[IETF-IDRM] Re: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?
Lisa Rein
lisarein@finetuning.com
Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:38:56 -0800
Hi Paul,
On the contrary. Business reasons for a specific technology are
*exactly* what defines the need for an open interoperable standard.
Thanks,
Lisa Rein
http://www.finetuning.com
Paul Lambert wrote:
> Perhaps no one has a business reason for this committee and it should be disbanded.
>
> Business reasons for a specific technology does not guarentee that there is any reason for an open interoperable standard.
>
>
> Paul
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Theisen, Isabelle [mailto:Isabelle.Theisen@unistudios.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:48 PM
>>To: 'Thomas Hardjono'; 'ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com';
>>'glarose@info-mech.com'; 'mbaugher@cisco.com'
>>Subject: RE: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?
>>
>>
>>Please, I do not have a business need for these emails.
>>Please, remove from the list.
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Thomas Hardjono [mailto:thardjono@yahoo.com]
>>Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 2:09 PM
>>To: Gord Larose
>>Cc: ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com
>>Subject: Re: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?
>>
>>
>>At 12/11/2002||03:16 PM, Gord Larose wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Thomas,
>>>Thanks for the feedback and update. At a high level I agree with you
>>>completely.
>>>
>>>However, at a technical level, "Open source DRM" makes my
>>
>>brain hurt. It's
>>
>>>hard enough hide anything in BINARY inside a PC; but like it
>>
>>or not, that's
>>
>>>one thing DRM has to do. I should know... the NetActive
>>
>>technology I was
>>
>>>largely responsible for addresses exactly that problem. That
>>
>>technology has
>>
>>>never, to my knowledge, been publicly cracked... but I doubt
>>
>>that would have
>>
>>>been true if we'd published the source !
>>
>>Yes, I agree: "open source DRM" makes my brain hurt too :)
>>However, this
>>seems to be the only way to provide an alternative to proprietary
>>technology. In many cases, perhaps the mom-and-pop
>>"publisher" does not
>>need 100% hack-proof DRM (maybe not even 90% hack-proof), but
>>enough to
>>discourage non-technical people from trying to break it.
>>
>>
>>
>>>And from a business perspective, Mom & Pop businesses already have
>>>inexpensive, low-end protection technologies available e.g. from
>>>third-party software TBYB wrappers, or via, say, Windows
>>
>>Media Player DRM.
>>
>>>The obstacles are more about complexity, churn, supplier
>>
>>viability, trust,
>>
>>>and branding, than about cost or availability.
>>
>>Hmm, I'm not sure I follow here. WMP is only for certain
>>types of contents
>>(e.g. not books, newspapers, newletters, etc).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>So we'd have to be careful about what the values of such a
>>
>>system were... if
>>
>>>we could figure out how it would work !
>>>
>>>Here's an entertaining thought: suppose we emphasize TRUST
>>
>>and CONTINUITY.
>>
>>>Maybe we could even subvert Palladium and the Fritz Chip to
>>
>>nobler ends ?
>>
>>>i.e. a system that WILL, in some sense, robustly protect
>>
>>content, but WILL
>>
>>>NOT - as a matter of the supplier's policy - do any of the
>>
>>things that
>>
>>>consumers and libertarians rightly fear ? And a further benefit of an
>>>open-source (that may not be the right term, maybe
>>
>>"distributed ownership"
>>
>>>is better) model could be the continuing availability of the
>>
>>solution e.g.
>>
>>>Red Hat may die, but Linux won't.
>>
>>
>>OK, so this is a *very* interesting question. These are the types of
>>questions that needs to be discussed in a open forum and
>>where pieces of it
>>can be standardized (the way many pieces of Linux has been
>>standardized).
>>
>>cheers,
>>
>>thomas
>>------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>I'm not sure how to do this, but maybe we could figure it out !
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>> Gord 8-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Thomas Hardjono" <thardjono@verisign.com>
>>>To: <glarose@info-mech.com>; <ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com>
>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:55 PM
>>>Subject: Re: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gord,
>>>>
>>>>I agree with most of your comments. Judging from the
>>
>>"emotional outcry" we
>>
>>>>received at the last IDRM meeting (Salt Lake City IETF,
>>
>>end of 2001), DRM
>>
>>>>seems to mean different things to different people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>At 12/11/2002||09:23 AM, Gord Larose wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hello:
>>>>> Most of you on the list will not know me, as I came
>>
>>in during your
>>
>>>period
>>>
>>>>>of dormancy. I too have been mulling these issues, as
>>
>>the DRM company
>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>>>I helped found (NetActive) struggled like most others in
>>
>>the space.
>>
>>>>>I think there are two classes of issues here - the
>>
>>social-advocacy ones
>>
>>>>>and the technical ones.
>>>>>
>>>>>The social-advocacy issues are horribly subjective. The
>>
>>concerns were
>>
>>>>>well expressed in Mark's email, and we could spend
>>
>>thousands of words
>>
>>>>>debating them. For what it
>>>>>is worth, I believe that DRM is not philosophically
>>
>>wrong, and further,
>>
>>>that
>>>
>>>>>it is commercially necessary. However, I do not believe
>>
>>that the current
>>
>>>>>"axis of greed" between Hollywood and Washington serves the best
>>>
>>>interests
>>>
>>>>>of American citizens and, as a Canadian, I am very
>>
>>concerned about the
>>
>>>>>United States' efforts to impose its draconian views of copyright
>>>>>enforcement on the rest of the world.
>>>>> Good DRM does not have to put Big Brother on your hard
>>
>>drive. If it
>>
>>>does,
>>>
>>>>>then the price is too high.
>>>>
>>>>Right. So one of the notions we put forward in the IETF
>>
>>was: is it at all
>>
>>>>possible to create "open-source DRM technologies", so that small
>>>>mom-and-pop publishers need not pay $$$ for proprietary
>>
>>solutions. The
>>
>>>>analogy is that with Linux and the Apache webserver,
>>
>>which are available
>>
>>>>for around $30.
>>>>Another useful comparison in the RSA encryption
>>
>>algorithm, which is good
>>
>>>>technology, well understood, standardized and now finally
>>
>>over the patent
>>
>>>>hurdle.
>>>>
>>>>I realize that some folks take the (radical) position of
>>
>>being against any
>>
>>>>development of DRM technology whatsoever. The best way
>>
>>to ensure Big
>>
>>>>Brother does not happen is to go against any work
>>
>>relating to DRM. The
>>
>>>>reality is that DRM Technology is here to stay
>>
>>(proprietary), whether we
>>
>>>>like it or not. It will ship inside PCs and in consumer
>>
>>electronics
>>
>>>>devices. I think such a position actually helps the Big
>>
>>Brother syndrome,
>>
>>>>as it does not provide an option to the general public as
>>
>>to alternative
>>
>>>>sources of technology.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On a philosophical level then, I say there is a need for
>>
>>smart people to
>>
>>>>>build workable DRM that citizens can live with.
>>>>>
>>>>>The point issue of this technical group's mandate is
>>
>>much clearer IMO.
>>
>>>The
>>>
>>>>>core
>>>>>technology challenges for DRM are terminal node
>>
>>challenges, not network
>>
>>>>>challenges. Sure, a network is usually involved, but DRM
>>
>>is nothing
>>
>>>special
>>>
>>>>>for the network. DRM's basic network needs are nothing
>>
>>harder than
>>
>>>>>http/https over tcp/ip. And the terminal mode challenges
>>
>>are largely
>>
>>>about
>>>
>>>>>things like tamper-resistance, which are proprietary and not very
>>>
>>>amenable
>>>
>>>>>to
>>>>>standardization. It's not something where an IETF group
>>
>>adds much value.
>>
>>>>Right. This is where the word "DRM" is I think a
>>
>>misnomer for the IETF
>>
>>>>efforts. You are absolutely right, that DRM is indeed
>>
>>"terminal node
>>
>>>>challenges" (ie. development of rights-enforcing
>>
>>terminals), which is not
>>
>>>>the traditional area of work for the IETF.
>>>>
>>>>However, there some network issues that is part of what I
>>
>>call the "DRM
>>
>>>>macrocosm", which included functions relating to
>>
>>look-ups, secure network
>>
>>>>storage, transaction clearinghouse, etc. These would appear to be
>>>
>>>suitable
>>>
>>>>for work items in the IETF.
>>>>
>>>>Thus, one possible change to IDRM is a new name that is
>>
>>less likely to be
>>
>>>>controversial.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So where does that leave the group ? Seems to me the
>>
>>options include:
>>
>>>>>1) disband
>>>>>2) generalize the focus to a multidisciplinary one,
>>
>>along the lines of
>>
>>>>>http://www.bcdforum.org . (Though I have to confess I find that
>>>
>>>organization
>>>
>>>>>lacking substance.)
>>>>>3) Find specific technical problems that are obstacles
>>
>>to good (i.e.
>>
>>>>>effective but not Orwellian) DRM, which are going
>>
>>begging, and in scope,
>>
>>>>>and work on solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't have a top-of-mind suggestion for #3, but it
>>
>>sounds like the most
>>
>>>>>fun!
>>>>
>>>>Yes, the keyword is "fun". Perhaps others on the list
>>
>>may have specific
>>
>>>>suggestions?
>>>>
>>>>cheers,
>>>>
>>>>thomas
>>>>------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Other thoughts ???
>>>>>
>>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>> Gord Larose
>>>>>
>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>From: "Mark Baugher" <mbaugher@cisco.com>
>>>>>To: <ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com>
>>>>>Cc: <thardjono@yahoo.com>; "Vern Paxson" <vern@icir.org>
>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:43 PM
>>>>>Subject: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>IDRM has obviously been dormant for about a year.
>>>>>>SNIP<
>>>>
>
>