Re: PDF files on company Intranet?

On Fri, Jan 14, 2000, Xiao Jinhong <limabean[_at_]pobox.org.sg> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Laurie Urquiaga <urquiagal[_at_]lawgate.byu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I see a big difference. If you have a paper copy, and route
> > that copy to all of the interested parties (no copying involved, unless
> > an individual makes one for him/herself), I think it would clearly be
> > allowed.
>
> But you seem to think that it would be permissible for an individual
> to make a copy for him/herself personally. Unless that is fair use,
> it would infringe.
>
> > What about a subscription that comes electronically that is
> > stored on a network in such a way that it can be viewed by only one
> > workstation at a time? There is no transformation of the work involved,
> > and without multiple simultaneous users, where's the infringement?
>
> When a computer "views" the PDF file stored on a network, it would be
> making a copy. Therein lies the infringing act (subject to defences,
> including fair use).
>
> > Even if a user independently prints (or even downloads) all/part of
> > the pdf, what's the difference between that and a single user making
> > a scan or copy of a routed periodical?
>
> None. But in both situations, the copyright would be infringed (at risk
> of sounding anal :), that's subject to defences).

I think one must review what Adobe's PDF file can be.

In Adobe PDF Writer the owner can control some of the functions of the document being created which the Adobe PDF Reader can view:

1. The author or publisher can disable printing,
2. The author or publisher can disable ability to make changes to the document,
3. The author or publisher can disable the ability to select text and graphics,
4. The author or publisher can disable the ability to add or change annotations and form fields.

I believe Adobe knows that technology is changing faster than the existing copyright laws. The only way to protect the work of authors and publishers is to allow "viewing only" while disabling the functions above. Then assuming that at any given time, only one computer can open up a file, this would be analogous to passing a book or magazine around the office. The only exception, I see is, on a magazine I could highlight or add comments with my pen, but if the author or publisher disabled the ability to add or change annotations, as listed about, I would have to limit comments to an outside file, such as a email with the PDF file attached.

The internet and intranet has really made our copyright laws archaic in my view. Not being a lawyer, but being involved in computer copyright issues, I see the laws as being created to protect programs as literary works or as patents with new ways to operate. I do not think that much thought was given to attachments to emails or PDF or other text created literally works. Hence because of the easy way to send all types of digital creations around the world, you still by a book or video from Amazon.com and not a QuickTime movie or PDF or text file, since it could be easily passed on.

Practically all PDF files should be sent as being able to be view by anyone and anywhere. If the author or publisher wants to limit anything it should be done in the program and not depend on copyright law. This may sound anacharish, but the fact remains, with electronic distribution millions of copies can be created in literally hours.

If there becomes a great problem there will be always someone to solve. For instance, the early dates of satellite television. The argument was, "The signal fell on my land and is my property". Really was that HBO and others could not enforce pay for view and in effect could not collect royalties or ending up paying royalties for those that were viewing the programs for free. The solution was to encode an decode the signal to insure payment to the satellite networks as say, Direct TV does.

Another way could be encryption as even many e-mail programs give, except encryption codes could be forwarded. I suppose the next billion dollar idea could be, if necessary to develop the software to be computer specific. Only the computer with a certain name or serial number or address could view the document. I would think the military would already have this, if not also security conscience companies.

The bottom line as I see it in a humble non-attorney way is. I would not entirely depend on copyright laws to protect my PDF documents. I would use the tools of the software to limit it's usage. If there is a better software out there, I would use it. I would charge for my product according to the size of the company, knowing that it would be potentially going to more people in one company than another. An if all else failed, I would give my product away and hope to sell advertising on it an hope as many people say it as possible and then charge accordingly for advertising.

Greg Erkins
gerkins[_at_]gci.net
http://www.emailrealty.com/ Received on Sat Jan 15 2000 - 22:32:16 GMT