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

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

"And if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around does it make a 
sound?"=Bishop Berkeley.....Actually, that is not meant to be flip. It's 
As relevant to a discussion on "what if a TPM didn't impact use" as to Schroedinger formulating his wave equation. IF the TPM doesn't 
impact the user, then it must have the impact somewhere else (if it's not 
observable, then it is not physical). The distributor of the material is 
free to search the internet for copyright infringment all they want and if 
they want to make use of technology to speed up their search they can. The 
question then becomes more of what use of the commons i.e., the INTERNET. 
All that searching, automated of course, ties up resources-bandwidth, 
server accesses, CPUs. More resources are required than just the operation 
of the INTERNET w/o the thousands of automated search.

You point  out two aspects:

Intrinsic - existance of copy and removal of fingerprint => presumtion of 
the law is intention to commit copyright infringement.
(Is this valid? Or desirable?)

Extrinsic- No fingerprint to remove but format changes make this more 
difficult (A V<ery>P<rivate>P2P would be encrypted and so if private this 
issue is moot) the existance of the copy is defacto evidence of copyright 

"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/12/2002 07:13 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] A TPM without use limitations -- thoughts?


well said.  I think that I posed this as a hypothetical general question
of "what if a TPM didn't impact use".  I had misread the article,
thinking the fingerprint was added.  However, as others point out a
"natural" intrinsic fingerprint should be as removable as an added or
extrinsic one. Fingerprint removal is the same issue whether the
fingerprint is intrinsic or extrinsic, including the choice of users to
remove or not remove by default, et. al.



John Schulien wrote:
> Having read the original article that started this thread, it appears to 
> that what they are talking about is not adding any sort of identifying
> information at all, but devising an algorithm to make an acoustic
> "fingerprint" of existing, unmodified songs.  In other words, this
> "fingerprint" isn't something that is added to a song -- it is a digital
> summary of the song -- used for recognizing a song.
> It isn't a DRM measure at all.
>  > Audible Magic's technology aims to get around the problem of
>  > matching digital copies of songs that do not use a universal
>  > naming convention or format. Audio fingerprinting captures
>  > characteristics of a song that can be compared to files found on
>  > peer-to-peer networks and elsewhere regardless of the file
>  > name or type.
> The reason for such a scheme would be to set up computers to
> download files at random, and mechanically determine whether
> the files are MP3s of one of their songs,  regardless of the
> (possibly misleading) filename.
> All of this discussion about adding false fingerprints,
> removing fingerprints, and adding meta-data to fingerprints is
> very interesting, but it doesn't appear to have anything to do
> with what the article is talking about.