4 ms·

The Imperfect is the Enemy of the Good: Anticircumvention Versus Open Innovation

3 points by vrobancho 17y ago

tptacek 17y ago
I think this is a fairly boring survey. The bulk of this paper makes the argument that DRM and anticircumvention retard open source development. Of course it does. But while we can all agree that open source is a powerful force for good in general, it's less obvious to me that open source entertainment software is a necessity. Why are producers of content obliged to support any particular format or venue? While I have to concede that it would be a better world if Linux could natively play BD+-protected Blu-Ray, I do not need to concede that the world would be a better place if that happened because regulations compelled private businesses to make business decisions based on papers by Wendy Seltzer. I'm worried about what other rules would come along for the ride there. I found the technical content here superficial. The article quotes Schneier, and then compares the "hard but solved" problem of exchange information between two people to the (implied) unsolved problem of securely distributing content. This perpetuates a misunderstanding about the goal of DRM. DRM schemes don't succeed or fail based on whether they absolutely protect any given piece of content. They succeed to the extent that they recover profit leaked to freeriders. If it takes Slysoft 72 extra hours to rip the most recent BD+ release because of a DRM renewal, it is very possible that the content producer will recover the expense of the entire DRM scheme in that one release window alone. Furthermore, while it is presumed impossible to prevent bits from being copied, it is less clear that it's Hard to trace them. The CS technology underlying tracing, watermarking, revocation, and renewability isn't very new, but the industry adoption of it --- particularly among slow-witted consumer electronics conglomerates --- is in its infancy. It's still too early to tell whether "modern" DRM is going to succeed.

3 points by vrobancho 17y ago

I think this is a fairly boring survey. The bulk of this paper makes the argument that DRM and anticircumvention retard open source development. Of course it does. But while we can all agree that open source is a powerful force for good in general, it's less obvious to me that open source entertainment software is a necessity. Why are producers of content obliged to support any particular format or venue? While I have to concede that it would be a better world if Linux could natively play BD+-protected Blu-Ray, I do not need to concede that the world would be a better place if that happened because regulations compelled private businesses to make business decisions based on papers by Wendy Seltzer. I'm worried about what other rules would come along for the ride there. I found the technical content here superficial. The article quotes Schneier, and then compares the "hard but solved" problem of exchange information between two people to the (implied) unsolved problem of securely distributing content. This perpetuates a misunderstanding about the goal of DRM. DRM schemes don't succeed or fail based on whether they absolutely protect any given piece of content. They succeed to the extent that they recover profit leaked to freeriders. If it takes Slysoft 72 extra hours to rip the most recent BD+ release because of a DRM renewal, it is very possible that the content producer will recover the expense of the entire DRM scheme in that one release window alone. Furthermore, while it is presumed impossible to prevent bits from being copied, it is less clear that it's Hard to trace them. The CS technology underlying tracing, watermarking, revocation, and renewability isn't very new, but the industry adoption of it --- particularly among slow-witted consumer electronics conglomerates --- is in its infancy. It's still too early to tell whether "modern" DRM is going to succeed.