| |||||||||||||
Over the topOver the topPosted Jun 2, 2009 3:49 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)In reply to: Over the top by k8to Parent article: Okular, Debian, and copy restrictions 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.
(Log in to post comments)
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
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
I'm not sure what to think about that -- perhaps content owners consider it good enough, if it
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...
|
|||||||||||||