Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[Greg Newby <gbnewby AT ils.unc.edu>]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 08:37:34PM -0400, Josef J. Komenda wrote:
> 
> Paul Jones wrote:
> > 
> > http://www.dibona.com/dmca
> > Chris DiBona, co-editor of Open Sources and Linux advocate, has along with
> > other net.heroes set up a declaration/petition to be passed on to congress
> > regarding the DCMA and Sklyarov's imprisonment for discussing the bogus
> > security implemented by Adobe.
> > If you would like to sign, go to http://www.dibona.com/dmca/
>  
> 
> Hmmm... am I missing something here? I thought he was arrested because he 
> was
> principal programmer of an e-book cracking program (Advanced eBook 
> Processor)
> that his company (ElcomSoft) was selling for $100 a pop. It says he was 
> arrested
> for distributing this software in Las Vegas. Software which exists for the 
> sole
> purpose of reading Adobe e-books without paying Adobe for them. Or is Wired
> incorrect?
> 
> http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45298,00.html

Joe, your reading needs work.  The Wired article says no such thing.
Read it again, there will be a quiz later.  

Katalov is an employee of the company that sells the software.  He
didn't sell it, he wasn't accused of selling it, he didn't try to sell
it at DefCon.  The Wired article calls Katalov a "hacker" in the
positive sense: a talented & curious programmer.

> 
> How does Adobe's poor crypto constitute an invitation for theft? Would you
> defend someone selling skeleton keys to the locks on my house, simply 
> because it
> wasn't *that* hard to make them? 


No, this is a case of the lock manufacturer telling you you cannot
get another key to your own house, and are not permitted to make your
own copies or hire unauthorized persons to make a key, and not permitted
to loan the key to unauthorized persons.  The key is not owned by you,
nor is the lock.  Furthermore, you may only make such use of the key
as is permitted by the manufacturer.

If, after careful examining the lock (which you do under peril of
arrest), you find that it is not really a lock but simply a small
contraption with a rubber band and paper clip, you have no recource.
Telling people how to fix the lock, bypass the lock, or even how
it works would be a crime.

The DMCA applies if it's an electronic lock, and all of the above
is true.  For the type of physical lock you get a Home Depot, all
of the above is false.


> I'm confused. Please guide me in this. The DMCA may be vile, but how does 
> that
> justify ElcomSoft's actions and their 'you can't touch us' attitude?

Forget attitude, and look at the facts.  These include:

        - the e-book copy protection software is crap
        - the only protection Adobe has against people realizing what
          crappy software they sell is the DMCA
        - the DMCA only applies in the US

What possible justification can there be for arresting an employee
of a company that makes software that circumvents the e-book's
protection device?  If you believe in the DMCA, the justification is
if the employee is trafficking the software.  If you don't, then what?

  -- Greg