- From: David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jul 2010 08:39:12 +0100
On 5 July 2010 07:51, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen at peda.net> wrote: > So, you're arguing that DRM is not required, right? I'm arguing that it can't possibly make sense. And that standardising a DRM is not something anyone sensible should touch. > Especially, the content distributors should immediately stop pretending that > DRM allows for any kind of protection. It's mathematically impossible. It's > like trying to send an encrypted message to Bob with a requirement that Bob > cannot have access to the message. That problem cannot be solved. For that > problem, a decision needs to be made: > (1) Bob is allowed to get access to the message, or > (2) Bob is not allowed to get access to the message (never send it!) > Notice how this is similar to the DRM case above? > Introducing a DRM system is about *trying to not do the decision* if you > really *want to distribute the content or not*. Such system should not ever > be standardized because it really cannot ever work, by definition. Yes, precisely. Law can contain absurdities - in the BBC case above, "streaming" and "downloading" are legally different things, even though technically they're identical - but putting such absurdities into a technical spec is nonsensical. - d.
Received on Monday, 5 July 2010 00:39:12 UTC