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

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

For those of us who don't speak US Code, is 508(b) part
of the "Americans With Disibilities Act"?

If not, then that would be another possible violation.

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

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Gustavson [mailto:rongusss@mediaone.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2001 5:57 PM
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Skylarov indicted for trafficing and
> conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 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__________
>