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).

Comments

What sickens me even more...

[Anonymous Coward]

He faces up to five years in jail and a $500,000 fine

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'.

Don't buy it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't buy it, it's not about the encryption or about DEFCON... it's about publicity - The popular media doesn't know what ROT13 is... TELL THEM... The FBI is trying to use this as a publicity stunt to "be tough on computer crime"... make it backfire on them.

Contact your local paper and give them this additional information, they may have a story getting ready for print on it.

~ Signal 11

Native Speaker Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[phil reed]

The DCMA was passed.

He broke the law.

Except that it wasn't passed in Russia, where he wrote the code and published it.


...phil

Re:eeek.

[Enry]

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...

Re:eeek.

[Enry]

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.

Re:Brick != Theft-o-matic 5000

[cduffy]

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?

Oh Goody

[gavinhall]

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.

Re:Yes, and they are right, IMHO

[DunbarTheInept]

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.

If some software company lies by claiming they have good encryption, when in fact it is merely rot-13, the DMCA makes it illegal to TELL anyone about this fact. Are you trying to imply it isn't in the public interest to be told that a company is lying about their product?

Re:Yes, and they are right, IMHO

[Tim Doran]

*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.

Effective protection?

[YuppieScum]

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?

Re:Effective protection?

[aozilla]

As the attorney quoted in the Reuters' article said, "this will be the test case."

Wonderful, so we get a Russian "hacker" to test the DMCA. The jury is just going to love him.

I think there is a STRONG argument to be made that, in order to trigger the protection granted in the statute, a "technological means of protection" must be reasonably secure. Without this limitation, DMCA is patently unconstitutional because it is overly-broad.

Do Russian citizens temporarily visiting the country even get protection under the constitution? This could be problematic.

This case almost makes me wish I was still practicing law so I could defend it. Hell, I'd do it pro bono!

Do you really think you would be qualified for such a case? Perhaps you would, I don't know you. Copyright issues, constitutional issues, import issues, almost certainly going to be other issues regarding the fact that he wasn't a citizen of the US and the item in question is legal in Russia. Then again, you might not even want to argue that way, since there is no evidence that the software was even imported. It may well have been downloaded from a US source after coming to the states. The first priority of the lawyer needs to be to defend the defendant from jail time, not to set precedent. If he can afford it, he should get a nice expensive lawyer who is willing to consult with EFF lawyers and other interested parties, but keeps his best interests as the top priority. I read the complaint, and it looks like they need to go after ElcomSoft Co. Ltd., not Dmitry Sklyarov. There is no evidence that he personally "imported, offered to the public, provided, and otherwise trafficked" anything. But hey, you're the lawyer, maybe there is precedent for an employee of a foreign company being arrested for the actions of his company which were done outside the US. But anyway, if IWAL, which I'm not, and I was assigned to this case, I'd try to get the matter ruled as insufficient evidence before before attacking the law itself.

Re:unbelievable

[ptomblin]

I mean, how old is that cifer ?

Well, it's called a "Caesar Cipher" for a reason...
--

Re:eeek.

[Jon Peterson]

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.

Re:ASCII Illegal

[Jon Peterson]

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.

The REAL reason Strong AI does not yet exist...

[jd]

...Adobe secretly ROT-13'ed the part of the DNA helix containing the secret of intelligence, and won't give anyone the key.

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.

Re:The REAL reason Strong AI does not yet exist...

[jd]

CNN now has a short article on their news website. Oh, wow.

Re:The REAL reason Strong AI does not yet exist...

[cavemanf16]

What is scary is that the media and the majority of Americans see absolutely nothing wrong in Adobe's actions.

The majority of Americans don't even know this has happened. I haven't seen anything in the news papers or TV newscasts (even the investigative ones like Fox's cable news channel) that have reported on this incident. Sad, really.

Hmmmm..... Interesting.....

[jd]

The filing makes a reference to an alleged offence comitted outside of the jurisdiction of the United States, and to a -reference- to said offence, within the United States.

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.

Re:eeek.

[Peter La Casse]

Breaking and entering is a crime, no matter how you do it.

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.

Re:Call me a felon, but I just cracked Rot 13!

[K-Man]

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.

Pity this wasn't a speeding ticket..

[CoffeeNowDammit]

From the court documents:

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, .sig a .sog, .sig out loud, .sig out .strog"

Re:Yes, and they are right, IMHO

[imp]

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.

Not only the tourist industry

[Pac]

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.

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[david614]

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

Does "Rot13 security handler" == "ROT-13"?

[dschuetz]

Is the "Rot13" encryption we're talking about here really what we geeks think of as "ROT-13"? I only ask because, according to the PPT slide in the DefCon presentation:

• Clone of "Rot13" sample plug-in, which supplied with Acrobat 4 SDK
  
• Uses fixed encryption key for all documents
  
• Key could easily be found as text string in the body of plug-in
  

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?

Re:Does "Rot13 security handler" == "ROT-13"?

[DarkMan]

My interpetation of what he means is that:

The code was a cut and paste from the ROT-13 code, with a few lines changed, so that it used a different fixed position cypher.

In otherwords, it didn't do ROT-13. That comment is about how much time they actually spent writing the plugin (virtually nil)
--

Re:Rot-13 was not really used as encryption on USE

[FreeUser]

Exactly (and I agree). I was trying to underscore your point, not rebut it. :-)

Rot-13 was not really used as encryption on USENET

[FreeUser]

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).

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 /. 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.

Re:he's *not* being arrested for cracking rot13

[OWJones]

Yes, a rot13-based encryption scheme is mentioned in Skylarov's talk, is covered by his decryption software, and is mentioned in the court papers. But the main reason he's being arrested is because Adobe filed a complaint about their own PDF-locking software being defeated, and Adobe's system is more sophisticated than rot13.

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.

Re:unbelievable

[viktor]

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!

Re:eeek.

[elmegil]

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.

Re:crack rot-13, go to jail

[Robotech_Master]

Do take note of my new Slashsig--which I've added to my email/USENET sig, since I was 1 line under McQuary anyway . . .

--

The presentation

[griffjon]

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...

Re:The presentation

[bwt]

I don't think he was arrested for the presentation. He was arrested for selling the program that the presentation is about. The presentation is just evidence.

He was literally arrested for his ability to read books!

ROT-13

[griffjon]

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.

I guess my old .sig was more apocryphal than I'd hoped:

--
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.

Re:ROT-13

[B.D.Mills]

My kid has a set of alphabet blocks that just happen to double as ROT-13 decoders. Aside from being kinda cool, would this be considered an illegal hacking tool under DMCA?

I know this is sort of a Barney Frank "Do I desecrate my tie" question, but isn't there a line to be drawn somewhere?

The clear place to draw the line is shown in the relevant piece of mind-drunk legislation, emphasis mine:

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;

It can be argued safely that ROT13 is not an effective encryption technique. A competent lawyer can get this Russian gentlemen off easily.

Contribute your child's ROT-13 decoding blocks as a defense exhibit. Demonstrate how these blocks can decrypt a passage in the book. Then watch the judge try to keep a straight face....
--

Re:ROT-13

[gorilla]

This worries me a bit

It worries me a lot. It you get arrested returning from Thailand, how easy would it be for you to get the evidence to prove you're innocent? The proof you might require could be half a planet away.

Re:ROT-13

[EasyTarget]

If he is convicted, it would set a strange precident;

Quite a few countries (UK for instance) have laws that allow 'child sex tourists' to be convicted in their home country for paedophile acts comitted in countries with less-strong child protection, as if the crime was comitted domestically. This worries me a bit [but I tend to fall in with the mob in saying they deserve whatever they get, I'd just prefer it if the 'peds got time (and a bloody good buggering) in the Bancock Hilton, rather then Spacklerweg Hilton (a very comfortable prison here in Amsterdam)].

