Re: [dvd-discuss] Skylarov indicted for trafficing and conspiracy.

[Ron Gustavson <rongusss(at)mediaone.net>]

I was just reading an eWeek editorial...
http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2799090,00.html

Might Adobe Acrobat Reader be considered illegal in terms of the
aforementioned Section 508(b) when it disables text to speech?


On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 13:18:00 -0400, Eric Eldred
<eldred@eldritchpress.org> wrote:

>News reports and the Elcomsoft website reported that Adobe
>managed to get Elcomsoft's ISPs to take down their site
>after Adobe allegations that Elcomsoft's software
>illegally infringed Adobe software.  Elcomsoft strenuously
>denied using any Adobe software in writing ABPR.  There
>was no mention of the DMCA as the grounds for the
>infringement claim.  There are no trade secrets involved,
>either, since Adobe openly published PDF specifications,
>including sample encryption methods employed verbatim
>by at least one other company.
>
>Elcomsoft ought to be able to produce the letters from
>Adobe to the ISPs.  Elcomsoft was not allowed a rebuttal
>to the claims in the letters, but suffered great business
>harm because of the false claims.
>
>The indictment does not actually claim that Elcomsoft
>infringed Adobe's copyright.  Unstated is the fact that
>ABPR requires a legally acquired copy of the ebook
>in order to work, and works with legally acquired
>copies of Adobe's software for Reader and Acrobat.
>
>All ABPR does is allow a Reader-encrypted ebook to be
>read in Adobe Acrobat Reader PDF.  Such a step is
>necessary if one wishes to enjoy fair use of the ebook,
>for example by reading it on another PC.  It is a step
>that the FBI would have to take, or a librarian to
>take, as provided by the DMCA.
>
>The government is now going to have to prove that the
>rights of ordinary copyright extend so far as to allow
>a third party to put restrictions on fair use by the
>first party of a work copyrighted by a second party.
>We can see the harmful effects of the overbroad decision
>by Kaplan.
>
>Software manufacturers ought to be very concerned about
>the implications of this case.  It might very well
>prevent them from offering filters from one proprietary
>format to another, as for example Windows Media format
>to Real Player format.  The "effective" language of
>the act is really meaningless.  Here software is being
>banned even if it has a legal use--simply because the
>user might possibly use the copy illegally. 
>
>Basically the act is unconstitutional because such restrictions 
>are not in the public interest, to promote progress of science
>and the useful arts.
>
>The DMCA is a bad law for everybody and we need to
>support the EFF to make sure the law is overturned.

        __________NO-&infin;-DO__________