Adobe Finds No Elcomsoft-Cracked E-Books 318
dJCL writes "I noticed at BlackMask.com that the Adobe investigators have found not a single e-book that was decrypted by Elcomsoft's Advanced e-Book Processor, even despite the months of intensive searching of around 100,000 pirated e-books that they could find(i.e. something else was used to crack them). Just love how the laws have been able to stop people from pirating things these days."
It just proves... (Score:2, Troll)
Re:It just proves... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It just proves... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyways, yeah. Wasn't this ebook software the Skylarov made only able to be used on ebooks that one already owned to port it to a different format? (such as a palm ebook or others?) That's my understanding. And if it's true, what are the damages then?!?! That's fair use! WTF!
Okay. I'm preaching to the choir here. Nevermind.
Oh, and if Adobe sues over peanuts like ebooks, then they need to get to the people that pirate things like Photoshop and Illustrator and Pagemaker and Premiere (which are a helluvalot more likely to be pirated than stupid ebooks, c'mon!)
Re:It just proves... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is very different from Adobe worrying about some 14-year-old downloading the latest Photoshop. They're probably smart enough to realize that they're generally not losing sales revenue through that, they are, if anything, gaining market share by having a growing self-trained user base (which in turn leads to businesses hiring the 14-year-old a few years down the road and buying another legit license).
Except that.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It just proves... (Score:4, Interesting)
With 100000 pirated ebooks, I think it's already been proven that their "ebook technology" doesn't work.
In fact, calling something as kludgy and retrofitted as PDF with its bogus "encryption" a "technology" seems like giving it too much credit.
Re:It just proves... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not what I get from the article, since it says that those books may have been cracked using other methods.
In any case, either way, it doesn't matter, since there are plenty of PDF readers that will just display "encrypted" PDFs for you without even the bother of cracking them. If you like, you can print to a file and re-encode to PS from those.
So, Adobe's ebook technology is broken, period.
Re:It just proves... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course it is. That ain't the problem.
Did you know that the DMCA explicitly guarantees our right to fair use? It really does!
And then, in the same breath, it conveniently criminalizes any and all means of exercising that right. The tool is forbidden; the action itself remains completely legal.
It's a lot like passing a law that affirms the principle of universal suffrage and then goes on to declare that all polling stations must be in men's bathrooms.
---
Dum de dum.
Re:It just proves... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe not in the U.S. (DMCA), however in [Soviet
Heh, it'd be funny if this post slipped through a time warp back to 1985...
Re:It just proves... (Score:2)
they would rather listen to the lawyers who know absolutely nothing about it......
anyone else find that funny? when a large corperation wants advice on technology instead of asking experts they ask lawyers... the one group of people that are 100% useless in such matters...
asking lawyers about technology advice is like asking the janitors about corperate legal positioning..
I find it even more amusing... and just wait people.. this rampant stupidity in the board rooms of american (yes canada is an AMERCIAN country... get over it! or move from the AMERICAN continent) companies is going to continue the economic depression longer or futher....
Is that legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is that legal? (Score:2, Insightful)
-Hey everyone look it's clippy...Die you metal bastard!
Re:Is that legal? (Score:5, Insightful)
For them to be downloading ebooks they don't own?
Disclaimer:IANAL
Actually I don't think that would be legal at all... As a matter of a fact I really hope that they posted a list of the books they downloaded and someone gets pissed that Adobe stole a copy of their book, resulting in a law suit against Adobe for piracy.... Ahh the sweet justice that would be....
Re:Is that legal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not if Adobe took their permission. How hard would that be ?
Adobe to a publishing company : "We are trying to investigate a potential fraud and loss for your company due to a group involved in breaking your ebook's protection code. Can we have your permission to..."
Indeed... (Score:5, Funny)
We just needed it for research! It's just for personal use! We have a right to privacy with our own files! We deleted it within 24 hours - so it's legal! It didn't hurt anyone - we weren't going to be buying the book anyway! Mentioning them in our lawsuit is like free advertising! Potentially infringing material wants to be free!
Ryan Fenton
hee-hee :) (Score:2)
Soon it will be (Score:4, Informative)
In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike a VCR, which is a bitch to use.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Papasul writes
That is funny but seriously a VCR records analog which is legal to use for time shifting/sharing purposes. Digital copies are currently illegal.
Please cite this law. Because right now, I don't believe Tivos are illegal, and they time shift by recording a digital copy. Backup copies of CD's aren't illegal, and those are digital copie as well.
Nope -- a rose is a rose (Score:2)
The thing that bugs the copyright holders is that digital copies are immortal and copy without loss. They raised a ruckus over DAT, and wanted some sort of built-in copyproofing, like you could only make one copy or whatever. So this may be what you're thinking of -- they fear digital more.
Well, yeah... (Score:3, Funny)
Of course. If they wanted VCRs to be illegal, they'd've called it the Analog Millenium Copyright Act...
-JDF
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
In related news... (Score:2)
Re:In related news... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/021203/crime_dmca_2.htm
"In testimony, Thomas Diaz, a senior Adobe engineer, said under cross-examination from Burton that ElcomSoft was not the only company to create software that allows people to circumvent security measures of Adobe software.
Apple Computer Inc.'s (NasdaqNM:AAPL - News) latest operating system, OS X, also disables some of Adobe's copyright prevention functions, he said."
So maybe Apple is next?
Re:In related news... (Score:2)
Re:In related news... (Score:2)
wait.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:wait.. (Score:2)
Not from what I've seen. There are just laws that try to make things more difficult for law-abiding citizens.
Piracy has not be slowed down. The only thing that has been slowed down is the productivity of those who choose not to pirate. In many cases - using a crack version of a piece of software (or ripped CD) is less of a hassle.
Let's get this straight (Score:5, Interesting)
They are not the police, and do not have the right to break the law just to prove (or in this case disprove) their point.
Smart update, where's my cut? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Let's get this straight (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's get this straight (Score:5, Funny)
It's OK with me if you steal my car if it's still parked in front of my house and I can still use it.
That's why intellectual property is property, because it's gone when someone else gets it.
-
The Spin: (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, had they found any of what they're looking for, the line would be "See how bad we need the DMCA?"
Re:The Spin: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Spin: (Score:4, Informative)
The name you're looking for is CBDTPA - Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act.
-
RIAA (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RIAA (Score:3, Funny)
This may not be all that relevant for the case (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This may not be all that relevant for the case (Score:5, Insightful)
-Rob
yes it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to lend weight or support to the perposterous DMCA but I thought the wording was "primary function." If it can be shown that the primary function of the software was simply to give the user their fair use rights to read their own material, how can it be called a circumvention device? In other words, if all it's circumventing is something not recognized by US laws, I don't see what leg they have to stand on. The fact that people did not use the software to violate the contents copyright by distributing the content looks very important, if and only if the DMCA is designed to prevent copyright violation. We all know that the DMCA's primary purpose is to expand the power of and preserve the position of obsolete publishers. Bah, what a stupid law DMCA is.
I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that Adobe is merely trying to find a scapegoat, but chose an entirely wrong example to set.
Re:I wonder... (Score:2)
IANAL, but aren't local-only copies ok?
Confusing paragraph (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm nitpicking... but in that sentence, shouldn't "cyberspace" and "real world" should be reversed? I mean, complaints about the DMCA are that it limits copying and use of "cyberspace" digital media above and beyond "real world" analog copying and use. Normally I wouldn't complain - but this is Reuters, the source from where so many other news sources flow.
Ryan Fenton
"copyright holders" (Score:5, Informative)
Just goes to show... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:4, Informative)
The judges are supposed to apply the law is it stands to the case. IANAL, but if you're encryption scheme is simple zipping it up with a blank password, it's still illegal to try to bypass it without authorization to read the contents.
I'm not saying I agree with the DMCA, but there's no distinction between difficulty of cracking involved here.
-N
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:2)
It means that if you fold a piece of paper in half so that all the text is on the "inside", and you can't easily read it without unfolding it, then folding a peice of paper in half effectively controls access.
Don't you love the DMCA?
-
I know, I know! (Score:2)
Because they will have to put you in jail if you try to explain how to crack an ebook? Because they will have to jail themselves if they know? When you outlaw the truth, only outlaws can be honest.
Re:Just goes to show... (Score:3, Insightful)
You know why? It's because all you really have to do is take reasonable precautions to be covered by the law, otherwise break and entry would also be legal.
The "analogue"-ish way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The "analogue"-ish way (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not go all the way and change the font to be a barcode? It would be simple to re-encode it non-encrypted after that...
Re:The "analogue"-ish way (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The "analogue"-ish way (Score:2)
Re:The "analogue"-ish way (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The "analogue"-ish way (Score:4, Funny)
You'll-be-hearing-from-my-lawyer.
Power of American people (Score:2, Interesting)
The reason I ask is it seems a like a silly law made by corporations for corporations and is only used for stupid things like this...
So if it is a bad law that 99.99999% of the American population hates (100% if it weren't for the executives behind it), why does it exist? How can it exist?
I've never understood how a "free" country can have laws like this, unless a lot of people agree with them.
Re:Power of American people (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, you still have the Supreme Court who are there to make sure the laws don't break the bigger laws (like freedom of speech). That can help balance things out.
it's almost impossible (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Power of American people (Score:2)
Re:Power of American people (Score:4, Insightful)
All depends whether or not you've been exposed to the Slashdot/EFF propaganda or the CBS/Disney propaganda. If you ask the average Joe if they think cracking tools should be illegal, they're probably going to tell you yes, they should. If you phrase it a little differently, and ask them if they should be allowed to listen to their CDs in their car, then they're going to answer differently.
Now if you're an honest politician, you're going to try to make a law which makes cracking tools illegal but still allows people to listen to their music in any place at any time they want. But it's in that nitty gritty lawyer stuff that the corporations have the most power.
Finally, look at it from the perspective of the average person. Most of us aren't selling or using software cracks, whether for legitimate or illegitimate purposes. And even those of us who only use cracks, and don't sell them, in reality there's about 0.000000% chance we're going to get caught.
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Yes, birdbrain, and you can also buy a car and have potential to kill dozens of children, buy a bottle of rat poison and have the potential to kill dozens of children, and buy a swimming pool and have the potential to kill dozens of children. You see, we are ALL "potential" murderers; morality/ethics and resposibility are what keep most people from committing crimes, not laws. Laws are there to punish/segregate those who behave immorally/unethically and/or irresponsibly. You cannot legislate good behavior; you can only punish bad behavior.
And as far as the background check goes, we do have those in the US, and they are quite extensive.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? - Crypto protected by 2nd amendment (Score:2)
The second amendment does not apply solely to firearms. The second amendment is concerned with arms and the right of the citizenry to use them to defend their rights against oppressive and tyranical government. Encryption technology can be a useful arm to defend your rights against unconstitutional laws. Many people feel that the constitution does not authorize the federal government to impose a law such as the DMCA. Cracking tools, are thus arms, used by the people to defend their rights.
Sounds like a bit of a stretch. Maybe, but nonetheless there are many important uses of crypto.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
That Adobe was unable to find evidence that it was actually being used for copyright infringement casts quite a bit of doubt on the notion that that's even the software's primary purpose.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
However, what other purpose does an AK-47 or an Uzi serve than to kill people?
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having a program used to steal a companies intellectual property is, uh, stealing. I think the contrast between having a gun that has uses other then killing someone, and having a program that's only use is to steal from a company is quite clear.
First of all, you're changing arguments. I could just throw back, "Having an e-book reader doesn't mean that you're going to infringe Adobe's copyrights." Are those blind people who use this type of software so they can feed unencrypted text to their Braille readers thieves? Ahem. Fair use applies.
Further. A gun is a tool which may be used to kill other human beings. (Many are designed expressly for this purpose.) This is a serious criminal offense--possibly the most serious.
An e-book reader is a tool which may be used to infringe copyright, going beyond the bounds of fair use. (Some software is probably designed for this purpose.) This is a civil offense (DMCA nonsense aside.)
As a society acting through our legislative representatives, we may choose to ban one tool, or both, or neither. Which represents the greater potential harm? Which should be our legislative priority?
Incidental aside: there is an important legal distinction between theft and copyright infringement. It is only through oversimplification to the point of error that the two are equated. Similarly, theft, burglary, and robbery are all legally distinct. Don't get me started on the abuse of the word piracy, which properly involves certain crimes on the high seas. One of the things that makes it difficult to have a calm, rational discussion about intellectual property rights is the frequent, reckless use of emotionally loaded--and inaccurate--terms by zealots on both sides.
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:suicide isn't illegal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Funny)
[Defense lawyer opening statement]
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, at the time of this alleged 'crime' the defendant believed he had successfully disconnected his safety harness...
-
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)
Where did the 100,000 figure come from? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Where did the 100,000 figure come from? (Score:2)
However, booklist.csv is by no means complete, containing 0 technical works, for example (which are the most significant pirated books, from a revenue standpoint, and look to be damn numerous... then there's that
Booklist.csv also doesn't categorize sites like this one [kulichki.com]...
Re:Where did the 100,000 figure come from? (Score:2, Interesting)
The headline posted to /. read "...Adobe investigators have found not a single e-book that was decrypted by Elcomsoft's Advanced e-Book Processor, even despite the months of intensive searching of around 100,000 pirated e-books that they could find(i.e. something else was used to crack them)". Yet, nowhere in the article did it state anything to the effect of the headline.
What the article states is "Adobe Systems has not been able to find proof that anyone made illegal copies of electronic books using software that could sidestep copyright safeguards in the company's eBook software, an Adobe engineer has testified." That is quite a departure from the 'blurb'. In fact, the article to which the blurb was referenced does not state how many searches were executed.
Perhaps this is the source of the "100,000": "In testimony in U.S. federal court, Daryl Spano, who formerly worked on Adobe's anti-piracy team, said the software company gets hundreds of tips on alleged piracy daily and could not follow up on all of them."
Oops. If they can't even follow up on "hundreds of tips daily", then how did they cover 100,000? If they did ten tips per day, every day, they'd have 27 years to get the data. Have people been pirating Adobe software for 27 years? Or can Adobe engineers (or "investigators") see future crimes now? Even at 100 tips per day its a three year chug, and I dare say imagining Adobe getting 100 or even 10 search warrents per day, every day for years is highly unlikely.
EBOOK FACTS (Score:5, Insightful)
Braille readers cannot read the work. Since they are essentially fancy serial devices, you could fake a driver and have the work printed to a file if they did.
Students, cannot cut and past a graph or text from them. They cannot resell the book when they are done with it, They cannot even give it a way. Why, because they tie themselves to one and only one computer.
Three years from now when the the ebook is out of print and your computer dies, that is the end of the book.
If you buy an ebook today, and your computer crashes or you buy a new one that is the end of the ebook unless you want to spend an hour on a phone trying to prove what happened.
A few types of ebooks are more liberal today, but at the time this software was made most every ebook were locked down to an insane extreme.
So there are several apparently legal uses for this software, some of which do not even involve the act of copying the work.
Finally, I noticed the Prosecutor called the software burglar tools. Well last I checked even they are legal to make and sell. They are illegal to possess if you are not a lock smith. So even that analogy is flawed.
Re:EBOOK FACTS (Score:2)
The analogy to burglar tools is off, as you note, but it's right in the sense of identifying the cracking tools as something with legitimate and illegitimate uses. It seems likely that they will be trying the Betamax defense, the key case for this sort of thing.
Re:EBOOK FACTS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:EBOOK FACTS (Score:3, Interesting)
Stealing is not civil disobedience, and violates plain old copyright law anyway. If you don't like the product don't buy it, there is no more powerful message to a capitalist. I'm perplexed why some people justify not doing that -- nothing would send a clearer message to the companies or bring change faster.
Again, his reasons are all good ones; I personally agree. I don't like the DMCA, and for that matter I don't like the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. But there's no reason for breaking these selfish laws but selfishness, a desire to have the product and boycott it, too.
Books are available in other and, IMHO, superior forms. Our local library has even started offering free online access to eBooks [arlington.va.us].
I'm not trying to be contentious, just arguing for the moral high ground.
Re:EBOOK FACTS (Score:3, Insightful)
There are provisions in the DMCA for "signifigant non-infringing use", but in the past that's never been recognized (IIRC, the 2600 people were barred from even bringing it as a defense)
It's crafting law via the backdoor - kinda like the federal speed limit. There never was any such thing, because the fed doesn't have the authority to make one - but they can end run around that and use de facto authority (highway funding) to push one. Similiarly, they can't outright remove your fair use rights(well, I suppose they could, but it's alot harder politcally speaking), but they can and will attempt to prevent you from ever gaining the knowledge needed to exercise those rights.
As for not buying it if you don't approve of the restrictions.. in more and more areas, especially entertainment, that just isn't working anymore. Your other options are limited, and, in some cases, simply don't exist. The media cartels are able to spin any boycott off as the effects of piracy (note the RIAA and CD sales), so your personal boycott has exactly the opposite effect of what you wanted - it's leverage for the company to push legislation.
In this circumstance the only effective path is to demand your fair use rights from the companies providing you with content, using third party tools if neccesary. You aren't breaking the law here - you're defending your right to free access to information from people who would sell it to you.
Re:EBOOK FACTS (Score:3, Interesting)
It's only illegal (pay attention, this is the important part) to provide anyone else with tools or information that will allow them to do so!
I'm not so sure even self-help, which would work for few of us anyway, is permitted. The weird thing about the DMCA is that whereas it specifically disavows any curtailment of fair use, it also fails to provide adequate exceptions to the anti-circumvention measures. See this FAQ [chillingeffects.org]. It could be said this is a back door attack, or more likely sloppy legislative drafting. That's what I would argue to a court, and I'm sure has been, that Congress goofed and it's clear intent to preserve fair use should override its implicit repeal in the anti-circumvention section. That's a tough argument though, and would leave the court in the position of creating new language for the anti-circumvention checklist. They're going to leave that to Congress, I think, and anyway the courts should not be in the lawmaking business so broadly.
Fair use is mostly not a constitutional question. The problems would come, IMHO, when it runs up against the First Amendment, and that would about to near evisceration of fair use, itself a mere statute.
You are incorrrect there was no federal speed limit. There was, enforced via the Spending Clause. Yes, there is no Speeding Clause (who would have anticipated one, and it would have been thought a state matter anyway), but this exercise of power is valid. Believe me, a wide spectrum of laws are rooted in this power, it's nothing novel.
More to the point, the federal gov't was up front about what it was doing. Yes, people debated endlessly whether this was appropriate policy. I imagine it was challenged constitutionally. Note that the rule was defeated politically.
The rest is just policy. And the game's not over becuase (1) the courts have not finished deciding what all those clauses in the DMCA mean (e.g., "showing that the prohibition has a substantial adverse effect on noninfringing uses of a particular class of works") -- which in the 2600 case was kind of untenable, IMHO
I'm not trying to contradict you in every way I can -- you are right in law and principle in general -- rather this is an area of law that interests me. From my inexpert opinion, the EFF has some good evenhanded orientation materials on the content, litigation, and public opinion fight of these different initiatives.
Finally, boycott is possible and perhaps morally compelled. For example, a LOT of people are used to the idea of ripping their own music CD's, and will go WTF when they realize that's gone. Civil disobedience is a possible, too, but I think too many people are simply stealing for their own convenience. Those who commit civil disobedience must be prepared to go to jail for it. Is fair use a good enough reason for a felony conviction? Between CD and lobbying Congress, the latter is the better choice for me. I mean, this is so far about entertainment and only one form of it.
Again, I'm not sure evn your own cracking is OK, and even if it is almost none of us will have access to the tools. I really wouldn't want to ask others to break the law and risk serious legal trouble to help me, even if they're willing. That's probably their civil disobedience choice to make, unless they're profiting, in which case they're mostly garden-variety criminals.
The LoC survey deadline comes up in a few days, there's a place to start.
Fahrenheit 451... (Score:5, Funny)
Other means? (Score:4, Insightful)
If, as is suggested, other means of cracking these protected ebooks were used, will the authors of those programs be subject to arrest if they ever visit the US (assuming they are non-US residents)?
Be afraid, be very afraid..
100,000 ebooks (Score:2, Funny)
The article actually reads... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Adobe Systems has not been able to find proof that anyone made illegal copies of electronic books using software that could sidestep copyright safeguards in the company's eBook software, an Adobe engineer has testified. "
There's a difference in not finding proof that Elcomsoft's software didn't crack the ebooks and not finding any ebooks that were cracked by it (as the Slashdot article suggests). Sorry to be picky, but the person that wrote the slashdot story was a little sensational in his wording, and I thought there was a big enough difference to mention that.
I can understand how unbelievably hard it would be to find proof of cracking with Elcomsoft's software just by downloading cracked ebooks. I doubt Elcomsoft's software leaves any footprints in the decoded file, especially considering the extremely simplistic 'encryption' algorithm
Looks like there may be another problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Disclaimer: IANAL
IIRC, either there is a Library of Congress decision [loc.gov] that there are a couple of situations where the Anti-Circumvention provision does not apply to software or hardware that circumvents copy portection.
One of those situations is in with respect to a compiled list of URLs and controll information that web proxy filters may be using.
The other situation I seem to recall reading some place was if the technology in use was obsolete or had known faults that prevent legitimate access.
Out of my own curiosity, wouldn't the fact that there is a fault with the anti-circumvention software that causes it to fail to protect against new cirvumvention tools imply that the anti-circumvention, or encryption tool in question, was, well Obsolete?
-Rusty
Re:Looks like there may be another problem (Score:3, Insightful)
The anti-cirumvention software was working just fine at the time that the
alleged offense was committed. It was only after it was cracked that it became
(effectively) obsolete.
That's like saying "But Officer - I didn't break into this house - the
front door was wide open...right after I smashed the lock."
Dimitiri's defense (IMHO) is twofold - firstly, he did all this in Russia
where it isn't illegal - secondly that he did it to aid disabled people to
read eBooks and not to help the pirating of eBooks.
The whole "to help blind people" thing seems to me to be the linchpin here.
If Adobe had picked some cracker who lived in the USA - and who had personally
pirated a bunch of books using their own cracking tools - Adobe would have
a much stronger case.
Location of pirated books (Score:5, Funny)
Boy, that Gutenberg character's gonna be in BIG trouble.
so how do they know... (Score:2, Insightful)
a quandary (Score:3, Insightful)
Although, does anybody actually steal e-books? I don't seem to recall "e-books" as a hot ticket item all the 1337 kiddiez want.
Is it any wonder? (Score:2)
Adobe chose the wrong course of action, but would anyone really say that it's ok that there are so many pirated ebooks around?
Yeah, but it COULD be used to break the law! (Score:3, Insightful)
Too easy to hide, WITH ADOBE'S HELP (Score:3, Interesting)
The e-books are protected is stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
An example: I recently bought Thinking in C# (almost finished version), in e-book format (pdf) which the writers offered for 5$. That's a bargain, so I thought "lets give it a shot". I tried acrobat, but I soon found out that the e-book was not that handy: i.e.: the advantages an e-book has over a paper-version (searching, bookmarking for fast browsing, highlighting and deleting, unlimited notes on 1 page etc) were gone in the acrobat reader since the e-book as encrypted and printing was disabled, plus there was no bookmark browse tree included. Search did work however but I couldn't print a page, couldn't copy/paste a section of a page and I couldn't create bookmarks!. I found out that Adobe offered another tool, eBook reader. So I downloaded that tool, opened the book and what a suprise: search was disabled too but I could create bookmarks.
So here I was: I paid for a legal ebook and there wasn't software to use it in full. I downloaded Jaws PDF Editor for windows. It's not a free program but the trial was enough. I loaded the ebook in the PDF editor and unlocked the encryption settings. By enabling printing, everything worked again in the eBook reader and now I can use the ebook I bought with all the features only available for electronic versions of a book.
Not thanks to adobe however, who offered only rotten tools to use the book I bought. What's wrong with having a lot of options to secure a book but still allowing users to fully enjoy the benefits of an electronic version of a book?
Ironic (Score:3, Insightful)
Being a normal human being I believe that I own something when I buy it. Everything else I consider as rent. Strange laws might call it DMCA or licence but I consider it rent. Since a real book doesn't cost all that much more than most of these books, I reckon most people would go for the real paper version.
Not only that but I fear that Orwell's 1984 and Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 are becoming more and more real all the time. When will the thought police come to my house to burn my books? Is there a difference between that and the taleban?
Re:Adobe wanted to drop this case (Score:2)