[free-sklyarov] (Late) reply to Gene Gable's article

[John Dempsey]

This person is so ignorant of the facts that it's possible to "kill him with
kindness" if you tone down the meanness and inform him of the facts in a
helpful way.  He's just a Joe trying to make a Buck with his Heavenly
Intellectual Property.

-----Original Message-----
From: free-sklyarov-admin at zork.net
[mailto:free-sklyarov-admin at zork.net]On Behalf Of David Haworth
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2001 8:09 AM
To: free-sklyarov at zork.net
Subject: [free-sklyarov] (Late) reply to Gene Gable's article


Hi All,

a little anachronistic, perhaps, but here's a message I sent to
Gene Gable following his article on Seybold Reports. Since I
quoted just about his entire article in the email, I gave him
the chance to veto my fair use of his article (see end of message).
As of 9:00 CET today, I have received no reply.

Dave

PS: To Jon.O  You can put this on your "letters" page if you like.


----- Forwarded message from David Haworth
<david.haworth at altavista.net> -----

Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2001 12:22:48 +0200
From: David Haworth <david.haworth at altavista.net>
To: gene.gable at key3media.com
Subject: Your article

Dear Mr. Gable,

I'm writing to you about your article in Seybold E-Book Zone
(http://www.seyboldreports.com/ebooks/010816-gene.html). I
like to think that I'm an intelligent and informed person,
and as such I find your article insulting because of the
many misleading statements and downright falsehoods it
portrays. I'm not accusing you of deliberately lying - perhaps
you're just misinformed. So I'd like to point out a few of
your errors in the hope that you might retract your article
and replace it with an apology to Mr. Sklyarov for the
false accusations that you make.

The lines prefixed with "> " below are quotations from your
article.

> In all the recent debate around the Digital Millennium Copyright
> Act and specifically the case of Adobe vs.  Sklyarov [...]

I think you'll find that the case is "US vs Sklyarov", since it's
a criminal case.

> [...] I think a fundamental point is being overlooked.

You're right, but it isn't the point you're making ...

> The effectiveness of copy-protection or copyright schemes is not
> the issue here. There is nothing noble about a programmer proving
> that they can work around protection schemes, no matter how easy.
> Since when is it okay to steal something just because it wasn't
> very hard to do?

I'm sorry, this is exactly the issue. It can quite easily be
demonstrated that so-called copy protection schemes can never
be effective as long as the workings are open to anyone who
cares to take a look. And that applies to any scheme intended
for a personal computer.
Furthermore, it is a fundamental trait of human nature to be inquisitive,
to want to understand how things work, and perhaps to want to build
a better one. Without that inquisitiveness. there would have been
no technological progress to the point where it's possible for
publishers to exist, let alone publish their wares electronically.
And that's the point. We're dealing here with a law that attempts
to legislate against basic human nature.
And who (apart from you) ever accused Mr. Sklyarov from stealing.
Certainly not the US DoJ.

> I remember being burglarized one time and being made to feel
> like I somehow contributed to the theft by leaving a window
> open.

Well, perhaps "contributed" is the wrong word, but doesn't it
occur to you that perhaps the burglary wouldn't have happened if you
hadn't made that mistake? However, this isn't the point. No-one but
you is accusing Mr. Sklyarov of burglary.

> Does it really make it less of an offense to steal a car just
> because someone left the keys in it?

No, but are rope manufacturers held responsible if someone tows
away your unlocked car? Are driving schools held responsible for
teaching people to drive so that they can drive away your unlocked
car?

> In an ideal world, Adobe and other software purveyors wouldn't
> have to build in security features at all - people would follow
> legal and moral guidelines.

Correct - in an ideal world you could expect to return to your
car (locked or unlocked) every time, wherever you park it. Sadly
that isn't that case.
Also, in an ideal world, I wouldn't have to spend time correcting
the falsehoods put about by misinformed writers. Sadly that isn't
the case either.

> I hate it that we've become a society where people feel that if
> they are given greater opportunity to be dishonest it's somehow
> okay.

Whoever (apart from you) accused Mr. Sklyarov of being dishonest?
In a world of commercial misinformation through advertising, so-called
press releases and so on, I find Mr. Sklyarov's publication to be
refreshingly honest. Not only that, but where he comes from his
actions are also lawful. His only crime, if indeed it is a crime,
is to assume that in the USA ("the land of the free"), the laws
are at least reasonable. Sadly, that appears not to be the case.

> So I'm having a hard time feeling any sympathy toward Mr.
> Sklyarov, even if he claims his efforts were humanitarian in
> nature or were designed somehow to help Adobe see the flaws
> in their system. I hope I'm never robbed, cheated or otherwise
> taken advantage of by someone trying to prove to me I should
> be more careful, discreet or protective of my property.

Again, who (apart from you) has ever accused Mr. Sklyarov of
robbing or cheating anyone. Perhaps, at a stretch, you could
accuse his employer of taking advantage of E-Book purchasers
by charging $99 for their product - purchasers who might feel
that they themselves have been cheated by the publishers of
those E-Books.

> And let's throw out the baloney about how these noble hackers
> are simply trying to give legitimate users the fair-usage rights
> they deserve.

While we're throwing out the baloney, let's add all the demonstrably
false claims of the vendors of e-book readers about the security
of their products. "100% burglar proof" is such a claim that I have
seen quoted. Perhaps "0%" would be a closer estimate.


> If legitimate Adobe or other customers feel the copy-protection
> schemes are too limiting, they'll reject the product and the
> seller will go back to the drawing board.

Assuming that their attention is drawn to these schemes before they
buy the book, because it seems that the returns policy for e-books
seems to be, in general, "sorry, no returns accepted". In any case,
it seems that this already happening - I don't see too much interest
in E-books in the surveys.

> I can guarantee that book publishers are not hell-bent on getting
> multiple fees from buyers of e-books who may choose to
> legitimately use them on more than one device.

So why is it that E-books seem to be locked to a particular computer?

> In fact, the flexibility of electronic copyright protection
> products should result in more equitable pricing that scales
> to the specific usage.

So' you're saying I should pay more for a book if I intend to read
it more than once, or to lend it to my friends, or to keep it and
care for it until long after it enters the public domain. That certainly
sounds like "multiple fees" to me.

> Right now, the costs of intellectual property theft are simply
> factored into the price legitimate customers pay. I'd be happier to pay
> for the use I need, and not for the dishonesty of others.

Perhaps that's exactly why some people don't see what's wrong with
copying. I'd certainly have a hard time finding sympathy for publishers
who charge me for extra copies and then complain when I make them.
But that's an aside. Mr. Sklyarov isn't accused of any unlawful
copying, except perhaps by you.

> Our entire industry is built on the idea that intellectual
> property has value.

My industry too (software) - perhaps more so than yours, because
at the end of the day, the product of my labours is just patterns
in some electronic storage medium. At least you have the option
of a solid manufacturing base.

> Some of that value is in the manufacturing process, some in the
> design, some in the editing, some in distribution, etc.

I'd challenge your assertion that your manufacturing and distribution
processes somehow hold part of the "intellectual property" that
you claim to be valueable to your customers, and I'd be interested to
know exactly how you come to arrive at that conclusion.

> If there is no respect for those value steps, we might as well
> pack up and go home.

Well, if you can't find a way to make an honest living from
publishing electronically, with all the advantages it brings with
manufacturing and distribution costs reduced to almost zero, perhaps
you should seriously consider "packing up and going home". Perhaps
the publishing industry would be a better place without you -
whatever a "value step" is.

> We're never going to build walls high enough or obstacles secure
> enough to protect everything [...]

At last! An honest admission from a publisher that copy protection
technology can't ever work. That's refreshing in today's
barrage of misinformation put about by the publishing and
entertainment industries.

> from cowards who choose to take what isn't rightfully theirs.

I'll say it again. Mr. Sklyarov hasn't taken anything that isn't
rightfully his, despite your continued insinuations. And far from
being cowardly, he has presented his findings publicly so that
everyone can see the truth about so-called copy protection - that
the emperor has no clothes. I fervently hope that the industry
will see the light and get on with the business of making an
honst buck instead of a dishonest one, but I fear that it will
take many more Sklyarovs before the US comes to its corporate
and legislative senses.

Yours

David Haworth

P.S. I intend to publish this message on my web site and perhaps
in other places. Since it quotes substantial portions of your
article, I give you the opportunity to veto the inclusion
of your writing in the published text. If you do not reply by
9am (Central European Time) Monday September 10th 2001, I shall
take that as implicit permission to publish. If you veto my
publication, I shall publish my comments in any case, along with
sufficient pointers to your article so that readers can understand
what I'm commenting on. I shall also mention that you have vetoed
the quotation of your article.

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

----- End forwarded message -----

_______________________________________________
free-sklyarov mailing list
free-sklyarov at zork.net
http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov