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

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

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?