Re: [dvd-discuss] MS DRM cracked - DMCA protester MAD as HELL

["John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>]

dvd-discuss clan

I'll bet anyone a bottle of their favorite beer or soft drink Beale
Screamer is a member of dvd-discuss.  Clearly this fine soul has drunk
deeply from the DeCSS well, and well, what well has been deeper and
clearer than ours.  

The bet to be settled if and when it is safe again to speak the truth
about DRM technology and Beale takes his or her well derserved bow.

Any takers?

I do disagree with M[rs]. Beale on one manner.  The only way out of this
free speech trap is to abandon all business models that require trusted
treatment of bits once they leave the server or transmitter, especially
when it is not in the end-users selfish interest to treat them in a
trusted way.  

This of course is modified by the "honor system" of the copyright
customer.  Just as at a newspaper box people will prevent other from
grabbing an extra paper on their coin with a brusque "get your own damn
paper" -- trusted systems that do not abuse the customers sense of honor
(through use restriction or monopoly pricing) can potentially be
deployed.

That leaves in:

* encrpyted wireless point-to-point communication of any sort
+ this includes VOD (with recording allowed)
+ this includes cell/3G etc.
+ this includes digital first-sale 
>>> the user wants privacy and will protect the security of the reciever

* clear-text broadcasting
>>> it's all in the clear

in the mushy middle

* encrypted multipoint communication (broadcast)
>>> if priced reasonably, the vast majority will honor the concept of payment for services provided, either conditional access cable, or DirectTV type.  The question is whether these services can survive without restrictions on speech.  Yes, the cheap few will figure out how to tap their neighors cable... but are these people commericially significant. 

 Also, don't the vast majority of these attacks involve non-speach
conduct (erecting an antenna aimed at a particular geo-sync slot,
installing reciever hardware, programming a key code into a decryption
chip...) that "the reasonable person" would understand gain them access
to a service provided for a fee, without paying that fee.  Effectively
one can jump the turnstile at the MTA and be arrested for failure to pay
for transportation services because the "reasonable person" knows that
payment was required to utilize those services.  It doesn't require the
MTA to build an impenatrable wall, nor does it require illegalizing
shoes "designed primarily for the purpose" of jumping. 

this leaves out:


* time-limited (rental or other) conditional access to bits on the
end-users premises
>>> the bits are on mass storage (that I own) without any guarantee of physical security.  They are delivered bits.  Only suppression of speach (code) to access those bits can protect them.
* all "commonly available key encryption" (CAKE) schemes like CSS which
would try security by obscurity--defended by illegality

Issues:
* limits on "new" services requiring local caching/storage
>>> bandwidth is growing, and would grow faster if more corporate profits depended on it
* what about "cable box" conditional access or DirectTV
>>> that of course is the tough one.  It is not in the users selfish interest to defend the integrity of the device, thus laws would need to proscribe such technologies that would defeat them.
>>>(a) it is a simple system based in hardware, protection of which would limit no speach (do I really believe this)
>>>(b) it is a transitional technology, that will be supplanted by point-to-point services
>>>(c) if priced reasonably -- the "get your own damn paper" logic (of the coin-op paper box) would apply minimizing real losses (and removing the need to regulate).


Thoughts,


.002

(and no I'm not trolling to find out who they are... duh!)