Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

DRM and Threat Analysis 185

Posted by michael from the logic-bomb dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

DRM and Threat Analysis More

DRM and Threat Analysis

Comments Filter:

  • DRM (Score:3, Insightful)

    by A Swing Dancing Dork ( 324614 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:10AM (#5543742)
    I am okay with DRM as long as I know who holds the keys. With todays Homeland security, I am not sure that I am the only key holder.

    • Re:DRM (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Umm... Under DRM schemes you are not the one who holds the keys...thats kind of the point...

    • Re:DRM -- NEVER okay with DRM (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @02:00PM (#5545383)
      I am okay with DRM as long as I know who holds the keys. With todays Homeland security, I am not sure that I am the only key holder.

      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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:13AM (#5543756)
    I couldn't bother going to the link, I'll just download it off kazaa later ;)

    • Re:Bah! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Alsee ( 515537 )
      I couldn't bother going to the link, I'll just download it off kazaa later ;)

      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)

    by sploxx ( 622853 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:15AM (#5543764)
    From the article:
    "... 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.

    • And to add a few more:

      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 /consumer-oriented".

      What happy are we - the consumers - about all this security and protection

      • Re:Euphemisms (Score:2, Insightful)

        by oliverthered ( 187439 )
        security - trust no-one, except me.

        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)

      by Flower ( 31351 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @11:30AM (#5544225) Homepage
      piracy - I am not on a ship in the carribean sea.

      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)

        by ichimunki ( 194887 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @12:10PM (#5544472)
        The term piracy is just too loaded-- no matter how common its usage may be it implies a criminal mindset and has connotations of pillaging or theft. Sharing, while it describes the act, also implies a legal and moral right to do that sharing-- a lot of the sharing going on is not Fair Use.

        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.
    • "... leads to incoherent rhetoric ..."
      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)

      by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @11:56AM (#5544363) Homepage
      piracy - I am not on a ship in the carribean sea.

      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)

      by Erris ( 531066 )
      I agree, the article is a snow job. The reason rhetoric from the AAs and "DRM advocats" does not match their actions is because they are being dishonest about their goal. The goal is to have pay per play, no share media for all works. From that perspective, it is obvious that all steps will be taken to make the technology "bullet proof" and pervert the law into a protectionist scheme for consolidated publishers. They may zig, zag and obfuscate, but the end game is the same.

      DRM is very simple. If there

    • piracy - I am not on a ship in the carribean sea.

      But i want to be.

      Arrrrrrrr!
    • Actually "piracy" is a long-established term for distributing copies of a copyrighted work without permission, though usually associated with a person doing this for profit.

      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)

    by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:15AM (#5543768) Journal
    From the ref. article:
    "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.
    • Ok, but palladium/tcpa is meant to be the *last* step in conquering the users PC in terms of copy protection. No way out. It is designed for that. It is not another bad block on your CD/DVD or anything like that. It's below all other stuff.
      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.

      • 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

  • DRM (Score:5, Funny)

    by Tuxinatorium ( 463682 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:17AM (#5543777) Homepage
    DRM is the digital equivalent of having to keep a drunk, rowdy police officer in your home 24/7 without a warrant. There are constitutional protections against that sort of thing.

  • Napsterization in the end (Score:5, Insightful)

    by embedded_C ( 653649 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:17AM (#5543778)
    The DRM advocates must choose the Napsterization Model: It is potentially the most damaging, in terms of profits.

    • Re:Napsterization in the end (Score:5, Insightful)

      by smd4985 ( 203677 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:28AM (#5543832) Homepage
      You are correct - when it comes down to it, a DRM advocate would have to make her system 'bulletproof'.

      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.
      • Create a solution to both of your possibilities, and become a wealthy person.

        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

        • That doesn't do anything. Obviously you know your own hardware key so "keyless" files could be distributed and reencoded for the specific hardware at/before playback time.

          The idea behind DRM is that the computer needs to know things at one level which the user doesn't know.

      • partly correct, but: (Score:4, Insightful)

        by n3k5 ( 606163 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:49AM (#5543955) Journal
        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.
        1) The users are even unhappy about DRM that just tries to solve the casual copying problem. Think CDs not playing in car CD-players etc.
        2) I haven't seen a bulletproof DRM system yet, not even a theoretical one.
      • the only "bulletproof" system would be to sell music contained in it's own player with earbuds on guage wire just audiable enough to listen when used in the ear. Otherwise, if it can be heard through speakers, it can be recorded.
        • Nah, with a sensitive-enough pair of microphones you could get a hi-fi recording even from these earbuds. If the audio exists (which by definition it must to be copyrightable), there is a way to record it analog with near-perfect accuracy.
          • Ah, but that's not a problem. Just outlaw high-quality recording devices, unless they're owned by a registered record label!

            So many problems become so much easier when you own a shelf full of Congresscritters..

