On 20/05/14 00:30, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 5/19/2014 8:17 AM, Richard Hector wrote: >> On 20/05/14 00:14, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 5/19/2014 7:58 AM, Richard Hector wrote: >>>> On 19/05/14 23:19, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 5/19/2014 4:31 AM, Richard Hector wrote: >>>>>> On 19/05/14 14:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/18/2014 9:47 PM, Paul E Condon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 20140518_2131-0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/18/2014 6:39 PM, The Wanderer wrote: >>>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA512 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 05/18/2014 05:49 PM, Tom H wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have an issue with copyrights, and are venting >>>>>>>>>>> about DRM >>>>>>>>>>> because it enables copyright holders. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> DRM doesn't just "enable copyright holders". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Copyright law restricts what people are allowed to do. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> DRM restricts what people are *able* to do. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When the copyright on something expires (not that that ever >>>>>>>>>> happens >>>>>>>>>> nowadays), it enters the public domain, and people are allowed to >>>>>>>>>> copy >>>>>>>>>> and redistribute it as much as they care to. This is, in fact, >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> goal >>>>>>>>>> and the purpose of copyright, at least in USA law. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Copyrights last a long time, depending on the laws of the country >>>>>>>>> under which the item is copyrighted. But typically it is >>>>>>>>> either 75 >>>>>>>>> years from the original copyright, or 75 years after the death of >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> owner (author) of the copyrighted material. Both are much longer >>>>>>>>> than the Internet has existed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the copyright on something restricted by DRM were to expire, >>>>>>>>>> and the >>>>>>>>>> DRM were still effective (or if breaking it were forbidden, >>>>>>>>>> e.g. by >>>>>>>>>> anti-circumvention laws), then although people would be >>>>>>>>>> *allowed* to >>>>>>>>>> copy and redistribute it at will, they would still not be *able* >>>>>>>>>> to do >>>>>>>>>> so, without permission from whoever controls the DRM - which >>>>>>>>>> would, >>>>>>>>>> likely, be the former holder of the copyright. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There's more, but that should do as a first point. Objections to >>>>>>>>>> DRM go >>>>>>>>>> far beyond just objections to copyright. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Please show an example where that has occurred. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Please show an example of a digital recording that was copyrighted >>>>>>>> 75 yrs >>>>>>>> ago. It is a silly request, I know. But no less silly than yours. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not silly at all. But there are may of them. The works of >>>>>>> Shakespeare, >>>>>>> among others, are much older than 75 years, and have now entered the >>>>>>> public domain. And they have been digitized. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jerry >>>>>> >>>>>> A more relevant request: how about an example of a digital (or any) >>>>>> recording that was released _with_DRM_ for which the copyright has >>>>>> now >>>>>> lapsed? >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Richard, >>>>> >>>>> That's true - it would be more relevant. >>>> >>>> Do you agree, then, that this is a problem with DRM? Especially in the >>>> case where the original copyright holder goes out of business, dies or >>>> otherwise vanishes, and is unable to control the DRM tech at all? >>>> >>> >>> No, I don't agree. I have seen no indication of a problem at this time. >>> As for the original copyright holder - no matter what, someone owns >>> the >>> copyright. If the owner dies, it becomes part of the estate. If the >>> owner goes out of business, copyright transfer is a part of the >>> liquidation process. And even if the owner vanishes, he/she still owns >>> the copyright. >>> >>> Also, just because something is copyrighted doesn't mean it has to be >>> made available for use by others. The owner is well within his/her >>> rights to say "I'm the only one who can use this". >>> >>>> Actually I had a similar problem many years ago - I was working with a >>>> perfectly legal but rather obsolete version of SCO Xenix, which had an >>>> activation mechanism that was no longer supported. I would have >>>> liked to >>>> reinstall the system (and was also at risk of damaging it), and had the >>>> tape (!), but the activation service was no longer available. The >>>> software in that case was still copyright, but (or at least my client) >>>> was still perfectly entitled to use it, but technically prevented. >>>> >>>> Richard >>>> >>> >>> I don't know the terms of the license, but it is perfectly valid for a >>> company to put a time or other limit in a license. Your client may or >>> may not have been entitled to continue to use it. >>> >>> But if the client were able to legally use it, I would think the current >>> copyright owner would be obliged to provide an alternate activation >>> mechanism. Getting them to do it may be difficult, though. >> >> And in the case where the copyright has elapsed? The main point, rather >> than my additional comment? >> >> Richard >> > > Are you saying the only copy in the whole world is protected by DRM? I > highly doubt that... And if it is, that would mean it was created since > DRM went into effect. Which means the copyright won't expire for 75 > years or more. By that time, anything computer-related will be so > obsolete it will only be of interest to paleontologists. And other > works (i.e. music, literature) will have been available in other media. > In fact, in the United States, to copyright something you have to > provide a copy of the material to the Copyright Office. So there is > always at least one copy of something available. > > But can you show where that is occurring now? If not, I think you're > looking for a problem which doesn't exist.
Now we're going in circles. Of course I can't show where it's happening now - that's what I asked you to do, rhetorically, several messages ago: >>>>>> A more relevant request: how about an example of a digital (or >>>>>> any) recording that was released _with_DRM_ for which the >>>>>> copyright has now lapsed? I'm predicting a problem that will happen when the copyright of a DRM'd work elapses, and that work has never been released without DRM. How will I (or some future person; copyright terms have got so ridiculous it's unlikely to be me) get the access I'm entitled to? Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
