maximize best case, worst case, or average case? (TCPA

[Ryan Lackey]

Quoting xganon <nobody at 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 at 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