Slashdot Mirror
Sklyarov Arrest Follow-up
Randy Rathbun submitted a Reuters article about the arrest of Dmitri Sklyarov. Cryptome has collected the press release and criminal complaint filed against Sklyarov by the United States, at the urging of Adobe Corporation. The complaint specifically mentions the ROT-13 "encryption" used by at least one "protected ebook" company, so the jokes made about the DMCA before are now true: crack ROT-13, go to jail. Sklyarov is currently imprisoned without bail. We've received a note that another Russian developer who was at the conference with Sklyarov has posted more information about the arrest - can someone provide a translation in the comments?
Update: 07/18 10:57 PM by S : This Las Vegas Sun Article provides more interesting details (Thanks to possible for the link).
In Norway you have an irrevocable right to make backups if you deem it neccesary. But companies don't aren't abliged to make it easy for you. However you have also an irrevocable right to take whatever steps are neccesery to make the software/whatever function properly or make it interoperational. That's way DeCSS wasn't illegal in Norway(making DVDes funtion under GNU/Linux). But for some fscked reason it's illegal in the US. Go figure
Thousands prisoners of consciousness have been tortured to death for their opinions in less civilized countries during the past ten years or so. How is this more important?
This guy may very well not be guilty of what he's accused of, and I hope that if that is the case, he will be out soon. I'm sure you're a kind spirit and that you mean well, so don't get me wrong. All I'm asking of you and the rest world is to once stick your head out of the sand, and put things in perspective.
And the average sentence for rape is what, 2 years?
Crimes against property are becoming more punishable than crimes against people. Sort of indicative of a society that values property more than people. Now we're starting to see that attitude reflected in laws. It's just more apparent when you are prosecuting against property that doesn't 'exist'.
Contact your local paper and give them this additional information, they may have a story getting ready for print on it.
~ Signal 11
From July 11th to 16th together with coleague Dmitry Sklyarov, who was presenting a report, I attended the Defcon 9 conference in Las Vegas. On the morning of July 16th Dmitry and I left the hotel with the intention of going to the airport. We still had half an hour before the flight was supposed to leave when right at the front entrace to the hotel we were approached by two young men, yelling "Hands on the wall, FBI!". At first we thought this was somebody's idea of a bad joke (fed jokes were very popular at the conference). Dmitry laughed and tried to reply to the two men. The men, in a very rough manner, repeated, "Hands on the wall!!" I was asked for the hotel room key and was asked in for a talk. A little bit later Dmitry was brought in wearing handcuffs. Two more FBI employees arrived who were probably patrolling the street before. Dmitry asked to recuff his hands in front of his body as it was uncomfortable for him to sit down. The request was denied. One of the FBI men introduced himself and said that I was not under any threat and that they only came for Dmitry. He politely asked whether I would be willing to talk. In response to my question of why my friend was being detained he answered that it was based on the DMCA-an American copyright law. The initiator of the judicial process was Adobe Software. The FBI men refused to give any further details saying that they were only following orders. They asked Dmitry to take his things "so that they wouldn't get lost in America". In response to the question of what will happen to Dmitry they answered that he will be taken to the local FBI office where he will be questioned and later on brought before a judge who will carry out the final decision. All of the above happened at the Alexis hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. On my way to the airport I was trailed, very obviously actually. As soon as I tried to make a phone call in the airport a policeman ran up to a neighboring phone and pretended to call. He never did call anybody.
He broke the law.
Except that it wasn't passed in Russia, where he wrote the code and published it.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Wrong. I can break into my own home as much or as little as I want to.
Quit splitting hairs. You know what I mean. You can, of course, break into your own house. Though using dynamite might get you some questions from the ATF...
Your reasoning is good, but the logic is flawed. Breaking and entering is a crime, no matter how you do it. That part is true. And so is illegally copying and distributing software or eBooks. What Dmitri was arrested for was announcing "the emperor has no clothes", which never was, nor should be, a crime.
In many locations in the US, having lockpicks is not a crime (source: MIT lockpick guide). HOWEVER, using lockpicks in association with a crime is an additional offense in itself. The same should be true for software.
Simple. I can own an E-Book and have every legal right (via first-sale doctrine) to, for instance, print it out and read it at the park. However, the E-Book can be set to be unprintable. This tool allows me to print out this e-book which I have every legal right to print but cannot because the publisher decided to set these bits.
What's wrong with that?
Posted by polar_bear:
I'm officially ashamed to be a citizen of the United States. We've just managed to create what will end up being an international incident to protect the "intellectual property" of a corporation.
This really sucks for him, but maybe this will be the straw that breaks the DMCA's back. (Please, oh Please....) If this ever makes it to the Supreme Court I don't see how the law would survive scrutiny...
Welcome to the 21st century version of feudalism. Anyone who thinks they're living in a "free market" is sorely mistaken, and this should be an eye-opener. The power in this country has effectively been taken from the voters and common citizenry and placed in the hands of the corporations and major political parties. I wonder if it's too late to undo the damage that we've allowed to happen.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Just remove the "to criminals" part. It's for selling lock picks, period. What use is done of them is irrelevant. Whether anybody did anything illegal with them is irrelevant. Welcome to the USA.
OG.
*blink*
So... the DMCA is a good thing, but doesn't go far enough. It should require *strong* encryption.
The DMCA isn't about protecting your personal right to privacy in emails or documents. It's about the formation of a new corporate definition of copyright that never expires. It's about blocking fair use. It's about giving the copyright holder absolute control over how the copyrighted material is used (eg. only played on approved DVD players).
It disallows decryption when the user intends to pirate, for sure. But it also disallows decryption when the user simply wants to make use of the content.
Perhaps I've misunderstood your post. Correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps you merely intended to (justifiably) slam Adobe for selling flawed encryption.
When those french commandos blew up the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand, they were sentenced to 10 years. They served the time back in France. I thought that this was kinda the normal way of handling this. If the countries don't actually hate each other (India & Pakistan, Israel & Syria), ship 'em home.
BTW: IIRC, those french military terrorists were pardonned about 6 months later, so they served basically no time. I guess that is to be expected as they sunk it under orders of some general who is now in the Legion d'Honneur.
From the "Track Statutory Language of Offense" section of the "Criminal Complaint" document
...circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects...
Surely the "protection" has been proven ineffective, and therefore this law doesn't apply?
This sig left unintentionally blank.
No, you're missing the point. You're REALLY missing the point. Burglary is a common law crime. That put's it in a special place in English jurisprudence.
That doesn't even remotely compare to something that was invented a mere few centuries ago.
If copyright violations were so fundemental, and so obviously a crime, our cultural heritage would reflect it.
It does not.
OTOH, it's quite legal to break into your own car, break into your own house or to break into your own office so long as you own the property.
You want to apply corporeal rules to the ethereal? Fine, then do it ALL THE way. If I can break into my own car, I should be able to break into my own copy of an ebook.
If the consequences are different, then too damn bad. That's what you get for muddling together two diverse types of object.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Or, if you're running Slackware which comes with a rot13-program already:
echo "$string" | rot13
--
All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
I mean, how old is that cifer ?
Well, it's called a "Caesar Cipher" for a reason...
--
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
I hate to beat the obvious about the this, but THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT. If I figgure out a way to take something that is mine (read I own it), I *HAVE A RIGHT* to be able to do to it as I see fit. If I want to take the speed delimiter chip out of my car (because I don't like it there) I have that right, even though it circumvents the methods that my car manufacturer planned. Why do companies like Adobe try to enforce these frivolous lawsuits. I for one am going to stop purchacing Adobe software from herein in favor of other tools like KIllustrator (whoops, can't use that name - its TRADEMARKED). Grrr....
Damn you Adobe.
Secret windows code
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
You are missing the point. It is illegal for someone to trespass, quite regardless of what they break, take or whatever. If they pick the lock on my house, wander about for a bit, then leave, locking the door behind them, it's still illegal. The illegality remains quite regardless of how primitive my lock is, if I left the window wide open or whatever.
-----
Why is it laughable? It is an encryption mechanism, end of story. It's a perfectly reasonable one, with a number of properties:
1. Very easy to implement (small, fast)
2. Very easy to decrypt ciphertext
3. Trivial to brute-force, has other known weaknesses and attacks (vulnerable to freq. analysis etc).
There are many applications where ROT-13 is a suitable cipher mechanism (profane usenet messages being just one).
I can't be bothered to reply to every lame slashbot remark about ROT-13 here, but I've yet to see anyone indicate precisely where ROT-13 was used and if it was actually used inappropriately or not.
For instance, an eBook might want to use ROT-13 as a child lock so that adult eBooks, even when purchased, could be weakly encrypted by the owner to prevent children reading them.
-----
Seriously, this is scary stuff. Not because Adobe chose to exploit the law in their favour - heck*, companies need publicity to survive. What is scary is that the media and the majority of Americans see absolutely nothing wrong in Adobe's actions.
*According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a heck is a bridge with fish under it. What this has to do with the above paragraph is best left to the imagination of the reader.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
In short, this arrest would seem to not be about the software, but rather the speech. This implies that the DMCA's coverage of "devices to circumvent copy-protection" includes verbal instructions, not merely physical or virtual "devices".
In the same way as the judge ruled that links to the DeCSS code were essentially the same as publishing the DeCSS code itself, the filing implies that verbal descriptions of the devices covered by the DMCA are the same as those devices.
Ok, so this would seem to explain the action, and provide precident through the courts. It would also imply that, should he be found guilty, he's not going anywhere soon.
On the flip-side, it would also mean that if the arguments fail in court, due to a competent judge, the DeCSS appeals will certainly be helped, as there will then be a precident which contradicts the DeCSS judge's interpretation.
This could utterly destroy America, or it could totally pulverize those laws which exist to create and maintain a corporate Empire.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Wrong. I can break into my own home as much or as little as I want to. I can smash through my windows, I can break my doors down, I can pick my own locks [although the legality of possessing lockpicking tools varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction], etc. I can even dig a tunnel from my front yard into my basement, using dynamite to blast through the wall!
In many locations in the US, having lockpicks is not a crime (source: MIT lockpick guide). HOWEVER, using lockpicks in association with a crime is an additional offense in itself. The same should be true for software.
I'm with you 100% here... well, 50%, anyway. Committing a crime is committing a crime, and that's that. I'm not so sure that particular methodologies deserve the specific additional punshments associated with them. E.g. if my wife is murdered because of her race, she's still murdered, and locking the murderer up for 20 years or 200 years won't bring her back. But that's another issue entirely: the point is that the tools themselves should not be illegal if they have legal uses.
Maybe the original poster should report you to the FBI and have you arrested. If enough people do this, well, not much will change, but a lot of people will be in jail.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
Rot-13 is certainly one of the "most sophisticated technologies available", eh?
So, RC-5 encryption with a 4 bit key would effectively control access to a work?
That's not the issue. To continue your analogy, the issue is that the DMCA makes it illegal for me to say "You can break into TomV's house by smashing a window with a brick."
The DMCA protects poor quality software.
The DMCA harms competition. How? Imagine being a competitor to the eBook vendor that uses ROT-13 scheme. Imagine you're trying to convince a client to use your format instead of theirs. What do you say?
You: "Competitor X uses poor quality encryption."
Client: "Oh yeah. Like what?"
You: "I can't say. But it is poor."
Client: "You're just saying that."
You: "No, really. But if I told you how poor it was, I could be arrested."
Client: "Don't be silly."
But it wouldn't be silly, it would be illegal.
The Norton Anthology of English Literature, 4th Ed., Vol 2
This could utterly destroy America...
Hooray!
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Adobe learned that Dmitry Sklyarov is slated to speak on July 15, 1001
And we trust those wacky knuckleheads at Adobe with encryption of literature, when they can't even get verb tense right.
Looks like it's time to boycott Adobe products, citing a "chilling effect" on the marketplace.
.sig a .sog, .sig out loud, .sig out .strog"
".sig,
".sig,
include <stdio.h>
int main() {
char ch;
if ( feof(stdin) )
return 0;
ch = fgetc( stdin );
while ( !feof(stdin) ) {
if ( ch >= 'A' && ch <= 'Z' )
putchar( (ch - 'A' + 13) % 26 + 'A' );
else if ( ch >= 'a' && ch <= 'z' )
putchar( (ch - 'a' + 13) % 26 + 'a' );
else
putchar( ch );
ch = fgetc( stdin );
}
return 0;
}
--
#include <malloc.h>
--
#include <malloc.h>
free(your.mind);
1000 years ago, more like. ROT-13 (a simple Caesar shift) might have been considered cutting edge in ancient Roman times.
I'd put it down to laziness, myself. Why bother writing secure software when you can just have anyone who points out your shortcomings arrested?
And there are (or were) many people that could read ROT13 jokes without the aid of said unix
one-liner (tr A-Za-z N-ZA-Mn-za-m).
It wasn't an effective deterent.
Does the fact that it is stupid make it unconstitutional?
I, for myself, would not really care to attend tech events in the US anymore. Many other fellow developers around the world are probably felling the same.
Because the tool he made was perfectly legal in his country.
Because, you look at the judicial events of the last 12 months in US, US judges will almost always line up with the big corporation WITHOUT EVEN considering the small guy side fairly.
Because, if this case holds water, DMCA can then be construed to arrest any developer of any project that may harm a corporation IP. Doesn't DeCSS runs under Linux? Isn't then Linux a tool propiciating a IP theft? Shouldn't we then arrest this Linus guy and this other Alan guy?
So, let us keep our distance from our american fellows. After all, we have the Internet to exchange ideas while our phisical bodies are safely away from the hands of the FBI.
Hmmm..
I see an interesting precedent.
MS-Windows can be used to run software that can infringe on the DMCA.
Surely...nah, it'd never happen.
Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
He is not a "criminal" until he is convicted a crime. I might add that this habit the US has of extraterritorially claiming jurisdiction over foreign nationals for acts they commit ON FOREIGN SOIL is nonsensical, and bound to backfire on Americans some day. Imagine the stink the US would kick up when a US citizen is arrested for actions he committed WHILE IN THE US!, but is then prosecuted for in a third country.
Sound impossible?
That is what has happened here.
And don't even get me started on Adobe and "corporate morality!"
ROT13 Indeed.
Unbelievable.
D
ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
You know all those 15 year olds learned about law though the OJ Simpson trial :)
It's the last two bullets that I'm curious about. "Fixed encryption key" implies something more than simply "rotate by 13", and "key found as text string" sort of enforces that thought. Does anyone have experience with the Acrobat plugin sample that the 1st bullet refers to?
This may be just an example of some company naming their proprietary system after a cool geek-friendly phrase...
...or, it may actually be ROT-13. Does anyone know for sure? What'd they say at the presentation?
Exactly (and I agree). I was trying to underscore your point, not rebut it. :-)
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Rot-13 wasn't really used as encryption on USENET. There was no secret key or password, no confidential information so protected (if some foolish neophyte did post a "private" message using rot-13 they were profoundly mistaken in its use, and doubtless learned a humiliating lesson ... just like Adobe).
/. posts I see here supporting the arrests as somehow "appropriate" or "technically ok." At no level is this kind of injustice tolerable or ever even remotely alright, whether it is cloaked in the thin guise of ethically bankrupt American law or not.
Rot-13 was used to prevent the accidental reading of a USENET posting which might be offensive to the reader. Things like explicitly sexual or graphic stories would typically be rot-13ed, with a plaintext note prepended saying, in effect, "the following may be very offensive to you so I've encoded it with rot-13, use the 'r' key in your newsreader to decode and view the text if you're sure you want to read what follows."
For a company to adopt such a scheme, with such a history, as a fundamental part of its so-called content protection product is to defraud its customers, in particular the content providors who have been misled to believe their content is, in fact, protected. To then seek to hide their incompetence behind an ill-considered law such as the DMCA and arrest the whistle blower on criminal charges is, itself, profoundly criminal.
Imagine if safety issues were involved, such as incompetently written medical software, and the whistle blower we being treated like this. There would be a justifiable public outcry and demand that the perpetrators of the fraud should be punished, perhaps even imprisoned. This is no different -- public fraud has been committed and those guilty are misusing our corrupt legal system to incarcerate the person who has publicly exposed them. Unconscionable, as are the despicable
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
But the simple fact that ROT13 can even be listed as an "encryption technology" should be setting off huge warning alarms. "Ecryption" should be a bit more extensive than "can be decoded in a few minutes by a five-year-old with a Cocoa Puffs Secret Agent Decoder Ring."
-jdm
PS. Apologies to whatever company made the ROT13 encryption; I didn't mean to imply a five year-old could decrypt the eBook on their own. They may need their seven-year-old sister's help with some of the bigger words.
I mean, how old is that cifer ?
ROT-13 is a specific case of a Caesar-cipher, which it is called since Julius Caesar used them in ancient Rome, I believe.
So, 2000 years old give or take a few hundred...
Of course this bad hacker must be imprisoned for cracking something that's been secret for so long!
Personally, if someone charged me $3000 for a lock on my house for me to only find it was a keyless slide bolt, I'd be suing that contractor rather than supporting their right to hide the fact that it was a slide bolt through their own lawsuits.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
It's in Haskell, and it successfully decodes the above post. Along with anything else using any form of rot13 encryption (eg, double rot13 and quadruple rot13 are common. All that is required is to run the cyphertext through the above program 2 or 4 times).
Jeff
the first line is supposed to be:
rot13 str = [rot13Char c | c <- str]
sorry about that.
Jeff
--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
They were posted in the article on /. yesterday.
The addresses are here.
...
--
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations
And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
Berke Breathed
Do take note of my new Slashsig--which I've added to my email/USENET sig, since I was 1 line under McQuary anyway . . .
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Haven't had my coffee yet, dude.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Is available currently for download at:
www.download.ru/defcon.ppt
It doesn't seem that incriminating. Oh, wait, this is the DMCA we're talking about...
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Well, IMHO, anyone using ROT-13 deserves to get hacked. They should know that modern techniques and good security practices require using at LEAST two rounds of ROT-13, or 4, if you're really that paranoid.
.sig was more apocryphal than I'd hoped:
I guess my old
--
Under concerns of security and information privacy, the above message has been encrypted in an advanced version of a standard adopted over ten years ago for transmission of secure ASCII-based information over insecure, public newsgroups.
Please be advised that only text-based readers that can handle at least TWO CONSECUTIVE rounds of ROT-13 encryption will be able to correctly parse the information contained herein.
Any attempt to undermine the encryption methods employed will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Chapter 12.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Well, as an American, I'm glad they have their priorities in order. The last thing I want, is for those people to start to care about running the country.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Read DMCA sometime: Law enforcement is exempt from the restrictions. When cops ROT-13, they aren't breaking the law. When you do the same thing, you are a criminal. "If you're not a cop, you're little people."
Don't be little people, see your police department recruiter today.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Nah, we have found the natural evolution of American activism: outsource our patriotism to Russians. Let Russians stand up for our rights. Yeah, that's the ticket!
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If the only complaint against Skylarov was from the rot13 system's vendor, that would be another matter entirely.
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
ROT-13 is just each character shifted by 13 places, so "a" becomes "n", "b" becomes "o", etc.
To "decrypt" the message, ROT-13 again, as "n" becomes "a", and so on.
Some people can read ROT-13ed ascii as is.
To describe ROT-13 as encryption is laughable.
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Try this comment from the previous article.
If I get busted for my website, you guys will contribute to my defense fund, right?
But that's not what we're talking about.
This Russian guy has not been accused of stealing an electronic book. He's been accused of trafficking in software which could theoretially be used to steal a book.
It would be like arresting me for saying, "Hey, if you throw a brick through a window, you can break into TomV's house!" or for releasing a report saying, "Yale brand locks are ineffective -- you can break them with a screwdriver!"
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Is it just me, or does everyone find it cool that TERRA is GREEN in ROT-13? There has to be an environmental statement in there somewhere....
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
First, read this comment on ROT'13: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=01/07/18/11362 44&cid=524 and note the bit about the Child's blocks.
For a really good press conference, get hold of several sets of these ROT-13 children's blocks, an eBook, and a video projector.
The script would run as follows:
"For those who are not informed as to the issues, here is a demonstration of the techniques used in the alleged circumvention software."
A set of the children's blocks are laid out so the letters are in alphabetical order and are clearly visible. They are encased in a simple harness so they can all be flipped at the same time.
"Here we have a set of children's blocks, which are readily available from many toy stores all around the nation. The blocks have letters on both sides. Watch what happens when we flip all the blocks over."
The blocks are flipped, revealing the letters on the other side.
"Notice how the letters on the blocks now run from N to Z, then from A to M. In the computer industry, this technique is called 'ROTATE 13' or 'R-O-T-13'."
The video projector displays a portion of the encrypted eBook.
"Here is a section of an eBook. Tou will notice that it appears to be encrypted."
Another set of children's blocks are laid out in another harness with the first encrypted line of the eBook.
"We have used another set of blocks to duplicate the first line in the eBook. What what happens when we flip these blocks."
The blocks are flipped, and a line about Big Brother from the novel '1984' is revealed.
Here is the sound bite:
"This case is about the alleged circumvention of an alleged technological measure designed to protect copyrighted works. But a protection technique that can be cracked by a two-year-old with toy blocks cannot be considered by any sane person to be effective."
Ouch. This will hit below the waterline.
--
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
does not mean 'hard to crack'. It means that, in general, the mechanism protects the work. It doesn't have to be strong encryption at all; that's why the DMCA sucks.
It could be a single 'copy-me' bit, and if someone develops software to get around it, they are violating the DMCA.
On that thought, maybe that's a good way to explain the "decryption" to the judge. Take an actual excerpt of an eBook encrypted file, then give it to your mother to do just like those cryptagram puzzles. Get her to write up an explanation of how she worked it out, and mail it to a friend. Show the judge the puzzle and her solution, then demand that they also throw your mom in jail for circumventing the encryption on the eBook (and distributing the crack)!
You can't legally use competing software either at circumvents the protection device by using another product instead.
Sig is taking a break!
Gee.. better quit my demolitions job and find something else..
-Splat
They can keep him without bail as long as they think there is the risk he'll leave the country... And, as a citizen of a foreign country, that's exactly what he'd do.
Nothing like human translation:
--AP
...but they won't let you change your mailbox color.
Some of my neighbors won a hard-fought victory to allow them to change their mailbox to a different color (green, very attractive). I think they did it just to see what it would take. Being retired and very thick-headed and taking amusement at the utter stupidity of the bureaucratic mentality was reason enough I guess. Anyhow, now almost all of us on the cul-de-sac now sport nice green mailboxes.
Score: -1 Off-topic
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Quick and very dirty:
Details of arrest of Dmitry Skljarova from July, 11 till July, 16 I was in Las Vegas on conference Defcon 9 together with the employee of our corporation Dmitry Skljarovym who addressed to on conference on the report. In the morning, July, 16, we together with Dmitry have quitted from hotel and were going to go in the airport. Before flight remained about one and a half hours. Directly at an output(exit) from a door to us two young men, with shouts " hands on a wall, FBI came! ". Having decided(solved), that is whose unsuccessful joke (and of conference rather frequently joked concerning ôåäåðàëîâ), Dmitry has burst out laughing and even something has tried to tell in the answer. However to it(him) in some more rough form it was told " hands on a wall! " . For me have asked a key from a hotel room and have invited for conversation. Hardly later into number have entered Dmitry. It(he) was already in handcuffs. Two more employees of FBI who probably, inspected street came. Dmitry has asked to move handcuffs forwards as with the hands connected behind it is very inconvenient to sit. To it(him) it refused. The employee of FBI was presented and has told, that to me claims are not present, and they came to arrest Dmitry. In the polite form it was offered to have a talk. On my question " for what have arrested Dmitry? " The answer was given, that to it(him) accusation of violation DMCA is showed(presented) (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is the American law on copyrights. The initiator of litigation and consequence(investigation) is Adobe company. More employees of FBI have not informed any details, referring that they only fulfil the order. To me formal questions on which they certainly already knew answers were given some. Have asked to take with itself things Äèìû, motivating it is that, that " as though they were not lost in America ". A question on further destiny Äèìû have answered, that right now it(him) will take in local office of FBI where will clarify still any questions, and then to the judge who will make final solution. All above described has taken place in Alexis Park Hotel, Las-Vegas, staff(state) Nevada. On road to Los Angeles me watched(kept up), and rather roughly. As soon as I at the airport have answered the phone the officer of police has on the spot run up and has pretent, that wants to call from the adjacent phone. Anywhere it(he) and has not called. The details concerning conflict ElcomSoft with Adobe, you can read on a site of ElcomSoft company. The official official report of the officer of FBI which delayed Dmitry, it is possible to look here. Andrey Malyshev, ÝëêîìÑîôò company, July, 18, 2001.
(All together now...)
IANAL
But...
The circumvention of security measures for educational and research reasons is explicitly protected. That is what this is.
Even if developing software and selling it commercially is illegal (okay, it probably is) the software was developed and only sold outside of the US (specifically, Russia).
Now, even though the US is a pretty damned big and important country (and let all those silly French people be damned. It's true. Don't fight it. Admit it;) its sovereignty does not extend over the borders of Russia.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Now we know where all the people on
(The crack. As in "Gimme some of what you're smoking.")
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
From the article:
All press inquiries to the U.S. Attorney's Office should be directed to Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew J. Jacobs at (415) 436-7181
Or maybe we should just get jonkatz to call them? He's a member of the press, right?
--
--
E_NOSIG
True, the presentation was a DMCA violation...
... I think this calls for an ORGANIZED* protest at the US Mission... perhaps the one outside the U.N. would be apropriate.
*Organized means providing a few weeks notice to the community, obtaining the proper permits, and notifying the press... all things that could be very helpful in insuring a LARGE and VISABLE turnout.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
No, the DMCA is about copy protection. Copy protection can always be broken. Doesn't matter how good an encrpytion algorithm is used, because the player has to decrypt the content to use it. If the means to decrypt it are in the player, then you can make a decrpyted copy.
U.S. copyright protection law conflicts with laws in Russia, Germany and Scandinavian countries which require software makers to provide a way for users to create a backup copy,
t ml
Norwegian copyright law says that it is legal to make a backup copy of a computer program if needed. However, it does not say that software makers are _required_ to provide a way for creating backups.
So no, Adobe software is not illegal in Norway.
/.'ers capable of reading norwegian can find the relevant paragraph here:
http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-19610512-002-029.h
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
Amusingly, any ROT-13 encryptor is an effective ROT-13 decryptor. And Adobe obviously has a ROT-13 encryptor hanging around.
This means that somebody at Adobe is guilty of exactly the same crime...
--The basis of all love is respect
The term "effective protection" is specifically defined elsewhere in the statue.
Sec 1201(3)(b) [As used in this subsection--] a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Oh, wake up. You can't even get national news from most television news, let alone world news. Those that do provide national or world news do it so badly, so filtered, so biased that it's hardly watchable. I can't remember the last time I was able to watch an american news program all the way through without getting set off on a rant or losing my lunch over the inaccuracies and glossing over... Don't belive that the average US citizen relies on that pablum for their major news? Ask anyone in the US about the current situation in Chechnya, or foot and mouth in the UK, or the goings on in Israel & Palestine, or anything else that's getting coverage in the world press. Does Joe U.S. know how the India/Pakistan talks are going? Even what they're about?
As for Israel, I hope that in a dozen or so years, when the current govt. of Israel is being prosecuted at the Hague for crimes against humanity, they at least try to charge GWB and friends as accomplices.
You didn't refute anything, dude. The previous AC is right, the U.S. is egotistical, disrespectful of others, ignorant, greedy, wasteful, selfish, etc. And I wont even mention politics here, where we now have a President who can't even speak his native tongue. What sort of moron does it take to vote for a moron like that?
bitter
Jesus. Mod this up!!!
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
I disagree, respectfully.
Loaning a book to a friend is not stealing.
It's not even illegal.
So loaning an ebook to a friend should be regarded with the same rights available to the purchaser, and be regarded as fair use by the purchaser. Even if the pir^H^H^Hpublisher has embedded something to make that difficult.
I'm even of the persuasion that I can post the "opened" book on a web-page if that is unadvertised, and solely for the purpose of downloading by said friend.
What Adobe's software does is encourage one to become a lawbreaker because it relies on some really bad law that has been enacted.
It's very upsetting.
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
I don't know if this has been linked to, but the EFF has an article
on the arrest, complete with contacts for an EFF attorney on the matter.
But it's not illegal to tell you how to break windows, break down doors etc. It is illegal to tell you how to break encryption. In both cases, there are legal uses for the information. People have had to break windows when there is a fire, or if they loose their keys. People have also had to break encryption if the encrypted version doesn't allow their fair use rights, or even to decrypt their own documents that the key has been lost for.
Strong encryption cannot be broken, which makes the law redundant.
Nobody has yet said (AFAIK, and I've read every news piece on this dangerous case that I could) whether this poor kid has a lawyer yet, but he needs one BAD now, before he talks too much to the cops. I REALLY hope EFF's watching...
JMR
(speaking ONLY for myself, again)
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
--
Even if he's acquitted, the process itself is more than enough to punish Mr. Skylarov and deter others.
One illogical american is no match for one immoral CEO. If a CEO of a major corporation hasn't lied to 10 people by 9:00 AM he will be fired.
The problem is that the CEOs of major corporations have are immoral slimeballs.
War is necrophilia.
At better way may be to mention the decryption puzze found in many news papers and mention that the letter substution never changes so A is always M.
Except that it still costs a significant amount of money to "re-arrange" that sand in such a way as to become an Athlon. You know, even though processors become much cheaper once the research (IP) is amortized, they do not become completely free either. It takes quite a little bit more effort to make an Athlon than to write your name (or even your price essay...) in the sand.
If somebody goes over Slashdot (copyrighted) with a spam crawler and I get spammed, can I send them to jail?!
You misunderstood. To continue with your sexual example: you go to europe, screw some 16 year old, no one arrests you. But as soon as you go to the US, you'd promptly get arrested as a sex offender. This without having broken any laws in the US.
actually, it's really cool. her parents immigrated to the us and gave her an american name, but when she got to school there were tons of Jennifer Lee's with similar stories, so they figured she needed a middle name, and couldn't come up with anything better than a lucky number.
it's actually Jennifer 8 Lee, the 8 isn't short for anything.
You're saying Milosevic shouldn't have been handed over to international justice?
Yeah, and Napster is perfectly legal cos people surely aren't going to trade anything copywritten with it.
This is called civil disobedience, and it's a common way to raise the awareness of unjust laws. I agree and applaud this.
BUT... remember, just because you proclaim a law unjust, and violate it in an effort to publicize it's unjustice, does NOT relieve you of the consequences of violating the law.
So, go ahead and stage your civil disobedience, but be prepared to be arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime.
All of that being said, I applaud anyone who is actually willing to do this for this clearly unjust law. As the sole bread winner for my family, I can not afford the risk. The most that I can afford is to contribute to the EFF, and ask my elected representatives for an accounting of how this law can remain on the books.
--
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
ROT13 is a well known, weak, and well known to be weak, encryption. Also it's an obvious one, seeing a text in gibberish, but all ascii, 'words', and some short words that repeat then ROT13 is a good guess. In Unix De/Encrypting is a one-liner. I remember it being used in some usenet groups (alt.jokes.* or so) to prevent people from accidentally reading a joke they might find offending. After seeing some of those Messages i could almost read it faster than press the button to decrypt it.
So i always considered ROT13 'encryption' as a low hurdle to show you made an attempt at preventing a casual reader from reading something he might find offensive. If you must use an analogy then a fence with stairs over it to keep the cattle in, but let people pass would be more like it, than a house with a weak lock. Or like putting a book on a high shelf, to prevent the young one from stumbling over it. The letter analogy is flawed anyway because anyone who wants to look at the letter must get it from your mailbox first. Again a better analogy would be to put an opened letter face down on your table to prevent someone else in the room from scanning over it. Basically you trust in that persons good judgement not to flip the letter over when you go for the loo.
If the law doesn't protect your file from unwanted readers in the first place, then ROT13-encyption sure won't do either.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
I didn't retain or understand anything you said. Does that mean you'll leave me out of your 200 John Does?
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The DCMA was passed.
True. So was the First Amendment.
He broke the law.
The DMCA broke the law. He violated an illegal law.
Now, I personally think the law is stupid, and there are a great deal of other laws I think are stupid. However, the law is not unconstitutional (well, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet), and therefore he is a criminal.
As were the Bostonians who threw the tea into the harbor. As were the patriots who fired on the Redcoats at Bunker Hill. As were the blacks who wouldn't sit at the back of the bus. As am I.
Now, jurisdiction issues aside, what's left to do?
Violate the law. Openly. Loudly. Celebrate people who do it and get caught. Maximize the effort required to enforce the law - minimize the impact of getting caught. If you haven't noticed, there are many people doing this.
If the people who most clearly see and understand the injustice (us) are not willing to risk anything to oppose it, then we should just admit that we deserve no rights and that we will bend over and obey unjust laws.
Can you tell me exactly why we should obey a law that is a violation of our rights and a betrayel by Congress and the Courts of their Constitutional duty. Only a sheep would obey such a law. Are you a sheep?
Are there any international law experts around?
Technically, the only thing the US can do is revoke his visa (passport/whatever) and kick him out of the country. In practice, the police (FBI/whatever) don't ask for proof of citizenship before they arrest you -- they don't care.
I suspect this will end up as an international "incident". Someone from the Russian Consulate will have to go through the proper channels to get their citizen released.
And, unless he was selling or otherwise knowingly distributing the program while at DefCon (or anywhere on US soil), he wasn't breaking any law. Even posessing the program on his laptop is not illegal. However, the act of publication has yet to be tested as everyone has backed away when faced with law suits.
(First amendment or not, the DMCA will not be thrown out. Personally, I find the DMCA utterly stupid -- it's a law that makes it illegal to break numerous pre-existing laws.)
no - he exercised his 1st amendment right to describe in public how to break the encryption - any US law which does not allow him his 1st amendment rights in the US (or I guess outside it) is itslef by definition illegal (unconstitutional)
>IANAL but I think that smashing up your own home is illegal in the UK.
IANAL, but I've had builders round often enough without being prosecuted. If you don't own your home it's generally illegal. If you do it's generally legal.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
You are probably permitted to use unapproved decryption tools. However, no-one in the US is permitted to sell them to you, you are not permitted to import them, and you are not permitted to create your own. The only exception would be if the tool can only decrypt your own work, and cannot be modified to decrypt anyone else's copyrighted material.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
He did that in Russia. Which does not have the DMCA, nor the US software laws. Nor is an Adobe electronic book a program, as far as I know.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
The US tourist industry would suffer considerably if every visitor were subjected to summary arrest by the FBI on trumped up charges under a law that completely favours corporations. I would hardly call arresting a foreign visitor like this, no consequences. Think of where the guy is from, he might be frightened for his life right now, fearing the sorts of things that used to happen to prisoners in Lubyanka prison. Even today, Russian police are not the most gentle of folks.
I would say this has at least the potential to do some serious mental harm - I hope that if they do drop the charges he turns around and sues them for wrongful arrest.
I am so thankful I live up here in Canada, where so far we have avoided laws such as the DCMA - but then we are starting to emulate the worst aspects of the US (while ignoring the better ones completely of course) more and more each day, so I had better enjoy it while it lasts...
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
You could probably read characters straight from ROT-13 to the screen without too much fuss.
-------------------------
-------------------------
"After Careful Consideration, Bush Recommends Oil Drilling" - The Onion
I like the part that says "effectivly protects". If that is true than why do you need a law to protect the information that the "technological measure" is supposed to protect?
Jon
thanks for the info I have to admit, that is the flimsiest thin I have ever seen in my life though
Jon
Describe ROT-13 in terms of "Secret Decoder Rings". These plastic toys have been around for ages, lending a familiarity to the average US citizen who is technically uninformed.
[
He broke the law. - umm... he has been accused of breaking the law
The law hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet because it hasn't been challenged yet. Lets not forget that it hasn't been upheld either.
Try this one on for size.
I buy a car. It's a nice car. I enjoy it very much. As I'm wont to do, I pull apart the car and start looking at its innards and what do you know? I discover that the fuel tank's got a pin exposed that shouldn't and realize that a side impact to it could jostle it loose into the fuel, causing it to erupt.
Perhaps I then realize that a little duct tape will fix it. Perhaps I don't figure out how to fix it.
I then go about announcing to the world this flaw and the solution to it. Should I be arrested for this?
Easy does it!
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
You can't legally use competing software either at circumvents the protection device by using another product instead.
Can someone translate that into english, please?
--
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
And you keep "missing" the point that copying something is NOT stealing - it's COPYING. It's illegal, yes, but it's illegal COPYING.
Oh please, there'll still be plenty of content creation. There was plenty of content creation even when the means of distribution was a helluva lot tougher than it is now, and distribution to mass audiences is ridiculously easy nowadays.
The main difference is that individuals or entities won't be able to make HUGE amounts of money off a single piece of content - they'll either have to find sponsors and/or keep generating new content (i.e., providing a service) to make a continual revenue stream.
No, it's still not stealing. I'm sure the so-called "entrepreneurs" who want to be able to make money off legally-created monopolies on ideas want everyone to think that way, but it still doesn't make it true.
If somone earns some money, THEN you take it - THAT's stealing. You can't steal something which they didn't have in the first place.
There might not be any other way to get the system to change. As long as the people who are exploiting the system are making lots of money, they'll fight any attempt to change the system to a form where they can't - and because they're making lots of money, they have the resources to make such a fight really painful for their opponents. If you want to win, you need to cut off their revenue stream, and unauthorized copying is the most straightforward way of showing how ephemeral their "right to profit" really is.
I doubt the intent is to "hurt" the lawmakers (although I have a sudden mental vision of the RIAA filing suit against a Congresscritter for using Gnutella...nah, it'd never happen :-), just make it painfully obvious to the industry that society does not view their current business model as a legitimate good or service. If they're smart, they'll find an alternative.
As far as the authors are concerned, the only reason they don't have any alternatives is because the people running the system didn't WANT them to have any alternatives. When you've broken down the system, people will be able to find new alternatives, hopefully alternatives which give a little more direct control to the authors. (And for those who can't figure out how to make do with the new opportunities - well, they'd better read up on their Darwin!)
Specifically, the Ministry of Silly Lawsuits.
The usual work of this ministry will consist of legal actions entered into consensually by both plaintiff and defendant which, while being prosecuted and conducted in a manner perfectly consistent with the law and with a proper respect for the judicial system, will be perfectly absurd under most conceptions of common sense. In this way the unenlightened may find a chance to accept a Gag Line and spare themselves a fully developed Punch Line.
The legal system being the way it is, funding this ministry may seem expensive, but it is becoming evident that the alternative is hardly cheaper.
You've got to start somewhere.
I mean, how old is that cifer ?
phil.
Fry: heh, Yakov Smirnoff said it
Leela: No he didn't.
>On the other hand, There's a law against >Breaking and Entering my house. Yes, but if you buy a VCR, there is no law against dismantling it yourself. There is such a law against doing the same for software. The software equivalent of breaking and entering would be hacking into someones private computer and extracting data.
${YEAR+1} is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop!
The russian was arrested on the basis of the DMCA. But the utility for which the Russian was arrested was not for sale in America when he was arrested.2 00 10712.aebpr.htm
2 00 10715.aebpr.htm
It is also higly debateble if the utility is a violation of the DMCA because it only is usable by persons who own the Ebooks it operates on, and you need to provide the pasword to use the utility. So it is a utility with a lot f
non infringing uses (fair use anyone). I higly informative collum about the issue is to be found here:
http://www.ebookweb.org/opinion/roger.sperberg.
http://www.ebookweb.org/opinion/roger.sperberg.
A quote:
"In Russia, apparently, it's illegal to sell software without the ability to make "at least one backup copy of the data it works with." So? That's Russia. I'm in the U.S., land of the free and so on. What does it matter if a
Russian company makes software that enables the purchaser but no one else to make a backup copy of data sold by foreigners who violate Russian law?
Joost
The article is actually far more informative than the postings to /. It makes it clear that the prosecution is for the sale of the software _not_ the presentation at the conference. Furthermore it makes it clear that US jurisdiction is present because sales were processed by a US company.
I am no fan of the DMCA, but this case is more along the lines of prosecuting someone for selling lock picks to criminals than presenting a paper on the use of lock picks by criminals. The /. sensationalism doesn't make this clear, and undermines meaningful discussion of complicated issues.
Just because you(the creator) feel that the book is worth $10 does not make it so. Some people would say that a copy of IP has very little worth.
It should be either "Thus spoke" or "Also sprach". Using both is a little confusing, unless that was your intention of course ;-)
- Also Sprach Doktor Merkwurdigliebe
You would think that this would give publishers and book sellers an easy open for a lawsuit against Adobe for being so incompetent... I would find that as good justice right there.
That's like finding out my bank left the front door and the safe unlocked and someone came in and stole my money. You bet I'd be suing the bank.
Now I just wonder, If I would have put that program on a website and gave the code would I be violating DMCA by letting others know how ROT-13 works?
Oh what day do we live in where ROT 13 is still used and people are arrested for telling how it works.
-- Any comments seen here are not mine, but a mixture of alchohol and lack of sleep.
Nice analogy, but it's completely wrong. Replace "If someone comes to the US from Afghanistan, and kills their sister" with "If someone kills his sister in Afghanistan and comes to the US" and you'll be closer to what happened with Sklyarov.
-Legion
On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house. Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection - the brick walls are only a foot thick, the windows have easily breakable glass... in short, any fool with a bulldozer or a bit of semtex (hello echelon!!) could break in if they really wanted to. But there's still a law against their doing so. Without which I'd have no legal recourse if they chose to do so. It's my responsibility to take some reasonable precautions, and if I do, then an Insurance company (not the state) will mitigate my losses. But it's not my responsibility to make sure my house is a castle with a moat, portcullis, 12 foot thick granite walls and an army ready with the boiling tar.
Uuuh. It's my house. I bought it. I can do what the hell I want to do with it, including demolition. Don't you think making up such analogies rather than discussing the topic at hand is rather silly? (When reading your text again).
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
It's funny you should mention reductio ad absurdum, since that is actually my point.. Why you're a big fan of it beats me (other than entertainment :-)
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Let's hear it for the land of the free.
<APPLAUS></APPLAUS>
Time to write your congressmen?
Stefan.
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
--
Free Mac Mini
If this guy gets convicted in US, he will be expelled from the country and will have to serve the time in his home-country - Russia.
This is funny. If you make a porno site, and the go to some very strict muslim country (Afghanistan), then you may recieve a death penalty.
Seems to me that USA is not really ready for this global-information thingy, damn I'm glad to live in Europe..
Actually the e-mail adresse is right - fuck.ms is a domain owned by a friend of mine.
No, it's you missing the point. You're insdtalling a lock on my data on my disk drive and objecting when I manipulte my property to break your encryption, all on my hardrive. I'm not breaking copyright until I actually distribute the data to another person.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
He didn't say the emporer has no clothes. He said he has some really flimsy cheap clothes, and here is a program that will remove them.= \=\=\=\
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
I, the undersigned complainant being duly sworn state the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. On or about June 26, 2001 in Santa Clara county, in the Northern District of California defendant(s) did, (Track Statutory Language of Offense) import, offer to the public, provide, and otherwise traffic in a software product that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof, and aid and abet such conduct. in violation of Title 17 United States Code, Section(s) 1201(b)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. Sec.2
Can it be shown that ROT13 isn't an effective way to protect copyright? Or is the company (and Country) so dumb as to believe that ROT13 will effectively protect copyright?
Just an odd thought that jumped out at me.
If not now, when?
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
I wonder if Adobe protection can really be called "effective"? You can drive a bus through the holes in it.
I wasn't aware at the time of my post that something like this was already going on. I'll have to look into that.
It's getting to the point where I just want to leave the field, bury my head in the sand and never touch a computer again.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point seems to be that if someone says that they intended to hide something that it should be wrong and not if otherwise. This is the absurdity. To begin with, who determines whether or not something has been "hidden" well enough to imply protection? In this case I'd say rot13 isn't quite enough, though adobe seems to think differently. Contrary to your belief, I believe that if I have some type of media, I can extract any meaning from it I wish, and instruct others on my thought processes that led me to those meanings. The meaning in a painting (especially an abstract one) is hidden (encrypted) often times, but I am certainly allowed to point out to anyone who cares to listen what the meaning is. The artist has no right to try to stop me because he/she did not want me to see that meaning.
If you want to keep something secure, keep it in your head, if you make it public, it is public, I don't care what your implenentation of it is, you've given up your ability and to hide it. And morally, IMHO, you have no business telling me what I can or can not derive from it.
What if I were to write my posts in haxor-speak. Would it be illegal for someone to write some code to change it back to english so that they could understand it? I think not. Otherwise we will have a legal system that prosecutes publishing houses for translating literature to other languages without permission. Encryption is a nebulous word. In fact if it's reversible it's not encryption in the strictest sense of the word, it's obfuscation.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
This post is encrypted in the "english language method", any attempt to decipher meaning from these symbols is a violation of the DMCA. This includes, but is not limited to: interpreting the symbols through use of biological, visual decryption devices, translating the symbols into another language encryption scheme, and digital processing the sybols into a form conducive to aural intrepretation. Thank you for your time.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Now, building tools that make it easy to bypass the lock in a way that puts the burden back on me to prove intent becomes an infringement of my right to secure my property. I can either (1) prevent the development by making it very hard to do (PGP stuff) or (2) prevent development by making it very illegal (DMCA) or (3) prevent the use of the developed tools by making the use illegal.
Since there are lots of h4x0r lusers with nothing better to do that break my locks and leave the house exposed, option (1) is impractical, so I go with (2) and (3). If someone runs down the street popping the locks on the houses and claims "oh, its just a proof of concept, man" that is just self-serving bullshit, since I never claimed it was hard to do. If they accept payment from people who then go into my house, then they should expect to be persecuted and prosecuted.
Of course, in this case the developed software at least attempted to ensure that the lock was still valid, so some of this rant does not apply to this specific case, but it certainly applies to the general copy-protection/DMCA argument that has ensued.
It's even less complicated:
Stack a set of alphabet blocks in two rows:
ABCDEFGHIJKLM
NOPQRSTUVWXYZ
You've just built a ROT-13 decoding device,
and are in violation of the DMCA.
No, that's $10 you'll never have in your pocket, and possibly never would have anyway.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
This software is usefull for reading e-books on any platform that has .pdf support but no support for reading Adobe protected docs (i.e. Linux, *BSD, PalmOS, etc...).
I, for one, like reading e-books on my Handspring visor, but this limits me to things released in (or easily converted to) palmdoc, or pdf format. This software would allow me access to a much greater variety of reading material.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
There's so much much piracy in Russia that half the country probably runs on backup copies of the same Windows 98 disc ;-)
Imagine the stink the US would kick up when a US citizen is arrested for actions he committed WHILE IN THE US!, but is then prosecuted for in a third country.
Indeed... There would be quite a stink. But that's not what happened. In this case, he came here to give a talk. So he set foot on US soil, and came under the jurisdiction of US law the minute he arrived. In Afghanistan, it is legal to kill your sister for numerous acts of "indecency". Do it here in the US, its called homicide, and you can get strapped to a table and lethally poisioned for it. If someone comes to the US from Afghanistan, and kills their sister for being "indecent", do you justify their crime by stating that "it's legal in their country". Of course not. The DMCA states, despite the 1st amendment, that it's illegal to give the talk he gave.
Skylarov is screwed, until such time as the DMCA is overturned or otherwise ruled unconstitutional. I hope that day comes soon.
Temkin
Nice analogy, but it's completely wrong. Replace "If someone comes to the US from Afghanistan, and kills their sister" with "If someone kills his sister in Afghanistan and comes to the US" and you'll be closer to what happened with Sklyarov.
The details are in the complaint I'm sure, but I believe (IANAL) they can only charge him with a DMCA violation for diseminating information at the symposium. His company is in violation for selling the program in the US. But he'd have to be in a decision making capacity within the company to get detained for that.
But the DMCA is so screwed up, and hands so much power to the corperations... I'd probably better get back to work before someones hauls me away for discussing an alledged violator of the DMCA, which might threaten the works of some copyright holder...
Temkin
If our government's (nonexistent) actions regarding the detention of Li Shaomin and other American citizens for "spying" by China are any indication, I'd predict that the shit wouldn't even make it off the ground.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
17 USC, 1201(a)(3)(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
Application of information ..... Hmmmm .... Interpretation of all human and computer languages require an application of information for the human brain to understand.
Therefore, all languages are now considered technological measures, and now I will prosecute all who read my statements.
Welcome to the new world order .... Corporation funded & controlled.
Hrm, guess that means that every company that ships a newsreader or programs like this should be under investigation right now.
Trafficking a circumvention device, right?
Not to mention what they could do to C|Net for LINKING to these implements of mass destruction!
Karma: Bored. (Thinking about resurrecting the "Anyone else is an imposter" joke.)
Any self-respecting programmer would probably agree that there is a threshold of effort in order to consider something to be encrypted.
The DCMA reads: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." Isn't it a NO BRAINER that ROT-13 does not constitute EFFECTIVE control access?
Of course, the DCMA also reads: "As used in this subsection - (A) to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
So the answer is No, it is effective access.
Whatever happened to section 1201(c)(4): "Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products."
In addition, there are exemptions for "the technological measure, or the work it protects, contains the capability of collecting or disseminating personally identifying information reflecting the online activities of a natural person who seeks to gain access to the work protected" which might be an eBook function.
Good luck, Dmitri.
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
V nz Fnz Fnz V nz Gung Fnz-V-nz! Gung Fnz-V-nz! V qb abg yvxr gung Fnz-V-nz! Qb lbh yvxr terra rttf naq unz? V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. Jbhyq lbh yvxr gurz urer be gurer? V jbhyq abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V jbhyq abg yvxr gurz naljurer. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Jbhyq lbh yvxr gurz va n ubhfr? Jbhyq lbh yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr? V qb abg yvxr gurz va n ubhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz naljurer. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Jbhyq lbh rng gurz va n obk? Jbhyq lbh rng gurz jvgu n sbk? Abg va n obk. Abg jvgu n sbk. Abg va n ubhfr. Abg jvgu n zbhfr. V jbhyq abg rng gurz urer be gurer. V jbhyq abg rng gurz naljurer. V jbhyq abg rng terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Jbhyq lbh? Pbhyq lbh? Va n pne? Rng gurz! Rng gurz! Urer gurl ner. V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va n pne. Lbh znl yvxr gurz. Lbh jvyy frr. Lbh znl yvxr gurz va n gerr! V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg va n gerr. Abg va n pne! Lbh yrg zr or. V qb abg yvxr gurz va n obk. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n sbk. V qb abg yvxr gurz va n ubhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz naljurer. V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. N genva! N genva! N genva! N genva! Pbhyq lbh, jbhyq lbh, ba n genva? Abg ba n genva! Abg va n gerr! Abg va n pne! Fnz! Yrg zr or! V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va n obk. V pbhyq abg, jbhyq abg, jvgu n sbk. V jvyy abg rng gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V jvyy abg rng gurz va n ubhfr. V jvyy abg rng gurz urer be gurer. V jvyy abg rng gurz naljurer. V qb abg rng terra rttf naq unz. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Fnl! Va gur qnex? Urer va gur qnex! Jbhyq lbh, pbhyq lbh, va gur qnex? V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va gur qnex. Jbhyq lbh, pbhyq lbh, va gur enva? V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, va gur enva. Abg va gur qnex. Abg ba n genva. Abg va n pne. Abg va n gerr. V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz, lbh frr. Abg va n ubhfr. Abg va n obk. Abg jvgu n zbhfr. Abg jvgu n sbk. V jvyy abg rng gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz naljurer! Lbh qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz? V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Pbhyq lbh, jbhyq lbh, jvgu n tbng? V jbhyq abg, pbhyq abg, jvgu n tbng! Jbhyq lbh, pbhyq lbh, ba n obng? V pbhyq abg, jbhyq abg, ba n obng. V jvyy abg, jvyy abg, jvgu n tbng. V jvyy abg rng gurz va gur enva. V jvyy abg rng gurz ba n genva. Abg va gur qnex! Abg va n gerr! Abg va n pne! Lbh yrg zr or! V qb abg yvxr gurz va n obk. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n sbk. V jvyy abg rng gurz va n ubhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz jvgu n zbhfr. V qb abg yvxr gurz urer be gurer. V qb abg yvxr gurz NALJURER! V qb abg yvxr terra rttf naq unz! V qb abg yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz. Lbh qb abg yvxr gurz. Fb lbh fnl. Gel gurz! Gel gurz! Naq lbh znl. Gel gurz naq lbh znl, V fnl. Fnz! Vs lbh jvyy yrg zr or, V jvyy gel gurz. Lbh jvyy frr. Fnl! V yvxr terra rttf naq unz! V qb! V yvxr gurz, Fnz-V-nz! Naq V jbhyq rng gurz va n obng. Naq V jbhyq rng gurz jvgu n tbng... Naq V jvyy rng gurz va gur enva. Naq va gur qnex. Naq ba n genva. Naq va n pne. Naq va n gerr. Gurl ner fb tbbq, fb tbbq, lbh frr! Fb V jvyy rng gurz va n obk. Naq V jvyy rng gurz jvgu n sbk. Naq V jvyy rng gurz va n ubhfr. Naq V jvyy rng gurz jvgu n zbhfr. Naq V jvyy rng gurz urer naq gurer. Fnl! V jvyy rng gurz NALJURER! V qb fb yvxr terra rttf naq unz! Gunax lbh! Gunax lbh, Fnz-V-nz! All that AND copyright infringement to boot!
sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
The idea is that if your car gets stolen, but you leave the keys for anyone to get, you are at fault. The police are now spending taxpayer money, and the insurance company would (but doesn't) have to pay for your enabling the criminal to take your car.
And if someone notices that you have left your keys in your car, do you arrest them for looking inside of your car? If they publish a paper on how stupid it is to leave your keys in your car, do you arrest them?
...Time is the best teacher, unfortunately it kills all of its students.
Here's a question, roughly related to yours: when will former president of Nicaragua, Manuel Noriega, ever be charged with a crime? Is he a non-person, forever in a forgotten American cell? And when will we be told how many civilians were killed to get at him?
I'm not some knee-jerk anti-American. I am very concerned with how we are treating foreign nationals who violate our laws while dwelling in their own country. What the hell are we doing? Are we becoming the stereotypical authoritarian state our enemies describe us as?
The only reason we get away with yanking non-US citizens into our prisons, without bail in this case, is because we have the power to be the biggest bastards in the world. Our old isolationist tendencies do not prepare us for dealing with other nations fairly -- we are riding roughshod over them, and we don't care what they think of us. This does not bode well for the future. You see, just because we are the biggest bully on the block doesn't mean everyone else is going to sit back and get their citizens plucked off the streets and have their lunch money stolen. The rest of the world is growing economically and politically, and eventually, if this keeps up, sadly, they will have to do something about our arrogance.
Sad.
Wrong. I can break into my own home as much or as little as I want to. I can smash through my windows, I can break my doors down.
.oO0Oo.
IANAL but I think that smashing up your own home is illegal in the UK.
Hate crimes : I think they are on the statue to make people feel safer, not to serve as a deterrent.
making tools illegal : that's what licences are for. we have gun licences, dangerous animal licences, weapons grade plutonium licences etc. etc.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
using ASCII would also be encryption therefore because 32 is space etc.
.oO0Oo.
Decryption is merely choosing which character set you to display the information.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
"justice should be seen to be done"
.oO0Oo.
deterrent, retribution, reform
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
-------
-------
"don't smoke, don't drink, don't fuck
at least i can fucking think"
Minor Threat
ROT-13 it and put 'licensed for decryption only by Dmitri Skylarov' on it, and they won't be able to decrypt it or you can sue them under the DMCA.
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
So you're saying that the number of users of a particular illegal application has an impact on the legality of the application? What defines the critical mass to become unprocecutable?
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
With this software you can remove that protection, thereby allowing it to be fed to a synthesizer.
I'm not clear on whether or not you can tell if the ebook in question is going to work with synthesis software until you have downloaded or unlocked it. (Anyone?)
I worked for the Greater Detroit Society for the Blind for 3 years, and you'd be amazed at some of the hoops these users have to jump through.
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
Big business would rather argue that they are the landlord and you should come to them for the key, rather than calling the locksmith yourself. Nevermind that they want to charge you an exorbitant fee for use of a lock a determined kid might pick with a paperclip.
Unfortunately, under the DMCA, none of us really own anything any more, and as time goes on more commonplace activities are going to be denied us.
Just think what would happen if the car companies caught wind of the full ramifications of the DMCA. "You let who change your brakes? They're not authorized to do that!" And heaven help you should you look under the hood and try and readjust a hose because it came loose.
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
Too bad effectively protecting your copyright isn't a requirement. Seems Adobe gets upset when you demonstrate that their approach is ineffective. Yes, I do understand that they were going for a different meaning.
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
There is a difference between voiding a warantee and throwing someone in jail for reverse engineering the brake system in order to replace a worn shoe. ;)
Sanity is a sandbox. I prefer the swings.
tr N-ZA-Mn-za-m A-MN-Za-mn-z < myfile
All humans are mortal. Socrates is a human. Socrates is dead.
Yes, I know, and that's kinda my point. It's not encryption, it's obfuscation.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Explain first that what these companies were doing, especially the ROT-13 bit, is exactly like taking a document and printing it in pig latin. Then you can explain the similarities. You'll see the lightbulb go off.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
yeah, right. And isnt there a legal minimum on how much tread you need to have on your tires?
Now wonder these people caused accidents, what with driving around with NO tread on their tires.
> Why waste time with C programs?
/* get rotn above 0 but under 26 */
Because some users only have a minimal DJGPP or
MinGW32 compiler installed on their system and
not the full set of GNU/DJGPP or Cygwin tools
(namely, GNU textutils) that contains 'tr'.
Here's something I hacked up in an hour last year:
/* ROT.C by Damian Yerrick
Rotates the ASCII letters in foo.txt forward by n letters.
Copyright (C) 2000 Damian Yerrick
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You can find a copy of the GNU General Public License at
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
Mail Damian Yerrick from his web site
http://pineight.com/mail.htm
Use examples:
rot 13 < foo.txt
echo HAL | rot 1
*/
/* in C because slashdot's lameness filter rejects Perl code as a 'junk character post' */
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int chrrotate(int letter, int rot)
{
if(letter >= 'A' && letter <= 'Z')
{
letter += rot;
if(letter > 'Z')
letter -= 26;
}
else if(letter >= 'a' && letter <= 'z')
{
letter += rot;
if(letter > 'z')
letter -= 26;
}
return letter;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
int rotn = 13;
if(argc >= 2)
rotn = atoi(argv[1]);
rotn = (rotn + 26 * (rotn / 26 + 1)) % 26;
/*
printf("rot%d\n", rotn);
*/
while(!feof(stdin))
putchar(chrrotate(getchar(), rotn));
return 0;
}
Will I retire or break 10K?
As long as they like. Once you have been arreigned (sp?) in court, then you're tail may rot in jail until death before a trial comes forth. If the prosecution makes a good enough case that you are too dangerous to be released, then bail will be resciended. But, IANAL.
-What have you contributed lately?
You've obviously been to Paris, and met the ppl there... ;-)
Grab.
Nor did the guy who modded me down as flamebait, even with a smiley to indicate it was a joke. Some ppl just don't have a sense of humour. Hey, maybe he was German... ;-)
Grab.
No, the purpopse is to take the eBook format and change it to a .PDF so that it can be read on other platforms. The eBook reader is a Mac/Win only program. Furthermore, the eBook reader is tied to a single installation on one computer. You upgrade to a new system, you have to purchase another copy of the eBook Reader. The site clearly states that you need to purchase the orginal eBook file.
I'm not crazy,I'm actively irresponsible.
I'm sure the spirit of that is that it doesn't matter if you profit, it only matters if it deprives the owner of profit, but I don't think this is spelled out in the law, so they don't have to prove it's making them lose money.
Actually, I used to have an enormous folder on my top of the line P75 entitled Raffi's PRIVATE Folder. Strangely, no one ever ooked at it. I wonder why.
Quid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Anything said in Latin, sounds profound.
Huh, are you serious? I believe it's still illegal in most EU countries to possess illegal drugs for any purpose. Yes, I live in the EU, and at least here in Finland it's illegal. And, really, I'm happy this way, and I terribly fail to understand your logic.
Don't you find breaking into your own house and accessing a book you own at least a bit analogous?
I believe you're missing the point, too. Let's see.
1. Reading a book you have legally bought is not stealing.
2. Taking a snippet from a book you have legally bought is not stealing, if done for fair use purposes.
3. Transferring a book you have legally bought to another computer so you don't need to keep that old 286 lying around is not stealing.
4.Removing a measure that "protects" the book from being fed to your Text-to-Speech system is not stealing (whether you are blind or not).
Still, stealing is stealing. Copying this book to your friend would be wrong. Accessing it, no way.
If this illegal copying causes less people to buy the book, it suddenly will no longer be feasible to write books, and people will be fully deprived of books. It's taking something that is not yours while depriving others of something they would otherwise have. In other words, it's stealing.
With a similar logic, should people be allowed to chop a few trees from every forest because? Surely there will be new trees growing which couldn't have in a cramped forest. So it's not theft.
While I'm opposed to illegal copying and wood theft, I still maintain that fair and non-infringing uses (which I believe includes access, not only the mere right to view as in eBooks) are far too important to squash with a stupid piece of legislation.
Had you read my post, you would perhaps have noticed this is what I said. Oh well, sometimes that's too much asked.
Being a programmer myself, I wholeheartedly agree. I also agree that this program should be legal, and DeCSS should be legal. Note however, I was not talking about writing a program to decrypt, I was talking about illegal copying (and so was the parent of my post). And I don't agree that copying other people's works, distributed for profit, should be legal (except for fair and noninfringing uses).
While I might agree with the long-term goal of changing the copyright system, I don't think piracy is the way to fight the system. Yes, I know about civil disobedience, and I agree that it's necessary sometimes. However, pirates are not harming the lawmakers, but those authors who don't have other system to build upon. That's the difference between civil disobedience as a means of politics and immoral criminality.
I think this is exactly where entirely legal means, especially philosophies like open source / free software step in. Really, if something is now threatening big companies like Microsoft, which one is it - piracy or open source? I think the answer should be quite obvious. And one of the greatest things is that this way the exploiters will have really tough time trying to figure out who their opponent is.
I'd go actually so far to say that whoever pirates e.g. MS products is actually supporting the exploiters, because this way they make Windows a profitable platform for MS and other companies.
I doubt the intent is to "hurt" the lawmakers (although I have a sudden mental vision of the RIAA filing suit against a Congresscritter for using Gnutella...nah, it'd never happen :-), just make it painfully obvious to the industry that society does not view their current business model as a legitimate good or service. If they're smart, they'll find an alternative.
Or as an alternative, these big companies go to the lawmakers crying out loud "piracy" and get fancy new laws which give them more and more power over how their products are used - which as has been seen give more and more power to fight those that really try to change the model (for example DeCSS - remember, it was created to make it possible to have an open source DVD player).
Oh well, one can still hope that one day the lawmakers themselves have to realize how draconian these laws have become and have to change them. This day is however further pushed forward by those who give big companies the very chance to justify the need for these laws by endorsing piracy.
OK, the guy is soon to become another martyr for freedom of speech and all that, so could someone please post a .wav on how to actually pronounce his name properly? ;)
Be sure to ROT-13 it. I'm sure he can figure it out, but the cops won't.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Does anyone have a feedback Address for reuters?
From their article:
In that case, the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites) and the Secure Digital Music Initiative claimed 2600 Magazine's online publication of a program called DeCSS (news - web sites) (Decrypt Content Scramble System), that cracks encrypted digital video discs, violated the law.
At least they spelled DECSS right..
Look up Lincoln, Nebraska's own (very unloved) Gerhard Lauck. [sp?] In short: He was arrested and extridited from Belgium to Germany. His crime was producing NAZI propoganda in the USA and mailing it to neo-nazis around the world (Including Germany). The scary thing: He was charged here with "lying on a gun permit" because he had spent time in jail that was equivalent to a felony. Whether you agree with him or not (I don't), his actions are protected speech under the Constitution. That's scary.
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
Ah, to clarify the analogy, "I" refers to Adobe rather than to Joe-Who-Bought-An-eBook.
As far as I'm concerned, Joe should certainly be allowed to do as he pleases with the eBook, or house, or whatever. I bought a house, then I added an extension. My house, no argument. any attempt to limit that means that the state treats Joe, and the work he had to do to earn the cost of the things he bought (or 'bought', as it now seems to be) with contempt. and the state which treats its citizens with contempt deserves to be smashed. That's why I said I'm grateful I don't live in a country with a DMCA-alike, yet.
And in general, I find analogies work well. I'm a great fan of reductio ad absurdum which tends to depend on analogies. And I'd even argue that a great deal of the problem with IP law at the moment seems to be that it's based on an inappropriate analogy with physical property law, in which basis, a good way to fight it seems to be to provide better analogies.
TomV
I'm sort of in two minds about this..
- On the one hand, I really don't like the DMCA approach to IP, and am very thankful I live in a country without it. So far.
- On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house. Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection - the brick walls are only a foot thick, the windows have easily breakable glass... in short, any fool with a bulldozer or a bit of semtex (hello echelon!!) could break in if they really wanted to. But there's still a law against their doing so. Without which I'd have no legal recourse if they chose to do so. It's my responsibility to take some reasonable precautions, and if I do, then an Insurance company (not the state) will mitigate my losses. But it's not my responsibility to make sure my house is a castle with a moat, portcullis, 12 foot thick granite walls and an army ready with the boiling tar.
But if I were to be criminally liable merely for mentioning the thing with the bulldozer, which seems to be the DMCA way, that would be as close to Justice as Paris is to Betelgeuse.TomV
So, I'll start distributing my digital works on floppy disks with little keyed padlocks through a hole in the corner of the disk. The padlock must be removed before the disk can be placed in a floppy drive. An internal steel strip will make it likely that removing the lock by force will damage the disk and data. Then I will simply sell the keys.
This will constitute an 'effective access control mechanism'.
THEN it will be illegal to sell or distribute - or, I expect, manufacture - the burglary tools described above. Anyone who does can be prosecuted under the DMCA.
"Let me open these blinds so the snipers can see in." - Kevin Giffhorn
Slashdot isn't the only place I make posts. I make posts on other boards where people don't know what ROT13 is. I post there. I tell them what's going on. I make jokes about it. I posted ROT13 code titled, "This post is illegal."
Get out there and tell people! Spread the word!
Not so fast. In the US, you can drive around with a crowbar, screwdriver and hammer and therefore be in possesion of "burlary tools" - and be arrested.
Happened to a friend of mine a number of years ago - cop had a bad attitude.
Who is the infamous Joe Sixpack going to look to when abusive prosecution finally does enter his consciousness? He's going to look to the info-enthusiasts, the tech heads, the geeks. Hasn't anyone ever asked your opinion on electronics? When someone asks about buying a DVD player, shouldn't you inform them about region encoding, etc.?
If we fight the system and lose, then we lose. But if we do nothing, we lose, too. At least the first way, we might win. And at least, the first way, we'll have salvaged a tiny bit of human dignity from the corporate trainwreck that is the human experience today.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
--
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Hmm I can btw assure you that Paris is as far away from Betelgeuse than Earth itself is... :)
(I suppose that's you meant anyway)
Got it :) :)
it's very funny actually !
I just didn't get it at first
I've never written to anyone in jail or in prison before, so I don't know what's entailed.
--
In spite of the suggestions and all the tests that I have made, I have not cavato a spider from the hole.
And my regrets to all the hi-tech companies in the US of A - after such publicity no Russian programmer would go to work for you.
(Note to myself: Better stick to Europe)
Here is a little food for thought.
Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men, generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to put out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?
-Henry David Thoreau, 'Civil Disobedience'
I've been exchanging email with your dog and his recent work at Fermilab is most impressive. He's only doing it to please you, you know... give him some attention.
Also, you are out of Snausages.
The DMCA broke the law. He violated an illegal law.
A law, no matter how crummy, isn't illegal until a court rules on it.
In California they have passed some terrible laws -- laws that are very confusing, so much so that Various Legal Experts cannot come to agreement on what they mean. However, the state Attorney General has gone on record saying that they will enforce ALL laws in the state, no matter how poor they may be, and they will wait for a court to strike 'em down. In the meantime... game on!
It's terrible and silly, but then again, what's the alternative? The alternative isn't so good either -- it's local authorities INTERPRETING the law and SELECTIVELY enforcing them, which should be the exclusive domain of the court system.
The way to get the DMCA gone is to make a huge stink, try to get it reviewed in an honest court, and all that. And it will take years and wreck many lives if it is possible at all.
But you'll get nowhere in the short term by pointing out that the law itself is illegal. Frankly, no one in law enforcement cares. They'll enforce it anyway and wait for the courts to straighten it out.
That depends on where you live. Here in MN you can get arrested for trashing your own house or personal property. No it's not a joke. The law has been broadened to include all property. Pick up a wood chair and smash it. I call the police and you stand a really good chance of seeing jail intake up close. I am starting to wonder if we are going to see a trend with broadening of the laws...
Good point, but they'd remain silent about the technology aspect even in the China scenario. It would be a 100% focus on human rights violations.
Here in the US, it's the technology they'd have to report--not the human rights--and there's no chance in hell the media will do that.
The thing that bothers me about this whole fiasco is the fact that the yanks are incarcerating a russian guy for distributing his tool in russia and purportedly violating some american IP law.
Can you imagine the shit that would fly if the shoe was on the other foot and some american lecturer in russia got sent to a siberian prison?
The moral of the story: Foreign devils, don't set foot in the united states. Ever.
- Toby
That just confirms the whole image of the US as an international bully. Do bullies prey on the strong? Of course not. Would they have pulled this stunt 15 years ago against the mighty U.S.S.R.? Probably not. They pick on those who are not in a position to be striking back.
- Toby
EXACTLY. That's what's so nafarious about the DMCA, it goes WAY beyond criminalizing actions and criminalizes things that *could* be used.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
Actually, this was very interesting, even though it took a couple of reads through.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
Absolute popycock.
Even if you read the DMCA in such a way as to apply it to the copyright owner (which is absurd since it would be the copyright owner who would have to alege in the first place that his copyright had been violated) the copyright owner can give anyone permission to use other means to decrypt it.
In other words, if:
You create a movie,
Encrypt it,
Use DeCSS to crack it,
Accuse yourself of violating the DMCA and your copyright,
Tell yourself that you gave yourself permission,
Rinse and Repeat.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
And I'm beginning to be convinced that sites like this will be invaluable in the future. I am definately beginning to believe circumventing the law, or just quietly breaking it, are the ways to go.
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
He broke the law.
Now, I personally think the law is stupid, and there are a great deal of other laws I think are stupid. However, the law is not unconstitutional (well, it hasn't been ruled unconstitutional yet), and therefore he is a criminal.
Now, jurisdiction issues aside, what's left to do?
The cynic side of me says: Nothing. We can't change it, we might as well learn to live around it. Until Dateline does a story about how some 14 year old is spending 10 years in jail for breaking the security of her N'Sync lyric download with a captain crunch decoder ring, nothing will change.
And the non-cynic side of me can't think of any reason that its not true.
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house. Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection - the brick walls are only a foot thick, the windows have easily breakable glass... in short, any fool with a bulldozer or a bit of semtex (hello echelon!!) could break in if they really wanted to. But there's still a law against their doing so. Without which I'd have no legal recourse if they chose to do so. It's my responsibility to take some reasonable precautions, and if I do, then an Insurance company (not the state) will mitigate my losses. But it's not my responsibility to make sure my house is a castle with a moat, portcullis, 12 foot thick granite walls and an army ready with the boiling tar.
You cannot copmare tangible goods to IP. They are not the same. If someone takes your stereo, you are deprived of a stereo and must spend money to get a new one. If someone copies your prize essay, you still have your essay. You do not need to rewrite it. The only thing is you have lost a potenital revenue stream. This is what everyone is trying to protect.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
That is a generalization and a completely non-supportable one at that. Making generalizations like that is an indication of being closed-minded, or bigoted in some way. It's like saying Jewish people are cheap, or Mexicans are lazy.
in general, they care less about the rest of the world (except when it relates to protecting USA's interests, see USA-only backing of Israels crimes.
See above.
USA citizens speak just 1 language on average, so they have less chance of knowing about others.
I can speak two and I do a lot better in Spanish than you are doing in English in this post. I know that's kind of a slam, but you started it.
USA don't care about joining world standars. Metric system and GSM cellphones are just 2 blatant examples of "couldn't care less if we remain isolated and use non-standard standards, even if worse/impractical"
You may have a point there, but since we're over here on a continent without only two neighbors, cross-border cooperation is less of a priority.
5)...
Too much crap here to quote. However, I will point out that if you were to examine the source of the volunteers and the money donated to both of these organizations, you will find that we stupid Americans are the largest contributors of both. I know how much money I've contributed and my family has long supported AI with our time as letter writers and more. What have you done? Can't say I know, but judging from your biased, closed-minded post, I would bet it's nothing.
It's not funny till someone gets hurt.
If I use ROT-13 to encript a file, and I send it to someone, then by that it means I don't want you to see it, and you should understand that and refrain from decripting it. Why should I spend money, CPU power and resources to encrypt data, just because there are people out there who have nothing else better to do then look into something that's none of their business? I have the right to be protected by law against these people.
Note: for this discussion I am assuming you sent me the letter ROT-13, so I am the rightful recipient...
The problem with the DMCA is not someone else reading that letter, but that if you require me to purchase and use your Official ROT-13 decryption sheet to read the letter you sent me and I create my own ROT-13 sheet and decrypt the letter without purchasing your decription sheet, then I have broken the law. It is the same case with the e-book case and DeCSS. That is why the DMCA is evil. The intent of the law is CONTROL , not to prevent the "stealing" of IP.
Beware of Sleestak
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well I bought an e-book from mightywords.com (now sold to fatbrain) and I could not read it anywhere else but on the PC where I downloaded (which I wanted to reinstall)
Since the company was moved over to their new owners I could not download the e-book again because the link was broken.
So I finally had to resort to printing it out on my laser.
E-books suck! Give me dead trees anytime!
So you can e.g. be arrested by the Dutch police for critisizing the Taliban online because that is a crime in Afghanistan.
Have you already forgotten about what happened in Columbine where 2 neo-nazi boneheads shot dead 20 schoolchildren, mostly blacks and jews IIRC?
I hope he is sent to prison for a stiff jail term!
I suggest you re-read the last paragraph of the post you replied to. You both said the same thing. He said it isn't justice to arrest someone for saying, "You can use a bulldozer to break into a house," just as you said "It isn't a crime to point out that the emperor has no clothes."
As I understand it, his breaking-and-entering analogy was directly related to actively breaking encryption (such as decrypting DVDs and then posting the results on the web), rather than Skylarov's talk.
In the end, it all boils down to money. If you steal a $10 book from me, that's $10 out of my pocket. If you pirate some software with a $10 profit, that's $10 out of my pocket. Just because it's free to duplicate IP doesn't mean there's no cost associated with producing it. The producer is entitled to attempt to recover that cost, plus a profit. Without IP protection, he has to get all that money from his very first customer, creating a system that would discourage many commercially-funded creative pursuits.
OK, at the risk of the allmighty karmalossthroughofftopic(tm), I will rebutt. The original article asked for a translation. I think something more was intended than for someone to cut and paste the Russian article into Babelfish or Freetranslation. This is a very difficult read, and I dont really get any idea what this guy was thinking. Someone that actually speaks Russian (or can read it) could probably do a useful translation.
--------
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
eesDay incrypshunway ebay eppuhway'entlyway ettabay' unday Edubeway'say. ightRay Onway! agGay emay ithway away itchforkpay! oBay'kay oBay'kay oBay'kay. ightRay Onway! agGay emay ithway away OOOOONSPay!
--------
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
bablefish
This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
tr.v. encrypted, encrypting, encrypts
- To put into code or cipher.
- Computer Science. To alter (a file, for example) using a secret code so as to be unintelligible to unauthorized parties.*
The 2nd definition (the one we're concerned with) states that it means altering a file using a secret code. ROT-13 is anything *BUT* secret.Besides, he could always claim that he was attempting to use ROT-13 to *encrypt* the text.
* Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
Scary... they write poor encryption nowadays and make up for it by simply arresting anyone who cracks it.
That's some excellent logic. We should have arrested the families that lost people in the Ford/Firestone wrecks because they managed to find a way to strip their tires of tread.
I love America.
jack's bicycle is music to my ears
They had her computer - I'm pretty sure checking her browser cache is all they had to do.
My mind is boggling here. I can't believe that anyone of any level of technical sophistication would think rot-13 was any type of advanced encryption. It's not even advanced for 100 years ago for fuck's sake! Any type of fixed cypher was outdated over 50 years ago and rot-13 is one the most trivivial of fixed cyphers. They might as well have used rot-0 (i.e. a=a, b=b, c=c, etc.) I'm still boggling. Do these companies use this crap because they're lazy or do they honestly think it is good technology?! Really, I'd like to know!
Just wanted to correct you on that GSM thingy. It is actually just about a world standard. South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Europe and most of Asia use it. Of course, I wouldn't call it a world standard until it's used the world over (including North America), but its use certainly isn't restricted to Europe.
Besides that, your post was pretty much on target.Cedric Balthazar Rotherwood
Sun Certified Programmer for the Java Platform +
Cedric Balthazar Rotherwood
Sun Certified Programmer for the Java Platform +
System Admin. for Solaris
I'm curious here. What if you married that 16 year old and brought her into the US ? Could you still be arrested (out of pure idiocy on behalf of the lawmakers) ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Well then I'm glad to be Canadian! Up here anyone 14 years or older is fair game, as long as her folks like you (or are too retarded to establish a proper complaint).
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Welcome to the future as owned by coporate america.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
Teach him to eat and he will fish forever.
Converting to .pdf wasn't the crime. Anyone can do that with the proper application/plug-in.
It was that the Russian "broke" an "encryption method" that caused him to "violate" the DMCA.
Of course, since it wasn't illegal in the country he performed it in....
BTW, anyone know if his embassy has been notified?
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
But the FBI can't arrest everyone who uses Netscape. It's not like we're talking about Napster users (based on the probably low numbers of users in the future compared to their past numbers)... a lot of people use various versions of Netscape.
Now, theoretically, they could arrest the people who provide Netscape.... hrmm... we may be on to something here...
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
You realize you may be on to something here...
.pdfs....
Hrm... I think the entire staff of every Kinko's in the USA is going to jail then... they have a program that converts other files to
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Hrm... perhaps that information should be made available to the lawyers on both sides, the judge, and the jury...
Anyone have any contact information for a lawyer on either side of this yet? Or has that not been formally taken care of yet?
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Now that's not to say he should be held accountable to US laws, but his actions are deemed criminal by the DMCA.
Oops, looks like we're all off to jail ;-)
cmclean
"Any similarity between the hooting of a million eager monkeys and Slashdot is purely coincidental." -THEFLASHMAN
Please understand that I'm not defending the DMCA, however, all it is doing is defining what constitutes 'burgulary tools' with respect to software. This doesn't make it any more legal or fair or just, however, there is prescident for these kinds of definitions.
Many states have laws against posession of burgulary tools however, most states require that these tools are posesses with intent to commit a superceding crime (usually the top count of an engeightment). It is NOT illegal to sell or distribute burgulary tools.
This is the difference between all the burgulatry tools laws and the DMCA. The DMCA makes it illegal to distribute (software) burgulary tools. In my reading of the DMCA(pdf there is no requirement to prove intent, and distribution itself is the crime. The question then becomes, how is it that the DMCA has been violated if the software in question was never distributed inside the United states?
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
It happens all the time on Slashdot...
Is there a legitimate use for this guy's software? If there's something inherently wrong with eBooks and his software somehow fixes that, then maybe. I get the impression that its specific purpose is to pirate eBooks.
Karma: Chameleon (Mostly affected by the 1980s)
You are correct.
Karma: Chameleon (Mostly affected by the 1980s)
Very Close.
Karma: Chameleon (Mostly affected by the 1980s)
I went to elcomsoft's web site and submitted an entry in their address book identifying myself and asking what I could do to help.
It might not get to him immediately, but it might help out in the long run.
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Am I the only one who finds this scary?
Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I am Sam Sam I am That Sam-I-am! That Sam-I-am! I do not like that Sam-I-am! Do you like green eggs and ham? I do not like them, Sam-I-am. I do not like green eggs and ham. Would you like them here or there? I would not like them here or there. I would not like them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am. Would you like them in a house? Would you like them with a mouse? I do not like them in a house. I do not like them with a mouse. I do not like them here or there. I do not like them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am. Would you eat them in a box? Would you eat them with a fox? Not in a box. Not with a fox. Not in a house. Not with a mouse. I would not eat them here or there. I would not eat them anywhere. I would not eat green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am. Would you? Could you? In a car? Eat them! Eat them! Here they are. I would not, could not, in a car. You may like them. You will see. You may like them in a tree! I would not, could not in a tree. Not in a car! You let me be. I do not like them in a box. I do not like them with a fox. I do not like them in a house. I do not like them with a mouse. I do not like them here or there. I do not like them anywhere. I do not like green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am. A train! A train! A train! A train! Could you, would you, on a train? Not on a train! Not in a tree! Not in a car! Sam! Let me be! I would not, could not, in a box. I could not, would not, with a fox. I will not eat them with a mouse. I will not eat them in a house. I will not eat them here or there. I will not eat them anywhere. I do not eat green eggs and ham. I do not like them, Sam-I-am. Say! In the dark? Here in the dark! Would you, could you, in the dark? I would not, could not, in the dark. Would you, could you, in the rain? I would not, could not, in the rain. Not in the dark. Not on a train. Not in a car. Not in a tree. I do not like them, Sam, you see. Not in a house. Not in a box. Not with a mouse. Not with a fox. I will not eat them here or there. I do not like them anywhere! You do not like green eggs and ham? I do not like them, Sam-I-am. Could you, would you, with a goat? I would not, could not, with a goat! Would you, could you, on a boat? I could not, would not, on a boat. I will not, will not, with a goat. I will not eat them in the rain. I will not eat them on a train. Not in the dark! Not in a tree! Not in a car! You let me be! I do not like them in a box. I do not like them with a fox. I will not eat them in a house. I do not like them with a mouse. I do not like them here or there. I do not like them ANYWHERE! I do not like green eggs and ham! I do not like them, Sam-I-am. You do not like them. So you say. Try them! Try them! And you may. Try them and you may, I say. Sam! If you will let me be, I will try them. You will see. Say! I like green eggs and ham! I do! I like them, Sam-I-am! And I would eat them in a boat. And I would eat them with a goat... And I will eat them in the rain. And in the dark. And on a train. And in a car. And in a tree. They are so good, so good, you see! So I will eat them in a box. And I will eat them with a fox. And I will eat them in a house. And I will eat them with a mouse. And I will eat them here and there. Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE! I do so like green eggs and ham! Thank you! Thank you, Sam-I-am! Nyy gung NAQ pbclevtug vasevatrzrag gb obbg!
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Just ask Kevin Mitnick, he'll tell you all about it.
How long can they hold him like that?
TEN
In the case of ebooks, the scenario is not that of encryption, where you can have virtually perfect software protection. The e-reader has to get the "protected" data on that machine and make them unprotected, which means the encypted text and the key are available (to anyone with a debugger to trace through). So you don't have the encryption scenario (where the hostile party lacks a key), but merely scrambling and unscrambling of data, no different in principle from the ROT-13.
Doesn't the DMCA only apply to this millenium? Just wondering :-)
I was wondering what, exactly, he was arrested for (selling, distributing, or creating the product) but then I read this from the complaint:
2. Title 17, United States Code, Section 1201(b) states in relevant part:
(1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
Yikes! Am I reading this correctly - you can't even write such software just for testing purposes? Or as proof-of-concept? I thought Adobe was upset about him selling the product, but I guess he can be arrested just for making it.
I also found this interesting from the Reuters article:
U.S. copyright protection law conflicts with laws in Russia, Germany and Scandinavian countries which require software makers to provide a way for users to create a backup copy, Katalov said. ``So, in reality, Adobe software is illegal in Russia,'' he said.
Is that really correct? Anybody know anything about copyright law in those countries? It just sounds kind of strange.
You might want to check your juristiction to find out if oral sex is legal. I'd hate to think you were breaking the law, when following it is so important. After all, as you so diligently point out, the law is the law, no matter how stupid it is.
--Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
If I use ROT-13 to encript a file, and I send it to someone, then by that it means I don't want you to see it, and you should understand that and refrain from decripting it. Why should I spend money, CPU power and resources to encrypt data, just because there are people out there who have nothing else better to do then look into something that's none of their business? I have the right to be protected by law against these people.
Do you have a right to read letters in my mailbox just because you can read through the envelope looking into the light?
And your analogy with the Firestone truck is flawed: the information of flaws in the tyres is of public interest and did not emerged throug eavesdropping in the company's files.
In any case, the DMCA is fair in disallowing decrypting in order to prevent illegal eavesdropping. But what DMCA should also disallow companies using cheap encription schemes to cheat their users into a false sense of security. And it should be particularly hars about encription used in wide-spread programs with monopoly-like market share.
What I meant is: ParisEarth=BetelgeuseEarth I should point out that this refers more to the inhabitants than to the city itself...:)
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Many, but not all, states have exceptions for married couples in their statutory rape laws. So, it depends where in the U.S. you go.
My dog is a physicist.
Along similar vein, who can we write to at Adobe to indicate, uh, displeasure at the terrible way they're handling this?
``Really, what this is doing is companies are using the law to hide the fact that their security is bad,'' said Bruce Schneier, a cryptography expert and chief technology officer at Counterpane Internet Security, a computer network monitoring firm.
``The information for how to copy PDF files is being treated the same as lock picks and nuclear information,'' Schneier said.
Amen.
I think Adobe is just making a stink here, but there will be no real consequences for the nice Russian man. The have to prove malicious intent and since his software can only be used with purchased versions of PDF for making backup files, I don't think he's done anything illegal. Of course most people on a jury won't understand any of this, so I guess he has a chance of doing some time.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ now you know
You did't read thentire article did you. Did owner of the company, the one respocible for selling was suprised that FBI went after the developer - the developers do NOT sell anything. This was Skliarov Phd work. Oh and he has two children that clearly have not sold anything - but will have to pay $500,000 to see their daddy!
Wouldnt the Digital Millennium Copyright Act refer for profit making from somebody elses intellectual property?? Did Dmitry Sklyarov actually make a profit from the hack?? Didnt Dmitry Sklyarov actually benefit Adobe showing how really poor their encryption was in the first place????
I should go report myself for inventing a circumvention device that decrypts the Supreme Court judge's underwear. I bet I could make it stick (the case, not the underwear) in court too by using the DMCA.
What if an American was arrested in China for giving a presentation? CNN would bring us constant coverage, complete with special graphics and a musical theme.
Grooooooooooooan. Die, ubiquitous meme, die!
In one of the first criminal prosecutions of its kind, an exchange student was arrested by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation for violating the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The student (name withheld) is the inventor of a specialized lockpick that allows users to open the small padlock that comes with modern books.
The small padlock restricts the way a purchaser of an book can use it - including restricting reselling, photocopying, and reprinting - rights traditionally given to the purchaser of older books under the First Sale and Fair Use legal doctrines. By opening the padlock, the lockpick allows users to do all of these things to the book.
The student is being charged with one count of trafficking in tools to circumvent copyrightable materials and one count of aiding and abetting such trafficking.
Although the student is a Russian citizen and his company is based in Moscow, the sales of the product took place partly in the United States. Irish Brewing,one of the assistant United States attorneys who is handling the case, said that despite the borderless nature of the student exchange program, "the question of jurisdiction was not particularly in contest in this case."
Ted T. Tool, a cryptographer who has written a popular textbook on the subject, agreed. "Trying to secure books this way is like trying to make water not wet," he said. "Printed letters are photocopyable by definition."
Nevertheless, companies are determined to protect their products and are looking to the copyright act for help. "No lock on the market is 100 percent secure to determined burglars," said Jane Tabman Flattendane, vice president for cross-media publishing at a large book company. "We're confident that we are taking all of the right steps on an ongoing basis to incorporate the most sophisticated technologies available."
The student faces a fine of half a million dollars and 10 years in the slammer.
Copyright 2001 readme (http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/org/AB/readme/) This text was published upside down. Possession of tools capable of changing its orientation and allowing readable photocopying is a violation of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.