Re: Purchasing The Standard
From: tom_usenet (tom_usenet_at_hotmail.com)
Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 10:24:40 +0100
On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 12:47:56 -0700, Julie <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I dare say this comes under "fair use".
>I highly doubt that -- you are deliberately circumventing the imposed
>protection scheme. I'm no expert on the subject, but I'd say that you are
>either violating the copyright license or getting into a very gray area. Now
>take into account the disgusting piece of legislation called the DMCA and
>similar (pending) legislation, you just lost your case.
However, I didn't circumvent the copy protection of the document,
simply the fact that the text copy functionality is disabled in Adobe
Acrobat. I used Ghostscript, where no such functionality restriction
exists. I don't think this comes under circumventing copy protection.
Until someone decides that Ghostscript is illegal under the DCMA, I
think there's no problem and no infringement.
> If you have any further questions about this, don't bother asking me
>as I'm no expert, just offering my opinion, but go directly to the source.
>Contact the committee and ask if what you did is within your license or legal
>rights, in their opinion. I'm sure many would be interested in the response.
They removed the copy protection back in 2000 or so (it seems it was a
mistake), so I doubt they'd have anything to say about it.
>> >> I think the main reason they went with PDF was copyright - each PDF
>> >> they sell is uniquely watermarked to say who bought it (and therefore
>> >> who is passing it around illegally).
>> >I'm not a fan of the 'punish the majority on behalf of the minority criminal'.
>> I think copying of the standard is fairly rife as it is. If the format
>> wasn't traceable to the buyer, I suspect it would be a lot worse.
>> >Like I said, the utility value of the content is greatly reduced w/ such a
>> >restrictive format such as PDF.
>> You've said that, but you haven't yet backed it up. Are you unable to
>> find what you're looking for? Why? How would another format help? I've
>> not heard your complaint before from others, which implies that most
>> are not finding it too much of a problem.
>I don't have specifics relating to the standard, as I don't own a PDF copy, nor
>have I illegitimately (or otherwise) viewed one.
So, in other words, you don't really know what you're talking about.
You can see an HTML version of the draft here:
(The PDF is superior to that HTML version - the whole document can be
searched rather than just a single chapter, and the contents links are
far finer grained).
> However, I have read many PDF
>documents (as most have), and find the use of the PDF format terrible for
Again, in what way do you find it terrible? You're great at making
unsupported assertions - I've noted it in other threads, where
eventually you gracelessly admit you're wrong.
>That you haven't heard my complaint before implies absolutely nothing other
>than you haven't heard my complaint before.
Given that I regularly read comp.std.c++, it implies that no one else
is bothered. The only complaints I have heard in 4 or 5 years are
about the $18 cost and the fact that the old .PDF was text copy
>Like I've been saying, and you have been inadvertently supporting, the PDF
>format is *not* suitable for information retrieval with so many other
>more-useful formats available.
But you still haven't given one concrete fact to support this. Is a
book a terrible format for information retrieval? Why would anyone buy
a textbook? A PDF is just a book with instant contents navigation and
a text search facility...
-- C++ FAQ: http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html