Re: [Fsfe-uk] FDL and DRM, was: DRM, TPM, or what?

[Alex Hudson]

On Sat, 2006-05-13 at 07:27 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > But that sentence above still stands: if I
> > haven't given someone a copy of the document, I don't have an obligation
> > to them.
> 
> As you know, your obligation under the FDL is to the licensor,
> not people that you give a copy. 

Well, no, not really. Your liability is to the licensor, but specific
parts of the FDL address your obligations to those to whom you give
copies of the work. As I think you're saying, your liability is only to
the licensor, but that doesn't mean they are the only person you are
obligated to perform services to - they're just the only person who can
take you to court.

You can only be liable for copyright infringement if you fail to follow
the FDL (e.g., you renege on an obligation). What I'm saying is that:

     A. the FDL does not require you to make your copies available to
        others;
     B. you do not have any obligation to those you haven't given
        copies;
     C. without breaking the terms of FDL agreement I find it difficult
        to see how you could be held liable for copyright infringement.

> You can argue that the licensor will never find out

That's not what I'm arguing - I'm saying that there is no infringement.

> > It may come down to the process involved, but in general modifying a
> > file isn't making a copy. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be
> > treated the same as modifying something physical: even if there were a
> 
> Exactly! The modification of the copy is part of its making.  I do
> not claim it is making another copy, but part of making that copy.
> (This damned ambiguous language bites me again...)

I'm not sure this is ambiguous. "Making a copy" does not cover the
original creation of the work, modification of the work or any other act
other than copying it.

"Making a copy" is talking of the verb "copy", not the noun.

> > copy made in RAM or something while you modified it, it would be treated
> > as temporary and "an integral and essential part of a technological
> > process" (Copyright & Related Rights Act, 2003).
> 
> As such, still subject to copyright.

Um, no, precisely not - as a temporary copy, it could never infringe
copyright :)

> > The file permissions thing is possibly a red herring, I don't think it
> > would even count as modification of the work.
> 
> That's not true for all DRM, but it's not far from the Tivo trouble.

I would go further and say it's not true for most DRM, tbh. DRM
functions only when the control is inseparable from the work; file
permissions are obviously separable (e.g., hard links).

Personally, I would not class permissions as DRM, although I'm not sure
the law would make that distinction. I think they're simply access
controls: and while DRM is also an access control, I don't think the
inverse (that all access controls are DRM) is true. That's possibly a
personal usage, though - I tend not to think of DRM in terms of intent,
whereas the law does, and obviously if someone intends the permissions
to act as a DRM, then they are a DRM. 

Cheers,

Alex.