Slashdot Mirror
Debian, XPDF and Copyrights
Sould writes "
Debian Planet are running a story
here
discussing whether Debian should retain document-specific cripples in xpdf
- a GPLed pdf viewer that honours Adobe's copy controls.
"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Here's a question
Should it not be written to the specification ?
and patches should be kept private out of the package
What about the encrypted PDF's they are in a patch because the US has strange laws don't fragment it anymore
What is the point if its not to the Spec ?
Regards
John Jones
THIS ISN'T ABOUT ILLEGAL COPYING. This is about being able to print a copy of a document for your own use, something that is covered by fair use. Committing a crime by stealing GPL code is a whole different kettle of fish, and a very bad analogy.
However, it might be a good idea to put a separate package in non-us since the DMCA might make it a crime for Americans to exercise their fair use rights (but remember that it's still not a copyright violation).
--
Niklas Nordebo | niklas at nordebo.com
"1.Programs == Data. John von Neumann proved this way back in the 50s"
Huh? Somebody actually tried "proving" this? I thought some guy (forget his name) who was working with old batch machines in the 60s decided to store actual programs in main memory, just like data.
An acquaintance of mine is fond of saying "everything is data!". Well, of course...but everything can ALSO be "programs", if you consider data just to be the result of a simple function, e.g. f(x) = C, and other data the results of functions on functions, etc.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Back in the bad-old-days, xpdf couldn't read any encrypted PDF files. It printed a message about how Adobe's "open" spec didn't contain the information about how to access these files. It printed a message with contact info for a person at Adobe. At one point, there was considerably hostility on Adobe's part against Derek... I don't recall exactly what their words were, but they had a form-letter response about xpdf, that basically said Derek was a bad programmer. Of course, that was bullshit... they didn't want to truely provide a complete spec for PDF files. Eventually enough people complained. Perhaps other factors were involved that I'm not aware of. In any case, Adobe finally released open specs on PDF and Derek's message was replaced with one saying the specs were available, and later an off-shore patch was available for decryption, and now that the export regs are changed, xpdf comes with decryption (and Derek's made many other cool improvements since then).
So it seems a bit ironic that Derek's xpdf is getting slammed for making the design decision to honor the author's copy and print restrictions, when if it weren't for Derek's many years of hard work and pressure placed on Adobe, there probably wouldn't even be a truely open PDF specification.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
Note, none of this actually has anything to do with preventing copying the .pdf file, only for copying done through cutting and pasting text from it.
I'm no fan of proprietary software, but I give credit to Adobe for opening up this format to the extent they have. You could be damn sure that if M$ had managed to capture the defacto "standard" for formated document transfer (others tried, remember envoy?), then you probably wouldn't even be able to open a .msd (or what ever they would have called it) on Linux, never mind being able to write your own app to do it.
They most certainly do have digital signatures. If you only have the Reader, it's on page 51 of the help.
Document Control.
This is a corporate term used in the manufacturing industry to make sure the people on the line have the proper revision documents when using paper.
I have worked at a couple of companies that are transitioning from paper to electronic docs. PDF was the best intermediate step. Docs could be locked, and NOT PRINTED, thus requiring the line workers to use the screen (which showed ONLY the current rev).
If they print, docs have a habit of laying around long after they are out of date. People are lazy and use them without checking, thinking "I didn't hear anything about a rev change, so this is still good."
Anyone who works in a large manufacturing environment that is/will be ISO-9000 certified or works to MIL SPEC knows what I mean. Documents must be controlled with almost a fascist method.
No, it is not possible to get people to check the docs every time. They just won't do it.
-chill
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Or an mp3 player? Would Debian include a media player in their distribution that disallowed decoding mp3's with the copyright bit set? Would anyone use cdparanoia if it refused to rip CD's not marked as "original"? Those access control bits are there in most audio formats, and as meaningless as the ones in PDF, yet no one cries foul when every MP3 and CD player in the world merrily ignores them. I think people would scream, holler and downgrade if the authors DID abide by those bits.
Debian (and every other distribution) has already dealt with this ethical dilemma whether consciously or not. Unilateral access controls in free software are in fact software bugs, especially when they're intentional. Packagers frequently fix glaring bugs when prepping a package for their distribution. So why not this one?
If they can't find it in themselves to patch xpdf, it seems to me that the pdf viewer should be GPL'ed ghostscript or something like it which is not intentionally buggy. If it doesn't render as well as xpdf, well... ghostscript source, meet xpdf. xpdf, ghostscript. The joy of GPL.
I doubt they'd be able to do anything. The whole advantage of PDF is that it's a universal format available on all platforms and it has a huge installed base. If Adobe suddenly comes up with a new format, all the old Acrobats will not be able to read it. Do you think Joe Average is going to upgrade? I wouldn't count on it. Even if Joe did upgrade, that's a dangerous proposition for Adobe since Joe would be just as likely to switch to a competitor's product while he's at it.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I agree.
However, one could always have the circumvention as a "bug" that conveniently never gets fixed!
(Yeah, I know Adobe could probably fix it themselves, and submit the patch to the maintainer.)
FP.
--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
RMS's position on copyrighting software (and data) is that even though the GPL depends on software copyrights to function, he would much prefer a world without software copyrights, where there would be no need for the GPL.
I remember once reading a quotation on the GNU web site that asserted the above directly, but I can't find it any more. I did, however, find the following quotes, which together amply illustrate the FSF position:
"Programs == Data"
This is utter BS. Neumann did not prove anything in relation with this, it was just a design principle for him that code and data should be stored in the same way.
And of course, in many system there is strict distinction between code and data (e.g. UNIX's "x" flag on files, etc)
--
Real life is overrated.
It took me longer to recompile it than it did to remove the silly protections.
*sigh* I'm a real geek; I didn't need to do it, it just offended me.
Cheers,
Rick Kirkland
I respect your viewpoint, but I think you missed what the original poster was saying. Much of the purpose of PDF files is to distribute electonic documents and reduce paper. If I am an administrator who wants to save trees and business resources, the "no print" feature is great. Maybe it is a little controlling, but no more so than having rules against running the halls or any number of other issues that people deal with. PDF documents give the user lots of control in my opinion, moreso than a printed page gives.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Here's what the consensus at Debian seems to be:
By default, when you try to do the "forbidden" things with xpdf, it will pop up a dialog saying something along the lines of "author has requested that you not be allowed to do that, use -ignoreperms to do it anyway". Using the said switch will shut off the "protection" checks.
That way, xpdf will serve the user, and the user will have been warned, so any copyright infringements after that will be the user's own problem.
Is everyone satisfied now? Jeeze!
--------
Genius dies of the same blow that destroys liberty.
Hell, even require people to use the crippled version of xpdf if you want. We're not talking about your situation here - we're talking about personal computers.
Just don't ask to control systems that don't belong to you.
Cheers,
Rick Kirkland
There is a difference, Adobe is trying to limit how the PDF is modified and copied. They aren't trying to limit access to the data like the MPAA wants to do with DVDs. There is nothing that keeps you from using your PDF wherever, you just need a reader that Adobe hasnt seemed to aggressivly fight. The MPAA wants to be able to control your access to the data. When Adobe starts suing users for writing applications that can open and view pdfs, then we can talk about war.
treke
IANAL, but I believe that the right to fair use of works is inalienable, or should be. The copyright bargain between copyright holders and society is already heavily biased against society. Tilting it further by allowing holders to withhold fair use of their works as well seems inexcusable.
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
OK, I know I'm veering a little bit off topic here, but what right does a taxpayer funded agency have to copy protect the maps, anyway?
Another proud carrier of the $rtbl flag
Too late. The only people who need to acknowledge the law are a couple of judges. Then you are screwed. Well you are screwed anyways but that's another topic and a hazard of living in the good old U S of A.
War is necrophilia.
"but no more so than having rules against running the halls"
It's one thing to have rule against running in the halls it another to shackle everybody as soon as they enter the building because they *might* run in the hall.
Do you see the difference here?
War is necrophilia.
Now does not printing stop distribution? you could always copy the file and send it to a friend.
War is necrophilia.
A good argument, which is why I think that the code should be available to circumvent these access controls (though don't let the MPAA hear this!). What this appears to be is a more complete support for the (admittedly annoying) tags in the format. I appreciate the idea of the GPL, but if you're an admin you might not want to let all your users play with the source in a live program. This is simply doing the same with pdf files; unless you're in a position to play with the proper authoring software you can't change the files.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
1. For text, if the section is too long for me to re-type comfortably, it is probably too long to qualify as fair use ( by my personal standards, I realize the law is more complex).
2. On the other hand, a lot of manufacturers documentation is distributed as PDF these days, and I --need-- to be able to cut and paste graphic elements (mostly diagrams and screenshots) to produce user-level documentation. Having to re-create the graphics (or screenshot the Acrobat Reader screen and cut the graphic out of the screenshot) is a pain in the ass.
Now, I suppose (2) would let someone grab all the graphics out of an electronic book or magazine, but that still wouldn't destroy the value of the book/magazine.
Of course, I'd settle for
3. Authors/companies not setting copy-protection bits on documents that I've paid for...
So far the most popular solution suggested was a pop-up window stating the originals authors wishes and a Question whether to continue or not. I think this is a fair solution, as it allows for "fair use"([tm] by USA) and alerts the user that he shouldn't really do as he pleases about the document.
For text-mode, this could be implemented accordingly, I guess.
my 0.02 DM
Michael
Xpdf fuckware is the same post. The follow-up posts offer a nice seemingly convergent discussion.
Here is something I just posted to Debian Planet. Sums up what I think, based on my real-life experience, your mileage may vary. I do think this is a serious problem, even though for a small and often overlooked minority of users.
---
"Copy-Control" may be a blessing in some cases but I can think of a dozen exceptions to this rule.
In my previous job, a (marvellously stupid) tech writer had managed to totally mangle the protection bits of the main documentation PDF file, in such a way that copying, printing, etc... was totally disabled.
Needless to say, that was a major pain in the neck for Tech Support, Marketing and just about everyone who needed to print or quote from that fscking documentation.
I had to sort the mess out -- which took me all of 5 minutes (uncheck three options and restart Distiller), but it got me thinking: I have a friend who is blind and who has been relying more and more on the Internet for sources of information and docs, like many other blind persons.
What if the poor guy can't use pdf2ps and ps2ascii (for instance) to read an important PDF file, just because some jerk decided his PDF file would not allow text copying? What about the idiotic tech writer mentioned above, who had no clue whatsoever and just locked every PDF file?
What I am saying is: get rid of the fscking copy control. If you post PDF file on the Internet or on any kind of public network, you are, in essence, forfeiting any copyrights you may have had -- any form of protection is futile anyway, since the elite script kiddies mentioned by some other poster will crack it anyway.
Just my US$ 0.02...
---
I might add this: if you'd like to make money off your written work, there's probably a better way to do that than to post your writings in the form of a PDF file... =)
Cheers!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
But this isn't an access control device. (Assuming they merely turned off printing, cut and paste, etc without passwording the whole thing.)
It's copy protection, pure and simple.
This is the equivalent of Adobe, and all the creators that generate protected PDF files, using GPL'd code and text in violation of the GPL.
The author himself says that he isn't going to allow fair use copying because he can't interpret the law and have the program know how much copying is fair use, which ignores that the program is a tool. Programs like "cp" copy everything, and of course have no way to check if the copying is permitted under law, and this is perfectly fine. (And I suspect that any attempt to print is fair use anyway.)
The GPL gives you rights beyond those you usually have. You do not need to "request people to honour the licencse", they are forced by law to honour it (although the law may not always be enforced). The PDF protection bits are at most comments or requests of the author, without any legal backing (except perhaps by the DMCA's stupidity).
Stephan
You could argue that this is what Church's Thesis says. The usual statement of Church's Thesis is essentially that "any reasonable computer can emulate any other reasonable computer". Here, we assume that every computer has an infinite storage medium, (and we don't mean real-time emulation!).
It's not actually something which is precise enough to prove, because it's a statement about the real world and so the word "reasonable" is fuzzy. But almost all computer scientists today believe Church's Thesis to be true.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
How about a checkbox in some option panel that toggles these restrictions? Perhaps the restrictions will always be enabled when you open a file, but you can disable them if you need to. That way, if a legitmate, useful application for the restrictions is found (e.g. prevent 300 page print jobs) you can't accidentally disregard them, but you can bypass them if you need to.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
If the user never sees a license, he has no right to copy the source code. The GPL gives the user that right.
--
Obfuscated e-mail addresses won't stop sadistic 12-year-old ACs.
Win dain a lotica, en vai tu ri silota
Where in the GPL does it state you have to change the name? Unless Noonberg trademarked the name "xpdf", GPL gives anyone who wants to the right to modify & distribute changes. That's the same reason Red Hat, Debian, et al, can distribute Linux, including patched versions (Red Hat's 2.2.16-5.0 is not the same as Linus' 2.2.16).
UNIX's "x" flag does not determine whether a file is executable or not. It only determines whether you have permission to attempt to execute it.
Edward Burr
Edward Burr
Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
Well, if I could get what I wished, I'd arson the headquarters of the radical environemental movement and radical animal rights movement for crimes against humanity. (banning DDT, stopping golden rice.)
Lets see.. I'd also turn Bill Gates into a clown, and make COBOL the standard programming language.
Oh, and I'd also give myself a $100,000/year salary, but no job.
But we don't live in a country where you get something by wishing for it. What you do is limited by law. Copyright law forbids infringement or public presentation. Printing or cutting&pasting can be infringement, or it can be fair use. It doesn't matter what the artist wants, what matters is what the law says.
The reason why I like to keep the format and the "encryption"/copy control open is that I would like to be able to get at the data if it is absolutely necessary. Why would that be necessary? Those bits might be set by mistake, on my own documents or on some other documents. Just recently, I got a government form in PDF format that said "print this" but had the copy protection bits set. Having to download a separate "decryption" patch seems about at the right level of effort for solving that kind of problem.
Of course, I do see the worry that with the DMCA, silly bits like this may receive undue legal protection and not checking may actually be/become illegal. But for Debian to stick its neck out on that doesn't seem smart; it will only bring about a rash legal judgement. Let's look for a better test case and a lot more public discussion before forcing this issue.
Don't include it with their main distribution if it infringes on adobe, rather include it on freenet, then users can do an upgrade via freenet's debian over apt-get.
If these are removed I would expect the code and knowledge of how to read these bits to disappear, through code rot. That is not good, all information about the file should be available.
Also several people have pointed out legitimate uses of these bits, to at least make people think a bit before they do something that the author does not want. A good reason for not allowing printing is to force people to always read the up-to-date online version (preventing paper waste is better handled by the printing system, though).
Comon, it's trivial to bypass. If it requires recompiling the code, well then you can look l33t because you can do it while your coworkers cannot. It could be a switch to the program, or attempts to do illegal things could pop up an error box and perhaps let you turn it off. But don't just ignore the bits.
It would seem to me that the most straight forward solution would be to create a command line tool that would take a pdf, and strip re-write the pdf without the cut/paste/printing bits set. Hell, they are in a predictable place one could probably write a shell script or use any set of standard UNIX tools to implement them. Then Xpdf doens't need a patch, and people who are tired of not begin able to cut/paste/print out of a PDF won't have this problem.
So it seems a bit ironic that Derek's xpdf is getting slammed for making the design decision to honor the author's copy and print restrictions I don't think anyone has been slamming xpdf -- a few people have just asked themselves whether Derek's design decisions reflect the priorities of Debian, and if Debian should change that decision for its own version of the software.
No matter how hard he or she tries no author can usurp your rights under the law. An author can not make your stand on one foot say "almighty god rules" fifty times and the author can not stop you from printing anything you want. You have the right to print it's fair use, it's the law. It does not matter what the author wants.
War is necrophilia.
This is untrue in some fundamental respects. First, free software licenses may restrict only redistribution, not private use. xpdf effectively restricts private use. This is very differest, and much more pernicious. Second, free software licenses must allow redistribution with modifications, under some reasonable conditions. xpdf restricts me from making modifications, even if I am willing to credit the original author and clearly mark the changes. Granted, documents and software are not the same, so "free documents" may perhaps come with more restrictions than free software; but this is another flaw in your analogy.
If there is an insight to be drawn by comparison to free software licensing, it is that this issue should be addressed by social and legal means, not by adding obnoxious restrictions to programs.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
I maintain the xpdf package. I asked on the debian-devel list for opinions from other developers. I wanted a concensus.. none found on slashdot though!
The GPL does not require any such thing.
Hell, it's GPL, if you don't like it, edit the code and take it our yourself.
--
Free Mac Mini
What are you on about?
I wonder if the patch would violate the DMCA?
It would be a strange situation if they decided that a version which ignores the copy control bit is illegal. No MP3 program I know of takes any notice of the copy control bit which exists in all MP3s, and that includes the ones included in Debian.
Also, being technically unable to manipulate a document is different from being legally unable to do so. There are many examples which would count as fair use; for example, a blind person might want to convert a document to ASCII to pipe through a text reader (that's just a random example off the top of my head).
OTOH they might want the patched version to be in non-US to avoid falling foul of the delightful DCMA.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
The standard distribution of Ghostscript won't handle PDF files that have the so-called 'protection'. You have to download an extra PostScript file from somewhere - the error message tells you what you need.
This file refuses to process PDFs where the author has requested that you do not print them. However, if you want to exercise your fair dealing rights despite the author's request, it is simple to patch the file so that your computer will do what you tell it.
For more information, see Kyler Laird's PDF utilities.
FWIW, I think Debian should stand up for fair dealing rights and allow users to print PDFs - though it might have to go into non-US.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I stumbled over the term 'fuckware' in the debian posting:
The PDF fuckware (Futile Unnatural Control Keeping Ware, credit to Oskar Sandberg for that) is on the same road as DVD CSS and HDTV.)
As this term so nicely describes what big business tries more and more to establish (think also fuckhardware) and also how consumers rights (such as fair use) are treated (essentially the consumer is screwed) i think we all should try and establish this term where appropriate. It has also the advantage of brevity over "Software honouring digital rights management" or somesuch.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
The author went to a lot of trouble to support the author-applied file-usage limits with good results overall (Adobe opened up the .pdf specification). By undoing that effort and denying authors the ability to choose under what terms their works will be used pdf becomes less viable.
.pdf proofs to clients which they can then review---if I can no longer count on these files being secure, I'll have to go back to FedExing printed proofs with an ``Art for Approval'' watermark.
.pdf---change that and such licenses may become more restrictive.
.pdfs---but do you think Adobe will continue to provide the information on decrypting things if such provisions are not adhered to by opensource programs?
For example, as a graphic designer, I provide
Similarly, a font's license may forbid embedding in a printable
The only good thing which might come of this would be better security for
William
--
Lettering Art in Modern Use
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Anyhow, OS X's graphics model is based on PDF, so I presume it has to deal with the rights protection too. How long before someone comes up with a patch for OS X now that it's reached Golden Master? Developers already have copies of the GM version, and it's less than two weeks before the release date.
As for Debian, I think they should distribute with it turned off. But the source should have a #define that allows it to be turned on easily by someone who has enough clue to recompile from source.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Given that the code is freely available to bypass this if you really need to, supporting the format's ability to enforce versioning controls (which is what stopping your average user from editing the text is) or stopping the printing 400 page documents when you don't want users to seems like a useful thing to me. As long as there is a way to get round this, which there is when the source and diffs to switch it are available, then this is hardly the end of the world.
Perhaps they should include the change so that it can be made if necessary, but ship the binary of the copy protect version. This one also is more likely to keep Adobe off our backs.
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
To avoid an object lesson to Adobe in how obfuscation != encryption, it should not be compiled in by default. If Adobe were to learn this lesson, future formats/revisions of this format could become difficult or impossible to implement in F/free software. Good middle ground would be to include the patch as a compile-time option, but don't compile it in to the binaries that Debian distributes themselves. That way, people who want to circumvent the copy control can, but the average user won't.
FWIW, I can't think of a single copy protected PDF I've encountered anyway. How often does this come up in the average case?
.sig: file not found
...instead of whatever Hemos is writing in, here's a quote from the link that makes the story more intelligible:
"Xpdf is a free (GPLed) PDF reader which respects Adobe's lame "copy-protection" bits in PDFs where the reader refuses to allow printing or copying etc.
I've written a patch to uncripple xpdf, should Debian apply it?"
Now, on to what I think.
1) The creator of xpdf (assuming he's not an Adobe employee) has no obligation to emulate Adobe's product exactly.
2) Similarly, the creator has no obligation to enforce a third-party's copyright.
3) OTOH, if the patch is applied, PDF creators may be incensed enough to ask Adobe to "fix it, Mommy". Adobe could then change the format such that xpdf can no longer read it or, worse, put the arm on xpdf somehow.
Therefore, my suggestion is this. Apply the patch, but make it a commandline option that is off by default. That way, the protection is there as a "reminder" but not as an obstacle.
--
324006
Similarly, the purpose of your computer is to serve you, not some distant control-freak deciding whether you should or shouldn't print a file, should or shouldn't edit a file, should or shouldn't be able to read text in the font of your choice, should or shouldn't be subjected to a pop-up advertisement, etc.
Insist on the control due you, or you soon may find yourself with none.
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
... is on the debian-devel mailing list mailing list, starting here.
John von Neumann proved this way back in the 50s, if memory serves. From an information-theoretic perspective, there is absolutely no difference between a program and data. In fact, some programs use themselves as data. As a trivial example, imagine that you have a Perl script that prettifies source code--now run the program through itself. Presto: the program is the data.
As Andy Grove is fond of saying, hardware is just software that's frozen in silicon. There's no difference between them, again speaking from an information-theoretic perspective.
We all know this one, given the DMCA and how it was used as a big and gnarled club against DeCSS.
... Add it all up. What do you get? If it's already illegal to write a software program which strips usagecontrols from data (ala deCSS), then it's going to be a very short court battle to show that it's also illegal to deliberately write software which never bothers to check for usage controls, or ignores flags in a data file which would normally indicate the presence of usage controls.
If Debian wants to include this, I've got to commend them on their willingness to make a moral stand. But they'd better have damn good legal counsel, and they'd better be expecting a lawsuit from Adobe at any time.
If real-life decisions were made on Slashdot, perhaps people would think more about what they posted :)
yeah, it's a scary thought....
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
The DMCA should be repealed. Lets start a campaign to get that boondoggle off the books. Face it that law was Sold to big publishing interests for soft money. The ACLU and the American Library Association will back the effort. We need an icon and a web page - or is there already one?
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
Is this a troll, FUD, or ignorance?
There's nothing about this siutation that involves violation of someone else's licence. Nothing.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The xpdf case is a simple one. Changing the xpdf code without Noonburg's permission and including it in the Debian distribution (without chaning the package and binary name) violates Noonburg's copyright. Noonburg seems to have a firm position on the permission settings, so I doubt he will agree to releasing a version of xpdf that does not honor those bits. Trying to have xpdf changed in the Debian distribution is both rude and unethical.
However, since xpdf is GPL'd, it would be perfectly reasonable to take xpdf, change the name (pdfview?), modify the code concerning permission settings and release that code under the modified name (with the GPL license). Debian could then include both packages and the user would be allowed to choose between the two programs.
I personally find Noonberg's stance quite reasonable. It's easy to think that "information wants to be free" and that copyright is an age-old idea that should be abolished, but copyright is an idea that is thoroughly ingrained in our society and is an important idea to maintain both for the sake of our ethics and our economy. Unlike programming, most people do not produce works of art and engineering just because they feel like it. Copyright helps to encourage the production of useful commodities and enforces at least a small degree of ethics in the business world.
Jason
--
assert(expired(knowledge));
In fact, the only reason PDF ever gained any traction is that so many programs generate bad PostScript that page viewers for PostScript don't work too well. It's hard to rapidly skip pages or back up in a PostScript file; that's the problem with a representation that's a program.
If you don't play nice with other people, soon they won't play with you at all.
This is one of the few times I've heard the Slashdot crew advocating rolling over and playing dead. WHAT THE HELL? I keep hearing the argument that we'd better play nice with Adobe or they'll close the format and we'll all be screwed.
If we'd followed that logic, we wouldn't have MP3 encoders, or ICQ and AIM clients, or xanim, or any of the hundreds of Open Source programs that exist because someone wasn't happy to be a nice sheep.
Have you all lost it? Seriously? If Adobe doesn't like this, and changes the format, then we'll deal with that as it happens (don't forget that all of the free Acroread viewers they've distributed over the years will also be broken by their move, so this isn't too likely). I find the proposition of being forced to kowtow to corporate desires far more unappealing than being denied access to a new document format.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Your scenario doesn't make much sense. How would a download be "mandatory"?
Half correct. Both the free software and open-source software movements rely on cooperation, however cooperation is not encouraged by copyright - government-created monopolies on copying hinder communication and cooperation.Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Honoring the requests of the creator is a nice principle, but it must be questioned when the authors make unreasonable requests. "Do not distributed modified versions" is a reasonable request. "Do not cut-n-paste" is flagrantly unreasonable, not to mention obnoxious. Systematic attempts to remove the ability to cut-n-paste should be fought.
The xpdf author's mistake is,
This is dangerous. At some point, the misguided author should be challenged, rather than mass-depriving users of their rights. To use a cliched example, what if the author's request were that only orange people read his document?The best way for xpdf to honor reasonable requests by authors would be to pop up a dialog when the user attempts to cut-n-paste, saying, "The author of this document requests that you not distribute modified copies. Please cut-n-paste only for your own private use." (or whatever wording is most accurate).
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
OK, Let's stop the hysterical ranting against the rights of anyone to ever assert any control at all on the fruits of thier own labor, and look at the facts:
First, PDF *does not* prevent copying. In fact, Adobe went out of ther way to ensure that the PDF itself could indeed be legitimately passed around. The bits in question simply flag two conditions, neither of which should be controversial or contentious:
1. Don't allow changes. This one simply (and quite reasonably) implements within a PDF the same requirement that exists even in many open source licenses: don't make changes to someone else's work and then pass on those changes as if they were the original author's. In reality, someone passing off a modified version of my work as mine is likely to make me far angrier than if they were to simply steal it. This is a matter of authorial integrity, and we *should* honor those bits, if the author chooses - and he may or may not - they're optional, remember. Ignoring this bit is nothing less than dismissing the author's integrity and character as unimportant. Note that this is far more important in text than in code, since text is far more frequently used to express opnions and arguments.
2. Don't allow printing of the PDF. This is also quite reasonable, and there are many good reasons for allowing authors (or distributors) to specify this option: Sometimes, the document is large and may change frequently, therefore, allowing printing makes little sense, and can result in an organization incurring very high costs for users printing off their own personal copies of documents. (This is about the most expensive method known for distributing documents.) Finally, much PDF content is actually available in printed form, and it's reasonable to have to actually *buy* the printed version if that's what you're after. (Again, it's generally cheaper, too.)
This whole thing is nothing more than a disgruntled freenet developer trying to impose his notions of "freedom to steal the legitimate work of others" on the entire Debian community. Debian should NOT incorporate this patch. I think the GPL is folly, but it doesn't concern me too much because I have a choice.
What Adam Langley proposes here is the document equivalent of retroactively imposing a GPL-like license on PDF content, simply because he prefers it. The choice of licenses is a very personal one and one that should *always* be made by the author: whether or not we agree with it, we must honor the author's decision on this matter, as it is his work that is at issue.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Although I wouldn't wish a legal battle on anyone, it's troubling to think that good software might not see the light of day, (or be included in the source tree) just because it might violate bad legislation.
Maybe I'm just a little too libertarian, or maybe I just agree with Thoreau that there is a duty of civil disobedience, but it seems to me that the coding and dissemnination of proof-of-concept 'circumvention devices' needs to occur until the DMCA is abolished.
I think this goes along the need for source code to be considered protected speech. Maybe by including comments in the code that state that you are writing it just to protest the DMCA... who knows, maybe our editors will soon have automatic DMCA-protest C and C++/Java comment blocks just like the GPL comment blocks available in many (open-source) editors now.
The important thing is for at least some software to be seen as being political-- that's in many ways the gauge, as 'poltitical speech' is often seen as having the most vital need of protection.
We'll never win fights by tucking our tails and running.
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
Release another version of xpdf with the patch applied. Call it xxxpdf :)
I am not in bed with Adobe, and I realize that they are sortof a pain in the butt, but it would be hypocritical for people who want to change the way software is legally developed/distributed/used should really take into consideration that when they do something that violates someone's licensing, it makes them look like a bunch of burnt-out former software pirates who are looking for a justification of a free ride. Please don't let that be the picture that is painted of a legitimate group of people with honorable concerns and ideology.
Check out http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/cracking.html, in which the original author of xpdf explains why he doesn't want to include patches of this sort. He sounds like a very reasonable guy, who respect the principle of copyright. Don't forget that copyright (or left) is an integral part of the GPL as well. If these laws on distribution can be disregarded, there's nothing to stop commercial companies from stealing GPL'ed products left and right. And I don't think anybody wants to see that. I think the patch developer also takes a good angle with his question when he asks if it would be moral/ethical to apply the patch, not whether it would be legal. While the answer to the second question might be "yes", the answer to the former is much clearer, as far as I can tell: yes, it would be hypocritical and unethical to encourage people to break copyright laws. Hmmm... I wonder what RMS would say on this one? Anybody want to ask him? --JRZ
Even though you might not agree with the licensing that has been set by a particular vendor, I think it is wise to respect it. Protest your disgust in other ways.
Think of it this way. What if someone constructed a script or some kind of Junkbuster-esque proxy that would strip out all references to the GPL out of GPL source code, so that the user would never see it or agree to it. How would you feel about that? To the user's knowledge he never would have "known" in the legal sense whether that source was GPL'ed or not. I've seen postings here on Slashdot that recommend unzipping Microsoft software so that they don't have to "see" the license they are agreeing to--they feel that they have circumvented the license legally.
