Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe's ADEPT DRM Broken

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the it-was-just-all-caps dept.

Security 273

An anonymous reader writes "I love cabbages has reverse-engineered Adobe's ADEPT DRM (e-book protection). On February 18, I love cabbages released code that decrypts EPUB e-books protected with ADEPT and followed that up on February 25, with code that decrypts PDF e-books protected with ADEPT. On March 4, I love cabbages was given a DMCA take down notice. And there's plenty of evidence he got it right. DS:TNG (Dmitry Sklyarov: The Next Generation)?"

cancel ×

273 comments

and... (5, Insightful)

greengrass (945616) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119917)

DRM is like trying to make water not wet.

Re:and... (1)

nebulus4 (799015) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119963)

Or making smoke without the fire. Oh... wait... that was a bad analogy.

Must be nice to be COMMIE with all that free time (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120621)

How does one other than COMMIE find time to waste like that?

Get job. Get girlfriend. Get boyfriend!

Re:and... (4, Insightful)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120055)

It is easy to make water 'not wet'. There is lots of it out here today. Minus 21 Celsius, almost tropical.

Re:and... (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120079)

Which is why "chilling effects" are a favorite technique...

Re:and... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120147)

DRM works about as well as gun control laws. It keeps honest people honest, and... well actually it doesn't even do that, since even honest people break or have an interest in breaking DRM now.

Re:and... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120353)

That's not quite right.

To use Bruce Schneier's analogy, it's more like trying to make a safe secure.

There's not such thing as a secure safe. Ultimately, it is not the locks and thick walls of a safe that protects the safe's contents. It is what economists would call "opportunity costs". Why am I wasting my time praying I can cut through this damn thing with a thermal lance before people return for work on Monday morning when I could make easier money doing something else, like panhandling or flipping burgers?

Safes only need to be sufficiently secure that their contents aren't worth stealing; they needn't be any more secure than that. You don't buy a million dollar safe to keep your petty cash in, or for holding cheap costume jewelry. Likewise, DRM only needs to be sufficient secure that people don't bother getting around it. What the recording industry provides is not infinitely valuable, so DRM needn't be infinitely strong.

The obsession of the recording industry with unbreakable DRM isn't rational. It probably reflects a guilty conscience.

If I were creating a DRM scheme, for my content, I'd release the scheme with an exploit. An exploit that anybody could use, but which was a certifiable pain in the ass. It's going to be broken sooner or later, so why not remove the incentive to make a convenient exploit? Anybody who is chary of losing access to their DRM purchases is reassured that they will always have access to it, but the vast majority won't ever bother. Of course that means the content would appear illegal sharing sites, but that was going to happen anyway.

In a sense, that's where Apple is with Fairplay. It's been cracked for ages, but at $0.99/track, almost nobody bothers.

Re:and... (4, Interesting)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120749)

Right.

The problem is that the Entertainment/Industrial Complex believes there's a lot more money in the safe than there really is.

The "Sita Sings the Blues" case proves that. Somebody thought that the intellectual "property" of a handful of songs from the 1930's was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They were wrong.

So they take their anger out on "I love cabbages" and The Pirate Bay. It's futile, but try telling that to someone who's enraged that the "Rolex" they bought was really a fugazi.

Re:and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120791)

Apple do keep adjusting fairplay actually. Last time I checked, only the latest OSX version of Requiem could break the current iTunes build.

Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0, Troll)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119971)

It's rather comical that so many people out there are trying to break DRM and band themselves as allies of the open source movement in some way. The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without. If we have a legal system where copying images, songs and books is tolerated, then we also have a legal system where taking GPL code and subverting it will be tolerated as well.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (5, Insightful)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120029)

Non-sequitur

Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy. Removing DRM so that consumers have a choice over how and when to use content they have paid for is a great thing.

It is regrettable that these developments are also massive boosts for piracy, but without this sort of action there would be no DVD playback on Linux.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120229)

BEGIN SARCASM

I am shocked, shocked that we have such pseudophilosophical, marginalist rationalizations for copyright infringement on slashdot.

END SARCASM

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120429)

I am shocked, shocked that we have such pseudophilosophical, marginalist rationalizations for copyright infringement on slashdot.

They have these adult education centers where I live. They specialize in things like helping people who should be old enough to know better improve their reading comprehension skill.

You should look in to it, it would keep you from making an ass out of yourself on sites like Slashdot.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120797)

I am shocked, shocked that we have such pseudophilosophical, marginalist rationalizations for copyright infringement on slashdot.

And I'm shocked that there are so many people here who believe "copyright" is anything but a land grab for those who cannot create.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120235)

If anyone other than fat, neck-bearded, Cheeto-stained, basement-dwelling gruntwaffles actually *used* Linux, then someone would actually bother making a DVD player for them. People who spend millions of dollars creating music or movies or whatever have a vested interest in making a buck or two off of their work so that they can do something afterwards. Meanwhile, the Linux crowd wants completely free access to free things for free, because apparently they all pay their rent in rainbows and unicorn farts and don't have to muck about with us peons and all of our crass concepts like "money."

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (5, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120295)

If anyone other than fat, neck-bearded, Cheeto-stained, basement-dwelling gruntwaffles actually *used* Linux

Hey! I am not a gruntwaffle! Or....maybe I am...WTF is a "gruntwaffle?"

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

s-meister (580465) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121053)

fat thin neck-bearded clean-shaven every morning Cheeto-stained clean-clothed this morning and every morning fat thin basement-dwelling homeowning - above ground gruntwaffle articulate

I use Linux and buy DVDs. From wikipedia:

in a historical and legal sense, peon generally only had the meaning of someone working in an unfree labour system (known as peonage). The word often implied debt bondage and/or indentured servitude.

Well, that's Windows for you.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0, Troll)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120407)

Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy.

As a rights-holder? Bull. Shit. "You have the right to use content provided you do so in a manner consistent with the license provided with it." That's the same basic principle protected in the GPL, as well as in DRM-licensing terms.

Removing DRM so that consumers have a choice over how and when to use content they have paid for is a great thing.

