double shot of snake oil, good conclusion

[Ed Gerck]

"A.Melon" wrote:

> Ed writes claiming this speculation about Palladium's implicatoins is
> mis-informed:
>
> > while others speculated on "another potentially devastating effect",
> > that the DRM could, via a loophole in the DoJ consent decree, allow
> > Microsoft to withhold information about file formats and APIs from
> > other companies which are attempting to create compatible or
> > competitive products
>
> I think you misunderstand the technical basis for this claim.  The
> point is Palladium would allow Microsoft to publish a file format and
> yet still control compatibility via software certification and
> certification on content of the software vendor who's software created
> it.

We are in agreement. When you read the whole paragraph that I wrote,
I believe it is clear that my comment was not whether the loophole existed
or not. My comment was that there was a much more limited implication
for whistle-blowing because DRM can't really control what humans do
and there is no commercial value in saying that a document that I see
cannot be printed or forwarded -- because it can.

> Your other claims about the limited implications for whistle-blowing
> (or file trading of movies and mp3s) I agree with.

And that's what my paragraph meant.

Cheers,
Ed Gerck


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com