free Dmitry!!!!!!

[AKDejaVu]

AKDejaVu, what illegal acts do you believe he carried out?

A company makes an interface to distribute copyrighted material for a price.  Someone provides people with the means to bypass that security and sells it.

That is making money off of someone else's copyrighted material.

Now.. sit back and argue that it was his company that did this all you want... and he's not really responsible.  It's just the direction you chose to look <away> in order to justify these actions.

 

A few things really piss me off big time. Backing up your information is what we want to do. We want to back up that expansive 40-50$ game CD, or even some expansive programm that costs multy hundreds of dollars.

Buy a book some day.  Dip the book in black paint.  Take the book back to the bookstore and ask for another one to replace it.

As a side note... I've never had any problems replacing damaged CD's from any software I have ever purchased and then registered.  At worst, they made me send in the damaged CD before sending me a new one.

Of course, Napster was really only a way to back up your music... nobody ever obtained music from artists without paying for it.  It is such a noble service that they are providing.

People hide behind "Its only intended to provide a means for backing things up" way too often.

 

We DONT want to loose those CD's, we want to enjoy our erned right to use the software we bought.

Ummm... then don't loose them.  If it is a matter of a damaged CD.. then see what I have said before.. I have not run into a problem with a software company not wanting to replace a damaged CD.  The key being replace... if you don't have the original... you just may be screwed.  Your loss equals your loss.

 

But companies dont want us to have such copyes, because we might as well distribute them to our friends or even try to sell them.

Here's a bit of information for you... necessity breeds invention.  No corporation likes to spend money on encryption, password protection, copy-protection or anything else similar.  They are in place because too many people abuse the ease with which those discs can be coppied and distributed.  If it was just for backup purposes, nobody would care... of course... everyone knows that its not just for backups <even if they won't admit it>.

 

He didnt cracked the software

Yes he did, but that's not really the issue here.

 

he didnt sell it

No, his company did.  Software that he specifically wrote for distribution.  Sold software that violates copyright protection.

 

and for sure he gave option for those who had none. Opppsss.. Not him, but COMPANY where he only works.

Ah yes... the double standard applies.  You make him into a modern day Robin Hood on one hand, and blame his company for all the bad deeds associated on the other.  Tell me... did he promote the product when he came to the US?  Yes or no.

 

Woah! You KNOW this? You know they noted and decided not to act on the information?

If the software has not been modified, then I KNOW THEY DECIDED NOT TO ACT ON THE INFORMATION!  The only other option would be that they were never presented with it in the first place.

 

Or did they simply not pay attention?

So.. are you saying this was an attention ploy?  Or are you saying that Adobe is so out of touch that they wouldn't even be remotely concerned with anything anyone had to say?  Or are you saying that somehow Adobe knew about the software this individual distributed, but did not know that their software encryption was vulnerable?  Just what part of them pressing charges has you the most confused right now?

 

Have you ever tried to deal with Microsoft? I have - you need to set off a tactical nuke on their doorstep to get their attention.

Actually, I have tried to deal with Microsoft.  There was even a hotfix for NT 4.0 that was a direct result of a phonecall from me to them.  Of course, the hotfix took some 6 months to generate... but hell.. it was for a joystick control driver.

Now.. have you ever worked for a company with any kind of quality control?  Ever worked for a company where a slight change could have catastrophic effects?  Try to get a change made in that environment before getting to high and mighty about exactly how ignorant software companies are.

 

As for copyrights, did it violate international or Russian copyright laws?

No it did not.  It violated US copyright laws(legally debatable.. but that's for the courts to decide).  That is why he wasn't arrested in Russia.  The program was distributed in the United States... the law was broken... he came into the country.  Its that simple.

 

If not, are you saying the rest of the world must be subject to US law?

The rest of the world is subject to US law while in the US.

 

If true, then the reverse should be true. Every American who ever drank alcohol should be liable for arrest for breaking Islamic law.

Actually, ask a Muslim why they call us "infidels" some day.  We've already been deemed guilty and that is used to justify the use of terrorism on our people.

But then.. I would fully expect an American that was responsible for smuggling alcohol into a nation of Islam to be held responsible for those actions in that country... especially if he decided to go to that country in person after the fact.

AKDejaVu

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: AKDejaVu ]

[Boroda]

Both Mietla and Miko2d have exactly the same rating (     ). Coincidence?.. I think yes.

 

[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Boroda ]

[Nashwan]

A company makes an interface to distribute copyrighted material for a price. Someone provides people with the means to bypass that security and sells it.

That is making money off of someone else's copyrighted material.

No more so than selling a cd writer or blank cd is, for example. Or a videotape.
Both are used to backup material you are allowed to back up, and also to make illegal copies that are distributed.
The difference between an illegal copy and a legitimate one is what you do with it. The act of making the copy is not illegal, the distribution of that copy is.
You agree that devices like cd writers should be banned then? And videos, mp3 players etc?
Napster was nothing other than a distribution service, there was no other use for it. Why were the owners of Napster, which was probably responsible for more copyright violations during 2000 than any other company or individual, not charged with any offences?
You may never have had problems replacing software cds you have registered, but good luck replacing the music cd you bought 10 years ago. Remember you are buy the use of that copyrighted material, not just a cd.
Courts have repeatedly ruled that users have the right to make personal copies of material they bought copyright for, and of TV programs etc. What is bad about the DMCA is that it doesn't change those laws, people still have the right to make personal backups. The DMCA prevents those rights by the back door, by stopping people getting the things they need to make those backups.
The MPAA position is a pointer to where this is heading. They maintain with DVD protection, that buying a DVD doesn't grant you the rights to watch it, you also have to buy an approved player. 10 years from now, when the DVD market has reached saturation, all they have to do is not license the manufacture of more DVD players, and switch instead to a new technology. The DVD you bought might last, but when you can't get players anymore it aint much use. Then to watch the film you bought the permament rights to you will have to buy it again.

Just as an example of how far the DMCA goes, Edward Felten, professor of Computer Science at Princeton University, took part in the challenge laid down by the Secure Digital Music Initiative, which is attempting to develop an encryption standard for music on the net. They publicy asked people to hack the encryption, so they could prove how secure it was. Professor Felten and his team defeated the encryption. They planned to publish a scientific paper, Reading Between the Lines: Lessons from the SDMI Challenge. Just before publication, Professor Felten and Princeton University recieved a warning from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI) that threatened a lawsuit if the paper was published.

How about the case of Matthew Pavlovich, an Indiana student who put an open source DVD player for linux on his website, and who now has to defend himself in a lawsuit brought in California, even though he lives in Indiana? The Linux player he distributed doesn't enable copying of DVDs, just playing them on Linux, but because it circumvents the protection that stops them being played on Linux systems he has to go to court. The MPAA justifies it because they haven't licensed the players for Linux.

[AKDejaVu]

No more so than selling a cd writer or blank cd is, for example. Or a videotape.
Both are used to backup material you are allowed to back up, and also to make illegal copies that are distributed.

I'm sorry.. does a videotape or a cd allow you to obtain anything that wasn't paid for at some point?

They are not the same.  You know it, I know it and Dmitry is about to learn it.

AKDejaVu

[Yoj]

Originally posted by AKDejaVu:


Now.. have you ever worked for a company with any kind of quality control? Ever worked for a company where a slight change could have catastrophic effects?

I don't know - do airliners count?  

Try to get a change made in that environment before getting to high and mighty about exactly how ignorant software companies are.

If I discovered a safety problem on a Boeing plane I absolutely guarantee you I'd have no problem bringing it to the company's attention, and it would get changed.  

Anyway, I don't recall saying anything about how ignorant software companies are.  I said it can be very difficult to get their attention. Its not just software companies either - big companies, and particularly smug big companies are particularly at risk.  

As for the legal aspect, it doesn't wash.  Had he violated US law in the US he should absolutely be charged.  To charge him for doing something that was legal where he did it is absurd.  Taking alcohol into an Islamic country should get you arrested, but not drinking it in America and then travelling to Saudi Arabia, which is an exact parallel.

The US tried this nonsense some years ago - they arrested a Canadian businessman visiting the US because he had been trading with Cuba while he was in Canada.  It didn't hold up and neither should this.  

- Yoj

[fd ski]

AKDejaVu, three letters for you
I I S

Now write me an essay on how companies are good and efficient about testing and proper responses  

[Nashwan]

I'm sorry.. does a videotape or a cd allow you to obtain anything that wasn't paid for at some point?

They are not the same. You know it, I know it and Dmitry is about to learn it.

Yes, in exactly the same way the software Dmitry sold does.
A blank cd or videotape can be used to copy software, music or video, and the copy can be sold or given to someone who hasn't paid for the original copyright. ie, someone buys a blank cd, copys Black and White onto it, and sells it or gives it to a friend.
The software Dmitry sold is used to enable copying of the ebooks encrypted by Adobe.

[AKDejaVu]

If I discovered a safety problem on a Boeing plane I absolutely guarantee you I'd have no problem bringing it to the company's attention, and it would get changed.

Not talking about safety here.  That's somewhat of a moot point when it comes to software.  Mention safety in any sentance and you get instant response with most companies these days.

The fact that you felt the need to use the word safety speaks volumes.  What if it wasn't a problem related to safety?

Or even better.. if they didn't head your warnings of an unsafe condition regarding chaffed wires and fuel cells.. would it be ok to intentionally chaff a wire on a jet-liner to prove your point... to get the attention necessary?

Of course, that is an overboard example... but then so is everyone's justification for this person's acts.

 

I said it can be very difficult to get their attention. Its not just software companies either - big companies, and particularly smug big companies are particularly at risk.

Ah.. I see.  Smug big companies.  We'll show them.. they can't ignore us.  They deserve whatever happens because they are smug.

Sigh.

 

As for the legal aspect, it doesn't wash. Had he violated US law in the US he should absolutely be charged. To charge him for doing something that was legal where he did it is absurd. Taking alcohol into an Islamic country should get you arrested, but not drinking it in America and then travelling to Saudi Arabia, which is an exact parallel.

So this software was never distributed in the US?  This software was only sold under the condition that it never be used in the US?  This software cannot be obtained directly via mail purchased from his company and shipped to the US?  Or downloaded after payment by anyone in the US?

There is a reason people have restrictions on who can and can't purchase their software.  This would be one of them.

 

The US tried this nonsense some years ago - they arrested a Canadian businessman visiting the US because he had been trading with Cuba while he was in Canada. It didn't hold up and neither should this.

Um.. neither of those conditions involve the US.  He was not doing illegal trading did not involve the US, it circumvented it.  You know what would have stood up... if the gentleman was doing unsanctioned trading with Cuba then importing those goods directly to the United States from Cuba... no matter where he was located when he did it.

 

Now write me an essay on how companies are good and efficient about testing and proper responses

Umm.. I don't think so.  I never said they were good and efficient at anything.  Thought I implied quite the opposite.

What I will continue to say is the fact that they are inneficient at anything does not give someone the license to do what was done in this situation.  "They <seemingly> ignored me" doesn't mean toejam.  Its their perrogative whether good, bad, accidental or intentional.

 

Yes, in exactly the same way the software Dmitry sold does.

I tried to burn a copy of Tomb Raider III today, but it kept asking for an original CD.  I must have a defective CD burner.

AKDejaVu

[Nashwan]

I tried to burn a copy of Tomb Raider III today, but it kept asking for an original CD. I must have a defective CD burner

Perhaps you should stick to copying music CDs?    

[Nashwan]

BTW, depending on your cd writer and the software you use, you can get round any of the current cd protection systems. A quick web search turned up exact instructions on how to do it. Can't tell you how, or where to find out, because then i would be breaking US law, even though you wouldn't be for actually doing the copy  

[AKDejaVu]

no neshwan.. its not the CD.  You see, I don't own a copy of Tomb Raider III.  That makes copying it somewhat difficult.  That is not the case with dmitry's software.

AKDejaVu

[Vulcan]

Deja I think you're missing the big picture with the DMCA. There are things going down that are downright crazy.

Lets take this Adobe case, now the E-Book reader might be shareware. But, Adobe makes its money selling the E-Book generating software correct? Adobe issues a challenge saying 'break our code'. Someone breaks it. Adobe goes quiet about it. Now, at this stage does Adobe say to its Ebook customers "hey guys our product is no longer secure".... No. Adobe continues to sell its product as a secure option.

Same story with the new music encryption at the university dude. They broke the code and then tried to hush him up.

Now with the DMCA what they are saying is don't break the code and if you do don't tell anybody. Is it not misleading for these companies to try and hush up flaws in their products?

Right now you're thinking its all a bunch of fringe hackers crying. But, we already have audio-CDs hitting the shelves with digital modifications to prevent MP3 and other digital audio compression. Stops copying... fair enough. But what about legitimate users with MP3 players?

The DMCA is too extreme. Its a license for software companies to rely on the law to validate their products rather than have truely working products validate themselves.

Good luck to the US, in the meantime the Russians will crack your code like taking candy off a babey. And why? Because your ncryption will rely on law and not proven performance. People will just go underground with this code, the DMCA won't stop people from cracking encryption.

If Adobe had written secure code in the first place, they wouldn't have to rely on law to bail out their business.

[Nashwan]

no neshwan.. its not the CD. You see, I don't own a copy of Tomb Raider III. That makes copying it somewhat difficult. That is not the case with dmitry's software.

Dmitry's software allows you to decrypt an ebook. That will also be difficult without an ebook to decrypt.
The Adobe ebook reader is free. To get the books to read, you have to pay for them.

[Dmitry]

He never hacked Adobe, all he did is cracked encryption.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dmitry:
He never hacked Adobe, all he did is cracked encryption.

Alittle play on words there?

Crack encryption=Break into safe
Hack=Steal all that is in safe