Comments page

(You may have to reload this page to see new comments or modifications to the source paragraph. Also note that the source section may have been edited since some of these comments were made.)
Original Paragraph:

Property online is largely intellectual property, which raises the problem of how to protect it in a world where copyright law is becoming unenforceable. One possibility is to substitute technological for legal protection. A song or database comes inside a piece of software–Intertrust calls it a digibox–that regulates its use. To play the song or query the database costs ten cents of ecash, instantly transmitted over the net to the copyright owner.

Source: http://patrifriedman.com/prose-others/fi/commented/Future_Imperfect.html#Property_online_is_largely_intellectual_property_w

 Add a comment

Comments:

[Mon Nov 22 12:04:08 EST 2004-326] Virginia Warren (NOSPAMva@NOSPAMgotfreedom.net.NOSPAM):
This is a micropayment paradigm. Clay Shirkey insightfully points out some of the flaws of that model.

http://shirky.com/writings/fame_vs_fortune.html

Not to mention the truism "If you can play/view it, you can copy it." Even if you encase your "IP" in a "secure" software vehicle, if I can access it once, I can resave it in a format where your "protection" is absent and then redistribute. At worst, you might be able to make it necessary for me to use an analog step in the conversion.

Personally, I find it highly doubtful that "IP" could survive in a free society.
[Tue Nov 23 10:19:34 EST 2004-327] William Swift:
I haven't read the criticism referred to in the comment, but most of those I have read concentrate on the issue of transaction costs; with correct infrastructure those can be minimized without question.

The other part of the comment deserves a "so-what". Professional copyright infringement has always been a potential and possible problem. The only new problem with digital media and the internet is the *ease* of copying and distributing the material to others. Making it harder or less convenient will reduce the amount of *casual* infringement which is the real problem (if there is actually a problem at all, see the essays in the Baen Frre Library at baen.com).
[Fri Feb 4 02:17:25 EST 2005-34] Monsyne Dragon (NOSPAMdragondm@integral.org.NOSPAM):
Re: "digiboxes" and other such DRM (Digital Rights Management... a rather Orwellian moniker that... ) ideas... These are not going to work for several good reasons. One is the "if I can play it, I can copy it" issue mentioned above. You only need 1 person to "rip" a piece of IP and the copy protection is moot, and such a proccess can be automated fairly easily.

Another, *major* problem w/ DRM is Turing equivalence. *ANY* computer system
can be emulated on any other, if inefficiently. All software suffers from the "brain-in-a-jar" problem. It cannot tell if it is talking to the "real world" or a clever emulation thereof, consequently, no matter how clever your DRM "digibox" is, it can't tell that its environment has been substituted with something else designed to copy the output, or fake-out the payment mechanism.
No amount of clever coding, or hardware trickery is going to make this issue go away, either, as it's a fairy fundemental property of computers, and, as much as Hollywood would like them to, the laws of discrete mathematics are not going to be changing anytime soon.

Whilst ripping or cracking DRM'ed IP may take modest effort, downloading a pre-ripped copy, or a pre-made crack does not. Not only does DRM not prevent copying, ultimately, it damages the one thing that does: Trust.

Ultimately, I agree with the first commenter, Intellectual Property is not going to survive in a truely free society. (Intellectual *Services*, on the other hand, are a different matter... I personally get paid by the hour to write new software, not by the copy for old software.)
[Wed Sep 28 18:32:23 PDT 2005-270] NOSPAMlegisjuris@yahoo.com.NOSPAM:
Not even sure whether IP should be protected. As copyright laws are currently implemented, a near indefinite monopoly is given to the copyright holder that is far beyond any reasonable inducement to create such works. All this has done is to create lazy,litigious,and mercenary corporations/people who are more interested in parasitic profits than in actually creating anyting.
[Sun May 21 13:15:58 PDT 2006-140] Daniel Nagy (NOSPAMnagydani@epointsystem.org.NOSPAM):
Here's how I see it:
http://www.indicare.org/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=172

In short, DRM has never worked as a tool of copyright enforecement and never will. There are sound economic and technical reasons behind this statement. There are, however, other good uses for the technology. Unfortunately, the company that funded the development of the system outlined in the article went bankrupt before my team could finish building the required technology, but we're actively looking for a new strategic partner for completing the task. We're about two man-months from a deployable system.

Add a comment:

We'd love to get your feedback. Name and email address are optional. Email will be listed with the comment, but munged to foil spammers. Comments may be deleted by the sysadmin.
Currently, all HTML tags are forbidden for security reasons. This will be improved later.
Name:
Email:

Comments:


Back to original paragraph
View all comments on Future_Imperfect.html for this day, week, month.
Read about the SOCS commenting package