4 ms·

I’m failing to see how handing a key to someone along with the address to the door it unlocks communicates any intent about that someone to unlock the door with

by lloeki 6y ago

I’m failing to see how handing a key to someone along with the address to the door it unlocks communicates any intent about that someone to unlock the door with his left hand only, and never with his right one. Now, if they had designed a system where the key could only be operated once/for a given timeframe from a specific left hand glove, then the intent would be clear (IOW DRM container like widevine or fairplay). But the intent of making it from cumbersome to impossible for right handed, broken armed, or disabled people, or just missed the bus and being late, to use the key would be very clear also. What’s clear to me from this overall SNAFU is that they’re after the eyeballs. The content only matters as an eyeball attractor. I’m wondering if in the EU youtube-dl could fall under protection for interoperability.

rrobukef 6y ago
I think a better analogy is: Handing someone a key to unlock a door to watch an artwork and then taking the (a copy of, a photo of) artwork with you. You can see the Mona Lisa but you cannot take a photo of the Mona Lisa without previous consent of the Louvre.
- lloeki 6y ago
  > You can see the Mona Lisa but you cannot take a photo of the Mona Lisa without previous consent of the Louvre. You can, they just ask you to responsibly not use a flash. https://c8.alamy.com/comp/F0948J/tourists-photographing-mona-lisa-in-the-louvre-museum-paris-france-F0948J.jpg https://c8.alamy.com/comp/F0948J/tourists-photographing-mona... This specific painting is public domain, you could copy it to your heart’s content. > I think a better analogy is: Handing someone a key to unlock a door to watch an artwork and then taking the (a copy of, a photo of) artwork with you. I kinda get your point, but it’s completely non obvious that the key from YouTube has any sort of such value: it’s just a string of chars, it could just as well be some homegrown encoding, tracking system, or error check+. A ticket has clear information about its validity in space and time. I’d argue that the alleged protection is so lousy as such that it could very well be dismissed as being one, whereas a ticket+museum or video+drm you cannot get the content out of the container, at least not easily so, and it’s very obvious that it’s there to prevent that, with enforcement of metadata on the key (e.g cert/key with time, device or account id, pubkey signature, ...) I seem to recall a legal provision (might be DMCA even) that says if the protection scheme comes to be trivially bypassed then the circumvention clause doesn’t hold water, in essence codifying protection obsolescence and making e.g DeCSS ultimately legal, but I can’t find the reference to that. + I’d argue it’s actually more akin to the second one.

by lloeki 6y ago

rrobukef 6y ago

I think a better analogy is: Handing someone a key to unlock a door to watch an artwork and then taking the (a copy of, a photo of) artwork with you. You can see the Mona Lisa but you cannot take a photo of the Mona Lisa without previous consent of the Louvre.

lloeki 6y ago
> You can see the Mona Lisa but you cannot take a photo of the Mona Lisa without previous consent of the Louvre. You can, they just ask you to responsibly not use a flash. https://c8.alamy.com/comp/F0948J/tourists-photographing-mona-lisa-in-the-louvre-museum-paris-france-F0948J.jpg https://c8.alamy.com/comp/F0948J/tourists-photographing-mona... This specific painting is public domain, you could copy it to your heart’s content. > I think a better analogy is: Handing someone a key to unlock a door to watch an artwork and then taking the (a copy of, a photo of) artwork with you. I kinda get your point, but it’s completely non obvious that the key from YouTube has any sort of such value: it’s just a string of chars, it could just as well be some homegrown encoding, tracking system, or error check+. A ticket has clear information about its validity in space and time. I’d argue that the alleged protection is so lousy as such that it could very well be dismissed as being one, whereas a ticket+museum or video+drm you cannot get the content out of the container, at least not easily so, and it’s very obvious that it’s there to prevent that, with enforcement of metadata on the key (e.g cert/key with time, device or account id, pubkey signature, ...) I seem to recall a legal provision (might be DMCA even) that says if the protection scheme comes to be trivially bypassed then the circumvention clause doesn’t hold water, in essence codifying protection obsolescence and making e.g DeCSS ultimately legal, but I can’t find the reference to that. + I’d argue it’s actually more akin to the second one.