Comments on: Felten on DRM and Security through Obscurity http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/ Keeping politicians' hands off the Net & everything else related to technology Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:27:37 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: eee_eff http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-51015 eee_eff Sat, 14 Apr 2007 05:14:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-51015 "If DRM is only designed to be a speedbump, then why are the DMCA's draconian criminal penalties against the creators of circumvention tools necessary?"<br><br>Because the more important goal was to subvert the First amendment. Establish the precedent through cases such as Skylarov that corporate profits matter more than our freedoms.<br><br>What's wrong with you anyway Tim, are you anti-jobs? “If DRM is only designed to be a speedbump, then why are the DMCA’s draconian criminal penalties against the creators of circumvention tools necessary?”

Because the more important goal was to subvert the First amendment. Establish the precedent through cases such as Skylarov that corporate profits matter more than our freedoms.

What’s wrong with you anyway Tim, are you anti-jobs?

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-51014 Don Marti Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:19:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-51014 Anticircumvention actually makes honest users dishonest. If a user has to break the law to do something that he or she believes is a legitimate use (switching brands of media player, snipping a line of movie dialog for the answering machine) then the user loses respect for legitimate copyright law too.<br><br><p>The DMCA is like the 55mph speed limit of the 21st century.</p> Anticircumvention actually makes honest users dishonest. If a user has to break the law to do something that he or she believes is a legitimate use (switching brands of media player, snipping a line of movie dialog for the answering machine) then the user loses respect for legitimate copyright law too.

The DMCA is like the 55mph speed limit of the 21st century.

]]> By: enigma_foundry http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-37928 enigma_foundry Sat, 14 Apr 2007 04:14:15 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-37928 "If DRM is only designed to be a speedbump, then why are the DMCA's draconian criminal penalties against the creators of circumvention tools necessary?" Because the more important goal was to subvert the First amendment. Establish the precedent through cases such as Skylarov that corporate profits matter more than our freedoms. What's wrong with you anyway Tim, are you anti-jobs? “If DRM is only designed to be a speedbump, then why are the DMCA’s draconian criminal penalties against the creators of circumvention tools necessary?”

Because the more important goal was to subvert the First amendment. Establish the precedent through cases such as Skylarov that corporate profits matter more than our freedoms.

What’s wrong with you anyway Tim, are you anti-jobs?

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-37927 Don Marti Sat, 14 Apr 2007 03:19:49 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-37927 Anticircumvention actually makes honest users dishonest. If a user has to break the law to do something that he or she believes is a legitimate use (switching brands of media player, snipping a line of movie dialog for the answering machine) then the user loses respect for legitimate copyright law too. <p>The DMCA is like the 55mph speed limit of the 21st century.</p> Anticircumvention actually makes honest users dishonest. If a user has to break the law to do something that he or she believes is a legitimate use (switching brands of media player, snipping a line of movie dialog for the answering machine) then the user loses respect for legitimate copyright law too.

The DMCA is like the 55mph speed limit of the 21st century.

]]> By: Jim Russell http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-51013 Jim Russell Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:59:01 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-51013 If DRM cannot be made unbreakable, then it will never be a speedbump to the casual copier. The casual copier does not break the DRM, but instead waits for the experts at Doom9 or elsewhere to do so, and then picks up the cleartext media at the Pirate Bay. If DRM cannot be made unbreakable, then it will never be a speedbump to the casual copier. The casual copier does not break the DRM, but instead waits for the experts at Doom9 or elsewhere to do so, and then picks up the cleartext media at the Pirate Bay.

]]> By: Jim Russell http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-37926 Jim Russell Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:59:01 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-37926 If DRM cannot be made unbreakable, then it will never be a speedbump to the casual copier. The casual copier does not break the DRM, but instead waits for the experts at Doom9 or elsewhere to do so, and then picks up the cleartext media at the Pirate Bay. If DRM cannot be made unbreakable, then it will never be a speedbump to the casual copier. The casual copier does not break the DRM, but instead waits for the experts at Doom9 or elsewhere to do so, and then picks up the cleartext media at the Pirate Bay.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-51012 Tim Lee Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:38:01 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-51012 If DRM is only designed to be a speedbump, then why are the DMCA's draconian criminal penalties against the creators of circumvention tools necessary? Most users won't go out of their way to download a circumvention tool even if it's legal. And most reputable companies won't distribute piracy software even if doing so is legal (both because it will damage their relationships with content creators and because of possible liability under Grokster). So why not allow the creation of circumvention tools, some of which have legitimate uses that have nothing to do with piracy? If DRM is strictly a matter of making copying inconvenient, won't the inconvenience of having to download a cracking program be enough of a deterrent to keep honest users honest? If DRM is only designed to be a speedbump, then why are the DMCA’s draconian criminal penalties against the creators of circumvention tools necessary? Most users won’t go out of their way to download a circumvention tool even if it’s legal. And most reputable companies won’t distribute piracy software even if doing so is legal (both because it will damage their relationships with content creators and because of possible liability under Grokster). So why not allow the creation of circumvention tools, some of which have legitimate uses that have nothing to do with piracy? If DRM is strictly a matter of making copying inconvenient, won’t the inconvenience of having to download a cracking program be enough of a deterrent to keep honest users honest?

]]> By: Mark Blafkin http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-51011 Mark Blafkin Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:07:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-51011 <p>Ah, but it seems you've stumbled onto one of the biggest misconceptions about DRM: that is designed to be unbreakable.<br><br></p><p>You're right, it's inherently unprotectable when it is up against professional researchers and hackers. But, that isn't the point of DRM. </p><p>As even the AA's admit, DRM is about keeping honest people honest. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to create a speedbump that will limit the amount of copying and distribution done by everyday consumers. It won't stop professional hackers or criminals, because it isn't designed to stop them.</p> Ah, but it seems you’ve stumbled onto one of the biggest misconceptions about DRM: that is designed to be unbreakable.

You’re right, it’s inherently unprotectable when it is up against professional researchers and hackers. But, that isn’t the point of DRM.

As even the AA’s admit, DRM is about keeping honest people honest. It doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to create a speedbump that will limit the amount of copying and distribution done by everyday consumers. It won’t stop professional hackers or criminals, because it isn’t designed to stop them.

]]> By: Tim Lee http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-37925 Tim Lee Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:38:01 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-37925 If DRM is only designed to be a speedbump, then why are the DMCA's draconian criminal penalties against the creators of circumvention tools necessary? Most users won't go out of their way to download a circumvention tool even if it's legal. And most reputable companies won't distribute piracy software even if doing so is legal (both because it will damage their relationships with content creators and because of possible liability under Grokster). So why not allow the creation of circumvention tools, some of which have legitimate uses that have nothing to do with piracy? If DRM is strictly a matter of making copying inconvenient, won't the inconvenience of having to download a cracking program be enough of a deterrent to keep honest users honest? If DRM is only designed to be a speedbump, then why are the DMCA’s draconian criminal penalties against the creators of circumvention tools necessary? Most users won’t go out of their way to download a circumvention tool even if it’s legal. And most reputable companies won’t distribute piracy software even if doing so is legal (both because it will damage their relationships with content creators and because of possible liability under Grokster). So why not allow the creation of circumvention tools, some of which have legitimate uses that have nothing to do with piracy? If DRM is strictly a matter of making copying inconvenient, won’t the inconvenience of having to download a cracking program be enough of a deterrent to keep honest users honest?

]]> By: Mark Blafkin http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-37924 Mark Blafkin Fri, 13 Apr 2007 23:07:17 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-37924 <p>Ah, but it seems you've stumbled onto one of the biggest misconceptions about DRM: that is designed to be unbreakable. <p>You're right, it's inherently unprotectable when it is up against professional researchers and hackers. But, that isn't the point of DRM. <p>As even the AA's admit, DRM is about keeping honest people honest. It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to create a speedbump that will limit the amount of copying and distribution done by everyday consumers. It won't stop professional hackers or criminals, because it isn't designed to stop them.</p></p></p> Ah, but it seems you’ve stumbled onto one of the biggest misconceptions about DRM: that is designed to be unbreakable.

You’re right, it’s inherently unprotectable when it is up against professional researchers and hackers. But, that isn’t the point of DRM.

As even the AA’s admit, DRM is about keeping honest people honest. It doesn’t have to be perfect, it just has to create a speedbump that will limit the amount of copying and distribution done by everyday consumers. It won’t stop professional hackers or criminals, because it isn’t designed to stop them.

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-51010 Don Marti Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:41:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-51010 A DRM scheme doesn't have to be effective against users making copies -- it only needs to be good enough to deter investors from funding a company that makes a compatible product or service. The DRM only needs to be effective enough against users that the copyright holders prefer it to competing schemes.<br><br><p>If you patent a media format, you get 20 years before someone can make a generic player. If you DRM-infect the format, you get unlimited control over the market for players. The original DVD DRM has been cracked for years, but DVD CCA can still prevent the import of unlicensed DVD players.</p> A DRM scheme doesn’t have to be effective against users making copies — it only needs to be good enough to deter investors from funding a company that makes a compatible product or service. The DRM only needs to be effective enough against users that the copyright holders prefer it to competing schemes.

If you patent a media format, you get 20 years before someone can make a generic player. If you DRM-infect the format, you get unlimited control over the market for players. The original DVD DRM has been cracked for years, but DVD CCA can still prevent the import of unlicensed DVD players.

]]> By: Jim Russell http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-51009 Jim Russell Fri, 13 Apr 2007 22:14:06 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-51009 Exactly. To boil it down to an aphorism: You cannot encrypt past the intended recipient. I wrote about that <a href="http://bjimba.blogspot.com/2007/02/impossibility-of-drm-russells-law.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Exactly. To boil it down to an aphorism: You cannot encrypt past the intended recipient. I wrote about that here.

]]> By: Don Marti http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-37923 Don Marti Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:41:21 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-37923 A DRM scheme doesn't have to be effective against users making copies -- it only needs to be good enough to deter investors from funding a company that makes a compatible product or service. The DRM only needs to be effective enough against users that the copyright holders prefer it to competing schemes. <p>If you patent a media format, you get 20 years before someone can make a generic player. If you DRM-infect the format, you get unlimited control over the market for players. The original DVD DRM has been cracked for years, but DVD CCA can still prevent the import of unlicensed DVD players.</p> A DRM scheme doesn’t have to be effective against users making copies — it only needs to be good enough to deter investors from funding a company that makes a compatible product or service. The DRM only needs to be effective enough against users that the copyright holders prefer it to competing schemes.

If you patent a media format, you get 20 years before someone can make a generic player. If you DRM-infect the format, you get unlimited control over the market for players. The original DVD DRM has been cracked for years, but DVD CCA can still prevent the import of unlicensed DVD players.

]]> By: Jim Russell http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/comment-page-1/#comment-37922 Jim Russell Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:14:06 +0000 http://techliberation.com/2007/04/13/felten-on-drm-and-security-through-obscurity/#comment-37922 Exactly. To boil it down to an aphorism: You cannot encrypt past the intended recipient. I wrote about that <a href="http://bjimba.blogspot.com/2007/02/impossibility-of-drm-russells-law.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. Exactly. To boil it down to an aphorism: You cannot encrypt past the intended recipient. I wrote about that here.

]]>