[whatwg] More YouTube response

[David Gerard]

On 5 July 2010 07:51, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen at peda.net> wrote:

> So, you're arguing that DRM is not required, right?


I'm arguing that it can't possibly make sense. And that standardising
a DRM is not something anyone sensible should touch.


> Especially, the content distributors should immediately stop pretending that
> DRM allows for any kind of protection. It's mathematically impossible. It's
> like trying to send an encrypted message to Bob with a requirement that Bob
> cannot have access to the message. That problem cannot be solved. For that
> problem, a decision needs to be made:
> (1) Bob is allowed to get access to the message, or
> (2) Bob is not allowed to get access to the message (never send it!)
> Notice how this is similar to the DRM case above?
> Introducing a DRM system is about *trying to not do the decision* if you
> really *want to distribute the content or not*. Such system should not ever
> be standardized because it really cannot ever work, by definition.


Yes, precisely. Law can contain absurdities - in the BBC case above,
"streaming" and "downloading" are legally different things, even
though technically they're identical - but putting such absurdities
into a technical spec is nonsensical.


- d.