3 ms·

It's a shared system, in that other people can access the same server the files are actually located on. The DRM is definitely meant to stop other users of the

It's a shared system, in that other people can access the same server the files are actually located on. The DRM is definitely meant to stop other users of the system from accessing the files, and only permit me to view it through a thin terminal when showing the proper credentials. You seem to have an ideological need to call DRM bad in all cases and tell me how every other use of DRM is not "True DRM!", but I'm using it to stop people with access to the server from being able to open certain files even if they somehow break other security features which should prevent them from even getting access to the bits. I'm not sure how much more DRM you can get than stopping people from viewing content unless they show their credentials to prove they're an authorized user.

icebraining 12y ago
and only permit me to view it through a thin terminal when showing the proper credentials. Yes, which is why I wrote it's not DRM if you're not trying to protect data from the user itself. In that case, you are. I'm using it to stop people with access to the server from being able to open certain files even if they somehow break other security features which should prevent them from even getting access to the bits. I'm not sure how much more DRM you can get than stopping people from viewing content unless they show their credentials to prove they're an authorized user. I'm using the UNIX filesystem permissions for that. Is UNIX DRM now? As far as I know, DRM as a term arose to describe the technologies that tried to allow the user to view the content while preventing him/her from copying it. You seem to have an ideological need to call DRM bad in all cases and tell me how every other use of DRM is not "True DRM!" No, I'm just trying to make sense of the fact that people are using a term in a different way than I've always seen it used, and which happens to be (in my opinion) much less useful, since it turns any authorization layer into "DRM".

icebraining 12y ago

and only permit me to view it through a thin terminal when showing the proper credentials. Yes, which is why I wrote it's not DRM if you're not trying to protect data from the user itself. In that case, you are. I'm using it to stop people with access to the server from being able to open certain files even if they somehow break other security features which should prevent them from even getting access to the bits. I'm not sure how much more DRM you can get than stopping people from viewing content unless they show their credentials to prove they're an authorized user. I'm using the UNIX filesystem permissions for that. Is UNIX DRM now? As far as I know, DRM as a term arose to describe the technologies that tried to allow the user to view the content while preventing him/her from copying it. You seem to have an ideological need to call DRM bad in all cases and tell me how every other use of DRM is not "True DRM!" No, I'm just trying to make sense of the fact that people are using a term in a different way than I've always seen it used, and which happens to be (in my opinion) much less useful, since it turns any authorization layer into "DRM".