[free-sklyarov] Re: free-sklyarov digest, Vol 1 #185 - 87 msgs

[Xcott Craver]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 huaiyu_zhu at yahoo.com wrote:

> One thing that will become clear over the long run is that neither side
> will win the argument by making claims on abstract rights.  The truth is
> that there is no feasible technology that can perfectly protect the
> rights of everyone without infringing on the rights of others.

	We must be wary, however, of claims that "no technology is
	100% secure," or that "oh, well of course someone will figure
	out how to crack the system, that's normal."  The degree of
	crackability of these products was definitely not normal.

	Adobe et al were selling solutions that, many security experts
	fervently argue, is impossible both in theory and in practice.
	Adobe naturally will respond to their being cracked with the
	spin that all technology can be cracked, a generality that aims
	to draw attention away from the big, big qualitative difference
	between their products and other kinds of security products.

> Parloff's point is that by making unprotected copies available, even if
> most of these are for legitimate uses, Sklyarov created an opportunity
> for illegal copying.

	I think the first counter-argument that springs to mind is
	that merely removing CD shrinkwrap has the same effect, of
	stripping away protections to get a "free and clear," pirateable
	copy.  Thus merely creating an opportunity doesn't mean much.

	I already mentioned that on the list, but more recently it
	occurred to me that this analogy is tighter than one may realize,
	since all those layers of CD shrinkwrap are *intended* to be
	anti-theft protection, and you are forced to circumvent them.
	It probably isn't anti-piracy protection, thankfully.

	Thus, we have a good, concrete, accessible example of everyone
	having to crack anti-theft measures, tho they have no intention
	of committing a crime; and of how these measures are bound to
	get in the way of normal use.

> Huaiyu Zhu
							-S