[IETF-IDRM] Re: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?

[Thomas Hardjono]

Gord,

I agree with most of your comments. Judging from the "emotional outcry" we 
received at the last IDRM meeting (Salt Lake City IETF, end of 2001), DRM 
seems to mean different things to different people.


At 12/11/2002||09:23 AM, Gord Larose wrote:
>Hello:
>   Most of you on the list will not know me, as I came in during your period
>of dormancy. I too have been mulling these issues, as the DRM company  that
>I helped found (NetActive) struggled like most others in the space.
>
>I think there are two classes of issues here - the social-advocacy ones
>and the technical ones.
>
>The social-advocacy issues are horribly subjective. The concerns were
>well expressed in Mark's email, and we could spend thousands of words
>debating them.  For what it
>is worth, I believe that DRM is not philosophically wrong, and further, that
>it is commercially necessary. However, I do not believe that the current
>"axis of greed" between Hollywood and Washington serves the best interests
>of American citizens and, as a Canadian, I am very concerned about the
>United States' efforts to impose its draconian views of copyright
>enforcement on the rest of the world.
>  Good DRM does not have to put Big Brother on your hard drive. If it does,
>then the price is too high.

Right. So one of the notions we put forward in the IETF was:  is it at all 
possible to create "open-source DRM technologies", so that small 
mom-and-pop publishers need not pay $$$ for proprietary solutions.  The 
analogy is that with Linux and the Apache webserver, which are available 
for around $30.
Another useful comparison in the RSA encryption algorithm, which is good 
technology, well understood, standardized and now finally over the patent 
hurdle.

I realize that some folks take the (radical) position of being against any 
development of DRM technology whatsoever.  The best way to ensure Big 
Brother does not happen is to go against any work relating to DRM. The 
reality is that DRM Technology is here to stay (proprietary), whether we 
like it or not.  It will ship inside PCs and in consumer electronics 
devices.  I think such a position actually helps the Big Brother syndrome, 
as it does not provide an option to the general public as to alternative 
sources of technology.



>On a philosophical level then, I say there is a need for smart people to
>build workable DRM that citizens can live with.
>
>The point issue of this technical group's mandate is much clearer IMO. The
>core
>technology challenges for DRM are terminal node challenges, not network
>challenges. Sure, a network is usually involved, but DRM is nothing special
>for the network. DRM's basic network needs are nothing harder than
>http/https over tcp/ip. And the terminal mode challenges are largely about
>things like tamper-resistance, which are proprietary and not very amenable
>to
>standardization. It's not something where an IETF group adds much value.

Right.  This is where the word "DRM" is I think a misnomer for the IETF 
efforts.  You are absolutely right, that DRM is indeed "terminal node 
challenges" (ie. development of rights-enforcing terminals), which is not 
the traditional area of work for the IETF.

However, there some network issues that is part of what I call the "DRM 
macrocosm", which included functions relating to look-ups, secure network 
storage, transaction clearinghouse, etc.  These would appear to be suitable 
for work items in the IETF.

Thus, one possible change to IDRM is a new name that is less likely to be 
controversial.



>So where does that leave the group ? Seems to me the options include:
>1) disband
>2) generalize the focus to a multidisciplinary one, along the lines of
>http://www.bcdforum.org . (Though I have to confess I find that organization
>lacking substance.)
>3) Find specific technical problems that are obstacles to good (i.e.
>effective but not Orwellian) DRM, which are going begging, and in scope,
>and work on solutions.
>
>I don't have a top-of-mind suggestion for #3, but it sounds like the most
>fun!

Yes, the keyword is "fun".  Perhaps others on the list may have specific 
suggestions?

cheers,

thomas
------





>Other thoughts ???
>
>Best Regards,
>    Gord Larose
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mark Baugher" <mbaugher@cisco.com>
>To: <ietf-idrm@lists.elistx.com>
>Cc: <thardjono@yahoo.com>; "Vern Paxson" <vern@icir.org>
>Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:43 PM
>Subject: [IDRM] Disband or recharter IDRM?
>
> > IDRM has obviously been dormant for about a year.
> >SNIP<