Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
On 20/05/14 00:30, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 5/19/2014 8:17 AM, Richard Hector wrote:
>> On 20/05/14 00:14, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 5/19/2014 7:58 AM, Richard Hector wrote:
>>>> On 19/05/14 23:19, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> On 5/19/2014 4:31 AM, Richard Hector wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/05/14 14:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/18/2014 9:47 PM, Paul E Condon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 20140518_2131-0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2014 6:39 PM, The Wanderer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA512
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 05/18/2014 05:49 PM, Tom H wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting
>>>>>>>>>>> about DRM
>>>>>>>>>>> because it enables copyright holders.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DRM doesn't just "enable copyright holders".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Copyright law restricts what people are allowed to do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DRM restricts what people are *able* to do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When the copyright on something expires (not that that ever
>>>>>>>>>> happens
>>>>>>>>>> nowadays), it enters the public domain, and people are allowed to
>>>>>>>>>> copy
>>>>>>>>>> and redistribute it as much as they care to. This is, in fact,
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> goal
>>>>>>>>>> and the purpose of copyright, at least in USA law.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Copyrights last a long time, depending on the laws of the country
>>>>>>>>> under which the item is copyrighted. But typically it is
>>>>>>>>> either 75
>>>>>>>>> years from the original copyright, or 75 years after the death of
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> owner (author) of the copyrighted material. Both are much longer
>>>>>>>>> than the Internet has existed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire,
>>>>>>>>>> and the
>>>>>>>>>> DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden,
>>>>>>>>>> e.g. by
>>>>>>>>>> anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be
>>>>>>>>>> *allowed* to
>>>>>>>>>> copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able*
>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>> so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which
>>>>>>>>>> would,
>>>>>>>>>> likely, be the former holder of the copyright.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to
>>>>>>>>>> DRM go
>>>>>>>>>> far beyond just objections to copyright.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Please show an example where that has occurred.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please show an example of a digital recording that was copyrighted
>>>>>>>> 75 yrs
>>>>>>>> ago. It is a silly request, I know. But no less silly than yours.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not silly at all. But there are may of them. The works of
>>>>>>> Shakespeare,
>>>>>>> among others, are much older than 75 years, and have now entered the
>>>>>>> public domain. And they have been digitized.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jerry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A more relevant request: how about an example of a digital (or any)
>>>>>> recording that was released _with_DRM_ for which the copyright has
>>>>>> now
>>>>>> lapsed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Richard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's true - it would be more relevant.
>>>>
>>>> Do you agree, then, that this is a problem with DRM? Especially in the
>>>> case where the original copyright holder goes out of business, dies or
>>>> otherwise vanishes, and is unable to control the DRM tech at all?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I don't agree. I have seen no indication of a problem at this time.
>>> As for the original copyright holder - no matter what, someone owns
>>> the
>>> copyright. If the owner dies, it becomes part of the estate. If the
>>> owner goes out of business, copyright transfer is a part of the
>>> liquidation process. And even if the owner vanishes, he/she still owns
>>> the copyright.
>>>
>>> Also, just because something is copyrighted doesn't mean it has to be
>>> made available for use by others. The owner is well within his/her
>>> rights to say "I'm the only one who can use this".
>>>
>>>> Actually I had a similar problem many years ago - I was working with a
>>>> perfectly legal but rather obsolete version of SCO Xenix, which had an
>>>> activation mechanism that was no longer supported. I would have
>>>> liked to
>>>> reinstall the system (and was also at risk of damaging it), and had the
>>>> tape (!), but the activation service was no longer available. The
>>>> software in that case was still copyright, but (or at least my client)
>>>> was still perfectly entitled to use it, but technically prevented.
>>>>
>>>> Richard
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know the terms of the license, but it is perfectly valid for a
>>> company to put a time or other limit in a license. Your client may or
>>> may not have been entitled to continue to use it.
>>>
>>> But if the client were able to legally use it, I would think the current
>>> copyright owner would be obliged to provide an alternate activation
>>> mechanism. Getting them to do it may be difficult, though.
>>
>> And in the case where the copyright has elapsed? The main point, rather
>> than my additional comment?
>>
>> Richard
>>
>
> Are you saying the only copy in the whole world is protected by DRM? I
> highly doubt that... And if it is, that would mean it was created since
> DRM went into effect. Which means the copyright won't expire for 75
> years or more. By that time, anything computer-related will be so
> obsolete it will only be of interest to paleontologists. And other
> works (i.e. music, literature) will have been available in other media.
> In fact, in the United States, to copyright something you have to
> provide a copy of the material to the Copyright Office. So there is
> always at least one copy of something available.
>
> But can you show where that is occurring now? If not, I think you're
> looking for a problem which doesn't exist.
Now we're going in circles. Of course I can't show where it's happening
now - that's what I asked you to do, rhetorically, several messages ago:
>>>>>> A more relevant request: how about an example of a digital (or
>>>>>> any) recording that was released _with_DRM_ for which the
>>>>>> copyright has now lapsed?
I'm predicting a problem that will happen when the copyright of a DRM'd
work elapses, and that work has never been released without DRM. How
will I (or some future person; copyright terms have got so ridiculous
it's unlikely to be me) get the access I'm entitled to?
Richard
Reply to: