Re: FSF condemns partnership between Mozilla and Adobe to support Digital Restrictions Management
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
Reply to: