____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Tuesday 04 March 2008 21:22 : \____
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Tue, 04 Mar 2008 02:37:52 +0000
> <1860764.mX3LLBQoZ5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Monday 03 March 2008 19:48 : \____
>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote
>>> on Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:16:54 +0000
>>> <2182273.7zpai4hA0D@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 03 March 2008 12:29 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> Elonex One Sighted
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ,----[ Quote
>>>>>>| So now there's a Web site with some details.
>>>>>>|
>>>>>>| Also worth taking a look at is this BBC video.
>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2008/03/elonex-one-sighted.html
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks good, but what are all these patents they speak of?
>>>>
>>>> 'Intellectual' barriers/monopolies, but they are not intellectual at all.
>>>>
>>>> They are not even intellectual monopolies. They are just selfish
>>>> monopolies.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They are selfish monopolies (redundancy?) attempting to
>>> hold onto their monopoly position of what is usually
>>> termed "intellectual property".
>>>
>>> One problem with ideas, though; they tend to leak.
>>
>> Is your message copyrighted. Can I quote it when I reply? ;-)
^?
> You already did. ;-) And mangled it slightly (with
> chevrons, in accordance with Usenet conventions...)
Derivative work! ;-)
> One of the more interesting problems with DRM will be key
> management, if they want to do it even close to properly.
> Mass stampouts of DRM material (current CD manufacturing
> processes, for example) will preclude proper DRM management
> anyway, as there's no real nice method by which one can
> state "you are authorized, but you over there are not".
> Best I can do is individual cuts and hashkeys (basically,
> a MD5 sum of the entire disc in some form); the disc in a
> more rigorous process can be verified if necessary to be
> a perfect duplicate of a genuine disc and in the hands of
> the original purchaser of that particular disc -- assuming
> the store sent the correct registration information back
> to the right place, and the purchaser didn't muck it up
> while providing such.
>
> To do further verification, one would have to corrupt the
> consumer-level duplication process, making it impossible
> to make a perfect duplicate of the copyrighted material.
> (The notions are similar to various interesting corruptions
> done on floppies, long long ago.) One can then fork
> the problem:
>
> [1] the duplicate is usable on consumer equipment.
> This accomplishes little except to give law enforcement
> agencies a method by which to find the original purchaser,
> should they wish to bother for whatever reason.
>
> [2] the duplicate is not usable on consumer equipment.
> This would be ideal from the DRM manager's standpoint
> -- at least until consumer equipment catches up with
> the more expensive production duplication equipment.
> (My understanding is that digital audio tape went this
> route.)
>
> And then there's various inexact copying methods -- the
> simplest being an audio cable and a reburner. That's where
> the key management might come in, but that would require
> that the *player* be modified as well, to ask "Mommy may
> I?" every time a disc is inserted in its face.
>
> Assuming the player can find Mommy...the Internet isn't
> *that* reliable yet...and the reburner will probably be its
> own parent in this case, improbable as that might be in the
> non-electronic world. (The would-be duplicator had better
> be ready to handle the bandwidth though, if he makes lots
> of discs. Of course if the burner is suitably modified
> to use, say, a stolen key, things get even sillier.)
>
> And then there's ASCII. The original code didn't even
> dream of such things as checksums, signatures, and author
> verification (the first two are after-the-fact addons;
> the third is possible but slightly ridiculous, absent
> "framing" protocols such as RFC2822).
>
> So maybe we'll still be able to read Sun Tzu, Shakespeare's
> works, and Gulliver's Travels after all, all of which are
> now in the public domain AFAIK.
>
> Welcome to the New World Order.
You misspelled Odour. The NWO stinks, but it can be altered by creating a
parallel culture and extending it. For one thing, Europe has not yet
assimilated to many of the US-instated rules. Aad that's a good thing. Given
the "r" or the "d" (recession, deflation or depression), the US seems less
likely to 'infect' other countries with its profit-driven anti-cultural views
on IPR.
--
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Mod me up and I'll mod you 'insightful'"
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
|
|