            Daniel

    • The DRM advocates must choose the Napsterization Model: It is potentially the most damaging, in terms of profits.

      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)

    by darkitecture ( 627408 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:19AM (#5543785)

    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! :)
    • ...but someone needs to elaborate a little more on the subject... I guess that's what Slashdot is for! :)

      I see you don't read /. that much. This is the site where RTFM became RTFA.

  • Sorry (Score:5, Funny)

    by JSmooth ( 325583 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:20AM (#5543791)
    But this article was fairly meaningless in its own right. Nothing new if offered just that the current solution doesn't work. Something we already know.

    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)

      by johnkoer ( 163434 )
      Just remember to take em out before you get to springfield because according to Wiggum:

      "It's _also_ illegal to put squirrels down
      your pants for the purposes of gambling."
    • Tantamount to terrorism? I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous. Think about that logically for just a second.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Look sonny, this here is the brave new world. Our Glorious Leader George Bush II (All Hail!) has mandated that anything he bloody well wants is Terrorism, or supports Terrorism, or looks like Terrorism. If you don't agree, you're a terrorist, you support terrorism, and you look like a terrorist. The terrorist threat must be eliminated. We must work together to keep the terrorists from our doorstop. You do want to live under the rule of Our Glorious Leader George Bush II (All Hail!) do you not? Thats r

  • If you can't beat them accept the threat model? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Phigrin ( 645909 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:20AM (#5543793)
    I don't know if saying that the adoption of a threat model isn't just a nice way of saying that you have to accept what you cannot change. The problem of napsterisation, is more complex than that.

    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!!!

  • it would seem to me that copanies whos software checks in with servers (much like the constant updating of firewall software or even MS OSes) could easily track when software has been propogated throught the Napsterization model. When someone downloads the latest update 100 times you can figure that it has been comprimized.

    Can someone with more knowledge on the subject please ream my argument. I, unlike some slashdoters, enjoy intelectual discourse.
    • I dunno about your argument, but somewhere up above I had a glimmered notion..

      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
  • When they complain about the problem, they seem to be using the Napsterization model -- they talk about one infringing copy propagating across the world. But when they propose solutions they seem to be solving the casual-copying problem.

    They complain about the problem, and use the Napsterization model.

    Then they kill Napster.

    What am I missing?
    • Yes, they killed Napster. They managed to get rid of AudioGalaxy, too. But FreeNet, Kazaa, WinMX, and any P2P systems likely to show up in the future are comparatively unkillable. The killing off of the first few centralized sharing networks accomplished nothing except to make 'the enemy' harder to get next time around. They can't possibly affect them anymore, so instead they announce their uncopyable (and often unplayable) CDs as the solution to all copying problems. Not only is it a bad solution, it'

  • Fantastic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:27AM (#5543820) Homepage Journal
    He has made a profound point in so few words. There can be no excuse for /.ers for not reading this article.

    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:

    The first, which I'll call the Napsterization model, assumes that there are many people, some of them technically skilled, who want to redistribute your work via peer-to-peer networks; and it assumes further that once your content appears on a p2p network, there is no stopping these people from infringing.
    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)

      by st0rmshad0w ( 412661 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:56AM (#5544003)
      I don't think there would be a clash between "content creators" and "pirates", there hasn't been thusfar (with the exception of Metallica). Part of the issue with all this mess is we don't actually _hear_ from the creators, only the publishers, bankrollers etc... When will the artists ever stand up and take a side in all this? They certainly need to do so before any meaningful DRM is in place or it will be too late for an alternative.
      • the hen house. Hense, the hens aren't too interested in sqwuaking or all of a sudden the next CD of their "isn't selling so well, so we'll pay you $40,000 this year and you'll owe us your next 5 releases.."

    • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:31AM (#5543849)
    There's another threat model, it's the immortal music. The RIAA is very upset that CD's last so much longer than LPs. They've tried to block the resale of used CDs. With DRM, they can go back to the old mortal music model. P2P is just the scape goat. Funny how much the casual model sounds like fair use.

    • Re:Threat Model (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Technician ( 215283 )
      One minor mistake in the theory. Too many people have Ipod's, Rio's, PDA's, etc. The Rip Mix Burn is too ingrained to be easly discarded. DRM means no redbook Compact Disk logo. No logo means NO SALE. It's kind of funny to think the customer is always right. If they want DRM, they will buy the crippled stuff. However to sell me a CD, it better be the real thing.

      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
      • You and nobody else cares about a logo. It's not something they look for. I've never rejected a CD for lack of logo. I dont think I have any without a logo, but I dont know. Before this whole DRM thing started, I had always thought that it was stupid how everything has that logo on it. I still do.
        I've rejected hundreds of CDs for excessive price. I've made thousands of downloads for lack of availability.

  • The problem with DRM'd music... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bert33 ( 655799 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:34AM (#5543868)
    is that at some point the music has to be unencrypted. There is no way to prevent me from intercepting the signal being sent to my speakers, recording it and ripping it to mp3. The quality is not going to be that great, but that's par for the course on Kazaa. The same is true for movies... there will always be cam versions no matter what.

    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)

      by sploxx ( 622853 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:45AM (#5543929)
      Until the time arrives when DRM will be built" into every speaker you buy and the construction of paper sheets with attached magnets and coils falls under the DMCA or EU-DMCA or whatever.

      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/
      • Wouldn't that make all currently existing CDs unplayable on this new equipment?

        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.
      • And even THIS isn't foolproof. DRM speakers? Fine, just buy a quality set and then put a mike in front of them. The resulting recording is now free from DRM. DRM monitor? Just put a video camera in front of your monitor (just get the refresh rate right - maybe this isn't a problem with LCD?) and the movie is now free from DRM.

        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
    • What if the playback of music is controlled instead?

      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.

  • If I can hear it, I can copy it. Any usable media is inherently unsafe.

  • May I add... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by infolib ( 618234 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @10:47AM (#5543942)
    ...that this is equally relevant to DRM skeptics.

    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)

    by halftrack ( 454203 )
    DRM is impossible partially because protection against only the casual-copying model implies that someone can copy the contents and thereby uploding it onto a P2P network, burn it on a CD for a friend or sell burnt CD's meaning we also get napterization (why did Felton fail to mention this?) Also there's the fact that the antinapsterization bulletproof protection is both digitally impossible (reverse engineering is always possible (although it can be made very hard through hardware)) and analoguosly impossi
    • There is such a thing as truely secure digital system, or at least secure enough that only a few governments can break in. Systems can be tamperproof through booby-trapping, shielding, etc. It's just ridiculously expensive to the point of being irrelavant in this context.

      Your analog impossibility argument still holds, though.

      -Alison
  • I guess you can develop as much copy-protections as you wish, it just won't help. As long as you can hear music you should be able to grab is. If the method isn't digital, it's analog. Just plug a cord from the headphone-outlet to the mic-inlet from your soundcard and it will do the trick most of the time.

    P2P networks are here and they're here to stay

  • False dichotomy? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ronys ( 166557 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @11:11AM (#5544118) Journal
    Ed Felten has a valid point about the need to choose a threat model, and to stick to that choice.

    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.


    • 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)

    by Crash Culligan ( 227354 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @11:26AM (#5544202) Journal
    The talk of two copying models and the level of protection needed to minimize each is profound. It speaks of a deep wisdom which many have overlooked.

    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.

  • "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)

    by tongariro ( 110144 )
    From the viewpoint of someone who created the trust model for the MPEG IPMP framework, Dr. Felten comments are correct though he does not address the fundamental failure of DRM. The *AA of the world are trying to use technology to solve what is fundamentally social and economic failings.

    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)

    by Catiline ( 186878 ) <akrumbach@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @11:48AM (#5544311) Homepage Journal
    Felten's comments come close to, but do not quite repeat, the twin comments I have been making to friends about Digital Rights Manglement for the past year.

    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.)
    • 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.

      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

      • I don't understand your use of "input" and "output". How do you measure them?

        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

        • the benefits gained by granting new rights to a few does not -- nay, cannot -- outweight the costs incurred by taking a right from all.

          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)

    by fjpereira ( 657762 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @11:54AM (#5544346)
    I don't think those who have been supporting DRM are very interested in the technical issues around it.

    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..

  • the necessity for rational grounding for [DRM] technologies

    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)

    by infolib ( 618234 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @12:06PM (#5544438)
    ...it reminds me of my younger self as C64 owner and copyright infringer.

    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)

      by infolib ( 618234 )
      I'd like an easy technological solution, but we don't have it, and we're not going to.

      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)

    by Rick.C ( 626083 )
    ... which was discussed several months ago on /. IIRC, goes into much more detail [stanford.edu] on the dynamics of the cat-and-mouse game of DRM and copy distribution and is very insightful about the possible outcomes.

  • This can be generalized (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CyberLife ( 63954 ) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @01:00PM (#5544782)
    The point made by the author can be generalized to any form of problem solving. When approaching a situation, you must first understand the problem before you can even begin to formulate an adequate solution. In my experience, this is the #1 thing that people do wrong in engineering (software or otherwise). Why just the other day, I was conversing with a collegue who was trying to decide between two ways of structuring a web application that would affect how the client used it. I asked him how the client currently does their business. He didn't know.
  • Just sell music that isn't worth copying.

    Considering the complete content of many CD's today, the industry is already 90% there.

  • How about a law that lists the major capabilities required for fair use (quoting, backup copies, media change, etc.), and then says:

    Works published by their copyright holders using any technology that limits a fair use capability will not have copyright protection.

    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

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close