LWN.net Logo

Over the top

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 2:55 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165)
In reply to: Over the top by BrucePerens
Parent article: Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions

How is the software supposed to know whether the copy is authorized?


(Log in to post comments)

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 3:01 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

Indeed.

In my particular case, I get a large collection of pdf documentation from another company. *Some*
of it is randomly copy-prohibited, for no discernible reason. Sometimes I request that they
regenerate the affected PDFs without the prohibitions, but it takes a while for that to be done,
because it's of course not a priority. It'd be a lot easier to just run the pdfs through an automated
user-prohibition-remover program...if one existed.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 12:53 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

Or use a saner PDF reader?

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 3:02 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

When the copyright holder sets the flag, that's like saying it isn't authorized.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 3:06 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

> When the copyright holder sets the flag, that's like saying it isn't
> authorized.

So, the copyright holder can dictate that fair use rights can't be exercised?

jake

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 3:18 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Can you show me what law defines Fair Use?

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 3:42 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

Bruce, you're getting pretty disingenuous here.

Are you now trying to claim that case law doesn't exist?

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 3:49 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I know the case law exists. But there is no affirmative fair use right. There is something in 17 USC 107 that essentially makes fair use a valid defense in an infringement case. But it is really vague, because it wasn't intended to give you any more than case law existing in 1976 had already given you.

The result is that you can't really say that turning off that flag is a fair use right. And whatever balance Open Source arrives at with content owners, if we are going to be able to operate in the future world, isn't going to be "I won't even display your notices because I feel even those violate my rights".

Perhaps you haven't noticed the success of the Kindle. And now here comes Google with their own scheme. And slowly we are being swept into a corner where we will be an uncommunicating island within the internet, walled off from content.

Free software dies at its own hands.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 3:59 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

> Free software dies at its own hands.

And the solution is that we default the behavior of PDF readers to disallow cut-n-paste if the copyright holder says we can't?

I fail to see how that makes these rights holders particularly happy. And Jon's example in the screenshot was the ALI document that he wrote about a week or two ago. Pretty obvious fair use in my opinion.

The rights holders who think they should be able to control every last use of their so-called property won't be happy until they have fully locked-down systems anyway. Pushing back is the only way the public (who, after all, grants the copy 'right') can show that there are perfectly legitimate uses that the rights holders are trying to prevent.

jake

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 4:53 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Sure, Jon's example was non-infringing because it was his own work and deliberately engineered to turn on the notice he wanted to display. But it's silly to claim that's the common use.

Sure, we want concessions from rights holders, so that Free Software / Open Source can participate in tomorrow's media. They want something too. There are concessions that we can't make to them, because that would make the software not Free any longer. "My way or the highway" isn't going to be a valid strategy because we're not running the show - we hardly even have a seat at the meeting. So, let's not throw away the few concessions that we can make.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 5:04 UTC (Tue) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

> Sure, Jon's example was non-infringing because it was his own work and
> deliberately engineered to turn on the notice he wanted to display.

What I meant, and obviously didn't make clear, was that Jon quoted from that ALI PDF file in his article. *That* was, imo, fair use. And would have been 'prevented' by the copy bit.

In another comment you said:

> if we want to have some role for Open Source in society's future other
> than supporting locked-down systems, respect other folks rights as we
> would have them respect ours.

But I haven't seen anyone arguing otherwise. They just need to respect our rights (or defenses) as well. And, by and large, they don't.

jake

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 5:25 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Nothing was preventing Jon from typing in a few lines.

The problem is that we haven't done anything to convince the media producers, or legislators, that we have any rights worth protecting. Because we are not, in general, representative of their customers, who are perfectly happy with what they have.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 4:06 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

> Perhaps you haven't noticed the success of the Kindle.

It's interesting that the Kindle's DRM scheme had been broken at least a few years before the Kindle
was even released. And yet that doesn't seem to have bothered anyone.

I'm not sure what to think about that -- perhaps content owners consider it good enough, if it
takes users 4 clicks to bypass the restrictions?

