On Tuesday 14 December 2010 01:42 PM, Sanjeev Gupta wrote: > I see no reason why they should be given "corresponding" duties. Sure, give > them duties, if the duties are desirable. Give them rights, if the rights > are desirable. But why link the two?
Because they can add a layer of unaccountable protection on top of what "ordinary" copyright law provides them, without the copyright law providing the requisite balance. > Crudely, the grant of a Right to Information Act did not have a > corresponding duty placed on requesters to ask only meaningful questions. Only meaningful (syntactically or semantically) questions can be understood and thus answered. How is this even an appropriate analogy? The RTI Act places a duty on applicants to pay the requisite fee, for instance. > A Right with Duties is not a "Right", it is a contract. 1. All juristic rights (claims, liberties, powers, and immunities) have corresponding correlatives (duties, no-claim, liability, disability). This is about rights being granted in an unfair manner, since it violates the balance provided by copyright law, and hence certain counter-rights being granted to users. 2. A contract is an enforceable agreement. An agreement is a meeting of minds as to reciprocal legal rights and duties. > True. Why should the "FTII prof" have a right? What about the "non-FTII > prof"? What about the "non-FTII-non-prof"? The FTII professor is an example of a person who can legitimately claim to fall under certain exceptions under the Copyright Act (s.52(1)(i), as proposed to be amended), but who can't exercise her rights under that exception. > I agree that she cannot read Adobe DRM, without assistive technologies. But > why burden the publisher? Where do we stop? I cannot read french, should > french publishers have a "corresponding duty" to read out DRM books to me in > english? Because the TPM-placer is prohibiting legitimate (as per the Copyright Act) use. An more appropriate analogy is that same French publisher prohibiting me from translating the book into English for my own personal use. Copyright law requires him to allow me to do that (s.52(1)(a)). Copyright law does not require him to translate a book for me. >> There is no question of s.65A(2) freeing up deCSS, since it has thus far >> not been unlawful. > I would rather say, it has not been tested in an Indian court (please > correct me if there is case law in India). You are generally free to do that which the law does not prohibit. Case law establishes that principle. The law does not prohibit you from circumventing TPM. QED. -- Pranesh Prakash Programme Manager Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
