On 26 Apr 2008, at 9:30 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
We're talking about stupid, evil, legal DRM here.
The pdf document basically says `oh, you're not supposed to do things
with this document, because I say so'. There's nothing that prevents
anyone
from doing anything with the document.
If anything, our xpdf should probably display a notice that says
`the author
of the document thought you should not be able to print it... or
whatever'.
Finally, some sense, thanks. The real issue for me at least is the
fact that one is prepared to modify (in this case xpdf) away for what
ever standard it is written against, modified away from the original
software distribution without documenting the change, informing the
end user who installs the modified software so they can make an
informed decision as to whether they still want to use the modified
version or go off and install the unmodified version.
In the case of xpdf, everyone just wanted to shout "we can modify the
software because we can". If the modification is some where
documented, then I and others don't sit scratching our heads as to why
this no longer works the way it should according to the "standard" or
whatever.
But there is no actual protection in the document. It's all stupid
shackles
in software.
This is a case where I strongly believe in freedom: the end user
should be
able to decide what they can do with the document.
And equality: knowledgeable technical users shouldn't have an edge.
It's completely hypocritical to say `oh, you can recompile the
software to
remove the restriction', because it shuts down some users.
As far as I'm concerned, you've got two levels of protection: legal
and
technical.
This `drm' part of pdf is purely legal: you get a document, you are
informed
you're not supposed to do such and such, and THAT'S IT. There's no
technical
protection to speak of.
For me, the legal barrier is quite enough. As adult, you can make an
ethical
choice whether or not to obey the spirit of the document author.
Ian McWilliam
