Joho the Blog
|
|
|
May 14, 2003
Eric writes in response to my Wired article:
This is certainly true if one looks at DRM out of its real-world context. As a technology, DRM is totally neutral. It enables artists and audience to negotiate agreements about how the artists' works are to be used. Maybe Metallica will offer one-time listening rights to its new CD and Bon Jovi will let you make copies on any device registered to you and Elton Jon will let you burn as many CDs as you want. That'd be great. But... DRM, as with any technology, has to be evaluated within our actual context. That context is a profoundly uneven playing field in which the enormous economic forces that have a virtual monopoly on the broad mainstream of American culture are using every anti-market (and anti-emergent) advantage they can to maintain their control. DRM in the abstract is neutral; DRM in the world that exists will degrade our experience and our possibilities. Not everything about it is bad, but enough is that we ought to oppose it. (Eric has an article coming out at DigitalID world on this topic soon...) Posted
by D. Weinberger at May 14, 2003 09:36 AM
TrackBackListed below are links to weblogs that reference Norlin on Leeway:
» En-Scub In Not the Villain In A Cheap Monster Flick from AKMA’s Random Thoughts Tracked on May 19, 2003 11:10 PM |
Comments
actually, here's the context:
DRM enabling technologies make it *incredibly* easy for David W. and Eric N. to set up a P2P connection that *cannot* be hacked via software.
ie, all of that "illegally" downloaded music that David has is *untouchable* (technologically) by the RIAA -- and we can pass it back and forth all day long (btw, the truly evil part of this is that it doesn't just apply to music, but kiddie porn as well -- THAT is what DRM can do.)
ejn
Posted by: eric norlin | May 14, 2003 09:54 AM
Eric, in your opinion, why does Hollywood (RIAA, Valenti, Disney) so favor DRM? Why are they pushing for the broadcast flag?
Posted by: dweinberger | May 14, 2003 10:52 AM
i don't think DRM is *primarily* about Hollywood -- and we all know why they want it....
but, DRM will first (and importantly) be deployed in the legal, financial, accounting and healthcare enterprises....
Entertainment/Media will be late to this game...
Posted by: eric norlin | May 14, 2003 11:41 AM
Cobblers, Eric.
Encryption enables secure communication between two trusted people. This is long known and a solved problem.
DRM purports to secure communications to an untrusted person. That person's computer is used as the 'trusted' counterparty.
'Trusted' in this sense means 'not under the control of the owner'.
The attempt by DRM advocates to claim the benefits of encryption as part of their mission is semantic slieght of hand, and needs to be resisted.
Posted by: Kevin Marks | May 14, 2003 07:29 PM
sorry kevin, but you're flat out WRONG...
DRM does not secure communications to an untrusted party....want proof? read the palladium/en-scub architecture....(and btw, encryption never truly accomplished what you claim -- trust me on that one.)
Posted by: eric norlin | May 14, 2003 11:34 PM