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
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.
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.
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
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
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
"Copyright law" does not equal "technological enforcement of whatever terms somebody feels like enforcing".
While some DRM-crackers are indeed, more or less unrelated(you don't see GPL proponents celebrating the availability of cracked copies of proprietary software), the DRM-crackers who stand up for our freedom to own and control our computers, rather than the other way around, have pretty much exactly the same objective as core GPL proponents.
>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
True, that is copyright law for you. But the issue is whether the copyright holder can artificially expand his own rights or arbitrarily restrict the end users rights.
E.g. I recently encountered a company that sold pdf(?) documents you can only read with an active internet connection. Reading on the train/plane is impossible or very expensive.
Also true, but this part is about enforcing the law. You could substitute 'taking GPL code and subverting it' with 'throwing bombs','murdering innocent children' as well. Of course, that's insinuating copying is a very bad crime. Which it is not. It's mildly naughty.
If anyone other than fat, neck-bearded, Cheeto-stained, basement-dwelling gruntwaffles actually *used* Linux
Hey! I am not a gruntwaffle! Or....maybe I am...WTF is a "gruntwaffle?"
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.
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.
The GPL is a license that dictates how a work can be copied and distributed - which was the intent of copyrights originally. To control who can copy and/or distribute a work, to make sure that the author actually gets something for their effort.
DRM, on the other hand, restricts how someone who already has a copy of the work is able to use it. DRM keeps me from reading my ebook on the device of my choice. DRM keeps me from listening to my music on the device of my choice. DRM keeps me from re-installing the software that I purchased because it has been activated too many times.
Most folks on here, and in the open source community at large, don't really have a huge problem with copyright. They may have issues with various current implementations or protection periods... But most folks are ok with the idea of an author/creator getting paid for their work in some way.
DRM though... DRM isn't about keeping people from making unauthorized copies. DRM is about selling people one copy of a movie for their DVD player, and a second copy for their PC, and a third copy for their iPod. DRM is about the middle-men (not the content creators) dictating how you use the content.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
The GPL is an additive license. You don't loose the right to do anything under it, you gain the right to do things you weren't otherwise allowed if you follow it.
The DRM license an eBook is published under is subtractive, you don't gain anything from the license that your money hasn't already purchased. The sole point of the license is to force you to give up rights 'in favor' of the rights holder position.
Apples and Oranges my friend.
When you come up with a DRM backed license that at leasst actually gives, in exchange for what it's taking, something of value, then you might have an arguement. Till then, when I purchase a book, I expect to be able to use it. And since the law explicitly allows circumvention of DRM for the purposes of interoptability, I'd say so does the law.
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?
That is correct. You are able to personally use GPL software in a closed-source application. You are, however, unable to distribute said close source software with the GPL software.
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.
Actually, I am pretty sure that is exactly how it works. Under the fair use doctrine I am allowed to personally use a valid copy of a copyrighted work as I see fit, but I am unable to (in most cases) to distribute the work.
BTW, I am a rights-holder and I have used both open and closed source licensing. As a rights-holder, why would I care if they choose to use my applications in a manner other than prescribed so long as they do not distribute the software without my permission?
The rights-holder is the sole arbiter of the "conditions of the distribution of their content".
No, the courts are.
If they want to distribute content to you which you are forbidden to use in months which end in "Y" that is their right.
No, it is not. Once the product has been sold to you the rights holder has nothing to say about how you use it so long as you stick to what copyright law allows you to do with it.
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).
No, it was not. It was sold to you as a product, and it is a product that you can use according to what is permitted by copyright law. You only need a /license/ if you intend to put it to uses that copyright law does not permit.
As for what copyright law allows you to do, it allows you to use the product in the expected manner (that is, listen to music or watch a film) and some jurisdictions even allow you to make backup copies of it. There will tend to be a myriad other things you can also do with it without having to get permission from the rights holder.
sigs are hazardous to your health
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
One German mirror and one extra American mirror
PDF decryption tool: http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c
http://nopaste.info/8ad6b71874.html
http://paste2.org/p/161270
key-retrieval tool: http://pastebin.com/f26972321
http://nopaste.info/8b62e63436.html
http://paste2.org/p/161271
If you know of any other foreign pastebins,
mirror and post in this thread.
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.
Well, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to deliver a good return on investment.
You can try doing that in multiple ways. One of them is fighting a losing battle tooth and nail, another is coming up with a business model that works well in the environment it'll execute in.
I'm not saying Adobe is at one extreme and should move to the other. But you have to wonder whether fighting the DRM war is ultimately good or bad for business. If it's bad, not fighting it is their shareholder responsibility.
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."
Wow, all the trolls have come out of the woodwork.
What makes you think people are going to stop creating works of art just because somebody else is going to copy them? What makes you think that people are going to stop singing, painting, writing, telling stories, just because somebody else can sing the same song, paint the same picture, write the same words and tell the same stories?
Without copyright, people might not make money out of it. But nobody says people are supposed to make money for everything they do. Making money is not a right.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
For instance, perhaps you're a rights-holder who wants to say "you cannot use this content to help kill people" to prevent the military from using it, or whatever).
Contract law isn't a candy store. I may want to stipulate that one sign over his arm, leg, and first born child but very few courts on this planet will enforce it. And there HAVE been licenses that forbid military use or government use but those are institutions that at least under some circumstances CAN disregard contract, copyright, or even patent law. This disregard is either extended by legislative fiat or they just do it and dare you to come enforce it.
So yes, there are wishes a rights holder may have that he can't enforce with either contract or copyright law. And in keeping with DRM, there are wishes a rights holder may have that won't be enforced by the laws of physics and mathematics either.
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.
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
Copyrights are like patents in software/hardware. They prevent you from improving upon a certain work and they effectively lock the competition
Actually that's completely upside down.
Patents, in theory, are a deal between an inventor and society. For a limited, government enforced monopoly the inventor must document and register his invention with the patent office. Others can look at those patents and build upon them as long they either license the patent, wait until it's expired or build upon it in a way that the patent is not violated.
Now, this is the theory of course which doesn't seem to be very much related to nowadays reality.
However, patents where certainly not invented to hinder innovation, actually - due its documentation requirements - quite the opposite.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Yeah, cause no one ever created anything before copyright law came along 300 years ago. Yeah.
I don't care why you're posting AC
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.
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!!!
You could argue this violates the DMCA with respect to technological protection measures.
But DMCA notices use a different part of the DMCA, which allows takedowns for actual copyright violations. IANAL, but I don't think that you can combine the two and use a DMCA notice to take down something that doesn't violate copyright but does violate the other part of the DMCA.
I completely agree with what you said, except as much as I dislike the recording industry and their tactics? I think their quest to find "unbreakable DRM" has more rationality behind it than you give them credit for.
The problem in their scenario is, they count on making their money via a high volume of music sales. (So to use one of your analogies, it's as though their business is costume jewelry sales. No individual piece would seem to be worth spending much money to protect, from a customer's perspective. Yet from their point of view, anything less than "unbreakable DRM" is like leaving their entire inventory sitting out on a table where anyone can walk by and help themselves to as many free pieces as they'd like to take.) DRM that's easily defeated by some free utility or music player plug-in is about as useful to the music industry as taping those pieces of costume jewelery down to the table with scotch tape.....
And really, that's why DRM is a hopeless endeavor. People implementing it WANT it to be like a safe, with thick walls that take hours to cut open, and a combination lock you'll stand no chance of randomly guessing the combination to. Yet it's not, because unlike a safe, once the first person goes through the effort to crack it open, they can transfer that ability to everyone else with VERY little effort. (Imagine a situation where magically, a cutting torch that cut through the wall of one safe could cut through ALL future safes instantly, after the effort was made on the first one. That's what DRM is like.)
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.
Where did I agree to those terms and conditions when purchasing a DVD or CD @ Best Buy?
My Babylon
You're looking at this entirely wrong. Rejection of the GPL and rejection of DRM are two entirely separate things.
DRM isn't a license, it's a mechanism to restrict the use of the copyrighted work. From a moral perspective, it's improper for consumers to be forced to purchase the same work for their Zune, iPod, generic MP3 player, car, computer and CD player. If, through DRM, music publishers thought they could get away with that they would. DRM is their weak attempt at this, with the false presumption that consumers won't fight back.
Again, from a moral perspective, bypassing DRM to use a legally purchased copyrighted work such as an audio recording or a movie on the device of your choice is not wrong - it is a prerogative. From a legal perspective, well obviously the current state of laws are out of touch with reality, as is the mindset of content producers(see Authors Guild recent statements regarding Kindle). In fact, on that note, I would love to see the Authors Guild representative tell a blind man face to face that he has to pay extra because of text to speech capability. Good fucking luck.
GPL is a license. The license doesn't restrict your use of the software and thus does not impose morally unfair conditions upon users of GPL software. If you downloaded the next Linux kernel and it had an addendum on the license that said "This software can only be used while wearing pink fuzzy slippers", I would wholeheartedly agree that users should ignore that portion of the license.
In many ways, the laws on the books are out of touch with common morality and consumer expectations of fairness. They will catch up eventually, I hope.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
Found it via a simple Google search for 'ADEPT PDF decryption'...
http://pastebin.com/f26972321
http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c
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.
Technically you're allowed to photocopy portions of a book say if you're using them for research purposes. This is called 'Fair Use' which is something that copyright holders have been desperately trying to wrest from the hands of the public. Also just because someone made a James Bond book doesnt mean you arent allowed to make a different Spy character that does similar things. Part of the creative process is touching on people's expectations...
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Nonsense.
Sometimes I buy a DVD and it says "This DVD was sold subject to the condition that...." (usually something about playing in schools and prisons) and I think: "No it wasn't" - and it wasn't.
Just because it is written down doesn't mean it is true.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
I have written a chapter to a technical book mainly for the "publication" value. Quite a expensive one too. I didn't get paid and neither did any of the editors or other authors. This is not uncommon for this type of book. We even have to do the proofs and everything.
Publishes once added value. They really don't anymore.
The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
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.