Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
On 10 Oct 2002 at 18:29, David A. Desrosiers wrote: That would be an incorrect assumption. In fact, in my meeting with the CEO of a company found to be violating the GPL with Plucker source code (with our FSF-appointed attorney present), I came up with a method, which was agreed-upon, whereby the GPL could be presented as a clickwrap type of license, and if you disagreed, the application would not launch. I'll go into detail off-list, if you are interested, RMS. For reference, this is currently what happens in the Windows installer package of Plucker. The first page of the installer wizard is a splash screen, pressing Next goes to a license screen, with the GPL on it. User has to select the 'I accept' radio button on the license screen, if they want to continue with rest of install. If don't like the GPL, then they can choose not to install. Best wishes, Robert ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
I'm sorry, Richard, but I can't pass up pointing out inconsistent philosophy. the GNU GPL is exactly Digital Restrictions Management. They are not the same, they are not even the same kind of thing. The GNU GPL is a copyright-based license. Digital Restrictions Management is a feature of hardware or software systems. DRM is wrong because it is designed to stop users from copying and sharing. Someone asked me what I would think, hypothetically, of a feature that would enforce the GPL. I explained why that would not be wrong--but, as far as I know, nobody in this discussion is seriously considering such a project. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
Would you disapprove of software which enforced, in some way, the GNU GPL? The idea is inconceivable, since the point of the GPL is that you CAN edit the source. But if this were possible, it would not be wrong. Digital Restrictions Management is wrong because it tries to deny the public the freedom it should have. It restricts the public. Enforcing such restrictions is wrong. The GPL does the opposite--it protects the public's freedom. Its requirements stop you from restricting the public, trampling their freedom. Enforcing this is protecting freedom too. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
Bill Janssen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm sorry, Richard, but I can't pass up pointing out inconsistent philosophy. the GNU GPL is exactly Digital Restrictions Management. I repeat: the GPL is enforced by the courts, not by software. Surely it is not even digital? MJR ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 06:47:35PM -0700, Bill Janssen wrote: I call it privacy, myself. Password-protection would also be interesting, but it's something else. I don't want to have to remember the passwords for documents. With Michael addons it is jut a privacy option now. Overridable. -- Guylhem P. Aznar Now *@externe.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED]@metalab.unc.edu-@7un.org-@externe.net) http://externe.net/geekcode http://externe.net/photos GPG: 92EB37C1 DD11C9C9 20519D01 E8FA1B11 42975AF7http://externe.net/pubkey ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
I'm sorry, Richard, but I can't pass up pointing out inconsistent philosophy. the GNU GPL is exactly Digital Restrictions Management. The only difference is that you believe that the restrictions it enforces are good, and that some other set of restrictions -- poorly specified by the phrase Digital Restrictions Management -- are bad. So perhaps what you mean to say is that some kinds of DRM are good, and others are bad -- not that DRM is wrong? This kind of inconsistent speech is what produces politics :-). I myself have seen a number of bad DRM schemes (and I doubt this is the place to start discussing them), but I believe that case-by-case judgements should be applied. And not just to schemes, but to tuples consisting of (SCHEME, ITEM, PRODUCER, CONSUMER). Let's move this discussion elsewhere. Incidentally, and completely off the topic, belated congratulations on Emacs 21! I've just shifted over to it on Mac OS X, and I'm impressed by the improvements over 20. Bill Digital Restrictions Management is wrong because it tries to deny the public the freedom it should have. It restricts the public. Enforcing such restrictions is wrong. The GPL does the opposite--it protects the public's freedom. Its requirements stop you from restricting the public, trampling their freedom. Enforcing this is protecting freedom too. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
RE: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
