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)?"

Comments

Not really a new Sklyarov

[muffen]

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.

Re:Not really a new Sklyarov

[Dolohov]

What do you expect them to do, wave a white flag and say "It's a fair cop, you got us"? They have a responsibility to their shareholders to do everything they can to protect a) their investment in creating the DRM in the first place, and b) the value of their licensed software and agreements with publishers.

While I personally believe that Adobe would have been better-advised to have not bothered with this in the first place, DRM being particularly silly for text, they did. And because they did, saying nothing right now is not an option, or their shareholders could rightly accuse them of not being duly diligent. If the DeCSS/Streisand effect kicks in, well that's just part of the dance they started way back when.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code?

[guruevi]

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.

Took down the links, not the content..

[XenoPhage]

There is of course, Google Cache ...

Or, you can just get it from pastebin:

http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c

and

http://pastebin.com/f26972321

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code?

[multisync]

I'm really getting tired of these same straw men getting trotted out every time the issue of DRM comes up.

So, to use your argument, if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that.

You bet. You may use GPL software in any way you see fit. Freedom 0 guarentees that:

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.

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.

... right.... right?

You know, one fucking "right" will do, thanks.

Re:DMCA Takedown illegal?

[Coopjust]

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.