So, to use your argument, if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that. Because that should be my right as a consumer of the code, to determine how I want to use it... right.... right? Sorry, but that's not how it works. If the GPL rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictates "terms of use" for GPL'ed content, then the DRM'ed rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictate THEIR terms of use as well. If you don't like those terms, feel free to use something else, just as lots of people who don't like GPL license terms use BSD or even (gasp!) closed-source code.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (5, Insightful)

js_sebastian (946118) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120475)

Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy.

As a rights-holder? Bull. Shit. "You have the right to use content provided you do so in a manner consistent with the license provided with it." That's the same basic principle protected in the GPL, as well as in DRM-licensing terms.

You fail (again). The GPL does not, in any way, restrict your use of the licensed code. It only restricts the way you redistribute that code (if you should choose to do so). And, newsflash, even if the GPL wanted to restrict your use, it couldn't, because the GPL is based on copyright law. A license can only grant you MORE freedom than is already allowed to you by copyright law. And copyright law regulates distribution, not private usage.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120593)

Copyright law allows the rights-holder to determine the conditions upon which they are willing to give you rights to use the content. If the rights-holder says "I'm not going to give you this content unless you give me $20," that's perfectly valid. As is "I'm not going to give you this content unless you give me $20 and agree to the following terms and conditions..." So no, YOU fail, good sir, for not understanding the basic interactions of copyright and contract law here.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120805)

Copyright law allows the rights-holder to determine the conditions upon which they are willing to give you rights to use the content.

Wrongo. There is only one condition, and that is that the purchaser make no unauthorized copies. That condition is part of the law and has fuckall to do with the wishes of the "rights-holder".

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (4, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120859)

Copyright law allows the rights-holder to determine the conditions upon which they are willing to give you rights to use the content.

Wow. You failed twice in a row, and some idiot mod still modded you up.

Copyright. Read it carefully. Say it out loud. It is literally the right to copy. Copyright only deals with redistribution, whether in original or modified form. It does not deal with usage. Get it into your thick skull already; copyright cannot stop you from using what you bought the way you want it. It only stops you from copying what you bought and giving it to others. (Fair use covers the part where you copy something for backup purposes.)

Seesh. Get it right, or go troll somewhere else.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (4, Insightful)

RobBebop (947356) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121125)

At this point this discussion should probably be modded Flaimwar, but from the biased opinion of a self-publisher and a GPL content consumer, I think both arguments are correct. GPL advocates need to differentiate why they should be able to disable the rights claimed by DRM content or else it comes off as "we want freedom to do what we want (in the interests of consumers) AND to prevent you from doing what you want (in the interests of producers).

Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes. Either copyright is valuable, or it isn't. Pick a side.... and know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are benevolent and greedy consequences on each side of the copyright argument.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121155)

Yes, "COPYRIGHT", and the rights-holder determined - as part of their right to distribute - that before they would distribute the content to you, they were going to have you agree to terms and conditions. As I mentioned elsewhere, it's a combination of copyright and contract law at play. The rights-holder is the only person who can give you the content, and they have you agree to a contact, in the form of Terms and Conditions, or a License Agreement, etc., before they will distribute that content to you. It's not quantum physics.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

js_sebastian (946118) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121121)

Copyright law allows the rights-holder to determine the conditions upon which they are willing to give you rights to use the content. If the rights-holder says "I'm not going to give you this content unless you give me $20," that's perfectly valid. As is "I'm not going to give you this content unless you give me $20 and agree to the following terms and conditions..." So no, YOU fail, good sir, for not understanding the basic interactions of copyright and contract law here.

No, you fail again. What you are describing above is some kind of contract between the copyright owner and the user. The GPL is NOT a contract of any kind. It's not a EULA. Did you ever have to click-through a GPL license? Did you ever have to sign the GPL to be able to install linux? Since I did not sign it, the GPL cannot restrict my freedoms in any way. It can only allow me additional freedoms: namely, the right to redistribute the copyrighted work under certain conditions.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (4, Interesting)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120527)

The GPL is an additive license. You don't loose the right to do anything under it, you gain the right to do things you weren't otherwise allowed if you follow it.

The DRM license an eBook is published under is subtractive, you don't gain anything from the license that your money hasn't already purchased. The sole point of the license is to force you to give up rights 'in favor' of the rights holder position.

Apples and Oranges my friend.

When you come up with a DRM backed license that at leasst actually gives, in exchange for what it's taking, something of value, then you might have an arguement. Till then, when I purchase a book, I expect to be able to use it. And since the law explicitly allows circumvention of DRM for the purposes of interoptability, I'd say so does the law.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120641)

DRM *is* based on copyright law, with a mix of contract law thrown in for good measure.

A rights-holder can say "I won't allow my content to be distributed to you unless you pay me $20." That's fairly straight-forward.

A rights-holder can ALSO say "I won't allow my content to be distributed to you unless you pay me $20 AND agree to the following Terms and Conditions...."

By entering into the contract (which permitted the content to be distributed to you in the first place) you have willingly given up some rights, such as the right to crack open the file and do whatever you want with it.

Now, as previously noted, if the contract-portion of that agreement isn't adequately addressed in advance, you may potentially have recourse under contract law, etc., but that's not necessarily carte blanche to break the DRM.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120929)

Now, as previously noted, if the contract-portion of that agreement isn't adequately addressed in advance, you may potentially have recourse under contract law, etc., but that's not necessarily carte blanche to break the DRM.

And I don't believe that anyone actually arguing with you has indicated any sort of carte blanche. What they, as well as I, have indicated is that fair use trumps the arguement.

Additionally, go ahead and attempt to craft a legal and enforcable contract which says "I'll only sell you X if you use it soley with my other product Y." If you are lucky, the Feds will only smack you around a little bit.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120957)

"The GPL is an additive license. You don't lose the right to do anything under it, you gain the right to do things you weren't otherwise allowed if you follow it."

There, fixed that for you.

Why is the lose/loose spelling issue so bad here lately? I understand having 'fumble fingers' here and there, but, this one seems to be epidemic over the past 2-4 years.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

Chyeld (713439) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121197)

I don't [answers.com] know [answers.com] . You tell me what's with people who are loose with the defintion of lose.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (2, Interesting)

syzler (748241) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120615)

So, to use your argument, if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that. Because that should be my right as a consumer of the code, to determine how I want to use it... right.... right?

That is correct. You are able to personally use GPL software in a closed-source application. You are, however, unable to distribute said close source software with the GPL software.

Sorry, but that's not how it works. If the GPL rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictates "terms of use" for GPL'ed content, then the DRM'ed rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictate THEIR terms of use as well. If you don't like those terms, feel free to use something else, just as lots of people who don't like GPL license terms use BSD or even (gasp!) closed-source code.

Actually, I am pretty sure that is exactly how it works. Under the fair use doctrine I am allowed to personally use a valid copy of a copyrighted work as I see fit, but I am unable to (in most cases) to distribute the work.

BTW, I am a rights-holder and I have used both open and closed source licensing. As a rights-holder, why would I care if they choose to use my applications in a manner other than prescribed so long as they do not distribute the software without my permission?

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120815)

BTW, I am a rights-holder and I have used both open and closed source licensing. As a rights-holder, why would I care if they choose to use my applications in a manner other than prescribed so long as they do not distribute the software without my permission?

Maybe you don't care. But maybe, just maybe, you do. (For instance, perhaps you're a rights-holder who wants to say "you cannot use this content to help kill people" to prevent the military from using it, or whatever). The point is that while you or I may not necessarily care "how" someone uses it, some people DO care how people use it, and they've got the right to have you agree not to use it in a conflicting way before they give you the content.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (2, Insightful)

domatic (1128127) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120911)

For instance, perhaps you're a rights-holder who wants to say "you cannot use this content to help kill people" to prevent the military from using it, or whatever).

Contract law isn't a candy store. I may want to stipulate that one sign over his arm, leg, and first born child but very few courts on this planet will enforce it. And there HAVE been licenses that forbid military use or government use but those are institutions that at least under some circumstances CAN disregard contract, copyright, or even patent law. This disregard is either extended by legislative fiat or they just do it and dare you to come enforce it.

So yes, there are wishes a rights holder may have that he can't enforce with either contract or copyright law. And in keeping with DRM, there are wishes a rights holder may have that won't be enforced by the laws of physics and mathematics either.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (3, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120943)

The point is that while you or I may not necessarily care "how" someone uses it, some people DO care how people use it, and they've got the right to have you agree not to use it in a conflicting way before they give you the content.

So the manufacturer gets to decide how we use their product after we purchase it? Kellogs can prevent me from using their product to make Rice krispie squares? You don't believe in private property?

I think you need to think this through a little.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (4, Informative)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120707)

I'm really getting tired of these same straw men getting trotted out every time the issue of DRM comes up.

So, to use your argument, if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that.

You bet. You may use GPL software in any way you see fit. Freedom 0 guarentees that:

Freedom 0: The freedom to run the program for any purpose.

In fact, the license specifically forbids a copyright holder from taking steps to control how you use the software. The GPL only puts restrictions on how the software is distributed. The only person being restricted by the GPL is the copyright holder.

This is as it should be.

DRM has nothing to do with copyright. It's purpose is to controls access to the copyrighted work, to control how the person who paid for the copyrighted work uses it.

DRM is an attempt by copyright holders to claim additional rights for themselves beyond what copyright allows for. In many cases, it prevents citizens from exercising fair use without defeating it, making it incompatible with copyright law. If a copyright holder wishes to employ DRM, they should forfeit copyright protection, as they are not holding up their end of the bargain.

... right.... right?

You know, one fucking "right" will do, thanks.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120717)

Dredd,

You miss Nursie's point with your analogy. What's being said is that people should be able to open up content for personal use. So a more fitting analogy would be that it's like hacking up the linux kernel and putting it on your Playstation 3, and then hacking it up again to put it on your Nintendo DS.

This is totally okay, until you go to distrubute it. Personal use is the key.

Nursie did NOT say that it was okay to purchase content, repackage it, and then sell it for a profit.

I understand that when your livelihood is directly impacted by piracy it can be difficult to make a rational argument, but I hope that you can come to a point where you can understand the separation between piracy and fair use.

If I want to play an mp3 that I purchased on my brand new mp3 player that doesn't handle the itunes DRM, shouldn't I be permitted to alter the format of that content so that I can still use it?

DRM, especially of the proprietary is designed more to protect the device manufacturer than it does to protect the copyright holder.

If I own 40,000+ iTunes songs, and nobody else can play their DRM format, then when my iPod breaks is it right that I should be forced into a decision between throwing out my library at great cost, or buying another apple product, even if there are better products on the market?

The rhetoric that each instance of piracy is a "lost" sale doesn't really fly, because most people who are pirating would simply do without. Making content available simply gets your content out there to people who most likely wouldn't have paid for it anyway.

Now piracy for profit....I say THAT is precisely the situation for which copyright was originally designed!

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

g0rAngA (1131007) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120917)

I'm tired and I'm low on coffee, so these thoughts aren't fully formed yet, but the GPL doesn't restrict the end-user.

If you want to use the linux kernel in a closed-source program, then go ahead! Just don't expect to be able to distribute your project.

A good example of this is the nvidia module, which is of course, closed-source, mostly. Theres the open source part (which might be GPL'd), and theres the binary blob, which you couldn't distribute as part of a precompiled kernel. Instead, you distribute it as a seperate module. The user is allowed to insert it into the kernel, despite the fact that it isn't GPL'd.

DRM is just a little different, and I can see where people might get a little confused as to weather its a good thing or not. Ultimately, I define a failed DRM scheme as one that stops me from doing anything legit. If implemented perfectly, then DRM on things like music would be acceptable to me. A big problem is how "legit" is defined.
However, just as 100% efficient transformer is impossible, i beleive that a perfect DRM scheme is also impossible, and thus unacceptable.

Copyright is not bad. Copyright enforcement is not necessarily bad. But DRM is a far cry from being good.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121027)

As a rights-holder? Bull. Shit. "You have the right to use content provided you do so in a manner consistent with the license provided with it." That's the same basic principle protected in the GPL, as well as in DRM-licensing terms.

