Re: No policy? Re: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?

> I just meant I didn't quite understand what you were proposing. Could
> you say it again with more detail ?
>
Oh, my fault then, sorry (I was writting on my mobile phone).

Basically, a mechanism similar to using SHA or asymetric certificates
with SSH or PGP, so you don't need a password. This way, each user
would have their own private certificate that can copy to whatever
computers they want, and files are downloaded and stored using their
public key, so they can be copied and moved in the same way of the
certificates and viewed at any time also if servers are down, and also
being the files encrypted are useless on darknets without the key.
Another option would be a combination of files encrpted with symetric
keys and requiring asymetric certificates to get that key, so you
could register just a number of computers while being able to do your
own local backups at any time of movies and the keystorage and don't
needing to re-download them. I don't know, I find it fairly simple and
efective... only problem, as I told you, is that the viewer would be
nowadays modified to store the files, and specially being open source,
so although maybe I've designed one of the best and more versatile DRM
system in just some lines of an email, it's useless on it's purposse.


> That's interesting. Congratulations.
>
Thank you! :-)


>>> The robustness of a content protection system is not a binary thing, so
>>> there is a lot of space for solutions with different properties.
>> Sorry, but I don't think so: once it's broken, it's insecure, and
>> since being secure it's its own purpose in life, it's useless.
>
> Ok, so I understand that if you wanted a content protection system you
> would want one that was secure according to your definition.

Yes, I think so... I wouldn't want a just only dissuasory one, it's
not effective... Why would only media majors being the ones that
promote it? Other security concern sectors are not interested on DRM
at all because that reason (and others)...


> That's
> fine, but I get the impression you don't _actually_ want a content
> protection system.
>
You are correct, I don't want it _at all_.


> I'm just pointing out that the content providers want one that is
> robust according to their definition and perhaps you were being too
> harsh on yourself when you rejected your own
> proposal.
>
Not really. I would want an efective DRM system since it would be used
for other interesting purposes regarding protecting media (think for
example truly "for your eyes only" PDFs...), but until this moment it
offer a solution similar (and sometimes worst) of a plain
user-password pair and with the payload of taking control of your own
computer and violating user rights, that's the reason why I don't like
it. If we all agree that we live in a digital world where everything
can be copied (and also at the same quality and with zero cost), why
don't you, NetFlix and media majors just don't accept it instead of
working trying to erase that true fact from the earth's face? Wouldn't
it be fairly easier, secure and cheaper that instead download the data
to user's computer (where it could be cracked and copied and shared)
and install there CDMs and binary blobs to control it and prevent the
user to do it challenging their most basic rights, and just use a
plain old user-password pair and don't allow directly on the server to
access and download it?

And that is, little friends, how technological progress without
questioning the user rights is achieved :-D


--
"Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
Unix."
– Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux

Received on Friday, 7 June 2013 20:43:54 UTC