RE: Managing licenses in Gnutella

I don't militate for a system that steals the data on my PC. This is not
even needed. The only thing that is needed is a way to assert who is
everyone, and who owns the rights, who licenced it.
This requires nothing on my PC, only trustable licences asserted by
verifiable identities, but not by links to hardware or full control to my
software.
They don't even need access to the associated medias, all that is needed is
a trustable party that attests that licence transfers really exists. This
means non-repudiation, signatures, and a repository somewhere (not on my Pc
or on the server of the vendor).
Licences are not different from contrats, and what works for traditional
contracts should work as well for protecting medias, without letting them
coming to my home by giving them the key to come at any time.
We have lots of things in every other areas of commerce: to prove that we
have bought a car, or rented a house, or paid our taxes, or that the money
in our bank accounts belong to us. These systems DO work because there are
trustable third-parties that the parties to a contract accept to trust and
that they can freely choose; also because there are control mechanisms to
make sure that third-parties do not lie. And finaly because justice and
police have the right to investigate and take decisions.
In every case, when we buy a car or rent a house, we don't have to give to
the seller or proprietary the keys to let them come in at any time!
That's the only way to MANAGE everybody's rights.
You want me to drop the acronym "DRM"; what I want is not that, I want to
give this acronym the true and necessary meaning "Rights Management"; they
say the system currently deployed is DRM, I am arguing that what they have
deployed is *not* DRM, because it fails at its definition, given that it can
prove absolutely no right, it is not manageable, and it requires
transferring user rights illegally (because this is not negociated, and
completely unbalanced).
If the term "DRM" shocks you, it's because of its current bogous
implementation. If you want me to name it "receipt", this does not change
the problem, except that you'll be naming it with a weaker term; a receipt,
by law, does not transfer any right, it just means that some money was
received by someone, but attests nothing about the legality of the
transaction. I can give you a receipt at any time for any amount that you
would give me, this would not mean that I have transferred any rights to
you, or that you have paid all the money necessary to conclude a contract;
even this receipt is contestable by law, unless there's a third-party that
registers the "receipt" somewhere and attests that the identities of parties
were correct.
For the rest, in the current "DRM" system, there's absolutely nobody that
can attest that some agreement occurred lawfully. If one party destroys its
own proof, the other one will have no other solution than good faifth to
defend himself, and by principle, the DRM system will just make the whole
agreement void, as if it had NEVER existed, so we will be trated as liars.
And yes, the way they use to secure the agreements is unlawful, because it
hides an hidden UNLIMITED and PERMANENT access to only ONE party without
compensation.

The system is clearly unbalanced and this is what allows media distributeors
to force you to pay MULTIPLE TIMES for exactly the same rights! Now if they
say that each copy of a media needs its own licence, because these products
are intrinsicly different. If this was true, then it could contradict the
jurisprudence related to counterfeighting. The media support is definitely
not what defines the medias that are theoretically protected by licences.
The same licence covers the initial support, as well as any backup that we
have the full right, by law, to make for our personal usage (here "personal"
means that there's no other party to the licence contract than the two
signatories).

Really, the whole system is broken by existing implementation; for now there
exists NO trustable management of users rights through digital networks
(they called it DRM, this is wrong). This also means that what they are
selling is just lies. Because of that, I can't trust the system based on
lies, and hidden defects, and unbalanced unlimited rights from one party,
and no trustable third-party allowed to control the system.

In reality, everybody is abused: customers, artists, and even the legal
system. The current DRM system profits ONLY to distributors, but it protects
absolutely no one else. It's a false black econonomy based on things that
simply do not exist, and provides service to absolutely noone. It's fud,
exactly like money laundry organized by a mafia...

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] De la part
> de Arne Babenhauserheide
> Envoyé : samedi 24 mars 2007 01:17
> À : [email protected]
> Objet : Re: [the_gdf] Managing licenses in Gnutella
> 
> Am Freitag, 23 de März de 2007 17:16 schrieb Philippe Verdy:
> > And yes, giving them full control on our computer is a severe problem
> when
> > what they are selling is not even secure and verifiable
> 
> Even if it was secure and verifiable, losing control of our computers to
> them
> would be a sever problem, and one which renders DRM into a major problem.
> 
> > But true DRM systems, that may be trustable can be built; this is
> > not a technological limitation.
> 
> That's quite false (in my understanding).
> 
> "trusteable DRM" means that all parts of my computer must be controlleable
> by
> someone else, and since noone can archieve that when I use a free software
> system (what I do and don't intend to change), I can still do whatever I
> wish
> with my files. So "trusteable DRM" isn't possible without taking control
> of
> my computer from me.
> 
> And if someone tries to take control of my computer from me that means,
> he/she
> is simply trying to steal my computer and then use it to take away my
> freedom.
> 
> So you shouldn't ever use the term DRM if you don't intend to say "I want
> to
> steal your freedom". It has been branded by mass media, and to reclaim it
> for
> normal use, you'd need a massive amount of really efficient (and
> expensive)
> marketing.
> 
> > a way for users to demonstrate that they have the licences associated
> with
> > the medias we have.
> 
> This isn't DRM, because I can do whatever I want with my files, as long as
> I
> don't interact with someone else who might object to my actions.
> 
> The only instance which may restrict my actions in my own domain is the
> police
> (because they have been given that authority by the state, which
> represents
> me and the people in my country), as long as that benefits society (which
> is
> why state and police must be controlled by society), and my computer is
> definitely not owned by the police, but by me. So my Copmuter may never
> restrict the actions I do with it, because else, the computer and not I
> would
> be responsible for any misdeeds.
> 
> > Basically, a reliable DRM system would necessarily need to become a true
> > P2P system whose topology is a mesh network, like in real life, not a
> > centralized system which uses unfair competition where independant
> vendors
> > can kill the licences sold by another one without being able to prove
> > anything about the rights they sell, and without even being able to
> prove
> > to legitimate authors that they don't abuse them!
> 
> Please don't call that DRM, except if you want to say "a system, which
> restricts my actions".
> Call it license management, if you wish. Calling it DRM would strengthen
> the
> position of those who want to control every computer (in my opinion).
> 
> What you're proposing is a way to introduce useable receipts into the
> internet, which isn't a small task.
> 
> Best wishes,
> Arne