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

[Richard Kreiss]

Top post:

It is one thing to remove a password from you own code but showing other how to do it, as Mark indicated below, negates the value of ones work product.

This is like teaching someone how to pick locks and then getting robbed by that person when they pick the lock to your house (read programs).


Richard Kreiss
GCC Consulting

Office: 410-653-2813



> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+rkreiss=verizon.net at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+rkreiss=verizon.net at lists.celestial.com] On
> Behalf Of Fairlight
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 11:49 PM
> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: FW: Fwd: Re: Removing password from processing table???
> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Subscription Changes
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list