Re: maximize best case, worst case, or average case? (TCPA
Ryan Lackey provides a detailed analysis, but he gets off to a bad start right at the beginning:
DRM systems embedded in general purpose computers, especially if mandated, especially if implemented in the most secure practical manner (running the system in system-high DRM mode and not allowing raw hardware access to anything at any time on the platform, rather than trying to allow concurrent open and closed operation a la CMW), and in a closed manner for revenue protection purposes (only rich people get to sign the code, or at least only the keys of rich people are widely distributed by default, and anything else requires special operations by the user), are evil.
So DRM systems are evil? Why? What makes them evil? There is no justification offered for this claim! Are we all supposed to accept it as obvious? And note that when someone says X is true, especially when Y, they also mean that X is true even if not Y. Therefore, Ryan is claiming that DRM systems embedded in general purpose computers, even if not mandated, even if not implemented in the most secure manner, even if not in a closed manner, are evil. That is, even voluntary and not all that secure DRM systems are evil! How can any software which people adopt voluntarily be evil? If Alice releases music with DRM restrictions, and Bob runs DRM compliant software to play it, which of them is evil? Is it Alice, for releasing her music with restrictions? Is it just because she encoded them in a file format, or is it evil to release any creative product and ask people not to copy it freely? Or is Bob evil, for voluntarily choosing to run DRM compliant software in order to listen to Alice's music? Or perhaps the software developer is the evil one, for giving people more options and choices in the world? One other point must be mentioned while we wait for clarification:
What I'm genuinely in terror of is #5. I'd be fairly comfortable with (1,2) from philsophical grounds (and actually, some of the uses in #2 are things which interest me). 1,2,3 are probably tolerable even from a wanting-widespread-piracy standpoint, and really, anything but #5 (and to some extent, #4) is tolerable in terms of protecting computers for anti-government use.
Are we to read this as an endorsement of the "wanting-widespread-piracy standpoint"? Is the implicit assumption here that widespread piracy is GOOD??? Well, that would certainly explain why DRM is evil in Ryan's eyes. If so, in Ryan's ideal world, every creative artist has no choice but to do nothing, or release their works with permission that anyone can copy them for free. This is not just an unfortunate consequence of technological reality, in this view. It is an outcome to be desired and even fought for, to the extent that voluntary technologies which would give people other options must be opposed from the beginning. The only evil here is the viewpoint that people must not have choices, that they must be forced into a Communist from-each-according-to-his- ability system where creative people have no choice or control over the products of their minds. Surely a libertarian such as Ryan can see the horrific evil involved in taking away freedom and choice from creative people, and he will clarify his words above.
Quoting xganon <nobody@xganon.com>:
So DRM systems are evil? Why? What makes them evil? There is no justification offered for this claim! Are we all supposed to accept it as obvious?
I consider DRM systems (even the not-secure, not-mandated versions) evil due to the high likelyhood they will be used as technical building blocks upon which to deploy mandated, draconian DRM systems. DRM systems inevitably slide toward being more mandated, and more draconian. DRM-capable TCPA-type systems are evil by the same argument, even if not used for DRM. The primary reason they are evil is not the stated goal of DRM systems (copy protection in various forms), but the ease with which they could be used to eliminate cypherpunk applications.
How can any software which people adopt voluntarily be evil? If Alice releases music with DRM restrictions, and Bob runs DRM compliant software to play it, which of them is evil? Is it Alice, for releasing her music with restrictions? Is it just because she encoded them in a file format, or is it evil to release any creative product and ask people not to copy it freely? Or is Bob evil, for voluntarily choosing to run DRM compliant software in order to listen to Alice's music? Or perhaps the software developer is the evil one, for giving people more options and choices in the world?
If DRM systems were truly general purpose themselves, capable of being used for good and bad purposes, I would agree they are not inherently evil. However, because they never do anything but remove power over bits from people who would otherwise have complete control over them, I can't think of any good they could possibly accomplish. Taken in the context where if a technical solution exists, lawmakers will mandate it even if it isn't necessary, sometimes technologies which are not innately evil are so dangerous as to be necessarily rejected to avoid a legislative consequence. If, for instance, a perfect control chip were possible so that firearms could never be used to kill an employee of the US Government, even if this technology were optional, I would consider it evil, as it both prevents a possibly-acceptable use of the technology, and removes power from whoever controls the technology at the time. I wouldn't consider an electronic payment system which prevents counterfeiting of currency to be "evil" in the same way as a DRM system is, because the electronic payment system technology is not trivially transformed into a gatekeeper on the use of secure private computation.
Are we to read this as an endorsement of the "wanting-widespread-piracy standpoint"? Is the implicit assumption here that widespread piracy is GOOD??? Well, that would certainly explain why DRM is evil in Ryan's eyes.
Copyright is legal enforcement of restrictions on the possessor of bits. As such, I consider it morally bad. Additionally, it has outlived its practical utility (which I agree it had at one point). I support technologies which enable end-users to defeat restrictions placed on them by content creators, governments, or others. Defeating legislative solutions to problems also serves the useful social purpose of reducing confidence in people's minds that the government can control anything at all. Defeating purely technical restrictions on how you can use something is hacking at its most pure form. This is not really on the axis of good vs. evil; it is simply an example of man's desire to control the world around him. Admittedly, defeating fundamental physical limitations on what something can do is a lot more rewarding than defeating restrictions artificially imposed by another person, but it's still a worthwhile challenge.
