On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 07:39:49PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 11:04:36AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > > Not really: if it said "and" it would be limited to certain cases. > > > The "or" case gives us an obvious and troublesome example. > > > > I don't agree, for reasons already mentioned. > > According to a quick browse of the list archive, the most recently-stated > reasons were that copyright law only covers distribution, that "and" > and "or" are synonymous and that I am insane. All false.
Since I've explained twice now that the use of "and" or "or" in that sentence does not matter, and why, I'm going to assume you are deliberately misrepresenting my position in order to try to incense me. Also, I said that your interpretation is insane, not that you were personally insane. > > If other people have access to it, then you've (at least implicitly) > > distributed it. Apply the same example to a copyrighted MP3 file, with > > enough other users on the system, and you'd have the RIAA on your ass pretty > > quick. > > By the same reasoning, if I dropped my credit card and someone cloned it, > I'd've implicitly given the details to them. I think that would be true. However, dropping a credit card does not automatically give authorization to use it to the person who acquires it. In fact, credit cards *used* to make the holder liable for a small part of the fraudulent charges (most cards were limited to $50-100 in liability) to encourage the holders not to drop their cards. This has pretty much disappeared in the internet age, but only due to the fact that the CC companies know they will make more money from online transactions than they would lose by eliminating the cardholder's liability. > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03/msg00194.html > Please explain why this doesn't include file permissions or any of the > other examples previously posted. File permissions seem to be a > technology designed to prevent or restrict unauthorised acts. The exact text of the FDL is: "You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute." For the purposes of this clause, there are two kinds of copies that can be made. 1) Copies that are made, but not distributed 2) Copies that are made and distributed In case #1, the only person who has access to the copies is the person who made them. Assuming he hasn't employed a technical measure to prevent himself from reading or making further copies, he complies with the license. If he puts the files on a multiuser system, but controls access to them with file permissions, he still has not distributed the files. If he makes them world readable, then he has made them available for distribution. In case #2, the file permissions would be controlled by the recipient (they do not propagate along with the file), and not the distributor. The responsibility for meeting the license terms at this point rests with the recipient (assuming he chooses to make more copies and/or distribute them) The only place where a violation could arise WRT file permissions is if a person made the opaque copy readable by world, but kept the transparent copy only readable by himself. This would be a violation of the license, but not due to the DRM clause. --Adam -- Adam McKenna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
