Comments on: Hand[le|el](s) with Care

By: darrell

darrell — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

…incidentally, I strongly suspect that Xanadu’s gordian of forking paths would have supported such a model from day one…

By: tim

tim — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

the record industry has survived until recently because, obvioulsy, records are heavy.
media is getting lighter and more inclined toward cloning.
cinema is safe for a little while.
existing DRM models seem to be aimed at making everything as heavy as possible.
“is the act of listening and watching heavy or light”. There is a local loop between your decrypted media and your senses. I’m not thinking of the soultions here, but the philosophy of DRM I guess should be focused on that local loop space and not everything else …

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

yeah that’s what i’m thinking. mp3 sites and ipod prove that people don’t really give a shit about having a physical instance, but all the current drm is still about *your copy* — and you only really become acutely aware of that when, say, your laptop dies for the third time and suddenly you’ve used up all your drm ‘copy-to-another-machine-or-restore-from-backup’ count. and then you’re fucked.

By: darrell

darrell — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

the essence of this, which i will probably actually give one a post to, is that once we are delaing with nude media, any local store is a cache and a cache alone — anyone telling you different is simply trying make money from you — and any restriction that enforces you to consider your copies as special/needing care to protect, is likewise trying to exploit you. that’s the point at which i have a problem with conventional DRM — in all other respects i think its probablt a good thing, potentially…