Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dmitry on July 23, 2001, 01:15:00 AM
-
quote from some news media:
Dmitry Sklyarov is a Russian cryptographer. In order to expose the childishly simple encryption used on a e-book reader made by the Adobe Corporation (not much more difficult than pig latin), he wrote a program used to decrypt e-books encrypted with Adobe's program. A company he works for then sold it over the Internet. All this programming was done in Russia, where the DMCA does not apply. Mr. Sklyarov then came to the U.S., to discuss his work at a convention in Las Vegas. Adobe, aware he would be coming to the U.S., ordered the FBI to arrest him. He is now being held in an undisclosed location, awaiting arraignment.
some more info i bumped into:
by Ilya V. Vasilyev
Hi, All!
First of all, excuse my bad English. As for now, we have no professional interpreters. AFAIK, no professional interpreter can work as much, as I had to do the last three days. And I'm just a Russian citizen. Its lucky for everyone, that I know a little bit English (because of computer study) -- we can communicate.
There were 10 people on press-conference: the owners of the hall, four activists, three "free journalists" and two people, who said, that also can help in oranizing action. The place of the conference was symbolic -- "round table" in the bookstore.
The majority of people get known about press-conference a day before or today morning, but postpone their deeds and came. It was hard to separate whats happening to press-conference and meeting of activists, because journalists came asyncronious. The owners of the hall also have their deeds, we meet with them at the beginning and at the end of the conference.
American journalist interested in Adobe, but, when we declared that Adobe position is unknown until their negotiation with EFF, the topic was unjust arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov and DMCA law.
One of the activists made suggestion, that Adobe is just playing "the second hand" of FBI, that is benifit from creation of DMCA precedent. He noted not good situation, that Adobe have found itself and expressed the opinion, that Adobe was specially selected, because Adobe problems aren't a problems of industry -- if protest actions will be against Microsoft or IBM, this will make a significant strike to the States themselves.
DMCA law, factually, ban exploreing of protected programs, given to U.S. secret service to put impunity "holes", "trojans" and make "backdoors". If we permit Dmitry case to make precedent, the computer, you bought, is on FBI service, not your. Moreover, FBI will put into prison everyone, who will dare to publish the prove of "hole" presence, no matter of his citizenship or from what country he is.
I told, that FBI words that Advanced eBook Processor copyright belongs to Dmitry mustn't be taken on trust. Willing people can download AEBPR from the site:
www.elcomsoft.com/aebpr.html (http://www.elcomsoft.com/aebpr.html)
and assure, that copyright, both in documentation and in the program, belongs to ElcomSoft company. Only those programs were "distributed", more accurate -- were put on ElcomSoft web site, during Dmitry visit in US.
This fact was first time published on the described press-conference in Moscow.
Dmitry is pursued by criminal article, because he got "financial gain" from selling the program. Ah! And here FBI makes unpardonable inaccuracy. The profit from sales took ElcomSoft company, Dmitry is her ordinary employer, on salary.
If FBI willn't discontinue the case, it for sure must convert it into civil, non-criminal. May be, even not against Dmitry, but against ElcomSoft. The company against company, whose activity the first company count illegal.
Charges, that Dmitry imported in US ElcomSoft product with primary use to take protection off from protected products, is false twice. Programs, that were "imported" by Dmitry, were for the only aim -- demonstration that all, that is told about eBook "protection", differs from reality. He flyed to the conference only because of that -- to make computer security speach, not for taken protection from God know what books. Charge him with this one can no more, that detective story designer in murder.
Dmitry commit no crime on the US territory neighter by US law, nor by Russian. In Russia he behave himself lawfully. One can arrest him in US no more, than arrest foregner in Moscow, who smoke marijuana sigarette in Amsterdam (where it is legal) a year before. Even USSR don't put into jail americans, that said bad words about communists in US -- that is illegal by Soviet laws.
There are too many such inaccuracies and stiffnesses in the case against Dmitry. Factually, Americans must chose now -- to live in police state, when every toaster, bought on your money will execute secret FBI instructions, or help to free Dmitry.
The most sad for us is that DMCA law begin its terror from citizens of other countries, becoming the problem of worldwide scale.
About protest actions in Moscow.
Being listening to EFF opinion, that advice to postpone street actions of protest until Adobe position will be clear on negotiating with EFF on Monday, 23 of June, we desided.
We'll continue preparation the protest action in the capital of Russia, but hold it until EFF desision.
and that after i can download about anything that Adobe makes, all hacks, cracks.... u name it... from 1000 of locations.. Intelegent person who showed right into their faces that their security is crap gets arrested? Meanwhile i am typing this about 100-200 ppl across palnet downloading all those Prremier 6, Photoshop 7, PageMaker and such.... :mad: :mad: :mad:
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Dmitry ]
-
This is what big software companies does when their stupidity is exposed :/
Hope the guy gets released.
-
Hey, Boroda, Why don't you and your pals come over for a visit.
-
Simply because if iEN will lose the case (and they will) - it will be probably the worst precedent for online gaming industry.
Some more interesting reading about FBI in action:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134287977_hacker23m0.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134287977_hacker23m0.html) http://www.msnbc.com/news/563379.asp (http://www.msnbc.com/news/563379.asp) http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/04/24/russia.hacking.ap/index.html?s=8 (http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/04/24/russia.hacking.ap/index.html?s=8) http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010423/tc/fbi_nabs_russian_hackers_1.html (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010423/tc/fbi_nabs_russian_hackers_1.html)
I don't know why US is called a democratic country, even our militia never dares to use open entrapment like that.
I don't support criminal activities, and maybe that guys deserve prison. But entrapment like that is too much.
About Adobe/Elcomsoft case: I expect Russian officials to state a request for immediate release of Dmitry and all legal issues to be passed to Russian embassy in Washington.
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Boroda ]
-
What is Borodas relation to iEN?
-
Dmitry (or the company he worked for) sold a program that cracked Adobe's encryption enabling people to read on-line books for free. That is a far cry from "exposing childishly simple encryption".
Quit trying to make crooks look like saints.
And Baroda... you really need to get a clue. You may notice that the only two things these hackers are even remotely able to argue is the way the evidence was siezed. Their guilt is not in question.
Nice to see the victimizers become the victims once in a while.
AKDejaVu
-
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134287977_hacker23m0.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134287977_hacker23m0.html)
Ain't payback a squeak? <snicker> ;)
-
Similar to the burgler who is only demonstrating the security flaws in your front door lock, these poor, misunderstood, exploited guys were only trying to make the world a better place. :rolleyes:
-
Actually, exposing flaws in computer program security by writing programs to take advantage of them and putting them on the net has become a commonplace way of alerting them to the problems. It seems it has become incredibly difficult to get the attention of the software companies any other way. The only difference here is that such programs are usually done as shareware or freeware, not sold commercially.
- Yoj
-
The only difference here is that such programs are usually done as shareware or freeware, not sold commercially.
This alone merits the response. The rest is somewhat debatable.
AKDejaVu
-
Sorry to hear about that Dmitry :( I suspect he will be released before too long.
Please ignore the US propaganda here. It's deplorable really. But thankfully, it's not the norm in America, just the one with the loudest mouth :)
-
What's deplorable about the just punishment of someone who makes his living from ripping off US software companies?
-
My understanding was that the e-book code was cracked at the request of the people who created the security. They basically asked people to try to crack the code.
When the code was cracked, the e-book people did not respond to Dimitry and the company that cracked it. So, the company decided to sell the product to get the company's attention.
I heard this on NPR last Friday, so I apologize for not remembering it very well (and if I've remembered wrong), but that was the gist of it.
He should not get into trouble for cracking it (it was a dare), but selling it is a different story. imho
(edit: http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=07%2F19%2F2001&PrgID=3 (http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=07%2F19%2F2001&PrgID=3) "Copyrite Arrest", I'll listen to the RealAudio when I get home and see if I remember correctly or not)
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Fury ]
-
When the code was cracked, the e-book people did not respond to Dimitry and the company that cracked it. So, the company decided to sell the product to get the company's attention.
LOL! I guess they did just that. Of course, it was completely illegal.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
LOL! I guess they did just that. Of course, it was completely illegal.
AKDejaVu
Yes it was - but, as I mentioned, it is really hard to get the attention of the big software houses, even when its to their benefit. Here we have a case where someone tried to provide valuable information and figured they needed to hit the company with a pie in the face to get them to accept the information. I agree the program should not have been sold, but beyond that I don't see a crime here. At worst they should have to give up any profits made on it and pay a fine. Having the FBI holding someone is ridiculous.
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
LOL! I guess they did just that. Of course, it was completely illegal.
AKDejaVu
Not from my understanding. He cracked it in Russia, and his actions weren't illegal there. What the heck do US laws have to do with something the happens in sovereign state of Russia?
-
The problem with prosecuting Dmitry is that the software he sold is "dual use".
Yes, it allows someone to crack an Adobe ebook and distribute the contents, but it also has legitimate uses.
Copyright laws allow people to make a backup of material for their own use. If you have a music cd, you can legaly copy it, and use the copy whilst putting the original in storage for safekeeping.
The Adobe ebook format doesn't allow that, and puts even more restrictions on the consumers ability to view the copyrighted material they have paid for.
Under Adobe's system, you can only read the book you have bought on the computer you bought it on. You can't transfer it to any other pc or handheld device, and when the pc you used for the transaction goes, the book you have bought goes with it. In some cases upgrading your pc will cause the book to become unreadable.
The Adobe system also only works on PCs and Macs, not on many handheld devices that are commonly used to read ebooks. The software the Russian company sells allows you to decrypt the ebook and use it on any system, or even print it out. Whilst the software can be used for illegal acts, like decrypting a book and distrubiting it, it can also be used for perfectly legal activities like decrypting the book and reading it on a format of your choice.
I wouldn't pretend that Dmitry developed his system out of altruism, or that it isn't being used to beat copyright protection, but then again I wouldn't pretend that a great many cd writers aren't used to illegaly copy software and music, or that Napster wasn't used to illegaly distribute copyrighted material. However, prosecuting people because they sell a device that can be used to break the law, even though that isn't it's only function, seems like a very dangerous area to get into.
Maxell for encouraging home taping? JVC for encouraging pirate movie distribution? Yamaha for encouraging illegal software and music distribution? Smith and Wesson for encouraging murder?
-
You forget that he never sold it!! He never attempted to sell it... If FBI abd Adobe wants to make a case they have to make it right - go after company wich sold it... but I guess now everyone can get this prog for free :rolleyes: so whats the point in entrapment the guy who recieves 100$ a months for doing such things? He is only employe of a company that screwed up...
I guess this world is the place when little things can be steped over and crash as to make an example... No one still cares that I can have all Adobe line that worth if bought legaly around 5000-7000 $ US...
-
He never sold it but his company sold it?
I think I'll grow some marijuana and sell it from my company's website. Then when the police come I'll tell them it was the company doing it, not me. :)
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Here we have a case where someone tried to provide valuable information and figured they needed to hit the company with a pie in the face to get them to accept the information. I agree the program should not have been sold, but beyond that I don't see a crime here. At worst they should have to give up any profits made on it and pay a fine. Having the FBI holding someone is ridiculous.
No Yoj. Here is a case where someone tried to provide valuable information and did so. The corporation decided not to do anything with it. That is their perogative. This is not some kind of intrusion/security bug that causes vulnerabilities to users systems.. this was simply encryption of copyrighted material.
The selling of the program to do this violated those copyright laws. End of story. Absolutely zero nobelness to the issue.
The problem with prosecuting Dmitry is that the software he sold is "dual use".
Yes, it allows someone to crack an Adobe ebook and distribute the contents, but it also has legitimate uses. Copyright laws allow people to make a backup of material for their own use. If you have a music cd, you can legaly copy it, and use the copy whilst putting the original in storage for safekeeping.
Yes you can... and the E-Book issues can be adressed in a very specific way.. TO ADOBE! REFUSE TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT WITH SUCH BLATANT SHORTCOMINGS! Feeling that it is OK to make a shoddy product freeware is not the answer. I could care less what the other features of the program are... if you think its main intention is to do anything other than provide free access to ADOBE's material then you are dillusional.
You forget that he never sold it!! He never attempted to sell it... If FBI abd Adobe wants to make a case they have to make it right - go after company wich sold it
LOL! Yeah.. I'm sure it was sold against his will.. and his name wasn't meantioned anywhere in regards to it. I'm sure he is simply an innocent victim that accidently cracked ADOBE's encryption, then inadvertantly wrote a program that would do it in a user friendly environment while totally not noticing that it was a marketable program (English Version?) at any time. This poor poor victim.
so whats the point in entrapment the guy who recieves 100$ a months for doing such things?
Entrapment? I don't believe there was any entrapment involved in this case. This wasn't a sting operation. At least, not according to anything I've read.
The main gist might be this: Don't write illegal software in a foreign country that has no laws governing it, sell it, then go to the country where you sold it and act as if it doesn't matter.
You'll notice the FBI did not go to Russia to take this gentleman into custody.. he came into a country who's laws he had already knowingly violated.
I guess this world is the place when little things can be steped over and crash as to make an example... No one still cares that I can have all Adobe line that worth if bought legaly around 5000-7000 $ US...
Actually.. quite a few people care about this. You are confusing caring about it with having no control over it. Basically, you can do whatever you want within the borders of your country. We just advise you to stay there.
AKDejaVu
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: AKDejaVu ]
-
Russian logic scares me. To sum up my limited knowledge, it goes like this:
You wouldn't sell it to me at what I offered, so I will steal it. Plus, we couldn't patronize you because of our infrastructure anyway, so it is OK.
I hacked your software, then tried to blackmail you into me not releasing it, but you did not accept my price, so I went ahead and sold it, because in lieu of "Controlling Authority" it is quite legal here. I visit your country to promote my illegal product, and you arrest me!
Makes the five year plan sound down right reasonable.
-
Yes you can... and the E-Book issues can be adressed in a very specific way.. TO ADOBE! REFUSE TO PURCHASE A PRODUCT WITH SUCH BLATANT SHORTCOMINGS! Feeling that it is OK to make a shoddy product freeware is not the answer. I could care less what the other features of the program are... if you think its main intention is to do anything other than provide free access to ADOBE's material then you are dillusional.
The shoddy Adobe product is actually freeware. Go to their site and you can download it and use it for free. The encryption is on the books you buy, not on the reader.
Dmitry is not re selling Adobe's software, or even the books it protects, the software he is selling is his own copyrighted work, that allows people to decrypt things that have been encrypted.
You seem to have missed the point of the argument (an appeal against this law regarding DVD encryption is currently underway in the sates). The product Dmitry, or his company, was selling, allows you to do something that is not illegal by itself. Decrypting a book you have purchased is not illegal. Using Dmitry's software to decrypt a book you have bought is not illegal. Distributing it after you have decrypted it is illegal. Basically the law targets people that make software that allows decryption, because they get nowhere targeting the people who actually do the redistribution.
Prosecuting every little toerag with a cd writer who copies games for his mates is impossible, so now the law is starting to target people make tools that allow you to do the copying.
Under the digital media copyright laws in the US, it would be possible to prosecute somebody who makes a no cd patch for a game, or someone who finds a way to allow you to copy a protected cd, even though copying the cd for safekeeping is legal. The law is framed so that it makes it a crime to sell tools that allow people to commit legal acts.
In fact, the use of the product Dmitry sold is in no way illegal, though what you do after you have used it may be.
As to boycotting the Adobe ebook format, that is certainly easy at the moment. However, in the future it will be possible for all material to be distributed in ways that allow little freedom to the end user, and anyone who develops a product that allows the user more control will face prosecution.
Will you be so blasé when you can only get dvds that are playable only on 1 dvd player, or cds that can only be used in 1 cd player? What about when all software is tied to the pc you bought it for, and an upgrade means you have to buy all new software?
Think it can't happen? The MPAA testimony in a recent court case involving DVD copy protection claimed
"a person obtains the legal right to view a DVD only after purchasing the DVD and also a DVD-player licensed through DVD-CCA.
The studios have further testified that such person only acquires the right to view the material on selected players and that such persons are not thereby authorized to access the material on the DVD to make a fair use, or any non-infringing use, or such material"
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act changes a whole host of previously upheld consumer rights to access material they have bought in the way they want to. It does it not by changing their rights, but by making it illegal to sell (or give away) software or equipment that allows them to exercise those rights.
Home taping, recording TV programs with VCRs etc have all been ruled acceptable use by courts in America. VCRs are already threatened by technology that allows the signal to be watchable, but un-tapeable. (I believe the system is called macrovision?)
At the moment it doesn't work that well, because it doesn't block all videos and you can buy devices to circumvent it, but such devices are illegal and it's only a matter of time before steps are taken to stop their sale.
A final point. If practices like home taping, and archiving material you have bought are legal, but can be stopped by prosecuting people who sell things to enable you to do them, where does that leave one of America's greatest "freedoms", the right to bear arms? Does the second ammendment grant the right to sell arms? You may be allowed to keep them, but it doesn't mean much if everyone who tries to sell them to you is in prison, does it?
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: Nashwan ]
-
Originally posted by Gadfly:
Hey, Boroda, Why don't you and your pals come over for a visit.
Both Dmitry and Boroda have exactly the same rating ( (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/user_ratings_4.gif) ). Coincidence?.. I think not :).
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: mietla ]
-
I'm not sure about the legality of the arrest of a Russian citizen on the US soil for alleged crimes committed against the US law outside of the US. Have no idea, may be legal may be not, but trying to portrait this guy as a do-gooder, who is just trying to spread the "knowledge" and warn the public is just plain silly.
Is Dmitry intelligent? Probably. He cracked this code (childish or not), Is he smart coming here, nope, he ain't.
-
What nashwan said.
Basically, even under US law, he hasn't done something that is illegal. Under Russian law, he's also quite clear.
Big business talking to government officials and you have this, a small guy arrested.
Even if it was proved illegal, it'd still be a state vs company, not state vs individual, issue.
Cracking an encryption is not illegal in Russia. He did that. that corresponds to the argument of "growing marijuana" - which, opposite to the cracking bit, IS illegal. So the two do not compare.
If growing it was legal and you let your company sell it (and this was illegal) then the company is doing the crime, and thus the company is the one that gets punished.
What can I say? There is a MASSIVE attempt by the larger corporations and governments to somehow "control" the individuals in the comp. sci. industry that comes up with something nifty. Governments and large corporations are scared to death of the at-home hobby people who do stuff for fun - and do it better than their well paid software engineers. They're scared of people who not only come up with a new idea but also has the knowledge to implement it.
Information wants to be free :).
-
LOL! you guys are really quite amazing.
He did nothing illegal? LOL!
AKDejaVu
-
AKDejaVu, what illegal acts do you believe he carried out?
-
There are a lot of issues that arrise along this disscussion. 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. We DONT want to loose those CD's, we want to enjoy our erned right to use the software we bought. 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. So they put number of types of protection on poor CD's... There are so many CD protection that having a virtual CD drive becomes useeless. You cant copy them and you cannot distribute them. But there is always a solution and there always be one - create programms that will allow you to make a copy of protected CD. Arent you glad? arent you happy that you can have a backup now? Wouldnt you say that those companies are life savers? they sure think that of themselfs. Its great to have options but it really stinks to be denied of every one of them.
He didnt cracked the software, he didnt sell it and for sure he gave option for those who had none. Opppsss.. Not him, but COMPANY where he only works.
What happened now is exactly what shouldnt... now every person that needs decryption can have one for FREE...
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu:
No Yoj. Here is a case where someone tried to provide valuable information and did so. The corporation decided not to do anything with it. That is their perogative.
AKDejaVu
[ 07-23-2001: Message edited by: AKDejaVu ]
Woah! You KNOW this? You know they noted and decided not to act on the information? Or did they simply not pay attention? 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.
As for copyrights, did it violate international or Russian copyright laws? If not, are you saying the rest of the world must be subject to US law? If true, then the reverse should be true. Every American who ever drank alcohol should be liable for arrest for breaking Islamic law. I don't think that can of worms needs opening.
- Yoj
-
boroda
maybe ien can loan them that weird bogus rich roberts chracter and get him involved with this stuff too. :D
isnt he the one they been usin as fake front man pretendin he officially represents them? ;)
i wonder who at ien would be dumb enuf to do that. :eek:
what a bunch. :rolleyes:
-
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 ]
-
Both Mietla and Miko2d have exactly the same rating ( (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/user_ratings_2.gif) ). Coincidence?.. I think yes.
:)
[ 07-24-2001: Message edited by: Boroda ]
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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. :rolleyes:
AKDejaVu
-
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? :eek:
-
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 :rolleyes:
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
He never hacked Adobe, all he did is cracked encryption.
-
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
-
AKDejaVu it was you who asked about working at a place where quality control was a consideration. Perhaps I should have said quality instead of safety, but in the airliner business the two are almost always the same thing. However, if it was not a safty-of-flight issue it would still be easy to get their attention - and even moreso if I did NOT work for Boeing.
As for smug - smug is where I turn out a product that I think is bulletproof, tell people it is, ask them to shoot at it, and then ignore them when they show me bulletholes.
Actually there is a very positive side to this for business in general - the whole question of copywrite has to be completely re-thought in light of the electronic world we've moved into. Laws based on the printed page distributed in physical form don't work in the virtual world, and have to be rebuilt from the ground up. This is just another bit of evidence that it is true.
As for my Canadian example, regardless of how you look at it, the man WAS arrested and held for violating US law for doing something that was not illegal where he did it. Obviously, at least someone thought the US WAS involved. So, in the present case (since you seem to need to split hairs) I will agree that Dmitry deserved to be arrested if it can be shown that he, personally, sold copies of the software in the US. If not, then your argument does not hold.
- Yoj
-
Crack encryption=Break into safe
Hack=Steal all that is in safe
Crack encryption = sell someone tools that enable them to break into safe. Remember, Dmitry was selling his own program, he didn't sell copyrighted works.
What he sold enabled people to break encryption, which would enable them to pirate the copyrighted material. There is a huge distinction between selling tools that have a legitimate use, but can be used for illegitimate purposes, and actually carrying out illegitimate acts.
Go to http://www.thespystore.com/index.htm (http://www.thespystore.com/index.htm) and look at their range of tools designed to break open locked doors, or pick the locks. Even the wording on the page emphasises how quickly and quietly you can for open a door, ie ideal for burgulary. They are based in Spokane, and obviously don't fear prosecution for selling tools that are designed for breaking and entering.
Go to an gun store in America, and they will gladly sell you the equipment to carry out an armed robbery. Again they don't fear prosecution.
The reason is, all these devices have a legitimate purpose. You may want a gun for security, not to commit crimes with. You may want to open locks easily because you are a locksmith. Buying and selling the equipment isn't illegal, using it for criminal purposes is.
It's exactly the same with cd writers, mp3 encoders etc. It's also exactly the same with the software Dmitry sold. It has a legitimate purpose for backup, and for enbaling you to read the book you have bought on the computer or platform of your choice. For example, the Adobe encrypted format only works on PCs and Macs, running IE 4 or 5. You can buy your ebook at a friends house, decrypt it with the software Dmitry sold and read it on your Palm or Linux computer. This is perfectly legal for you to do, but illegal for Dmitry to sell you the software that allows you to do it.
It turns the basic principles of law, that you can sell something that has legitimate purposes freely, even if someone can use it to commit a crime, on it's head. The software is legal to own and use, but illegal to sell.
-
"You're allowed to make 1 copy for a personal backup" is much like "An undercover cop has to tell you he's a cop if you ask him."
Urban myth. I daresay if you went through the end user agreement on an EBook, none of the things you described would be allowed.
-
What Nashman said
-
some people will make any excuse as long as it is the excuse they need to excuse their actions...
-
Eagler, the term is:
Excuses only satisfy those who make them :)
-
"You're allowed to make 1 copy for a personal backup" is much like "An undercover cop has to tell you he's a cop if you ask him."
Urban myth. I daresay if you went through the end user agreement on an EBook, none of the things you described would be allowed.
End user agreements take second place to the law. Just like any contract, if it violates basic rights you hold under law, it is not valid.
US Code as of: 01/23/00
Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes
only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that
continued possession of the computer program should cease to be
rightful. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html)
The owner of a software program is entitled to make an archival copy to obviate the risks of mechanical or electronic failure. See Atari, Inc. v. JS & A Group, Inc., 747 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
An owner is entitled to make archival copies to protect against all types of risks, including human error and physical mishap as well. See Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 267 (5th Cir. 1988). www.eff.org (http://www.eff.org)
"the making of an audiogram by a consumer for use in his or her home, car, or portable tape player, or for a family member, is protected"
Senate report on the Audio Home recordings Act.
"No longer will consumers be branded copyright pirates for making a tape for their car or for their children."
REP Hughes, AHRA
-
I must admit I am suprised that Americans, who are supposed to value their rights and freedoms so highly, don't seem to care that rights that have been granted to them can be taken away by the back door.
-
Nashwan, what we see is a guy cracking a code, selling it (for profit, personal gain)so that others can use the tool as an illegal weapon (as your post compares)...the guy IMO is infringing on the rights of another...I say hang him, capital punishment should be used in this case.
-
Ripsnort, can't you see you can apply exactly the same analogy to a gun, or a cd writer, or a video recorder?
In fact, people have in the past tried the tactic. Gun makers have been sued for encouraging crime, and the MPAA tried to ban video recorders. Such cases have always been thrown out before, based on the fact that people had a legal right to own and use videos and guns, therefore stopping their sales would infringe those rights.
The DMCA sets a precedent, and you can be sure that in the future people will try to make use of that.
-
Sec. 501. Infringement of copyright
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 121 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term ''anyone'' includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright.
Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(b) Additional Violations. - (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
(2) As used in this subsection -
(A) to ''circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure'' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and
(B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.
-
Agree with Fatty, Nashwan, rebuttal?
-
I buy a book.
Does it mean that I can't give it to a friend who wants to read it too?
Do libraries buy "multiuser licenses" for books?
Can author or publisher prohibit library usage of his book?
-
I buy a book.
Does it mean that I can't give it to a friend who wants to read it too?
Yes you can give it to him. What you cannot do is photocopy the book and give that to him. A book can only be in one place at one time. A copied program can occupy infinite computers at any time. Big difference.
Do libraries buy "multiuser licenses" for books?
To an extent.. yes.
Can author or publisher prohibit library usage of his book?
Libraries can be contractually limited to the number of books carried. The release date of a library book also differs from the retail release date.
Basically, the library does not carry as many copies of a book as they want. They can't release the book whenever they want.
AKDejaVu
-
I do not think this operation qualifies as entrapment. Entrapment is causing/provoking someone to commit a crime and catching/punishing for it.
If the guy was just tricked to come to the country and arrested for his previous acts, that is not entrapment.
Selling general-use lockpicks and guns may be quite legal.
Copying a key to a person's house without his permission and selling copies is not. There is quite a difference.
If Dimitry's tools were not general code breakers but specific adobe code breakers (even if adobe's code is based on some general algotithm), then he is as gulty.
You can sell people hammers that can be used to smash doors, but if you personally smash someone else's door and let thiefs in for a small charge, you will be found guilty even if you do not steal anything.
miko
-
I'm no lawyer, so this stuff might not say quite what it says, but it seems to me in looking at what Fatty posted, that the key is the exact wording of Section 106, since Section 501 points to it as defining infringement, and what Neshwan posted overrides Section 106.
There could be a clear violation based on Section 1201, but only if it can be shown that Dmitry's software was PRIMARILY intended to be used to infringe (as defined in Sections 106-112). Determining that is just the kind of thing that keeps Attorney's in Armani suits.
- Yoj
-
What Yoj said
Sec. 501. Infringement of copyright
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 121 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term ''anyone'' includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright
a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes
only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that
continued possession of the computer program should cease to be
rightful.
In other words, it is not an infringement of copyright to make a copy for your own use.
(b) Additional Violations. - (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
(2) As used in this subsection -
(A) to ''circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure'' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and
(B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.
In other words, you can't sell something that is almost soley for the purpose of infringing copyright, but making a copy for yourself is not infringing copyright. Making a copy for yourself is specifically allowed.
Banning something that prevents you from making a copy for your own use violates your rights to make a copy.
This isn't the law that Dmitry is being held under. He is being held under the provisions of the DMCA, which makes a specific offense of enabling someone to defeat encryption on a digital work. The act covers devices like zip password crackers, and makes it illegal even to tell someone how to defeat the encryption.
Yes you can give it to him. What you cannot do is photocopy the book and give that to him
You are allowed to photocopy a book for your own use.
Selling general-use lockpicks and guns may be quite legal.
Copying a key to a person's house without his permission and selling copies is not. There is quite a difference.
If Dimitry's tools were not general code breakers but specific adobe code breakers (even if adobe's code is based on some general algotithm), then he is as gulty.
No, Adobe do not own copyright to the works encrypted with their software. It is not a key to Adobe's house, it is a key to all locks Adobe makes.
Adobe encrypts books and sells them, but the copyright remains with the author/publisher.
You can sell people hammers that can be used to smash doors, but if you personally smash someone else's door and let thiefs in for a small charge, you will be found guilty even if you do not steal anything.
That's the point I am making. Dmitry sells the hammer. Whose door people choose to smash in, and the reason they choose to smash it in, is entirely up to them.
Like I said, this case is the tip of the iceberg. The Adobe ebook format is not widely used (I wonder if they have been telling authors/publishers it secure even when they knew it wasn't?), but a good example is DVD, with it's region encoding and supported players. The MPAA can effectively dictate where a DVD is sold, decide when to stop licensing players thus killing the market, and decide which formats it can be played on. It is only in April this year that a legal DVD player was finally licensed on Linux. There is still only 1 player licensed, so if you want choice, forget it.
Note that court rulings in the past have said that when a copyrighted item like a book has been sold, the copyright holder has no right to prevent it's resale at any price, anywhere. The new protections being used on DVD, and soon on music, software, books etc, mean that despite those rulings, copyright holders will have the power to decide where an item is resold, when, who can use it etc.
As a quick example, if I buy a piece of software and no longer want it, I can sell it. With the new systems that tie software to hardware, after I have bought a book or piece of music or software, I can't resell it. The courts say I have the right to, but the encryption prevents me from doing so.
-
I just reread one of the reasons given for allowing a copy to be made, without breaking copyright:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
manner, or
As the encrypted Adobe format works only with the specific machine it was bought on, cracking it to use on another machine, providing you still retain the copy and don't distribute it, seems to be expressley allowed.
Sort of like buying a cd rom, but putting the software on floppies to install on an old machine.
Incidentally, by installing a piece of software you are making a copy, so if personal copying isn't allowed, by rights you should destroy the installation cd once the software is installed. After all, you could give that away and keep the copy on your hard disk, couldn't you?
-
Nashwan, Yoj - in my opinion you're right.
Unfortunately, opponents will pay no attention to my opinion, because of several reasons: I am supposed to support Dmitriy because I'm Russian too, I am a "known thief" for "stealing iEN's Warbirds" (sorry, it was already mentioned in this thread), and simply because I am Russian - the Evil Commie.
What was said here about public libraries is simply horrible. AFAIR 12 years ago public libraries were free for everyone in the US. Maybe I don't remember correctly - but the only thing I had to pay for was $.10 for renting an LP, that I rented to copy to a cassete. Was a great opportunity for me to bring home some records that were extremely rare in USSR.
Library is an opportunity to READ for people who don't have enough cash to buy books. Even now, if i'll PAY for all the books I read - I'll spend all my income (middle class here in Russia) on books. The right to read is one of the basic rights of an individual. The right to educate himself.
In USSR there was another aspect of library culture. People read so much, that some books, printed in enormous quantities (by Western standards) - 100 000 and more, were impossible to buy. So - photocopying of any books was a common practice. It was a state crime, and xerox machines were guarded as rocket silos - but people still made copies. I read "Alice in Wonderland" translated by Boris Zakhoder from a photocopy, because it was impossible even to find it in library.
Prohibiting copies for personal, or even "communal" (to some extent) use is an outright violation of human rights.
-
Boroda, its a shame you're evil by nature, but you DID decide to be born there :)
I understand the dilemma you describe - in fact, I believe that, for certain types of books, the only way anyone could read them was from illegal copies, since they were considered subversive by the state. And yet, these were they very books that we in the west wanted you to be able to read.
The problem is that there also has to be a way to ensure that the author is compensated for his work. As a musician, I understand this very well - if I write something and there is money made from it, some of it should come to me. If I CHOOSE to give it away, fine, that's my right - but if I have not expressly donated it to the world at large, I should be compensated for the work I put into it. James Joyce spent 17 years writing Finnegan's Wake (though some might question why <G> ) - it hardly seems fair that he would get nothing for 17 years of work just because everyone simply copied it and passed it on
There is the problem - if anyone can make copies freely and distribute them as they choose, the author gets nothing. If I get nothing, I can't make a living writing music, meaning I have to do something else and the music doesn't get written. If this were the 17th century, maybe I would have a patron to take care of me, but in the 20th I'm on my own.
That is the crux of the matter - people should be able to read, but if the people who write don't get something for their writing there will be nothing to read. Can you suggest a way that both can be satisfied?
- Yoj
-
Yoj, I understand that artists, writers and other creative people have to eat something...
You are a musician, so it may be interesting for you:
AFAIK in the West bands go on tours to promote their records, so people will buy more. In USSR the concept was absolutely different: when you bought a record - you paid for the "information carrier". All records were published by the mighty state. But many bands or singers deliberately spread their records on tapes, absolutely for free - this tapes helped them to "promote" their concerts, that were the real source of income.
Now many Russian musicians ("Aquarium" is probably the most popular among them) deliberately spread their MP3s on the Net, understanding that people who liked the MP3s will probably buy a CD or a tape. The same thing with writers who support Internet libraries like www.lib.ru (http://www.lib.ru)
-
Well Boroda, don't worry, all the reading will change soon..... western culture will swiftly replace it with cool things...
Here is something from my English class at University of Connecticut :)
teacher asked people "who is their favorite author".
Looks on some faces were just too funny. One guy, when his turn came, prompty said "Hamlet". Funniest thing of it all was that good portion of the class didn't know any better.
Then someone had a brilliant idea "BIBLE" !!! My favorite book is bible and we can't really tell who wrote it, can wee ?
So in the liberal connecituct, well over 50% of kids in liberal college choose bible as their favorite book :) It was convinence more then anything else, but to think that people in Universities, good ones to boot, don't read ? It makes me want to cry.
Those will be our enlightened leaders to the beacon of freedom and rightousness :)
Two days ago i spoke to one of my classmates. He was really upset about the fact that 50% of students accepted for the MBA program at our school are not from USA. He was also very pissed about the fact that his brother couldn't pass the english test required for the program and they could. "How the f__k do they do it ?" he asked. In response i asked him what was the last book he read - he didn't remember....
-
Believe it or not, I actually feel sorry for Dmitry. Not because he is innocent, but because it looks like a bunch of idealistic americans probably convinced him that there was nothing the US could do, and he believed them. Now he's in a really toejamty situation.
I haven't seen the software Nashwan, but I've not even seen it implied here that there is use other than decoding. Why do we care? Yes, it would be ideal if all books were free. It would also be ideal if all gas was free, and all food was free, gee, that would be just great. In a more realistic world, we attempt to value both intellectual and real property. This is less out of some noble concern for the creators of it than it is what pays for innovation and progress. Similar to patent laws, we have to try to reward those whos ideas/products/inventions are being marketed.
I am looking forward to IL-2. I hope it doesn't get cracked and spread around the world for free, not only in regards to its production but I don't want the next big production to look at what happened to it and say, "screw it."
By the way, public libraries are free. Some require a membership card to take books home, but all (at least all I have seen) are open to the public to come in and read all they like. Most university libraries are open to all but will only allow checkout by registered students.
[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: Fatty ]
-
ROFL Ski!
I have had a much different experience though, teaching engineering topics to some very motivated and bright students at a large midwestern university. However there were plenty of stupid people on campus, just not too many of them in the departments where I taught or took classes. If there is a decay in the quality of students, it seems to be more in the liberal arts "Would you like fries with that?" majors.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Yoj, I understand that artists, writers and other creative people have to eat something...
You are a musician, so it may be interesting for you:
AFAIK in the West bands go on tours to promote their records, so people will buy more. In USSR the concept was absolutely different: when you bought a record - you paid for the "information carrier". All records were published by the mighty state. But many bands or singers deliberately spread their records on tapes, absolutely for free - this tapes helped them to "promote" their concerts, that were the real source of income.
Now many Russian musicians ("Aquarium" is probably the most popular among them) deliberately spread their MP3s on the Net, understanding that people who liked the MP3s will probably buy a CD or a tape. The same thing with writers who support Internet libraries like www.lib.ru (http://www.lib.ru)
Ah Boroda - that might be fine for pop groups that can sell a live performance. What about the composer? All he does is write. No mobs of kids dancing to his beat. All he can do is publish and sell the works. Authors are not going to make a living by touring and reading their books to people (well, the vast majority won't). So what about them?
Which brings us to this thread - hat about the person who writes software? No concerts for him :) No - there has to be some system for compensating people for the use of their creations. The copywrite system we have is outdated and flawed, but its all we have to protect these creators. If you think there is good reason to do away with it, what takes its place?
- Yoj
-
Well Yoj, there is other side to the story as well...
About 2 years ago when the Napster thing exploded, there was a little artcle in New York Times, on a very next page, rather small..
It said something like this:
"All large companies were found to have been coordinating to fix the prices for CDs and Movies by the congrees and were slapped on the wrist"
I pay for my music, but when i do, cost of the creations of it, producing of it, doesn't ammount to the 1/5th of what i'm paying.
Media market is monopolised, anyone who would say otherwise must be oblivious to world around them. Monopoly/Cartel in movies and music has been setting market and killing all the competition for years, and it hurts us, customers. It's a system designed to screw us.
That why i don't believe that all the Napster kids should be impaled and burned on a stake.
PS. My wife just got her masters from Juilliard, she's a cellist. Best job avaialbe to her is in Kentucky state orchestra, 22k per year. Please tell me how the current system works for artists :)
-
Bart, with all due respect for your wife and her (IMO) beautiful talents (I love classical music, actually, I love all music except hard core rap)...I don't think there is a big demand for her profession, is there?
-
Actually there is in Europe, where people retained some taste :)
He's going on tour for 3 months in Belgum - end of August :)
PARTY !!!!
-
Originally posted by fd ski:
I pay for my music, but when i do, cost of the creations of it, producing of it, doesn't ammount to the 1/5th of what i'm paying.
Where the money goes is a whole other question (doan get me staaaded!) So is the industry manipulation of the market.
My only point was that there has to be protection for "intellectual property" - in this case, the composer. The performer is another matter.
As for the fair distribution of the rewards in the music business, there isn't any. roughly 2% of the artists make about 95% of the money, and who they are has a lot to do with hype. And of course, most of what the consumer pays is for the hype.
Oh oh - I'm starting to rant.... Sorry!
Hey - I'm a cellist too :) Best wishes to your wife - I hope she has a great career, but as you well know, the rewards are other than financial. I gave up trying to survive on music - now it costs me to play. So it goes.
The 17th Century patron system did have something to be said for it :)
-
Well, she's out looking for a cello now ;)
If you would happend to have a spare Montaniana laying around, can she borrow it ? :)
Arts are useless in capitalistic society, alwyas were always will be. If it doesn't make a profit, why do it ?
I'm happy to pay for keeping her happy. She makes some money of her tours, and i make more then eough for both of us :)
-
The problem is that Big Brother understood that creative people got means to avoid total control and robbery from recording companies, publishers, distributors - whatever you call them.
All that crap with DVD, SDMI etc has only one purpose - to help them keep their profits.
Strange, but when it gets mixed with Soviet-type "thought control" it looks much more dangerous. Two worst sides of two societies combined.
-
Woah there. Any writer, musician, filmmaker any other media related artist, or even programmer can quite easily distribute their works free of charge via the internet.
That they don't is not thought control, it is because they want to get paid. The contracts between them and the distributers are an entirely seperate matter, but you can rest assured if they wanted people to get their things for free they would distribute them for free (as some do).
-
Fatty, as it stands, music stores sign exclusive contracts and are basically black mailed into not carring anything else.
Ticketmaster has a total grasp on the most venues, good luck getting tickets if you're not an insider.... Tool concert in NYC sold out in 45 seconds from opening, second person inline didn't even get them :)
it's a rotten system and long ago squashed any competition. "they can do it on their own" only if they have second jobs to feed them, cause otherwise they can't get themselves sold, published or publicised.
-
Why would you want to go through record stores if you were giving it away free anyway? Distribution contracts aside, not even the most altruistic artist is going to want to go through the costs of getting CDs across the country, much less worldwide. Especially when there are electronic methods to do so without cost.
I don't think the bands that are selling out full sized arenas are the ones that need the worry, and ticketmaster hardly has a grip on the unnumerable smaller clubs across the country. I think Tool will be okay.
So underpaid artists is a justification of robbing them of the little they get? Somehow the argument has gone from robbing a creator of their work, to justifying it because they're not paid enough?
-
Originally posted by fd ski:
Well, she's out looking for a cello now ;)
If you would happend to have a spare Montaniana laying around, can she borrow it ? :)
Friend of mine has a 1679 Amatti and a Dominic Peccatte bow, would it do :)?
Arts are useless in capitalistic society, alwyas were always will be. If it doesn't make a profit, why do it ?
Clearly we need to legislate that. How's this? Everybody has to go see an opera twice a month? IRS could enforce that :)
I'm happy to pay for keeping her happy. She makes some money of her tours, and i make more then eough for both of us :)
Wtg, best wishes for the missus!
-
In USSR we definetly had class society: people who go to the Opera, and people who prefer cheap Porto :)
-
You see what makes me angry is different:
While Dmitry decrypted the Adobe's Ebook thousands others are trading, giving away and reseling millions of copys of Adobe software and other's companies. If you stop assuming what purpose might be of Dmitry's actions and look at action of so called Warez makers. The companies such as Adobe love to whine: Oh those Pirates are screwing so much our bisseness... and yet do nothing about it. Whould it be difficult to stop those pirates? Think not... Will we do it in near future? think not.
-
AKDJ,
What he did is perfectly legal in Russia.
That is the problem.
If you drive 95 miles an hour in Montana, and go give a speech in Georgia about how cars could go faster, would you expect the Georgia state patrol to ticket you for speeding?
Further, all he did was write a program taht enables copying. Like a VCR.
But if you used your VCR to distribute illegal tapes, noone would sue Sony or thier employees. It's not thier problem to supervise you.
In other words, programs (and thier authors) don't violate copyright, people do.
Diche/TK
-
Ripsnort :
If I bought and paid for a safe, I could do what I want to it, including break into it, or figure out how it works, right ? After all, it's mine, who is to tell me what to do with it ?
So if I then figure you how to open the safe easily, I could tell you, couldn't I ? after all, I have a right to free speech, do I not ? Reverse engineering is perfectly legal, and dissemination of the discovered techniques is proteted speech (read about IBM BIOS, or SAMBA sometime).
So if my technique worked against bank vaults and I published a paper on how to break into them, what exactly would I be gulity of ?
Would it the same as publishing a book tellin you how to build a molotov cocktail ? Or perhaps a hydrogen bomb ?
Both are very dangerous, in the wrong hands, and both are constitutionally protected forms of speech. I do not see how a discussion on how to pick locks would not deserve such protection.
Do a search on google for Professor Felten sometime.
Diche/TK
-
If discharging a gun is legal where you live but one of your bullets crossed the street to the next country and killed someone there..did you commit a crime?
-
TK, your analogy doesn't work.
Try this:
<analogy>Dm is dealing child pornography over the web. He has a site that allows anyone from around the world to purchase images and then download them.
He then comes to the US <or virtually any sane nation on the face of the earth> and goes to a generic pornography seminar to lecture.</analogy>
*This analogy is overboard to make a point. Both crimes have victims <though one much more severe than another> and do not require physical residence in a nation to be a considered a criminal act in that nation.*
The writing of the program is not the issue. Selling in the US is. Those Americans that purchased it were sitting in nice litle chairs firmly planted in the USA. No warnings or attempts to prohibit sales inside of the US was made. Thus the law was broken. All we really needed was for him to be in the US while that site was up. The D.A. from that state is gratefull that dmitry oblidged.
AKDejaVu
-
AkDJ,
He's being held for distributing an access control circumvention device, which unlike kiddie Pr0n is not illegal to create, or own. It is at this point illegal to distribute in America, but the reasons why that law is bad is a seperate rant entirely.
Specifically, he broke the part of the Ebook that dictates how (read aloud, or just text), where (which PC), you could access a work you purchased legally. This is very alarming!
Would you ever take seriously a shrinkwrap license on the cover a real book that said that under penalty of law you could only read that book using GE lights, and that you have no other first sale rights ?
That is exactly the step taht Adobe is trying to take with thier Ebooks. Content producers have for years tried legal methods of abrogating first sale rights (reselling, loaning, etc.) to no avail. Now they are using technology to do it.
Your second point about Americans buying the software is very good. The fault in the logic is that it ignores the question of why the responsibility for ensuring legal compliance of american citizens should fall on a russian company, and not the american government ? If the loctions of the purchasers butts are important, why not the sellers bellybutton as well ?
The implications of such a scheme are important, as you hold the merchant responsible for keeping track of every law, in every jurisdiction the world over. This is very clearly untenable, and not currently how it is done.
Also, you fail to consider the technical limitations (IP_Masq, NAT, etc.) of fixing an IP address in meatspace. France has been trying for years, with little success.
TK/Diche