Adobe Software, makers of the popular Photoshop and Acrobat line of professional publishing applications for personal computers, created eBook software as a means for book publishers to translate and distribute books in a secure digital format. The Adobe eBook was vying to become a new standard in digital publishing, allowing publishers and authors to protect their investment and financially benefit from books that could be read on a laptop, PDA or other digital device. AdobeÕs eBook targeted an educated audience who treated the EarthÕs natural resources with respect by limiting the number of forests that would be cut down and turned into paper for the tens of millions of books printed each year. The eBook was primed as a product that was to become a new paradigm in publishing.

With a few clicks of a mouse and some words to a crowd of hackers Las Vegas, Dmitry Sklyarov destroyed all that for Adobe.

SklyarovÕs employer in Russia, a small-time software maker called Elcom, paid him to create a decryption program called the Advanced eBook Processor. According to Sklyarov and his company, Russian law requires PC users make a backup copy of all programs they own. Adobe eBooks are encrypted to keep thieves and pirates from creating multiple ÒbackupsÓ to resell on the black market. Sklyarov wrote an algorithm to forcibly strip out the eBook encryption so the "rightful owner" of the book to make a legal backup copy. On Sunday July 15th, Sklyarov proudly showed off his work to the enthusiastic crowd of hacker thieves at DefCon 2001. FBI agents attending the seminar were tipped off by Adobe reps that SklyarovÕs program violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, authorized by President Clinton and designed to protect the digital rights of due compensation for creative artists. Monday morning, the FBI arrested Sklyarov before he could check out of his hotel and escape to Russia.

The outcry was immediate and obnoxious. Chants of ÒFree DmitryÓ echoed in the offices of leftist civil liberty coalitions in Silicon Valley. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society both screamed about the violation of poor DmitryÕs civil rights. To them, poor Dmitry is the victim of a corrupt government system owned by large corporations. Poor Dmitry did nothing more than expose the folly of the DMCA. Robin Gross, a lawyer for the Electronic Frontier Foundation and opponent of content creatorÕs rights, said "Our real issue is to get Dmitry out of jail. He is very scared. He is not interested in picking a big fight." No, Gross is the one interested in the big fight. GrossÕ EFF cronies have fought the DMCA in the name of Òcivil libertiesÓ, because the law specifies writing programs that can be used to circumvent the protections of the DMCA are illegal. The EFF is so left wing that they make the ACLU look like the Knights of Columbus.

Adobe Software withdrew their case against Elcom and Sklyarov a couple of days after Sklyarov was detained. Adobe spokespeople said the Òpublic outcryÓ by the EFF, a programmer that started a ÒBoycott AdobeÓ website and the ÒdemandsÓ of leftist protestors in several cities has caused them to rethink their position on the matter. However, the United States authorities do not drop criminal cases so easily. Sklyarov and his employer were indicted on August 30th and pleaded not guilty to five counts of violating the DMCA.

SklyarovÕs hearing is September 4, and if convicted he could spend 25 years in prison or pay $2.5 million in fines. At a pro-theft rally for Sklyarov, Lawrence Lessig, law professor from the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, screamed: "Why lock this guy up for 25 years? That's 25 years!" to a crowd of hackers. Why lock him up? Gee whiz, Larry, itÕs because he broke the law. IÕm not a lawyer and I figured that outÉ ArenÕt you a law professor? If you donÕt want him to spend 25 years in the pokey, have him cough up the two and a half million bucks!

As if standing in front of a judge knowing you broke the law and saying Ònot guiltyÓ wasnÕt gutsy enough, Sklyarov, Elcom and their leftist defenders have spent the last month claiming Russia offers more freedom than America. To them, ElcomÕs program based on SklyarovÕs algorithm restores the long lost Òfair useÓ rights shattered by the DMCA. The evil corporations are taking away our human rights in the name of profit. WhatÕs one little-bitty copy of a teeny-weeny eBook going to hurt a big corporation like Microsoft or Adobe? It is all Òfair useÓ until the Federal storm troopers came in and took poor Dmitry away! Theft is your only recourse against the mega-monopolies! Act now before your freedoms are taken away!

What kinds of Òfair useÓ are these people talking about defending with this digital thievery? Leftists say that the eBook hack is ÒfairÓ because the evil Adobe Corporation makes too much money off of their outrageously priced software (The downloadable Adobe eBooks at Amazon and Barnes & Noble are priced between $1.50-$25, no more than the hardcover editions of the same books). This attitude can be seen in those who also hate Microsoft, Apple and Sun Microsystems and who think that $129 for retail Windows XP or $30,000 for a Sun Workstation is too much. However, these are the same people that charge $100 to $250 an hour to answer computer questions as a ÒconsultantÓ and think their services are priced Òfairly.Ó Such moral relativism is rampant amongst the high-tech crowd, but most regular working folks donÕt regard theft (digital or otherwise) as Òfair.Ó

Another popular Òfair useÓ analogy goes like this: ÒWhen I buy a normal book I can take it anywhere I want but IÕm limited with an eBook. Therefore, itÕs my right to copy it for my convenience.Ó Most consumers know an eBook isn't a normal book. An eBook is purchased to be read on one digital reader preferably on a digital e-book reading device or laptop and that is made very clear by all purveyors of Adobe eBooks. The Microsoft Reader software allows the same e-book to be read on two different devices in an effort to curb illegal copying. An anonymous hacker who allegedly broke the Microsoft Reader encryption actually justified his actions to Technology Review magazine by claiming that he needed more than two copies so as to extract the text of his e-books for display on his laptop, desktop and his REB1100, a dedicated reading device manufactured by RCA. Convenience is your idea of Òfair use?Ó WHY DIDNÕT YOU JUST DOWNLOAD THE BOOK TO THE DEDICATED DEVICE TO BEGIN WITH?

Consumers who reject the fact that there are limitations placed on this software defend their decision to steal copyrighted materials by saying: "I bought it and it's mine to do with as I please." Say you commissioned an artist to paint a one of a kind mural on the wall of your house, you move out of that house and you are shocked to find out that the artist refuses to repaint the same mural on the wall of your new house for free. You knew exactly what you were getting when you signed up for this deal. Some have argued: ÒShould I be jailed for taking a photograph of the mural I paid for? Should Olympus or Kodak be jailed for making cameras that allow me to take photographs? Should Eastman's body be dug up and thrown into the Potomac for inventing photography?Ó Are you going to put that tiny postcard-sized photograph on the wall of your new house in place of the beautiful hand painted mural? Are you going to make a million copies of that photograph and sell them on the Internet for five bucks apiece? When the artist realizes you are profiting from his painting and he is getting nothing, will you sue the big companies that sold you the camera because they have deeper pockets? More on this cyberspace moral relativism in tomorrowÕs edition of World Tech Tribune

Print this Article

Email this article

Free Headline Alerts