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

[John Dempsey]

>> He's just a Joe trying to make a Buck with his Heavenly Intellectual
Property.

> The problem is that the web is full of this bullshit, and no-one is
speaking out against it.

I always speak against it, and have attached my reply to Mr. Gable.

I find it worthy of note that I've seen two (count 'em, two) pro-arrest
essays, and they both came from people positioning themselves as "premium
content providers".  Though apparently, they like to give the political
rants away, free of charge!

John

============

From: John Dempsey
To: gene.gable at key3media.com
Subject: Response to article 16Aug01


Hello.

I hope to offer a thoughtful reply to your article, which I find to be
ignorant of key facts.


"Since when is it okay to steal something just because it wasn't very hard
to do?"

No one has accused anyone of stealing anything.

Are you aware that the Adobe eBook is illegal in Russia, because it doesn't
allow for the making of a backup copy?  With Mr. Sklyarov's tool, it could
be sold there.  Without, it is illegal.  So the devil in these details is
somewhat about the contradiction in different country laws, and this will be
a hard component of the trial.  It's certainly more complicated than your
article makes it out to be.


"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."

He has made no such claims.  He wrote a commercial application legal in his
own country, for certified customers of the eBook, to exercise legally
protected rights.

I acknowledge that you own these words.  But historically I have been able
to cite you in, say, a classroom.  Under the DMCA, I have no means to do so.
Do you notice that I'm quoting you, as part of an illectual interchange, and
that this interchange would be illegal, if you put even the most modest copy
prevention on your text?  Do you think it is a reasonable trade-off to sell
intellectual freedoms for commercial gain?


"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."

Should we let intellectual freedoms be defined by what people buy?  Or
worse, what companies are willing to sell?


"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."

Why not?  Currently they usually require it.   For example, under Copyright
until now, I could reproduce your article for my classroom, no fee.  Under
DMCA, I have to submit to whatever cost scheme you have in mind.  This does
not promote the interchange of ideas.  Prior to the DMCA, a publisher had no
right to even assert additional fees for educational use.  Now they have
carte blanche.


"... I think there is culpability for a programmer who sets out to aid
efforts that are primarily designed to steal."

It might interest you to learn that Mr. Sklyarov's employer mostly sells
products to law enforcement agencies, including American ones.  And I've
already explained that the eBook itself is illegal under Russian law,
without this additional tool.


"And I think we all know that the majority of people downloading and using
the program Mr. Sklyarov designed are expecting to get something for
nothing."

Mr Sklyarov's application only works on legitimate eBooks.  So the person
downloading and using it has paid-for content.  They could then use the two
tools in a variety of completely legal and legally protected ways.  It's
quite akin to the VCR.  Would you prefer that be illegal, too?


I accept your concerns about the business of publishing.  My business, of
system security, gives me a different perspective.  In this case, a big
American company has taken out a little, foreign company.  That sort of
thing happens every day, but generally nobody goes to jail for it.  The
DMCA, RIAA, and DVD-CCA are a threat to people of all nations, doing
security-oriented work.  This doesn't mean they are involved in copyright
violation.  The broadness of the law means that to simply identify and
describe a security flaw can put you in prison.  That is not how one
achieves system security.  You achieve system security through knowledge and
the interchange of knowledge.  Yet this is what DMCA tries to suppress.
It's fundamentally a bad law.

http://www.anti-dmca.org << this site is in its infancy but crystalizes a
lot of criticisms I share with the webmaster there.    This quote has made
me take notice: "They talk about a Digital Pearl Harbour, yet essentially
dump Intellectual Napalm on the Security Industry."

Regards,

John Dempsey
New York, New York