No subject

<Quote>
Lending, printing, copying, giving, and text-to-speech are permissions
enabled by the publisher.
</Quote>

No, they are not. They are fair use rights that should not be controlled by
the publisher. If I buy a book I should be able to lend or sell it to anyone
I wish to, with or without the permission of the publisher.

<Quote>
The ElcomSoft software product violates the permissions set by the publisher
to protect the copyrighted works of artists, authors, and publishers, making
the copyrighted content available for unlimited duplication and
distribution. 
</Quote>

This is the crux of the whole dumb situation. The software breaks the
'permissions' set by the publisher. Doing this does make it easier to copy,
but also allows you to read the book if you are blind, or lend the book to
someone, things that are perfectly lawful with or without the 'permission'
of the publisher. 

This shows that the 'Digital Rights Management' are really 'Digital Use
Management', designed primarily to control how people use the things they
have bought, not to stop copying.

<Quote>
Q: Why did Adobe drop its complaint in this case?
A: It didn't. The criminal complaint in this case is the U.S.
government's,.... Adobe continues to support the DMCA and the enforcement of
copyright protection of digital content. 
</quote>

And that's why we should continue to pressure Adobe to actually pay for
Dmitry's defence and to end support for the DMCA


Dan Ackroyd