Aaron Swartz Ebook's DRM Has Been Cracked (hackaday.com) 63
Slashdot reader jenningsthecat writes: From Hackaday comes news that the collected writings of Aaron Swartz, released as a watermarked eBook by publishing company Verso Books, has had its watermarking scheme cracked by The Institute for Biblio-Immunology, who also published a guide for removing the BooXtream watermarks.
The writings of Aaron Swartz, with DRM applied? Oh, the irony. Still, at least the DRM employed doesn't restrict a user from reading the book on any and all capable devices, so it's not a very intrusive form of DRM. But I somehow doubt that Mr. Swartz would take any comfort from that...
The writings of Aaron Swartz, with DRM applied? Oh, the irony. Still, at least the DRM employed doesn't restrict a user from reading the book on any and all capable devices, so it's not a very intrusive form of DRM. But I somehow doubt that Mr. Swartz would take any comfort from that...
Why are we still talking about this guy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the files should have been pubicly available, but it doesn't mean he gets to break into server rooms to get that content.
Re:Why are we still talking about this guy? (Score:5, Insightful)
We are talking about him because his case in an example of prosecutorial misconduct [oxfordscholarship.com] and the forced application of intense sentences due to legislation that takes the discretion on sentence length away from the judge
It is about filling our prisons with people who are simply warehoused with no plan on how they are going to be brought back into society, and nobody really noticed until rich white people started getting railroaded by it.
It is a really big deal, and the more the people can be made aware of it and fix the problem, the better it will be for all of us
Re:Why are we still talking about this guy? (Score:5, Interesting)
And that is why ArmoredDragon is quite correct to rarely comment on the random douchebags deified by mindless slaves in internet forums.
All of us form opinions on many people we never meet in real life. Get over it.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I think you must be new around here.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for noticing. :^)
Actually, I've been on /. since 2001, but forgot the passwords of previous accounts. My first user ID was just below 500,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Man, you are new around here! :)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How is "form[ing] opinions on many people we never meet in real life" considered misconduct?
You make it sound like I'm advocating physical assault.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you entire point is, because you write in a very peculiar fashion. However, I reject outright that forming opinions of people from verifiable third-person accounts is not misconduct. It is indeed how society functions.
Re: (Score:2)
We'd be in a place with fewer petty-tyrannical laws, perhaps?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Rule of Lawyers is overrated. Petty-tyranny is no less tyrannical when it comes plastered over with a thick layer of paperwork and judicial theatre.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, this is the case:
"Federal prosecutor Stephen Heymann engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by withholding key evidence from the defense team of Aaron Swartz, the late Internet activist’s legal team alleged in a letter to an internal Justice Department ethics unit [huffingtonpost.com]."
It is important for people to read about him and his views so that they find common ground and realize that it could just as easily be THEM falling under the thumb of a prosecutor who have been granted sweeping abilities and sentenced to
Re: Why are we still talking about this guy? (Score:1)
We still talk about him because he was a brilliant technologist. There was no real crime commuted (no loss or injury)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if the genetic modifications to make a unicorn could be done with current technology. Perhaps mixing narwhal and horse?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm posting AC because I just don't want to deal with emails from the Aaron Schwartz fan club.
Yes, the prosecutor was overzealous. No, it did not cause his death, which was an unfortunate consequence of his apparent mental illness. Yet he has become some kind of martyr. Every day, people of color are treated far worse by the legal system than Schwartz could even conceive of, and only in exceptional cases does the media even give a damn. With his dad's money for legal appeals and his white privilege, i
Re:Why are we still talking about this guy? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, it did not cause his death, but to claim it was not a factor is not dealing with reality. Other people have it far worse should pretty much be only an argument for other people have survived under worse, you can survive too sorts of things. Other people having it worse is not a justification for lesser bad behavior. Your sentence about it has no place in this discussion and just muddys the waters.
Which means that the poor treatment of Aaron Swartz does not justify his poor behavior leading up to his treatment. Yes, that's what he should have done. However, the way they treated him was improper and partially at fault for his death. His response to their treatment of him by killing himself is improper. The way his parents raised him to be so bothered by the way he was treated is partially at fault, too. We should be looking for more precursors to the situation, not less.
I don't buy for a minute that the fault for the change of policy at MIT can be all laid at the feet of Aaron Swartz. JSTOR had probably been pushing for tighter restrictions on the documents they offered before the Aaron Swartz incident. Was it additional leverage? Yes. But there have been any number of other things involved in the decision. Again we should be looking for more precursors.
But this time instead of saying that something isn't at fault, you are committing the mistake of saying something is the only thing to blame, and not even the people with agency involved. Why are you so quick to blame only Aaron when it comes to his death, but so quick to absolve MIT of everything when it made a decision?
That's what situations like the one surrounding Aaron Swartz is for me. Not about making him a hero, or vilifying him but speaking out against people like you who basically want the same things as Aaron Swartz, but don't realize that's what they are doing, people like you who want to make things all or nothing, and people like you who want to blame the person with agency when it is convenient for their worldview and absolve people when it is convenient to do that too. I don't view hypocrisy to necessarily be a problem, but I do find these behaviors that just happen to be hypocritical to be a problem. If you are going to be hypocritical, at least do it right.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, t
Re: (Score:2)
The files were publicly available. Which did not stop them form also being available on many other locked down systems like where Aaron found them.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Why are we still talking about this guy? (Score:1)
We will still be talking about Rosa Parks long, long after Swartz is a buried footnote. Bringing her into it is just offensive. Don't do that around actual civil rights activists because they try to be non-violent and you'll provoke them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
we're still talking about this guy because he fought to release the collective human knowledge which was locked away by by academic bureaucracy and held for ransom to keep a system alive which rewarded those with money and stifled human innovation through exclusivity of said knowledge. His story will go down in the history books, not as a thief who broke into restricted areas and released restricted content, but as the crusader for freedom of human knowledge that he was.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like Robin Hood, right?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The motives he had that you cite are good, it is true. His motives weren't pure though. What he was willing to justify in achieving his motives and the way he was willing to go about it aren't the best. There was no good reason for him going it alone. There are plenty of people who believe as he did. In fact, not long after he did what he did, someone discovered their own repository of JSTOR documents.
From the 1st_READ.TXT:
Re:Why are we still talking about this guy? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're still talking about Swartz not because he was in any way heroic, but because the prosecution was so purely evil. The wronged party, JSTOR, quickly lost interest in pressing charges, but the federosairus persisted in being douches anyway, because that's how they are trained to behave.
States' rights are the American equivalent of Brexit.
Re: Why are we still talking about this guy? (Score:1)
He faced 85years for a "parking ticket" offense of downloading too many library books.
If you don't get the problem I truly weep for this country
Is it irony... (Score:3, Interesting)
if the guy who cracked the e-book gets railroaded to a 50 year sentence and $1 million in fines then kills himself, only to have his writings published in a encrypted e-book, which in turn is ...
Re: (Score:1)
No, that's recursion.
I suppose (Score:3)
If you've been wanting to read Aaron Swartz's writing but were philosophically opposed to the company's DRM, this is good news for you I guess.
I always like hearing that another one of these silly DRM schemes has been cracked... but, practically speaking, it's unlikely that "Verso Books" has any content I care about.
Arguing semantics (Score:1)
Watermarking is not DRM, and if you invent a term "Social DRM" to describe it and its consequences purely for the sake of controversy then it's still not DRM, because DRM and "Social DRM" are still two completely different things.
That said, DRM can be used as a mechanism for watermarking, and watermarking is itself anti-consumer (because the mere existence of a watermark corresponding to you is a liability, even if you never infringe on copyright)
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. A watermark can be used to validate the integrity of a copy of a document. In this use the watermark is, for example, a document checksum embedded in the document, and validates that either the document has been altered, or that it hasn't.
This use is like the encoded signing of an email, except that the presence of the signature is concealed from casual reading, but available for checking either by specialized applications or by a hex reader. It generally requires a graphics image be pre
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
This watermarking is different in that it is unique to every copy of the ebook. Maybe the text was locked inside a binary?
Re: Watermarking is not DRM (Score:3)
It's not different. That's the definition of watermarking. If the watermark text was not unique, is would just be called "text".
Re: (Score:2)
I applaud the usage of watermarks to enable catching copyright infringers without harmingmlegitimate uses of the material.
Watermarking favors piracy. If you get a copy of a watermarked file from a pirate site you have very little to worry about, since it's not your ID in the watermark. Someone would have to inspect the file on your PC to determine that it wasn't authorized. On the other hand, if you buy a copy of the file from the publisher using your own ID and your computer later gets infected, or a guest makes a copy, or installs a file-sharing program, or the file otherwise ends up on the Internet without your knowledge, y
Easy to break (Score:2)
It's easy to break this kind of watermarking. You get K copies of the book, compare them, and take the most common version for each element. Choose K based on your budget and the degree of confidence you want that you've scrubbed everything.
For bonus points, you can analyze the types of differences and create novel watermark elements to confuse the watermark reader even more.
You have to analyze several types of media -- like CSS, HTML, and images -- but it's still pretty straightforward.
So this isn't that i
If only they _had_ used DRM (but they didn't) (Score:2)
Watermarking isn't anything like DRM. It doesn't limit access to the work; assuming it's an otherwise standard format, you can still play/read it with anything that you want.
The fun thing would have been if they had use DRM. I suppose Swartz's estate (who?) is the copyright holder. DMCA defines circumvention as being a function of whether or not the copyright holder (not some other party) authorizes you to access the content. Presumably, Swartz' estate would authorize buyers to read the book. Therefore, you