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

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 5 Nov 2002 at 10:08, John Zulauf wrote:

Date sent:      	Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:08:52 -0700
From:           	"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
To:             	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject:        	Re: [dvd-discuss] A TPM without use limitations -- thoughts?
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> microlenz@earthlink.net wrote:
> >
> > OK then it's the equivalent of a secure hash function designed for searching.
> > It can't just be the first 1023 Bytes of the file that says "THIS IS THE
> > PROPERTY OF BLAH BLAH AND YOU HAVE STOLEN IT FROM BLAH BLAH. HEREBY COMES YOUR
> > DOOM..."etc That's too easy to strip out. So it's gotta be embedded somehow
> > into the work. Something that allows them to identify it as THEIR copyrighted
> > work. <exercise for the alert reader. That means that they must automate their
> > search and begin doing massive downloads of stuff to check for watermarks. SO
> > what we now have is a bunch of programs downloading stuff automatically and
> > checking for copyright infringment...Hey this may be the biggest reason for
> > MASSIVE broadband yet but  I don't think the ISPs should pay for the extra
> > bandwidth. If RIAA and MPAA want to fund this fine. Let them. I wouldn't mind
> > an upgrade to DSL courtesy of JackBoots...now if he starts searching my
> > machine they'll be electrons spilled..>
> 
> Actually, the evidence is that they are doing massive downloads NOW. 

Then it should be VERY evident...

> My
> guess is the the fingerprint, in order to be successful would have to
> repeat within a file several times, meaning that a fingerprint search
> would take fewer "spilled electrons" that a full text search.

Yes. It must be embedded somewhere inside but not too inside (do a mirror image 
of the file). It must be easily found despite whatever permutations, they do to 
the files. Is that possible...I don't think so. So to be sure, they must learn 
the source coding and download the whole thing..

>  As for
> the ??IA taking your bandwidth.  Ahem, if it is a public P2P node, you
> are making use of your bandwidth available to anyone interested in
> downloading the works on that node -- a group that certainly includes
> the copyright holders.

I was thinking of network bandwidth...One P2P being checked is one thing but 
the millions of possible P2Ps that are being searched...then the whole network 
begins to suffer

> 
> > > Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> > 
> > The average person? The law is not concerned with the average person. It is
> > not up to anyone to demonstrate that their deviation from the mythical average
> > person is illegal but that they have done an illegal act. The real issue with
> > the DCMA is not that you found someone in your home with lockpicks at midnight
> > but that they had lockpicks elsewhere. If you find someone in you home you
> > don't need the lockpicks for a conviction.It merely adds additional evidence
> > supporting the charge - breaking and entering. DItto for removal of the
> > signature. It makes it a deliberate act but it is the act that is illegal not
> > the evidence that points to it being deliberate.
> 
> As I said in my initial post on the subject, if the ??AA are smart they
> will make sure to not make the fingerprint removal and detection
> software secret or illegal.  It should be some "signature" type
> information that cannot be easily forged. The secret key for the
> signature could be held privately by the copyright holder without any
> issues to the public.  Fingerprint removal should also not be illegal
> unless it is linked to copyright infringement (a contributory
> infringement item).  

Not as a separate charge but as contributory EVIDENCE. "Your honor, my client 
has been convicted of murdering his wife...but not that he did it with a knife" 
<Monty Python skit omitted here>

>Finally, the ??AA should make sure that their are
> benefits to keeping the fingerprint intact along the lines of my earlier
> post, to motivate users to not strip files as a matter of course.  
> 
> For example, one could advertise a "this song free this weekend" deal,
> with prizes given out at random to P2P sites hosting that song -- only
> of course if the fingerprint is intact.  This could be the next step in
> the evolution of radio.  P2P sites with "free authorized playlists" that
> changed from week to week.  The slackers knock themselves out to provide
> free bandwidth for the ??AA all for valuable prizes -- fingerprints only
> please!  (Probably cheaper than the current payola scheme.)
> 

And better for the public because THEY provide the advertisement (remember 
though it must be voluntary without restrictions. The question is "where's the 
money?" Radio isn't free since it has advertisements for businesses. Were the 
benefits go directly to the performers in the form of concerts that would be 
great. As for CD sales...maybe that's the revenoooo for the producers if other 
songs are not available....of course that would mean they might want to do a 
better job of making albums. <In my case ELO. Loved the "turned to stone" 
double. Only played sides 2-4 once. Yes. Tales from Topographic Oceans Good 
thing they put it out on CD I never bother putting the second album on as an 
LP>
> 
> > 
> > >
> > > > So there is no reasonable cause for search
> > > > or seizure to begin with and the "presumption of innocence" still applies.
> > > > The presumption that one is doing so to infringe is as invalid as the
> > > > presumption the RIAA, MPAA has that everybody who has a CDburner is a CD
> > > > pirate.
> > >
> > > Clearly.  Those who own AR-15's are not all serial snipers either.
> > > However, .223's in the stump (and fingerprint removers) are still
> > > circumstantial evidence, and may be a piece of a "probable cause" for a
> > > warrant.
> > >
> > 
> > The old little thing called "probable cause" and "due process"..circumstantial
> > evidence AFTER a crime has been committed but not before.
> > 
> > > > Should one be caught doing massive infringement, then the fact that one
> > > > has systematically removed finger prints to prevent tracking may be used
> > > > to preclude a defense of "I didn't know what I was doing is wrong."
> > >
> > > Exactly so.  This is what I meant about reasonable cause for a S&S.  If the
> > > EMI finds a cache of their works online (with fingerprint), they can easily
> > > C&D to stop it (with fewer false C&D's and "chilling effects") issues.  They
> > > can point Verizon to the public port of the P2P and say scan the contents
> > > and "plug that please".  If they find a cache of content online without
> > > fingerprints, they are liable to start sniffing around for a DrinkOrDie type
> > > organized warez tribe, and the stripping itself would probably be "probable
> > > cause" for a warrant and seizure.
> > >
> > 
> > It certainly warrants further investigation. Is this a private P2P or are they
> > offering works to the public? And to what extent are they doing so. Maybe the
> > P2Ps should adopt the old Borland License "use it like a book. You can't read
> > two books at the same time in different places"
> > 
> > Actually I have no problem with this (aside from the problem that all the
> > scanning the MPAA, RIAA are likely to do will reduce the capacity of the
> > internet causing it to be over sized for what it does. If that oversize is
> > 10%, then maybe OK but a 1000% is too much of a burden. THe people who are so
> > concerned about their intellectual property are a $10B a year industry
> > dictating to a $100B industry..maybe the $100B industry should just say to the
> > $10B industry...Here's $1B, how many copyright works do I get for
> > that...No...I don't want "Ma and Pa Kettle" I want Casablanca"
> >
>