Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
On 3/14/06, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> "Raul Miller" <moth.debian@gmail.com>
> > For the DRM issue to be significant, we'd have to have reason to
> > believe that a judge would not be familiar with the legal meaning of
> > the phrase "technical measures" in the context of copyright law.
>
> >From the EUCD (2001/29/EC) Article 6 (3), we have in English English:
> the expression "technological measures" means any technology, device or
> component that, in the normal course of its operation, is designed to
> prevent or restrict acts, in respect of works or other subject-matter,
> which are not authorised by the rightholder of any copyright or any
> right related to copyright as provided for by law or the sui generis
> right provided for in Chapter III of Directive 96/9/EC.
>
> Please explain why this doesn't include file permissions or any of the
> other examples previously posted. File permissions seem to be a
> technology designed to prevent or restrict unauthorised acts.
File permissions have little or nothing to do with enforcing copyright.
File permissions are an all or nothing mechanism. You either have
given a person a copy of the copyrighted material, or you have not.
Once you've given someone a copy, file permissions are
irrelevant. The person has a copy and can do whatever they
like with it.
If you've not given someone a copy, file permissions are irrelevant in
the same way that doors, fences, airplanes and cdrom formats are
irrelevant. All of these (and many other things) can be a part of
the reasons why they have not yet obtained a copy.
Technical measures limit the number of times a work can be played
and/or prevent a person who has a copy from giving that copy to
someone else and/or in some other way enforce the legal rights of
the copyright holder.
> > Maybe none of this is new, but aside from the Opaque and DRM issues,
> > none of the proposals or supporting material on vote.debian.org
> > indicate that any of these issues are to be taken seriously.
>
> Once we were told FDL's development is none of our business, I think
> some of us maybe moved on after collating the most obvious problems.
That doesn't seem very relevant.
--
Raul
Reply to: