Re: [dvd-discuss] A TPM without use limitations -- thoughts?

[Joshua Stratton <cpt(at)gryphon.auspice.net>]

I remain wary of this. The systems used for tracking themselves seem to 
pose concerns of privacy to consumers and retailers, and could likely 
impose burdens -- even if merely the cost of having to hire a clerk smart 
enough to operate the new equipment, or the additional time it would take 
to perform the identification at POS -- on retailers.

It certainly doesn't seem to solve problems such as finding a user who 
made a copy. E.g. if he paid with cash, if he bought it used, if he found 
it abandonded in the street, etc.

Nor does it provide a perfect trail backwards: if A distributed to B and 
C, and B to D and E, how can you tell that B has infringed three times and 
C only one time, as there is no difference between the particular copy?

And fundmentally, who cares about catching the original guy who infringed 
from the CD? Why is he so much worse than the people who have been trading 
around the already-ripped file?

What good is this stuff if not to convey side-channel information such as 
'Copy me and the RIAA will make your life hell,' which I agree is also not 
desirable.


On Wed, 30 Oct 2002, John Zulauf wrote:

> EMI is "fingerprinting" audio files to make them easier to track on the
> internet.  Here's the link and my post to ZD.
> 
> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1106-963756.html
> 
> Assuming this fingerprint isn't used to control access (like players
> that lock-up if they do or don't see it), this is far to be preferred
> over copy protection.  Helping copyright holders find the *real* P2P
> infringers publicly trading copyrighted works should reduce the impetus
> for the (MP|RI)AA to seek strong DRM/TPM protections - and reduce the
> plausibility of their case in the public policy debate. This is a far
> better result than the current trend toward "trusted" (i.e. sealed away
> from the user) computing and player platforms. 
> 
> Remember that a fair objective is to reduce the number of infringing
> copies and copiers of copyright works. Most of the complaints about the
> RIAA and MPAA is that they are assuming the customers are crooks and
> breaking our ability to use and dispose of our personal property --
> while at the same time not stopping a single infringing copy.
> 
> Broken not-really-a-CD  (like those documented here (
> http://crypto.stanford.edu/DRM2002/halderman_drm2002_pp.ps
> ) do nothing about infringing copies, they only limit paying customers
> from making ordinary and fair uses.  CSS limits the time, place, and
> device of playback, but cannot prevent infringing copies.
> 
> 
> There are three corollaries that should not be lost here:
> 
> (I) (Infringers take note!) If fingerprinting doesn't interfere with
> normal, fair uses (back-up, personal copies, space-shifting, etc) then
> anybody stripping the fingerprint is doing so *only* to attempt to
> infringe and trade the work publicly -- and have clearly shown intent to
> infringe. This works toward building "reasonable cause" for search and
> seizure, and for overcoming "presumption of innocence" in the eventual
> prosecutions.
> 
> (II) (RIAA take note!) If the fingerprint IS used for even one fair-use
> limiting restriction, the crack probability goes to unity and the
> distribution/availability goes to ubiquity and the (a) fingerprinting
> will lose it's meaning, and (b) (I) will be invalidated (as there will
> be a significant non-infringing use).
> 
> (III) Finally (again RIAA take!) the fingerprint stripping crack
> software (which will exist, probably within weeks) should not be made
> illegal. Make sure that every infringer has a copy. Then (I) will truly
> haunt those who infringe.
> 
> 
> Note: the words pirate and thief are not used.  Infringer (one who
> infringes) is the correct term, and words have meaning.  The village is
> not being burned, the women are not being ravished, and the CD is still
> in the store no matter how many infringing copies are made! (Hmmm, I
> wonder if the shoplifting rate a music stores has fallen since Napster
> and subsequent P2P…)
>