Again, please include the list when replying. On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 1:06 AM, Kirk Bailey <kbailey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > ** > > > On 7/6/2011 6:08 PM, Stuart Dallas wrote: > > Please include the list when replying. > > On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 10:20 PM, Kirk Bailey <kbailey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote: > >> Um, assuming dishonest intent on the customers part, why would the token >> NOT be shared? >> > > I meant shared within your system between customers. Whether you lock the > URL or not, if customers want to share the asset(s) they're downloading, > they will. Nothing you can really do about that. > > Wanna bet? I know how to make even the most selfish amoral theif NOT share > copyrighted material. > [snip fascinating technical detail bits] > Yeah, I'll take that bet. That's quite a claim, and one the MPAA, RIAA and many other similar organisations around the world would be tripping over themselves to throw money at you if it were true. It's bits and bytes. Anything you can come up with can be broken. It is categorically not possible to prevent the duplication of digital information, copyrighted or not. It is possible to make it pretty difficult, but not impossible. The way you phrased that is interesting... "I know how to make [people] NOT share copyrighted material" - you didn't say prevent them from doing it, which might suggest your method has a social engineering aspect. Alternatively I could be reading too much into the language you used - I do that sometimes. Come to think of it, I can make them not share copyrighted material too - make the copyrighted material something that nobody would ever want. What's the number for the RIAA? Oh, hang on, the record companies have tried that several times - they realised the business model is not sustainable! Oh, and I think you'll find most of the people who circumvent copy protection mechanisms are not selfish or amoral, they're just curious, intelligent people looking for a challenge. -Stuart -- Stuart Dallas 3ft9 Ltd http://3ft9.com/
