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

[Jon O .]

Thanks David. Also, there is a chat server right here:
http://www.anti-dmca.org/cgi-bin/forum2/ikonboard.cgi

I think it would be great if we got two opposing views 
responding to each other through the message board. 

So, if  Mr. Gable is game, maybe he would be willing to
engage in a public debate on a message board. E-Book
Zone did it with Niels, maybe they can once again.


Thanks,
Jon

On 10-Sep-2001, David Haworth wrote:
> 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