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 4:56 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

If they do, we really, really, want them to keep doing so. I think people are under-estimating the value of that.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 4:14 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

Bruce, I agree you're being disingenuous, unless you can tell me some practical way to distinguish a "valid defense" from an "affirmative right". Furthermore, nobody has argued that "turning off that flag" is a fair use right. They have argued that their fair use right allows them, in very common cases, to ignore the literal interpretation of the flag's name and the accompanying text in the standard. In other words, that text does not match anyone's rights. I note, further, that I frequently have other rights, beyond fair use, also not reflected in that text.

If you are arguing that some recognition of that flag is advisable, then having only the option to turn it off permanently is, equally, inadvisable. Everyone is motivated to turn it off, and then they never learn that the distributor of any given document turned it on. A reasonable implementation of the standard would display an icon indicating the flag is on, and might, on occasion, post a dialog box with a button to indicate that I know I have the right to perform the action anyhow.

Under not uncommon circumstances I really do have a right to actually turn off that flag in the file. It's neither KDE's nor Debian's business to make it hard for me to exercise that right.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 4:42 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

The biggest difference between affirmative rights defenses is that you can't sue someone for violating your defense. You can only use it to defend yourself if you get sued.

What I am arguing is that we should, if we want to have some role for Open Source in society's future other than supporting locked-down systems, respect other folks rights as we would have them respect ours.

Over the top

Posted Jun 15, 2009 5:12 UTC (Mon) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

What I am arguing is that we should, if we want to have some role for Open Source in society's future other than supporting locked-down systems, respect other folks rights as we would have them respect ours.

I dont think anyone disagrees with that. I also dont think it is at all on point. No one has any right to take control of my computer from me, period, end of story.

Many people clearly believe they have such a right but they are mistaken. This is not a conflict between my rights and their rights, it's a conflict between my rights and their desires. My rights win.

The Okular maintainers are not violating my rights - they are in no way forcing me to use their software, and they have the right to make it however they think right. Although their choice in this situation makes it clear they are dangerous lunatics, that is their right.

The same can be said for the Debian maintainers, although it is much more disturbing given the long commitment from Debian to respecting users rights. But in the end, we dont have to use Debian either.

But really, if this becomes more than an isolated incident but a harbinger of how Debian looks to move forward, then Debian will die, or morph into some sort of corporate controlled fifth column. I dont want to see either of these things happen.

Over the top

Posted Jun 15, 2009 8:44 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

Well, given that 'direspect the users' is unlikely to be written into
Debian Policy anytime soon, and that Debian is basically a mass of chaotic
independent arguing maintainers except inasmuch as constrained by Policy,
I'd say your fear of a (ha!) corporate-controlled Debian is needless.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 6:16 UTC (Tue) by 0b11101 (guest, #57638) [Link]

With all due respect, Mr. Perens, I believe it is important to point out that you worked for Pixar for a long while. This film producer just released the Disney "UP" blockbuster which is doubtlessly being downloaded, without permission, by tens-of-thousands bittorrent clients at this moment. Your view that the lack of DRM spells end-times for Linux may be shaded by past experiences.

As long as there is open access to the network, there will be sufficient media available, with a permissive copyright license for unrestricted duplication. Enough for lifetimes of text, music, and videos. If that means being locked out of the latest 90 minute animated video, then it may be a sacrifice that some will choose for their freedoms.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 12:53 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I worked in the film industry for 19 years total. But I can't really believe this is an issue for Pixar - they're not in danger from downloading. I was also a book series editor, but my books were always under an open publication license.

I do think I can see both sides of the argument. And I believe that having some empathy for the people they are arguing with would only help Free Software developers win the fight instead of shooting themselves in the foot.

Over the top

Posted Jun 4, 2009 8:41 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458) [Link]

What you're saying about being swept into a corner strongly implies that you believe DRM measures will in the future successfully keep open source projects from using various media. I know of no major DRM implementation that has not been quickly cracked, and I strongly believe that the reason for this is that the concept of DRM is technically flawed. As such, I see no strategical reason what so ever to accept even minor restrictions in order to gain brownie points from the content industry.

Quite the opposite, the content industry has continually tried to block free software from accessing their content in any way they can, no matter what we do. If proprietary software keeps prioritizing partners over users, while open source does not, that will ensure free software use will increase, and content providers will be forced to take notice of us by sheer force of market share. We don't owe content producers anything, we owe it to ourselves and our users to ignore them and stay true to our ideals.

Over the top

Posted Jun 4, 2009 20:18 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

DRM *implemented in software* is fundamentally flawed. I just hope nobody
starts really using the TPM and things like HDMI that move decryption into
the display/sound hardware :(

Over the top

Posted Jun 5, 2009 7:50 UTC (Fri) by liljencrantz (guest, #28458) [Link]

The decryption keys are stored somewhere on every HDMI device. Way harder than to sniff out the key from a software player, but definitely doable. Don't know enough about TPM to know how secure it is, though.

I know of no major DRM implementation that has not been quickly cracked - have you actually looked?

Posted Jun 17, 2009 7:05 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I know of no major DRM implementation that has not been quickly cracked, and I strongly believe that the reason for this is that the concept of DRM is technically flawed.

Have you actually tried to find such an implementation or are you living in your own phantasy world? The very first DRM implementation designed with help of cryptoanalysts - Cell - was successfully used for working DRM protestion of PS3 titles. The solution is on the market for 2.5 years, there are ove 20 millions players and 100 millions disks, yet DRM is holding? Will it work forever? Probably not - but then it has no need to: 20-30 years from now disks will deteriorate and the fact that DRM will be broken will have no practical significance...

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 9:09 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

Sure. It's the Copyright and Related Rights Act (2000), least in Ireland.

Next..

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 16:51 UTC (Tue) by shmget (subscriber, #58347) [Link]

"Can you show me what law defines Fair Use? "

No problem:

Art. L. 122-5. Lorsque l'oeuvre a été divulguée, l'auteur ne peut interdire :
1° Les représentations privées et gratuites effectuées exclusivement dans un cercle de famille ;
2° Les copies ou reproductions strictement réservées à l'usage privé du copiste et non destinées à une utilisation collective, à l'exception des copies des oeuvres d'art destinées à être utilisées pour des fins identiques à celles pour lesquelles l'oeuvre originale a été créée et des copies d'un logiciel autres que la copie de sauvegarde [1] établie dans les conditions prévues au II de l'article L.122-6-1 ainsi que des copies ou reproductions d'une base de données électronique ;
3° Sous réserve que soient indiqués clairement le nom de l'auteur et la source :
a) Les analyses et courtes citations [3] justifiées par le caractère critique, polémique, pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information de l'oeuvre à laquelle elles sont incorporées ;
b) Les revues de presse ;
c) La diffusion, même intégrale, par la voie de presse ou de télédiffusion, à titre d'information d'actualité, des discours destinés au public prononcés dans les assemblées politiques, administratives, judiciaires ou académiques, ainsi que dans les réunions publiques d'ordre politique et les cérémonies officielles ;
d) Les reproductions, intégrales ou partielles d'oeuvres d'art graphiques ou plastiques destinées à figurer dans le catalogue d'une vente judiciaire effectuée en France pour les exemplaires mis à la disposition du public avant la vente dans le seul but de décrire les oeuvres d'art mises en vente.
e) La représentation ou la reproduction d'extraits d'œuvres, sous réserve des œuvres conçues à des fins pédagogiques, des partitions de musique et des œuvres réalisées pour une édition numérique de l'écrit, à des fins exclusives d'illustration dans le cadre de l'enseignement et de la recherche, à l'exclusion de toute activité ludique ou récréative, dès lors que le public auquel cette représentation ou cette reproduction est destinée est composé majoritairement d'élèves, d'étudiants, d'enseignants ou de chercheurs directement concernés, que l'utilisation de cette représentation ou cette reproduction ne donne lieu à aucune exploitation commerciale et qu'elle est compensée par une rémunération négociée sur une base forfaitaire sans préjudice de la cession du droit de reproduction par reprographie mentionnée à l'article L. 122-10.
4° La parodie, le pastiche et la caricature, compte tenu des lois du genre. [5]
5° Les actes nécessaires à l'accès au contenu d'une base de données électronique pour les besoins et dans les limites de l'utilisation prévue par contrat.
6° La reproduction provisoire présentant un caractère transitoire ou accessoire, lorsqu'elle est une partie intégrante et essentielle d'un procédé technique et qu'elle a pour unique objet de permettre l'utilisation licite de l'œuvre ou sa transmission entre tiers par la voie d'un réseau faisant appel à un intermédiaire ; toutefois, cette reproduction provisoire qui ne peut porter que sur des œuvres autres que les logiciels et les bases de données, ne doit pas avoir de valeur économique propre ;
7° La reproduction et la représentation par des personnes morales et par les établissements ouverts au public, tels que bibliothèques, archives, centres de documentation et espaces culturels multimédia, en vue d'une consultation strictement personnelle de l'œuvre par des personnes atteintes d'une ou plusieurs déficiences des fonctions motrices, physiques, sensorielles, mentales, cognitives ou psychiques, dont le niveau d'incapacité est égal ou supérieur à un taux fixé par décret en Conseil d'État et reconnues par la commission départementale de l'éducation spécialisée, la commission technique d'orientation et de reclassement professionnel ou la commission des droits et de l'autonomie des personnes handicapées mentionnée à l'article L. 146-9 du code de l'action sociale et des familles, ou reconnues par certificat médical comme empêchées de lire après correction. Cette reproduction et cette représentation sont assurées, à des fins non lucratives et dans la mesure requise par le handicap, par les personnes morales et les établissements mentionnés au présent alinéa, dont la liste est arrêtée par l'autorité administrative.
Les personnes morales et établissements mentionnés au premier alinéa du présent 7° doivent apporter la preuve de leur activité professionnelle effective de conception, de réalisation et de communication de supports au bénéfice des personnes physiques mentionnées au même alinéa par référence à leur objet social, à l'importance de leurs membres ou usagers, aux moyens matériels et humains dont ils disposent et aux services qu'ils rendent.
À la demande des personnes morales et des établissements mentionnés au premier alinéa du présent 7°, formulée dans les deux ans suivant le dépôt légal des œuvres imprimées, les fichiers numériques ayant servi à l'édition de ces œuvres sont déposés au Centre national du livre ou auprès d'un organisme désigné par décret qui les met à leur disposition dans un standard ouvert au sens de l'article 4 de la loi n° 2004-575 du 21 juin 2004 pour la confiance dans l'économie numérique. Le Centre national du livre ou l'organisme désigné par décret garantit la confidentialité de ces fichiers et la sécurisation de leur accès ;
8° La reproduction d'une œuvre, effectuée à des fins de conservation ou destinée à préserver les conditions de sa consultation sur place par des bibliothèques accessibles au public, par des musées ou par des services d'archives, sous réserve que ceux-ci ne recherchent aucun avantage économique ou commercial ;
9° La reproduction ou la représentation, intégrale ou partielle, d'une œuvre d'art graphique, plastique ou architecturale, par voie de presse écrite, audiovisuelle ou en ligne, dans un but exclusif d'information immédiate et en relation directe avec cette dernière, sous réserve d'indiquer clairement le nom de l'auteur.
Le premier alinéa du présent 9° ne s'applique pas aux œuvres, notamment photographiques ou d'illustration, qui visent elles-mêmes à rendre compte de l'information.
Les reproductions ou représentations qui, notamment par leur nombre ou leur format, ne seraient pas en stricte proportion avec le but exclusif d'information immédiate poursuivi ou qui ne seraient pas en relation directe avec cette dernière, donnent lieu à rémunération des auteurs sur la base des accords ou tarifs en vigueur dans les secteurs professionnels concernés.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 3:21 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]

I just talked to the author on the phone. He says, "No, you're authorized to copy it", and I believe him. But the software completely ignores him.

Bruce, you usually make sense. What are you up to?

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 3:32 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

What's up is that I think other folks have rights too. What we're talking about now is a "soft" approach to rights management that can be disabled in a few clicks. If we don't let authors have that much, what is going to keep them from locking their works up so well that Open Source can't ever be used to view them. Sometimes we really do go too far.

But putting up that soft, overridable not-quite-DRM, think some, violates their fair use rights. The reality is that fair use is a defense rather than an affirmative right. You don't really have them the way you think. And that's less than optimal, I agree.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 4:59 UTC (Tue) by timschmidt (guest, #38269) [Link]

BrucePerens said:
If we don't let authors have that much, what is going to keep them from locking their works up so well that Open Source can't ever be used to view them.

Nothing. And nothing will stop them from fading into obscurity as no one can (or wants to) view their content.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 5:07 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Jamie Love has a list of the 30 ways in which iTunes still uses DRM. It's not fading.

We aren't really winning this argument with the media-consuming public, not even considering the media makers. And look at what is on the horizon. Blue-Ray has much stronger security than DVD ever did. HDMI is a security nightmare, all implemented and waiting for enough saturation before the networks turn the really bad part on.

Over the top

Posted Jun 2, 2009 9:37 UTC (Tue) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

This is confusing.

So on the one hand, you were arguing that the current state of things, with "semi-rigid", easily-circumventable DRM, is preferable to a future-possibility of "hard" DRM, in which free software would be precluded from much content (did I follow you correctly?). Your argument then is that we should honour this semi-rigid DRM because not doing so risks inducing the possible-future.

On the other hand, you're arguing that the bad, possible-future is already developed and in place, just awaiting activation (though, Blu-Ray security is already broken, isn't it?). If so, then this undermines your other argument - the media companies are not waiting to see whether free software will honour their flags or not...

Personally, I think (and I think the poster you responded to may have been trying to make the same point) that it has been shown that DRM will fall by itself. In 2 dimensions:

a) Deployments of DRM will be automatically market-bounded in how restrictive they can be. Media which does not allow customers to engage in common acts will lose out and will either fail, or the rights-holders will have to relent and loosen the restrictions. We have already seen this with iTunes and others, and a general DRM backlash in the industry.

While tech-nerd opposition may have helped spread the word, there is no good reason to think it was free software that was exceptionally involved in this demonstrated backlash, and free-software honouring flags certainly had nothing to do with it..

b) DRM schemes will technically always be flawed and fail. This means the content owners will never be able to fully ring-fence their content.

I just don't see how giving rights-holders a sop of semi-rigid DRM affects either of those dimensions.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Posted Jun 6, 2009 9:24 UTC (Sat) by Kamilion (subscriber, #42576) [Link]

Blu-Ray's AACS key has been compromised since May of 2007.
http://www.bmeink.com/A70529/high/bmepb529722.jpg

HDMI's been compromised by the HDFury2.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/hdfury2

Neat little hack, that. They used a laptop TMDS display transmitter chip's
HDMI input paired 3cm from a TMDS receiver chip with a VGA/component
output.

Fully HDMI 1.3 compliant with embedded HDCP keys and CEA861 EDID extension
block! Heh!

Perfect match for the Ambarella A2 chip in Hauppauge's HD PVR to capture
crisp 720p or 1080i straight to h264. Ambarella's A3 chip extends that to
1080p60, or our friendly neighborhood PC resolution of 1920x1080@60hz.

(Can you tell I'm a hardware geek?)

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Posted Jun 6, 2009 16:23 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

Well, this is very nice for existing discs, but my understanding was that Blu-Ray had multiple keys, and that they had planned for updates.

There is also the prospect of HDMI 2.0. So, I hope we're as lucky in the future.

Over the top

Posted Jun 3, 2009 15:20 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>Nothing. And nothing will stop them from fading into obscurity as no one can (or wants to) view their content.

What colour is the sky in your world?

Over the top

Posted Jun 3, 2009 21:10 UTC (Wed) by timschmidt (guest, #38269) [Link]

> What colour is the sky in your world?

Quite blue most days, but sometimes greyish, and nearly black at night with little sparkly pinpricks of light scattered about. It's quite nice really. You should visit reality sometime and see what it's like! :)

Over the top

Posted Jun 4, 2009 10:33 UTC (Thu) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

Okay, sorry. I'm just saying that I don't think it's realistic *at all* to expect content and its producers to 'fade into obscurity' simply for wanting to use DRM. The number of us who even know what that means may well be less than a percent of the general population, and the other guys just think we're wierd for caring about such things.

Over the top

Posted Jun 4, 2009 16:21 UTC (Thu) by timschmidt (guest, #38269) [Link]

One need not know what DRM is to be prevented from viewing content by it.

Many of my friends and co-workers have used iTunes in the past. Several of them stopped after catastrophic software failure or other calamity in which iTunes DRM keys were lost - preventing access to the hundreds of dollars of music they'd 'purchased'. Of course, when such things happen, these folks come to their friendly local computer guy, and we tend to show them the easiest way to replace all those music files - already bought and paid for - Arrrrr!

And that's how DRM fails - even for normal people.

Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds