Adobe's ADEPT DRM Broken 273
An anonymous reader writes "I love cabbages has reverse-engineered Adobe's ADEPT DRM (e-book protection). On February 18, I love cabbages released code that decrypts EPUB e-books protected with ADEPT and followed that up on February 25, with code that decrypts PDF e-books protected with ADEPT. On March 4, I love cabbages was given a DMCA take down notice. And there's plenty of evidence he got it right. DS:TNG (Dmitry Sklyarov: The Next Generation)?"
and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and... (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM: the arctic for content. (Additional costs may apply. Subject to climatic variation.)
Re:and... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why "chilling effects" are a favorite technique...
That's fucking brilliant. Anyone who thinks word play is not one of the higher forms of a self-referential intelligence, compare this to anything you've ever said, and then kill yourselves.
Re:and... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not quite right.
To use Bruce Schneier's analogy, it's more like trying to make a safe secure.
There's not such thing as a secure safe. Ultimately, it is not the locks and thick walls of a safe that protects the safe's contents. It is what economists would call "opportunity costs". Why am I wasting my time praying I can cut through this damn thing with a thermal lance before people return for work on Monday morning when I could make easier money doing something else, like panhandling or flipping burgers?
Safes only need to be sufficiently secure that their contents aren't worth stealing; they needn't be any more secure than that. You don't buy a million dollar safe to keep your petty cash in, or for holding cheap costume jewelry. Likewise, DRM only needs to be sufficient secure that people don't bother getting around it. What the recording industry provides is not infinitely valuable, so DRM needn't be infinitely strong.
The obsession of the recording industry with unbreakable DRM isn't rational. It probably reflects a guilty conscience.
If I were creating a DRM scheme, for my content, I'd release the scheme with an exploit. An exploit that anybody could use, but which was a certifiable pain in the ass. It's going to be broken sooner or later, so why not remove the incentive to make a convenient exploit? Anybody who is chary of losing access to their DRM purchases is reassured that they will always have access to it, but the vast majority won't ever bother. Of course that means the content would appear illegal sharing sites, but that was going to happen anyway.
In a sense, that's where Apple is with Fairplay. It's been cracked for ages, but at $0.99/track, almost nobody bothers.
Re:and... (Score:5, Interesting)
Right.
The problem is that the Entertainment/Industrial Complex believes there's a lot more money in the safe than there really is.
The "Sita Sings the Blues" case proves that. Somebody thought that the intellectual "property" of a handful of songs from the 1930's was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. They were wrong.
So they take their anger out on "I love cabbages" and The Pirate Bay. It's futile, but try telling that to someone who's enraged that the "Rolex" they bought was really a fugazi.
Re:and... (Score:4, Insightful)
To extend this analogy, a PC is like a safe to which you have to hide the key in the same room. Because in order to allow legitimate users access, the decryption mechanism including key must be in a piece of software on the PC.
AFAIK all purely software based DRM schemes have been cracked within a few months so far (systems which hide the key in special hardware do better, see game consoles). And some people do it for the challenge, so the argument with opportunity costs does not work.
Now you have created an incentive to create a user-friendly wrapper for the pain in the ass exploit. Which probably requires less hacking skill.
Re:and... (Score:5, Interesting)
Far worse for them, unlike the safe, anyone can take a 'crack' at it with no risk whatsoever. Nobody ever got carted off to jail because they were discovered cracking the DRM on Monday morning. You have as long as you care to spend to crack it.
For some, the entertainment value of cracking the DRM (think of it as a puzzle) far exceeds the value (to them) of the content. Then, of course, there's the value of being recognized as an 'uber hacker' if you're the first to crack it. The harder the DRM is, the greater that value is.
Because of that, weaker DRM might actually keep the content locked up longer (I believe that's what you're getting at by releasing DRM with an exploit). That certainly would reduce the entertainment value of finding a second way in.
re: DRM and the recording industry (Score:3, Insightful)
I completely agree with what you said, except as much as I dislike the recording industry and their tactics? I think their quest to find "unbreakable DRM" has more rationality behind it than you give them credit for.
The problem in their scenario is, they count on making their money via a high volume of music sales. (So to use one of your analogies, it's as though their business is costume jewelry sales. No individual piece would seem to be worth spending much money to protect, from a customer's perspecti
Re: (Score:2)
What the recording industry provides is not infinitely valuable, so DRM needn't be infinitely strong.
No they just BELIEVE that what they provide is infinitely valuable. That is why they have an obsession with unbreakable DRM>
Re:and... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your attempts to make it a "certifiable pain in the ass" will be rendered as useless as the attempts to an DRM "uncrackable" will be. Instead of having to find a way to crack the DRM, they will start with one. Their only job will be to make it quick and easy. And if the "pain in the ass" method is too ugly to automate, they will properly crack your DRM and make it even easier. Since an exploit is already known, a "proper" crack might even be easier to create.
And Fairplay has been cracked for ages, but Apple keeps changing it to make it a PITA to always have access to the latest crack. That's where the future of DRM lies: change the codes every week and have devices that can download the latest codes. Pretty soon it just sucks to be an uncertified client. Sure, you can always find a way around it if you really need to (say you need to move your entire iTunes library to another computer because your old computer is being upgraded), but for casual piracy, not worth it.
-Dan
Not really a new Sklyarov (Score:5, Informative)
But now what you're really here for - the PDF decryption tool: REMOVED. (And if you don't already have it, the key-retrieval tool: REMOVED.)
Edit: Links to tools removed due to DMCA complaint from Adobe.
This is not the next Dmitri, if anything, it may turn in to the new DeCSS as Adobe is trying to stop the tool(s) from spreading, which tends to have the opposite effect.
I really wonder if it hadn't been better for Adobe not to say anything, now they are giving it publicity it wouldn't have had otherwise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Um, that'd be what the "streisendeffect" tag is for...
Re: (Score:2)
If not, there are are now two random python files on my desktop waiting for analysis.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Since when was the definition of copyright infringement extended, so any tool that got passed ineffective access controls, could automatically be configured infringement?
The DMCA takedown rules should require a work to actually be infringing...
Perhaps they should start sending takedown notices to people finding and posting security exploits, that allow hackers to remotely execute code in their software.
Because you know, it's cheaper to silence people who have found flaws in your software than to prop
Re:Not really a new Sklyarov (Score:4, Insightful)
Since when was the definition of copyright infringement extended, so any tool that got passed ineffective access controls, could automatically be configured infringement?
The DMCA takedown rules should require a work to actually be infringing...
Nope - DMCA defines extra crimes involving copyrighted works, but the crimes defined needn't be copyright infringement themselves. Namely, any program that facilitates the disabling of any copy protection device violates the DMCA. Doesn't matter how it does it or the technical details. I don't think there's any question that this program was breaking the letter (and hell, the spirit) of the law when it comes to the DMCA.
The problem is that the DMCA itself is a bad and unfair law. Bad and unfair laws result in bad and unfair application. You can either live with it, ignore it, or try to change it. Geeks don't have the lobbying power to change it, nor the will power to just live with it, so far the most part we just ignore that law, only complying as a token gesture as needed. I mean really - this guy has now complied with Adobe's takedown notice, but the code was released into the wild. At this point the cat is out of the bag.
Though really - why don't we start posting these things on foreign servers to begin with? Put it up on The Pirate Bay or something for goodness sakes. DMCA takedown notices mean little in areas where the DMCA doesn't apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there's a loophole that causes that to not always be quite true, although I don't know if it applies here or if it's been exploited yet.
DMCA prohibits disabling copy protection without authorization. If a copyright holder says it's ok to bypass the access control, then it doesn't count as "circumvention."
So far, all the high-profile DRM schemes have only been use by a small group of copyright ho
Re: (Score:2)
They do. Takedowns of encryption tools are a misuse of DMCA 512. But the rules encourage bogus takedowns, and it's not like someone who is flagrantly violating DMCA 1201 is going to write a DMCA 512 counternotice.
Re:Not really a new Sklyarov (Score:5, Informative)
What do you expect them to do, wave a white flag and say "It's a fair cop, you got us"? They have a responsibility to their shareholders to do everything they can to protect a) their investment in creating the DRM in the first place, and b) the value of their licensed software and agreements with publishers.
While I personally believe that Adobe would have been better-advised to have not bothered with this in the first place, DRM being particularly silly for text, they did. And because they did, saying nothing right now is not an option, or their shareholders could rightly accuse them of not being duly diligent. If the DeCSS/Streisand effect kicks in, well that's just part of the dance they started way back when.
