3 ms·

DRM isn't in and of itself the issue; copyright is. I have the copyright to my novel Kismet, for instance, and my publisher has the publishing rights in both pr

DRM isn't in and of itself the issue; copyright is. I have the copyright to my novel Kismet, for instance, and my publisher has the publishing rights in both print and ebook. You don't get to produce a "derivative work" from Kismet without my explicit approval and, because the contract with my publisher grants them exclusive rights to the novel in print and ebook form, a negotiated exception. I suspect your argument is that you're only distributing the "patch files," and so that's not intrinsically a copyright violation. (This is distinct from VidAngel, which admitted that they did, in fact, have to have copyright-violating master copies of movies they were "patching" in order to stream the bowdlerized versions.) And...maybe? Yes, in that case, DRM would become more of an issue. But I'm not convinced that a publisher with sufficiently deep pockets who wanted to press the case couldn't successfully argue that the combination of your patch file plus the original work creates an unauthorized "derivative work." Well, let me rephrase that: that combination absolutely creates an unauthorized derivative work. It's not clear to me that it's illegal, but the ethics strike me as dubious. For instance, using my own book again as an example: the book wouldn't be materially affected if the main character's penchant for swearing when she was stressed got toned down. But it would be materially affected if someone came through and edited out the parts that made it clear that she was pansexual, or that changed the non-binary character to no longer be so, or that changed a gay character to not mention his orientation at all, or that quieted the vocal politics of either the protagonist's socialist sister or her libertarian friend. And that's the real issue you'd run into: it's not just the potential for "you took out the R-rated parts, you prude," it's the potential for "you've made my text mean something it wasn't intended to." If you made a firm commitment to work with authors and publishers and only release approved patch files, that would probably make this possible (again, setting aside the DRM for a moment). But without it...well, with respect, I'd definitely rather not see that.

umvi 7y ago
> This is distinct from VidAngel, which admitted that they did, in fact, have to have copyright-violating master copies of movies they were "patching" in order to stream the bowdlerized versions. Yeah but they purchased one DVD per streamer, so each streamer was "virtually" modifying their copy. Otherwise the FMA is incompatible with modern video technology such as streaming. The real reason VidAngel got in trouble was because studios do not want users to have the ability to remotely buy/sell/stream DVDs - even if they technically owned them at the time of streaming. To do so would circumvent their lucrative streaming licensing. > You don't get to produce a "derivative work" from Kismet without my explicit approval Agreed, but that depends on the definition of a "derivative work". > Well, let me rephrase that: that combination absolutely creates an unauthorized derivative work Not necessarily. Does using a game genie on a Super Nintendo game create a "derivative work" if you use it to completely modify the game at run time? The courts ruled that it didn't since it didn't create a new copy[1]. Hence if I could modify your book at run time such that I didn't create a new copy, it could be considered the same. This is sometimes known as the kaleidoscope effect (i.e. looking at a proprietary painting through the lens of a kaleidoscope doesn't create a new painting and thus doesn't create a derivative work). Or, even more generally, what's to stop me from building two physically overlaid screens - one that displays your original work and one that overlays alterations? That doesn't create a derivative work anymore than drawing on my television screen with a sharpie while a movie is playing creates a derivative work. Again, I understand your desire for users to consume your work as you intend. But extend that desire too far and you turn into a strong DRM proponent. I'm a DRM opponent, and I respectfully assert my right to modify my copy of your work as I please - and I invite you to do the same for my works - be they software, novels, or whatever. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Genie#Legal_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Genie#Legal_issues

umvi 7y ago

> This is distinct from VidAngel, which admitted that they did, in fact, have to have copyright-violating master copies of movies they were "patching" in order to stream the bowdlerized versions. Yeah but they purchased one DVD per streamer, so each streamer was "virtually" modifying their copy. Otherwise the FMA is incompatible with modern video technology such as streaming. The real reason VidAngel got in trouble was because studios do not want users to have the ability to remotely buy/sell/stream DVDs - even if they technically owned them at the time of streaming. To do so would circumvent their lucrative streaming licensing. > You don't get to produce a "derivative work" from Kismet without my explicit approval Agreed, but that depends on the definition of a "derivative work". > Well, let me rephrase that: that combination absolutely creates an unauthorized derivative work Not necessarily. Does using a game genie on a Super Nintendo game create a "derivative work" if you use it to completely modify the game at run time? The courts ruled that it didn't since it didn't create a new copy[1]. Hence if I could modify your book at run time such that I didn't create a new copy, it could be considered the same. This is sometimes known as the kaleidoscope effect (i.e. looking at a proprietary painting through the lens of a kaleidoscope doesn't create a new painting and thus doesn't create a derivative work). Or, even more generally, what's to stop me from building two physically overlaid screens - one that displays your original work and one that overlays alterations? That doesn't create a derivative work anymore than drawing on my television screen with a sharpie while a movie is playing creates a derivative work. Again, I understand your desire for users to consume your work as you intend. But extend that desire too far and you turn into a strong DRM proponent. I'm a DRM opponent, and I respectfully assert my right to modify my copy of your work as I please - and I invite you to do the same for my works - be they software, novels, or whatever. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Genie#Legal_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Genie#Legal_issues