Slashdot Mirror
Adobe's ADEPT DRM Broken
An anonymous reader writes "I love cabbages has reverse-engineered Adobe's ADEPT DRM (e-book protection). On February 18, I love cabbages released code that decrypts EPUB e-books protected with ADEPT and followed that up on February 25, with code that decrypts PDF e-books protected with ADEPT. On March 4, I love cabbages was given a DMCA take down notice. And there's plenty of evidence he got it right. DS:TNG (Dmitry Sklyarov: The Next Generation)?"
DRM is like trying to make water not wet.
The MS "no sue/patent deal" with Novell/Xandros is like the Pope blessing a Jewish wedding
The tools are not on the site anymore...
But now what you're really here for - the PDF decryption tool: REMOVED. (And if you don't already have it, the key-retrieval tool: REMOVED.)
Edit: Links to tools removed due to DMCA complaint from Adobe.
This is not the next Dmitri, if anything, it may turn in to the new DeCSS as Adobe is trying to stop the tool(s) from spreading, which tends to have the opposite effect.
I really wonder if it hadn't been better for Adobe not to say anything, now they are giving it publicity it wouldn't have had otherwise.
Non-sequitur
Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy. Removing DRM so that consumers have a choice over how and when to use content they have paid for is a great thing.
It is regrettable that these developments are also massive boosts for piracy, but without this sort of action there would be no DVD playback on Linux.
Because sometimes (read: very often) the DRM will prevent the end-user from exercising rights he would have under standard Fair Use doctrines.
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
Licensing is not copyright. Licensing is a contract you enter in depending on whether you want to use certain programs and it's code associated with. You can choose not to buy/use/change the program or you can haggle for better fitting licensing (whether it be cost or freedom). If you don't like it, make your own program that does the same job but better (or cheaper).
Copyright is forced upon you whenever the creator creates his product. Even if you go to a library or book store and DON'T buy the book, the thing is still copyrighted and you can't make copies of it nor can you make a similar book with the same or a similar story.
Copyrights are like patents in software/hardware. They prevent you from improving upon a certain work and they effectively lock the competition out of making anything that is vaguely similar or even an extension of a book.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I can't believe that this nonsense keeps being repeated. The GPL (a license I don't really like, but respect) is a distribution license. It follows both the spirit and the letter of copyright law, allowing the original author to restrict how people copy their work. DRM, in contrast, restricts how people use their work. This is counter to the spirit of copyright law - there's a reason it's called copyright not useright - and is antithetical to Free Software. Note that even laws like the DMCA talk about copy protection, rather than DRM. They are not the same thing. Copy protection only prevents copying, while DRM prevents various forms of use, for example annotating a PDF or playing a DVD from a different country.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Google's cache of the blog has a working link.
There is of course, Google Cache ...
Or, you can just get it from pastebin:
http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c
and
http://pastebin.com/f26972321
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
"Copyright law" does not equal "technological enforcement of whatever terms somebody feels like enforcing".
While some DRM-crackers are indeed, more or less unrelated(you don't see GPL proponents celebrating the availability of cracked copies of proprietary software), the DRM-crackers who stand up for our freedom to own and control our computers, rather than the other way around, have pretty much exactly the same objective as core GPL proponents.
That DRM was broken close to 10 years ago or so by this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elcomsoft
I dont think they changed the encryption, just the way they encrypted it. My guess is that
the tools created by Dmitri and the rest still work today....I may be wrong.
from TFA:
> Any guesses as to why only the PDF decryption tool and not the EPUB tool?
Probably because no-one's even heard of EPUB but practically everyone has heard of PDF files...
>But now what youâ(TM)re really here for â" the PDF decryption tool: http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c. (And >if you don't already have it, the key-retrieval tool: http://pastebin.com/f26972321.)
From the original article without having the links broken by law. /. will have to do the same now?
I wonder is
You can always call it back from google cache...as I did.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:aoDTe7wI6s4J:i-u2665-cabbages.blogspot.com/2009/02/circumventing-adobe-adept-drm-for-pdf.html+http://i-u2665-cabbages.blogspot.com/2009/02/circumventing-adobe-adept-drm-for-pdf.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca
True, that is copyright law for you. But the issue is whether the copyright holder can artificially expand his own rights or arbitrarily restrict the end users rights.
E.g. I recently encountered a company that sold pdf(?) documents you can only read with an active internet connection. Reading on the train/plane is impossible or very expensive.
Also true, but this part is about enforcing the law. You could substitute 'taking GPL code and subverting it' with 'throwing bombs','murdering innocent children' as well. Of course, that's insinuating copying is a very bad crime. Which it is not. It's mildly naughty.
If anyone other than fat, neck-bearded, Cheeto-stained, basement-dwelling gruntwaffles actually *used* Linux
Hey! I am not a gruntwaffle! Or....maybe I am...WTF is a "gruntwaffle?"
Sorry, clicked the wrong button
My point is that all DRM schemes hinder legitimate users to some degree and never actually prevent copying.
The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without.
As I understand it, the purpose of copyright is to secure for creators a limited time monopoly on the rights necessary for selling the creation, in return for them eventually enriching the cultural (and, in the case of software, technological) commons.
Some kinds of DRM prevent or obstruct use of the work in such a way that when the work enters the public domain, it doesn't enrich the commons in practice. It's like being given a car wreck that's in really bad shape: sure you can sell it as scrap metal, but it's worth so little that you're better off ignoring it.
For this reason, I think one can argue that DRM (with certain properties) goes against the spirit and purpose of copyright law, and the argument doesn't apply to GPL'ed software.
Using the DMCA to censor him just inconveniences him a bit while he finds a way to post it from a country without such a law (or effective enforcement thereof). Isn't this less despicable than using the DCMA to charge him with the criminal act of providing tools to break access controls?
I hope we don't have another replay of the Skylarov fiasco.
Disclaimer: Don't take this comment as indicating that I think the DMCA is a good law.
I would think that it would be trivial to just record the output of your speakers/mp3 player/etc., no? You could even record multiple times and develop sophisticated algorithms to remove the analog noise and improve resolution.
And while we're at it, I'm fairly sure that someone could write software which would OCR the output of a camcorder recording the screen of Adobe's ebook reader application while the down arrow key was held down with a small weight or clamp. Doesn't matter how many updates they make to their software in this case.
DRM is silly and insulting to the customer, especially in low-bandwidth cases like this.
The rights-holder is the sole arbiter of the "conditions of the distribution of their content". If they want to distribute content to you which you are forbidden to use in months which end in "Y" that is their right. You're free as a consumer to say "that's horse-shit," and not purchase their content at all. But at the end of the day, the copy of the content was given to you, after an exchange of moneys, based on an agreement (the license agreement). If you're unhappy with the license agreement you're now bound by, please feel free to read the license more closely in the future. If the license wasn't adequately provided to you prior to purchase (e.g., license agreements INSIDE software boxes, etc.) feel free to use the court system to get your money back, or to prove that those particular agreements are invalid. But what you don't get to do is simply ignore the copyright restriction when it isn't convenient for you.
Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy.
As a rights-holder? Bull. Shit. "You have the right to use content provided you do so in a manner consistent with the license provided with it." That's the same basic principle protected in the GPL, as well as in DRM-licensing terms.
You fail (again). The GPL does not, in any way, restrict your use of the licensed code. It only restricts the way you redistribute that code (if you should choose to do so). And, newsflash, even if the GPL wanted to restrict your use, it couldn't, because the GPL is based on copyright law. A license can only grant you MORE freedom than is already allowed to you by copyright law. And copyright law regulates distribution, not private usage.
It's rather comical that so many people out there are trying to break DRM and band themselves as allies of the open source movement in some way. The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without. If we have a legal system where copying images, songs and books is tolerated, then we also have a legal system where taking GPL code and subverting it will be tolerated as well.
The GPL is a license that dictates how a work can be copied and distributed - which was the intent of copyrights originally. To control who can copy and/or distribute a work, to make sure that the author actually gets something for their effort.
DRM, on the other hand, restricts how someone who already has a copy of the work is able to use it. DRM keeps me from reading my ebook on the device of my choice. DRM keeps me from listening to my music on the device of my choice. DRM keeps me from re-installing the software that I purchased because it has been activated too many times.
Most folks on here, and in the open source community at large, don't really have a huge problem with copyright. They may have issues with various current implementations or protection periods... But most folks are ok with the idea of an author/creator getting paid for their work in some way.
DRM though... DRM isn't about keeping people from making unauthorized copies. DRM is about selling people one copy of a movie for their DVD player, and a second copy for their PC, and a third copy for their iPod. DRM is about the middle-men (not the content creators) dictating how you use the content.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
The GPL is an additive license. You don't loose the right to do anything under it, you gain the right to do things you weren't otherwise allowed if you follow it.
The DRM license an eBook is published under is subtractive, you don't gain anything from the license that your money hasn't already purchased. The sole point of the license is to force you to give up rights 'in favor' of the rights holder position.
Apples and Oranges my friend.
When you come up with a DRM backed license that at leasst actually gives, in exchange for what it's taking, something of value, then you might have an arguement. Till then, when I purchase a book, I expect to be able to use it. And since the law explicitly allows circumvention of DRM for the purposes of interoptability, I'd say so does the law.
Yeah, so we should abolish copyrights and watch what happens as TPB gets flooded short term with existing works, and the amount of newly created works that show up on the site trickles to a near standstill. Yeah.
Let's screw creators over completely, show them what they get for going out on a limb. Yeah.
Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy
Agreed.
You have no idea how often I run into issues where some file won't play/can't be viewed on some device because it doesn't support the DRM. I've run into this with audio files (iTunes Store), PDFs, videos and ebooks.
I don't see why DRM'd media files must be tied to the device rather than the user. Why not have some kind of public key that authorizes the file? Of course there are issues with sharing the key, but there could be ways around that, too (device key negotiations with the DRM server).
Although... not having DRM at all would be the best case scenario.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
So, to use your argument, if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that. Because that should be my right as a consumer of the code, to determine how I want to use it... right.... right?
That is correct. You are able to personally use GPL software in a closed-source application. You are, however, unable to distribute said close source software with the GPL software.
Sorry, but that's not how it works. If the GPL rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictates "terms of use" for GPL'ed content, then the DRM'ed rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictate THEIR terms of use as well. If you don't like those terms, feel free to use something else, just as lots of people who don't like GPL license terms use BSD or even (gasp!) closed-source code.
Actually, I am pretty sure that is exactly how it works. Under the fair use doctrine I am allowed to personally use a valid copy of a copyrighted work as I see fit, but I am unable to (in most cases) to distribute the work.
BTW, I am a rights-holder and I have used both open and closed source licensing. As a rights-holder, why would I care if they choose to use my applications in a manner other than prescribed so long as they do not distribute the software without my permission?
A rights-holder can say "I won't allow my content to be distributed to you unless you pay me $20." That's fairly straight-forward.
A rights-holder can ALSO say "I won't allow my content to be distributed to you unless you pay me $20 AND agree to the following Terms and Conditions...."
By entering into the contract (which permitted the content to be distributed to you in the first place) you have willingly given up some rights, such as the right to crack open the file and do whatever you want with it.
Now, as previously noted, if the contract-portion of that agreement isn't adequately addressed in advance, you may potentially have recourse under contract law, etc., but that's not necessarily carte blanche to break the DRM.
The rights-holder is the sole arbiter of the "conditions of the distribution of their content".
No, the courts are.
If they want to distribute content to you which you are forbidden to use in months which end in "Y" that is their right.
No, it is not. Once the product has been sold to you the rights holder has nothing to say about how you use it so long as you stick to what copyright law allows you to do with it.
But at the end of the day, the copy of the content was given to you, after an exchange of moneys, based on an agreement (the license agreement).
No, it was not. It was sold to you as a product, and it is a product that you can use according to what is permitted by copyright law. You only need a /license/ if you intend to put it to uses that copyright law does not permit.
As for what copyright law allows you to do, it allows you to use the product in the expected manner (that is, listen to music or watch a film) and some jurisdictions even allow you to make backup copies of it. There will tend to be a myriad other things you can also do with it without having to get permission from the rights holder.
sigs are hazardous to your health
I'm really getting tired of these same straw men getting trotted out every time the issue of DRM comes up.
You bet. You may use GPL software in any way you see fit. Freedom 0 guarentees that:
In fact, the license specifically forbids a copyright holder from taking steps to control how you use the software. The GPL only puts restrictions on how the software is distributed. The only person being restricted by the GPL is the copyright holder.
This is as it should be.
DRM has nothing to do with copyright. It's purpose is to controls access to the copyrighted work, to control how the person who paid for the copyrighted work uses it.
DRM is an attempt by copyright holders to claim additional rights for themselves beyond what copyright allows for. In many cases, it prevents citizens from exercising fair use without defeating it, making it incompatible with copyright law. If a copyright holder wishes to employ DRM, they should forfeit copyright protection, as they are not holding up their end of the bargain.
You know, one fucking "right" will do, thanks.
I don't care why you're posting AC
If you agree to the license on the content before downloading, which you pretty much have to do for any legitimate download, you probably also agreed to not copy it or attempt to break the DRM for any reason.
So if the GPL is valid because it controls what you can and can't do with the software after you get it, why is it that the DRM you agreed to when you purchased the content is any different?
I think DRM is complete shit, but treating it differently than GPL just because you like GPL and not DRM is retarded. Everyone has to play by the same set of rules for everything, like it or not, or the system breaks down and no one respects anything, GPL or DRM.
You don't get to ignore licensing agreements for things you don't like, but require others to respect the ones you do like.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
No, it is not.
You are welcome on my lawn.
One German mirror and one extra American mirror
PDF decryption tool: http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c
http://nopaste.info/8ad6b71874.html
http://paste2.org/p/161270
key-retrieval tool: http://pastebin.com/f26972321
http://nopaste.info/8b62e63436.html
http://paste2.org/p/161271
If you know of any other foreign pastebins,
mirror and post in this thread.
And I'm shocked that there are so many people here who believe "copyright" is anything but a land grab for those who cannot create.
You are welcome on my lawn.
BTW, I am a rights-holder and I have used both open and closed source licensing. As a rights-holder, why would I care if they choose to use my applications in a manner other than prescribed so long as they do not distribute the software without my permission?
Maybe you don't care. But maybe, just maybe, you do. (For instance, perhaps you're a rights-holder who wants to say "you cannot use this content to help kill people" to prevent the military from using it, or whatever). The point is that while you or I may not necessarily care "how" someone uses it, some people DO care how people use it, and they've got the right to have you agree not to use it in a conflicting way before they give you the content.
They have a responsibility to their shareholders to do everything they can to protect a) their investment in creating the DRM in the first place, and b) the value of their licensed software and agreements with publishers.
Well, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to deliver a good return on investment.
You can try doing that in multiple ways. One of them is fighting a losing battle tooth and nail, another is coming up with a business model that works well in the environment it'll execute in.
I'm not saying Adobe is at one extreme and should move to the other. But you have to wonder whether fighting the DRM war is ultimately good or bad for business. If it's bad, not fighting it is their shareholder responsibility.
Once the product has been sold to you the rights holder has nothing to say about how you use it so long as you stick to what copyright law allows you to do with it.
Not if you agreed (via a license agreement) not to use in on days that end in "Y".
No, it was not. It was sold to you as a product,
It was content, distributed to you by the rights-holder under their right to distribute (as rights-holder) after an agreement by you to terms and conditions of that distribution, namely what you could and could not do with the content after you received it.
Copyright law allows the rights-holder to determine the conditions upon which they are willing to give you rights to use the content.
Wow. You failed twice in a row, and some idiot mod still modded you up.
Copyright. Read it carefully. Say it out loud. It is literally the right to copy. Copyright only deals with redistribution, whether in original or modified form. It does not deal with usage. Get it into your thick skull already; copyright cannot stop you from using what you bought the way you want it. It only stops you from copying what you bought and giving it to others. (Fair use covers the part where you copy something for backup purposes.)
Seesh. Get it right, or go troll somewhere else.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Wow, all the trolls have come out of the woodwork.
What makes you think people are going to stop creating works of art just because somebody else is going to copy them? What makes you think that people are going to stop singing, painting, writing, telling stories, just because somebody else can sing the same song, paint the same picture, write the same words and tell the same stories?
Without copyright, people might not make money out of it. But nobody says people are supposed to make money for everything they do. Making money is not a right.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
For instance, perhaps you're a rights-holder who wants to say "you cannot use this content to help kill people" to prevent the military from using it, or whatever).
Contract law isn't a candy store. I may want to stipulate that one sign over his arm, leg, and first born child but very few courts on this planet will enforce it. And there HAVE been licenses that forbid military use or government use but those are institutions that at least under some circumstances CAN disregard contract, copyright, or even patent law. This disregard is either extended by legislative fiat or they just do it and dare you to come enforce it.
So yes, there are wishes a rights holder may have that he can't enforce with either contract or copyright law. And in keeping with DRM, there are wishes a rights holder may have that won't be enforced by the laws of physics and mathematics either.
I'm tired and I'm low on coffee, so these thoughts aren't fully formed yet, but the GPL doesn't restrict the end-user.
If you want to use the linux kernel in a closed-source program, then go ahead! Just don't expect to be able to distribute your project.
A good example of this is the nvidia module, which is of course, closed-source, mostly. Theres the open source part (which might be GPL'd), and theres the binary blob, which you couldn't distribute as part of a precompiled kernel. Instead, you distribute it as a seperate module. The user is allowed to insert it into the kernel, despite the fact that it isn't GPL'd.
DRM is just a little different, and I can see where people might get a little confused as to weather its a good thing or not. Ultimately, I define a failed DRM scheme as one that stops me from doing anything legit. If implemented perfectly, then DRM on things like music would be acceptable to me. A big problem is how "legit" is defined.
However, just as 100% efficient transformer is impossible, i beleive that a perfect DRM scheme is also impossible, and thus unacceptable.
Copyright is not bad. Copyright enforcement is not necessarily bad. But DRM is a far cry from being good.
What these "rights holders" are saying is this:
1) We like copyright.
2) Mostly
3) What we don't like about copyright is the following:
a) You can sell it to someone else. We really don't like that.
b) You can use it in the way that you want, and I can't control it
c) You can use it forever. I really don't like that
4) So I like copyright, but I want it to be constraining than copyright
5) So I'll lock it in DRM and then you can't actually do those things in #3 above that I really dislike
6) And then as a rights holder, I get to control how you use the work.
7) Which copyright doesn't really allow
I mean, I *get* why people want to ignore #3. It's just that the law is not on their side. So they created technical hurdles to fair use and doctrine of first sale. And then they claim a copyright violation (much as you're doing) to justify the taking of rights.
That's the argument in a nutshell.
And I don't believe that anyone actually arguing with you has indicated any sort of carte blanche. What they, as well as I, have indicated is that fair use trumps the arguement.
Additionally, go ahead and attempt to craft a legal and enforcable contract which says "I'll only sell you X if you use it soley with my other product Y." If you are lucky, the Feds will only smack you around a little bit.
Like I said, I don't think they should have gone down this path in the first place. PDFs were not a prime candidate for working DRM in the first place. But if they simply abandon it, then they open themselves up to lawsuits from the publishers who had been using the DRM and would be left high and dry. The harder a fight Adobe puts up now, the less they stand to lose in court. And since I strongly suspect that the people handling the cease-and-desist stuff are staff lawyers who get paid either way, I doubt it costs them anything extra to fight tools like this at this stage.
So the manufacturer gets to decide how we use their product after we purchase it? Kellogs can prevent me from using their product to make Rice krispie squares? You don't believe in private property?
I think you need to think this through a little.
I don't care why you're posting AC
There, fixed that for you.
Why is the lose/loose spelling issue so bad here lately? I understand having 'fumble fingers' here and there, but, this one seems to be epidemic over the past 2-4 years.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Copyrights are like patents in software/hardware. They prevent you from improving upon a certain work and they effectively lock the competition
Actually that's completely upside down.
Patents, in theory, are a deal between an inventor and society. For a limited, government enforced monopoly the inventor must document and register his invention with the patent office. Others can look at those patents and build upon them as long they either license the patent, wait until it's expired or build upon it in a way that the patent is not violated.
Now, this is the theory of course which doesn't seem to be very much related to nowadays reality.
However, patents where certainly not invented to hinder innovation, actually - due its documentation requirements - quite the opposite.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Straw man,
[citation needed],
and parroting the entertainment industry.
Nice going!
(Yeah.)
Yeah, cause no one ever created anything before copyright law came along 300 years ago. Yeah.
I don't care why you're posting AC
The First Sale Doctrine would like to have a word with you.
You cannot restrict an owners use of a copyrighted work. I can read a book when I want, I can sell it when I want for as little as I want(the original problem involved requiring you to sell books for a minimum price), I can lend it to my friends. I can even put it my wall with a camera and projector if I have poor eyesight(oo, transient copy!).
The only reason software companies get away with it is the fact that to run their software, a copy needs to be made in memory, and thus they grant you the right to make that copy with restrictions, which is only barely accepted. If you were to run an OS that supported execute in place, then you could give them the finger and wipe them across the court floor.
Some claim their software is licensed, not sold, but that is also bullshit in every other medium, via the 1976 Act that includes all lawfully possesed works whether sold, given, or traded. Some districts have included anything with the appearance of a sale(ie, I can buy it at a store just like batteries, books, or groceries), some have not.
If I download software from your website, you gave it to me, too late to add a contract of adhesion after the fact. If you give me a contract beforehand, then me bad for agreeing to it, but after I have it I'm free to ignore any paper/bytes inside the box/installer.
DRM is being used to control the end-user far beyond what copyright is supposed to be about.
The GPL, on the other hand, only kicks in if/when you go beyond what copyright would allow a normal user to do (i.e. when you try to make/distribute further (possibly modified) copies). Until that point, the GPL claims no ability to control what you do.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
That's not what the law says. Read up on fair use.
Exactly right. The GPL in fact grants you EXTRA rights in the form of rights to distribute under certain circumstances.
fat thin neck-bearded clean-shaven every morning Cheeto-stained clean-clothed this morning and every morning fat thin basement-dwelling homeowning - above ground gruntwaffle articulate
I use Linux and buy DVDs. From wikipedia:
in a historical and legal sense, peon generally only had the meaning of someone working in an unfree labour system (known as peonage). The word often implied debt bondage and/or indentured servitude.
Well, that's Windows for you.
So if the GPL is valid because it controls what you can and can't do with the software after you get it, why is it that the DRM you agreed to when you purchased the content is any different?
Why are you finding it so difficult to understand this?
Copyright grants the creator a small set of rights which are enforced, by law, in exchange for the creator agreeing to distribute their work. The only relevant right that copyright grants is the exclusive distribution right (there are a few others, such as the right to be identified with the work, but these vary between legal jurisdictions). Under copyright law, you have no right to make copies of something you receive (except in certain limited cases, which vary depending on your jurisdiction), but you have the right to use it in any other way you choose.
The copyright owner (typically either the creator, or their publisher) may choose to grant you extra rights, such as the right to distribute copies and derived works. They can not, in a lot of places, legally impose additional restrictions without giving you something in return. One of the principles of contract law in a lot of places is that both parties must gain something for a contract to be valid. If you legally receive a copy of a work, then you have all of the rights that copyright grants you. This includes the right to remove DRM for interoperability in a lot of places (including the USA, under the DMCA).
I think DRM is complete shit, but treating it differently than GPL just because you like GPL and not DRM is retarded.
I don't like the GPL. I use BSD and MIT licenses for my own work, and avoid GPL'd code wherever possible. Comparing the GPL to DRM is nonsense, however. The GPL is a license which grants you rights (specifically, a restricted set of distribution rights) that copyright does not permit. DRM is a technical measure which restricts rights that you would otherwise have under the fair use provisions of copyright law, such as the ability to make backup copies, the ability to create (but not distribute) derived works, and the ability to format-shift for private use.
You don't get to ignore licensing agreements for things you don't like, but require others to respect the ones you do like.
DRM is not a licensing agreement, it is a technical measure which restricts your rights beyond that allowed under copyright law. You are also confusing the GPL and EULAs. The GPL is a distribution license, EULAs are usage licenses. Distribution licenses, including restrictive ones, are uncontested. EULAs are of varying legality and are often unenforceable.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Unless he stole Adobe code, the DMCA takedown notice was probably illegal. Giving people the right to read what they bought is not a violation of copyright that DMCA takedowns are meant to refer to..
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The vast majority of works traded on TPB, and enjoyed by users of TPB, are commercial works that would have no commercial value in a world without copyright law. Its that simple.
Hobby works or works of pleasure would still exist, but the problem is is that hobby works are not the works that are popular.
Copyright law allows the rights-holder to determine the conditions upon which they are willing to give you rights to use the content. If the rights-holder says "I'm not going to give you this content unless you give me $20," that's perfectly valid. As is "I'm not going to give you this content unless you give me $20 and agree to the following terms and conditions..." So no, YOU fail, good sir, for not understanding the basic interactions of copyright and contract law here.
No, you fail again. What you are describing above is some kind of contract between the copyright owner and the user. The GPL is NOT a contract of any kind. It's not a EULA. Did you ever have to click-through a GPL license? Did you ever have to sign the GPL to be able to install linux? Since I did not sign it, the GPL cannot restrict my freedoms in any way. It can only allow me additional freedoms: namely, the right to redistribute the copyrighted work under certain conditions.
At this point this discussion should probably be modded Flaimwar, but from the biased opinion of a self-publisher and a GPL content consumer, I think both arguments are correct. GPL advocates need to differentiate why they should be able to disable the rights claimed by DRM content or else it comes off as "we want freedom to do what we want (in the interests of consumers) AND to prevent you from doing what you want (in the interests of producers).
Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes. Either copyright is valuable, or it isn't. Pick a side.... and know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are benevolent and greedy consequences on each side of the copyright argument.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without.
As I understand it, the purpose of copyright is to secure for creators a limited time monopoly on the rights necessary for selling the creation, in return for them eventually enriching the cultural (and, in the case of software, technological) commons.
Some kinds of DRM prevent or obstruct use of the work in such a way that when the work enters the public domain, it doesn't enrich the commons in practice. It's like being given a car wreck that's in really bad shape: sure you can sell it as scrap metal, but it's worth so little that you're better off ignoring it.
For this reason, I think one can argue that DRM (with certain properties) goes against the spirit and purpose of copyright law, and the argument doesn't apply to GPL'ed software.
The problem with this argument is that its an assumed, implied agreement that the works will enrich the cultural commons - its not anything laid out in law as copyright law does not handle what happens to the work after copyright law ceases to apply.
Or in other words, its not the copyright holders responsibility to ensure that you have access to the works after copyright expires - and indeed, neither should it be.
I don't know. You tell me what's with people who are loose with the defintion of lose.
The manufacturer gets to decide that if you agree to allow them do so (by entering into an agreement that has that stipulation). As a consumer, you have the right to say "No, I won't buy products from Kellogg's because I can't use them how I see fit." But if they had such a clause in an agreement (that you accepted prior to purchase) then yes, you will have already agreed not to do so. They didn't "dictate terms" to you, you accepted them.
You could argue this violates the DMCA with respect to technological protection measures.
But DMCA notices use a different part of the DMCA, which allows takedowns for actual copyright violations. IANAL, but I don't think that you can combine the two and use a DMCA notice to take down something that doesn't violate copyright but does violate the other part of the DMCA.
If you give me a contract beforehand, then me bad for agreeing to it, but after I have it I'm free to ignore any paper/bytes inside the box/installer.
I've agreed with you on this point throughout my argument. If the T&C are disclosed up-front, and you agree, then "shame on you, ya fool," you're bound by the DRM restrictions. If the T&C are NOT disclosed up-front, then you get into vagaries of contract law as what the potential recourse is (and in this, there is a matter of great debate, see the whole discussions on shrink-wrap licenses, etc.) Depending on the situation, the "legal recourse" might be to get a refund, or you might even be able to say (depending on your local jurisdiction) that there WAS NO agreement. That half of the argument is best left for your personal attorney. But my argument throughout this discussion has been based on T&C being disclosed prior to the distribution of content to the end-user.
To many loosers around here.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I completely agree with what you said, except as much as I dislike the recording industry and their tactics? I think their quest to find "unbreakable DRM" has more rationality behind it than you give them credit for.
The problem in their scenario is, they count on making their money via a high volume of music sales. (So to use one of your analogies, it's as though their business is costume jewelry sales. No individual piece would seem to be worth spending much money to protect, from a customer's perspective. Yet from their point of view, anything less than "unbreakable DRM" is like leaving their entire inventory sitting out on a table where anyone can walk by and help themselves to as many free pieces as they'd like to take.) DRM that's easily defeated by some free utility or music player plug-in is about as useful to the music industry as taping those pieces of costume jewelery down to the table with scotch tape.....
And really, that's why DRM is a hopeless endeavor. People implementing it WANT it to be like a safe, with thick walls that take hours to cut open, and a combination lock you'll stand no chance of randomly guessing the combination to. Yet it's not, because unlike a safe, once the first person goes through the effort to crack it open, they can transfer that ability to everyone else with VERY little effort. (Imagine a situation where magically, a cutting torch that cut through the wall of one safe could cut through ALL future safes instantly, after the effort was made on the first one. That's what DRM is like.)
As a somewhat random aside, I believe that most software is not directly copyrightable, as it is a derivative work of the source code. If the source code isn't copyrighted, then how can the compiled source code be copyrightable?
The source code can't be copyrighted, as doing so would require the publishing of the source, and that would reveal all kinds of secrets. Since the secrets are obfuscated in the compiled code, they are safe to publish (until they get reverse engineered, such as this example). But is compiled code copyrightable? I don;'t think so!
(mainly responding to GP post)
"The rights-holder is the sole arbiter of the "conditions of the distribution of their content"."
That is not true - I can't believe this gets modded "insightful". Copyright law does _not_ grant the authors unrestricted authority over what others do with their works - it only governs copying.
The immediate parent post explains it pretty well.
The only thing I would add is the issue of EULAs being binding licenses, which I think is how you would argue that the publisher acquires this extraordinary power to (your example) stop you from using the content in certain months. Doesn't it seem pretty strange to you that this "binding contract" is executed without any signatures, witnesses, notarization, or any of the other measures normally taken to ensure that a contract is enforceable?
And suppose someone just declines the EULA but figures out a way to use the product anyway? What legal basis does the author have to keep someone from just using the product? As long as you don't re-publish it, you aren't violating copyright law, and there isn't any "contract" the author can claim you have violated. "Because I said so" doesn't cut it as a legal argument, but that's basically what software makers are saying when they demand that their EULA be honored.
This why software and media publishers seek to use the DMCA - to criminalize activity that would otherwise be perfectly legal so as to enable themselves to dictate arbitrary terms on their customers. Let's ignore for the moment that the DMCA was pushed through as something that applies to *copy protection*, not EULA enforcement.
So, using the example above, the author might reason:
1. "OK, you aren't violating traditional copyright law in anything you are doing"
2. "No, you didn't agree to my EULA, so I can't hold you to that".
3. "AHA - thanks to the wonderful DMCA, I can sue you because your use of my product without the EULA constitutes illegal 'circumvention'.
But this only ought to apply if said technological circumvention is done to enable illegal copying. It *shouldn't* apply if you're doing something otherwise perfectly legal, like watching a movie (your own legally purchased copy, that is) in Linux. The DMCA is a bad law because it (arguably) criminalizes the technological circumvention methods themselves, not the actual illegal behavior.
So, the argument that rights-holders have unlimited authority to dictate terms falls down flat unless you rely on the DMCA, IMHO.
Stepping back a level, I would ask what you think we as a society should do?
You said:
"If they want to distribute content to you which you are forbidden to use in months which end in "Y" that is their right."
If that is the case, do you think that is a good thing? Do you want to be bound by arbitrary terms like that? Or should we have laws that guarantee that the purchaser can decide what uses are appropriate? If so, then we need to try to get the DMCA and similar laws repealed.
I wouldn't have said anything, if you hadn't included this in your post saying the exact opposite:
.
If it is inside the box, I shouldn't need to go to court to prove they are invalid, the same as publishers are not allowed to print contracts inside the cover of books and sell them without getting my agreement beforehand.
And even if you give me a contract prior to selling me a book and I agree to it, you can sue me for breach of contract if I violate that contract. You cannot sue me for breach of copyright for selling a book too cheaply, reading it in the park, or lending it to a friend.
It should be the same with software as any other copyrighted material.
Hey look, it's the perpetual non-sequitor!
I never said that, I just said it would slow to a trickle. The same trickle we had not 200 years before. Personally, I like the fact that tons of works can come out without the creators having to kowtow to someone else's wishes or risk getting stuck holding the bag for production costs while Wal-Mart cranks out millions of copies for slightly more than the cost of manufacturing.
Well, no one will make money out of it. Which will drive a lot of people out (both good and bad.)
Yay, another non-sequitor. Without copyright they are virtually guaranteed to get screwed over. That slight bit of protection (even if it doesn't negate p2p) encourages massive amounts of production that weren't viable before.
I understand what you're saying about the "inside the box" agreements. I don't mean that you should have to "proactively" use the court system, I mean that -- if you're sued for violating the inside-the-box agreement, feel free to prove that you're not guilty or that the contract there isn't enforceable (and I'd be with you on that one). As to "copyright" vs "contact" law as the binding force, in the end, I think it becomes a hybrid of the two. Contract law is involved because, well, there's a contract involved, by way of a license agreement. Copyright law gets involved because that contract dealt with the terms under which some content would be distributed to you. Any lawsuit dealing with such a situation is very naturally going to be a mix of both.
So when all manufacturers start attaching unreasonable terms to the use of their product, you will simply not eat. Is this the way you want the world to work? If not, why the staunch defense of DRM?
I don't care why you're posting AC
Where did I agree to those terms and conditions when purchasing a DVD or CD @ Best Buy?
My Babylon
WTF is a "gruntwaffle?"
It's an Eggo that goes "Uuuugh" when the toaster pops up. Reading comprehension, people!!!111
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
As mentioned here before, it doesn't deter artist nor programmers to do what they like.
Does the vast amounts of open source and freeware software (no strings attached software code) available make it that the market gets flooded with cheap knock-offs of said software or sold for vast amount of profits by some heartless corporation? Not as far as I can see (there are always examples but they are more the exception than the rule).
Before copyrights there were great artist (Da Vinci, Michelangelo) and people that copied them (some have brought out that Shakespeare might have been one of those leeching off others and many stories were told and retold and eventually somebody copied the best parts of those stories like the works of the brothers Grimm). Actually, usually art or the services of an artist were negotiated for a price and then the entity that bought it or bought the services of the artist could do whatever it wanted with it (eg. Michelangelo being hired by the Church, they could have decided just to make him paint some murals instead of the ceiling of the Sixtine Chapel).
These days it seems that what needs to be made and what the customers need to buy is decided by the artist and their management companies (as in the music industry but it's also like that for other forms of art).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Yes exactly, you have no right to distribute without the GPL. It grants you extra rights on top of your fair/personal use rights, to distribute with restrictions.
Odd how many folks don't see the difference between something that gives you extra rights (GPL) and something that attempts to take legal rights away (DRM).
Fair use rights are actually rather well defined. DRM often seeks to restrict user rights further than copyright.
In some cases, the DRM manages to restrict end user rights far more than even the crazy EULA allows for including effectively reneging on the license entirely (with no refund), for example if the server the DRM phones home to is down or gone.
Meanwhile, a lot of DRM is a bit of a fraud since the 'licensing' is made to look exactly like a simple first sale under copyright law and only after the fact the buyer discovers that they've bought substantially less than they thought. For example, the Sony CDs with the built-in rootkit.
On the other hand, GPL offers far broader rights than fair use already and has no DRM to malfunction. In fact, for an end user equivilent to someone who merely listens to music (as opposed to sampling and remixing it), GPL rights are pretty much indistinguishable from public domain. You can make multiple copies, give copies to your friends, sell copies, use it on any machine that can run it, put it on a p2p network, etc. etc.
BTW, as long as you don't try to make the kernel itself proprietary, you are free to use it to run proprietary software in a proprietary system. Many embedded products do exactly that and most fulfill their few obligations under GPL just fine.
I will still eat. I can hunt, or fish, or raise crops.
As the agents of adobe state in i love's blog "that content in your blog...allegedly infringes upon the copyrights of others." Of course, its what's missing that is most interesting in the take-down notice; acknowledgment of the vulnerability, as though forcing i love... to remove the post makes the problem go away. When will they learn?
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Sometimes they're in very small print on the outside of the package. Often they're not. As I mentioned in other portions of this thread... for licenses not agreed to or disclosed/visible "in advance of the transaction", it's a whole different ball of wax where it becomes harder for the rightsholder to hold you to the agreement (but not necessarily impossible... the courts could theoretically claim that the agreement is still binding but that you have a right to a refund, for example). That area is much "murkier" than what I've been talking about predominantly, which is "pre-disclosed" terms.
And I'm shocked that there are so many people here who believe "copyright" is anything but a land grab for those who cannot create.
that's because few know that copyright was born when the old corporation of the copyst found himself surrounded by more capable, independent printers, and so petitioned the king (of england) for a "copy right" for themselves only.
all things that follow are nothing more than a composition of this monopolistic vision.
"Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes."
Yes, yes it is.
DRM does not impose "rights", it tries to restrict legal, protected uses of media. It tries to stop people ripping a CD to listen to on their iPod, or DRM'd downloads from working on your other music player, or in the car. It tries to stop you ripping your DVDs to a media server and watching them later. It restricts how you can use media.
The GPL not only doesn't interfere with your right to do what the hell you want with the software, it also explicitly grants you extra rights to distribute under certain circumstances.
These are totally different situations.
They didn't "dictate terms" to you, you accepted them.
No...I'm pretty sure they're dictated. Unless I have the opportunity to negotiate terms before purchase, then they're dictated.
If I go to the store, buy the product, get home, have dinner, then go to use the product, and the manufacturer pops up and says "Oh, by the way....we didn't tell you this before you gave us your money, but you're not allowed to do X with the product you just bought," then they're dictated terms, that I didn't even have the opportunity to refuse.
Imagine buying a car like that:
You go to the dealership, test drive the car, ask about the warranty, sort out your financing, then drive your shiny new car home and put it in your garage.
Next morning, you go out to get in it, and find a 14 page legalese document sitting on the drivers seat from the manufacturer, stating that if you use the car, the warranty is void, and you can't use it to transport your neighbour's kids to school, as your neighbour needs to buy their own car. It also says that repainting your car a different colour is cause for legal action against you, and if you get a flat tire, the roadside assistance package you bought doesn't cover it, because the nail in the tire is a modification that you made yourself.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
This is just not true. There are limits to contract law and to copyright law for precisely these reasons.
Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes. Either copyright is valuable, or it isn't. Pick a side.... and know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are benevolent and greedy consequences on each side of the copyright argument.
The problem here is that you're confusing licenses with copyright. They're different animals. Some folks have a really hard time getting their heads wrapped around that.
What we're talking about is what one does after the establishment of the copyright. In short, we're talking licensing. What the GPL does is very different than any license using DRM to enforce it. That alone can bring valid disagreement - you can support the GPL and still be critical of other licensing.
Of course, it really goes a step beyond that. Licensing isn't what people think it is sometimes. DRM tends to enforce a draconian reading of a given license, ignoring inconvenient aspects such as fair use. It is possible to support copyright and licensing while being critical of DRM.
This is not the all-or-nothing situation you would claim it to be.
Let's take this from a different angle. Once in awhile, someone publishing code under the GPL comes up with a moral objection and seeks a way of not supporting some aspect of society that clashes with that objection. Common examples are non-military use restrictions. Trouble is - the license stops being the GPL.
Does he/she really love cabbages?
Mada mada dane.
Ah yes, the final solution. I will be a survivalist. I will grow my own wheat, mill it and make it in to bread. I will grow cotton, and spend the hours in the fields picking it, then produce cloth material from which I will sew my own garments. I will harvest the timber needed to build my house, first milling it in to lumber. I will also need to forge the steel necessary to produce nails, screws and other fasteners needed for my abode.
I will entertain myself with music of my own composition, played on instruments of my own making. I will study medicine to treat my own illnesses, but not from any copyrighted medical book. I will develop my own discipline through trial-and-error.
Or I could simply say, I purchased this DVD and will use it in any manner I see fit provided I do not violate copyright law by doing so. Any other restrictions placed on the DVD's use by the manufacturer are wishful thinking on his part, and will be defeated when they conflict with my enjoyment of the product I purchased.
I don't care why you're posting AC
You're looking at this entirely wrong. Rejection of the GPL and rejection of DRM are two entirely separate things.
DRM isn't a license, it's a mechanism to restrict the use of the copyrighted work. From a moral perspective, it's improper for consumers to be forced to purchase the same work for their Zune, iPod, generic MP3 player, car, computer and CD player. If, through DRM, music publishers thought they could get away with that they would. DRM is their weak attempt at this, with the false presumption that consumers won't fight back.
Again, from a moral perspective, bypassing DRM to use a legally purchased copyrighted work such as an audio recording or a movie on the device of your choice is not wrong - it is a prerogative. From a legal perspective, well obviously the current state of laws are out of touch with reality, as is the mindset of content producers(see Authors Guild recent statements regarding Kindle). In fact, on that note, I would love to see the Authors Guild representative tell a blind man face to face that he has to pay extra because of text to speech capability. Good fucking luck.
GPL is a license. The license doesn't restrict your use of the software and thus does not impose morally unfair conditions upon users of GPL software. If you downloaded the next Linux kernel and it had an addendum on the license that said "This software can only be used while wearing pink fuzzy slippers", I would wholeheartedly agree that users should ignore that portion of the license.
In many ways, the laws on the books are out of touch with common morality and consumer expectations of fairness. They will catch up eventually, I hope.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Found it via a simple Google search for 'ADEPT PDF decryption'...
http://pastebin.com/f26972321
http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c
It's not as simple as "not violate copyright law", you can't violate ANY law, including contract law which covers the license agreement you agreed to in order to purchase the item. If the rightsholder has told you in advance (as a condition of sale) you may not do XXX, and you go ahead and do XXX, then you are breaking your contract with the rightsholder, and I would support their putting the smackdown on you wholeheartedly.
The GPL only puts restrictions on how the software is distributed. The only person being restricted by the GPL is the copyright holder.
When you say it like that, it's nonsense since the copyright holder can do what he wants under as many licenses as he wants. It puts restrictions on how the software is redistributed, if you want to build on GPL software and distribute it you can't just slap a layer of paint on it and treat it like you built the whole thing. There are conditions to follow in exchange for granting you a distribution license..
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Even if you go to a library or book store and DON'T buy the book, the thing is still copyrighted and you can't make copies of it nor can you make a similar book with the same or a similar story.
Technically you're allowed to photocopy portions of a book say if you're using them for research purposes. This is called 'Fair Use' which is something that copyright holders have been desperately trying to wrest from the hands of the public. Also just because someone made a James Bond book doesnt mean you arent allowed to make a different Spy character that does similar things. Part of the creative process is touching on people's expectations...
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Nonsense.
Sometimes I buy a DVD and it says "This DVD was sold subject to the condition that...." (usually something about playing in schools and prisons) and I think: "No it wasn't" - and it wasn't.
Just because it is written down doesn't mean it is true.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
I can hunt, or fish, or raise crops.
i'm sorry, no you can't.
the consumer license on your bullets specifically forbids hunting for any reason. these bullets are licensed for target practice only. your fishing gear is only licensed for catch and release. you have to throw that nice salmon back. and as far as your crops, they really aren't yours either. your agreed to a license when purchasing the seeds that stated they could only be used for hobby purposes. the terms of the license state that sustenance farming is considered commercial use and these seeds are not approved for that.
if these terms are not to your liking you are free to not purchase these products. see how that works?
So, to use your argument, if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that. Because that should be my right as a consumer of the code, to determine how I want to use it... right.... right? Sorry, but that's not how it works. If the GPL rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictates "terms of use" for GPL'ed content, then the DRM'ed rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictate THEIR terms of use as well. If you don't like those terms, feel free to use something else, just as lots of people who don't like GPL license terms use BSD or even (gasp!) closed-source code.
Too bad for your argument that you have exactly the rights you describe for the Linux kernel, including modifying it and using it in your own closed source application. What you do not have is exactly the same as what the music customer does not have -- the right to distribute copies. That would be breaking exactly the same law - copyright.
DMCA criminalizes modifications of your own copy of bits which you have purchased, regardless of whether you plan to distribute. Can't you see how wrong that is?
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Get mad at the author for caving and making it easier for the next author to justify caving. Adobe is not to blame.
heh in fact I would hope for a refund - then it would count as a "free hire" - how many times will I watch the same DVD?
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
the consumer license on your bullets specifically forbids hunting for any reason. these bullets are licensed for target practice only.
Black-powder and hand crafted bullets/shot are an option.
your fishing gear is only licensed for catch and release
The tree didn't include a license when I broke the branch off, and the hand-crafted hook works pretty well (I actually did this as a child and I caught a couple fish, so - please - no bullshit argument about how this can't be done).
if these terms are not to your liking you are free to not purchase these products. see how that works?
Yep, and at the end of the day, maybe the world would be a bit better off if we weren't so dependent on others for our own ability to survive. I'm ready for Z-day, are you? :-)
yeah, sorry, I misunderstood your point.
However I still think it doesn't come down to that.
If the seller and the purchaser aren't aware of it despite it being on the outside of the box, then in this specific case it can't be enforceable because it can't be sold subject to a condition that the parties to the sale aren't aware of...
blog.sam.liddicott.com
And redistribution is a kind of use which is precisely why there are so many issues with GPL'd libraries.
Look, the GPL is dealing with the same fundamental issue that DRM is dealing with, which is that producers need an incentive to continue producing. Mind you, the GPL's model is realistic enough to acknowledge that not every product can be immediately traded for cash.
The [GPL] license doesn't restrict your use of the software and thus does not impose morally unfair conditions upon users of GPL software.
The GPL imposes the restriction that I cannot modify software that's distributed under the GPL and then distribute that however I want. I am forced to choose between (a) not distributing it, and (b) distributing it according to the GPL. I am free to sell it however I'd like, but I cannot tell somebody that I sell it to that they can't distribute it however they'd want. Ergo, if the entity who buys my software feels empowered they're free to publish my modifications on the open internet, destroying the perceived value of the modification that I made to the original GPL software that I had gotten. Therefore, the conclusion to reach is that GPL (while being user-friendly) is less business friendly because it drives businesses to a "GPL application and infrastructure support" revenue stream and away from an "Application Innovation" revenue stream. Those who have taken economics 101 might realize that applications and infrastructure that are innovative, intuitive, and don't need 3rd party support are preferable.
Now... I agree with you. "Digital bits" (be they licensed, copyrighted, or patented) shouldn't be artificially restricted from being moved around all over the place (and to that extent, I disagree with selling digital information as well). However, by saying the consumers should be able to unlock the bits preventing them from accessing their "moral" rights is on par with saying big software companies should be able to "unlock" the wording in the GPL that prevents them from subverting it.
I would say... if it has artificial "locks"... DON'T BUY IT in the first place. This will effectively destroy DRM faster than any flamewar argument, so that the only people buying will be the people who don't know any better... and eventually they'll get pissed off enough to start looking elsewhere. No?
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
So, you're an evil hacker, circumventing DRM systems like that.
Reverse-engineered does not mean broken. The guy broke it by reverse engineering it. DRM is broken enough already to need sensationalist summaries like this one.
Recording the output is trivial, as you say. However, audiobooks can be 30 hours long and are broken up into 3, 4, even 5 pieces. The "analog-hole" approach is not practical under these circumstances.
I assume that they're broken up so that the maximum length of each piece isn't cumbersome; your reply indicates that the pieces are usually less than 6 hours long; most people sleep at least 5 hours/night which would only mean 1 hour of computer deprivation assuming only one computer in the house to do this.
But to get to the real point: your reply shows why DRM actually does work, even if it is breakable. It just has to make breaking it enough work that enough people are willing to pay for the luxury of not having to break it (i.e., buy multiple copies of the same content). Of course, the downside is that it will sometimes scare away other customers, like me. But as long as people like me are in the minority, companies will continue to try to use DRM to pad revenues.
Making money for your works of art is not a right? That's about the most anti-capitalist thing I've ever seen on slashdot. I suppose you need to reword it to say you have a right to charge for your works of art, but not a right to profit from them (if it sucks, or not enough people buy it, or whatever). But still, denying an artist the opportunity to even TRY to make money because it isn't their right to do so?
actually you're right, but legally you're wrong. The entire "licensing" house of cards rests on a ridiculous decision that usage of digital media requires "copying" it to temporary RAM. So, in the legal world, usage IS covered by copyright, and that really REALLY needs to change.
That sentence doesn't make a lot of sense, but I think you are saying that only the copyright holder may distribute the copyrighted material. That is correct, and no additional license is needed.
We are talking about DRM, which attempts to control how the person who purchased the copyrighted material may use it, which copyright law does not allow for. This control in many cases prevents uses that are guaranteed under copyright law, which means that it actually violates copyright law in some cases.
Excuse me, what? Who has a right to make and distribute unlimited copies of a song? The copyright holder. Pretty straight forward. If the copyright holder so chooses, (s)he may extend further rights to distribute the song by granting a license. The copyright holder is well within their rights to do this.
Of course the copyright holder has the right to control distribution. That's what copyright law is. But we are talking about DRM, which controls use, not distribution.
You have leaped from a discussion about DRM's incompatibility with copyright to a rant defending copyright itself. Have a coffee, re-read the comments about then get back to us.
I don't care why you're posting AC
>What the recording industry provides is not infinitely valuable, so DRM needn't be infinitely strong.
While it is true that the content is not infinitely valuable, the cost of having your DRM broken means the content becomes infinitely INvaluable. So DRM needs to be very strong because once it's broken, your product is worthless. As in, no one will be willing to pay money for it.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
Yeah! That Picasso guy totally stopped painting since other people could copy his paintings since he lived before copyright.
Your argument has no basis in fact. There are plenty of people who would still create art for the sake of it, and still many who would profit from it in spite of not having copyright. There's a significant value to having the "original". I'm not going to go see some knock-off band play all of Carlos Santana's music if I can go see him do it. And going to a show is something people will gladly pay money for. They don't see the value in the artificial scarcity that are CD's and DRM'd audio files.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
>Without copyright, people might not make money out of it. But nobody says
>people are supposed to make money for everything they do. Making money is not a right.
Making money may not be a right, but it is one hell of a motivator. Perhaps the greatest motivator ever devised. Take away the motivation, and you will have a lot less of it.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
A couple of things. First, you've kind of slid from DRM in to EULAs, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
Regardless, I didn't agree to anything which I purchased the DVD. I handed a retailer some cash and left with my purchase. At that stage, the sale is over. Attempting to attach further conditions to the sale after the fact - whether it be by forcing me to click "I Agree" to some EULA or simply putting technological obstacles in place in an attempt to control how I use the product - does not make it a "contract," and does not bind me to those conditions.
If I choose to use my new laptop as a hammer while building my sundeck, I am free to do so regardless of what Dell thinks of that. I may void my warranty; certainly they can not be held responsible for anything that happens as a result of me using the product in a manner not intended by the manufacturer. But I am free to do as I please with my property.
The same goes for the DVDs. I did not sign a contract agreeing that I would not rip the contents of the DVD to my file server for convenience and to protect my investment, and I doubt a contract which attempted to prevent me from making use of my property in any way I see fit would stand up in court. It is simply not a reasonable thing for the manufacturer to ask.
As a society, we have agreed to protect copyright holders from competition for a limited period of time by outlawing the distribution of their work by anyone but themselves. In exchange for this protection, we are guaranteed certain exemptions from the limits on distribution by the same law. This is were DRM runs afoul of copyright law, by attempting to restrict uses of which I am guaranteed by copyright law.
Any attempt by the copyright holder to extend their control beyond what is allowed for under copyright law is a matter of contract law, and would need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. You can't just put whatever you like in a contract and expect a court to enforce it, especially if you have been granted a monopoly by the very same party you are attempting to hold to those conditions.
You started off comparing the GPL to DRM, which is like comparing just plain wrong. The GPL governs the distribution of a copyrighted work, not its use. You must agree to and abide by the terms of the GPL in order to distribute the work.
You don't have to agree to anything to use a piece of software licensed under the GPL. Freedom 0 guarantees that.
I don't care why you're posting AC
The rights-holder is the only person who can give you the content, and they have you agree to a contact, in the form of Terms and Conditions, or a License Agreement, etc., before they will distribute that content to you.
Except that a lot of media, such as DVDs, contain no ToS or EULA. Thus, plain copyright law applies. In the US, that means that you are prohibited from breaking the DRM to view it in Linux, but where I live (Sweden), that is not true. You are not allowed to break copy protection, but you are allowed to break access protection or combined access/copy protection systems to enable your legal use of the content, which includes playing it on your platform of choice.
IANAL though.
Good job we don't operate in that particular sort of libertarian paradise then, eh?
Thankfully, in western countries, we do have those concepts that present themselves as fair use rights and limits on contract laws.
FAIL.
You are still not getting it. The GPL does not "restrict" you in any way, copyright law restricts you. The GPL says "you can violate copyright law if you do this special step". You are free to take advantage of that, but it the special step is too painful for you, then just ignore it, and the GPL is doing nothing, and certainly not restricting you at all. And you get the source code to look at and/or modify for your own use, if you care.
I have written a chapter to a technical book mainly for the "publication" value. Quite a expensive one too. I didn't get paid and neither did any of the editors or other authors. This is not uncommon for this type of book. We even have to do the proofs and everything.
Publishes once added value. They really don't anymore.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
By entering into the contract (which permitted the content to be distributed to you in the first place) you have willingly given up some rights, such as the right to crack open the file and do whatever you want with it.
Except that some rights can't be signed away. Some clauses in a contract may be unenforceable, regardless of the wishes of the content provider. The content providers often include terms which are not enforceable just to scare the users into believing that they have less rights than they actually have.
DRM is a technological measure designed to govern how someone uses a copyrighted work; the GPL is a license that governs how a copyrighted work may be distributied. Other than both being related to copyrighted works, they really couldn't be more different. If the GPL attempted to put restrictions on how people use works licensed under it, you would have a point.
I don't care why you're posting AC
> Just because it is written down doesn't mean it is true.
True enough. But the example you used is a poor one. That wording is just reminding you of something that is already the case. Playing a DVD in a school or prision would be a 'public exhibition' of the work and prohibited by copyright law. Unless you purchase a special license you can't do that, they were just reminding you of that. Yes they word it like all use of their 'precious IP' is theirs to control but public exhibition and reproduction are the only acts controlled by copyright.
I work in a public library. We have a lot of DVDs in our collection that we can circulate to our patrons without any additional permissions other than owning a copy of the work. But we couldn't play one as part of a children's program without a special license from the rights owner. We do have such a license that covers a fair range of material (pretty much anything that doesn't come from the House of Mouse) but we paid dearly for it.
Democrat delenda est
You are confusing "distribution" with redistribution
I can say "I will give you some code I wrote with a GPL license in exchange for $20". If you don't give me the $20, you don't get the code, and the fact that it is GPL licensed does NOTHING. In fact I could even say "I'll give you this code and put it in the public domain for $20". But unless I get the $20 you will not see the code, it is totally irrelevant what license I plan to put it under!
However once you have it, if I really have granted you the GPL license to violate the copyright, you can go ahead and do so. And this means you can give it to other people and they won't have to pay me $20. That is redistribution.
The record companies, with no changes to copyright or any license or EULA at all, can say "you can't give this music to somebody else because you are violating copyright law", ie it is just like the GPL except there are no exceptions that let you violate copyright law.
Self-Godwin... FTW
My right run a business that *distributes* software according to the GPL license is as restricted as Hitler's ability to fight a land war during the winter in Russia.
???
Profit!
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
The only person being restricted by the GPL is the copyright holder.
Wrong. The copyright holder can do whatever he wants with his copyrighted works, regardless of whether they are licensed to others under the GPL or not. That's e.g. how dual-licensing works.
The reason some projects cannot do this is because the projects accepted contributions from other people without requiring copyright transfers, causing the projects to contain copyrighted code with a plethora of copyright holders. This is also why projects that intend to dual-license the project code require copyright transfers or equivalent in order to accept contributions.
If I want to play an mp3 that I purchased on my brand new mp3 player that doesn't handle the itunes DRM, shouldn't I be permitted to alter the format of that content so that I can still use it?
Of course not, since that precludes him selling you another copy of the same content in a different format. /sarcasm
One reason for DRM to exist is to prevent format-shifting content, so that the content providers can sell the same content multiple times. But since this goal would appear excessively greedy, it is never mentioned by the proponents of DRM, who instead try to claim that it is required to prevent piracy.
Sadly, yes. See here. (You will need to click "Proceed to download" and select a mirror).
Not only will the download not begin until you check the box stating "I accept these terms and conditions," but you must "accept" the terms of the GPL a second time during the installation process, or the program will not install (and therefore not run). This is clearly in violation of freedom 0, which guarantees "the freedom to run the program, for any purpose."
This isn't the only example I have seen of misguided software vendors creating confusion over what the GPL is and who is bound by it, but it's the only one I can cite an example of at this point.
You are, of course, correct. The user is not bound by the terms of the GPL unless (s)he intends to re-distribute the software licensed under it. I just wish more software distributors understood this.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Yes you must comply with both the copyrights on the GPL and the copyrights on music. They are exactly the same.
The music one is simpler: you cannot redistribute the music to anybody.
The GPL grants you the ability to redistribute, if you follow some rules Don't like the GPL's rules? Well then don't redistribute. The result is identical to the music case, you cannot redistribute at all!
I think the complaint is more about DRM. GPL proponents are not forcing computer systems to somehow enforce the GPL. I guess they could force designing the system so you cannot copy the binary somewhere without also copying the source, which you could imagine would be very detrimental to the usability of a computer as caching and encryption and code signing and an awful lot of other things would be impossible or at least very slow, and thus would make binaries where hackers have defeated the GPL attachement (maybe by fooling it into using hello_world.c as the source) more valuable and everybody would use that instead, thus actually defeating the entire purpose of the GPL.
That is what DRM is doing, it is attempting to enforce copyright through technical means, along with annoying side effects that is encouaging everybody to break it.
But now what youâ(TM)re really here for â" the PDF decryption tool: REMOVED. (And if you don't already have it, the key-retrieval tool: REMOVED.) ...
Edit: Links to tools removed due to DMCA complaint from Adobe.
and then the cache updated... Owell. I found copies elsewhere but they're source (python files) Would be nice if someone could post a binary or other readymade app for the novices
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I've already replied elsewhere that I should have said "the only person being restricted by the GPL is the person distributing the software," but if that person happens to be the copyright holder, (s)he is certainly bound by the terms of the GPL. You may license your code under as many licenses as you wish, but once you license it to me under the GPL, you are bound by its terms.
So yes, the copyright holder can do whatever he wants with his copyrighted works, provided he does not violate the terms of any licensing agreements he has already made with those copyrighted works.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Note that even laws like the DMCA talk about copy protection, rather than DRM.
That's not entirely correct. While they refer to them as copyright protection devices, the actual definition of infringement in USC 17.12.01 is:
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
So according to the law copyright protection devices control access to the work not just copying of the work. Another reason that it is a bad law.
Not true, they have no right to dictate that at all. At least, for anything except digital. You can't say "If I sell you this book you can never resell it.". First Sale doctrine lays the smack down on that attempt. It's not legally enforcable to put a notice on the cover of the book saying "You must destroy this as soon as you finish reading it.". You can put it on the cover all day long, but if I bought it and didn't destroy it, there's not a damned thing you could do.
_ALL_ digital usage licenses are based on the ridiculous claim that using digital media is creating a copy, thus their license falls under copyright law. There is no such thing as a useright, as much as the big media companies wish there were.
Contracts in most countries have to revert to writen form, signed by both parts.
Otherwise they aren't valid.
Get it into your thick skull already; copyright cannot stop you from using what you bought the way you want it. It only stops you from copying what you bought and giving it to others.
You are mistaken, and the above is incorrect.
When you "buy" a song, a photo, or software, what you are really doing is purchasing a license to use a copy of the item. The license almost always has restrictions. You can NOT do "anything you want" with your copy. For instance:
1) When you buy a song, you can't then play that song at your restaurant. This is a commercial airing of the song, and you have to pay royalties for this use. This is outside of the license you were granted for your personal use of the song. It doesn't matter how you purchased your copy - bought a CD or downloaded it from iTunes. Ditto for buying a DVD of a movie then showing the movie at your business.
2) When someone takes a photo of you at an event (e.g. sporting event, graduation, office xmas party) and you buy a print or a jpeg, you can't give your copy (no "copying" taking place) to someone else to use for commercial purposes. The photographer still owns the copyright on the image, and your copy is for your personal enjoyment only and is not licensed for commercial use. (Such commercial use usually involves making additional copies and the "copying" becomes the issue, but even if no additional copies are made, the commercial use is outside the license granted with the personal purchase of the photo.)
3) When you buy software, you can use it on one computer, and a backup computer. You can't install it on every computer in your home or office *unless* the seller explicitly gives you this right.
You do have the "right of first purchase" to use your copy for personal use or to sell it to someone else (as is the case with a music CD or video DVD). But your rights are limited, even for your own personal use.
Now, it is fair to argue that copyright laws have been extended (many times) in the past 100 years in ways that amount to a "taking" from the public domain, and that they are overdue for changes. As someone who benefits from copyright laws (I'm a photographer), I'm not in favor of their extended reach today, and back proposals to rein-in copyright. But until the laws are changed, this is the state of copyright law in the US today.
You may also find these cites helpful:
Copyright Myths
Brief Intro to Copyright
"I'd much rather be mistaken as a lesbian by a bigot than be mistaken as a bigot by a lesbian."
The supreme court says otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-Merrill_Co._v._Straus
Copyright, as the name suggests, is the right to copy a work of some form. If one resells or gives as a gift a book (or CD or DVD) that one has bought, a new copy has not been made, therefore it is legal under US copyright law.
The owner can choose when and where to distribute their copyrighted works, but do not have any control, under law, over what the user does, or who they sell or give that copy too. Microsoft lawyers and FUDdites would like you to think otherwise, but you can sell your CDs/Software/etc to anyone for any price.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.ars -- Timothy S. Vernor v. Autodesk
same with congress and the Micky mouse law
How can extending the copyright term of content that was already created possibly enrich the public domain? No, it hampers it because it prevents people from humoring it and creating derivatives, but that doesn't keep the RIAA and MPAA, and as a result congress, from telling people it does enrich us.
If they want to distribute content to you which you are forbidden to use in months which end in "Y" that is their right.
Your premise is flawed, at least in the realm of copyright. This doesn't not necessarily apply to software, although whether it should is a different issue. There are some things the content creator/distributor can't require without violating the law. One of those is, for instance, forbidding you from reselling your music media. If I buy a CD, I can sell it to you. They can whine, and they can complain, but they can't stop me. This is the First Sale doctrine, and all those used-CD stores that aren't getting raided imply the content creators are aware of this. Note that reselling the CD is not copying it! If I copy it first, I may be violating the law, depending on where I live.
Believe it or not, but there are laws that apply to this, and they aren't entirely in the content creators' favor. The more cynical of us might say this is why they hire lobbyists.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Click-through license clauses governing the usage of items purchased at a store are unenforceable in California, a few other states, due to a conflict with the First Sale Doctrine, as well as in Europe, and most of the rest of the developed world that protects consumer property rights. This is true for any items purchased in an informal setting such as a brick-and-mortar store where the contractual limitations of the license are not presented to the purchaser, including DVDs and CDs. For items purchased through a service like iTunes, the click-through license is probably enforceable, and breaking the license is illegal FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE AGREED TO IT AND ARE BOUND BY IT. Anyone else can take a crack at breaking the DRM on iTunes files, and they're not breaking any contract, although the person(s) who supplied them with their copies of copy-protected content to use to generate the crack is in violation of their contract with Apple.
So it's a murky legal situation. On the one hand, we have DVDs, which are DRM'd, but they're available for purchase in regular retail settings and the user is never presented a contractual agreement during usage, and so any usage-restricting license that may be included with them are unenforceable. For services which do present a license before use, such as iTunes, those that make use of the service are bound by any arbitrary usage limitations the distributor cares to put in their license.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
> Copyright only deals with redistribution, whether in original or modified form.
I used to think that too. However it turns out there are whole branches of copyright law that deal with other aspects than "copying" or "distribution". For example, the right to perform a work (song, play, etc etc), which is in no sense copying, is restricted by copyright law.
As a rights-holder? Bull. Shit. "You have the right to use content provided you do so in a manner consistent with the license provided with it." That's the same basic principle protected in the GPL, as well as in DRM-licensing terms.
No. You have an absolute right to use content provided to you in any way you so desire, so long as your use of the content is not in violation of any laws. You have certain rights that no copyright license can take away from you -- although you may sign an agreement or accept a EULA conceding not to exercise certain rights, violations of a EULA are not copyright infringement or piracy, they're violations of a EULA, and there's a huge difference.
The only law that gives an author exclusive rights to copyright content is copyright law, and only certain exclusive rights are granted by copyright law.
They are: the right to copy and distribute, the right to make performance of the copyright work (i.e. to perform a play in public, or to play a DVD for an audience including people other than yourself), and the right to distribute derivative works.
No other rights are granted exclusively to the author, and it's not piracy or "copyright infringement" if you aren't doing something on that list, no matter what a software license says.
For example, if you're making a copy for your personal use only, or for your personal backup purposes, then you aren't distributing it, so you aren't infringing on copyright.
If you're watching a DVD (or a copy of a DVD) in your living room that you purchased, it's not copyright infringement, no matter what the license might say. You legally own a copy of the work, so you have a right to use it -- you are in private, so you aren't "performing" the work.
You can even modify the work however you like, without need for a license. But you _do_ need a license if you wish to make a derivative work (i.e. a work you distribute to someone else, or that you perform, etc).
Even in that case, though, there are fair use exceptions by law, which cannot be overriden by a "license agreement", as far as copyright is concerned.
There was a certain pride associated with being an intellectual/creative/professorial person 300 years ago. Now, people are just out to screw each other. Blame overpopulation, blame materialism. Whatever.
Those that are not interested in money are ALREADY creating stuff and giving it away for free. A lot of times, this is like a hobby or something they do in their spare time. The number of people who are in it for the money hugely outweigh the others. Its just a fact of life.
You seem to be confusing the word "use" with the word "distribute." These are different things. Or are you now going to try to argue that you're as criminally liable for using drugs as you are for selling them? Different activities, different laws apply. Sorry.
(For the criminally dense, GPL GRANTS the right under certain conditions to DISTRIBUTE goods. DRM RESTRICTS the right under certain conditions to USE goods. Notice the difference. Also, GPL is based on traditional copyright law, while DRM relies on the DMCA to grant it legal backing.)
If you want to allow others to build on your work and force them to allow you to build on theirs you use GPL.
Without a license like GPL, your customers are not allowed to build on your work and re-distribute.
If you receive source someone else provided to you under GPL (i.e linux), the fact that you can modify and re-distribute it is a favor to you from them. If you then distribute changes, your contributions benifit everyone, especially the origional authors.
GPL is best used for tools that are not your key products, i.e don't work on Apache if you make webserver software - only if you use it a lot.
*I'm not a GPL expert, just a user*
That's the shining light in all of this. Flickr is a great outlet for people to get their photography out, for example. Podcast-type audio programs, blogs and sites like Youtube provide an outlet for amateurs as well as an alternative to the mainstream. You just need to stand out from the crowd.
Anyone who has ever wanted to create music or films has it within their grasp now to do so. You will still need an instrument or camera. And you'll still need to actually have something you're dying to get out of you. But that technological/cost barrier that has necessitated turning a lot of forms of expression into business enterprises is steadily eroding.
At the same time as the tools are becoming available, so are the forums. If you can get your film in the can, so to speak, you will have opportunities to show it to people.
That's what those idiots at the RIAA/MPAA need to worry about.
So go ahead, Mickey Valenti. Put DRM on your crappy CDs and movies (and your good ones, for that matter). Give people another reason to look elsewhere for entertainment and enlightenment.
I don't care why you're posting AC
but we are talking about DRM, which controls use, not distribution.
Well that's the point, isn't it. As a practical matter, the only use DRM really seeks to prohibit is duplication and perhaps alteration and duplication, and these two items are in fact the very same items that the GPL addresses through licensing.
You have leaped from a discussion about DRM's incompatibility with copyright to a rant defending copyright itself. Have a coffee, re-read the comments about then get back to us.
I have read the comments and I think the argument that says there is a distinction between DRM and the GPL is disingenuous. As I've said, your argument of "use" glosses over the simple fact that the most reasonable "use" of hacking DRM is, in fact, to distribute DRM'd works, thus violating the right of the copyright holder.
If you want to be against intellectual property, and say that there's no copyrights, that's fine, but be consistent, and accept that the open source movement is essentially public domain, and tolerate the commercialization of Linux just as much as you would expect the creator of a song, say, Metallica, to tolerate your copying of their works.
This is my sig.
hat is what DRM is doing, it is attempting to enforce copyright through technical means, along with annoying side effects that is encouaging everybody to break it.
Well that argument is fine... but I think there is a double standard within some programming circles that expects people to live to the letter of the GPL while at the same time they steal artists work. All I'm saying is, give Bob Dylan his $1 for a song on iTunes, and don't violate the GPL, OR, screw Bob Dylan out of his $1, and accept that GPL software is essentially public domain. It's either or.
This is my sig.
I'm quite certain the GPL is violated all the time. People install GPL software on other's computers and don't bother giving them the source code or providing enough information that the source code can be located. They modify the software (generally small tweaks) and install it and don't give the source code, so it is impossible to recover. They post tweaked versions on the internet for anybody to download and don't include the source, or include incorrect and useless source. Plenty of router manufacturers probably put incorrect or outdated source code on their web sites. And the number of manufacturers caught is probably dwarfed by 10:1 by the number who are violating the GPL, some of them knowingly. Technically the GPL is violated millions of times per second in the use of computers, networks, and bittorrent as binaries are copied without including the source code.
The only cases where the GPL has been enforced is when people sold the resulting product for money. I think everybody can agree that a record company can and should go after an individual selling copies for money, especially if that individual claims they performed the music themselves or otherwise have rights to it. That is similar to the cases where people are upset about GPL violations.
There is a HUGE gap between the cases where people are upset about GPL violations and the record companies are upset. I tried to give an equivalent of what the record companies are doing: if a government mandate that all computer systems be designed so it is impossible to copy a binary without copying the source code was used to enforce the GPL, then maybe there would be some equivalence. I hope you can see how silly that is, or how scary it would be if it was true (and also I tried to explain why that would actually *hurt* GPL). But the difference between DRM and GPL is so vast that it is totally silly to try to compare them.
Now there is a pack of pricks that should be laid on a water bed full of petrol with free cigarettes... They own MM because MM couldn't afford any more time in court. Why that wasn't stopped as being a monopoly is amazing. They invent a plugin format for image editors and once everyone is using it the encrypt the format so it only works with their products. If ever there was software that should be cracked it's theirs!
When you "buy" a song, a photo, or software, what you are really doing is purchasing a license to use a copy of the item.
No. When you acquire a copyrighted work, there's no license involved, and you can do anything you want with it, except for those things that are specifically restricted by copyright law. Your own source, the "Brief Intro to Copyright," says: "If you create something, and it fits the definition of a creative work, you get to control who can make copies of it and how they make copies." As the source says, the issue here is copying (and also public display), not mere use.
Your first example is of public display or performance, something specifically restricted by copyright.
Your second example is incorrect - if I own a copy of a photograph and I can make some commercial use of it without copying or publically distributing it, I don't need the permission of the copyright holder to do so (I can't think offhand of a way you could use an image commercially that didn't involve copying or publically displaying it; but if there are any such ways, they are permitted by copyright law).
Your third example is contentious. Software companies claim that using a program involves copying it, and so using it requires a license. But even if that's true, the license is only required because you are copying the software.
At this point this discussion should probably be modded Flaimwar, but from the biased opinion of a self-publisher and a GPL content consumer, I think both arguments are correct. GPL advocates need to differentiate why they should be able to disable the rights claimed by DRM content or else it comes off as "we want freedom to do what we want (in the interests of consumers) AND to prevent you from doing what you want (in the interests of producers).
Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes. Either copyright is valuable, or it isn't. Pick a side.... and know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are benevolent and greedy consequences on each side of the copyright argument.
No. You totally fail to understand the issue, it is appalling that you are being modded insightful. Being against DRM is not the same as being against copyright, although many people who are against DRM are also critic of the current state of copyright law.
Compared to copyright law, DRM imposes, by technical means, additional restrictions to my use of a copyrighted work. On the other hand, the GPL allows me additional freedoms over a copyrighted work (namely, the right to redistribute it under certain conditions). How is this the same thing?
Actually, it's also fully legal to reject GPL. When you do that, copyright laws apply. GPL simply says that if you agree to some terms you're allowed to do more stuff than is permitted by copyright laws.
You may license your code under as many licenses as you wish, but once you license it to me under the GPL, you are bound by its terms.
Only with respect to yourself, i.e. he can't change the terms or attempt to revoke the license at will. But he may choose another license when he distributes to the next guy, or even when he distributes a new version of the same software to you.
DRM has nothing to do with copyright. Rejection of the GPL is a copyright matter. Rejection of DRM is not.
DRM's advertised purpose may be to prevent unlicensed distribution and unlicensed derived works. But call it collateral damage, or call it DRM's real, more sinister purpose, it prevents people from using the product they purchased as they see fit.
It's very common for people to bring up DRM preventing fair use as justification for why it is wrong. However, fair use is just the low hanging fruit. DRM takes away far more user rights, consumer rights, ownership rights that are far more obscure and probably not as accessible to anybody but students of philosophy of law.
To enumereate a few:
-The right to resell, to gift, and to inherit.
-The right to disseminate and modify.
-The right to destroy.
-The right to use for purposes other than intended.
These are all property rights, not copy rights. Property rights are inherent to any good, and secured by the 4th and the 14th amendments. Copy rights don't exist for anyone other than the creator to begin with, but can be granted to others at the discretion of the creator. See how they are completely unrelated?
The fact of the matter is, DRM creates a paradigm wherein the user is no longer an owner, but a licensor. And that is a very dangerous slippery slope that was started by software licenses (EULA). The idea that you don't own something you bought and paid for, that you are merely licensing it from the creator, implies that you have no property rights except what said creator grants you. And that, I would argue, is a form of slavery.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Sure. I probably didn't read what you wrote originally closely enough.
I don't care why you're posting AC
its not anything laid out in law as copyright law does not handle what happens to the work after copyright law ceases to apply.
Uuuuhhmmm.... It will fall out of copyright, thereby enriching the cultural commons? There's not really much else it can do, unless it hasn't been distributed at all.
Or in other words, its not the copyright holders responsibility to ensure that you have access to the works after copyright expires - and indeed, neither should it be.
No, it shouldn't. But I should be able to undertake the effort to make that legal copy after the copyright expires, if I so choose.
DRM prevents this, or at least makes it a significant burden for most people.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Congratulations - now, how many commercial authors of best sellers (or even good sellers) do the same? Practically none - they are the authors who more than likely will not be authoring works if there was no recompense.
And you also overlook works of production - TV shows, movies et al. Large amount of investment precisely because there is a commercial value in doing so - wheres the enticement to create those works when the commercial value no longer exists?
As I said originally - the vast majority of works traded on TPB, and enjoyed by users of TPB, are commercial works that would have no commercial value in a world without copyright law.
Actually, I purchased a DVD, or a CD, which is a physical object that contains information. I don't own the information the object contains, which is the reason I can not distribute it, but I did not purchase - or agree to the terms of - a license. A lot of people seem to have bought in to the idea that the person who sold me the physical object is entitled to control how I use that object after it becomes my property, but that is simply not the case.
I will do as I please with that object, because it is my property. I am prohibited from copying the information contained on that object for the purpose of distributing it to others, since I don't own the information. But the CD/DVD/whatever is my property - much like the box of Rice Krispies - and I will do with it as I please.
I don't care why you're posting AC
>Because no one buys DVDs now that CSS is trivial to bypass.
I know I don't.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.