Fiduciary duty: includes a healthy business model (Score:3, Insightful)
They have a responsibility to their shareholders to do everything they can to protect a) their investment in creating the DRM in the first place, and b) the value of their licensed software and agreements with publishers.
Well, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to deliver a good return on investment.
You can try doing that in multiple ways. One of them is fighting a losing battle tooth and nail, another is coming up with a business model that works well in the environment it'll execute in.
I'm not saying Adobe is at one extreme and should move to the other. But you have to wonder whether fighting the DRM war is ultimately good or bad for business. If it's bad, not fighting it is their shareholder responsibili
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, I don't think they should have gone down this path in the first place. PDFs were not a prime candidate for working DRM in the first place. But if they simply abandon it, then they open themselves up to lawsuits from the publishers who had been using the DRM and would be left high and dry. The harder a fight Adobe puts up now, the less they stand to lose in court. And since I strongly suspect that the people handling the cease-and-desist stuff are staff lawyers who get paid either way, I dou
Re: (Score:2)
And because they did, saying nothing right now is not an option, or their shareholders could rightly accuse them of not being duly diligent.
Correct, but that reasoning is the root cause of most of the problems that get discussed to death on Slashdot, isn't it? You can't turn on the television or open a newspaper to learn how intellectual property represents a large part of our economy, and how protecting that property is vital to economic growth. I'd go so far as to say it's become a mantra that's repeate
Re: (Score:2)
Frequently it does seem that companies and the government are following the old plan: "Something must be done. This random thing is something. Therefore it must be done!" When the idea of due diligence comes into play, frequently that "something" seems to be just enough to keep the legal wolves (who often do not actually understand the businesses involved) at bay.
Some of the problem, it seems to me, stems from perception of international competition. How many times have we heard it said, "Sure, they can
Took down the links, not the content.. (Score:5, Informative)
There is of course, Google Cache [74.125.47.132] ...
Or, you can just get it from pastebin:
http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c [pastebin.com]
and
http://pastebin.com/f26972321 [pastebin.com]
Mirrors (Score:2, Insightful)
One German mirror and one extra American mirror
PDF decryption tool: http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c [pastebin.com]
http://nopaste.info/8ad6b71874.html [nopaste.info]
http://paste2.org/p/161270 [paste2.org]
key-retrieval tool: http://pastebin.com/f26972321 [pastebin.com]
http://nopaste.info/8b62e63436.html [nopaste.info]
http://paste2.org/p/161271 [paste2.org]
If you know of any other foreign pastebins,
mirror and post in this thread.
Re:Took down the links, not the content.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or on Freenet [freenetproject.org], where it is impossible for anyone to remove,
CHK@Lxdd7kNnDxsKDbJvN954w8VVTkyeXriXBc~CZQi7yh0,CpQsd8KQkbzeRnfpY4tprGAlt2LYjIKtwVdDYXWY~nE,AAIC--8/ineptpdf.pyw
CHK@0sthR-c3bxeDPtyRP4vLst4MKLAYunyPgL3DFgijAR4,GLU99yTKNtuIx9A54tvh20XisaAPwCcul58wTmTKjRE,AAIC--8/ineptkey.pyw
Re:Took down the links, not the content.. (Score:5, Funny)
In other news today, Adobe sues Google.
Wait a minute.... (Score:2)
That DRM was broken close to 10 years ago or so by this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elcomsoft [wikipedia.org]
I dont think they changed the encryption, just the way they encrypted it. My guess is that
the tools created by Dmitri and the rest still work today....I may be wrong.
Here is the link... (Score:3, Informative)
>But now what youâ(TM)re really here for â" the PDF decryption tool: http://pastebin.com/f1cb3663c [pastebin.com]. (And >if you don't already have it, the key-retrieval tool: http://pastebin.com/f26972321. [pastebin.com])
From the original article without having the links broken by law. /. will have to do the same now?
I wonder is
You can always call it back from google cache...as I did.
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:aoDTe7wI6s4J:i-u2665-cabbages.blogspot.com/2009/02/circumventing-adobe-adept-drm-for-pdf.html+http://i-u2665-cabbages.blogspot.com/2009/02/circumventing-adobe-adept-drm-for-pdf.html&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca [74.125.47.132]
DMCA Takedown illegal? (Score:2)
Re:DMCA Takedown illegal? (Score:4, Informative)
As far as the legal ramifications of (possibly) abusing the "safe harbor provision", I'm not sure.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this does not constitute legal advice, etc.
Incorrect DMCA notice? (Score:2, Interesting)
You could argue this violates the DMCA with respect to technological protection measures.
But DMCA notices use a different part of the DMCA, which allows takedowns for actual copyright violations. IANAL, but I don't think that you can combine the two and use a DMCA notice to take down something that doesn't violate copyright but does violate the other part of the DMCA.
More importantly (Score:2)
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Non-sequitur
Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy. Removing DRM so that consumers have a choice over how and when to use content they have paid for is a great thing.
It is regrettable that these developments are also massive boosts for piracy, but without this sort of action there would be no DVD playback on Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy
Agreed.
You have no idea how often I run into issues where some file won't play/can't be viewed on some device because it doesn't support the DRM. I've run into this with audio files (iTunes Store), PDFs, videos and ebooks.
I don't see why DRM'd media files must be tied to the device rather than the user. Why not have some kind of public key that authorizes the file? Of cou
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not.
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:5, Funny)
If anyone other than fat, neck-bearded, Cheeto-stained, basement-dwelling gruntwaffles actually *used* Linux
Hey! I am not a gruntwaffle! Or....maybe I am...WTF is a "gruntwaffle?"
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is a "gruntwaffle?"
It's an Eggo that goes "Uuuugh" when the toaster pops up. Reading comprehension, people!!!111
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Opening up DRM'd media so that it can legally be used in more situations by someone with a valid license is not the same as rampant piracy.
As a rights-holder? Bull. Shit. "You have the right to use content provided you do so in a manner consistent with the license provided with it." That's the same basic principle protected in the GPL, as well as in DRM-licensing terms.
You fail (again). The GPL does not, in any way, restrict your use of the licensed code. It only restricts the way you redistribute that code (if you should choose to do so). And, newsflash, even if the GPL wanted to restrict your use, it couldn't, because the GPL is based on copyright law. A license can only grant you MORE freedom than is already allowed to you by copyright law. And copyright law regulates distribution, not private usage.
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law allows the rights-holder to determine the conditions upon which they are willing to give you rights to use the content.
Wow. You failed twice in a row, and some idiot mod still modded you up.
Copyright. Read it carefully. Say it out loud. It is literally the right to copy. Copyright only deals with redistribution, whether in original or modified form. It does not deal with usage. Get it into your thick skull already; copyright cannot stop you from using what you bought the way you want it. It only stops you from copying what you bought and giving it to others. (Fair use covers the part where you copy something for backup purposes.)
Seesh. Get it right, or go troll somewhere else.
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:5, Insightful)
At this point this discussion should probably be modded Flaimwar, but from the biased opinion of a self-publisher and a GPL content consumer, I think both arguments are correct. GPL advocates need to differentiate why they should be able to disable the rights claimed by DRM content or else it comes off as "we want freedom to do what we want (in the interests of consumers) AND to prevent you from doing what you want (in the interests of producers).
Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes. Either copyright is valuable, or it isn't. Pick a side.... and know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are benevolent and greedy consequences on each side of the copyright argument.
Re: (Score:2)
"Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes."
Yes, yes it is.
DRM does not impose "rights", it tries to restrict legal, protected uses of media. It tries to stop people ripping a CD to listen to on their iPod, or DRM'd downloads from working on your other music player, or in the car. It tries to stop you ripping your DVDs to a media server and watching them later. It restricts how you can use media.
The GPL not only doesn't interfere with your ri
Re: (Score:2)
Not respecting the rights that DRM imposes isn't too far off from not respecting the right that GPL imposes. Either copyright is valuable, or it isn't. Pick a side.... and know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. There are benevolent and greedy consequences on each side of the copyright argument.
The problem here is that you're confusing licenses with copyright. They're different animals. Some folks have a really hard time getting their heads wrapped around that.
What we're talking about is what one does after the establishment of the copyright. In short, we're talking licensing. What the GPL does is very different than any license using DRM to enforce it. That alone can bring valid disagreement - you can support the GPL and still be critical of other licensing.
Of course, it really goes a step b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're looking at this entirely wrong. Rejection of the GPL and rejection of DRM are two entirely separate things.
DRM isn't a license, it's a mechanism to restrict the use of the copyrighted work. From a moral perspective, it's improper for consumers to be forced to purchase the same work for their Zune, iPod, generic MP3 player, car, computer and CD player. If, through DRM, music publishers thought they could get away with that they would. DRM is their weak attempt at this, with the false presumption that
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where did I agree to those terms and conditions when purchasing a DVD or CD @ Best Buy?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nonsense.
Sometimes I buy a DVD and it says "This DVD was sold subject to the condition that...." (usually something about playing in schools and prisons) and I think: "No it wasn't" - and it wasn't.
Just because it is written down doesn't mean it is true.
Sam
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright law allows the rights-holder to determine the conditions upon which they are willing to give you rights to use the content. If the rights-holder says "I'm not going to give you this content unless you give me $20," that's perfectly valid. As is "I'm not going to give you this content unless you give me $20 and agree to the following terms and conditions..." So no, YOU fail, good sir, for not understanding the basic interactions of copyright and contract law here.
No, you fail again. What you are describing above is some kind of contract between the copyright owner and the user. The GPL is NOT a contract of any kind. It's not a EULA. Did you ever have to click-through a GPL license? Did you ever have to sign the GPL to be able to install linux? Since I did not sign it, the GPL cannot restrict my freedoms in any way. It can only allow me additional freedoms: namely, the right to redistribute the copyrighted work under certain conditions.
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:5, Interesting)
The GPL is an additive license. You don't loose the right to do anything under it, you gain the right to do things you weren't otherwise allowed if you follow it.
The DRM license an eBook is published under is subtractive, you don't gain anything from the license that your money hasn't already purchased. The sole point of the license is to force you to give up rights 'in favor' of the rights holder position.
Apples and Oranges my friend.
When you come up with a DRM backed license that at leasst actually gives, in exchange for what it's taking, something of value, then you might have an arguement. Till then, when I purchase a book, I expect to be able to use it. And since the law explicitly allows circumvention of DRM for the purposes of interoptability, I'd say so does the law.
Re: (Score:2)
A rights-holder can say "I won't allow my content to be distributed to you unless you pay me $20." That's fairly straight-forward.
A rights-holder can ALSO say "I won't allow my content to be distributed to you unless you pay me $20 AND agree to the following Terms and Conditions...."
By entering into the contract (which permitted the content to be distributed to you in the first place) you have willingly given up so
Re: (Score:2)
And I don't believe that anyone actually arguing with you has indicated any sort of carte blanche. What they, as well as I, have indicated is that fair use trumps the arguement.
Additionally, go ahead and attempt to craft a legal and enforcable contract which says "I'll only sell you X i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are confusing "distribution" with redistribution
I can say "I will give you some code I wrote with a GPL license in exchange for $20". If you don't give me the $20, you don't get the code, and the fact that it is GPL licensed does NOTHING. In fact I could even say "I'll give you this code and put it in the public domain for $20". But unless I get the $20 you will not see the code, it is totally irrelevant what license I plan to put it under!
However once you have it, if I really have granted you the GPL l
Re: (Score:2)
There, fixed that for you.
Why is the lose/loose spelling issue so bad here lately? I understand having 'fumble fingers' here and there, but, this one seems to be epidemic over the past 2-4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't [answers.com] know [answers.com]. You tell me what's with people who are loose with the defintion of lose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, to use your argument, if I wanted to argue that I should have the RIGHT to use the Linux kernel however I see fit (including, potentially, in a closed-source application), you'd be in favor of that. Because that should be my right as a consumer of the code, to determine how I want to use it... right.... right?
That is correct. You are able to personally use GPL software in a closed-source application. You are, however, unable to distribute said close source software with the GPL software.
Sorry, but that's not how it works. If the GPL rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictates "terms of use" for GPL'ed content, then the DRM'ed rights-holder gets to use copyright law to dictate THEIR terms of use as well. If you don't like those terms, feel free to use something else, just as lots of people who don't like GPL license terms use BSD or even (gasp!) closed-source code.
Actually, I am pretty sure that is exactly how it works. Under the fair use doctrine I am allowed to personally use a valid copy of a copyrighted work as I see fit, but I am unable to (in most cases) to distribute the work.
BTW, I am a rights-holder and I have used both open and closed source licensing. As a rights-holder, why
Re: (Score:2)
BTW, I am a rights-holder and I have used both open and closed source licensing. As a rights-holder, why would I care if they choose to use my applications in a manner other than prescribed so long as they do not distribute the software without my permission?
Maybe you don't care. But maybe, just maybe, you do. (For instance, perhaps you're a rights-holder who wants to say "you cannot use this content to help kill people" to prevent the military from using it, or whatever). The point is that while you or I may not necessarily care "how" someone uses it, some people DO care how people use it, and they've got the right to have you agree not to use it in a conflicting way before they give you the content.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
For instance, perhaps you're a rights-holder who wants to say "you cannot use this content to help kill people" to prevent the military from using it, or whatever).
Contract law isn't a candy store. I may want to stipulate that one sign over his arm, leg, and first born child but very few courts on this planet will enforce it. And there HAVE been licenses that forbid military use or government use but those are institutions that at least under some circumstances CAN disregard contract, copyright, or even p
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:4, Insightful)
So the manufacturer gets to decide how we use their product after we purchase it? Kellogs can prevent me from using their product to make Rice krispie squares? You don't believe in private property?
I think you need to think this through a little.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So when all manufacturers start attaching unreasonable terms to the use of their product, you will simply not eat. Is this the way you want the world to work? If not, why the staunch defense of DRM?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't "dictate terms" to you, you accepted them.
No...I'm pretty sure they're dictated. Unless I have the opportunity to negotiate terms before purchase, then they're dictated.
If I go to the store, buy the product, get home, have dinner, then go to use the product, and the manufacturer pops up and says "Oh, by the way....we didn't tell you this before you gave us your money, but you're not allowed to do X with the product you just bought," then they're dictated terms, that I didn't even have the opportunity to refuse.
Imagine buying a car like that:
You go
Re: (Score:2)
This is just not true. There are limits to contract law and to copyright law for precisely these reasons.
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm really getting tired of these same straw men getting trotted out every time the issue of DRM comes up.
You bet. You may use GPL software in any way you see fit. Freedom 0 guarentees that:
In fact, the license specifically forbids a copyright holder from taking steps to control how you use the software. The GPL only puts restrictions on how the software is distributed. The only person being restricted by the GPL is the copyright holder.
This is as it should be.
DRM has nothing to do with copyright. It's purpose is to controls access to the copyrighted work, to control how the person who paid for the copyrighted work uses it.
DRM is an attempt by copyright holders to claim additional rights for themselves beyond what copyright allows for. In many cases, it prevents citizens from exercising fair use without defeating it, making it incompatible with copyright law. If a copyright holder wishes to employ DRM, they should forfeit copyright protection, as they are not holding up their end of the bargain.
You know, one fucking "right" will do, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the law says. Read up on fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes exactly, you have no right to distribute without the GPL. It grants you extra rights on top of your fair/personal use rights, to distribute with restrictions.
Odd how many folks don't see the difference between something that gives you extra rights (GPL) and something that attempts to take legal rights away (DRM).
Re: (Score:2)
Fair use rights are actually rather well defined. DRM often seeks to restrict user rights further than copyright.
In some cases, the DRM manages to restrict end user rights far more than even the crazy EULA allows for including effectively reneging on the license entirely (with no refund), for example if the server the DRM phones home to is down or gone.
Meanwhile, a lot of DRM is a bit of a fraud since the 'licensing' is made to look exactly like a simple first sale under copyright law and only after the fac
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm shocked that there are so many people here who believe "copyright" is anything but a land grab for those who cannot create.
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Because sometimes (read: very often) the DRM will prevent the end-user from exercising rights he would have under standard Fair Use doctrines.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Uhhh (Score:3, Insightful)
Copyrights are like patents in software/hardware. They prevent you from improving upon a certain work and they effectively lock the competition
Actually that's completely upside down.
Patents, in theory, are a deal between an inventor and society. For a limited, government enforced monopoly the inventor must document and register his invention with the patent office. Others can look at those patents and build upon them as long they either license the patent, wait until it's expired or build upon it in a way that the patent is not violated.
Now, this is the theory of course which doesn't seem to be very much related to nowadays reality.
However, pa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Even if you go to a library or book store and DON'T buy the book, the thing is still copyrighted and you can't make copies of it nor can you make a similar book with the same or a similar story.
Technically you're allowed to photocopy portions of a book say if you're using them for research purposes. This is called 'Fair Use' which is something that copyright holders have been desperately trying to wrest from the hands of the public. Also just because someone made a James Bond book doesnt mean you arent allowed to make a different Spy character that does similar things. Part of the creative process is touching on people's expectations...
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow, all the trolls have come out of the woodwork.
What makes you think people are going to stop creating works of art just because somebody else is going to copy them? What makes you think that people are going to stop singing, painting, writing, telling stories, just because somebody else can sing the same song, paint the same picture, write the same words and tell the same stories?
Without copyright, people might not make money out of it. But nobody says people are supposed to make money for everything they do. Making money is not a right.
Re: (Score:2)
Hobby works or works of pleasure would still exist, but the problem is is that hobby works are not the works that are popular.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Publishes once added value. They really don't anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Straw man,
[citation needed],
and parroting the entertainment industry.
Nice going!
(Yeah.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, cause no one ever created anything before copyright law came along 300 years ago. Yeah.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The rights-holder is the sole arbiter of the "conditions of the distribution of their content".
No, the courts are.
If they want to distribute content to you which you are forbidden to use in months which end in "Y" that is their right.
No, it is not. Once the product has been sold to you the rights holder has nothing to say about how you use it so long as you stick to what copyright law allows you to do with it.
But at the end of the day, the copy of the content was given to you, after an exchange of moneys, based on an agreement (the license agreement).
No, it was not. It was sold to you as a product, and it is a product that you can use according to what is permitted by copyright law. You only need a /license/ if you intend to put it to uses that copyright law does not permit.
As for what copyright law allows you to do, it allows you to use the product in the ex
Re: (Score:2)
Once the product has been sold to you the rights holder has nothing to say about how you use it so long as you stick to what copyright law allows you to do with it.
Not if you agreed (via a license agreement) not to use in on days that end in "Y".
No, it was not. It was sold to you as a product,
It was content, distributed to you by the rights-holder under their right to distribute (as rights-holder) after an agreement by you to terms and conditions of that distribution, namely what you could and could not do with the content after you received it.
What you're saying (Score:2, Informative)
What these "rights holders" are saying is this:
1) We like copyright.
2) Mostly
3) What we don't like about copyright is the following:
a) You can sell it to someone else. We really don't like that.
b) You can use it in the way that you want, and I can't control it
c) You can use it forever. I really don't like that
4) So I like copyright, but I want it to be constraining than copyright
5) So I'll lock it in DRM and then you can't actually do thos
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The First Sale Doctrine [wikipedia.org] would like to have a word with you.
You cannot restrict an owners use of a copyrighted work. I can read a book when I want, I can sell it when I want for as little as I want(the original problem involved requiring you to sell books for a minimum price), I can lend it to my friends. I can even put it my wall with a camera and projector if I have poor eyesight(oo, transient copy!).
The only reason software companies get away with it is the fact that to run their software, a copy needs
Re: (Score:2)
If you give me a contract beforehand, then me bad for agreeing to it, but after I have it I'm free to ignore any paper/bytes inside the box/installer.
I've agreed with you on this point throughout my argument. If the T&C are disclosed up-front, and you agree, then "shame on you, ya fool," you're bound by the DRM restrictions. If the T&C are NOT disclosed up-front, then you get into vagaries of contract law as what the potential recourse is (and in this, there is a matter of great debate, see the whole discussions on shrink-wrap licenses, etc.) Depending on the situation, the "legal recourse" might be to get a refund, or you might even be able
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't have said anything, if you hadn't included this in your post saying the exact opposite:
.
If it is inside the box, I shouldn't need to go to court to prove they are invalid, the same as publishers are not allowed to print contracts inside the cover of books and sell
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you agree to the license on the content before downloading, which you pretty much have to do for any legitimate download, you probably also agreed to not copy it or attempt to break the DRM for any reason.
So if the GPL is valid because it controls what you can and can't do with the software after you get it, why is it that the DRM you agreed to when you purchased the content is any different?
I think DRM is complete shit, but treating it differently than GPL just because you like GPL and not DRM is retard
Re: (Score:2)
So if the GPL is valid because it controls what you can and can't do with the software after you get it, why is it that the DRM you agreed to when you purchased the content is any different?
Why are you finding it so difficult to understand this?
Copyright grants the creator a small set of rights which are enforced, by law, in exchange for the creator agreeing to distribute their work. The only relevant right that copyright grants is the exclusive distribution right (there are a few others, such as the right to be identified with the work, but these vary between legal jurisdictions). Under copyright law, you have no right to make copies of something you receive (except in certain limited ca
Re:Hey, why not just steal GPL code? (Score:5, Interesting)
While some DRM-crackers are indeed, more or less unrelated(you don't see GPL proponents celebrating the availability of cracked copies of proprietary software), the DRM-crackers who stand up for our freedom to own and control our computers, rather than the other way around, have pretty much exactly the same objective as core GPL proponents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
True, that is copyright law for you. But the issue is whether the copyright holder can artificially expand his own rights or arbitrarily restrict the end users rights.
E.g. I recently encountered a company that sold pdf(?) documents you can only read with an active internet connection. Reading on the train/plane is impossible or very expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, clicked the wrong button
My point is that all DRM schemes hinder legitimate users to some degree and never actually prevent copying.
GPL vs. DRM: DRM goes against the copyright spirit (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without.
As I understand it, the purpose of copyright is to secure for creators a limited time monopoly on the rights necessary for selling the creation, in return for them eventually enriching the cultural (and, in the case of software, technological) commons.
Some kinds of DRM prevent or obstruct use of the work in such a way that when the work enters the public domain, it doesn't enrich the commons in practice. It's like being given a car wreck that's in really bad shape: sure you can sell it as scrap metal, but it's worth so little that you're better off ignoring it.
For this reason, I think one can argue that DRM (with certain properties) goes against the spirit and purpose of copyright law, and the argument doesn't apply to GPL'ed software.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without.
As I understand it, the purpose of copyright is to secure for creators a limited time monopoly on the rights necessary for selling the creation, in return for them eventually enriching the cultural (and, in the case of software, technological) commons.
Some kinds of DRM prevent or obstruct use of the work in such a way that when the work enters the public domain, it doesn't enrich the commons in practice. It's like being given a car wreck that's in really bad shape: sure you can sell it as scrap metal, but it's worth so little that you're better off ignoring it.
For this reason, I think one can argue that DRM (with certain properties) goes against the spirit and purpose of copyright law, and the argument doesn't apply to GPL'ed software.
The problem with this argument is that its an assumed, implied agreement that the works will enrich the cultural commons - its not anything laid out in law as copyright law does not handle what happens to the work after copyright law ceases to apply.
Or in other words, its not the copyright holders responsibility to ensure that you have access to the works after copyright expires - and indeed, neither should it be.
Re: (Score:2)
As a somewhat random aside, I believe that most software is not directly copyrightable, as it is a derivative work of the source code. If the source code isn't copyrighted, then how can the compiled source code be copyrightable?
The source code can't be copyrighted, as doing so would require the publishing of the source, and that would reveal all kinds of secrets. Since the secrets are obfuscated in the compiled code, they are safe to publish (until they get reverse engineered, such as this example). But
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's rather comical that so many people out there are trying to break DRM and band themselves as allies of the open source movement in some way. The thing is, the legal framework, the right of the copyright holder to issue a license, is the same for software with DRM as it is without. If we have a legal system where copying images, songs and books is tolerated, then we also have a legal system where taking GPL code and subverting it will be tolerated as well.
The GPL is a license that dictates how a work can be copied and distributed - which was the intent of copyrights originally. To control who can copy and/or distribute a work, to make sure that the author actually gets something for their effort.
DRM, on the other hand, restricts how someone who already has a copy of the work is able to use it. DRM keeps me from reading my ebook on the device of my choice. DRM keeps me from listening to my music on the device of my choice. DRM keeps me from re-installing
Re: (Score:2)
DRM is being used to control the end-user far beyond what copyright is supposed to be about.
The GPL, on the other hand, only kicks in if/when you go beyond what copyright would allow a normal user to do (i.e. when you t