DISQUS

>The success of this method in foiling filters, though, depends on whether any features of what the filter is looking for survive encryption.

I haven't read the article so I'm surmising that the filters we're talking about are trying to determine the content of files in transit and P2P systems might fight back by encrypting the files.

Given those sets of circumstances there is no way that watermarks in encrypted files can be detected. It doesn't work that way - encryption algorithms are designed to prevent any information whatsoever about the cleartext from being ascertained by examining the ciphertext.

Now it's true that watermarks survive analog->digital->analog conversions. And they would certainly survive cleartext->encrypted->decrypted transformations since these are lossless. But if watermarks could be designed that could be detected in encrypted streams this would imply fundamental flaws in encryption algorithms that would open them up to all sorts of attacks... I think you're misunderstanding the way the technology is used.

Ah, ok, on further re-reading, that's not what he's saying. He's saying you might ship a DRM protected file in some way (GPL'ed software on the hardware of your PMP or whatever) that causes you to lose the ability to sue people under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA (obviously you could still sue them if they used the content in IP infringing ways).

Hmmm. I guess I'm a little underwhelmed by that argument, given that I want to do away with the anti-circumvention provisions all together as a matter of law. The GPL is attempting by contract to do what the FSF has so far been unable to do by legislation and I'm not sure what I think about that strategy... I still think that Delong's piece is a little on the FUD'ish side but it malicious as I thought it was on first reading.

Geez. Even granting all Delong's assumptions about DRM and the GPL that 2nd to last paragraph is ridiculous:

In fact, the addition of these murky provisions creates huge uncertainties about the impact of the license on content creators' ability to incorporate DRM. Can you imagine an IT company that risks having to inform the maker of a $100 million movie that it just gave away the creator's right to protect the work

Let's say he's right and you can't use GPL'ed software to manipulate DRM'ed content. In what way could an IT company "give away the creator's right to protect the work?" The GPL can't reassign the IP rights to the movie, it can only make illegal certain technological means of distribution. In theory the FSF could sue the IT company under such a scenario, but the creator's rights to the work are completely unaffected.

Delong has to know this. He may be right that the GPLv3 is badly written (I'm not qualified to debate this) but his closing shot is FUD par excellence...

Quote:

that no ISP may limit content based on "religious views, political views, or any other views expressed in such content."

What? Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but wouldn't this disallow an ISP from offering a filtered service? Say I'm a "Christian ISP" and I want to filter out any content disrespectful of Christianity or pro-satanist or whatever, and offer this as a service. Would this telecom bill criminalise such a plan?

What's my line here? I can't remember if I'm supposed to blast you for being a techology ignoramus for not understanding the href tag or if I'm supposed to discern the malice that leads you to deliberately leave off the link to wikipedia.

Ah, I can't decide. I'll go read the wikipedia article on Network Neutrality now.

Re mike:My guess is that the Times picks the bio tagline for the columns it runs. I've written a column or two for my local paper and they don't allow me to supply titles or bios. The Show Me institute is non-partisan (I'm guessing) in the sense that it isn't a PAC or explicit subsidiary of the Republican party or a particular corporation. Obviously anybody whose self description includes

The work of the Institute is rooted in the American tradition of free markets and individual liberty. The Institute's scholars seek to move beyond the 20th-century mindset that every problem has a government solution. Instead, they develop policies that respect the rights of the individual, encourage creativity and hard work, and nurture independence and social cooperation.

is going to be reliably more congenial to some partisan points of view than others. You do errect a nice straw man though: I haven't seen Tim assert that "The easiest way to screw the consumer and make the stockholders money ... is to get a regulatory regime imposed on the industry". I have seen him assert that regulations imposed on industry, allegedly for consumer benefit, frequently end up being tools that serve the corporations they were meant to constrain. Perhaps you are asserting that regulatory capture does not exist?

Oh, and Finkelstein makes the sort of ridiculous statement I would expect from the man who wrote Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. Oh, wait, you're Seth, not Norman Finkelstein. Why don't you make that clear when you post? Fraud...

(For those of you not getting the humour: it isn't Tim Berners Lee, it is actually Tim Berners-Lee. Sir Tim has a hyphenated last name, so they actually have different last names! A clear case of fraud indeed...)

Both those links go to a login page... You wanted http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060131-6...