That's not what the law says. Read up on fair use.

So, to use your argument, if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that. Because that should be my right as a consumer of the code, to determine how I want to use it... right.... right?

Exactly right. The GPL in fact grants you EXTRA rights in the form of rights to distribute under certain circumstances.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27121077)

if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that.

You do have that right. The GPL is not a use license but a distribution license. Nothing prevents you from using that code in-house as you see fit.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27121161)

So, to use your argument, if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that. Because that should be my right as a consumer of the code, to determine how I want to use it... right.... right?

Sad how many people are going to try to attack your argument because you failed to include some disclaimer such as "a closed-source application to be sold commercially" because they can't recognize your obvious intent.

That's a good bit their fault, but in the future, do remember to not give them the opening. They're like pitbulls. Once they find something to bite on, they won't let go, even if it's a freaking bus.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

MyDixieWrecked (548719) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120589)

Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy

Agreed.

You have no idea how often I run into issues where some file won't play/can't be viewed on some device because it doesn't support the DRM. I've run into this with audio files (iTunes Store), PDFs, videos and ebooks.

I don't see why DRM'd media files must be tied to the device rather than the user. Why not have some kind of public key that authorizes the file? Of course there are issues with sharing the key, but there could be ways around that, too (device key negotiations with the DRM server).

Although... not having DRM at all would be the best case scenario.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120783)

It is regrettable that these developments are also massive boosts for piracy

No, it is not.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (4, Insightful)

The Warlock (701535) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120039)

Because sometimes (read: very often) the DRM will prevent the end-user from exercising rights he would have under standard Fair Use doctrines.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (3, Informative)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120053)

Licensing is not copyright. Licensing is a contract you enter in depending on whether you want to use certain programs and it's code associated with. You can choose not to buy/use/change the program or you can haggle for better fitting licensing (whether it be cost or freedom). If you don't like it, make your own program that does the same job but better (or cheaper).

Copyright is forced upon you whenever the creator creates his product. Even if you go to a library or book store and DON'T buy the book, the thing is still copyrighted and you can't make copies of it nor can you make a similar book with the same or a similar story.

Copyrights are like patents in software/hardware. They prevent you from improving upon a certain work and they effectively lock the competition out of making anything that is vaguely similar or even an extension of a book.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1, Troll)

Microlith (54737) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120541)

Copyrights are like patents in software/hardware.

Yeah, so we should abolish copyrights and watch what happens as TPB gets flooded short term with existing works, and the amount of newly created works that show up on the site trickles to a near standstill. Yeah.

Let's screw creators over completely, show them what they get for going out on a limb. Yeah.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (4, Interesting)

steelfood (895457) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120907)

Wow, all the trolls have come out of the woodwork.

What makes you think people are going to stop creating works of art just because somebody else is going to copy them? What makes you think that people are going to stop singing, painting, writing, telling stories, just because somebody else can sing the same song, paint the same picture, write the same words and tell the same stories?

Without copyright, people might not make money out of it. But nobody says people are supposed to make money for everything they do. Making money is not a right.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121113)

The vast majority of works traded on TPB, and enjoyed by users of TPB, are commercial works that would have no commercial value in a world without copyright law. Its that simple.

Hobby works or works of pleasure would still exist, but the problem is is that hobby works are not the works that are popular.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

remmelt (837671) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120971)

Straw man,
[citation needed],
and parroting the entertainment industry.

Nice going!

(Yeah.)

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (2, Insightful)

multisync (218450) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121003)

Yeah, so we should abolish copyrights and watch what happens as TPB gets flooded short term with existing works, and the amount of newly created works that show up on the site trickles to a near standstill. Yeah.

Yeah, cause no one ever created anything before copyright law came along 300 years ago. Yeah.

Uhhh (2, Insightful)

CaptainZapp (182233) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120959)

Copyrights are like patents in software/hardware. They prevent you from improving upon a certain work and they effectively lock the competition

Actually that's completely upside down.

Patents, in theory, are a deal between an inventor and society. For a limited, government enforced monopoly the inventor must document and register his invention with the patent office. Others can look at those patents and build upon them as long they either license the patent, wait until it's expired or build upon it in a way that the patent is not violated.

Now, this is the theory of course which doesn't seem to be very much related to nowadays reality.

However, patents where certainly not invented to hinder innovation, actually - due its documentation requirements - quite the opposite.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120061)

I can't believe that this nonsense keeps being repeated. The GPL (a license I don't really like, but respect) is a distribution license. It follows both the spirit and the letter of copyright law, allowing the original author to restrict how people copy their work. DRM, in contrast, restricts how people use their work. This is counter to the spirit of copyright law - there's a reason it's called copyright not useright - and is antithetical to Free Software. Note that even laws like the DMCA talk about copy protection, rather than DRM. They are not the same thing. Copy protection only prevents copying, while DRM prevents various forms of use, for example annotating a PDF or playing a DVD from a different country.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (3, Insightful)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120473)

The rights-holder is the sole arbiter of the "conditions of the distribution of their content". If they want to distribute content to you which you are forbidden to use in months which end in "Y" that is their right. You're free as a consumer to say "that's horse-shit," and not purchase their content at all. But at the end of the day, the copy of the content was given to you, after an exchange of moneys, based on an agreement (the license agreement). If you're unhappy with the license agreement you're now bound by, please feel free to read the license more closely in the future. If the license wasn't adequately provided to you prior to purchase (e.g., license agreements INSIDE software boxes, etc.) feel free to use the court system to get your money back, or to prove that those particular agreements are invalid. But what you don't get to do is simply ignore the copyright restriction when it isn't convenient for you.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (2, Interesting)

bentcd (690786) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120685)

The rights-holder is the sole arbiter of the "conditions of the distribution of their content".

No, the courts are.

If they want to distribute content to you which you are forbidden to use in months which end in "Y" that is their right.

No, it is not. Once the product has been sold to you the rights holder has nothing to say about how you use it so long as you stick to what copyright law allows you to do with it.

But at the end of the day, the copy of the content was given to you, after an exchange of moneys, based on an agreement (the license agreement).

No, it was not. It was sold to you as a product, and it is a product that you can use according to what is permitted by copyright law. You only need a /license/ if you intend to put it to uses that copyright law does not permit.

As for what copyright law allows you to do, it allows you to use the product in the expected manner (that is, listen to music or watch a film) and some jurisdictions even allow you to make backup copies of it. There will tend to be a myriad other things you can also do with it without having to get permission from the rights holder.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

Dredd13 (14750) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120847)

Once the product has been sold to you the rights holder has nothing to say about how you use it so long as you stick to what copyright law allows you to do with it.

Not if you agreed (via a license agreement) not to use in on days that end in "Y".

No, it was not. It was sold to you as a product,

It was content, distributed to you by the rights-holder under their right to distribute (as rights-holder) after an agreement by you to terms and conditions of that distribution, namely what you could and could not do with the content after you received it.

What you're saying (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120921)

What these "rights holders" are saying is this:

1) We like copyright.
2) Mostly
3) What we don't like about copyright is the following:
      a) You can sell it to someone else. We really don't like that.
      b) You can use it in the way that you want, and I can't control it
      c) You can use it forever. I really don't like that
4) So I like copyright, but I want it to be constraining than copyright
5) So I'll lock it in DRM and then you can't actually do those things in #3 above that I really dislike
6) And then as a rights holder, I get to control how you use the work.
7) Which copyright doesn't really allow

I mean, I *get* why people want to ignore #3. It's just that the law is not on their side. So they created technical hurdles to fair use and doctrine of first sale. And then they claim a copyright violation (much as you're doing) to justify the taking of rights.

That's the argument in a nutshell.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120701)

The rights-holder is the sole arbiter of the "conditions of the distribution of their content". If they want to distribute content to you which you are forbidden to use in months which end in "Y" that is their right.

Just because you keep repeating this doesn't make it true.
You have certain legal rights which *override* any license you may or may not have agreed to.
Just because the license says "we can without explanation stop you using this content at any time" and you agree to it *does not mean that clause has any legal effect*. Any court would rule that it was an entirely unfair and unreasonable clause and that your rights under consumer law *to use the product you paid for* take precendence.

In other words, a license as a form of contract is not written in blood. It is subject to compliance with the law. Or have you never seen those disclaimers in licenses which effectively say 'all of this contract applies unless local law says it doesn't, in which case all the remaining bits still apply after removing the bits which have been struck out'? These clauses make it quite clear that even the companies producing these licenses know that your view on this matter is completely wrong.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (2, Informative)

Zerth (26112) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121009)

The First Sale Doctrine [wikipedia.org] would like to have a word with you.

You cannot restrict an owners use of a copyrighted work. I can read a book when I want, I can sell it when I want for as little as I want(the original problem involved requiring you to sell books for a minimum price), I can lend it to my friends. I can even put it my wall with a camera and projector if I have poor eyesight(oo, transient copy!).

The only reason software companies get away with it is the fact that to run their software, a copy needs to be made in memory, and thus they grant you the right to make that copy with restrictions, which is only barely accepted. If you were to run an OS that supported execute in place, then you could give them the finger and wipe them across the court floor.

Some claim their software is licensed, not sold, but that is also bullshit in every other medium, via the 1976 Act that includes all lawfully possesed works whether sold, given, or traded. Some districts have included anything with the appearance of a sale(ie, I can buy it at a store just like batteries, books, or groceries), some have not.

If I download software from your website, you gave it to me, too late to add a contract of adhesion after the fact. If you give me a contract beforehand, then me bad for agreeing to it, but after I have it I'm free to ignore any paper/bytes inside the box/installer.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120735)

If you agree to the license on the content before downloading, which you pretty much have to do for any legitimate download, you probably also agreed to not copy it or attempt to break the DRM for any reason.

So if the GPL is valid because it controls what you can and can't do with the software after you get it, why is it that the DRM you agreed to when you purchased the content is any different?

I think DRM is complete shit, but treating it differently than GPL just because you like GPL and not DRM is retarded. Everyone has to play by the same set of rules for everything, like it or not, or the system breaks down and no one respects anything, GPL or DRM.

You don't get to ignore licensing agreements for things you don't like, but require others to respect the ones you do like.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121071)

So if the GPL is valid because it controls what you can and can't do with the software after you get it, why is it that the DRM you agreed to when you purchased the content is any different?

Why are you finding it so difficult to understand this?

Copyright grants the creator a small set of rights which are enforced, by law, in exchange for the creator agreeing to distribute their work. The only relevant right that copyright grants is the exclusive distribution right (there are a few others, such as the right to be identified with the work, but these vary between legal jurisdictions). Under copyright law, you have no right to make copies of something you receive (except in certain limited cases, which vary depending on your jurisdiction), but you have the right to use it in any other way you choose.

The copyright owner (typically either the creator, or their publisher) may choose to grant you extra rights, such as the right to distribute copies and derived works. They can not, in a lot of places, legally impose additional restrictions without giving you something in return. One of the principles of contract law in a lot of places is that both parties must gain something for a contract to be valid. If you legally receive a copy of a work, then you have all of the rights that copyright grants you. This includes the right to remove DRM for interoperability in a lot of places (including the USA, under the DMCA).

I think DRM is complete shit, but treating it differently than GPL just because you like GPL and not DRM is retarded.

I don't like the GPL. I use BSD and MIT licenses for my own work, and avoid GPL'd code wherever possible. Comparing the GPL to DRM is nonsense, however. The GPL is a license which grants you rights (specifically, a restricted set of distribution rights) that copyright does not permit. DRM is a technical measure which restricts rights that you would otherwise have under the fair use provisions of copyright law, such as the ability to make backup copies, the ability to create (but not distribute) derived works, and the ability to format-shift for private use.

You don't get to ignore licensing agreements for things you don't like, but require others to respect the ones you do like.

DRM is not a licensing agreement, it is a technical measure which restricts your rights beyond that allowed under copyright law. You are also confusing the GPL and EULAs. The GPL is a distribution license, EULAs are usage licenses. Distribution licenses, including restrictive ones, are uncontested. EULAs are of varying legality and are often unenforceable.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120113)

Well, it's not comical.

While the GPL technically relies on copyright laws, it's a copyleft.

So while GPL-activists and DRM-circumventers look to be incompatible, this is only a technical issue.

If you look at the "content" side, most free software guys are fully anti-DRM, as this limits what the user can do with "his copy of the book", "his copy of the application", ...

You'll also notice that the cases where companies where sued over GPL violations where all cases where the company restricted what the user could do with his hardware. I do not think that there have been problems for companies that are open and just forgot to push a source package online.

Basically, I'm ready to pay for content, but only as long I'm allowed to use it in my context. That implies that I'm able to read it on my mobile, on my laptop, and in some extreme cases I've printed out whole chapters (in the office, when my mobile was exhausted and I did know that I had a long ride home).

Notice that I'm an extreme case, as I prefer the ebook version my mobile over the printed book anytime, but then I'm atypical in many ways.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (5, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120115)

"Copyright law" does not equal "technological enforcement of whatever terms somebody feels like enforcing".

While some DRM-crackers are indeed, more or less unrelated(you don't see GPL proponents celebrating the availability of cracked copies of proprietary software), the DRM-crackers who stand up for our freedom to own and control our computers, rather than the other way around, have pretty much exactly the same objective as core GPL proponents.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (2, Insightful)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120265)

The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without.

True, that is copyright law for you. But the issue is whether the copyright holder can artificially expand his own rights or arbitrarily restrict the end users rights.

E.g. I recently encountered a company that sold pdf(?) documents you can only read with an active internet connection. Reading on the train/plane is impossible or very expensive.

If we have a legal system where copying images, songs and books is tolerated, then we also have a legal system where taking GPL code and subverting it will be tolerated as well.

Also true, but this part is about enforcing the law. You could substitute 'taking GPL code and subverting it' with 'throwing bombs','murdering innocent children' as well. Of course, that's insinuating copying is a very bad crime. Which it is not. It's mildly naughty.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

dna_(c)(tm)(r) (618003) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120309)

Sorry, clicked the wrong button

My point is that all DRM schemes hinder legitimate users to some degree and never actually prevent copying.

GPL vs. DRM: DRM goes against the copyright spirit (3, Insightful)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120325)

The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without.

As I understand it, the purpose of copyright is to secure for creators a limited time monopoly on the rights necessary for selling the creation, in return for them eventually enriching the cultural (and, in the case of software, technological) commons.

Some kinds of DRM prevent or obstruct use of the work in such a way that when the work enters the public domain, it doesn't enrich the commons in practice. It's like being given a car wreck that's in really bad shape: sure you can sell it as scrap metal, but it's worth so little that you're better off ignoring it.

For this reason, I think one can argue that DRM (with certain properties) goes against the spirit and purpose of copyright law, and the argument doesn't apply to GPL'ed software.

Re:GPL vs. DRM: DRM goes against the copyright spi (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121157)

The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without.

As I understand it, the purpose of copyright is to secure for creators a limited time monopoly on the rights necessary for selling the creation, in return for them eventually enriching the cultural (and, in the case of software, technological) commons.

Some kinds of DRM prevent or obstruct use of the work in such a way that when the work enters the public domain, it doesn't enrich the commons in practice. It's like being given a car wreck that's in really bad shape: sure you can sell it as scrap metal, but it's worth so little that you're better off ignoring it.

For this reason, I think one can argue that DRM (with certain properties) goes against the spirit and purpose of copyright law, and the argument doesn't apply to GPL'ed software.

The problem with this argument is that its an assumed, implied agreement that the works will enrich the cultural commons - its not anything laid out in law as copyright law does not handle what happens to the work after copyright law ceases to apply.

Or in other words, its not the copyright holders responsibility to ensure that you have access to the works after copyright expires - and indeed, neither should it be.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120335)

"If we have a legal system where copying images, songs and books is tolerated, then we also have a legal system where taking GPL code and subverting it will be tolerated as well."

So? Copyright is already way too large in scope. The GPL is a little hack designed to voluntarily give up rights on your stuff, but I believe that FOSS in general is starting to outgrow the copyright system. I mean, the GPL is a good hack to make freedom compatible under our current copyright regime. But in reality we should be campaigning to have copyright and patents either repealed, made unconstitutional, or dramatically reduced in scope and size. Currently they are nothing more than a way to leech off the work of productive people and countries by weakening property rights and charging monopoly rents on the economy.

(examples: monsanto's creation of GM crops that invade other crops with patented genes allowing them to sue you, big pharma charging 3rd world countries up the ass for pills and drugs they need because they can sue anyone in the world that makes their own, microsoft trying to block Linux from reading FAT filesystems, the kajillions of patent trolls suing game console manufacturers for having a controller)

I do realize that DRM and GPL have piss-all to do with each other. But the second part of your argument, that one type of sharing (TPB, filesharing) is now anathema to another type of sharing (GPL copyleft), is correct.

The GPL makes FOSS too reliant on copyright law to actually petition for any reduction in terms. And that's the worst position we can be in since the copyright and patent laws aren't spec'd for creating rules for sharing. They are spec'd for creating monopolies and encouraging neo-colonialism. While we should be using the GPL in the interim to protect our stuff, we should not be forgetting about the greater goal of copyright reform. Otherwise, we have a case in which two freedom fighters are against each other because of the way they operate, thus weakening all of us.

Compare the situation with constutional law, where we have one big lobby group (ACLU) to defend one block of amendments, and another big lobby group (NRA) to defend another block of amendments. In reality this means that one side doesn't take action when the other side's amendments are being defiled, and the fight becomes much harder.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (2, Insightful)

Ephemeriis (315124) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120483)

It's rather comical that so many people out there are trying to break DRM and band themselves as allies of the open source movement in some way. The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without. If we have a legal system where copying images, songs and books is tolerated, then we also have a legal system where taking GPL code and subverting it will be tolerated as well.

The GPL is a license that dictates how a work can be copied and distributed - which was the intent of copyrights originally. To control who can copy and/or distribute a work, to make sure that the author actually gets something for their effort.

DRM, on the other hand, restricts how someone who already has a copy of the work is able to use it. DRM keeps me from reading my ebook on the device of my choice. DRM keeps me from listening to my music on the device of my choice. DRM keeps me from re-installing the software that I purchased because it has been activated too many times.

Most folks on here, and in the open source community at large, don't really have a huge problem with copyright. They may have issues with various current implementations or protection periods... But most folks are ok with the idea of an author/creator getting paid for their work in some way.

DRM though... DRM isn't about keeping people from making unauthorized copies. DRM is about selling people one copy of a movie for their DVD player, and a second copy for their PC, and a third copy for their iPod. DRM is about the middle-men (not the content creators) dictating how you use the content.

Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (1)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121023)

copyright gives you the right to control other people's ability to make and distribute further copies of your work, not the right to control how they use the copies tha they have -- or even the right to give the copy that you sold them to someone else (aka 'the right of first purchase').

DRM is being used to control the end-user far beyond what copyright is supposed to be about.

The GPL, on the other hand, only kicks in if/when you go beyond what copyright would allow a normal user to do (i.e. when you try to make/distribute further (possibly modified) copies). Until that point, the GPL claims no ability to control what you do.

Not really a new Sklyarov (4, Informative)

muffen (321442) | more than 5 years ago | (#27119979)

The tools are not on the site anymore...

But now what you're really here for - the PDF decryption tool: REMOVED. (And if you don't already have it, the key-retrieval tool: REMOVED.)
Edit: Links to tools removed due to DMCA complaint from Adobe.

This is not the next Dmitri, if anything, it may turn in to the new DeCSS as Adobe is trying to stop the tool(s) from spreading, which tends to have the opposite effect.
I really wonder if it hadn't been better for Adobe not to say anything, now they are giving it publicity it wouldn't have had otherwise.

Re:Not really a new Sklyarov (2, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120011)

Um, that'd be what the "streisendeffect" tag is for...

Re:Not really a new Sklyarov (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120091)

Isn't the key retrieval still linked in the earlier post (pastebin?) and the key decryptor?

If not, there are are now two random python files on my desktop waiting for analysis.

Re:Not really a new Sklyarov (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120189)

Well, dunno if it is the most up-to-date version, but here are the two links you mentioned:
ADEPT key retrieval prog [pastebin.com]

Decrypt PDF prog [pastebin.com]

Re:Not really a new Sklyarov (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120391)

If you check the Google Cache, it was updated properly and contains the link to the right pastebin sites.

Re:Not really a new Sklyarov (2, Insightful)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120083)

Since when was the definition of copyright infringement extended, so any tool that got passed ineffective access controls, could automatically be configured infringement?

The DMCA takedown rules should require a work to actually be infringing...

Perhaps they should start sending takedown notices to people finding and posting security exploits, that allow hackers to remotely execute code in their software.

Because you know, it's cheaper to silence people who have found flaws in your software than to properly designing your software in the first place, or actually taking an effort to fix the bug.

Re:Not really a new Sklyarov (3, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120285)

Since when was the definition of copyright infringement extended, so any tool that got passed ineffective access controls, could automatically be configured infringement?

The DMCA takedown rules should require a work to actually be infringing...

Nope - DMCA defines extra crimes involving copyrighted works, but the crimes defined needn't be copyright infringement themselves. Namely, any program that facilitates the disabling of any copy protection device violates the DMCA. Doesn't matter how it does it or the technical details. I don't think there's any question that this program was breaking the letter (and hell, the spirit) of the law when it comes to the DMCA.

The problem is that the DMCA itself is a bad and unfair law. Bad and unfair laws result in bad and unfair application. You can either live with it, ignore it, or try to change it. Geeks don't have the lobbying power to change it, nor the will power to just live with it, so far the most part we just ignore that law, only complying as a token gesture as needed. I mean really - this guy has now complied with Adobe's takedown notice, but the code was released into the wild. At this point the cat is out of the bag.

Though really - why don't we start posting these things on foreign servers to begin with? Put it up on The Pirate Bay or something for goodness sakes. DMCA takedown notices mean little in areas where the DMCA doesn't apply.

Doing him a favor? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120345)

Using the DMCA to censor him just inconveniences him a bit while he finds a way to post it from a country without such a law (or effective enforcement thereof). Isn't this less despicable than using the DCMA to charge him with the criminal act of providing tools to break access controls?

I hope we don't have another replay of the Skylarov fiasco.

Disclaimer: Don't take this comment as indicating that I think the DMCA is a good law.

Re:Not really a new Sklyarov (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120703)

The DMCA takedown rules should require a work to actually be infringing...

They do. Takedowns of encryption tools are a misuse of DMCA 512. But the rules encourage bogus takedowns, and it's not like someone who is flagrantly violating DMCA 1201 is going to write a DMCA 512 counternotice.

Re:Not really a new Sklyarov (4, Informative)

Dolohov (114209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120151)

What do you expect them to do, wave a white flag and say "It's a fair cop, you got us"? They have a responsibility to their shareholders to do everything they can to protect a) their investment in creating the DRM in the first place, and b) the value of their licensed software and agreements with publishers.

While I personally believe that Adobe would have been better-advised to have not bothered with this in the first place, DRM being particularly silly for text, they did. And because they did, saying nothing right now is not an option, or their shareholders could rightly accuse them of not being duly diligent. If the DeCSS/Streisand effect kicks in, well that's just part of the dance they started way back when.

Fiduciary duty: includes a healthy business model (2, Insightful)

jonaskoelker (922170) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120821)

They have a responsibility to their shareholders to do everything they can to protect a) their investment in creating the DRM in the first place, and b) the value of their licensed software and agreements with publishers.

Well, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to deliver a good return on investment.

You can try doing that in multiple ways. One of them is fighting a losing battle tooth and nail, another is coming up with a business model that works well in the environment it'll execute in.

I'm not saying Adobe is at one extreme and should move to the other. But you have to wonder whether fighting the DRM war is ultimately good or bad for business. If it's bad, not fighting it is their shareholder responsibility.

Re:Fiduciary duty: includes a healthy business mod (1)

Dolohov (114209) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120935)

Like I said, I don't think they should have gone down this path in the first place. PDFs were not a prime candidate for working DRM in the first place. But if they simply abandon it, then they open themselves up to lawsuits from the publishers who had been using the DRM and would be left high and dry. The harder a fight Adobe puts up now, the less they stand to lose in court. And since I strongly suspect that the people handling the cease-and-desist stuff are staff lawyers who get paid either way, I doubt it costs them anything extra to fight tools like this at this stage.

NO. NOT NOW. NOT EVER. I'M COMING FOR ALL OF YOU! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120045)

Oh how COOOL someone was able to figure out a new way to STEAL because, after all, intellectual property is EVIL! Yeah, right.

Don't listen to broke foreign people who have to trade their time for money or the guys who are 28-38. They don't know Right from Wrong like their older and younger peers and would destroy all civilization if we followed them around (CmdrTaco excluded, I think.)

Go ahead and tag me RIAA, MPAAEFG or whatever kind of Troll. (I'm none of that.)

Re:NO. NOT NOW. NOT EVER. I'M COMING FOR ALL OF YO (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120225)

Anything against stealing = Flamebait! LOL

This just calls for one thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120057)

09f9 1102 9d74 e35b d841 56c5 6356 88c0

Re:This just calls for one thing... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120119)

Idiot. GTFO.

It's in google cache. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120085)

Google cache.

In case anyone wants to see the actual work... (1)

midicase (902333) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120103)

Google's cache of the blog has a working link.

Took down the links, not the content.. (5, Informative)

XenoPhage (242134) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120105)

There is of course, Google Cache [74.125.47.132] ...

Or, you can just get it from pastebin:

http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c [pastebin.com]

and

http://pastebin.com/f26972321 [pastebin.com]

Re:Took down the links, not the content.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120719)

Thank you kind sir. Now I can read the 24$ Rogers book (Diffusion of Innovations... Classic) on Linux too. :)

Mirrors (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120787)

One German mirror and one extra American mirror

PDF decryption tool: http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c [pastebin.com]
http://nopaste.info/8ad6b71874.html [nopaste.info]
http://paste2.org/p/161270 [paste2.org]

key-retrieval tool: http://pastebin.com/f26972321 [pastebin.com]
http://nopaste.info/8b62e63436.html [nopaste.info]
http://paste2.org/p/161271 [paste2.org]

If you know of any other foreign pastebins,
mirror and post in this thread.

Re:Took down the links, not the content.. (5, Insightful)

skeeto (1138903) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120967)

Or on Freenet [freenetproject.org] , where it is impossible for anyone to remove,

CHK@Lxdd7kNnDxsKDbJvN954w8VVTkyeXriXBc~CZQi7yh0,CpQsd8KQkbzeRnfpY4tprGAlt2LYjIKtwVdDYXWY~nE,AAIC--8/ineptpdf.pyw

CHK@0sthR-c3bxeDPtyRP4vLst4MKLAYunyPgL3DFgijAR4,GLU99yTKNtuIx9A54tvh20XisaAPwCcul58wTmTKjRE,AAIC--8/ineptkey.pyw

Re:Took down the links, not the content.. (4, Funny)

steelfood (895457) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121035)

In other news today, Adobe sues Google.

Wait a minute.... (1)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120207)

That DRM was broken close to 10 years ago or so by this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elcomsoft [wikipedia.org]
I dont think they changed the encryption, just the way they encrypted it. My guess is that
the tools created by Dmitri and the rest still work today....I may be wrong.

audible drm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120211)

Who cares about Adobe's e-book drm? I want someone to break Audible's DRM!

Analog hole doesn't work? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120457)

I would think that it would be trivial to just record the output of your speakers/mp3 player/etc., no? You could even record multiple times and develop sophisticated algorithms to remove the analog noise and improve resolution.

And while we're at it, I'm fairly sure that someone could write software which would OCR the output of a camcorder recording the screen of Adobe's ebook reader application while the down arrow key was held down with a small weight or clamp. Doesn't matter how many updates they make to their software in this case.

DRM is silly and insulting to the customer, especially in low-bandwidth cases like this.

Re:Analog hole doesn't work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120881)

Recording the output is trivial, as you say. However, audiobooks can be 30 hours long and are broken up into 3, 4, even 5 pieces. The "analog-hole" approach is not practical under these circumstances.

Any guesses (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120217)

from TFA:

> Any guesses as to why only the PDF decryption tool and not the EPUB tool?

Probably because no-one's even heard of EPUB but practically everyone has heard of PDF files...

Re:Any guesses (1)

edwardd (127355) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120609)

Probably because no-one's even heard of EPUB but practically everyone has heard of PDF files...

Flamebait. ePub is a standard that's adopted by several ebook readers, and is superior to PDF for those mediums. Do your homework next time.

Here is the link... (2, Informative)

hesaigo999ca (786966) | more than 5 years ago | (#27120239)

>But now what youâ(TM)re really here for â" the PDF decryption tool: http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c [pastebin.com] . (And >if you don't already have it, the key-retrieval tool: http://pastebin.com/f26972321. [pastebin.com] )

From the original article without having the links broken by law.
I wonder is /. will have to do the same now?
You can always call it back from google cache...as I did.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:aoDTe7wI6s4J:i-u2665-cabbages.blogspot.com/2009/02/circumventing-adobe-adept-drm-for-pdf.html+http://i-u2665-cabbages.blogspot.com/2009/02/circumventing-adobe-adept-drm-for-pdf.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca [74.125.47.132]

The opposite effect, twice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27120731)

First, a take-down is a sure way to have this kind of thing spread far and wide. Thanks to this article I have the code now. Better, in about half an hour I'll understand the crack.

Second, there is some DRM-encumbered PDF content that I was thinking of buying, but have not because it was protected. I'm seriously considering buying it now, removing the protection, and (a) using it on a device that it would not otherwise have worked on, and (b) backing up the content, so I'll still be able to use it decades hence.

DMCA Takedown illegal? (1)

Stephen Samuel (106962) | more than 5 years ago | (#27121093)

Unless he stole Adobe code, the DMCA takedown notice was probably illegal. Giving people the right to read what they bought is not a violation of copyright that DMCA takedowns are meant to refer to..
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...