which format will win?

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

(Also, you're quite wrong - example: One Time Pads. Immune to "breaking" when used correctly)

One-time pads, while unbreakable when used correctly as an encryption scheme, are not particularly useful for DRM!

To be unbreakable, the reading device would have to be preprogramed with a set of pad keys, unique to each device, whose total size was at least equal to the total size of all the books you would ever read in the lifetime of that device.

/JB

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

In short, the reason that DRM can typically be bypassed is that it must be bypassed in order to give any access to the content at all. Whatever lock they put on the data, they must also provide the key - and this is their undoing.

You are 100% correct.

It's worth noting that it *is* possible to conceive of a DRM scheme which, while perhaps not theoretically uncrackable, is effectively so (in the absence of esoteric kit like electron microscopes to read device memory) - at least for custom hardware if not for PCs.

E.g. You could have a per-device RSA (or similar) key pair programmed into the device at manufacturing time, where the device will report the public (encrypting) key when a book is purchased, and the book will be encrypted with that key. The device would clearly need to contain the decrypting key, but there are various ways to prevent that being accessible to reverse engineers without esoteric equipment. E.g. the decrypting key and code could be in embedded flash on the processor, with contents readout and write protected - no way to get at it without serious kit - way beyond the effort that anyone would go to per-device.

Or, the decrypting code and key could be in normal memory, but itself encrypted with a device-unique key with which the processor was configured at manufacturing time.

None of this would get around the "read the book and type it out" DRM stripping, but that's significant per-book (as opposed to per-device) effort, which is hard to see being part of any sane backup strategy!

/JB

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Uh, no. DRM has nothing to do with either actually. As had been thoroughly explained a backup is nothing but a copy of the file and DRM has no effect on copying the file. Nor does it have anything to do with legality. That depends on the particular copyright laws at the location the backup takes place.

Any backup strategy which doesn't include a strategy for restore is worthless.

It reminds me of the claims a long time ago from a company which claimed to have an algorithm which could losslessly compress literally *any* file, including its own output, such that repeated application of the algorithm would allow any file to be losslessly compressed to less than some specific size (I don't remember the specific size) - which is clearly impossible.

They were able successfully to demonstrate the compression algorithm in action - however they were unable to demonstrate decompression of the resulting files!

A backup which can't be restored falls into the same boat.

I'm sure we all agree that a copy of a DRMed file is a backup that can be restored in some circumstances, but not others in which a DRM-free file would be able to be restored. Hence, the DRM does reduce the *usefulness* of the backup.

Agreed, a meteor strike would also reduce the usefulness of a backup, but my feeling for which set of circumstances is more likely means that I see DRM as having a much more significant impact on the backups.

/JB

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by jbjb

One-time pads, while unbreakable when used correctly as an encryption scheme, are not particularly useful for DRM!

True, but "usability" isn't relevant to the point I was making about there being an uncrackable scheme. It's very much a choice of the company how crackable a given DRM scheme is, and that depends on how much effort and processing hardware they're prepared to throw at it.

(The most well known example is CSS - one of the reasons it's weak is that it's designed to work with a very limited level of processing hardware)

Half the time, the "encryption" is nominal and designed to invoke the DMCA/EUCD protections rather than to provide useful protection.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry that you're having difficulty understanding this. It is a very simple concept.

You can take any ebook file and back it up to any storage medium. There. You have backed it up, thus refuting your claim that "DRM prevents you from being able to back it up".

Backing up has nothing whatsoever to do with being able to use it on some future device you might own in 10 years time. It really doesn't help anyone to try to conflate these two entirely separate topics.

Sorry if I add to this off-topic...

I think your misunderstanding come for the use of verbs. Actually, IT people like me, use the verb "to back up" meaning the whole backup and restore process.
You're right, DRM does not prevent backup, it just makes DATA restore almost impossibile, which makes the first half of the process completely pointless.
Remeber: the point of backup is not to recover files, it's to recover the data in them! (Most of the commercial backup solutions store data in a different file format than the original one...)

So you're both right.

DRM prevents backup, if you mean the whole data backup/copy/restore thing.
DRM does not prevent backup, just data restore (*), if you're very precise in your choice of words.
DRM does not prevent backup nor restore of the zeros and ones which constitute your file, if you're nitpicking in your vocabulary and splitting the hair in two just to not concede a point.