If so, in Ryan's ideal world, every creative artist has no choice but to do nothing, or release their works with permission that anyone can copy them for free. This is not just an unfortunate consequence of technological reality, in this view. It is an outcome to be desired and even fought for, to the extent that voluntary technologies which would give people other options must be opposed from the beginning.
I think those who create should be free to use technical, social, or other non-coercive means to accomplish their goals. However, creating technologies which can be easily legislatively mandated, or relying on legislative solutions to business problems, is wrong. While I'd certainly prefer a world where creation of worthwhile content is rewarded and encouraged, I would far prefer if every artist starved rather than a world where general purpose computing is restricted at all. The "military" applications of computing are far more important than art or culture. -- Ryan Lackey [RL7618 RL5931-RIPE] ryan@havenco.com CTO and Co-founder, HavenCo Ltd. +44 7970 633 277 the free world just milliseconds away http://www.havenco.com/ OpenPGP 4096: B8B8 3D95 F940 9760 C64B DE90 07AD BE07 D2E0 301F
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Lackey" <ryan@havenco.com>
I consider DRM systems (even the not-secure, not-mandated versions) evil due to the high likelyhood they will be used as technical building blocks upon which to deploy mandated, draconian DRM systems.
The same argument can be applied to just about any tool. A knife has a high likelihood of being used in such a manner that it causes physical damage to an individual (e.g. you cut yourself while slicing your dinner) at some point in its useful lifetime. Do we declare knives evil? A hammer has a high likelihood of at some point in its useful life causing physical damage to both an individual and property. Do we declare hammers evil? DRM is a tool. Tools can be used for good, and tools can be used for evil, but that does not make a tool inherently good or evil. DRM has a place where it is a suitable tool, but one should not declare a tool evil simply because an individual or group uses the tool for purposes that have been declared evil. Joe
At 6:46 PM -0700 on 7/1/02, Joseph Ashwood wrote:
DRM is a tool.
I agree. And I don't think any tool is evil, either, and, I bet, Ryan probably doesn't want to come across as a hoplophobe as you're depiction of his calling a particular technology evil makes him sound either. :-). That said, there are *useless* tools, and I think that most DRM stuff -- except where it is used merely to authenticate content, which you can do with the eventual equivalent of an iButton -- will turn out to be a very *useless* tool. Something on the order of a dirigible, maybe, or an autogyro, or a coal-fired steam-powered car, or a gilt-edged intaglio printed industrial bearer bond. Entertaining, and evangelized by a few, heh, fanatic supporters, :-), but not used for much else. Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Quoting Joseph Ashwood <ashwood@msn.com>:
The same argument can be applied to just about any tool.
A knife has a high likelihood of being used in such a manner that it causes physical damage to an individual (e.g. you cut yourself while slicing your dinner) at some point in its useful lifetime. Do we declare knives evil?
There is a difference between a general purpose, if potentially very evil, tool, like, say, handcuffs, or firearms, and a tool which has a very specific intended purpose and very few possible other purposes. If someone constructed a special machine which would check fingerprints, positively identify someone as me (and only me), and then kill me, I would feel it my self-interested obligation to destroy that device and anyone associated with it. It's a selfish cost-benefit analysis which I would expect everyone to undertake on his own.
DRM is a tool. Tools can be used for good, and tools can be used for evil, but that does not make a tool inherently good or evil. DRM has a place where it is a suitable tool, but one should not declare a tool evil simply because an individual or group uses the tool for purposes that have been declared evil.
At some point a technology goes beyond being a general purpose tool and becomes a specialized implement of policy. Particularly when there are already laws passed to leave an implement-sized hole, which once filled by a specific implementation of technology, can accomplish great evil, particularly when assisted by laws already on the books. A device which makes drug testing of people at a distance completely trivial to undertake would probably be "evil" in my opinion. Certainly the underlying technology and science is interesting, but once assembled into the "police-o-matic drug tester" with integrated execution module, it's evil. I don't really believe in "good and evil", but evil is a useful shorthand for certain classes of things. Ultimately, DRM is anti-science (in that laws like the DMCA will prohibit exploration) and anti-freedom (in that it will ultimately of necessity lead to the end of general purpose computing). Evil really means "counter to my ideals sufficiently that I will take arbitrarily arduous action to eliminate it". The nation-state is Evil. Stovepipe jams are annoying, but not evil. (I would take action to eliminate bad-but-not-Evil, but wouldn't go so far as to hack off a limb or whatever). I consider the nation state to be evil. While I'm perfectly happy to pirate media, I would not consider purely technical means of preventing this to be evil, until and unless the nation state becomes involved in supporting those technical means. Since the laws (DMCA, specifically) are already in place to support DRMs, they are already officially Evil. I assume there are enough people who are either (or both, but not necessarily) anti-government and pro-hacking-as-discovery that they would consider DRM either Evil or just bad. If the people who just find them slightly bad protest DRM technologies in the early stages, they are welcome to withdraw from the debate when it escalates to an all-out battle to preserve general purpose computing hardware in private hands (although hopefully osmosis would cause them to feel DRM is actually Evil, too)
Joe
-- Ryan Lackey [RL7618 RL5931-RIPE] ryan@havenco.com CTO and Co-founder, HavenCo Ltd. +44 7970 633 277 the free world just milliseconds away http://www.havenco.com/ OpenPGP 4096: B8B8 3D95 F940 9760 C64B DE90 07AD BE07 D2E0 301F
participants (4)
-
Joseph Ashwood -
R. A. Hettinga -
Ryan Lackey -
xganon