[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GNU FDL 1.2 draft comment summary posted, and RFD



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


Reply to: