|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
X-Original-To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com X-Original-To: cryptography@wasabisystems.com Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:06:33 -0800 From: Ed Gerck <egerck@nma.com> To: "A.Melon" <juicy@melontraffickers.com> Cc: cryptography@wasabisystems.com "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@wasabisystems.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |