5 ms·

This is just my opinion, but I think that the software I use should empower me, the user: I don't think my software should force me to "respect the requests of

by creata 6y ago

This is just my opinion, but I think that the software I use should empower me, the user: I don't think my software should force me to "respect the requests of the publisher", and I especially think it shouldn't restrict basic functionality like the clipboard in pursuit of that goal.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared? Have you considered that maybe that's disempowering other people using the same tool? Edit: as far as I can tell the groupthink has gone beyond “everyone should use a free license for everything” to “I have a free license to everything damn the actual license”.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  What evidence does the software have that you agreed or continue to agree to the terms encoded into the piece of content? If you intend to not copy text from a file, for instance, you are certainly free and empowered to not do that.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    You agreed by accepting the distribution that expressly forbade it. The software knows you agreed by you accessing content that instructed the same software to prevent you from copying it to the best of its ability.
- h_anna_h 6y ago
  > Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared? Yes > Have you considered that maybe that's disempowering other people using the same tool? I can't see why given xpdf with DRM and xpdf without DRM anyone would select the first.
- zamadatix 6y ago
  Restricting plain text copying on compliant readers isn't really preventing anything though. It's akin to unskippable copy warnings on DVDs, the only thing it does is inconvenience those using it legitimately.
- creata 6y ago
  > Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared? I think it's disingenuous to frame it as a "bypass". The publisher is setting out a terms of use, and I think it's bad that the software try to force that I abide by such terms, because: • the software will be too conservative: there are many situations where it is legal (and even ethical) to ignore such terms, but the software will not recognize them. • there will be alternative software which does not enforce such terms, making it worthless as an actual protection measure. • like I said, I think my machine and the software runs on it ought to represent me and my interests. I would certainly hesitate before installing software that put others' interests above my own, no matter how well-intentioned. > Have you considered that maybe that's disempowering other people using the same tool? No, but I'd be more open to the thought if you'd provide a compelling example.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > > Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared? > I think it's disingenuous to frame it as a "bypass". The publisher is setting out a terms of use, and I think it's bad that the software try to force that I abide by such terms You coulda just said “yeah”. Edit: > No, but I'd be more open to the thought if you'd provide a compelling example. I did but I’ll make it more clear: I licensed my content to you, with the expectation you would honor my license. If you use the technology I distribute my licensed content to you to violate that license you’re undermining my ability to determine the terms under which I distribute my content.
    - creata 6y ago
      > You coulda just said “yeah”. But then I'd be tacitly agreeing that it's a "bypass", when there's nothing to "bypass" in the first place. > you’re undermining my ability to determine the terms under which I distribute my content. Isn't this exactly what IP law is for? Why do you need PDF readers of all things to also enforce your terms?
      - edoceo 6y ago
- diffeomorphism 6y ago
  > Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared? Yes, obviously.
greatgoat420 6y ago
So using software like Okular which by default respects the publisher and allows you to change it seems a reasonable solution to the problem.

by creata 6y ago

eyelidlessness 6y ago

Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared? Have you considered that maybe that's disempowering other people using the same tool? Edit: as far as I can tell the groupthink has gone beyond “everyone should use a free license for everything” to “I have a free license to everything damn the actual license”.

tshaddox 6y ago
What evidence does the software have that you agreed or continue to agree to the terms encoded into the piece of content? If you intend to not copy text from a file, for instance, you are certainly free and empowered to not do that.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  You agreed by accepting the distribution that expressly forbade it. The software knows you agreed by you accessing content that instructed the same software to prevent you from copying it to the best of its ability.
h_anna_h 6y ago
> Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared? Yes > Have you considered that maybe that's disempowering other people using the same tool? I can't see why given xpdf with DRM and xpdf without DRM anyone would select the first.
zamadatix 6y ago
Restricting plain text copying on compliant readers isn't really preventing anything though. It's akin to unskippable copy warnings on DVDs, the only thing it does is inconvenience those using it legitimately.
creata 6y ago
> Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared? I think it's disingenuous to frame it as a "bypass". The publisher is setting out a terms of use, and I think it's bad that the software try to force that I abide by such terms, because: • the software will be too conservative: there are many situations where it is legal (and even ethical) to ignore such terms, but the software will not recognize them. • there will be alternative software which does not enforce such terms, making it worthless as an actual protection measure. • like I said, I think my machine and the software runs on it ought to represent me and my interests. I would certainly hesitate before installing software that put others' interests above my own, no matter how well-intentioned. > Have you considered that maybe that's disempowering other people using the same tool? No, but I'd be more open to the thought if you'd provide a compelling example.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > > Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared? > I think it's disingenuous to frame it as a "bypass". The publisher is setting out a terms of use, and I think it's bad that the software try to force that I abide by such terms You coulda just said “yeah”. Edit: > No, but I'd be more open to the thought if you'd provide a compelling example. I did but I’ll make it more clear: I licensed my content to you, with the expectation you would honor my license. If you use the technology I distribute my licensed content to you to violate that license you’re undermining my ability to determine the terms under which I distribute my content.
  - creata 6y ago
    > You coulda just said “yeah”. But then I'd be tacitly agreeing that it's a "bypass", when there's nothing to "bypass" in the first place. > you’re undermining my ability to determine the terms under which I distribute my content. Isn't this exactly what IP law is for? Why do you need PDF readers of all things to also enforce your terms?
    - edoceo 6y ago
diffeomorphism 6y ago
> Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared? Yes, obviously.

greatgoat420 6y ago

So using software like Okular which by default respects the publisher and allows you to change it seems a reasonable solution to the problem.