Password-based DRM has a dim future

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

You don't need someone's finger-- just their fingerprint. Find something they've touched showing a clear fingerprint, make a copy of it.

One of the disadvantages with biometrics as opposed to password-based authentication. It's easy to change your password, but it's impossible to change your fingerprint, so once someone has your fingerprint, they've got it for ever. If they get your password, you can change it.

[ardeegee]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

It's Schneier's Law:

Thanks for the link. I just remember the idea from Cory Doctorow's Little Brother.

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

And, like so many other aspects regarding DRM, completely exaggerated and over-the-top, a parody of reality, not accurate at all.

Go buy or rent a video, and see if that's not what happens.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Time to move on to biometrics.

Wouldn't make a difference. People don't defeat DRM by cracking the security, so trying to come up with stronger security methods is a waste of time.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

And everyone wonders why I haven't been writing...

So you're saying it's the Publishers fault. You're probably right.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Wouldn't make a difference. People don't defeat DRM by cracking the security, so trying to come up with stronger security methods is a waste of time.

I remember watching an anime DVD which made me sit throught FOUR (!!) anti-piracy ads (with the usual bogus claims that terrorism and drug dealing is financed by pirating movies).

Come on, I BOUGHT the DVD, why do I have to sit through IP propaganda? If I had downloaded the anime torrent, I'd be watching it immediately.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by avantman42

Steven's blog entry that he linked to suggests that he thinks fingerprint scanners will solve all the problems that passwords have, without introducing new problems.

No, it suggests that he doesn't understand that encryption and DRM are two completely different things.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

I remember watching an anime DVD which made me sit throught FOUR (!!) anti-piracy ads (with the usual bogus claims that terrorism and drug dealing is financed by pirating movies).

What.

Haven't heard that one. Maybe because I get up during the piracy commercials and get snacks.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

What.

Haven't heard that one. Maybe because I get up during the piracy commercials and get snacks.

Me neither, but I usually strip out the piracy commercials when I rip the DVD.

[miguel1626]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

What.

Haven't heard that one. Maybe because I get up during the piracy commercials and get snacks.

It was quite common in Brazil a while back - they were even shown in movie theaters. The videos are still available on Youtube, though in portuguese (but you'll get a laugh are of it anyway, check it out):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0zdZsz9q9o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt09B4lX5lY

BTW, I usually go to the bathroom during the IP propaganda, but that DVD was egregious - several minutes of attempted brainwashing.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by miguel1626

I remember watching an anime DVD which made me sit throught FOUR (!!) anti-piracy ads (with the usual bogus claims that terrorism and drug dealing is financed by pirating movies).

Come on, I BOUGHT the DVD, why do I have to sit through IP propaganda? If I had downloaded the anime torrent, I'd be watching it immediately.

Yeah...I had to watch forced trailers for Dragonball Z (ick!!) and some sports anime on my Full Metal Alchemist DVDs.

I was just explaining the comment about pirated content being better. It is. No forced trailers, FBI warnings, etc. As shown in the Matrix picture.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No, it suggests that he doesn't understand that encryption and DRM are two completely different things.

I'd say it suggests both. Mind you, I had assumed that DRM'd files were encrypted as part of the DRM process, though I haven't looked into it, so I don't know if that's the case or not.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I'd say it suggests both. Mind you, I had assumed that DRM'd files were encrypted as part of the DRM process, though I haven't looked into it, so I don't know if that's the case or not.

They usually are, but nobody bothers to break the encryption when they defeat the DRM.

It's like renting your house. Putting a bigger/stronger lock on the front door is useless if you're trying to stop the renter from giving away your furniture.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

They usually are, but nobody bothers to break the encryption when they defeat the DRM.

It's like renting your house. Putting a bigger/stronger lock on the front door is useless if you're trying to stop the renter from giving away your furniture.

Tortured analogies for 500 Alex.

Describing a book owner like an apartment renter makes it hard to give an accurate description of what DRM is intended to do. By way of an attempt, DRM is not about guarding your furniture from theft by your renters or anyone else, it's about guarding your "renters" from other landlords and/or double/triple charging them. It's like locking the renters inside, and so yeah, the lock tech matters. The less friendly the drm-removal tech is to the mass market (the more often they grow the lock, the less often the tech gets friendly), the higher they can fly the mission accomplished banner.

I think SLJ is on exactly the same track DRM peddlers would be on. They're not targeting you, they're targeting consumers with less skill or more reticence to skirt the DMCA, so the specifics of drm removal tech become irrelevant.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

DRM is not about guarding your furniture from theft by your renters or anyone else, it's about guarding your "renters" from other landlords and/or double/triple charging them. It's like locking the renters inside

True, when we're talking about DRM being used for the purpose of restricting consumer rights. But that's really only one purpose of DRM. The blog and most of Steven's posts are talking about DRM in terms of preventing piracy. In that scenario, the encryption/lock is useless. It's exactly the "guarding your furniture from theft by your renters" example.

The less friendly the drm-removal tech is to the mass market (the more often they grow the lock, the less often the tech gets friendly), the higher they can fly the mission accomplished banner.

The drm-removal tech doesn't have anything to do with the lock though.