Re: Is EME usable regardless of the software/hardware I use ?

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Karl Dubost <karl@la-grange.net> wrote:

> Mark Watson [2013-06-11T00:25]:
> > The point is that there are countless examples in
> > which security measures are used to hinder a minority of people,
> > including customers in many contexts, who want to attack a system or
> > business in some way.
>
> Examples? (to understand the articulation of social behavior and business
> models)
>
> > The desire of businesses to protect themselves
> > and use technical or other measures to do so is in no other context
> > branded as an assumption that a majority of customers are criminals.
>
> Hmm, it seems like we are conflating issues here:
>
> Protection mechanisms:
>
> * before buying: a RFID tag for avoiding stealing *the object* (ownership
> model such as a DVD)
> * after buying:  Content encryption for avoiding distributing copies of
> the content (ownership model such as a DVD)
> * during watching: Content encryption for avoiding to keep a local
> personal copy of the content (performance model such as online streaming)
> * others possible to suggest
>
> These are not the same thing, not the same social consequences either.
> As long you do not frame the arguments with the precise social and
> business consequences of each model, we will have conflicts in that
> discussions, or be running after windmills. :) There are plenty of examples
> of many things.
>

I am addressing only the specific claim that content protection measures
rely on an "assumption that the majority of customers are criminals". This
is just nonsense. Clearly, DRM differs in various respects from security
measures in other contexts and I'm not claiming that it doesn't, but any
number of examples suffice to demonstrate the absurdity of the original
claim, never mind the empirical evidence that it is obviously not true that
the majority of customers are criminals and yet there is still DRM: either
the assumption is not in fact necessary or a very large number of otherwise
intelligent people are missing some very simple logic - which is more
likely, do you think ? Indeed any measure that is designed to hinder a
minority who do not play by the rules and which
nevertheless inconveniences the majority suffices: security in stores, at
airports, ticket checks in any number of contexts. You can argue about
proportionality, but that is all. Let's stop this and talk about the real
issues.

...Mark


>
>
> --
> Karl Dubost
> http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
>
>