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

Hey, why not just steal GPL code?

[tjstork]

It's rather comical that so many people out there are trying to break DRM and band themselves as allies of the open source movement in some way. 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. If we have a legal system where copying images, songs and books is tolerated, then we also have a legal system where taking GPL code and subverting it will be tolerated as well.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code?

[Dredd13]

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.

Removing DRM so that consumers have a choice over how and when to use content they have paid for is a great thing.

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. Because that should be my right as a consumer of the code, to determine how I want to use it... right.... right? Sorry, but that's not how it works. If the GPL rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictates "terms of use" for GPL'ed content, then the DRM'ed rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictate THEIR terms of use as well. If you don't like those terms, feel free to use something else, just as lots of people who don't like GPL license terms use BSD or even (gasp!) closed-source code.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code?

[Microlith]

Copyrights are like patents in software/hardware.

Yeah, so we should abolish copyrights and watch what happens as TPB gets flooded short term with existing works, and the amount of newly created works that show up on the site trickles to a near standstill. Yeah.

Let's screw creators over completely, show them what they get for going out on a limb. Yeah.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code?

[tjstork]

Making money is not a right.

Well then, can we kick all the people off of welfare and knock off all this national health care crap.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code?

[sco08y]

Wow, all the trolls have come out of the woodwork.

Just because someone disagrees with /. orthodoxy, even on the odd occasions when that orthodoxy is right, doesn't make them a troll. I've only read a few responses on this thread, but it hardly seems to have more troll content than usual.

The best trolls left a long time ago.

No...

[tjstork]

That's a distortion and a half. I cannot copy a song on iTunes, and I redistribute GPL code, unless I comply with either license. It's really simple actually. If you can invent for yourself a new kind of right that lets you make and distribute unlimited copies of a song, then certainly someone else can invent for themselves the right to redistribute GPL code in proprietary products. Either you agree that the copyright holder has a right to control distribution, that is, you believe in copyrights, or you don't.

It's really very simple, and what you are offering, instead, is that people must comply with YOUR copyrights, that is, the GPL, but you don't have to comply with THEIRS.

That's bullshit.