Craig Reynolds vs. The AAP: Arguing About The Arrest of Dmitry SklyarovThe following is an exchange between Craig Reynolds, a friend and college classmate of mine, and the Association of American Publishers, on the subject of the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov for writing software that could break e-book encryption. I will dispense with the usual indentation and differing typeface convention. From this point on, it is Craig talking in normal type, the AAP in indented sans serif: Note that the first email was sent while Adobe was still supporting the prosecution, the last was sent after they reversed their position. After the email exchange, I realized the irony in the original AAP quote, about the disservice it would be to "distribute the keys that unlock a...public library..." Yeah, heaven forbid that people would be able to get into a public library! Why its practically a Napster clone: without paying a license fee, people can freely read as many books as they want. Surely libraries will be the end of the publishing industry! I'm not sure if I was being profound or just belligerent. It started with a quote from AAP supporting the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov: Throw the E-Book at Sklyarov? This more recent articles reveals Rep. Rick Boucher to be a kindred soul, although mindful of the political reality: Rep: Give Fair Use a Fair Shake -----Original Message----- Please pass this note along to the office of Pat Schroeder. Re: the July 19, 2001 AAP press release Its unfortunate that AAP supports the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov under the provisions of the DMCA. The DMCA is a bad law which subverts free speech and undermines traditional "fair use" rights. There is a good chance that it will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional. It is too bad that you choose to be on the wrong side of this issue. You should direct your indignation at Adobe for hoisting such an incompetent encryption scheme on you, while fooling you into thinking it was secure. The crime here is fraud by Adobe, not code written by Sklyarov. Pat Schroeder, President of AAP is quoted as saying "Distribution of the means to strip ebooks of their access and copyright protections is not a public service, any more than it would be a public service to distribute the keys that unlock a bookstore or public library..." Surely it is a disservice, if not outright malfeasance, to manufacture faulty locks for such establishments, which is Adobe's role in Schroeder's analogy. Sklyarov has merely pointed out that the lock on the bookstore can be opened by anyone with a paper clip. His action help make eBooks more secure, he deserves your support not your scorn. It is certainly not a public service to use technical tricks, such as encryption, to prevent the public from exercising their traditional fair use rights in regard to materials they have legally purchased. If someone uses technical means to violate one of your member's copyrights then by all means, prosecute them under existing law. The DMCA is the wrong solution to this problem. -------- Original Message -------- AAP stands by its press release of July 22 supporting the anticircumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and commending the Department of Justice for acting on its responsibility to enforce the DMCA in the matter of Dmitry Sklyarov. In response to those who attempt to justify circumventing, or trafficking in devices that circumvent, encryption and other technological measures that protect copyright in the digital environment, AAP urges them to carefully consider how their arguments would apply to precisely the same activities in connection with encryption and other technological measures used to protect privacy in that same environment. Amy Gwiazdowski AAP -------- Original Message -------- Its not a surprise that my letter failed to change the public policy of AAP. I stand by my position that you are on the wrong side of this issue. Time will tell. Interestingly, now that Adobe has reversed its position on the prosecution of Dmitry Sklyarov, AAP is one of the few lonely voices supporting it. However I must respond to your invitation to reconsider my views on circumvention in regard to encryption used to protect say my financial or medical information. Indeed I strongly support attempts to compromise such systems, and to publicly report on the weaknesses discovered. (This is exactly what Sklyarov did when he described his results at DefCon.) It is only by vigorous attempts to attack encryption systems that their strength (effectiveness) can be tested. This adversarial process is the best way to evolve strong encryption. Bank vaults are effective because they have evolved over many years to prevent the various techniques used to crack them, not because of a law that sought to stifle free speech about vault technology. You should ask yourself if you would feel safe if your private information was "protected" by technology as lame as Adobe's eBook Reader.
A ResponseI am advised: The salutary effects of checking every door on the block (just as the police formerly did and in some places may still do) are admirable. That is, so long as, in practice, the only step taken upon discovery an open door (or its digital equivalent) is to notify the owner of the contents of the need for better protection. |
