However, don't get me wrong - it would be nice if there were more
flexibility regarding the portability of protected content, but
instead of
many very smart people expending huge amounts of effort demonising
DRM,
maybe it would be better spent constructively, on finding a solution
that
will help protect investments and be "Free" software friendly?
How do you suppose that could be arranged? It's not about demonising
at all. It's about recognising a fools errand.
Remember that a copy restriction scheme relies, technically, on
keeping the means of copying a secret.
It follows that in order to permit copying the scheme approves of, a
trusted group of people to implement the copying scheme must be
created. Controlling access to that trusted group becomes the key
activity in maintaining the copy restriction scheme.
An open scheme definitionally requires that anyone can join the group.
Further it requires that everyone entering the group will choose to
implement the copying restrictions in full. Unfortunately for such a
scheme it is never hard to come up with reasons not to implement those
restrictions that your peers will find reasonable.
I therefore think 'open' DRM (or 'interoperable' DRM) is a fools
errand. A group of people making an earnest effort (e.g. some folks at
Sun) doesn't change that.
J
-
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]/
