5 ms·

I think we are constantly losing our subsequent rights, that are taken from us in such manner: 1. people are allowed to X 2. other people exist who can do X i

I think we are constantly losing our subsequent rights, that are taken from us in such manner: 1. people are allowed to X 2. other people exist who can do X in a malicious way that is forbidden 3. let's make a law that will prevent every citizen from X 4. only lawful citizens are forbidden to X, criminals are still X-ing The same is with the fading DVDs/BDs - you are forbidden to make a copy of DVD/BD unless it's a backup copy. Of course there is a DRM that forbids you to make a backup copy. Political representatives say "hey, but the company is obliged to make a copy for you if your copy is broken". However: a. the company or its representative in your country may cease to exist (e.g. games that were published in magazines) b. copies may become unavailable c. price of the copy may be higher than it should be

pipo234 3y ago
The world isn't fair. But the DRM folks are fighting an impossible battle, trying to make abundance scarce: Given an "asset" in digital form, make it so that it can be (mass-) distributed but cannot be copied. The solution they choose: encrypt the content with one key. The encrypted content is freely distributed (though not without cost, to the distributor), but worthless without the key. So the key is sold to every user that pays, but resides in a black box DRM library to prevent redistribution by the user. At scale, that's like giving all residents of, say, Luxembourg a copy of the same key and saying: you're not allowed to look at it because we're afraid you'll share the key with foreigners. Once you have physical access to a computer, it can only hide its secret through obscurity. And security through obscurity isn't the best.