5 ms·

The real question is - HOW can we control data that can be screen-shotted like images? Is it really a "genie out of the bottle" or is there some technical way

The real question is - HOW can we control data that can be screen-shotted like images? Is it really a "genie out of the bottle" or is there some technical way that we can evolve file formats to ensure the owners of an image retain control of the rights to use and reproduce that image?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bawolff 5y ago
Well she sold the rights to the image. Even if technical restrictions were possible, it wouldn't matter because she isn't the owner of the image. As far as technically - given this was published in a paper magazine, it would be pretty impossible to prevent duplication - the so-called "analog hole"
- zenmaster10665 5y ago
  ignore the specific case here - I am talking about the general case...
  - bawolff 5y ago
    Fair enough - DRM is a thing. Its not typically the most robust thing, but people have certainly tried and modern cpus have secure enclaves that make implementing such a thing sort of fesible (see for example widevine). However ultimately at some point, you have to convert the image to photons to look at it, and its pretty hard to prevent someone from taking a photo of those photons. I guess you could require every camera to auto recognize copyrighted work and refuse (think EURion constellation or Cinavia) but that is pretty orwellian and you still have plain old analog cameras.
donatj 5y ago
Centralized kill switches for information? Sounds like the dream of a tyrannical government, pretty dystopian and not something anyone should want.
- zenmaster10665 5y ago
  no - a file format (or something else) that enforces rights of the owner of the data.
  - donatj 5y ago
    It’s all the same. For it to be possible for an image to stop you from taking a photo of it, your camera would need to be complicit in the scheme. That is just fodder for tyranny.
    - pdpi 5y ago
      Nobody publishes RAW files, you edit them and publish a jpeg. That means you don’t need the camera to be complicit, you just need to add that DRM step to your editing process.
      - donatj 5y ago
        I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. As long as you can capture an image of something, be that by capturing your screen buffer a.k.a. screenshoting, or just pulling out your camera and taking a picture, any DRM scheme for images is circumventable by a child unless your device being complicit in the censorship. The core point of the article is an image that was scanned in the 1970s. Preventing the spread of something like that requires a system where your devices don’t do what you want them to.
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Who said the owner has rights to stop me taking a picture? Just because you have copyright does not mean I cannot make a copy for purposes of journalism, critique, inveatigation, law enforcement, etc. Thr idea that my liberty should be limited to help copyright holder make money is obscene.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bawolff 5y ago

Well she sold the rights to the image. Even if technical restrictions were possible, it wouldn't matter because she isn't the owner of the image. As far as technically - given this was published in a paper magazine, it would be pretty impossible to prevent duplication - the so-called "analog hole"

zenmaster10665 5y ago
ignore the specific case here - I am talking about the general case...
- bawolff 5y ago
  Fair enough - DRM is a thing. Its not typically the most robust thing, but people have certainly tried and modern cpus have secure enclaves that make implementing such a thing sort of fesible (see for example widevine). However ultimately at some point, you have to convert the image to photons to look at it, and its pretty hard to prevent someone from taking a photo of those photons. I guess you could require every camera to auto recognize copyrighted work and refuse (think EURion constellation or Cinavia) but that is pretty orwellian and you still have plain old analog cameras.

donatj 5y ago

Centralized kill switches for information? Sounds like the dream of a tyrannical government, pretty dystopian and not something anyone should want.

zenmaster10665 5y ago
no - a file format (or something else) that enforces rights of the owner of the data.
- donatj 5y ago
  It’s all the same. For it to be possible for an image to stop you from taking a photo of it, your camera would need to be complicit in the scheme. That is just fodder for tyranny.
  - pdpi 5y ago
    Nobody publishes RAW files, you edit them and publish a jpeg. That means you don’t need the camera to be complicit, you just need to add that DRM step to your editing process.
    - donatj 5y ago
      I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. As long as you can capture an image of something, be that by capturing your screen buffer a.k.a. screenshoting, or just pulling out your camera and taking a picture, any DRM scheme for images is circumventable by a child unless your device being complicit in the censorship. The core point of the article is an image that was scanned in the 1970s. Preventing the spread of something like that requires a system where your devices don’t do what you want them to.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

Who said the owner has rights to stop me taking a picture? Just because you have copyright does not mean I cannot make a copy for purposes of journalism, critique, inveatigation, law enforcement, etc. Thr idea that my liberty should be limited to help copyright holder make money is obscene.