______________________
(*) Actually, restore of DRM'd data is possibile, albeit only in the very unlikely scenario in which you restore your data on the very same device the backup came from.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

And in this analogy it would be inaccurate to say "The betamax format itself prevented me from backing up my movies" wouldn't it?

Cheers,
PKFFW

You're completely right, of course!

The correct statement is "the use of an industry-proprietary format makes backup useless".

You can add "and DRM encrypted" and it's just the same.

And the purpose is exactly the same: to grab monopoly on the distribution of content and to control the flow of information.

[DawnFalcon]

Hence PDF/A, etc.

[nick_]

Originally Posted by frabjous

The entire art of typography of the past 500 years was a waste, and good riddance.

The art of typography is still valid for ... typography!

It is irrelevant for the new media.

There are always those who try to impose the old standards to a new media. This is a mistake that has been repeated many times in history. Are you sad for the disappearance of calligraphy, an art of 3000 years, because of the "vulgar" typography?

Latex was good for the '80s. Cobol was good for the '60s. Things change.

The future is css and XML.

[nick_]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

We will need something like that for citing purposes etc.

I don't think this is a problem. Scientific papers are usually well constructed with sections, paragraphs etc. Also, there are anchors, XML elements etc. that can be used for citations. It is not really a problem.

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But at the same time, reflowing text doesn't work well for academic books (research findings, not textbooks--though it sucks for those too), journal articles etc. as text needs to be around certain figures, tables can't be broken up etc.

I don't think any of these are problems. On the contrary. For example, what medium is better for tables? The printed A4 page or an 24 inch LCD screen? What medium is better for diagrams?

Right now e-book readers do have a lot of limitations, but sooner or later they won't be much different in functionality from a standard computer.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

(Also, you're quite wrong - example: One Time Pads. Immune to "breaking" when used correctly)

DRM being ineffective has nothing to do with the strength of the encryption scheme. You don't get around DRM by brute force breaking of the encryption. You could have completely unbreakable encryption, but the DRM would still be useless.

The problem with DRM is that they're trying to use encryption to protect against something that encryption does not protect against. Namely, the legitimate use and the illegitimate use are done by the same person.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by nick_

I don't think any of these are problems. On the contrary. For example, what medium is better for tables? The printed A4 page or an 24 inch LCD screen? What medium is better for diagrams?

Honestly, it doesn't matter IMO. All that matters is that it can be displayed as intended. Be that on a printout or a screen big enough to display it without cropping, or shrinking, or reflowing etc.

I'll quit printing out my research articles to read when I have a stylus screen tablet with a screen big enough (8.5 x 11 or larger) to display them exactly the same as on my printout currently.

[nick_]

Originally Posted by frabjous

Care to give a single reason for the claim that HTML is better?

I will give you three:

1) Separation of content from presentation (XHTML+CSS).

2) Human eyes have a wide field of view, that's why we have wide LCD screens (and movie theaters) and no A4 screens.

3) Flexibility.


There are people out there with 30 inch screens, with 3 inch screens, people with a variety of eye handicaps etc.

[clockworkzombie]

Laws are changed or ignored to reflect community standards. Australian copyright law prohibits transferring a copy of your music to an iPod/MP3 player.

Could you imagine what would happen if every iPod user turned themselves into the police for copyright violations.

The law is on the books it does not get enforced. There have been rumblings by the politicians to change the law, I do not know if that has happened.

[nick_]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Honestly, it doesn't matter IMO. All that matters is that it can be displayed as intended. Be that on a printout or a screen big enough to display it without cropping, or shrinking, or reflowing etc.

I'll quit printing out my research articles to read when I have a stylus screen tablet with a screen big enough (8.5 x 11 or larger) to display them exactly the same as on my printout currently.

Why does it have to be exactly as your printout? You are used to it, but there is no other good reason. We all adapt to the medium we are publishing to. If you are going to publish to an A4 paper, you will definitely not include a table with 10 columns. But if you publish in HTML you can have 10 columns and also permit the user to short the data using any column (as in Excel) etc. Why shouldn't you do this? Just because you cannot do it for a printed A4 page?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by nick_

Latex was good for the '80s. Cobol was good for the '60s. Things change.

The future is css and XML.

You seem to be confusing rendering with markup. CSS and XHTML are probably the future of markup. The current rendering engines are poor and will hopefully improve.