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)?"
DRM is like trying to make water not wet.
The MS "no sue/patent deal" with Novell/Xandros is like the Pope blessing a Jewish wedding
Non-sequitur
Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy. Removing DRM so that consumers have a choice over how and when to use content they have paid for is a great thing.
It is regrettable that these developments are also massive boosts for piracy, but without this sort of action there would be no DVD playback on Linux.
Because sometimes (read: very often) the DRM will prevent the end-user from exercising rights he would have under standard Fair Use doctrines.
I've upped my standards, so up yours.
I can't believe that this nonsense keeps being repeated. The GPL (a license I don't really like, but respect) is a distribution license. It follows both the spirit and the letter of copyright law, allowing the original author to restrict how people copy their work. DRM, in contrast, restricts how people use their work. This is counter to the spirit of copyright law - there's a reason it's called copyright not useright - and is antithetical to Free Software. Note that even laws like the DMCA talk about copy protection, rather than DRM. They are not the same thing. Copy protection only prevents copying, while DRM prevents various forms of use, for example annotating a PDF or playing a DVD from a different country.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Since when was the definition of copyright infringement extended, so any tool that got passed ineffective access controls, could automatically be configured infringement?
The DMCA takedown rules should require a work to actually be infringing...
Nope - DMCA defines extra crimes involving copyrighted works, but the crimes defined needn't be copyright infringement themselves. Namely, any program that facilitates the disabling of any copy protection device violates the DMCA. Doesn't matter how it does it or the technical details. I don't think there's any question that this program was breaking the letter (and hell, the spirit) of the law when it comes to the DMCA.
The problem is that the DMCA itself is a bad and unfair law. Bad and unfair laws result in bad and unfair application. You can either live with it, ignore it, or try to change it. Geeks don't have the lobbying power to change it, nor the will power to just live with it, so far the most part we just ignore that law, only complying as a token gesture as needed. I mean really - this guy has now complied with Adobe's takedown notice, but the code was released into the wild. At this point the cat is out of the bag.
Though really - why don't we start posting these things on foreign servers to begin with? Put it up on The Pirate Bay or something for goodness sakes. DMCA takedown notices mean little in areas where the DMCA doesn't apply.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without.
As I understand it, the purpose of copyright is to secure for creators a limited time monopoly on the rights necessary for selling the creation, in return for them eventually enriching the cultural (and, in the case of software, technological) commons.
Some kinds of DRM prevent or obstruct use of the work in such a way that when the work enters the public domain, it doesn't enrich the commons in practice. It's like being given a car wreck that's in really bad shape: sure you can sell it as scrap metal, but it's worth so little that you're better off ignoring it.
For this reason, I think one can argue that DRM (with certain properties) goes against the spirit and purpose of copyright law, and the argument doesn't apply to GPL'ed software.
The rights-holder is the sole arbiter of the "conditions of the distribution of their content". If they want to distribute content to you which you are forbidden to use in months which end in "Y" that is their right. You're free as a consumer to say "that's horse-shit," and not purchase their content at all. But at the end of the day, the copy of the content was given to you, after an exchange of moneys, based on an agreement (the license agreement). If you're unhappy with the license agreement you're now bound by, please feel free to read the license more closely in the future. If the license wasn't adequately provided to you prior to purchase (e.g., license agreements INSIDE software boxes, etc.) feel free to use the court system to get your money back, or to prove that those particular agreements are invalid. But what you don't get to do is simply ignore the copyright restriction when it isn't convenient for you.
Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy.
As a rights-holder? Bull. Shit. "You have the right to use content provided you do so in a manner consistent with the license provided with it." That's the same basic principle protected in the GPL, as well as in DRM-licensing terms.
You fail (again). The GPL does not, in any way, restrict your use of the licensed code. It only restricts the way you redistribute that code (if you should choose to do so). And, newsflash, even if the GPL wanted to restrict your use, it couldn't, because the GPL is based on copyright law. A license can only grant you MORE freedom than is already allowed to you by copyright law. And copyright law regulates distribution, not private usage.
Copyright law allows the rights-holder to determine the conditions upon which they are willing to give you rights to use the content.
Wow. You failed twice in a row, and some idiot mod still modded you up.
Copyright. Read it carefully. Say it out loud. It is literally the right to copy. Copyright only deals with redistribution, whether in original or modified form. It does not deal with usage. Get it into your thick skull already; copyright cannot stop you from using what you bought the way you want it. It only stops you from copying what you bought and giving it to others. (Fair use covers the part where you copy something for backup purposes.)
Seesh. Get it right, or go troll somewhere else.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
So the manufacturer gets to decide how we use their product after we purchase it? Kellogs can prevent me from using their product to make Rice krispie squares? You don't believe in private property?
I think you need to think this through a little.
I don't care why you're posting AC
Or on Freenet, where it is impossible for anyone to remove,
CHK@Lxdd7kNnDxsKDbJvN954w8VVTkyeXriXBc~CZQi7yh0,CpQsd8KQkbzeRnfpY4tprGAlt2LYjIKtwVdDYXWY~nE,AAIC--8/ineptpdf.pyw
CHK@0sthR-c3bxeDPtyRP4vLst4MKLAYunyPgL3DFgijAR4,GLU99yTKNtuIx9A54tvh20XisaAPwCcul58wTmTKjRE,AAIC--8/ineptkey.pyw
At this point this discussion should probably be modded Flaimwar, but from the biased opinion of a self-publisher and a GPL content consumer, I think both arguments are correct. GPL advocates need to differentiate why they should be able to disable the rights claimed by DRM content or else it comes off as "we want freedom to do what we want (in the interests of consumers) AND to prevent you from doing what you want (in the interests of producers).
Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes. Either copyright is valuable, or it isn't. Pick a side.... and know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are benevolent and greedy consequences on each side of the copyright argument.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
Where did I agree to those terms and conditions when purchasing a DVD or CD @ Best Buy?
My Babylon