This will hopefully prevent the use of these functions for DRM related purposes while keeping their intent. I really wish you would stop calling it DRM, because that's not what it is. It is encoding a userid into the document header, which much match the userid on the Palm device before it can be opened. This is a user-initiated action, for a user of the said document. It's not DRM, in any way, shape or form. It's also optional, and voluntary, which DRM is not. Please begin calling it by a more appropriate term, such as Plucker document encoding or something similar. When the user download a pre-built document with no source available (no HTML files to recreate the document from), this is not a user-initiated action. This is the case when a company or a site offers (freely or not) PDB content on their site : e-books, news, etc. If that company wants to encode the Plucker document, this really sounds like DRM. I think this was Guylhem's problem. Since you all agreed (and I too) on the mods in the viewer allowing the user to provide the decoding key in a dialog box, it doesn't sound anymore like DRM, though. NH ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 08:38:09AM -0400, David A. Desrosiers wrote: Exactly. If the document does not belong to them, such as my online financial bank statements, then they have absolutely no reason to see it. Will you distribute your bank statement to other people? If you do, you will need DRM. But IMHO you won't so a standard encryption will be just fine since you will only protect your privacy. In any case, you're preaching to the choir here about DRM. I don't favor it, however, I do favor my rights to protect my personal data from people who should not have access to that personal data. You're confusing Then encrypt. Strip is a nice GPL AES application for the Palm. With a document sitting on my PDA, personal information such as my medical history, financial records, or other information I may need to keep on my person, I do not want others having access to it. Yes, it means I would have to initiate the beam of that data to someone else, or have my PDA stolen, but adding the owner_id ensures that if my information was stolen, it would be fairly difficult to decode it to gain access to it. This has nothing at all, whatsoever, to do with DRM, or restricting rights, since I have given _NO_ rights to my personal data to anyone. Encryption would help you. Anything else will encourage people to create ebooks to be read with plucker and sell them - they won't be readable on any other palm. That's encouraging and implementing DRM even if it wasn't your goal. With a DRM plucker, you would be sold document only readable on your own device. Plucker isn't sold, it's given away freely. Companies will sell .pdb reable with plucker only on some palms. That's DRM your device. This is more of a PKI than DRM, in this regard. Somewhat akin to a biometric, though on a very basic scale. My mistake - it's not a hard DRM but a little DRM is copyright me, and publically available. As above, my personal data, such as financial records, medical records, are NOT publically available, and as such, aren't licensed under the GFDL, GPL, or any other means. And they should even be encrypted. Because nobody with a clue will try to use encryption as an implementation of DRM Creating tools which will be used to prevent people from using their purchases (ebooks anyone?) in the way they want is wrong. A knife can kill. All knives do not kill, they also cut steak. A machine gun can kill. You can also use it to keep a door open since it's quite heavy. But most of the time it will kill. does. If a commerial company wanted to take Plucker's code and add the ability to enter an unlock code to read a document, so be it. They're free That should be prevented. While it can't be forbidden, it sounds wise not to implement that fuction in the first place. It's not a password mechanism. No ebooks will be shipped crypted with an owner_id in them, unless of course the company required you to change the owner name on the device to read it, and that would be silly. They will just ask you at download time, then create the .pdb on the fly. First step, proof of concept - call it the way you want but it proves the danger of this approach. Entirely possible. Will it happen? Maybe. Does it make Plucker less useful? Definately not. Will it be DRM. Certainly. Will it reduce people freedom. 100% sure. I'm not a fan of DRM at all, when it infringes on my rights to use what I have been granted the rights to use. I am a fan of protecting my personal data, and the owner_id option does just that, without restricting me, or anyone else from using Plucker itself. Consider encryption then, for example with strip. Don't open DRM pandora box. It will end up restricting your own right when you'll have to pay for a document to be used with plucker (say today NY times or any ebook) and you won't be able to use it the way you want even if you legally purchased it. -- Guylhem P. Aznar Now *@externe.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED]@metalab.unc.edu-@7un.org-@externe.net) http://externe.net/geekcode http://externe.net/photos GPG: 92EB37C1 DD11C9C9 20519D01 E8FA1B11 42975AF7http://externe.net/pubkey ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
I have never used documents with owner ID protection and today when I tried it out for the first time it didn't work. The zlib uncompress function fails to uncompress any document that uses the owner ID protection. Is that with your updated zlib? It worked here in tests, with b12. d. ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002, Michael Nordström wrote: It shouldn't be that complicated to create a desktop tool that can remove the user ID protection (if you know the used user ID:) and create an unprotected document. Actually, all the necessary tools are already available. $ explode --directory=liberate DRM.pdb That will dump the contents of the Plucker document (since the document uses owner ID protection there must be a valid owner_id key in ~/.pluckerrc). The generated HTML documents contains comments that the parser doesn't accept, so we need to fix that, e.g. by running the following, $ cd liberate $ for i in `ls *.html`; do sed s/\!--.*--\!// $i $i.new ; \ mv -f $i.new $i; done Then we just create a new Plucker document (remember to remove the owner_id key from ~/.pluckerrc or you will create a bad document again:). $ plucker-build -H default.html -f LiberatedDocument Could put this in a script that handles all of the steps (a nicer solution would be to create a program that removes the owner ID key from all records in a Plucker document and then reassembles them into a Plucker document again; that would make sure that you don't lose anything in the conversion). To summarize, using the owner ID protection as a share denial (DRM) solution will not work (unless the users accept it), since anyone that can view such a document can easily remove the protection and redistribute an unprotected copy to family and friends. /Mike ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 06:21:58PM +0200, Michael Nordstr?m wrote: On Wed, Oct 02, 2002, Nicolas Huillard wrote: Except if a modified version of the viewer uses another kind of key : the device's serial number, an s/key one-time-password, etc... AND the modified viewers remains closed Well, do you really want to base your business on a copyright violation? How long do you think such a company will survive? With the FSF, an article on slashdot and a lawsuit, the company will go down in flames really fast. -- Guylhem P. Aznar Now *@externe.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED]@metalab.unc.edu-@7un.org-@externe.net) http://externe.net/geekcode http://externe.net/photos GPG: 92EB37C1 DD11C9C9 20519D01 E8FA1B11 42975AF7http://externe.net/pubkey ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
DRM should not exist in any software, or any hardware. DRM is theft! Would you disapprove of software which enforced, in some way, the GNU GPL? Bill ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
It shouldn't be that complicated to create a desktop tool that can remove the user ID protection (if you know the used user ID:) and create an unprotected document. explode will in fact do that. Bill ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002, Guylhem Aznar wrote: With the FSF, an article on slashdot and a lawsuit, the company will go down in flames really fast. The lawsuit part is not that easy unless you have a lot of cash to spend ;-) /Mike ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
I have never used documents with owner ID protection and today when I tried it out for the first time it didn't work. The zlib uncompress function fails to uncompress any document that uses the owner ID protection. The ultimate share denial implementation, i.e. no one can use the documents ;-) I just built the viewer (from the latest sources), built a new doc with owner-id=Palm OS Emulator (using the latest distiller sources), loaded it all into an emulator, and tried it out. Works fine, as long as the owner-id of the document matches your HotSync user name. Otherwise, you get the screen saying Your device's user name does not match that registered for the owner of 'DocumentName'. The document cannot be opened except under that name. Bill ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 10:56:18AM +0200, Michael Nordstr?m wrote: he/she really want to beam the document. Selecting Yes will beam the document, i.e. we leave the decision in the hands of the user and not to a setting in the document. That's excellent. You provide a sufficient protection in case of a mistake (beam the wrong document) ... Could also display a dialog making it possible to enter the user ID for a protected document, i.e. if the user ID for the device doesn't match you can still provide it manually. Would make it possible to share protected documents with your peers. ... and a nice workaround. Thanks a lot. This will hopefully prevent the use of these functions for DRM related purposes while keeping their intent. -- Guylhem P. Aznar Now *@externe.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED]@metalab.unc.edu-@7un.org-@externe.net) http://externe.net/geekcode http://externe.net/photos GPG: 92EB37C1 DD11C9C9 20519D01 E8FA1B11 42975AF7http://externe.net/pubkey ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This will hopefully prevent the use of these functions for DRM related purposes while keeping their intent. I really wish you would stop calling it DRM, because that's not what it is. It is encoding a userid into the document header, which much match the userid on the Palm device before it can be opened. This is a user-initiated action, for a user of the said document. It's not DRM, in any way, shape or form. It's also optional, and voluntary, which DRM is not. Please begin calling it by a more appropriate term, such as Plucker document encoding or something similar. I guess you could call it bananas, if you wish, but the rest of us know it's not bananas either. Shrug. d. perldoc -qa.j | perl -lpe '($_)=m((.*))' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.92 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9m5swkRQERnB1rkoRApd8AJ0TKlf+ne38MeflcigI/YjxWQSD+wCcCpMm wtZwNihBqqmAYAY1tnSLcpk= =FhOZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
RE: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
-Message d'origine- De: Michael Nordström [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Date: mercredi 2 octobre 2002 17:00 À:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet:Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit To summarize, using the owner ID protection as a share denial (DRM) solution will not work (unless the users accept it), since anyone that can view such a document can easily remove the protection and redistribute an unprotected copy to family and friends. Except if a modified version of the viewer uses another kind of key : the device's serial number, an s/key one-time-password, etc... AND the modified viewers remains closed (commercial version remaining closed, against the GPL, as was already seen with BlueFish). NH ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
RE: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Intellectual property is _property_, just as material objects are. Unfortunately, no. And this is the crux of the problem, in fact. You cannot say that intellectual property is property, just like a house, or a boat, or a car. If so, then that property is subject to taxes and the same levies as real property is. Would you like to have to pay a yearly tax on your music purchases? After all, it's someone else's intellectual property, right? Intellectual property most-certainly is not property like physical property, but that doesn't mean there aren't laws (in the US, at least) that make an attempt at helping you protect it. Redistribution of copyrighted intellectual property with the express permission of the rights holder is _theft_, pure and simple. It's not theft, it's a violation of copyright. Huge difference. Theft, stealing, piracy, etc. by definition have very different meanings. You are depriving the author of due-revenue, but you are by no means guilty of theft. Theft deprives the owner of something. Theft, as with stealing, means you have taken something tangible, leaving nothing in it's place. If I steal your bicycle, there is now the _lack of_ a bicycle, where there used to be one. With electronic media such as ebooks and other formats (mp3, et al), the original is still in place, but there is a digitally-perfect _copy_ in possession, against the copyright and license of the original. This is not theft. You have not deprived the creator or owner of his copy, he still has the original and the ability to make and distribute copies of it for profit. The courts look at this very differently than you'd think. In any case, I'm completely against violating the copyrights of people who have worked hard to provide you something useful. I'm also against the whole Information wants to be free bandwagon (really only exists to try to justify electronic piracy and copyright violation, and yes, I've never yet downloaded a single mp3 or dvd movie from the web, and I actively support the eradication of the (MP|RI)AA corporations). I do, however, believe strongly in sharing information which benefits others, and which benefits the growth and adoption of techology into new industries. This is not the same thing as share everything without cost or attribution. People who do hard work, and provide you with something useful, should be recognized or compensated in some way. Simply taking what they've created without even saying as much as thanks is downright rude and unjust, not to mention a violtion of copyright in some cases. But now we've diverged way off-topic, and probably should continue this off-list. To sum up, adding owner_id to Plucker does not, in any way, restrict what Plucker can do, nor does it turn Plucker into a DRM-only application. Anyone could have added this feature, either by us, or commercially, and used it. The source is available, make the changes you want, or don't. The choice is up to you. d. perldoc -qa.j | perl -lpe '($_)=m((.*))' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.92 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9mXnTkRQERnB1rkoRAsVJAJ9kWgdaSnhu4C+f0j/Z05UQRnP2kgCfSbhM G9/1WS691oZILletS1kjuXw= =g8Tl -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 11:01:45PM -0400, Dennis McCunney wrote: Shouldn't they be removed altogether? Preveting copy is encouraging DRM. DRM should be flushed down the toilets. Won't happen. There are too many folks who are trying to make a living on intellectual property, and want _some_ way of insuring they get paid for what they do. I write documentation and get paid for that - sometimes. I would not be confortable with making a living of DRM. It may means more money, but in the end it would restrict other people freedom. Instead of work depending on the restriction of freedom, I prefer no work at all or unqualified work. I'm lucky I don't have to take such a decision right now and can pick up the work I like but sorry I do have some ethics. If you take a work you don't like just for the money there's a nice word to describe that - not quite polite however. Ask any author who has books in electronic format how they feel about unrestricted distribtion of their copyrighted work without thier permission. Ask me. I'm fine with that - the businesses may not but it's their job to choose a new business model, not mine. Intellectual property is _property_, just as material objects are. Redistribution of copyrighted intellectual property with the express permission of the rights holder is _theft_, pure and simple. As a member of the GNU project ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) I have a different opinion. Intellectual property only exists because the founding fathers thought it would help promoting science and knowledge. That's the goal. IP is just a mean to reach that goal. If it can be reached in other ways, with added benefits for the public (such as free redistribution) why should we keep the old schemes?? -- Guylhem P. Aznar Now *@externe.net ([EMAIL PROTECTED]@metalab.unc.edu-@7un.org-@externe.net) http://externe.net/geekcode http://externe.net/photos GPG: 92EB37C1 DD11C9C9 20519D01 E8FA1B11 42975AF7http://externe.net/pubkey ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 That's just protecting privacy. Fine with me. You are not distributing that doc to other people and removing their freedom to share it. Exactly. If the document does not belong to them, such as my online financial bank statements, then they have absolutely no reason to see it. GPG, passwords or firewalls are protecting privacy. Unless you buy Microsoft marketting about palladium, DRM is about restricting the user ability to do what he wants with data he purchased. In no way it will improve privacy. I purchase a DVD - I want to play it on my GNU\Linux computer regardless of zone, legally available software or license scheme. I pay for it - I want to use it the way I want. Nowhere in my previous message did I mention anything about privacy, so thank you for diverting this thread to suit your argument. In any case, you're preaching to the choir here about DRM. I don't favor it, however, I do favor my rights to protect my personal data from people who should not have access to that personal data. You're confusing Apples with Orangutans. With a DVD, a publically accessible and published material, you purchase the right to view it, given the constraints set forth in their guidelines (which does not include the right to crack, decode, or copy that DVD, and yes, I use ogle, so I knowingly am in direct violation of this every day). With a document sitting on my PDA, personal information such as my medical history, financial records, or other information I may need to keep on my person, I do not want others having access to it. Yes, it means I would have to initiate the beam of that data to someone else, or have my PDA stolen, but adding the owner_id ensures that if my information was stolen, it would be fairly difficult to decode it to gain access to it. This has nothing at all, whatsoever, to do with DRM, or restricting rights, since I have given _NO_ rights to my personal data to anyone. With a DRM plucker, you would be sold document only readable on your own device. Plucker isn't sold, it's given away freely. You buy a new handheld? Pay again. Pay again for what? I think you're confused about owner_id here. You backup and restore? It may or it may not work. The company closes? You are left with no option. You don't have to look very far to see that: it is currently available under mobipocket brand name. You definately appear to be very confused about what it actually does to the document. If you back up and restore, on a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT HANDHELD, it will still work, as long as that handheld identifies itself as your device. This is more of a PKI than DRM, in this regard. Somewhat akin to a biometric, though on a very basic scale. That's just recreating with data the problem of non free software. That's why free software licenses for content, such as the GFDL, exist. Correct, and some of my data, such as my HOWTOs, my other content, is copyright me, and publically available. As above, my personal data, such as financial records, medical records, are NOT publically