And yes, I live in the Netherlands too, US customs can already get really 'funny' about that. I have heard that some countries (Singapore?) have laws where they can, and do, test returning citizens (not forigners) for THC (cannabis/mary J) use and convict them after they return from the Netherlands.

Remember, you'll never hear a politician saying 'We need fewer laws' (Unless they have been bribed by a big corporation who do not like a law that puts power back to consumers).

EZ

Re:ROT-13

[EasyTarget]

IIRC, this works as a extradition replacement, so the police and courts in the country where the offence is commited pass the relevent data to the UK police. Rather than request extradition, which is slower and more expensive for them. The standards of proof still have to match UK law, and come through the official channels with everything gathered under oath and attested to by the courts. This aspect of the law was debated and modified a lot to address the more obvious concerns. But yes, you might end up needing to hire legal representatives in both countries..

EZ

Re:ROT-13

[ichimunki]

You're being silly while trying to make a good point.

The problem with your example is that ROT-26'ing the entire book will leave me with very readable text, which I can then copy manually or with a photocopier to take advantage of my Fair Use rights. The DMCA does not restrict Fair Use on its own.

The problem is that without breaking the protection scheme on much digital media, I have no chance to exercise my Fair Use rights at all. The data is stuck in a format which is controlled by applications produced or produced in collusion with the copyright holders, such that the data is inaccessible by means which allow me to excerpt it normally (i.e. cut and paste from a protected PDF, nope, cut a slice from a DVD, nope, sample a .nap file, nope). This means that the technology itself prevents Fair Use which would normally be legal. The law then provides for sanctions against anyone who would crack the protection and share information on how to perform that crack with the public-- even thought the use of that crack is perfectly legal otherwise (i.e. quoting from a PDF, sampling a DVD or .nap file).

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[Sloppy]

Violate the law. Openly. Loudly.

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!

---

he's *not* being arrested for cracking rot13

[sethg]

Yes, a rot13-based encryption scheme is mentioned in Skylarov's talk, is covered by his decryption software, and is mentioned in the court papers. But the main reason he's being arrested is because Adobe filed a complaint about their own PDF-locking software being defeated, and Adobe's system is more sophisticated than rot13.

If the only complaint against Skylarov was from the rot13 system's vendor, that would be another matter entirely.
--

Re:he's *not* being arrested for cracking rot13

[Russ Nelson]

If the only complaint against Skylarov was from the rot13 system's vendor, that would be another matter entirely.

Would it? The DMCA doesn't require that the technological measures be effective. It merely requires that they be present, and that the software is commercially available and designed to break the encryption. So yes, as far as I can tell, if I took your money and gave you a script which breaks rot-13 (hint: #!/bin/sh\ntr a-zA-Z n-za-mN-ZA-M, but you got that for free, so I'm not a criminal. Yet.), you could throw me in jail.

NOW do you realize how bad the DMCA is?
-russ

Re:he's *not* being arrested for cracking rot13

[burris]

No, that would in fact make you a criminal because the language of the law is "import, offer to the public, provide, and otherwise traffic in" ... it says nothing about the distribution being commercial or not. Professor Felten wasn't going to sell his paper, he just wanted to present it at a conference.

The only reason taking money is an issue in this case is because Elcomsoft used a USA based order processing company to accept payment for the software. This was necessary for the FBI to claim jurisdiction. If the order processor had been based in a country outside the USA then it would have been outside of the FBI's jurisdiction and there would not have been an arrest.

Burris

Re:ASCII Illegal

[Tim C]

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

Re:eeek.

[Mike Schiraldi]

Yes, breaking into your house is illegal and should be. And using eBook reader to "steal" a book is illegal and should be.

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!"

--

Terra?

[B.D.Mills]

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....

--

Could be very funny to do this.

[B.D.Mills]

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.
--

effective

[mindstrm]

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.

Re:effective

[MikeBabcock]

Maybe someone should seek clarification on 'effectively' from a lawyer? It would be nice to know what the courts think it means.

Re:effective

[MikeBabcock]

That paragraph strikes me as the type that lawyers would, in fact, have lots of fun trying to mangle and understand in context in a court-room.

To me, its not even logically sensible.

"... requires /x/ with the authority of the copyright owner to gain access to the work."

As another poster stated, ROT-13 (and most other cryptosystems) can be decoded without any attention given to the Copyright holder.

Note that I used "decoded" not "hacked" or "bypassed" since there is no logistic difference beetween my ROT-13'ing an E-book with my own program or with Adobe's.

The difference is that the Copyright holder has at some point supposedly made me agree to only use Adobe's software to read the book. :-)

Re:effective

[Prior Restraint]

A lawyer is unnecessary. Here is the actual wording of the law:

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.

Source is here. So Adobe implements ROT-x encryption, sets x = 13 (which must be "applied" to gain access), and has full rights under the DMCA.

Re:effective

[jdunlevy]

Right. The law defines the terms as used within the law.

(Also, another source is here.)

I'm curious, though, about the phrase "with the authority of the copyright owner" in this context. Reading ROT-13 certainly "requires the application of information," but what about it "requires the application of information, ... with the authority of the copyright owner." In other words, the copyright owner can't claim any sort "right" to ROT-13 technology, so the copyright holder's authority doesn't seem to be required to apply the ROT-13 process. In other words, does this phrase render the rest of the definition meaningless? Would somebody fluent in Legalese care to comment?

Finally, 17 USC, 1201(g) is all about the exemption for "Encryption Research," which should apply here (under a reasonable law), except that in the DMCA this exemption is exceedingly narrow.

Re:This is just unbelievable

[YoJ]

People "crack" substitution cyphers for fun nowadays. It's one of the puzzle types in those puzzle magazines you buy.

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)!

Re:without bail?

[maeglin]

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.

Re:Complements of our friend fish.

[AndyElf]

Nothing like human translation:

11 to 16 of July I spent in Las Vegas at Defcon 9 conference together with Dmitry Sklyarov, employee of your company, who was delivering a presentation at the conference. In the morning of 16 July Dmitry and myself were checking out from a hotel and going to the airport. We had about 1.5 hours till departure. When we were aproaching the exit, two young men came to us screaming "hands up, this is FBI!". Thinking that this is somebody's dumb joke (as the Feds were quite frequently a subject of jokes at a conference), Dmitry loughed and even tried to reply something. However, he was rudely ordered "hands to the wall"! I was requested to surrender a key from the hotel room and invited for a conversation. A bit later Dmitry was also brought to the room. He was already hand-cuffed. Another two FBI agents arrived, apparently they were patroling the street. Dmitry had asked to move hand-cuffs forward, as it was very uncomfartable to sit with hands behind. His request was rejected. FBI agent introduced himself and said that they have no further questions to me and they are here to arrest Dmitry. They politely asked for a conversation. To my question "Why was Dmitry arrested?" I was told that he is charged with DMCA violation -- American law on copyright protection. Investigation and charges were initiated by Adobe. FBI agents have not provided me with any additional details, claiming that they are only executing an order. I was asked a few formal questions, to which they already obviously knew answers. They also asked me to pick up Dmitry's belongings explaining that they "may get lost in America". When asked what is going to happen to Dmitry, they said that he will be taken to the regionl FBI office to clarify a few more things, after which he will be taken to the judge that will make the final decision. All of this happened in Alexis Park Hotel, Las-Vegas, Nevada. On the road to Los Angeles I was followed, fairly inconspiciously. When I tried to call from a phone booth in the airport, a police officer had rushed to the booth next to mine as if to make a call. He has not called anywhere.

Re:eeek.

[ConceptJunkie]

...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

Translation

[Icepick_]

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.

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[gmhowell]

(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.

Re:This is just unbelievable

[gmhowell]

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)!

Now we know where all the people on /. are getting it from!!

(The crack. As in "Gimme some of what you're smoking.")

/. their phone

[Rupert]

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?

--

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[powerlord]

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.

Re:Yes, and they are right, IMHO

[ryanr]

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.

Re:hmmm

[LarsG]

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,

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.ht ml

Counterattack, anyone?

[remande]

It seems that this poor fellow was arrested, in part, for making and distributing a ROT-13 decryptor.

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...

Re:eeek.

[gorilla]

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.

Re:Yes, and they are right, IMHO

[gorilla]

Strong encryption cannot be broken, which makes the law redundant.

Is he represented?

[e-gold]

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)

Form letter

[macdaddy]

I sent my form letter discussing my disappointment with Adobe's actions to 20 or so adobe.com email addresses yesterday. I don't know if it helped but I did it. Did you?

--

Re:Form letter

[macdaddy]

I don't have them handy but they were in the original thread from yesterday, fairly close to the top. HTH

--

Re:NY Times Article

[Malcontent]

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.

Re:Secret Decoder Ring

[thogard]

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.

Re:eeek.

[cyberdonny]

> example: That Athlon chip is just sand (silicon) and very small trace amounts of inpurities, ordered via IP into a way that makes it of greater value than the equivalent weight of sand.

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.

Re:eeek.

[jovlinger]

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.

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[mjh]

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.

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.
--

Re:Yes, and they are right, IMHO

[gotan]

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.

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[bwt]

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?

Re:eeek.

[Cramer]

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.)

Re:No Consequences...

[Phrogman]

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...

Re:Secret Decoder Ring

[Speare]

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.

Re:hmmm

[fanatic]

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?

--

Re:eeek.

[JoostT]

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.
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.2 00 10712.aebpr.htm
http://www.ebookweb.org/opinion/roger.sperberg.2 00 10715.aebpr.htm
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

Re: Owned by coporate america

[sigmond]

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.

Re:Rot-13 was not really used as encryption on USE

[Pedrito]

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.

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[Sc00ter]

He just keeps going to court and appealing until the supreame court hears the case and rules the law unconstitutional

--

Re:Yes I will arrest you all...

[jgerman]

Wow, I was trying to prove my point by reduction ad absurdium, (not the logical fallacy read on for an explanation). When you boil it down to the essence encryption is nothing more that a foreign language. What the DMCA is basically saying is that we have no right to learn a foreign language to so that we can comprehend media in that language. Doesn't make sense does it? But my reduction does make logical sense, and it seems to me that lawmakers don't seem to work out the implications of their decisions.

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.

Re:Yes I will arrest you all...

[jgerman]

I'll reply anyway for the benefit of others. There is a distinction between reduction ad absurdium (the logical fallacy) and reduction ad absurdium (to show the silliness of a concept). Which is why I pointed that out in my original post.

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.

Yes I will arrest you all...

[jgerman]

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.

Re:eeek.

[JesseL]

No, that's $10 you'll never have in your pocket, and possibly never would have anyway.

Legitimate uses

[JesseL]

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.

Re: Owned by coporate america

[Fesh]

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?

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

crack rot-13, go to jail

[wunderhorn1]

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!

What would a legal definition of encryption be?

[jea6]

I am not a lawyer. Then again, neither are most Slashdotters. In any case, what constitutes encryption? If i teach myself to read ROT-13'd text, is it still encrypted. What if my ebook reader translated the book to Esperanto? Would that be considered encryption?

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.

Terra Rttf naq Unz

[jea6]

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!

Re:Terra Rttf naq Unz

[FrankDrebin]

Why waste time with C programs?

Try % echo "$string" | tr 'a-zA-Z' 'n-za-mN-ZA-M'

Re:eeek.

[Edward Kmett]

Actually I think the analogy would be closer to getting arrested for being the locksmith that someone called to get them into their own house, after locking themselves out.

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.

Re:hmmm

[Edward Kmett]

(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;

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.

Re:eeek.

[Edward Kmett]

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. ;)

When trying to explain to a non techie

[SuiteSisterMary]

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.

Re:eeek.

[TomV]

Scary... they write poor encryption nowadays and make up for it by simply arresting anyone who cracks it.

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

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

And the non-cynic side of me can't think of any reason that its not true.

The ground must be prepared before a crop can take root... We should be outraged and exploring our options because we know and we can. You don't fight the Good Fight because you're likely to win. You fight it because the alternative -- the silent submission to a slow strangling -- is unthinkable.

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.

anyone know how to write to him

[rneches]

Is there any way we can write to him while he's sitting in jail? Even if he knows he's on the side of right, it could still mean a lot to him to get some good letters of support.

I've never written to anyone in jail or in prison before, so I don't know what's entailed.

--

Re:anyone know how to write to him

[zhensel]

Well, as an ordained minister in the Universal Life Church, I could go talk to him. I should probably get my certificate framed to get more credibility though. Wait, that's like a 15 hour drive from Kansas City... fuck it - I'm going to get thai food this afternoon. Can't go chat with some Russian fellow.

Re:anyone know how to write to him

[jeffl56]

It would seem to me writing to Adobe is of moderate use. To me, writing to the PRESS and making sure they get it is probably of better use of people's eloquence. Wall Street Journal, New York Times, LA Times, SF Examiner, Boston Globe, Washington Post and the like are going to be dying to cover this story but will probably get it wrong ("hacker arrested"). : Furious activity is no substitute for getting things done.

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[revelation0]

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'

Re:100 years ago?

[IronChef]

Why bother writing secure software when you can just have anyone who points out your shortcomings arrested?

This isn't the first time that philosophy has been employed by business. Take old-school analog cell phones: no encryption. No security. Solution? Lobby for laws that make it illegal to listen to a cell phone.

Use a handful of parts from Radio Shack, build a receiver that can tune to about 850MHz... you're a felon. Crazy. But apparently it was just the beginning.

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[IronChef]

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.

Re:eeek.

[Fat Rat Bastard]

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.

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.

There is one annoying fact...

[taliver]

The DCMA was passed.

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.

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[Prior Restraint]

...for acts they commit ON FOREIGN SOIL...

Is anyone on /. aware that the presentation itself was a DMCA violation?

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[imipak]

Are you a sheep?

Nah - I'm British. here's my mirror.

A while back I was threatened with a court case over something I put on a website in the UK; several Americans mailed me offering mirror space, even financial support (!) This is a global fight... and no, I don't just mean North America and Europe. Take a look at the distribution of decss mirrors... they're in tens of countries, all round the world. American corporations have a long arm, but not *that* long .
--
"I'm not downloaded, I'm just loaded and down"

Re:There is one annoying fact...

[mikethegeek]

"The DCMA was passed.
He broke the law."

An unjust law is no law at all. And it wouldn't have the teeth it does today (considering the many major conflicts the DMCA has with the Constitution) is all thanks to one man:

"judge" Kaplan of DeCSS fame.

Just goes to show you what damage one rogue biased/corrupt/incompetent federal judge can wreak.

Re:eeek.

[saider]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:eeek.

[Erasmus Darwin]

Your reasoning is good, but the logic is flawed.

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.

Re:eeek.

[Erasmus Darwin]

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.

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.

Alternate encryption schemes

[Ratteau]

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!
--------

Complements of our friend fish.

[steveo777]

