If you have a poor quality lock on your front door, it does not make it legal for someone to enter your premises and help themselves to your possessions. Yes, one should get decent-quality locks for your doors, and yes, ADBE should put decent quality encryption in their software. Which is not to say that they don't have that now; who knows what the incentive of some of these anti-ADBE postings really is. Just remeber; just as any house can be broken in to, any software encryption that is practical for use can be defeated by someone determined and knowledgable enough. That is why there are copyright laws making such activities illegal. Not being overly difficult is not a defense to breaking the law.
I'm sure that ADBE is constantly improving all aspects of their software, as do any decent software shops. Defending from hackers who think they are above the law (or companies that employ them) is just part of the game that must be played.
"People are now being given patients on ideas (one click shopping for example). Not the particular software that implements one click shopping or a device that does one click shopping, the "idea" itself. "
The patent is for the "method", the implementation. It is not for the "idea." Additionally, the one-click patent was busted easily with prior-art. Using cookies to save subscriber information is hardly an innovation that they could claim as their own.
Ideas are part of what I like to call, "freedom."
Yeah you bagged me on that one. I over generalized. Copyright only protects a expression of an idea. The DCMA however goes as far as to make ideas,thoughts, opinions of copyright protection schemes illegal. Control over the means on control of information. BTW other IP law does go as far as protecting ideas. Look into software patients. People are now being given patients on ideas (one click shopping for example). Not the particular software that implements one click shopping or a device that does one click shopping, the "idea" itself.
<<<. The concept of ideas being owned by individuals was seen as unnatural and unhealthy by many founding fathers. Ideas were meant to be spread and built upon by men everywhere. Ideas as property is a modern invention. >>>
Here you go a little overboard. Copyright ... and even these *#!#%!! "Technical Protection Measures" do not protect ideas, they protect a given expression of that idea.
The "idea" in Ayn Rand's "Anthem" is that communism stifles the spirit of man, but also that that spirt will overcome in the end.
Many stories can be written using that theme w/o violating copyright on "Anthem" (Ok, _could_ have been written, since "Anthem" has lapsed into the public domain by now).
Anyway ... protecting the particular incarnation of an idea is completely different than protecting (and possibly suppressing) the idea in and of itself.
>>You (and all the hackers) are playing the 21st Century
>> Robinhoods...looking out for the best interest of all
>> the poor people out there who are victims of copy protected
>> intellectual property...NOT!
I for one am scared that I'd be a victim, and am thankful that some people make an effort to address the wrongs of the law.
Bill Gates calls people giving away free software as UnAmerican. ADBE doesn't want their flaws to be publicly mentioned. Where the hell is the society going?
I guess if I am not dumb enough to pay money regularly for "upgrades", I will be taxed in some other manner.
BTW, do you know that I have a DVD player on my computer, but I cannot "legally" watch a DVD while I run Linux. I need to run windoze in order to watch a DVD. Tell me how fair that is...
Adobe's agenda is to sieze control of the customer's media experience. They want to control who can view certain media, when they can view, where they can view it, and how they can view it. Digital media by it's nature gives the customer more ability, and more freedom, to use media legally owned in a legal manner. The DMCA takes these freedoms away, and then some. Corporations have given up on the idea that digital media can be protected by technical means, and used their money to buy legislation that will protect it through legal means. As Adobe finds that it cannot technically secure media, it will rely on legal means instead. Adobe will be forced to shift its focus from technology to being more like the RIAA, gaurdian of digital media.
Take your chances, but I think it is fairly obvious that Adobe cannot enjoy the same success as the RIAA. The more Adobe relies on legal means to protect *other* companies' media, the less other companies are going to use Adobe's digital means for protection. No company is going to be assuaged by Adobe's commitment to sue those who make a million copies of the latest best seller. Legal remedies are insufficient remedies. This has been confirmed by online retailers pulling ebooks distributed with Adobe's protection.
Not only has Adobe burned million of dollars on a product that is technically unsound, but they waste further money every day that they continue this agenda. Not only is their current product technically unsound, but the very nature of what they are trying to do is technically infeasible. The fundamental flaw is that this information must eventually be presented to the user, in a setting where the company has no control. Even if Adobe had an absolutely uncrackable encryption on their ebooks, it would not stop copying. Screenshots of the ebook can be stored as images and later transmitted. If this is inconvienent, a person can write an OCR (optical character recognition) that automatically translates the image displayed to the screen by the ebook reader and converts it to text. This is not as hard as it sounds. OCR is already a decade old. And all it takes is one person willing to write a program that performs this task. Then anyone willing to take the effort to download this program and run it will be rewarded with infinite copies of their favorite ebook.
Oh I see now...
You (and all the hackers) are playing the 21st Century Robinhoods...looking out for the best interest of all the poor people out there who are victims of copy protected intellectual property...NOT!
I'm not sure you folks understand the balance between copyright and fair use. Fair use is not a modification of copyright. Copyright is a limited restriction of fair use. If Tom Jefferson had gotten his way, copyright would not exist in the US. The concept of ideas being owned by individuals was seen as unnatural and unhealthy by many founding fathers. Ideas were meant to be spread and built upon by men everywhere. Ideas as property is a modern invention. One which has cause corporations to expand the power of IP over fair use. Be afraid of the day when big business can charge for and monitor your use of every piece of information for which they can claim ownership. Digital cable, DVD players, ebook readers are all being designed to limit consumer fair use and expand control over content. If you can think beyond the next paycheck this idea should scare the hell out of you, it scares me.
You make a true statement, "If you have a poor quality lock on your front door, it does not make it legal for someone to enter your premises and help themselves to your possessions."
I agree. Picture this: As a cop walks past your house, he sees a man attempting to break the lock on the front door with a pry-bar. He confronts the man and inquires as to the nature of the activity. You tell him the about your keys being AWOL, and that you've almost got it open. You do the photo-id thing, he chastises you about not having spares, reminds you to use one of those improved locks for replacement, and goes on his way.
It's a good thing that you get to make "fair use" of your house/lock/personal property. Breaking a lock is not *always* a bad thing.
The quality of the lock is not an issue. It is wrong to steal stuff from others, analog or digital, regardless of how well protected (or not) it is. Stealing access to something that you would have had to pay for is bad.
BUT, "stealing access" to something that is already mine should not be seen as bad. Examples include: my house, my car, my record and tape collection, my cd's and dvd's, my paperbacks, my e-books.
I worry that many will give in to the short version of the "break the lock on my front door" pitch, and not stick around longer to think about why it's not *always* a stolen property issue whenever you see a lock being broken.
So, what you are saying is the FBI should arrest the manufacturer of the "pry-bar" because it was used to break into a house...and then arrest everyone at Sony for making VCR recorders....Wow, then we should arrest all computer manufacturers bacause they are selling the perfect copy machine !!!!!!!!
You could go on and on....
The DMCA is a piece of crap and Adobe made a big mistake!
That is a good anaology...
Unfortunately though, the statement of "stealing access to something that is already mine should not be seen as bad" is true but a bit misleading.
Elcom's software would certainly allow one to place locked content on other personal computing devices (which I don't necessarily see as a bad thing either) however, I think the bigger picture, which scares everyone, is that intellectual content would then become much more easily dispersed on a broader scale (illegally).
It's kinda like VHS tapes...it's unlikely that individuals will be repremanded for making personal copies for their own use. Economices of large scale piracy is much different. There is a high cost in hundreds of blank VHS tapes, dupilcation, and distibution of illegal materials. Digital content is much more vulnerable! It costs close to nothing to copy bits of data and then distribute it.
by: powerlifter62 (39/M/NY) 07/17/01 02:29 pm
Msg: 16607 of 16652
<<<If you have a poor quality lock on your front door, it does not make it legal for someone to enter your premises and help themselves to your possessions. >>>
Not quite the right analogy. It's the lock company selling me an inferior lock while promoting it as high-security. Then along comes somebody who opens it with a hairpin. The do not enter my house, they do not steal any of my posessions -- they merely demonstrate to me that the security mechanism I paid top $$$ for is garbage. And for this he deserves to be arrested?
<<< Just remeber; just as any house can be broken in to, any software encryption that is practical for use can be defeated by someone determined and knowledgable enough. That is why there are copyright laws making such activities illegal. >>>
The proper domain of copyright law is to allow prosecution of those who take the works of others and sell them w/o compensating the original author.
The encryption mechanisms -- which you have already acknowledge can all be broken -- are attempts at prior restraint. Instead of prosecuting the pirates, they decide instead to pursue a (futile) attempt to prevent piracy. Unfortunately these (ineffective) protection mechanisms _prevent_ legitimate "fair use" of the material by legitimate users while not accomplising their stated goal of stopping the pirates!
Copyright law should stick to copyright issues and stop messing around with technical ones.