[cc-licenses] short short anti-tpm
teloscorbin at gmail.com
Thu Oct 5 11:34:10 EDT 2006
On 10/5/06, Discussion on the Creative Commons license drafts
<cc-licenses at lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:
> Terry wrote:
> > just means the TPM wrapper recognizes a hash-signature on the content).
> > OTOH, this is probably a lot more work for Dave than producing a generic
> > wrapper, so maybe it's enough of a deterrant.
> Most, if not all multimedia file formats have space for comments. DAVE
> DRM Monopolist could simply toss an encrypted digital signature in one
> of those comment fields, and neglect to mention that the hardware only
> plays content that has that digital signature. And have the error that
> is displayed be somewhat cryptic (EG: "RLE Data error"), so that people
> think that the file is corrupt, and not simply lacking the required
> digital signature.
If the signature in the content prevents it from being played,
it can be considered a technological protection measure that
restricts the rights to the work, and violates teh anti-TPM license.
Dave would have to send a clear copy of the work to Alice,
and then some sort of DRM-er that adds the signature to the
work that Alice can run on her side.
anti-TPM does not prevent this. But parallel distribution doesn't
either, and parallel distribution allows other monopolies that
As for Alice applying DRM to the work on her local copy,
I equate that with Dave sending Alice a proprietary binary
library, some GNU-GPL source code, adn a make file
that builds the two together. This has been allowed in GPL
for a long time, and I see no reason it would be a problem
if it were allowed with DRM.
To prevent it would require preventing Alice from applying
DRM to her local copy, and that seems a step too far.
More information about the cc-licenses