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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
