Subject: Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
From: Seth Johnson <>
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 04:24:20 -0400

"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> >>>>> "Seth" == Seth Johnson <> writes:
>     Seth> "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
>     >> As I understand it, fair use is not a positive right,
>     >> prohibiting DRM.  It is a negative right, ie, a limitation on
>     >> the degree to which the copyright owner may use the courts to
>     >> impose restrictions.  It doesn't say that the copyright owner
>     >> must enable fair use copying, nor what the quality of those
>     >> copies should be.  (Eg, take a screen shot rather than copy the
>     >> PNG, analog rather than digital copies of music, etc.)
>     Seth> Actually, in the U.S. statutes, the author's exclusive
>     Seth> rights are stipulated as being "subject to" the other
>     Seth> provisions for first sale, fair use, etc.
>     Seth> So while the fair use provision is written in such a way as
>     Seth> to look like a loopy sort of exception to copyright, it's
>     Seth> actually the other way around.
> How does that differ from what I wrote?  There still is no positive
> right to copy, except that of the author.  In the absence of
> copyright, there is the freedom to do so, but nobody is required to
> help you.

In short, almost every word you write here is the inverse of what
I said.  There are the inverse of what is acceptable in a free
society, I might add.

Copyright is an "exception" to the freedom to use published

I need no "positive" right to use (and copy) the factual elements
of a published copyrighted work.



RIAA is the RISK!  Our NET is P2P!

DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use

[CC] Counter-copyright:

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. 
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so
far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in
ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.