Re: DRM-incompatible licenses

On 4/4/06, Taran Rampersad <[email protected]> wrote:

> Pedro de Medeiros wrote:
> > How come? Copyright law still accounts the existence of fair use
> > protected by the government, right?
> In the U.S. - but not necessarily other countries. For example, the
> Trinidad and Tobago copyright act has no 'fair use' clause, though if
> you read through the document there are instances that allow for some
> forms of 'fair use'. Also, more than 5 'close friends and family' cannot
> listen to a CD or watch a movie without it being considered illegal...
> fortunately, most of that isn't enforced.
>
> Just pointing out that the world outside doesn't always have the same
> language in the documents, and in a global market that's pretty important=
.


Yes, in Brazil we don't have this thing called "fair use", instead one
is allowed to make backup copies of anything he buys (obviously, when
such thing makes sense). This is so he can use the copy instead of the
original to reduce the risk of damaging the original product by usage.


> > That is why I was talking about making restrictions in the license
> > based on intention, not on technical grounds.
> >
> I agree with this. But practically speaking, I could release source code
> with the best of intentions but someone in another country might use it
> otherwise. Now, we could spank them for being naughty over the GPL, but
> that seems silly when there are charred bodies lieing around. That's
> like nabbing Al Capone for tax evasion... oops... :-)


In this case, it should be hard to make a case against people pirating
windows too (with charred bodies lying around). But I think that is
besides the point, being a very specific scenario.


> Then again, intentions are subjective. Everyone is busy 'fighting evil',
> and 'evil' is usually what 'good people' cannot abide. On the other
> side, there are usually other people saying the same thing. The
> intentions of either side are subjectively 'good'.


A license may define what is considered 'evil', so I disagree on
'evil' being subjective. But that is something for people that are
considering using the license (or the code under that license) to
ponder about. The problem is if the license really captures all
aspects of 'evil' and them alone.


> >> It may be possible to write this clause to target only those uses of
> >> privacy protection that the free software movement deems unacceptable,
> >> but it's not going to be easy, and any given wording can easily be
> >> frustrated by new legislation or court decisions.
> >>
> > If some new security measures implement -- among other things --
> > restrictions to the user or owner of the computer, just have the
> > license consider the whole thing illegal.
> >
> Let's get something straight, though. The computer is one thing. Access
> to the internet is another. You don't own a phone number, you lease it.
> It's the same with internet connections right now. If you don't pay your
> lease, you don't have it anymore. A CD burner on a system is different;
> I can copy CDs to my heart's content without accessing the internet but
> when I do access the internet, I inadvertently copy everything through
> my browser: Local copies are downloaded. That's key. Once they exist on
> the local system, that's it - I believe that something such as 'fair
> use' applies.
>
> Recently I subscribed to the digital version of Scientific American and
> was pleasantly surprised. I got a login, and a password. I logged in. I
> downloaded a PDF of this month's magazine. There was no 'DRM'. I could,
> if I chose to, give all my friends a copy. However, that choice also has
> to take into consideration the ethics involved. Failing the ethics test,
> there's the laws. Some people fail the ethics tests, and that's why laws
> are supposed to be there.


If you send copies only to your friends, it could still be considered
legal (just like lending a book would be). But if you put it in the
internet for anyone to see and download, then they might find it and
charge you. They sue the one that bought it and is illegally
distributing it, not the people that downloaded it free of charge (at
least, that is how I see it).


Cheers
--
Pedro de Medeiros - Computer Science - University of Bras=EDlia
Email: [email protected] - Home Page: http://www.nonseq.net
Linux User No.: 234250 - ICQ: 2878740 - Jabber: [email protected]