[clue-talk] DRM ain't all bad

[Brian Gibson]

Digital rights management is used as a means of
information control and the establishment of a time
limited monopoly (ha! not with current legislation). 
DRM may leverage security measures like encryption and
access controls to accomplish this goal, but just
because medical privacy technology and DRM use the
same methods, that does not automatically mean they
have the same goals.  

It boils down to the fact that it's silly at our
current technological level that any content that can
be digitized should ever be granted protection beyond
attribution.  When perfect copies can be distributed
at only the cost of the transmission service, the
resource supply is virtually infinite.  This it not to
say that content producers should not be compensated
for their efforts, but to point out the futility of
trying to extract money from sales of copies of a
particular work beyond the cost of distribution.  What
is of value now is the ability for a content producer
to create a brand  and leverage it through physically
limited means: "official" merchandise, live
performances, autographed/certified (hard) copies,
etc.

Furthermore, we've reached the point where content
producers have direct access to their audiences. 
There is no need for a centralized company to acquire
content and distribute it.  These distribution
companies as we've known them for that past 50 years
are not going to be the same companies in the next 50
years.  They're either going to transform into
businesses that service content producers (as soon as
they quit their legal crusade), or they'll be crushed
by those businesses that rise to embrace the new
paradigm.

I wouldn't be surprised if we return to the old system
of patronage and sponsorship to fund content
producers.

--- "Jed S. Baer" <cluemail at jbaer.cotse.net> wrote:

> Hi Folks.
> 
> I noticed at the last CLUE meeting that CLUEbies
> seem to have a pretty
> typical revulsion for DRM. Just like most folks, I
> disagree with the use
> of DRM to interfere with fair use, backups, etc.,
> i.e. legitimate uses
> and copying of audio and video. It doesn't take a
> lot of effort to
> imagine other improper uses of DRM, for example
> restricting access to
> public documents (or documents you think should be
> public, but the govt.
> disagrees).
> 
> But I noticed a news story today which brought to
> mind a legitimate use
> of DRM technology.
> 
>
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080221/D8UUN0100.html
> -- Google to
> Store Patients’ Health Records
> 
> If you follow this stuff at all, you probably
> realize that you don't have
> a lot of medical privacy any longer. I can imagine a
> medical records
> system utilizing DRM technology to restrict access
> on a need-to-know
> basis, and prevent health records from being copied
> inappropriately.
> 
> Of course, I don't deceive myself that such a system
> would be simple to
> implement. And of course, it would suffer from the
> same issues that
> current cryptologic and security systems do, such as
> getting people to
> use sufficiently strong passphrases, and biometric
> spoofing.
> 
> jed
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping