Subject: Re: DRM-incompatible licenses
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <turnbull@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 21:39:05 +0900

>>>>> "Seth" == Seth Johnson <seth.johnson@RealMeasures.dyndns.org> writes:

    Seth> Keep that paper in your pocket.  The exclusive rights under
    Seth> copyright are "subject to" fair use, not the other way
    Seth> around.

Both are created by Congress, under the authority of the Constitution,
subject to the interpretation of the courts.  I don't see where either
has ethical or legal precedence; the wording is a matter of convenience.

    Seth> The purpose of copyright is specifically for me to make use
    Seth> of the information published in the work freely:

You are confusing "copyright" with "copyleft."  The purpose of
copyright is to restrict certain freedoms in order promote other
aspects of the public welfare, namely to increase the amount of useful
information available.  See the preamble to the GNU General Public
License for an explanation of the principle of restricting freedom to
enhance it; it is a special case of the same principle.

    >> http://www.bitlaw.com/source/cases/copyright/feist.html

Nice try.  Justice O'Connor says nothing of the kind.  She says that
the purpose of copyright is to protect *original* expression as
implemented by Congress under the authority of the Constitution.  The
point of Feist is not that *you* have a right; Justice O'Connor does
not speak to that issue *at all* that I could find.  The point is the
limitation on *authors'* exclusive rights to *original* expression *as
granted by Congress*.

In the context of the discussion of DRM, Feist doesn't say anyone must
make it easy for you to copy.  It says that if you manage to make a
copy of some content, the owner of a copyright on a work containing
that content cannot sue you unless the copied content is
copyrightable, ie, original.

    >> Absolutely true.  But nobody's talking about factual elements.
    >> Why did you bring them up?

    Seth> Because it goes right to the question of whether I need a
    Seth> positive right to use published information.

It's not in question.  You are free to use published facts.  Who
denied that?

    Seth> Based on your elision of the rest of what I said, I take
    Seth> that I am correct: you believe I have to be positively given
    Seth> a right, to exercise it.

You're wrong.

-- 
Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering   University of Tsukuba
http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/        Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
        Economics of Information Communication and Computation Systems
          Experimental Economics, Microeconomic Theory, Game Theory