OneAndOneIs2

Linked from Slashdot, a mildly interesting article on copy protection.

Rick Cotton is pro-protection, but whilst showing a better than usual grasp of the issues, still doesn't understand it very well.

1. There may not be a single answer to this question. It may vary by medium, by technological environment and by groups of creators. Some media may be more susceptible to flexible, effective and commercially reasonable technology protections than others. Some groups of creators may have different preferences than others. Some tech environments may be easier to address first than others.

True enough. At least no sign of the "DRM for everything" mania from certain *AA spokespeople we've had in the past.

2. Many creators devote huge amounts of time, creative energy, and — in commercial settings — monetary investment to produce copyrighted works...Both fairness and the law (firmly rooted in the U.S. Constitution) support creators’ right to control the use of their work and to be compensated for these efforts (if that is what they want). ” In today’s digital world, that includes taking steps to protect their works from indiscriminate, wholesale theft on the Internet.

Also true, and doing so well until that "theft" part at the end - copyright violation is in no sense theft. As I myself argued about this time two years ago, copyright should exist. If nothing else, without it, there's no copyleft.

3. Those who suggest that technological protections are not needed must, if they are intellectually honest, acknowledge, confront and speak to the tidal wave of unlawful, wholesale reproduction and distribution of copyrighted content that is currently occurring in the digital world on the broadband Internet.

Broadly true, but mostly irrelevant to the argument. However, he's quite right that piracy is rampant and in most cases indefensible.

4. Another feature of this debate that should change is technologists disingenuously trashing technology. Too often, the same people who enthusiastically and unreservedly sing the praises of the infinite and wondrous capabilities of digital technology in virtually every other respect pretend that technology has nothing to offer and no ability to reduce the massive trafficking in wholesale infringements of entire works (certainly in the area of video, film, TV, games and software). It is categorically and demonstratively untrue and unworthy of tech champions.

5. The imperfect protection offered by anti-piracy technologies - “Every lock can be picked” - is no reason to give up on them. Despite the existence of lock picks, identity thieves, and hackers, cars and homes still have locks, e-mail accounts have passwords, and computers have firewalls. Our general approach — including most particularly in the digital world — is to put the strongest possible security in place and fix flaws and weak spots when they are identified through breaches, but not simply abandon the effort. The arena of content protection technology should be no different. Speed bumps do work.

Here's where he starts to lose it.

He draws on real-world examples, and you can't do that with data on the Internet.

If I buy a set of lock picks and learn the skills, I can break any common household lock. But most people don't have those skills, so locks are a deterrent.

If I crack a copy protected movie and put it on P2P, it doesn't matter that most people don't have the skill to do likewise: Picking the lock once unlocks it for the whole world. Nothing short of perfect copy protection has any value: In the real world, if you have 100 door locks and a lock pick, you need to pick 100 locks. On the Internet, if you have 100 locks and you work out how to crack them... you've just unlocked all 100 locks at once.

6. Even if imperfect, the implementation of anti-piracy technologies also sends an important message. The technological infrastructure of the broadband internet must communicate to the vast majority of users that wholesale reproduction of entire works (or even major portions) is not acceptable. Committed hackers may develop work arounds, but that is not the point. The reality is that technology speaks — and speaks loudly. Today — and for the last decade — the ease of accessing pirated content has spoken to internet users — and particularly young users — “if can’t really be wrong if it is so easy to do.” That perception needs to change.”

Sadly, things haven't improved yet. Thousands of crimes are easy to do. You could easily use a kitchen knife to murder somebody. Does this mean we need knives to be modified to make it harder to commit a crime with them?

No?

Then why do we need computers to be modified? It's attitudes that need to be addressed, not technology.

Here in the UK, where the overwhelming concern (right or wrong) in road safety is slowing cars down, there are "Speed kills" signs everywhere, speed cameras everywhere, speed traps everywhere... and absolutely no speed limiters being built into cars to stop them going over 70mph.

It's the same thing: "Guns don't kill people..." in yet another form.

7. Technological protections clearly need to be constructed to take account of a wide number of legitimate concerns such as not interfering with legitimate consumer expectations, privacy and fair use. But the extraordinary capabilities of digital technology have brought us the broadband Internet, dizzying mobile communications and marvelous desktop, laptop, and handheld computing. Digital technology is also capable of great exactitude and flexibility in identifying copyrighted content and targeting infringements with no more intrusiveness than when it screens out viruses and hacker attacks. I am sure we will be exploring those subjects in greater detail later this week.

He starts out well - upholding fair use etc. But then holds up vaporware as a solution. "What if somebody invented copy protection that didn't stop you doing anything that's legal and moral, but made it impossible to do bad things like distribute to your friends?"

Well? What if they did? You think it's that easy, scribble it onto a piece of paper, send it to a software company as the "user requirements", and ask how long it'll take them to write the code to do the desired task.

Overall conclusion: The lawyers and media and software people are starting to get the hang of the idea that they can't screw the users out of their rights and still sell their products to a happy consumer base. But they still cling to the fantasy of magic protection that'll take all the bad things away.

It's so attractive an image, they can't bring themselves to look at the ugly truth: That the only way to stop the "tidal wave of unlawful, wholesale reproduction and distribution of copyrighted content" is to remove the incentive for people to do it, not the ability.