Why would Bob be unable to strip off all signatures, process the sound file to whiten off any watermarking and re-sell it without authentication signatures under another nym with it's own reputation? What would stop Bob from turning the sound file into a plain .ogg or .mp3 with no signatures and reselling millions of copies for 1/1000th the cost, or even for free. Or have Bob be the front of a pool of purchasers who couldn't pay Alice her fees on their own, so they each chip in 1/100th of the cost? Why would Bob's "clients" care if the cost was low enough, or just casually traded? Perhaps using music as a model isn't so wise. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Wed, 30 Apr 2003, zem wrote:
Alice the music critic buys copies of new content at relatively high prices from the creator, or close sources. When Bob requests a copy of a particular file, Alice encrypts it to Bob's public key and signs the encrypted copy, selling him this 'reviewed' copy for reproduction cost + profit. Bob can verify he's received a good copy, but he can't redistribute Alice's reviewed version without revealing his secret key.