On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 11:31:22AM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote: > I would suggest focusing more on the fact that we are dealing with > the issue of reproducing the work than transforming it. Maybe something > like "whilst the exact process used to reproduce the work as distributed > from the provided source need not be Freely reproducible, *a* free process > which will result in an equivalent work (differing only in the aesthetic > quality/fidelity of the reproduction) must be (made) available" > > I'm not suggesting that as exact wording, but to try to explain the > concept I'm thinking of. If the consumer can apply a transformation to what he recives that perfectly restores the original, I don't see a problem. I'm not crazy about permitting degradation of quality or fidelity. That like saying it's okay for Hollywood to restrict our Fair Use access to DVDs because they also make a VHS release. And in my opinion, no, that's not okay. > A point to bear in mind: do we want to allow the final work to be distributed > in a format for which there exists no free method of reproduction from the > provided source? e.g. MP3 as opposed to Ogg, if Fraunhofer/Thomson have > their way? The author is allowed to distribute in whatever format he prefers. Only licensees are bound by the DFCL. Ironically, some authors might distribute works licensed under the DFCL but using a lossy or proprietary format *because* that form is a pain the ass to modify. However, when this happens you know who to complain to: the author. But that's okay, you see. In today's intellectual property environment, the tyrants aren't the artists. The tyrants are distributors and middle-men: media corporations. These entities don't have any artists, just lawyers, accountants, and salesmen with 132 teeth. Note that while record companies are busy suing their companies, their artists are busy suing them[1]. Apparently, somehow most of the money that Napster users are taking out of the mouth's of artists children, er, well, wasn't getting to the artist's children in the first place, and the RIAA has been busy getting laws passed to make sure it never would[2]. > Or more importantly, some future format which may be *the* way to > distribute, which is only produced by some ubiquitous new device... > well, like laser printers in the days before there were any free > fonts. The DFCL cannot impose any restrictions on the format the author uses. The author has monopoly power over his own work, and it is unlikely that any restrictions the DFCL attempted to impose on him would be upheld in court (who would have a cause of action to sue him?). The DFCL, like all copylefts, applies to those who distribute the work. Getting the work from a distributor has to be like getting from the author, as far as ease of modification goes. The *distributor*, who is himself a licensee, is not granted permission to obfuscate the data for people downstream from him in the distribution channel. > > Consider what just might be happening with digital television > > broadcast streams in the U.S.; a mandatory anti-copying mechanism > > bolted onto the content. I owe you guys a footnote for the above assertion[3]. > I don't think I'd mind my work being put onto a DVD using CSS, And you're free to negotiate a license with a DVD producer to put your work on DVD using CSS and/or region coding, but it's not my intent to permit the producer to have that freedom with your work under the DFCL. > so long as the source provided allowed it to be put onto a "DVD" in > some other (Free) way. You can produce perfectly legal (both from a legislative standpoint, and from a technology/protocol standpoint) DVDs that are neither CSS-encrypted nor region-coded. A few of these actually exist and are commonly used in public demonstrations of Linux DVD video support, since if you watch _Die Hard_ on your Linux computer, you're violating the DMCA and can go to prison[4]. > > I guess what we need is an exception for anything in the technology > > stream between the distributor and those he is distributing to, as long > > as he has no relationship with any entity that has proprietary ownership > > of any process that is applied to the data while it travels from him to > > his consumers. > > The "no relationship" is an interesting idea. I'm only worried about unintended negative consequence. It strongly appeals to my activist streak[7], but it's not my intention to restrict well-meaning and well-intentioned people from using the work. Actually, since the restriction would only be on distribution, it wouldn't stop anyone from being able to *use* (view, listen to, etc.) the work, or modify it. So only people who had made deals with the devil *and* wanted to distribute (probably for commercial gain) would be closed off. Hmm. What if the "no relationship" clause only applied to people doing distribution for monetary gain? Remember, this is an exception under which you *are* allowed to distribute with "obfuscation" in the stream (e.g., breaking the copyleft) due to circumstances beyond your control. You are not restricted from distributing WITHOUT obfuscation under any circumstances, so there isn't a DFSG 6 problem here as I understand it. > > An amusing consequence of this is that because all the major U.S. movie > > studios are in cahoots with the DVD CCA, such a broadly-worded > > restriction would prevent them from disseminating a DFCL-licensed > > independent film on DVD[4], but would let truly independent publishers > > market it. For me, this is a delicious irony, > > It's not even particularly ironic, it's just nice to see that it follows > logically from our aims and thought process so far... Oh, I think it's ironic for them if the DFCL ends up with terms that do this, and is widely adopted. You make shady backroom deals with the Hollywoody monopolies to get into their Monopoly Club by implementing their super-encrypted copy-defeating distribution network, and then, damnit, you're going to have go *negotiate* with the damn authors of that award-winning piece of DFCL movie/music and pay them a shitload of money to license it because your network doesn't have any way to transmit un-copy-protected content (at Hollywood's insistence). Moo ha ha ha ha ha. [1] http://sg.entertainment.lycosasia.com/arts/seen/seenmu/4296.html [2] http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38129,00.html [3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42099-2002May31.html [4] Despite being announced over a year and a half ago[5], there is still no software DVD-Video player for GNU/Linux commercially available[6]. [5] http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/11/15/linux.dvd.idg/ [6] http://www.intervideo.com/jsp/Product_Profile.jsp?p=LinDVD [7] I'll bet you guys didn't think I had one. -- G. Branden Robinson | It was a typical net.exercise -- a Debian GNU/Linux | screaming mob pounding on a greasy branden@debian.org | spot on the pavement, where used to http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | lie the carcass of a dead horse.
Attachment:
pgpCEUDQ7onwy.pgp
Description: PGP signature