[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

PoLR == "path of least resistance"

I think PoLR is very much the case.  Lazy infringers are caught because
they don't remove the fingerprint, crafty infringers are caught
eventually because "a city" or popular P2P net "set on a hill cannot be
hidden" They are caught sooner if even one contributor forgets to remove
the fingerprint and bring attention to the site/net.  The crafty, high
volume infringer is then in deep kimchee with the clear evidence of
intent.  The small, lazy, low volume infringer is shutdown with a quick
C&D to the ISP.  The lazy, high volume infringer goes down hard and fast
(and earns a "Darwin Award" honorable mention).

Remember, the whole point of a <em>reasonable scheme</em> is not to bust
the purchaser of a work that is infringed, but stop those who traffic in
the infringing copies themselves.  The casual infringer get a C&D. Those
who traffic grossly, get 33 months of Federally funded room and board
with the DrinkOrDie 133T kR3W.

Individually tagging files to users would utterly destroy the PoLR that
gets brings a quick "cessation of hostilities" for the lazy infringer. 
If I know my privacy is at stake the PoLR is invalid, then I strip every
work I own. Imagine if you will if they encoded your SSN or Amex # in
the fingerprint.  Removal would be a cron job ("Scheduled Task" for the
*ix impaired.) on every host I own.   The PoLR to bust the casual
infringer is to make the fingerprint as useful (see previous Note 1) as
possible, and as inoffensive as possible.

Finally the PoLR for commercial vendors (musicmatch, MS, etc) is going
to be "don't rock the boat" and therefore don't strip the fingerprint. 
The more applications make use of the fingerprint (for metadata hashing,

Richard Hartman wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Wagner [mailto:daw@mozart.cs.berkeley.edu]
> ...
> > If fingerprints are easily strippable, then I don't see how they are
> > going to be a competitive alternative to DRM.
> >
> Path of least resistance.
> DRM prevents copying, ergo you _have_ to remove it before
> you can copy.
> Fingerprints don't prevent copying.  Since you don't _have_
> to remove it to do what you want to do, most people won't
> bother to do so.
> The only thing I don't see is how they will associate
> fingerprints w/ customers.  Each CD would presumably
> have the same fingerprint . . . now if they were selling
> downloaded music over the internet, each customer could
> not only get a differently "branded" copy but records
> could be kept as to which customer a particular fingerprint
> belonged to.
> --
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!