4 ms·

> 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 underminin

by 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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

by creata 6y ago

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.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]