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. "

Comments

Derek Noonbur's The Reason Adobe Opened PDF At All

[pjrc]

If it weren't for Derek's xpdf program, Adobe probably never would have completely opened up the PDF specification at all. I've been using Derek's xpdf program for years, since the days when it mis-rendered all sorts of things... even when Adobe finally released acroread for Linux, I still liked xpdf, because Derek's program is fast. I always used to open PDF files with xpdf first, and if it was all messed up, then I'd try acroread.

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.

Blind users.

[Noryungi]

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!

trivially crippled better than "secure" or closed

[janpod66]

As long as we are talking about open formats, I'm all for open source programs like xpdf honoring the copy protection bits on PDF files. By default, I have no intention of overriding the author's preferences. And if open source programs don't honor these preferences, companies like Adobe will either use closed extensions for their next release, or they'll figure out something truly secure,.

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.

DMCA?

[kurisuto]

I wonder if the patch would violate the DMCA?

Consistency

[divec]

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.

Re:Why is this a debate?

[treke]

The debate isnt whether or not to remove xpdf, but whether or not Debian should apply this patch to the version of xpdf they distribute. I don't think they should apply the patch, the author of xpdf went to the trouble of adding the copy protection, and I think it's a good thing. If we start distributing copes that dont pay any attention to copy restrictions then we might start running into issues with trying to support future formats.

If someone wants the capability to copy and print and whatever else, they can apply the patch themselves.
treke

What on earth is wrong with the copy controls?

[iainl]

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.

The middle ground

[petard]

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?

For those that read English...

[BillyGoatThree]

...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.
--

Re:For those that read English...

[Richy_T]

Apply the patch, but make it a commandline option that is off by default.

Hey, wow. Finally typing "override all security" would work just like it does in the movies.

Rich

A: Computers are here to serve people, not v.v.!

[mkcmkc]

The answer to your question is that

Computers are here to serve people and not to control them.

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

This is DANGEROUS.

[rjh]

1. Programs == Data.
   
   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.
   
   
2. Hardware == Software.
   
   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.
3. It's already illegal to have hardware or software that circumvents a protection mechanism.
   
   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.

There is no copy control in PDF

[dublin]

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.

Re:There is no copy control in PDF

[/dev/kev]

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

And these conditions are used by PDF viewers to restrict access. The thing is, you need access in order to copy. I'm not talking about copying the whole file, I'm talking about copying a section out of the document, like a paragraph or image (don't go crawling to copyright, either, because quoting like this is often covered by fair use). So these access controls are effectively preventing copying.

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.

You've missed the point. Passing off someone else's work as your own is called plagarism, and has nothing to do with copyright. People detected and combated this before PDF came along with its protection bit, you know, and the methods to do this are still applicable.

The point is that you may want to change the document while still acknowledging its authorship. I don't know about redistribution, but I'm fairly sure that if it's for private use then you have every right to make as many modifications as you like. This bit therefore restricts my personal liberties, and as shown actually acheives very little, since it requires the client to honour it.

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.

Where do you get off thinking you can tell me what I can and cannot do with my dead trees?

If there is the possibility that company has problems with people printing personal copies of large documents, the sensible company sends a memo telling its employees not to print personal copies of documents larger than X pages, rather, put in a request to the document manager who will organise professional printing of enough copies of the document.

And then there is the legal aspect - you often need to print documents when they have become evidence in court. If you don't, you could be liable for contempt of court or obstruction of justice (or something).

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 evidence actually supports not having the print-restriction - if reasonable and economically motivated people will buy the professionally printed version, what need is there for the print-restriction? A few unreasonable people who insist on having poorer quality, more expensive copies? Let the idiots have their poorer quality! But don't restrict the reasonable person under the presumption that you can stop the unreasonable one from doing their unreasonable actions - that is just foolishness.

/. Effect

[fantom_winter]

The story seems to be /.'ed, but at first glean of what I see on here about it, this seems like a horrible idea. Certainly the creators of GNU Linux want people to honor their own licencing parameters. How can they come around and endorse the violation of someone else's licence.

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.

The author sounds VERY reasonable here

[JohnZed]

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

Leave it as it is

[jilles]

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.