🚀 go-pugleaf

In aus.computers.linux Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:


> telford@xenon.triode.net.au wrote:

>> The relevance is that e-books is a proprietary format and Adobe
>> believe they have the right to decide who can and who cannot read
>> their format. The right to be compatible with proprietary formats
>> is one thing we are fighting for.

> My understanding of the case is that he wrote software that was a 
> circumvention device within the meaning of the DMCA,

Which is exactly the thing that the US is attempting to establish in
Australia.

> and it was not 
> covered by an exemption. I don't see where "results in" comes into it.

There is a simple connection between a mechanism that can reliably
decode and read a proprietary format and the ability to manipulate
that format. In many ways, the "results in" criteria is even more broad
than the "circumvention device" criteria of the DMCA but they are both
designed for the same purpose -- keeping proprietary formats incompatible
with open source software.

You are looking very closely at the fine details while carefully ignoring
the big picture. The fact is that in the USA and in other countries
copyright is being used to intimidate small developers and we can fully
expect this trend to continue in Australia. The FTA is a big step in
the direction of driving small developers out of the software industry.

> It's certainly true that companies are trying to leverage copyright 
> protection to maintain their business model, and I certainly believe 
> that this needs legislative attention, but I'm not yet aware of a case 
> where someone was legally prevented from producing compatible software 
> that did not otherwise compromise the protection of copyright.

Your criteria is unrealistically narrow, prosecuters can trivially
make a case for compromised protection, and even if the case is hollow
it is still an effective deterrent, especially with criminal implications.

> Actually, my "concrete evidence" point is probably just muddying the 
> waters. You don't have to go out and search for evidence for and against 
> your belief, and then form a judgement.

This is ridiculous, how can any reasonable person form a belief without
evidence either for or against?

> You bought Linux on a CD in a 
> shop, or downloaded it from a reputable mirror site. You understand that 
> Linux is free software than can be copied at will as long as you comply 
> with the GNU licence. Does the reasonable person (and that's the test 
> for the belief being reasonable) believe that they can legally use the 
> software in that circumstance? I would say so, and that's all that's 
> required.

Which begs the question, what makes a website reputable?

I've been buying CDs from www.elx.com.au for years, suppose they were
shut down by some copyright case, am I expected to find all those CDs
I bought and destroy them?

Anyhow, your scenario might protect someone who just bought a CD or
two and uses some free software. Those people aren't in the crosshairs,
(a bit of SCO style FUD is good enough to rattle such basic users).
However, active developers have no hope of an, "oh I just bought a few
CDs and it seemed OK" type defence.

> Note in passing that the belief has to relate to facts, not to the law.
> An incorrect belief about what the law says is no defence.

So the interpretation of vague terms like "results in" becomes pivotal
in whether developers get a criminal record -- how comforting.

The facts themselves are difficult enough to determine, an accurate
legal interpretation is completely impossible. Little wonder there are
a lot of people upset by this.

	- Tel