[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: DRM and freedom

From: Bas Wijnen
Subject: Re: DRM and freedom
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:34:19 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 07:15:32PM +0100, Martin Schoenbeck wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >So, we have three issues here:
> >
> >* The technology question if DRM and privacy are inseparable or not.
> It depends on who has control over the system. To implement DRM, there 
> must be parts of the system, where no one, who's not a trustee of the 
> requiring industry, has access.

No.  There must be parts that can be put *by the user* in a state where he can
no longer access it.  It does not transfer control to the DRM supplier, it
only allows the user to do business with people who would otherwise refuse

> If you want to give some users privacy against even the owner of the system
> (or as his delegate the sysadmin), you can't avoid, that a virtual user DRM
> uses this privacy for his advantage.

That's part of the deal.  If you don't like it, don't do business with the

> >* The strategic question if it makes a difference if we have a structure
> >that makes implementing DRM easier.
> I think, it will. If you have privacy and a user can tell, whether the 
> system is trustable, the DRM software can, too.

No.  The DRM software is started by the user, with the restrictions the user
gives it.  If it doesn't allow access to the chip, it will not run.  If it
detects that it can be debugged by the user, it will also not run.  If it
demands access to your whole system, it's a bad idea to run it (with that
access).  But it's the user's choice to do it, it cannot take these rights.

> The difference is, that for the DRM software it's necessary, to be able to
> ensure that for any given system without help of any untrusted people while
> the user has to be able to do it for his system only. If the system is build
> that way, that is is *possible*, to create a single system, which get the
> DRM subsystem evaluated, nobody will really create such a DRM system.
> Perhaps this possibility could be implemented in a way, that a user will
> detect it, while software could not.

I don't understand what you're saying.  You seem to be saying that not
implementing the tpm/tcpa support will prevent DRM to be implemented.  I don't
think this is the case.  They will take the released system, add the support,
and certify that.  Then they will push all the users to use that in an
unchanged form.

> >The hardest is a balance between the second and third point.
> Yes, but we should also keep in mind, that DRM on the hurd will only 
> occur, if it has big market share. And at that point, there perhaps will 
> be somebody, implementing the missing features.

This is what Marcus said.  If we want to prevent it, we need to remove all
security from the system really.  I think this is not an offer we should make,
but we can discuss it if there are people who defend it.

> Even if installing that than is a break of the GPL, who will sue user
> installing that, if it's distributed in form of patches.

At least for GPL v2, there is no reason that this would be illegal.


I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]