Larry Lessig and I had a brief blog-discussion last week about the meaning of the end-to-end principle(s), and how end-to-end applies to DRM. The discussion continued off-line, and we ended up in pretty close agreement. Here is my version of what we agree on:

(1) End-to-end is not a single principle, but a cluster of related principles. Some are engineering principles, and others are policy/economic principles. It is good to be clear about what version of end-to-end you are using.

(2) The MPAA/Hollings approach does harm by forcing all computers to implement certain functions, even though those functions are not needed by all law-abiding network users. This violates the engineering end-to-end principle that says that functions should not be required unless needed by all.

(3) The MPAA/Hollings approach does even more harm by forbidding a great many non-infringing functions from being implemented at all. This offends both engineering and policy versions of the end-to-end principle, all of which favor giving end users flexibility in how they use the network.

(4) DRM is generally a bad idea, but some DRM systems are worse than others.

Great new entry in the Lessig/DRM debate, from Ernest Miller at Lawmeme.

This is starting to turn from a narrow debate about Lessig’s piece into a wider discussion of how to think about DRM and Palladium. I’m eager to see this wider discussion start.

Remember when I promised not to post anymore on Lessig’s DRM piece? I lied. I just have to respond to a comment from Lessig himself.

He writes:

… Felten is skeptical that copyprotection would be placed in the network. “From an engineer standpoint, that assumption looks wrong to me,” he says. But what if we looked at Fritz “not an engineer” Holling’s perspective? The point of my article is that Congress is pushing copyprotection in the network, whatever engineers would argue is ideal….

Let me go farther, then. I don’t think anybody, including Sen. Hollings, is proposing building copy protection into the network itself. The Hollings CBDTPA would regulate “digital media devices,” i.e. endpoints. The proposed BPDG “broadcast flag” rules would also restrict endpoint products. The so-called “consensus watermark” proposals operate at the endpopints too. Normally when people talk about “regulating the Internet,” they’re really talking about regulating the endpoints.

Having said that, let’s not lose sight of the fact that I agree with Lessig about the main points in his article: that kneejerk anti-Microsoftism blinds some people to the real significance of Palladium, and that what Lessig calls “token based” DRM is a lesser evil than what he calls “copy protection”.

Donna Wentworth offers a pithy summary of the commentary on Lessig’s DRM piece, over at Copyfight.

Larry Lessig has a provocative piece in Red Herring on Microsoft’s plans regarding DRM and Palladium. Lessig says that Palladium is not as bad as some people say, and that Palladium may in fact benefit consumers (at least compared to the alternatives).

This piece has provoked some really interesting discussion over on Copyfight, Ernie the Attorney (read the comments on Ernie’s site too), and Lessig’s blog.

There is enough material here for a dozen postings. Unfortunately I don’t have time to write any of them today. Tune in tomorrow.