RE: More ethics...

["David Knopf" <david -at- knopf -dot- com>]

Andrew Plato [mailto:intrepid_es -at- yahoo -dot- com] wrote:

| "David Knopf" wrote...
|
| > There's just one problem here. The technology Sklyarov and Elcomsoft
| > created is legal in Russia, where they live and do business, and is also
|
| > legal in all EU countries. In fact, AFAIK, it's legal everywhere except
| > in the U.S. The laws in other countries grant consumers the right to
| > make a backup copy of any eBook they purchase.
|
| Sklyarov was not arrested because he made personal backup copies. He was
| arrested for revealing the exact method of cracking Adobe's security
| meachnisms to an audience of people who specialize in hacking and pirating
| things.

This statement, as a matter of record, is incorrect. He was not arrested for
"revealing" anything. That would have made for an even more interesting
case, but if you read the DOJ complaint, a copy of which is available at
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Sklyarov/20010707_complaint.html, you will
see he was arrested because of an allegation that he "did import, offer to
the public, provide, and otherwise traffic in a software product that 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, and aid and
abet such conduct." I did not attend the DefCon conference and have no idea
whether this allegation is true, but it is crystal clear that he is charged
with importing and distributing a product that violates U.S. law.


| Backing up the product is not the issue David.

No, it is not *the* issue, but it certainly is *an* issue. One application
of the Advanced eBook Processor (the product Sklyarov helped to develop) is
to enable those who have purchased an eBook to make a backup copy. Another
application is to enable legitimate owners to transfer an eBook from one
computer to another, just as you might transfer a music CD from your home
stereo to your car. The product lets you convert an eBook to a PDF file.
According to the reports I have read, the product can only be used if you
have a legitimate, licensed copy of an eBook.

Yes, it's certainly true that a user could convert an eBook to PDF and then
distribute the PDF in violation of the copyright. However, neither Sklyarov
nor Elcomsoft is charged with distributing *any* intellectual property in
violation of either U.S. or international copyright laws.


| As far as I know, it is illegal in the EU and most places in the world to
| distribute copyrighted materials without the consent of the
| author/manufacturer.

Indeed that is true. However, neither Sklyarov nor Elcomsoft is alleged to
have done this.


| Sklyrov's technology will aid those who pirate
| copyrighted technology.

This is possible, and under the DMCA, distributing this type of software
product, whether for profit or for free, is a criminal act. There are many
technologies that fall into the same category but are not protected under
the DMCA. Manufacturing photocopiers aids those who photocopy and illegally
distribute copyrighted materials. Manufacturing CD-RWs aids those who make
illegal copies of music CDs. Manufacturing firearms aids those who commit
murder. Manufacturing automobiles aids those who drive under the influence
and cause harm to others. Yet in none of these cases do we hold the
manufacturer liable. If you photocopy and distribute copyrighted material,
you can be charged, but Xerox cannot. If you commit murder with a gun, you
will be held responsible, but Smith & Wesson will not.


| As for being legal in Russia - thats fine. But he was in the USA when he
| distributed (speaking at a hacker convention amounts to distribution)

Most definitely not. Speaking is most certainly not the same as
distributing. I am free in this country to speak about how to build a
nuclear bomb. Actually building one is another matter. Sklyarov is charged
with distribution, not with illegal speech.


| the
| methods to crack the security. In some countries it is illegal to speak
| out against the king. If I speak out against the king in one of those
| countries - I can expect to be arrested and jailed.

Don't do it, Andrew. ;-) Actually, on this point, we agree. Distribution of
the product is, as a matter of fact, a criminal offense in this country. I
think it should not be, but it is. If the allegations in the complaint are
true, Sklyarov is guilty of the offense and, if the prosecution can prove
this at trial, he may very well be fined and/or jailed. The various "Free
Dmitri" web sites have garnered a lot of attention but, in my opinion, miss
the point. What is wrong is not that Dmitri Sklyarov was arrested; what is
wrong is that the Congress, at the behest of big corporate contributors,
created the law under which he can be arrested, charged, and jailed. The
FBI's job is to enforce law, not to interpret it. In my opinion, the
energies of the "free Dmitri movement" would be better directed toward
changing the law.


| The French govenment has already decided the rights. You do not have a
| right to redistribute copyrighted work without consent. Period.

Correct. And if Sklyarov or Elcomsoft had done so, they would be charged
under that law. However, there has been no allegation that they did any such
thing, and therefore they could not currently be charged in any E.U.
country.


| Adobe has provided a technology to help enforce these laws that exist in
| (to my knowledge) ALL European countries.

A technology that simultaneously enables publishers to violate another law
that exists in most or all E.U. countries--the law that guarantees consumers
the right to make a backup copy.


| Sklyrov broke this technology and then revealed the exact method to do
| this to a group of other hackers. Thus, he was aiding and abetting those
| who will use those methods to violate copyright laws.

This is true. I guess you think this is rightly classified as criminal
conduct. I do not. I think it is free speech. If publishing instructions for
building a nuclear weapon is protected speech, as it is, it is very
difficult to see how speaking about breaking a weak encryption technology
could be a criminal offense. In fact, one of the primary effects of the law
has been to interfere with freedom of speech.  Professor Edward Felten of
Princeton University has had to go to court essentially to ask for
permission to speak at USENIX (not a hacker conference, btw) about
encryption technologies and digital music. It's not good when our top
researchers need permission from a judge to speak in public.


| As writers, I am amazed that so many are against this. These technologies
| are intended to protect our work from thieves. Okay, they might not work
| so well after all - but if there is no such protection of intellectual
| work - then why do it.

You are conflating two separate issues here. As a writer, I am strongly in
favor of copyright protection, and I am in favor of technologies that can
effectively protect copyrighted work, including my own. Adobe's eBook
technology obviously doesn't fit in this category, or this entire issue
would never have arisen. (The most interesting part of the allegation is
that the Elcomsoft product interfered with "a technological measure that
effectively protects a right of a copyright owner"--if Adobe's technological
measure is so effective, why was it so easy to break?)

The protections built in to the eBook format are obviously too weak to rely
on, and, as a writer, I am quite happy to have learned that before choosing
to publish any of my work in the eBook format. As you say, these
technologies do "not work so well," and we all benefit from knowing that.
(Before you get upset, this is not a general defense of white hat hacking,
just a statement of fact.)

Yes, there are some people who oppose copyright protection in general. I
adamantly disagree with that position. I also believe that the DMCA is bad
law and bad public policy. I see no conflict between these two beliefs.


| Why would I work my butt off a write a document if hackers can just rip
| off the contents and freely distribute it to others without paying for the
| right to use it.

I assume you would not, and nor would I. Given what you have learned
recently about the security of the eBook format, I doubt you will be
publishing any eBooks in the near future.


| I am truly amazed how some of the same people who scream to bloody heaven
| how big nasty companies are stealing their work from them are the same
| people defending a Russian hacker who in essence handed the world a tool
| to steal you work. That strikes me as blatantly hypocritical.

Since you do not name me specifically in this paragraph, I will assume you
are just making a general observation. But I will also state for the record
that I don't generally "scream to bloody heaven" about "big nasty companies
stealing [my] work," nor do I consider myself a hypocrite.


| So - let me see if I got this right:
|
| A. If a big company steals your work and doesn't pay you for your work.
| That's evil and they should be punished.
|
| B. But if a Russian hacker invents a tool to steal your work without
| paying for it - that's OKAY and he should be rewarded.

No, you got it right in an earlier post when you said that "stealing is
stealing." (This was refreshing, actually, after the trouble you had with
"lying is lying" in the recent thread about job interviews.) Big companies
stealing intellectual property is bad. Individuals stealing intellectual
property is bad. Even "starving artists" stealing intellectual property is
bad. The Russian hacker in question, however, has not been charged with
stealing anyone's intellectual property.


| So basically, individuals can commit illegal acts without retribution but
| big companies cannot.

Certainly not.


| That is pure nonsense and its pure hypocracy. The same laws that apply to
| companies should apply to individuals.

You're really overreaching here, Andrew. Many laws apply to companies that
do not apply to individuals, and vice versa. Would you like OSHA to impose
regulations on your home office? Would you like to be required to make your
home office ADA compliant? Individuals and companies differ in many ways,
and those differences have always been recognized in the law.

Regards,

David Knopf (mailto:david -at- knopf -dot- com)
Knopf Online (http://www.knopf.com)
Tel: 415.550.8367

RoboHelp MVP & Certified RoboHelp Instructor
WebWorks Publisher Certified Trainer
Member, Sun's JavaHelp 2.0 Expert Group
Member, eHelp's RoboHelp Community Advisory Board
Co-moderator, HATT & wwp-users


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

A landmark hotel, one of America's most beautiful cities, and 
three and a half days of immersion in the state of the art:
IPCC 01, Oct. 24-27 in Santa Fe.  http://ieeepcs.org/2001/

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.