David Boxall wrote:
> I question the need for technological copy protection. Classical
> protections are sufficient. The existence of a copy proves an
> offence. The old laws provide adequate remedies.
To do that, you would have to convince the powerful content lobby
that digital piracy isn't as damaging as they seem to think.
The big problem is that technology turns this into a very black
and white either-or question. An excellent article explaining the
issues can be found here:
http://www.ivir.nl/publications/koelman/alaiNY.html
> Technological measures only inconvenience users and distort markets.
> They don't even slow down the 'pirates'.
That will change a bit when those that develop these technologies
get a clue. Embedding TPMs in software is a lost cause, since
any computer wiz with a debugger and disassembler can pick it to
pieces and analyze it. However, circumvention will become a lot more
expensive if these functions are moved to reasonably tamper-proof
hardware (final decryption inside speakers and monitors) and the
protocols are designed to make it difficult to fake these functions
in software.
It won't stop the professional pirates out there, but it will keep
"honest people honest". And, as has been discussed on this list
several times already, will damage fair use, research, privacy,
freedom of the press, distort the market, etc.
Is the danger of digital copyrigh infringement really so extreme
that we should allow publishers to use measures that so obviously
damage many of the other values considered important in a democracy?
-- "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.1 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:10:04 EST