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

["Joe Komenda" <joe AT komejo.com>]

> > It says he was arrested
> > for distributing this software in Las Vegas.

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

I *said* he was arrested for distributing the software, not selling it.
Perhaps I could have more clearly stated my understanding of the article by
saying something like: "He was arrested for distributing software alleged to
be in violation of the DMCA. This software was also sold by the company he
works for, ElcomSoft."

===========

> > 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?
>
> 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.

OK, so Adobe's e-book stuff is heinous - why doesn't this "talented &
curious programmer" write something better, rather than enabling people
trying to rip off Adobe? If Adobe's crypto is truly an abomination, a more
secure, easier to use alternative would have a natural advantage in the
marketplace, unless Adobe has monopolistic market share. (If that's the
case, then it would be obvious why ElfcomSoft was producing this.)

===========

> 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

Fine - then don't use it. Buy the real book. That's what people are doing
anyway, right? Don't e-book sales suck? When someone comes up with a better
system, it will naturally gain market share, and Adobe will be out of luck.
(see PalmOS vs. WinCE)

==============

> 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.

Ah - this is what I was really wondering. I just thought that Adobe had some
right to sell it's products on it's own terms. Surely there needs to be some
recourse for a company when someone writes software that allows people to
steal their products. Obviously the authorities agreed, even if the Internet
community has pressured Adobe into relenting. (although they waited until he
was charged before changing their position, effectively ensuring he gets
prosecuted while they get to look good to the media)

> If you don't, then what?

If you don't believe in the DMCA, you should find better martyrs for the
cause. Ed Felten is better, but so far he's just gotten a lot of e-mail from
lawyers. I'm not sure that I can swallow the idea that the distribution of
cracking software constitutes protected free speech. If you want to discuss
and dissect other people's intellectual property, you should get permission
first, and take appropriate measures to ensure that such discussions don't
result in people using your research for illegal purposes.

=====================

What's not being discussed in this whole debate, and what the EFF and all
other related parties conveniently overlook, is human nature. If you provide
an anonymous person (internet user) the opportunity to get something (an
e-book) for nothing (by using a cracking program), people will. This is kind
of bad if you want to make a living selling e-books. It also hurts authors,
because they don't get royalties.

This isn't the first time I've heard this either - the specious idea that
the Internet community is somehow not obligated to pay for anything. The
DMCA is here to stay if people can't act like adults and pay for the
services and products they use.

Thanks,
~Joe K
now wondering: "What unlicensed software is on *my* computer?"