Subject: Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
From: Bernard Lang <Bernard.Lang@inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 11:36:07 +0200

* Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org>, le 05-04-06, a écrit:
> 
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> > 
> > >>>>> "Seth" == Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> 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
> information.
> 
> I need no "positive" right to use (and copy) the factual elements
> of a published copyrighted work.


Copyright is so much the rule that you get it automatically without
even having to ask for it.  It imay even be difficult for the author
to get rid of it ...  depending on ather aspects of the law in a
country (for example : is it possible to give something by contract et
get nothing in return).

The "droit d'auteur" is even stronger.  The are moral rights
(e.g. authorship) that you cannot give away, .... for ever.
And it is not the only one, though it is the simplest one.

Anything else is exceptions.  Now, you may consider that society
should proceed differently, but that is the way it is.

Furthermore, this goes much farther than economic issues, or freedom
issues for the public, and concerns also the philosophical view of the
artist in society and the freedom and life of creation itself, of the
created works and concepts.

There may be other of preserving the freedom of the public ... to
begin with by keeping more in check all the intermediate money makers.

Art is not any industry, assuming that the word applies.

Bernard


-- 
             Le brevet logiciel menace votre entreprise
               Software patents threaten your company
    Soutenez la Majorité Économique - Support the Economic Majority
                  http://www.economic-majority.com/

Bernard.Lang@inria.fr             ,_  /\o    \o/    Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
            INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
         Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion