[ EEPI-Discuss ] Re: More on Intel and DRM (DRM vs. Open Source)

[Dan Krimm <djkrimbo@earthlink.net>]

>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:53:55 -0700
>From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
...
>------- Forwarded Message
>
>From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
>Subject: [IP] more on   Intel quietly embeds DRM in it's 945 chips firmware
>Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 15:10:02 -0400
...
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>From: Brad Templeton <btm@templetons.com>
>Date: May 31, 2005 2:23:21 PM EDT
...

>So the conclusion is that, as suggested, you can't pull off the
>"make everybody happy" DRM.   Instead, you get DRM which mostly sits
>as a barrier not to pirates or users, but to the small innovators of
>the world, and what a tragedy that would be.


Um, yeah.

Is there anybody here who thinks that content encryption for use/access
restriction is a good idea, except for things like genuine national
security or trade secrets or financial transactions or other private
communications?

I have to say, I don't see any reason we have to protect the
content-control market model per se for cultural media.  I do see reasons
why not (above and beyond protecting open-source computing):
content-control for economic reasons can easily be re-purposed for
content-control for political reasons.

The convergence of the political and the economic is well underway already.
At risk of sounding shrill, "Big Brother" can be a corporate cartel, not
necessarily only a government.  (And the one can be used to leverage the
other.)

The classic arguments by the industry that DRM is necessary to protect
innovation are at best narrowly applicable and at worst intentionally
deceptive.  The radicals opposing them claim that DRM is theft.  I'm
worried more about the First Amendment ramifications, myself.  Strongly
enforced DRM ultimately is censorship, but it's more insidious because it
doesn't "look" like censorship on the face of it.

I'm particularly disturbed by the encroachment upon fair use through means
that avoid direct application of First Amendment law.  The
anti-circumvention clause in the DMCA is particularly onerous.  At least,
let's remove *that* or any similar statutes.  Then DRM would be much more
innocuous -- much more like the "speed bump" that DRM proponents claim it
is.

Dan
_______________________________________________
EEPI-Discuss mailing list information:
http://lists.eepi.org/mailman/listinfo/eepi-discuss