From 11 to 16 July 4 it was found in Las-Vegase at the conference Of defchon 9 together with the colleague of our firm Dmitriy Sklyarov, who came forward at the conference with report. In the morning, on 16 July, we together with Dmitriy left the hotel and intended to go into the airport. To the voyage remained about one-and-a-half hours. Directly on leaving from the door us approached two young persons, with cries " hand to the wall, FBR!". After solving, that this whose- that the unsuccessful joke (but at the conference fairly often they joked apropos of federalov), Dmitriy began to laugh and even something attempted to say as the response/answer. However, to it in the even rougher form it was said " hand to the wall!". In me they asked key/wrench from the hotel number and invited for the conversation. Only later into the number they introduced Dmitriy. It was already in the handcuffs. The two additional colleagues OF FBR, who apparently, monitored street, approached. Dmitriy asked to move handcuffs forward, since it is very inconvenient to sit with the hands connected/bonded from behind. To it there was otkazano. The colleague OF FBR was represented and said that there are no claims to me, and they arrived to arrest Dmitriy. In the polite form it was proposed to have a talk. To my question " for which they arrested Dmitriy?" response/answer was given, that for it is produced the charge in the disturbance/breakdown DMCHA (Digital Of millennium Tyuey chopyrigyut Acht) - this is American law about the copyrights. The initiator of court trial and consequence is company To adobe. More than no details colleagues FBR reported, referring to the fact that they only carry out order. To me were assigned several formal questions, to which they certainly already knew responses/answers. They asked to take with itself the things Of dimy, justifying this fact that " as they were not lost in America ". They answered to a question about further fate Of dimy, that it they will directly now transport into local ofis FBR, where will explain even some questions, and then to the judge, who will make final decision. Entire above-described occurred into Alekhis the park Of yuotel, Las-Vegas, the state of Nevada. They followed along the road into Los Angeles me, moreover it is sufficiently rough. As soon as 4 in the airport it approached the telephone, the officer of the police here ran up and made form, which wants to ring from the adjacent telephone. Anywhere it so did not ring.

bablefish

Why ROT-13 Isn't Encryption

[CritterNYC]

encrypt (en-kript)
tr.v. encrypted, encrypting, encrypts

1. To put into code or cipher.
2. 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.

eeek.

[xmutex]

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.

Re:eeek.

[h4x0r-3l337]

This idea that a citizen of one country, engaged in acts within that country which are legal in that country, can be arrested in another country for those acts, is truely scary. Though it does seem to be the latest trend.

This is perfectly normal. It is legal for me to have (consensual) sex with a 16 year old in most European countries. If I tried this in the US, I'd be arrested and sent to jail. When in a country, obey the laws of the country, even if they are different from the laws in your home country.
Don't forget that this is about more than just breaking the encryption. This person was giving a presentation on how to do so in the US, where giving such a presentation is (probably) illegal under the DMCA.

Re:eeek.

[daniel_isaacs]

I'll have to check the bylaws, but I'm pretty sure I must submit a proposal to the Archetectual Review board, who will then submit their recommendation to the full Home Owners Association Board who then vote to grant me permission to break into my own home.

Re:eeek.

[kilgore_47]

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.

Now it sounds like this guy molests important people and removes their colthing!

These "emporer's clothes" and "breaking & entering" analogies are getting out of hand.

___

Re:eeek.

[kilgore_47]

No, you are missing the point. No matter what, these "breaking into my house" stories will never be relavent to an IP discussion because stealing my stero and stealing a copy of an electronic book are two entirely different acts.

If there is a giant print of a painting, and I take a photo of it while traveling, I just made a duplication. A poor one, sure. But its still a duplication. So is pushing the shutter button on a camera remotely simmilar to breaking into your house?

If you say it is, I'm going to break into your house and take pictures of what I do to you and your family. (j/k guys... calm down!)

___

Re:eeek.

[kilgore_47]

christ! The breaking-and-entering bullshit is bad enough, you don't need to bring timber-harvest into this as well. The fact that ebooks could potentially be saving trees (hey, they aren't on paper!) just makes this WAY too complicated.

No silly analogies are needed: Writing a peice of software that decrypts books simply should not be a crime!

I'm inclined to wonder if this program will become another DeCSS-like item... ie songs and haiku's that secretly contain the source might start popping up. ;-)

___

Re:eeek.

[leeward]

This idea that a citizen of one country, engaged in acts within that country which are legal in that country, can be arrested in another country for those acts, is truely scary. Though it does seem to be the latest trend.

I guess this means that anyone employed by Adobe had better not visit Russia. They run the risk of being arrested for working for a company that produces software which is, apparently, illegal in Russia. Anyone considering a visit to a foriegn country will soon need to consult a lawyer to determine whether it is safe to do so.

Re:eeek.

[j7953]

On the other hand, There's a law against Breaking and Entering my house.

There are also laws against copying copyrighted material without a license.

Now, in a sense, my house has poor protection

Even if it had no protection, even if you left the doors open all day, it would still be illegal to enter your house without your consent.

Even without the DMCA, it was illegal to copy content that was copyrighted, unless you had a license (or a fair use right). What was not illegal was speaking about copying content, or thinking about it.

You would not want a law that protects you real estate by making it illegal to simply take a look at your house's locks and windows. You would not want a law that protects your house by making it illegal to own a bulldozer. You would not want a law that makes it illegal to test how breakable different types of glass are.

The DMCA is such a law.

This is just unbelievable

[ZanshinWedge]

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!

Re:This is just unbelievable

[jon doh!]

i don't know about you, but my mom would be quite angry with me if i got her thrown in jail. at least she was the last time i did it..

Re:How do you pronounce his name? ;)

[onion2k]

His name is encrypted using a special cipher known as 'Russian'. We could tell you, but then we'd have to kill you.

NY Times Article

[cbowland]

Here is a link to the NY Times article on this story.

Welcome to the future as owned by coporate america.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.

Re:hmmm

[NecroPuppy]

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?

Re:Hang on...

[Kierthos]

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

DMCA defines 'burgulary tools' for software theft

[hillct]

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

--

What I did.

[einhverfr]

Here is what I did.

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:

when decryption tools become outlawed

[einhverfr]

Then only the outlaws will have decryption tools.

Am I the only one who finds this scary?

Sig: Tell all your friends NOT to download the Advanced Ebook Processor:

Call me a felon, but I just cracked Rot 13!

[Bonker]

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!

hmmm

[Heywood Yabuzof]

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.

As long as we're all so closely following the law.

[Kibo]

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.

Write to Adobe too?

[SpeelingChekka]

Along similar vein, who can we write to at Adobe to indicate, uh, displeasure at the terrible way they're handling this?

Schneier knows best...

[Uttles]

``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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re:without bail?

[Uttles]

For as long as he's a flight risk. It's at the judge's discretion, but the crime charged (different from the crime or lack of crime committed) is a hostile one, with a foreigner "attacking" an American company, and since the judge probably doesn't understand what's going on, he will be held without bail until either A) the trial starts, B) the trial is over, or C) his defense can pass a motion for his release on his own recognisance (spelling?).

Of course I only know that from watching Law and Order, so I could be wrong :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re:Hang on...

[sethbc]

Seriously, Pretty much everyone uses some sort of program to decrypt ROT-13. Does that mean that execs from AOL Time Warner have to go to jail because their company owns netscape?

The DMCA is a generally untested modification to copyright law, but the problem is, the people fighting the law don't have the resources to oppose the people fighting FOR the law. A russian cryptography expert won't have the resources to take the DMCA to court and get it declared unconstitutional, for that matter, neither will the lawyers for 2600. A couple of lawyers in some of the big firms (like berger) should step up and do something. The problem is, large firms often represent the companies that are involved in these cases. This is going to be hard battle to win. The DMCA, should it ever be opposed by a properly supported cause should be declared unconstitutional, but it hasn't even had a chance to make it to the upper level courts. A little IP law shop set up to verify patents and litigate small claims on copyright infringement probably doesn't even know how to write a request for a writ of certiorari.

Hopefully, eventually, the supreme court will hear a case like this and things will be righted, but for now, i guess people just have to be careful what software they write, whether or not you live in the United States. The MPAA or RIAA don't seem to care about whether or not you live in the US (DeCSS or SDMI), and the government seems to go along with who cashes the checks.

Usual disclaimers apply, IANAL (yet)

seth

Re:without bail?

[Hostile17]

They held Kevin Mitnick for over 4 years without bail. Of course he was a felon who had fled before, so that was understandable. However taking over four years for the criminal case to come to trial is neither fair nor speedy and is therefore unconstitutional. He is one guy who should get a good lawyer and sue the government what they did to him, but it was probably part of his plea bargin, that he could not bring a civil suit.