Re: Watermarking Re: Dear EFF: Please don't pick the wrong fight

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 26, 2013, at 8:10 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:

> On 2013-10-25 08:52 Mark Watson wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:37 AM, cobaco <cobaco@freemen.be> wrote:
>>> On 2013-10-24 08:30 Mark Watson wrote:
>>>> I think it's likely that a client-side approach would be much more
>>>> feasible as a result.
>>>> This is based on assuming that economics would drive the technical
>>>> solution, not something else.
>
>>> uhuh, more like economic considerations are pushing a technically unsound
>>> bandaid that has obvious and unavoidable practical issues.
>>> Any attempts to prevent those practical issues is going to run into all
>>> the same issues as DRM
>
>> "all the same issues" ?
>> I thought one of the major issues with DRM is that it might
>> make it harder for users to making non-infringing use of the content ?
>
> Make that 'all the same issues regarding who controls the clientmachine',
> You're right that it would allow things like backing up your watermarked copy.
> or saving it for later viewing, possibly on another machine.
>
> HOWEVER, if you do the watermarking clientside, that means you're starting by
> handing the client an unwatermarked copy
>
> Hence you end up with the same unwinnable arms-race as with DRM, where you
> need to control the clientmachine in order to keep it from acting as a general
> purpose computer able to manipulate the unwatermarked bunch of bits, in any
> way other then necessary to add the watermark
>
> That means you end up with a proprietary black box on the client again, with
> all the same security, privacy and preventing non-approved clients issues as
> DRM.
>
>> I'm just telling you how it is. If watermarking became a popular
>> alternative with content providers to DRM then it would probably be
>> implemented client-side, with the attendant robustness requirements.
>> I'm not advocating that or commenting on the implications, just telling you
>> that - based on what I know - this is likely the way it would go and people
>> should bear that in mind when discussing it.
>
> Then the industry is foolishly setting themselves up:

I'm not aware that 'the industry' is considering replacing DRM with
watermarking at all. It was raised here, so I replied.

> - to be outwitted by the pirates yet again

The easiest way to outsmart individual watermarking is probably to
steal someone else's credentials or otherwise fool the system that
provides your identity, that is then linked to the watermark.

> - to be actively preventing free software or non-approved proprietary software
> yet again (and hence to be opposed by all those wanting free software, or
> their own clients yet again)
> --
> Cheers
>

Received on Saturday, 26 October 2013 16:06:09 UTC