[free-sklyarov] A message to Pat Schroeder

[David Haworth]

Here's the text of an email I sent to Pat Schroeder,
President and CEO of AAP


--- cut here ---

Dear Ms. Schroeder,

I am writing to you to complain about your press release entitled
"Publishers Hail Government Action Against Russian Ebook Hackers".

This is message is not about the sentiments expressed in that
document - no doubt others have already written to you about that.
What I am complaining about is the factual accuracy of some of the
statements made in that press release. I see a lot of so-called
media releases on the web that contain misleading and sometimes
obviously false statements, and I for one am sick and tired of
all the misinformation and propaganda.

In your first paragraph, you claim that the so-called
technological safeguards "prevent unauthorized copying and
distribution of ebooks". This is clearly false, as has been
recently demonstrated. It is a classic case of Orwellian
doublethink to maintain that it is true and yet denigrate one
who has demonstrated the opposite.

You say that the DMCA was enacted to implement the provisions
of certain WIPO treaties. The DMCA makes provisions far in excess
of some of the articles in those treaties, while conveniently
ignoring others. I'm not going to discuss the faults of the DMCA -
there are far too many for this short message - but let
it suffice for me to quote Article 11 "Obligations concerning
Technological Measures" from that treaty:

"Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and
effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effectives
technological measures that are used by authors in connection with
the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention
and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not
authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law."

As you can see, the protection of technological measures is
afforded to authors, not to publishers, and the technological
measures must not restrict acts that are permitted by law.
There is no mention in the Treaty of outlawing circumvention
devices. I think it is because of these excessive provisions
that some of your members are publicly critical of the DMCA.

In your third paragraph, you say that the Advanced Ebook
Processor program "was designed to unlock [...] the
eBook Reader". I think you'll find that the program merely
decrypts the eBook, thus making it accessible through
normal document readers. It makes no modification to the
reader program, although I believe Mr. Sklyarov discussed
a way of manufacturing so-called plug-in modules for Adobe's
reader program.

In your fifth paragraph, you mention common sense dictating that
authors and publishers want to protect their rights. That's as
may be, but it is also common sense that people buying the eBooks
will expect to be able to lend them to their friends, to give them
away or sell the secondhand when no longer required, to be able to
read them in any way they wish, and, if cared for correctly, to
endure for many years - probably much longer than the computer
that they were originally loaded onto. None of this "common
sense" is taken into account when publishers push these
restricted-use works onto unsuspecting members of the public.

In the sixth paragrah, you say "Distribution [of circumvention
devices] is not a public service, any more than it would be
a public service to distribute the keys that unlock a bookstore
or public library". A ridiculous comparison - firstly because
people can enter a public library and read or borrow books of
their choice - an freedom that you would clearly like to end.
Secondly, the circumvention device allows people to unlock
eBooks that they have bought and paid for. A more reasonable
comparison would be that the device gets rid of the security
guard that stands looking over your shoulder whenever you
read the book - something that doesn't happen when you buy a
normal book from a bookstore. But I suspect that isn't an image
you'd like to conjure up in the public's imagination, despite 
the remarkable similarity.

I could go on further about the contradictions inherent in
claiming that these "protection measures" are secure, and then
publishing the secrets and keys, in the form of a Reader program
for a general-pupose computer, but there is enough discussion
material there to fill a short book. So I'll leave you with one
final comment:

I am not a criminal, and I resent the implication inherent
in these restricted-use media that I am a criminal. Therefore,
until the publishing industry comes to its corporate senses,
I will not be buying any publications in electronic form
unless I am free to use my property in any way I see fit,
subject to the accepted limitations of copyright.

Sincerely

David Haworth

--
David Haworth
Baiersdorf, Germany
david.haworth at altavista.net