4 ms·

Why should breadth of distribution affect rights status? You don't even need to publish something to gain copyright protection. Yeah, yeah, can't use it in a l

by tacos 10y ago

Why should breadth of distribution affect rights status? You don't even need to publish something to gain copyright protection. Yeah, yeah, can't use it in a library in 100 years, blah blah. Hasn't proved to be an issue. You could argue that a work in the public domain with its DRM still attached provides an interesting historical perspective. Sometimes the DRM is more interesting than the content -- and could provide it's own lesson/warning to future generations.

anonymfus 10y ago
>could provide it's own lesson/warning to future generations. If we already know what lesson it would be, why wait?
- tacos 10y ago
  Because libraries are full of tomes written by cocksure counterculturists. If we knew what the future of media distribution looked like we'd be making billions pushing it there, not bullshitting about "how it's obviously gonna be, just you watch" on HN.
icebraining 10y ago
Hasn't been an issue? As the Copyright Office itself reports[¹], millions of orphan works have been lost or are inaccessible, and the DRM exacerbates the issue by preventing archivers from legally making copies to ensure that these works will be available in the future. Yes, you could argue that a work in the public domain with its DRM still attached provides an interesting historical perspective; it's a free country. Doesn't mean it's a good argument, though. ¹ http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf
- tacos 10y ago
  You linked to a 234 page report that does not contain the phrases "copy protection" or "DRM" or "digital rights management." You did an amazing job making my point for me. The report somewhat misleadingly names anything they cannot digitize as "orphan works." These millions of items are largely books and photographs for which they lack a formal license -- it's a discussion relating to the Google book scanning lawsuit and Fair Use not DRM.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    I suppose I wasn't clear in my post. My point is essentially: 1. There's an issue of orphans works, as the report shows. 2. DRM makes it worse, by making it illegal to bypass the copy protection, which is necessary in order to preserve the work until its legal status can be resolved (even if it's just waiting for copyright to expire). CDs/DVDs and other physical media in which copyright works are distributed have limited lifetimes, and many won't last the many decades it takes for their content to enter the public domain (it's now lifetime of author + 70 years!). If archival copies are legally prevented by the necessity of having to break DRM, you're essentially ensuring that those works will be lost.
    - tacos 10y ago
      Not illegal at all. The DMCA expressly allows the Librarian of Congress to override this stuff, for exactly the reasons you raise. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/28/2015-27212/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/28/2015-272...

by tacos 10y ago

anonymfus 10y ago

>could provide it's own lesson/warning to future generations. If we already know what lesson it would be, why wait?

tacos 10y ago
Because libraries are full of tomes written by cocksure counterculturists. If we knew what the future of media distribution looked like we'd be making billions pushing it there, not bullshitting about "how it's obviously gonna be, just you watch" on HN.

icebraining 10y ago

Hasn't been an issue? As the Copyright Office itself reports[¹], millions of orphan works have been lost or are inaccessible, and the DRM exacerbates the issue by preventing archivers from legally making copies to ensure that these works will be available in the future. Yes, you could argue that a work in the public domain with its DRM still attached provides an interesting historical perspective; it's a free country. Doesn't mean it's a good argument, though. ¹ http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf

tacos 10y ago
You linked to a 234 page report that does not contain the phrases "copy protection" or "DRM" or "digital rights management." You did an amazing job making my point for me. The report somewhat misleadingly names anything they cannot digitize as "orphan works." These millions of items are largely books and photographs for which they lack a formal license -- it's a discussion relating to the Google book scanning lawsuit and Fair Use not DRM.
- icebraining 10y ago
  I suppose I wasn't clear in my post. My point is essentially: 1. There's an issue of orphans works, as the report shows. 2. DRM makes it worse, by making it illegal to bypass the copy protection, which is necessary in order to preserve the work until its legal status can be resolved (even if it's just waiting for copyright to expire). CDs/DVDs and other physical media in which copyright works are distributed have limited lifetimes, and many won't last the many decades it takes for their content to enter the public domain (it's now lifetime of author + 70 years!). If archival copies are legally prevented by the necessity of having to break DRM, you're essentially ensuring that those works will be lost.
  - tacos 10y ago
    Not illegal at all. The DMCA expressly allows the Librarian of Congress to override this stuff, for exactly the reasons you raise. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/28/2015-27212/exemption-to-prohibition-on-circumvention-of-copyright-protection-systems-for-access-control https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/28/2015-272...