On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 17:54 +0100, Simon Waters wrote: > Shane M. Coughlan wrote: > > I usually call this DRM measure my handy public key encryption. It > > existed before the hype of DRM, and I am guessing OpenPGP stuff will > > exist after. > > Ah but that isn't DRM, that is encryption.
I think DRM is any technology which can control the use/copying of digital files. For example, encrypting something could be DRM if the computer was supplied such that it only executed binaries that were decrypted with a master key stored in its ROM or something. (I _think_ this is how Xbox security works/did work.. at least part of the system was encrypted IIRC). Alan Cox infamously considered file permissions to be a form of DRM (or, at least, capable of being used as such). But, I wouldn't want to run a machine without them, and I suspect neither would he. > DRM is about getting legislation in to control peoples activity I think that's a bad distinction too ;) As counter examples; * copyright controls your activity, but doesn't involve DRM per se; * DRM would still work without legislative activity. I guess without legislation, DRM becomes a lot harder to get right, but I think that's a theory versus practice thing (as in, in theory no DRM can be perfect, but in practice they can be made tough enough that it would take too long to break - much like encryption, in fact [breakable in theory; in practice it's impossible]). DRM is a really difficult beast to nail down, and I suspect it's subjective. We know what we don't like, but I don't think there are any bright-line tests to "detect" it mechanically, as it were. Cheers, Alex. _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
