[free-sklyarov] Better crypto for eBooks?

[Larry Blunk]

  I think this is a point that bears emphasis.
Namely, the PC is a totally inadequate tool for "copy protection".
Too much has been made of Adobe's weak cryptography or choice
of PDF as it's native format.  At some point, the content must
be decrypted and there are a myriad number of ways on the PC of
getting at that content (including various screen capture/framebuffer
grabbing techniques).  If the book publishers want truly secure
protections, they are going to have to abandon the notion of PC
software based readers and focus their attention on dedicated
ebook reader devices.  They should not use the DMCA as a crutch
to achieve that which is likely impossible -- namely, a truly
secure PC software based reader.

  Here's a question for Adobe -- if they are such believers in strong
piracy protections, why don't they use such mechanisms on their
own software?   Isn't a $300 software program more worthy of protection
than a $15 Ebook?  The reality is that software publishsers have attempted
such schemes in the past, but they were almost always universally
defeated.  Moreover, they annoyed customers because they prevented
making legitimate backups or moving software when upgrading their PC's.
In the end, they pretty much abandoned such schemes.  Even Microsoft
readily admits there Windows XP registration scheme will likely be
defeated and is only there to keep the honest customers honest.  Can
you imagine the book publishers saying the same thing about their
ebook protections?

  So why do the book publishers ignore the history of the software
industry?  Do they really believe they can achieve what the software
publishers themselves could never achieve?   And most importantly,
why is the DMCA protecting such schemes which have time-and-again shown
that they are unworkable?



--- Marvin <marvin at qubit.computershop.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
> 
> Perhaps I am not imaginative enough, but if it's on my own general purpose
> computer, I can't see how any eBook kind of coding could prevent the use
> of generalized tools evolving to rip the contents right off the screen it
> is being viewed on. Maybe, some interactive media could be devised that
> doesn't always have the same response, but how could an passive eBook fail
> to be vulnerable -- not even to specialized hacks, but just to generalized
> screen capture tools?  The only hope for even temporary copy protection is
> a continuous change in the methodology of obfuscating the source.
> 
> It seems to me that eBook publishers should plan, in the long run, to
> forget about using the FBI to enforce copy protection and use them only to
> enforce significant violations of copyright after the fact.  And in as
> much as that latter is becoming impossible, realize that their model for
> making money is impossible without results that are destructive for
> society.
> 
> Acceptable methods are: creating a sense of honor and pride in having an
> authorized copy.  Add to that the sending out of some physical token of
> thanks (sticker, badge, a "thank you" coin, or tiny hologram) from the
> author and publisher for paying the license. A cryptographically signed
> jpeg of the author expressing personal thanks to that particular
> subscriber would also work.  However it happens, copy protection by
> treating the customer as a would be criminal will only create endless
> turmoil and resentment.  You'll need more and more Draconian laws to keep
> the method alive.  Treat the customer with respect, esteem, and as the
> hero without which artistic creativity would have no audience -- that is
> the only future for eBooks.  Your dream of how crypto can work is flawed,
> because you are only trying to use it to enforce old paradigms. The new
> technology has it's own social implications.  Just like you can't analyze
> quantum mechanics with classical principles, old view points just have to
> really change; and you can't legislate your way back to the past.
> 
> Austin Hook
> Calgary 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 noring at olagrande.net wrote:
> 
> > [I just made the following post to The eBook Community
> > (ebook-community at YahooGroups) and thought it may be of
> > interest to some of you. Jon]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The following piece posted to The eBook Community (TeBC)
> > is solely my personal opinion, and does not necessarily
> > reflect the opinions of my associates nor of my several
> > organizational affiliations.
> > 
> > 
> > =====
> > 
> > Regarding Monday's joint press release by Adobe and EFF, I
> > applaud Adobe for taking the moral and ethical high road and
> > withdrawing its support for the criminal complaint against
> > Dimitry Sklyarov. It is what I have come to expect from one
> > of the world's premier software companies.
> > 
> > Let's pray that the Justice Department will follow the joint
> > recommendation, and drop all criminal complaints against
> > Sklyarov so he can return home to his wife and children in
> > Russia.
> > 
> > It is now important for the many and various ebook industry
> > players to learn from these events, and to constructively
> > work together, despite our inherent differences, to build
> > the ebook future. Pointing fingers, and dwelling on past
> > events (other than to learn from them) is useless and
> > non-constructive, a waste of energy.
> > 
> > >From these recent events, I see three lessons:
> > 
> > First, the recognition that the DMCA is flawed in several
> > respects and needs to be substantially amended so as to
> > provide for the *real* needs of intellectual property
> > protection in the digital era, in conformance with a strict
> > civil-liberties view of the Constitution, especially a
> > robust affirmation of traditional Fair Use and reproduction
> > rights for legitimate personal and archival use, as well as
> > not impinging upon free inquiry and research.
> > 
> > Such a balance is not only possible, but in my estimation
> > preferable for the long-term strength, stability and
> > integrity of the ebook industry. I am not against laws
> > *like* the DMCA when properly crafted and balanced -- I am
> > opposed to *the current* DMCA since it is neither,
> > unfortunately.
> > 
> > Second, the recognition that in dealing with the protection
> > of intellectual property, the actual implementation using
> > DRM technologies (which may include anti-circumvention
> > technologies) must equally balance between the needs, wants
> > and most importantly expectations of the end-users with the
> > needs and wants of the owners of the intellectual property.
> > 
> > This is good business sense since the end-users *are* our
> > customers, the source of the revenue stream to build our
> > ebook future. Until now, the momentum and focus in the ebook
> > industry has been overwhelmingly skewed in the direction of
> > content owners with total obliviousness to the end-users and
> > their expectations, as if they didn't matter (this skewed
> > view is reflected in several provisions of the present DMCA.)
> > I assert this lack of balance works against the long-term
> > interests of content owners (both publishers and authors)
> > to adequately profit from their content, as I've argued
> > before in more detail. Publishers especially need to
> > realize the importance of meeting the expectations of
> > the book reading public.
> > 
> > Third, and again related to the above, the recognition
> > that the ebook publishing industry needs assurance that
> > their intellectual property is reasonably protected by
> > state-of-the-art technology. This assurance cannot be met
> > with "security by obscurity", nor with "security by Federal
> > Marshals". Thus it is important to ebook publishers that
> > free and independent, peer-reviewed and published scholarly
> > research and inquiry into digital security technologies be
> > encouraged and completely unencumbered by the onus of law
> > or license -- true academic freedom of the highest order.
> > 
> > I believe ebook publishers fully understand the infancy of
> > present DRM technologies, and thus want to see the prime and
> > sole focus of technology providers, such as Adobe, in
> > improving the technology, using the findings of independent
> > research and even from the "blackhat" crackers as a yardstick
> > to measure progress and to learn from, and not to focus
> > efforts and energy in maintaining the obviously inadequate
> > status-quo via the force of law and government -- an
> > unintended result of the present DMCA.
> > 
> > I also believe ebook publishers have no illusion that a
> > perfect DRM can be built which will reduce copyright
> > infringement to zero while meeting the needs, wants and
> > expectations of the end-user -- all they want is reasonable
> > protection that keeps honest people honest (or even
> > *rewards* people for being honest -- such business models
> > have yet to be explored) and keeps piracy mostly underground
> > through diligence and enforcement of well-written and
> > balanced laws that focus law-enforcement activity on actual
> > infringing activity, such as an amended DMCA I mention above.
> > 
> > 
> > I offer these opinions for constructive reasons. Certainly
> > many in the various sectors of the ebook industry (the
> > "stakeholders") will disagree with one or more of the views
> > expressed above. That's expected, but let's focus on a
> > constructive dialogue -- I do believe that with a community
> > effort, possibly as part of an organization dedicated to
> > effecting that dialogue which includes the *full* spectrum
> > of stakeholder interests (from the civil libertarians to the
> > traditional content owners), we will be able to come to a
> > common and balanced consensus, with a clear vision for the
> > path we should take, both business-wise and in the legal
> > arena.
> > 
> > At this moment in time, we do not have this clear vision nor
> > a consensus. Regarding consensus, if Adobe and EFF can come
> > to one in only a few hours under a pressure-cooker situation,
> > separated by a quite wide chasm, there is great hope that
> > all the various stakeholders can do likewise.
> > 
> > Jon Noring
> > 
> > TeBC Administrator
> > Chairman and co-founder of Windspun Inc.
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > free-sklyarov mailing list
> > free-sklyarov at zork.net
> > http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/