Thirdly, 'blatant.' I've heard BBC employees say, speaking for
themselves, that they were very suprised that even though Johnny
Public is signed up with his full name and postcode and static IP and
such, he will blatantly file share BBC stuff anyway. Since we
intuitively understand that sharing is good, deterring us general
public from file-sharing is impossible, and we will continue to be
brazen about this.
Yes, it's beatable, but there are hoops to jump through
before that file you've just download can be usefully shared,
which the majority won't bother with.
This is a very naieve view of how Internet society works.
To convert copy-restricted data into copy-enabled data, there may be
many hoops to jump through. For the first person, there will be many
many hoops. For the second, there will be less hoops. Eventually, the
hoop is "download this program and drag and drop your restricted data
onto it." The hoops can always be jumped, and collapsed to this single
one. This is not an 'implementation problem' - if it was, software
program proprietors would have implemented it 20 years ago.
Say that there are a few hoops though, so "the majority won't bother."
For the minority who do jump the hoops, the copy-enabled data can be
shared.
How many hoops do the recipients of the copy-enabled data have to jump?
Zero.
Its often said that any simpleton can jump out of iTunes DRM using
iTunes, by burning off all their iTMS music onto CDs and re-ripping
them. It would take a very retarded simpleton to actually do this,
because the far easier and faster thing is to just hit up Limewire or
ThePirateBay or whereever and get the copy-enabled versions.
It's a first step. Security is almost never a simple choice between
absolute protection or none.
Security is usually a charade, and security experts are usually charlatans :-)
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
