Hacker News Reader

Comment by notaplumber | Hacker News Reader

Xpdf has a history of enforcing purely software DRM on PDFs for no logical reason, such as the disabling of copying text and printing from documents. The upstream was against OS distributions patching this silly DRM out. I don't know if the upstream ever changed their policy on this, but there are better PDF readers out there now.

Here's a very long, and entertaining thread about it on the OpenBSD mailing lists from 2008.

https://marc.info/?t=120906296700004&r=2&w=2

No longer on their website, but original author considered this to be "cracking".

https://web.archive.org/web/20161129092715/http://www.foolab...

View on HN

Since this is the top comment currently, I will respond here. At one point in time I had a rather popular ML/AI textbook I offered in PDF format with some restrictions. I, at the time, thought most users would be reasonable and respect those restrictions. Unfortunately you as many others decided to no respect those restrictions. I cannot say it is due to that but my book was one of the more popular epubs/azw's on a few torrent trackers in the mid-to-early 2000's. I love that people are able to access these things, but it would be great if people who could, would donate money to pay for the production of these materials. Overall I got $1502.56 for my publishing a 1086 page text book which took about 2.6 years of my life. Obviously this is my throwaway account so try not to link this back to the actual book.

I like that this was downvoted for some reason. Anonymous cowards like free things, or hate people expressing a mild opinion?

Or maybe people just didn't think it was relevant.

I will give you the fact that word2vec basically changed NLP forever, but it was a very popular download on more than one torrent tracker.

was it available in hard copy as well? that you were paid in addition to the $1500 you got for pdf sales?

I got a royalty advance, which I am not allowed to disclose(pdf sales were part of that, so not in addition to), but overall, it was way under minimum wage for the work done.

I appreciate the work you did and I hope it enriched your life in some meaningful way. I had family support for 1 year of undergraduate, and 4 years without that support. If I could find an english language foreign market edition of a textbook, usually printed on darn near see through paper, i’d get that. Otherwise I’d be on the hunt for a free pdf. As I was struggling to survive, I didn’t feel bad about it. I feel bad that you took the risk, created something beautiful, and felt shortchanged. On the other hand, I’m not willing to tell an undergraduate who can’t afford a $100-$200+ textbook to not do the thing which is in their best interest.

1) even if most pdf readers enforce drm protection crackers will have other software to crack pdf/EPUB whatever

2) preventing copy pasting text, especially if book has eg: code samples, is silly.

Sumatra did this too apparently. I do not know if they still do this as I haven't used it in a few years.

Edit:

So did Okular (the KDE reader) it seems https://tsdgeos.blogspot.com/2009/06/okular-pdf-and-drm.html

Evince too https://superuser.com/questions/767617/disable-drm-in-evince but it is disabled by default now.

Just tried it, still does.

It is a very very easy flag to change in Okular. I have some stake in saying not to, but ti is super simple to change.

What's bad about respecting the requests of the publisher of the file?

(which is another way to describe the flags)

There are many legitimate reason for one to need to be able to print or copy text from a document. Enforcing an entirely optional "security mechanism" when there is no technical reason to at the expense of the users of the software makes no sense at all, especially if the only argument is to respect the authors implied arbitrary wishes.

This is just my opinion, but I think that the software I use should empower me, the user: I don't think my software should force me to "respect the requests of the publisher", and I especially think it shouldn't restrict basic functionality like the clipboard in pursuit of that goal.

Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared? Have you considered that maybe that's disempowering other people using the same tool?

Edit: as far as I can tell the groupthink has gone beyond “everyone should use a free license for everything” to “I have a free license to everything damn the actual license”.

> Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared?

Yes

> Have you considered that maybe that's disempowering other people using the same tool?

I can't see why given xpdf with DRM and xpdf without DRM anyone would select the first.

Restricting plain text copying on compliant readers isn't really preventing anything though. It's akin to unskippable copy warnings on DVDs, the only thing it does is inconvenience those using it legitimately.

> Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared?

I think it's disingenuous to frame it as a "bypass". The publisher is setting out a terms of use, and I think it's bad that the software try to force that I abide by such terms, because:

• the software will be too conservative: there are many situations where it is legal (and even ethical) to ignore such terms, but the software will not recognize them.

