Don't make the mistake of assuming that content control must be
total or absolute. The market for such technologies, unlike many pundits
who dismiss them in all variety, demands only that the content control be
effective in denying the pirate the ability to make a market, to contest
with the legit creators of the content with a clone that is wholly equal,
unmarked, and untracable. The IP holders want only to be able to spot the
copies and track them somewhat, traditional police (and diplomatic)
procedures can then take over.
You are undoubtedly correct in presuming that there will be ways
around whatever controls are put in place. Onesy twosies copies don't worry
anyone. If some group in China or India starts spinning out copies, but if
those copies are identifiable as illicit clones, then much bigger wheels
start turning to force the local authorities to crack down on the pirates.
Suerte,
_Vin
At 12:24 AM 3/7/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>I came across a company called InterTrust that claims to have developed a
>system whereby digital content can be downloaded to a user's PC, the user
>be required to pay for 'rights' to use the content under certain 'rules'
>set by the content provider and yet the user will somehow be prevented
>from copying, duplicating or distributing the content. This system is
>supposed to work offline.
>
>Somehow I don't see how InterTrust can prevent a user from copying the
>state of his PC prior to his 'using' the content, then use the content and
>then restoring the state each time he wants to use the content.
>Theoretically the user could distribute the 'state' of his PC to others
>and circumvent InterTrust's protection scheme.
>
>InterTrust's system is explained at
>http://www.intertrust.com/technology/index.html
>
>I'd be interested in a critique of this scheme.
>
>Regards, Jeff
>
>
>
>
