Global investment bank Goldman Sachs has signed a deal for digital rights management software to protect its confidential documents from unauthorized access. The software, from U.S. vendor Liquid Machines, allows the bank to encrypt documents so it can control access regardless of where the data travels. Document authors can define what users can and cannot do with the information, providing protection against loss, theft or modification.
A Goldman Sachs employee could control who might open, read, forward or print a file irrespective of the user or file's location. For example, an employee could see if someone was attempting to open the document from home. Authorized users are still able to cut, copy or paste data to other applications, with the data remaining protected. The value of the deal was not disclosed. Goldman Sachs is an investor in the privately held company.
Munir Kotadia and Steven Deare of ZDNet Australia reported from Sydney.
This is what DRM should be used for, when used at all. My main concern is that such solid uses will get highlighted, without anything to distinguish them for less useful and arguably unfairly-encumbering applications of the technology.
All it takes is *one* computer not under the DRM control of that particular flavor (how many flavors are there now anyway?) to open the file with no DRM... I mean, even if the file specs are proprietary, anyone determined enough can figure it out.
So, all this money wasted to them (but nice profit for doing nothing for the supplier), and no real benefit.
All it takes is *one* computer not under the DRM control
You said that, "All it takes is *one* computer not under the DRM control".
Many people have been duped by the platform monopolists (DRM vendors) into believing that DRM is something that is applied to "content" rather than the reality that the controversial DRM is applied to the "devices" (hardware/software) used to create, distribute and access content.
I have tried to separate out the pieces of the puzzle in an article:
Protecting property rights in a digital world <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.flora.ca/documents/digital-ownership.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.flora.ca/documents/digital-ownership.html</a>
I suspect that once people get past the misconceptions about how DRM works that they will realize that it not only can't accomplish what they want it to, but that it has considerable harmful unintended consequences. The only beneficiaries of DRM are the hardware/software platform monopolies it creates. All customers (whether authors or audiences) only receive losses.
If the data is cut and pasted into another document then it is not protected anymore. If it is pasted into a plaintext or HTML document it is certainly not protected. That is unless it is NOT pasted as data, and then the article is misleading by saying it can be pasted into other documents.
This article merged together uses of TPMs which protect the rights of technology users with those which attack their rights. Given people are getting these entirely different concepts confused, I am wondering if we can come up with language that clearly differentiates between them.
Protection of rights: "encrypt documents" to "to protect its confidential documents from unauthorized access". Those without the decryption keys would not be able to access the document. Digital signatures would be used to protect against otherwise undetected modifications. In all these cases the owners of the computers retain control over their computers -- in fact, the proper operation of these technologies demand this.
Circumvention of rights: "Document authors can define what users can and cannot do with the information". Documents cannot make decisions. Access to a document is a yes or no question: either you have the keys required to unlock the document, or you do not. In order to control what a person can do after they unlock a locked document this means that the owner of the computer cannot be in control of that computer. It is not the author of the document that decides what can happen (given they are only locking up the content, and are not present at the point it is unlocked), but the authors of the software running on the computer. In all these cases the owners of the computers are not in control of their computers -- in fact, the operation of these technologies demand this.
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
So, all this money wasted to them (but nice profit for doing nothing for the supplier), and no real benefit.
Many people have been duped by the platform monopolists (DRM vendors) into believing that DRM is something that is applied to "content" rather than the reality that the controversial DRM is applied to the "devices" (hardware/software) used to create, distribute and access content.
I have tried to separate out the pieces of the puzzle in an article:
Protecting property rights in a digital world
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.flora.ca/documents/digital-ownership.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.flora.ca/documents/digital-ownership.html</a>
I suspect that once people get past the misconceptions about how DRM works that they will realize that it not only can't accomplish what they want it to, but that it has considerable harmful unintended consequences. The only beneficiaries of DRM are the hardware/software platform monopolies it creates. All customers (whether authors or audiences) only receive losses.
This article merged together uses of TPMs which protect the rights of technology users with those which attack their rights. Given people are getting these entirely different concepts confused, I am wondering if we can come up with language that clearly differentiates between them.
Protection of rights: "encrypt documents" to "to protect its confidential documents from unauthorized access". Those without the decryption keys would not be able to access the document. Digital signatures would be used to protect against otherwise undetected modifications. In all these cases the owners of the computers retain control over their computers -- in fact, the proper operation of these technologies demand this.
Circumvention of rights: "Document authors can define what users can and cannot do with the information". Documents cannot make decisions. Access to a document is a yes or no question: either you have the keys required to unlock the document, or you do not. In order to control what a person can do after they unlock a locked document this means that the owner of the computer cannot be in control of that computer. It is not the author of the document that decides what can happen (given they are only locking up the content, and are not present at the point it is unlocked), but the authors of the software running on the computer. In all these cases the owners of the computers are not in control of their computers -- in fact, the operation of these technologies demand this.