Update: Malhavoc PDFs no longer available at RPGnow (merged)

[Wasgo]

It's more than hypothetical, I guarantee you, so long as it's done properly. Having done it myself, I can tell you the only ill effect is bloating the file size. Which a full version of Acrobat 6 can recompress, btw. It worked on all 3 freebies. And all it requires is 2 freeware utilities and the editing of 3 characters of a plain-text file in Notepad.

Because of this crack, ironically enough, I can purchase PDFs from DTRPG in pretty clear conscience. It also (IANAL) should fall under fair use, even with the DMCA, so long as it's done only for my personal non-commercial use. Namely, allowing me to read the darn things on Acrobat 5.0 at work. I'm not releasing them to anyone else; this would violate fair use and potentially deny companies I respect the income they deserve.

-O

Just to be clear, violating the DMCA for any reason does not fall under fair use. Mentioning how you circumvented it (regardless of how simple) is not legal under the DMCA. The DMCA is one of the most restrictive, corporate laws to ever entwine its way into the copyright act. Learn it and loathe it.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Not true. In Trademark cases it is important to vigorously defend your trademark. I would bet that Snoopy and Woodstock are trademarked.

They are trademarked, but a point to be made, comic strip characters apparently enjoy the ability to actually be copyrightable--or at least the physical representation (drawing) of them. Charlie Brown for instance is Copyright 1950, while Woodstock is Copyright 1971--they don't name them, but if you read old Peanuts copyright statements on books UFS made sure to indicate the copyright date of each character or set of them.

http://www.publaw.com/graphical.html

So if you draw a bird that looks suspiciously like Woodstock, even if you don't use the name, you are violating copyright, not trademark. (Or you are violating both in certain cases).

 

[Obryn]

Just to be clear, violating the DMCA for any reason does not fall under fair use. Mentioning how you circumvented it (regardless of how simple) is not legal under the DMCA. The DMCA is one of the most restrictive, corporate laws to ever entwine its way into the copyright act. Learn it and loathe it.

I'd say your analysis is flawed, which is why programs such as DVDShrink, CladDVD, and Alcohol120% legally exist in the U.S.; and why websites such as gamecopyworld are able to operate legally.

All of them have numerous disclaimers regarding only using the utilities on items you personally own, and that it cannot be for commercial gain.

An amateur rpg.net analysis of the legalities quotes some of the relevant sections verbatim.

Don't get me wrong - I nevertheless think the DMCA is a horrible piece of legislation.

-O

 

[Dinkeldog]

And yet many people feel they have been hurt nonetheless.

I would suggest to many people that they reassess their initial feelings toward the whole thing and consider whether there is room to give in the argument. My feeling (and I can play the computer professional as well as anyone, should I choose), is that this is much ado over very little to make ado over. I'm not seeing any arguments that alter that opinion.

 

[Dr. Harry]

Thanks to Cergorach I now know for a fact that, yes, it is possible to remove the DRM. It takes a right click, [stuff removed due to DCMA concerns, well, not removed as I wasn't stupid enough to put it here in the first place, but you get the idea], and then you have a .pdf file with no DRM at all.

I have seen this, I know that it can be done, but that is not the same as saying that it will have no impact. Yes, there are a number of people saying that this is *making* them steal pdf's, but I, for one, have some doubt whether or not this is anything but a rationalization for what they were going to do anyway.

 

[Trainz]

I would suggest to many people that they reassess their initial feelings toward the whole thing and consider whether there is room to give in the argument. My feeling (and I can play the computer professional as well as anyone, should I choose), is that this is much ado over very little to make ado over. I'm not seeing any arguments that alter that opinion.

Well, there have been some POSSIBLE valid arguments. More than one person in this very thread have been testing the thing, and have POSSIBLY proved it's inefficiency under varying circumstances (for one, Dark Psion's analysis in this very page above). I don't agree with your stance that there's no opinion altering argument.

Mind you, I'm not a big consumer of PDF's (I've only bought one so far), so this will not really affect me personally, but some complaints (not ALL, as some are irrelevant) do feel very valid.

Is it much ado about nothing ? Only time will tell...

 

[Power_Word_Wedgie]

Time will tell. Or maybe it won't.

Personally, though I argued some points for the change, really I believe this as well. Only time will tell. (Remember boys and girls that if there is anything worth learning, it was probably in the lyrics to an Asia song ... )

We'll see how everything has shaken out three months from now. Until then, I really would be just speculating.

 

[Wasgo]

I'd say your analysis is flawed, which is why programs such as DVDShrink, CladDVD, and Alcohol120% legally exist in the U.S.; and why websites such as gamecopyworld are able to operate legally.

They don't legally operate...at least not exactly.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/MGM_v_321Studios/20040220_eff_pr.php

I believe this is the most recent decision on the matter, though there might be newer in the past few months. Basically, writing to a dvd is legal, copying one isn't. This is incredibly unfortunete considering the dvd decryption itself it no longer protected.

http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/DVDCCA_case/20040122_eff_pr.php

Oh, and gamecopyworld isn't legal. It's merely owned outside the U.S. The owner info is:

Administrative Contact:
Praag, George webmaster@bucinacorp.com
van Engelenweg 21a
Willemstad - Curacao,
AN

Just a simple rule of thumb, all legal disclaimers by sites that seem to offer questionable services are utter trash.

 

[Psion]

I have seen this, I know that it can be done, but that is not the same as saying that it will have no impact. Yes, there are a number of people saying that this is *making* them steal pdf's, but I, for one, have some doubt whether or not this is anything but a rationalization for what they were going to do anyway.

I don't think it is a matter of *rationalization* so much as *motivation*. There are people who are perfectly happy buying PDFs that they are confident will be around for years to come and will work on their systems. You take away that option, they will seek other options.

I suspect that those who blatantly steal PDFs aren't much affected. I also believe that some who have ethical concerns but beleive that DRM is ethically questionable and impractical but still beleive that the author deserves compensation may crack their own fairly purchased PDFs.

 

[maddman75]

Personally, if there's anything that I decide I "must have", I plan on getting a pirate copy and paypalling the asking price to the publisher, along with a snarky little note saying what I've done.