Subject: Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
From: Santiago Gala <sgala@hisitech.com>
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2006 20:43:33 +0200
Sat, 01 Apr 2006 20:43:33 +0200
El sáb, 01-04-2006 a las 20:16 +0200, Norbert Bollow escribió:
> Taran Rampersad <cnd@knowprose.com> wrote:
> 
> > It might seem as though I'm splitting a hair here, but what the
> > hell.
> 
> Hmm... maybe we should continue this exercise and split the
> hair into all of its constituent components... :-)
> 
> > > DRM is in the current situation a much more serious threat to
> > > fundamental information society freedoms than proprietary
> > > software is.
> > Agreed, with emphasis on 'current situation'. DRM as it has been 
> > implemented is *wrong*. DRM as a meta concept is something I don't 
> > necessarily disagree with. The DRM concept could be used to protect 
> > rights of creators without infringing the rights of the end users of the 
> > information; DRM is the automation of the enforcement of a license 
> > agreement. In it's present implementation, it infringes upon the rights 
> > of users, IMHO.
> 
> I agree.  The only reason why I'm ready to denounce DRM categorically
> in all its possible forms is that I believe that it is impossible for
> reasons of principle to implement DRM (in the sense of automation of
> the  enforcement  of restrictions of what someone can do with some
> digital something) without violating some essential freedoms.
> 

I agree.

While at that, I seem to recall that there was a theorem proving that it
was impossible for a piece of software to decide if it was running under
emulation or under "true iron", which, as a corolary, implied that DRM
was technically impossible without it being relatively easy to
circumvent. Any pointer to the paper? I was looking for it a few days
ago and I couldn't find it anymore.


Here it seems to be taken as a given:
http://epeus.blogspot.com/2005 11 01 epeus archive.html#113274168260745952

> I think that there's nothing wrong with implementing "advisory DRM"
> in the sense of adding tags to digital stuff that indicate intended
> restrictions for further distribution etc without actioally
> enforcing these restrictions, similar to how in GnuPG the
> --for-your-eyes-only option can essentially be overridden by using
> the --output option on the receiving end.
> 

Agreed too. I used recently the argument of the "private property" sign
being enough under US Law to ban entry, while in most Europe having to
make damage when breaking into a place makes a lot of legal difference.
I prefer the US way here than the fence-plagged old Europe. :)

> Greetings,
> Norbert.
-- 
Santiago Gala <sgala@hisitech.com>
High Sierra Technology, SLU


["application/pgp-signature" not shown]