[lfjokes] intellectual property is bad, okay?

[Adam Shand]

sorry guys this isn't funny this is a political rant, and i'm abusing my
position of master of several mailing lists to get this out to you
(apologies to those of you that are on more then one of them).  

in short the license for a new e-book release of "alice in wonderland"
actually prohibits you from lending, copying or printing the book, despite
the fact that they got the text of the book from project gutenberg and
it's been in the public domain for god knows how long.  this is bad, i've
been following this stuff for a while, here's the problem:

copyright law has been slowly perverted by business to serve ends that it
was never intended to serve.  the original intent of copyright law was to
encourage and reward innovation by giving the creator of something new
sole rights to it for a limited amount of time, and to still make sure
that the creation fell back into the public domain where everyone could
benifit from it.

as multimedia has become bigger and bigger business, companies have abused
copyright law to extend their ability to make money, always claiming their
need to "enforce the law" to protect their bottom line from hoards of
media pirates stealing "their property". this is not what copyright law
is for.

THIS IS BULLSHIT.  spread the word, lobby your congress critter, educate
yourself, bitch to friends.  whatever.  but lets make sure this never ever
happens.

if you are interested in learning more about copyright law here are some
good, easy to digest links that got me started (the first two require real
video and sound):

* a really interesting discussion between a stanford law professor
  (lawrence lessig) and the head of the mpaa (jack valenti)
  - http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/futureofip/

* the keynote speach from hacker 2000 by jello biafra (of "dead kennedy's
  fame).  a little more alternative in tone but still really interesting.
  - http://www.h2k.net/post/panels.html 

* a story by richard stallman (the founder of the free software foundation
  and what has evolved into open source software) showing where we could
  be heading.
  - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

adam.

ps. please note, as reported below and in slashdot (originally) the clause
that claims that you can't read it outload is intended to stop the book
being read outloud by a text-to-speech computer not to stop you reading
the story to your children.  regardless the restriction is appallingly
worded ("this book can not be read aloud") and the other restrictions are
heineous enough.

From: Jon Callas <jon at callas.org>
Via: "The Eristocracy" <Eristocracy at merrymeet.com>

[Editor's note: At the end of this, art asks an interesting question. My
answer follows there. I hope you're outraged. Write your congresscritter.
-- jdcc]

From: Art Medlar <art at brightmail.com>
Subject: Adobe forbids reading aloud

Glassbook [1] is Adobe's entry into the e-book sweepstakes. Downloading
it, one finds a collection of free (beer) as well as non-free books
available. Each book comes with a set of "permissions" outlining what may
and may not be done with the book. These may be examined using the
Glassbook's Info button.

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is available [2]. Copyright expired
who-all-knows how long ago. The etext was originally made freely (speech)
available by Michael Hart at Project Gutenberg. It was reformatted for the
Glassbook reader by VolumeOne (probably not the same organization as is at
www.volumeone.com, but it's hard to tell).

A set of restrictions was attached to the reformatted edition of the book.  
One may not copy, print, lend, or give the book away. But best of all, one
is forbidden from reading the book aloud.

A screen shot is here, containing both the standard copyright page (which
explicitly acknowledges the debt to Project Gutenberg) as well as the
"permissions" pop-up information:

  http://www.pigdogs.org/art/adobe.jpg

Adobe replies to queries about the situation like this:

  "Unfortunately, we do not have enough information to correctly
   troubleshoot the issue. Please provide us with an exact copy of any
   errors that you are receiving so that we can properly assist you."

I'm not familiar enough with the DMCA to tell if one of the standard tasks
of parenthood is now a felony.

--art

[1] http://www.glassbook.com/
[2] http://bookstore.glassbook.com/store/product.asp?sku=09767748941

[Editor's note:

I am familiar, and testified to Congress on it.

The short answer is, "no."

A longer answer would be that it would be a felony if you thwarted an
effective technological means of protection. I can't think of anything
that would be considered effective to prevent reading aloud. I'd even be
willing to shout from an e-book in a public place to dare them to get me.

However, a number of us who testified brought up the problem of content
owners trying to get new, absurd rights. This one makes me rub my hands
together with glee. When we talked about all the new, protected abuses the
publishers might come up with, we never thought of this one.

-- jdcc]