Slashdot Mirror
Adobe's ADEPT DRM Broken
An anonymous reader writes "I love cabbages has reverse-engineered Adobe's ADEPT DRM (e-book protection). On February 18, I love cabbages released code that decrypts EPUB e-books protected with ADEPT and followed that up on February 25, with code that decrypts PDF e-books protected with ADEPT. On March 4, I love cabbages was given a DMCA take down notice. And there's plenty of evidence he got it right. DS:TNG (Dmitry Sklyarov: The Next Generation)?"
The tools are not on the site anymore...
But now what you're really here for - the PDF decryption tool: REMOVED. (And if you don't already have it, the key-retrieval tool: REMOVED.)
Edit: Links to tools removed due to DMCA complaint from Adobe.
This is not the next Dmitri, if anything, it may turn in to the new DeCSS as Adobe is trying to stop the tool(s) from spreading, which tends to have the opposite effect.
I really wonder if it hadn't been better for Adobe not to say anything, now they are giving it publicity it wouldn't have had otherwise.
Licensing is not copyright. Licensing is a contract you enter in depending on whether you want to use certain programs and it's code associated with. You can choose not to buy/use/change the program or you can haggle for better fitting licensing (whether it be cost or freedom). If you don't like it, make your own program that does the same job but better (or cheaper).
Copyright is forced upon you whenever the creator creates his product. Even if you go to a library or book store and DON'T buy the book, the thing is still copyrighted and you can't make copies of it nor can you make a similar book with the same or a similar story.
Copyrights are like patents in software/hardware. They prevent you from improving upon a certain work and they effectively lock the competition out of making anything that is vaguely similar or even an extension of a book.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
There is of course, Google Cache ...
Or, you can just get it from pastebin:
http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c
and
http://pastebin.com/f26972321
XenoPhage
Technological Musings
>But now what youâ(TM)re really here for â" the PDF decryption tool: http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c. (And >if you don't already have it, the key-retrieval tool: http://pastebin.com/f26972321.)
From the original article without having the links broken by law. /. will have to do the same now?
I wonder is
You can always call it back from google cache...as I did.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:aoDTe7wI6s4J:i-u2665-cabbages.blogspot.com/2009/02/circumventing-adobe-adept-drm-for-pdf.html+http://i-u2665-cabbages.blogspot.com/2009/02/circumventing-adobe-adept-drm-for-pdf.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca
I'm really getting tired of these same straw men getting trotted out every time the issue of DRM comes up.
You bet. You may use GPL software in any way you see fit. Freedom 0 guarentees that:
In fact, the license specifically forbids a copyright holder from taking steps to control how you use the software. The GPL only puts restrictions on how the software is distributed. The only person being restricted by the GPL is the copyright holder.
This is as it should be.
DRM has nothing to do with copyright. It's purpose is to controls access to the copyrighted work, to control how the person who paid for the copyrighted work uses it.
DRM is an attempt by copyright holders to claim additional rights for themselves beyond what copyright allows for. In many cases, it prevents citizens from exercising fair use without defeating it, making it incompatible with copyright law. If a copyright holder wishes to employ DRM, they should forfeit copyright protection, as they are not holding up their end of the bargain.
You know, one fucking "right" will do, thanks.
I don't care why you're posting AC
What these "rights holders" are saying is this:
1) We like copyright.
2) Mostly
3) What we don't like about copyright is the following:
a) You can sell it to someone else. We really don't like that.
b) You can use it in the way that you want, and I can't control it
c) You can use it forever. I really don't like that
4) So I like copyright, but I want it to be constraining than copyright
5) So I'll lock it in DRM and then you can't actually do those things in #3 above that I really dislike
6) And then as a rights holder, I get to control how you use the work.
7) Which copyright doesn't really allow
I mean, I *get* why people want to ignore #3. It's just that the law is not on their side. So they created technical hurdles to fair use and doctrine of first sale. And then they claim a copyright violation (much as you're doing) to justify the taking of rights.
That's the argument in a nutshell.
The First Sale Doctrine would like to have a word with you.
You cannot restrict an owners use of a copyrighted work. I can read a book when I want, I can sell it when I want for as little as I want(the original problem involved requiring you to sell books for a minimum price), I can lend it to my friends. I can even put it my wall with a camera and projector if I have poor eyesight(oo, transient copy!).
The only reason software companies get away with it is the fact that to run their software, a copy needs to be made in memory, and thus they grant you the right to make that copy with restrictions, which is only barely accepted. If you were to run an OS that supported execute in place, then you could give them the finger and wipe them across the court floor.
Some claim their software is licensed, not sold, but that is also bullshit in every other medium, via the 1976 Act that includes all lawfully possesed works whether sold, given, or traded. Some districts have included anything with the appearance of a sale(ie, I can buy it at a store just like batteries, books, or groceries), some have not.
If I download software from your website, you gave it to me, too late to add a contract of adhesion after the fact. If you give me a contract beforehand, then me bad for agreeing to it, but after I have it I'm free to ignore any paper/bytes inside the box/installer.
Legally murky, as software with little or no purpose other than circumventing copy protection, software which is marketed for circumventing copy protection, or primarily designed to break protection would be a violation of US Code Section 1201, which would leave the service provider open for secondary infringement. So while the DMCA may not be the "right" way to ask, once the copyright holder has knowledge of a tool as described above, they could be legally liable if they don't remove it.
As far as the legal ramifications of (possibly) abusing the "safe harbor provision", I'm not sure.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this does not constitute legal advice, etc.
also http://pastebin.com/f280aa6b9
Found it via a simple Google search for 'ADEPT PDF decryption'...
http://pastebin.com/f26972321
http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c
Get mad at the author for caving and making it easier for the next author to justify caving. Adobe is not to blame.
You are confusing "distribution" with redistribution
I can say "I will give you some code I wrote with a GPL license in exchange for $20". If you don't give me the $20, you don't get the code, and the fact that it is GPL licensed does NOTHING. In fact I could even say "I'll give you this code and put it in the public domain for $20". But unless I get the $20 you will not see the code, it is totally irrelevant what license I plan to put it under!
However once you have it, if I really have granted you the GPL license to violate the copyright, you can go ahead and do so. And this means you can give it to other people and they won't have to pay me $20. That is redistribution.
The record companies, with no changes to copyright or any license or EULA at all, can say "you can't give this music to somebody else because you are violating copyright law", ie it is just like the GPL except there are no exceptions that let you violate copyright law.