RE: [dvd-discuss] Microsoft Reader encryption broken too

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

I don't think you've read that correctly.  If the TPM
fails to permit access because of damage.  Well, if you've
not damaged the DVD sufficiently, access will still be
granted.  If you _have_ damaged it sufficiently, the TPM
doesn't matter a damn because the bits are gone and you
can't read the source material anyway.

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 8:27 AM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Microsoft Reader encryption broken too
> 
> 
> So if the media becomes Damaged one can remove the TPM?....I 
> doubt that 
> congress considered that If one deliberately damages the 
> media, one can 
> then claim to be allowed to circumvent....but that is the danger of 
> allowing TPMs coupled with proprietary standards, cartels, 
> and the like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mickey <mickeym@mindspring.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 08/31/01 01:04 PM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
>  
>         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Microsoft Reader 
> encryption broken too
> 
> 
> http://www.loc.gov/copyright/1201/anticirc.html
> 
> Of the two exemptions, the second one exempts tpm's that 
> "fail to permit 
> access
> because of malfunction, damage, or obsolescence."
> 
> I take it as a positive thing because such an exemption, by it's very 
> existence,
> says that the law recognizes that circumvention technology 
> can, and must, 
> exist,
> also. It would be informative to know what is considered to 
> be one that is 
> allowed.
> 
> Since circumventions tools have become the equivalent of snakes to 
> copyright, it
> would help to which ones are not poisonous..
> 
> mickeym
> 
> Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> 
> > I'd have to check since it's been months since I read the original
> > comments. I believe the LOC argued that was a reason but did not
> > explicitly state that the general public should be allowed the 
> excemption
> > only the selected archivists. I believe I took exception to 
> the notion
> > that allowing archivists should be allowed to have the 
> tools that the
> > public could not. This is a horrible notion.
> >
> > mickey <mickeym@mindspring.com>
> > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > 08/31/01 08:45 AM
> > Please respond to dvd-discuss
> >
> >
> >         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> >         cc:
> >         Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Microsoft Reader 
> encryption 
> broken too
> >
> > Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> >
> > > The article mentions the "REB1100, a dedicated reading device
> > manufactured
> > > by RCA" and this raises a question that none of the 
> "Digital Rights
> > > Management" advocates want to address. What happens to 
> you ebook when
> > > Adobe says "That's ebook format 1.0. We don't support that format
> > > anylonger? Or we don't support the reader anylonger on 
> YOUR antiquated
> > HP
> >
> > Isn't that one of the exemptions that the LOC came up with 
> (obsolete,
> > malfunction, etc)?
> >
> > But, where would the recovery tools come from if the 
> development of them
> > were
> > banned?
> >
> > >
> > > palmtip computer....or your Windows98 platform......" 
> I've had enough 
> of
> > > this nonsense dealing with multimate, Chi-writer, Word95, BLOATUS 
> NOTUS
> > > email "databases" AND recently the Earthlink email client that
> > corrrupted
> > > SOMETHING and now won't read ANYTHING (Oh all the email I 
> had there is
> > > still in the directory. Five minutes with a hex viewer 
> showed me I'm 
> not
> > > dealing with anything sophisticated...). That's one question the
> > "Digital
> > > Rights Management" goo-roos aren't addressing. After 
> First sale I have
> > an
> > > unevokable right to view what I purchased.
> > >
> > > The danger that they also don't address is how to 
> maintain a permanent
> > > store of knowledge. The Romans were incredible engineers. Roads,
> > > aqueducts, structures are still around or even in use but they 
> couldn't
> > > pass that knowledge on because of a lack of widespread 
> distribution,
> > > production, and lots of mishaps.  GIven what the "Digital Rights
> > > Management" advocate, I can believe the electronic equivalent will
> > occure
> > > <Can you tell that I read Hilton's Lost Horizon as a child?>
> > >
> > > Eric Eldred <eldred@eldritchpress.org>
> > > Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > 08/30/01 07:42 PM
> > > Please respond to dvd-discuss
> > >
> > >
> > >         To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > >         cc:
> > >         Subject:        [dvd-discuss] Microsoft Reader encryption 
> broken
> > too
> > >
> > > Wall Street Journal today reports that Technology Review
> > > has a story by Wade Rousch that the encryption scheme
> > > for Microsoft Reader eBooks has been broken.  No details.
> > > See http://www.technologyreview.com/web/roush/roush083001.asp
> > >
> > > So much for the theory that the breaking of Adobe encryption
> > > for eBooks would cause publishers to turn to the Microsoft
> > > alternative.
> > >
> > > Of course, Microsoft's eBooks have not been very popular
> > > when locked up because so far readers have been unable to
> > > use the locked-up books on Microsoft CE appliances, only
> > > on PCs.  They have been promising to emit a new version
> > > of Reader for a long time now.  Likely this little news
> > > item, plus the other attacks by privacy advocates on
> > > Microsoft Passport, will hold them back even longer.
> > > Since nobody can be sure if the locks are sound unless
> > > the scheme is submitted to public scrutiny by experts,
> > > the mess the DMCA creates is immensely risky for all.
> > >
> > > Eldritch Press has a couple of books freed from Microsoft
> > > Reader locks, at
> > > http://www.eldritchpress.org:8080/rl/bigtown.html
> > > http://www.eldritchpress.org:8080/wwone/threes.html
> > >
> > > There are probably 20,000 free books now online without
> > > such locks.  Read them instead of the antibooks that
> > > are more expensive than paperbacks.
> > >
> > > The ridiculous DMCA won't permit revealing how the
> > > encryption can be circumvented, but authors ought to be
> > > aware now that the locks are useless and even harmful
> > > to readers.  When will publishers realize they have a
> > > can of worms in their hand?
> 
> 
> 
>