please review 'application/pdf'

[Keith Moore]

catching up on some very old mail here:

> I also see
> 
>    o Accessing the document in ways not permitted by the document's
>      access permissions is a violation of the document author's
>      copyright.
> 
> This strikes me as a useful statement and I am pleased by its
> inclusion.

I'm going to add my voice to those who believe it's inappropriate for
this statement to be in here.  

* One reason that the statement is inapppropriate is that it's false. *

Copyright, at least in countries that signed Berne convention, assigns certain
discrete rights that are not aligned with the access permissions described in 
a PDF document.  These rights may be assigned exclusively (sold) or
non-exclusively (licensed), and independently of one another.  The fact that
the creator of a PDF document has asserted permissions on the use of that
document should not be taken as prima facia evidence that the owner of the
copyright associated with the  document has assigned the right to the
document's creator to permit such access. In effect, PDF gives the document's
creator the abliity to claim rights (to permit or deny various kinds of access
to the document) that he may not possess.   There is no reason to assume that
the access rights indicated in the PDF document are consistent with the 
rights granted by the copyright holder to the document creator.

Furthermore, in most countries, there are limitations on those rights, both
in that they are time-limited and in that there are exceptions such as for
fair use.  Those limitations vary from one country to another, and are changed
from time to time.  It is not in violation of copyright law for a program to 
permit access that is legally permitted in his jurisdiction, whether this is
because the copyright has expired, or because it falls under fair use, or for
other reasons.

At least in the United States, copyright was intended to strike a balance
between the interests of the public in having works freely available and
the interests in content creators in having an incentive to produce new works.
I've always said that I'll support DRM when it preserves the rights of the
public equally as well as it preserves the rights of the copyright holder,
including the fact that those rights change from one jurisdiction to another
and over time.  PDF doesn't even try to do that - it tries to tip the balance
away from the public.

Frankly, given what is at stake here, I find the effort to get IETF to endorse
this kind of rip off EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE and I will do whatever I can to
encourage IESG and/or the RFC editor to withhold publication, as long as such
offensive statements remain in the document. 

I also find Adobe's claims on copyright of the data structures used in PDF to
be dubious at best, given my understanding of copyright law, and I don't believe
the IETF should lend its imprimatur to such claims.

By introducing DRM into PDF, Adobe has done great harm to the suitability of 
PDF as a document format (particularly for archive purposes), and also to 
the public interest.   IETF should not support this effort.

Keith