3 ms·

> 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 publishe

by 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
    Because it hard for a single author or organization to enforce across millions of humans. It's like locks on doors. Yea, B&E is illegal and the lock helps as a forcing function/indicator. Easier to lock a door than chase 100s of thieves. DRM is like that for a publisher, and digital theft is loads easier than physical theft, otherwise publishers are really set back for getting compensated for their works (see author above). I get you don't like DRM but should software be a tool for stealing others works? Note: I loathe DRM but when I pay for content/books, I respect the game.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > But then I'd be tacitly agreeing that it's a "bypass", when there's nothing to "bypass" in the first place. If the terms of the distributed content are “I don’t want you to copy this” and the technology has the ability to disable copying it (however flawed or limited), and your expectation is that the software disregard that express wish for distribution... you are asking the software to facilitate you in disregarding the express wish of the creator. How is that long winded way of saying it not “bypass”?
    - aidenn0 6y ago
      The creator might not want me to copy it, but I have a legal fair-use right to copy parts of it under certain circumstances. I'm not "bypassing" the license, I'm exercising my legal rights.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    > Isn't this exactly what IP law is for? Why do you need PDF readers of all things to also enforce your terms? Yeah IP law is for enforcing IP in court. But your position is you should be entitled to use any content and software in any way you want without any mechanisms attempting to reinforce the contract outside of a court. Essentially you’re saying “if an author explicitly says I’m allowed to use their content but not this way, anyone but the law trying to ensure I comply with the contract I agreed to is wrong”. If I made some work that said you were free to do anything with it other than defecate on it, and you agree to it, there’s nothing inherently wrong with me trying to take measures besides a lawsuit to try to prevent you from that.
- aidenn0 6y ago
  > 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. Your licenses have legal limits, including fair use. Too many authors seem to believe that once they have created something, they should have total control over all copies of it made in perpetuity. That's not how it works even today (and today is closer to that "ideal" than just about any other point in history). If I buy a physical book there are all sorts of things I can do with it. I can cut out the pages and use it in an arts-and-crafts project. I can even burn it should I wish. Many authors are horrified at some of the ways their books can and have been used, but they cannot legally limit these things. PDFs are not physical books, and any analogy between the two will eventually break down, but I do not consider printing or copy-pasting from a document to be "bypassing the terms under which the content [I'm] accessing were shared" when many possible uses of these are 100% legal, just like photocopying a few pages from a book at the library for a school research project is 100% legal.

by creata 6y ago

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
  Because it hard for a single author or organization to enforce across millions of humans. It's like locks on doors. Yea, B&E is illegal and the lock helps as a forcing function/indicator. Easier to lock a door than chase 100s of thieves. DRM is like that for a publisher, and digital theft is loads easier than physical theft, otherwise publishers are really set back for getting compensated for their works (see author above). I get you don't like DRM but should software be a tool for stealing others works? Note: I loathe DRM but when I pay for content/books, I respect the game.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > But then I'd be tacitly agreeing that it's a "bypass", when there's nothing to "bypass" in the first place. If the terms of the distributed content are “I don’t want you to copy this” and the technology has the ability to disable copying it (however flawed or limited), and your expectation is that the software disregard that express wish for distribution... you are asking the software to facilitate you in disregarding the express wish of the creator. How is that long winded way of saying it not “bypass”?
  - aidenn0 6y ago
    The creator might not want me to copy it, but I have a legal fair-use right to copy parts of it under certain circumstances. I'm not "bypassing" the license, I'm exercising my legal rights.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  > Isn't this exactly what IP law is for? Why do you need PDF readers of all things to also enforce your terms? Yeah IP law is for enforcing IP in court. But your position is you should be entitled to use any content and software in any way you want without any mechanisms attempting to reinforce the contract outside of a court. Essentially you’re saying “if an author explicitly says I’m allowed to use their content but not this way, anyone but the law trying to ensure I comply with the contract I agreed to is wrong”. If I made some work that said you were free to do anything with it other than defecate on it, and you agree to it, there’s nothing inherently wrong with me trying to take measures besides a lawsuit to try to prevent you from that.
aidenn0 6y ago
> 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. Your licenses have legal limits, including fair use. Too many authors seem to believe that once they have created something, they should have total control over all copies of it made in perpetuity. That's not how it works even today (and today is closer to that "ideal" than just about any other point in history). If I buy a physical book there are all sorts of things I can do with it. I can cut out the pages and use it in an arts-and-crafts project. I can even burn it should I wish. Many authors are horrified at some of the ways their books can and have been used, but they cannot legally limit these things. PDFs are not physical books, and any analogy between the two will eventually break down, but I do not consider printing or copy-pasting from a document to be "bypassing the terms under which the content [I'm] accessing were shared" when many possible uses of these are 100% legal, just like photocopying a few pages from a book at the library for a school research project is 100% legal.