available, and as such, aren't licensed under the GFDL, GPL, or any other means. The Free Software Movement was launched to create freedom and to protect it. The freedom to do want you want with your own stuff, with an emphasis on sharing freedom with other people through the viral aspect of the GPL. Protecting your own private documents (say, a list of password) is fine. Great, so we agree. The GPL _enforces_ copyright and ownership, it doesn't remove it, or remove the need for it. In fact, if the GPL were obliterated, the rights of the creators of software would fall back on copyright law anyway, which is stronger. Trust me/us (the Plucker team) on this one, we've already been deeply involved in a copyright violation investigation with Plucker source code over the past year with two commercial companies. Creating tools which will be used to prevent people from using their purchases (ebooks anyone?) in the way they want is wrong. A knife can kill. All knives do not kill, they also cut steak. Adding the ability to crypt the owner_id into a document, ensures that only the owner can read that document. If you are talking about encrypting a document that requires a password, that is NOT what owner_id does. If a commerial company wanted to take Plucker's code and add the ability to enter an unlock code to read a document, so be it. They're free to do so (and they'd of course, have to give that code back to us, to the project, but that's another matter). owner_id simply checks that the owner of the _device_ matches what the document was crypted with. Nothing more. It's not a password mechanism. No ebooks will be shipped crypted with an owner_id in them, unless of course the company required you to change the owner name on the device to read it, and that would be silly.
Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 If it prevents DRM to be implemented and later commercially exploited, it may have its place. Impossible, it's Open Source, we can't prevent anyone from doing anything they want to the code on their own. Just as you can't prevent someone from eating carrots for dinner in another country. It may still be free but the intent will be damaged. No, the intent remains the same. Nobody can tarnish the Plucker name, unless we ourselves tarnish it. Nobody can take Plucker, change it, and continue to distribute it as Plucker. They can call it whatever they want, but it's not hurting Plucker, the proejct, or the Open Source community, it just hurts their fork of the project. But somebody else may do it. In fact plucker code was already stolen and sold by Bluesomething. Don't help them - just ignore DRM issues. They were 100% within their rights to download the code, use the code, sell the code, and in fact the GPL encourages exactly that. There is nothing stated in the GPL that says I can't take anyone's GPL software, package it up with my own name, and begin selling it at any cost, to anyone I wish, commercially or non-commercially. This company was, however, NOT within their rights to make changes to the code which were not contributed back to the project and thus to the community as a whole. That was the reason for starting the investigation. d. perldoc -qa.j | perl -lpe '($_)=m((.*))' -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.1.92 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9mFBqkRQERnB1rkoRAgdwAKClIWEi7/i0608HL9xe7GVK7YNPPQCg0lMw bm1BPHCU4aBYT+F4cgOGZNA= =/5a8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
RE: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Guylhem Aznar Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 11:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: owner_id_build vs. copyprevention_bit On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 05:53:15PM -0400, David A. Desrosiers wrote: It would seem that these two options go together. If you set the owner of the document, crypting the string into the header of the Plucked document, beaming it to someone else will do you (or them) no good, unless their device's UserID string exactly matches yours (highly unlikely, unless you're beaming between two devices of your own, both with the same UserID set for testing). Shouldn't they be removed altogether? Preveting copy is encouraging DRM. DRM should be flushed down the toilets. Won't happen. There are too many folks who are trying to make a living on intellectual property, and want _some_ way of insuring they get paid for what they do. Free software is about sharing knowledge and encouraging copy, IMHO quite far from restricting or preventing copy. Ask any author who has books in electronic format how they feel about unrestricted distribtion of their copyrighted work without thier permission. Intellectual property is _property_, just as material objects are. Redistribution of copyrighted intellectual property with the express permission of the rights holder is _theft_, pure and simple. Guylhem P. Aznar __ Dennis ___ plucker-dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.rubberchicken.org/mailman/listinfo/plucker-dev