Remember, in the US, ignorance of the law != innocence.
Of course, IANAL...
As it is, it's worse than insecure. By making it impossible for the casual user to change the document, it *looks* unchangeable. So if some newbie comes across a changed doc, they'd assume it came from its original source.
If they want an unchangeable format, what they need is digital signatures, embeded in the document. That way you're guaranteed the document hasn't changed since its author last touched it. You'd think Adobe could think of that. They do have some real security features - password protection - but, as far as I can see (I have Reader open right now) not a word about digital signatures.
Such things might have been descussed in the link, too bad its /.'d. Have to come back later...
The opinons expressed are those of the voices in the author's head and are not necessarily those of the author.
PDF is about spreading information. Some information is under copyright. This copyright should be respected. If printing can be disabled, it may convince authors to distribute a non printable version for free (very usefull if you want to preview a book for instance). If this feature is bypassed by default by popular viewers, authors may choose not to distribute their material at all. That would be our loss, not theirs.
Now of course adobe's feature is implemented rather clumsily if it is that easy to bypass. No doubt, cracked versions of the viewer will be distributed anyway, so in a way it is already too late. But since debian hackers are self proclaimed moralists (all that bullshit about free speech rather than beer and so on), they should behave in a consistent way and respect other peoples copyright regardless of the technical possibilities. After all, they expect other people to do the same with their stuff.
Jilles
As "circumvention devices" go, it's not DeCSS. It's not even CueCat. It's more like rot-13.
--
Xenu loves you!
No details of PDF have been kept secret in the hope of making this scheme stronger. The scheme explicitly relies on implementors agreeing to honour it. Adobe have thought about digital signatures, but it's tricky to get right, so they've put it off for future releases.
--
Xenu loves you!
Come up with a reasonable reason. Anybody. The only one that I've seen that comes close was the "we don't want our users printing 300+ page docs..." That's not legit. That probably needs to be done on the print server... As for copywrite and Adobe? I still have fair use. (or I *should* dammit)... Adobe and the authors already have copywrite laws to protect their work. What about laws to protect my fair use??? And it's already been brought up, but I think the example of the blind guy that *needs* to have those kinds of abilities outweighs overprotecting these files. Come on! I already **have** the file. At worst, I can run the whole damn OS in an emulator, freeze the thing, and rip bytes out of memory... oops... I guess I forgot my rant tags.... sorry.
I can't find my car keys. (no a's in email)
You are incorrect, sir.
Authors can choose not to disseminate copies of their works to people as they choose. The only method, however, that they have to prevent people from exercising their Fair Use rights (among others) is to make a condition of receiving the work not to do exercise those rights.
If they don't do this - and the legality of EULAs is being contested, with the anti-EULA side winning slightly, last time I checked - they have no rights to tell people that they may not make fair use of it, or give it to others, or space-shift it, etc., all of which are wrongfully infringed upon by having this flag in the pdf.
Authors have control over what they write, and who they sell it to. Once it leaves their hands, they get to restrict some instances of copying. Sometimes. Depending on the circumstances. And only a court of law can determine if one instance of copying is legal or not - no program can tell me that.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
The restrictions that Adobe has in PDF do prevent (or at least discourage) unauthorized uses of works, and that's good. However, they also prevent (or discourage) authorized uses, and that's bad. Most of the people reading this don't care because they can hack it and get around the protection, but there are people who have a legitimate right to use the document in ways that the protection bits disallow who don't have the technical sophistication to get around the protection bits. (Then there's the issue of the DMCA, but that's more than I want to get into here.)
In short, these protection bits are bad because they remove rights that readers have with traditional media.
I don't own a copy of Adobe Acrobat, but as I remember, a couple of months ago there was a posting on slashdot about copywriting ebooks. One posting in particular was talking about Adobe Acrobat format. It said that although the Acrobat reader followed the copyprotection scheme, the Acrobat retail version did not -- it gave you full editing control on any document. If this is true, does it put a whole new spin on things?
Surely, if the Debian Maintainer 'maintains' the package, at the end of the day it's up to them? Okay, that's not completely true, but it does seem like someone is kicking up a stink to get their own way. Stuff like this should be decided in private, or at least among developers, not as a public debating match. Imagine if every decision in Debian was taken through 'slashdot justice'.
I don't like the idea of people making noise trying to bring unnatural pressure to bear on those maintainers of the package....
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons