[free-sklyarov] May be of interest. (fwd)

[Erik Moeller]

To: Linda, Pablos and the free-sklyarov mailing list

Regarding Adobe's reply to the Sklyarov inquiry:

> The Russian company did NOT
> notify us prior to commercial selling their program. 

International copyright usually includes "fair use" provisions of 
some sort. In the case of ebooks, consumers have the right to make 
personal copies, print the book, feed it to a text-to-speech program 
(essential for blind readers) etc. Adobe has limited these rights in 
their ebooks, doing so is an integral part of their ebook strategy 
(it makes ebooks more attractive to publishers). Elcomsoft, Dmitry 
Sklyarov's company, sold a product that gave consumers the ability to 
circumvent these restrictions. Dmitry was targeted because he is the 
copyright holder for the program.

Under the US DMCA which was passed as a result of extensive lobbying 
on the national and international level by the content industry, 
circumventing such restrictions is illegal. In other words, a company 
can deny you rights that you legally have, but if you try to take 
them back, you can go to jail. The DMCA also endangers free speech 
and free science since it potentially makes documenting the methods 
used for restricting content illegal. In this regard, the DMCA is 
clearly unconstitutional, but the courts have not yet examined it 
because there are still relatively few cases.

Elcomsoft tried to make money with a product that should be perfectly 
legal, but is not under US law. Since they sold the product to US 
customers, US law came into the equation for prosecuting Elcomsoft. 
Elcomsoft did not have any obligation, legal or moral, to notify 
Adobe of their actions. Morally, their actions were beneficial to 
consumers who would now be able to legally use books in ways that 
they couldn't previously. 

Whether Elcomsoft's fair use restoration program actually violates 
the DMCA is not clear, since the DMCA refers to technological 
measures that "effectively protect a right of a copyright holder" 
(notice the word "effectively").

> 2. In order to
> protect all E-book authors' intellectual property (not Adobe's) we
> asked the Justice Dept's help in stopping the sale of the Security
> Cracking Code that compromised the ebook format. This was after our
> unsuccessful attempts to work with the company first.

These unsuccessful attempts to "work with" the company consisted of 
threats to Elcomsoft to take down the program, threats to the ISP 
that hosted the Elcomsoft website, and finally threats to the billing 
company used for processing sales of the product. 

> 3. When the sale
> of the program stopped, Adobe's interests were satisfied. 

Adobe met with the Attorney's office on June 26 and specifically 
informed them about Dmitry Sklarov's appearence on the Defcon IT 
expert conference, which would be the best (and possibly only) 
opportunity for an arrest.

http://www.usaondca.com/press/assets/applets/2001_07_17_sklyarov.pdf

After the sales of the program stopped two days after their meeting 
with the Attorney's office, Adobe took no steps to prevent an arrest. 
This either shows extreme carelessness on Adobe's part, or a 
deliberate attempt to instill fear in all IT experts who try to 
remove fair use restrictions.

> 4. Adobe had NOTHING to do with the arrest of Dimitry.

This, as documented above, is a lie.

> 5. When White Hat
> security experts notify us of possible weaknesses in security, we work
> with them, thank them, and fix the problems as soon as possible. 

There are no documented steps by Adobe to cooperate with Elcomsoft in 
any way to fix the extreme flaws in their fair use restriction. 

> 6. We have joined the "Electronic Freedom Foundation" in calling for the
> release of Dimitry.

Only as a result of international protests by scientists and IT 
workers. But Adobe's attitude has not changed at all -- from their 
press release:

"We strongly support the DMCA and the enforcement of copyright 
protection of digital content," said Colleen Pouliot, Senior Vice 
President and General Counsel for Adobe. "However, the prosecution of 
this individual in this particular case is not conducive to the best 
interests of any of the parties involved or the industry. ElcomSoft's 
Advanced eBook Processor software is no longer available in the 
United States, and from that perspective the DMCA worked. Adobe will 
continue to protect its copyright interests and those of its 
customers."  

Adobe's customers are the publishers. The readers are their enemies.

Sincerely,

Erik Moeller

-- 
Scientific Reviewer, Freelancer, Humanist -- Berlin/Germany
Phone: +49-30-45491008 - Web: <http://www.humanist.de/erik>
The Origins of Peace and Violence: <http://www.violence.de>

"History is full of people who, out of fear or ignorance or the lust 
for power, have destroyed treasures of immeasurable value which truly
belong to all of us. We must not let it happen again." -- Carl Sagan