Quote:
Originally Posted by ApK
No, the argument seems to suggest an objection to OTHER PEOPLE having locks.
The rationale being that if it's possible to make some largely impractical effort to scan every page of an ebook, or the possibility that some hacker some where may some day break a information security system, then the whole concept of OTHER people even putting some hurdles in the way, to deter having their IP used in a way they don't want, is totally pointless. But if THEY THEMSELVES choose to put those same hurdles in place to protect THEIR OWN property, then it makes perfect sense.
|
It's not the same though.
With DRM you have to give the "bad guy" both the encrypted file and the key to unlock it.
It matters not one iota how "strong" the DRM is.
With a house/lock, the amount of security offered is directly proportional to the "strength"* of the lock. A house with a weak lock may be broken into pretty quickly, that doesn't make all locks invalid. A house with a strong lock may not be feasible to break into. The same cannot be said about DRM.
If you've to give the key to the weak or strong lock to anyone who wants in, then you may as well not bother buying a lock in the first place.
That's more or less what I think the earlier poster was trying to say about DRM.
* strength does not have to mean physical strength of the lock, although that certainly plays a part, but mainly how hard it is to unlock the lock without a key. Given a key the strongest lock in the world is trivial to unlock, it has to be