• there will be alternative software which does not enforce such terms, making it worthless as an actual protection measure.

• like I said, I think my machine and the software runs on it ought to represent me and my interests. I would certainly hesitate before installing software that put others' interests above my own, no matter how well-intentioned.

> Have you considered that maybe that's disempowering other people using the same tool?

No, but I'd be more open to the thought if you'd provide a compelling example.

> > Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared?

> I think it's disingenuous to frame it as a "bypass". The publisher is setting out a terms of use, and I think it's bad that the software try to force that I abide by such terms

You coulda just said “yeah”.

Edit:

> No, but I'd be more open to the thought if you'd provide a compelling example.

I did but I’ll make it more clear: I licensed my content to you, with the expectation you would honor my license. If you use the technology I distribute my licensed content to you to violate that license you’re undermining my ability to determine the terms under which I distribute my content.

> You coulda just said “yeah”.

But then I'd be tacitly agreeing that it's a "bypass", when there's nothing to "bypass" in the first place.

> you’re undermining my ability to determine the terms under which I distribute my content.

Isn't this exactly what IP law is for? Why do you need PDF readers of all things to also enforce your terms?

Because it hard for a single author or organization to enforce across millions of humans.

It's like locks on doors. Yea, B&E is illegal and the lock helps as a forcing function/indicator. Easier to lock a door than chase 100s of thieves.

DRM is like that for a publisher, and digital theft is loads easier than physical theft, otherwise publishers are really set back for getting compensated for their works (see author above).

I get you don't like DRM but should software be a tool for stealing others works?

Note: I loathe DRM but when I pay for content/books, I respect the game.

> But then I'd be tacitly agreeing that it's a "bypass", when there's nothing to "bypass" in the first place.

If the terms of the distributed content are “I don’t want you to copy this” and the technology has the ability to disable copying it (however flawed or limited), and your expectation is that the software disregard that express wish for distribution... you are asking the software to facilitate you in disregarding the express wish of the creator. How is that long winded way of saying it not “bypass”?

The creator might not want me to copy it, but I have a legal fair-use right to copy parts of it under certain circumstances. I'm not "bypassing" the license, I'm exercising my legal rights.

> Isn't this exactly what IP law is for? Why do you need PDF readers of all things to also enforce your terms?

Yeah IP law is for enforcing IP in court. But your position is you should be entitled to use any content and software in any way you want without any mechanisms attempting to reinforce the contract outside of a court. Essentially you’re saying “if an author explicitly says I’m allowed to use their content but not this way, anyone but the law trying to ensure I comply with the contract I agreed to is wrong”.

If I made some work that said you were free to do anything with it other than defecate on it, and you agree to it, there’s nothing inherently wrong with me trying to take measures besides a lawsuit to try to prevent you from that.

> I did but I’ll make it more clear: I licensed my content to you, with the expectation you would honor my license. If you use the technology I distribute my licensed content to you to violate that license you’re undermining my ability to determine the terms under which I distribute my content.

Your licenses have legal limits, including fair use.

Too many authors seem to believe that once they have created something, they should have total control over all copies of it made in perpetuity. That's not how it works even today (and today is closer to that "ideal" than just about any other point in history).

If I buy a physical book there are all sorts of things I can do with it. I can cut out the pages and use it in an arts-and-crafts project. I can even burn it should I wish. Many authors are horrified at some of the ways their books can and have been used, but they cannot legally limit these things.

PDFs are not physical books, and any analogy between the two will eventually break down, but I do not consider printing or copy-pasting from a document to be "bypassing the terms under which the content [I'm] accessing were shared" when many possible uses of these are 100% legal, just like photocopying a few pages from a book at the library for a school research project is 100% legal.

What evidence does the software have that you agreed or continue to agree to the terms encoded into the piece of content? If you intend to not copy text from a file, for instance, you are certainly free and empowered to not do that.

You agreed by accepting the distribution that expressly forbade it. The software knows you agreed by you accessing content that instructed the same software to prevent you from copying it to the best of its ability.

> Should it empower you to bypass the terms under which content you're accessing were shared?

Yes, obviously.

So using software like Okular which by default respects the publisher and allows you to change it seems a reasonable solution to the problem.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com