FW: Fwd: Re: Removing password from processing table???

[Fairlight]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 08:11:32PM -0400, Studio 1 Productions thus spoke:
> Bud, I have taken down the page and information off of my website.  I
> will keep it to myself as I have for the last 2 years since I needed to
> remove the passwords off my own code.
>
> The only reason I posted the information was to help someone else who
> need the password removed.
>
> As far as violating any copyrights of fpTech I never looked at any code
> from any fp product.  I only looked at the code that I created.  It is
> like when you buy a C++ compiler, the code you create with the compiler
> is your code and not under the copyright of the company who made the
> compiler.  At least this is how it was explained to me.

That's not really the point.  I don't think you understand just how
draconian the DMCA is, and how easy it is to violate it.

fP Tech technically had a DMCA case against you for breaking their
"encryption".  This is the same sort of thing as when some guy proved
Adobe's PDF encryption was breakable, and made the details available
publicly.  They went after him under the DMCA.  He wasn't looking at
Adobe's source, he wasn't violating Adobe's own copyright; what he was
doing was facilitating the violation of the copyright of people and
organisations who were protecting it by encrypting/protecting their PDFs.
That "devalued" Adobe's product by rendering the encryption/protection
useless, which is why Adobe could go after them, if I understand it
correctly.

I believe they eventually settled out of court.  This was years ago, maybe
a year after the DMCA was enacted.

Same sort of thing, though.  You were providing a means to circumvent copy
protection which protects copyrighted code, pure and simple.  It doesn't
matter -whose- code.  The way I understand it, facilitating violating
-anyone's- copyright by any means, including supplying instructions or
software to do so, is illegal under the DMCA, full stop.

What I'm trying to get across to you is -how- you erred, so you don't screw
yourself again in the future.  You still seem to think you were in the
clear; you were not.  Read the DMCA, or a decent summary thereof.  Given
how I've seen it applied before, overreachingly or not, Bud actually let
you off lightly, because contrary to what Bud indicated, it -does- actually
devalue filePro itself if the encryption (a selling point for developers)
is proven circumventable.  That approach is something I've seen cited
before.

I believe this is the case I'm remembering:  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._ElcomSoft_and_Sklyarov

Disclaimer:  IANAL.  I've just seen enough precedent and discussion about
the DMCA to feel I'm pretty much on-target.

mark->
-- 
Audio panton, cogito singularis.