Re: Anti-DMCA clause (was Re: GPL v3 Draft

[Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>]

Walter Landry <wlandry@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> Hrrm.  We need a different clause then.
>> 
>> "No program licensed under this License, which accesses a work,
>> shall require the authority of the copyright owner for that work, in
>> order to gain access to that work.
>
>This is too broad.  If I have a machine on the internet which is
>secured using GPL'd programs, I certainly do not give anyone and
>everyone the legal authority to see what is on the machine.

That's using your authority as the *machine owner*, though.  Not your
authority as a *copyright holder*.  That's precisely the distinction I'm
trying to make here, though I clearly haven't succeeded.

>That is the basic problem with these anti-DRM clauses: differentiating
>between DRM and legitimate privacy controls is basically impossible.

I think it is possible.  It requires a sharp focus on the *legal* issues,
since the technology is not different, but the legal basis is.  A legitimate
privacy control may control access to many things -- but it does *not* exert
control over works you have published (since they're, well, *public*.)

-- 
Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@twcny.rr.com>

This space intentionally left blank.