my own contribution was more along the lines of illustrating the obsurdity of the antipiracy mechanism itself.
Piracy is the illegal use of a copyrighted work; eg, the use of that work without a license or permission.
in the world of software, mechanisms to assure that only authorized or licensed use happens exist. we call this DRM.
this takes many forms, but the oldest is the use of an item with real scarcity as a key. this has ranged from a hardware port dongle, to a code wheel, to something written in a manual that is obscure... basically anything physical that requires physical resources and dedication to duplicate, and which has a cost to distribute.
the more modern disk key idea is an evolution of this that has a compromise. a digital key is generated from a complicated algorithm that is difficult to derive from first principles, is unique to a specific install, (ideally generated using data unique to the system being installled on, thus making the system itself the key), but which costs little to distribute, making it less costly for the software maker.
the trouble is as I stated. Locks do not keep thieves out. They keep honest people honest.
a person who really wants the content that is locked up, but does not want to, or cannot through some set of circumstances, get at it the intended way, will look for ways around the lock. the honest person knows they do not have permission, and the added hassle of breaking the lock to get inside is a powerful deterrant, since they are in a position to, or are willing to, gain proper access permission, which is easier. the value of the lock is that it adds inconvenience to improper access, equal to or greater than the costs of attaining proper access.
so, what about really onerous restrictions to access, that are clumsy, or add serious inconvenience to gaining or using proper access?
at some point, the desire to stop wrongful access creates a situation where complete removal of the lock once and for all, becomes prefferable to the honest person than dealing with the gatekeeper every day.
when that happens, the gatekeeper not only becomes inefectual, it becomes counter effectual.
remember, the honest person has first and foremost gone through the effort of trying to gain legitimate access to the content, and is just being wrongfully denied by the gate keeper. thier access to the content is not illegal or immoral, they have obtained legal rights to that access.
at this point, the actions of the gatekeeper put strong pressure on the legitimate user to circumvent the gatekeeper completely. they now have precisely zero incentive to play by the gatekeeper's rules, and the more officious he is, the more disincentive they hve to go through him.
Modern software makers have decided that DRM stops thieves. This is the essential failure.
the thief never has incentive to use the gatekeeper, even when he is polite, cheerful, and jovial. they never have incentive to properly obtain the keys to the content they are seekng. they want the content at no tangible cost to themselves, and being very practiced at gaining wrongful or inappropriate access, find this method of gaining accesss trivially easy.
now, revisit again the first scenario of the legitimate user resorting, out of desperation, to improper access due to a beligerant gatekeeper. they gain practice and confidence in ganing such access, further eroding the real mechanism by which restrictions drive sales. Once they gain this expertise, they become less and less willing to gain proper access, as it becomes less and less convenient to gain proper accesss, even with a friendly and jovial gatekeeper.
Locks do not stop thieves.
Locks keep honest people honest.
If the lock is too much of a hassle, it makes even honest people resort to smashing the lock with a hammer.
The ideal lock adds just enough hassle that the honest person stays honest.
the idea that a lock can turn a thief into an honest person is a fantasy.
Author
Topic: Fuck you Microsoft (Read 20567 times)