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? 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5379f1d4.1080...@walnut.gen.nz
