| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
What's the fuss about?What's the fuss about?Posted Sep 16, 2003 23:27 UTC (Tue) by simon_kitching (guest, #4874)In reply to: What's the fuss about? by zonker Parent article: An opening for OpenOffice.org I have worked for/with many large corporations (IBM, Hutchison3G, Orange, Vodafone, Telecom New Zealand, New Zealand Post) as both employee and external consultant, so am familiar with business practices and attitudes at these sort of corporations. I really cannot see any great incentive for managers receiving documents to require DRM. As the sender, you can send out as many copies of a document as you desire, so sending it via DRM does not guarantee that the document cannot be "leaked" by the sender, only that it cannot be leaked by the recipient. In addition, to extend your "newsletter" example, the recipient must be able to access the data in ways incompatible with DRM (copy/paste into a larger document for example), so they clearly would not ask for DRM'd documents that remove their right to perform such operations. I can see people wanting to send DRM documents; management seem very fond of "for your eyes only" type distribution. The "background material for newsletter" case is a good example. However in order for this to work:
I can't see (a), (b) and (c) being widely implemented even in windows-centric companies. It certainly violates the corporate security policy at many of the places I have worked at or with. As I said in my original posting, DRM for internal use is a different issue; it would be far easier to configure and therefore is more likely to be used. If DRM support was required of external parties in order to perform consultancy work, I would indeed be concerned. However I am far from convinced that the DRM implementation being introduced by Microsoft is going to cause that.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||