Please describe the problem:
I recently ran across a pdf that the author felt should not be printed (http://www.luin.se/inko/056-2.pdf). The author did distribute this legitimately but used the built in pdf controls to limit printing.

Since I find it difficult to read large amounts of text on a computer screen I decided to print it. I noticed evince's "print" option was disabled. I later discovered, after reading the help, that evince disabled the print because the pdf's author instructed evince to.

I got around this by running the pdf through the simple command:
$ pdf2ps unprintable.pdf - | ps2pdf - printable.pdf

The new pdf is looses the restrictions the first one had. I'm sure there are quite a few other workarounds as well.

The point is evince CAN read this pdf and has all the information to display it, so why go out of the way to not allow the user to print it, knowing this will only annoy the user? The fact that a simple workaround exists shows that this "feature" isn't restricting anyone from actually printing, just causing an annoyance.

Also, IANAL, but it would seem to me that printing a pdf that was legitimately   obtained falls under my fair use rights.

I consider this a bug because it forces the user to go out of her way to use a workaround when the user expects the program to operate consistently with the rest of her desktop.

Steps to reproduce:


Actual results:


Expected results:


Does this happen every time?


Other information: