DRM on 9/11 Commission Report

Even if the copyright office granted you permission to circumvent DRM on PDFs of government, documents, it would still be illegal for anyone to “traffic” in the software you’d need to do so. Exemptions granted under the Copyright Office’s triennial rulemaking only apply to part (a)(1)(A) of section 1201, the part that prohibits “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” It does not apply to sections (a)(2) or (b), which state that “No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in” circumvention software. So unless you happen to be a DRM hacker, you’d still have to get someone to break the law if you wanted someone to provide you with the software you’d need to take advantage of the exemption.

This is the situation presently faced by blind computer users, who technically have a right to circumvent DRM in order to use screen-reading software, but it’s not legal for anyone to provide them with the software they need to take advantage of that exception.

It’s really rather silly.

Even if the copyright office granted you permission to circumvent DRM on PDFs of government, documents, it would still be illegal for anyone to “traffic” in the software you’d need to do so. Exemptions granted under the Copyright Office’s triennial rulemaking only apply to part (a)(1)(A) of section 1201, the part that prohibits “No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” It does not apply to sections (a)(2) or (b), which state that “No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in” circumvention software. So unless you happen to be a DRM hacker, you’d still have to get someone to break the law if you wanted someone to provide you with the software you’d need to take advantage of the exemption.

This is the situation presently faced by blind computer users, who technically have a right to circumvent DRM in order to use screen-reading software, but it’s not legal for anyone to provide them with the software they need to take advantage of that exception.

It’s really rather silly.

Of course, no Linux pdf readers (except the official Acrobat reader) actually implements this protection. This is an odd DMCA edge case- the DMCA only prohibits circumventing access controls, which are technically distinct in this case from the copy controls. For example, all the linux pdf readers implement access to this document- perfectly legal- and then are too lazy/incompetent/(ethical?) to prevent the copying. I’m sure, of course, that no court would interpret ‘access’ strictly here, so all the Linux pdf viewers would be found to be in violation of the DMCA here, but it is definitely not as clear-cut as, say, all Linux DVD players.

Odd.

[Sadly, google appears to have closed the loophole where they allowed one to 'view as HTML' copy-protected pdfs. Oops.]

Of course, no Linux pdf readers (except the official Acrobat reader) actually implements this protection. This is an odd DMCA edge case- the DMCA only prohibits circumventing access controls, which are technically distinct in this case from the copy controls. For example, all the linux pdf readers implement access to this document- perfectly legal- and then are too lazy/incompetent/(ethical?) to prevent the copying. I’m sure, of course, that no court would interpret ‘access’ strictly here, so all the Linux pdf viewers would be found to be in violation of the DMCA here, but it is definitely not as clear-cut as, say, all Linux DVD players.

Odd.

[Sadly, google appears to have closed the loophole where they allowed one to 'view as HTML' copy-protected pdfs. Oops.]

What a pain. It shouldn’t be locked down like that.

17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) prohibits circumventing technological measures that protect access to a work protected by copyright. It doesn’t prohibit circumventing an access control that protects access to a work that is not protected by copyright. There are other parts of the DMCA that deal with other technological measures that protect “the rights of a copyright owner” (as opposed to protecting against unauthorized access to a work), which would include things like copying and distributing. While the DMCA prohibits trafficking in tools for circumventing this second type of technological protection measure, there is not an analogue to 1201(a)(1)(A) prohibiting the actual circumvention of this second type of protection.

Also, I notice you’re trying to do this on a Mac. Try opening the PDF using the ColorSync utility that comes with Mac OS X. Then export (File->Export) it as a PDF.

What a pain. It shouldn’t be locked down like that.

17 USC 1201(a)(1)(A) prohibits circumventing technological measures that protect access to a work protected by copyright. It doesn’t prohibit circumventing an access control that protects access to a work that is not protected by copyright. There are other parts of the DMCA that deal with other technological measures that protect “the rights of a copyright owner” (as opposed to protecting against unauthorized access to a work), which would include things like copying and distributing. While the DMCA prohibits trafficking in tools for circumventing this second type of technological protection measure, there is not an analogue to 1201(a)(1)(A) prohibiting the actual circumvention of this second type of protection.

Also, I notice you’re trying to do this on a Mac. Try opening the PDF using the ColorSync utility that comes with Mac OS X. Then export (File->Export) it as a PDF.

foxit reader (1.3) does the same thing..

but i bypassed it partially by opening a non-DRM’d pdf, enabled ‘select text’ feature and then opened the DRM-infected pdf and it let copy some text, but once i changed back to the hand , and tried to go back to the select thing it wouldn’t let me it gave me this message: http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/3043/foxkk6.png

foxit reader (1.3) does the same thing..

but i bypassed it partially by opening a non-DRM’d pdf, enabled ‘select text’ feature and then opened the DRM-infected pdf and it let copy some text, but once i changed back to the hand , and tried to go back to the select thing it wouldn’t let me it gave me this message: http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/3043/foxkk6.png

@Luis Villa, Actually xpdf for linux is similarly crippled, with absolutely no plans to reverse this situation. http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/cracking.html

@Luis Villa, Actually xpdf for linux is similarly crippled, with absolutely no plans to reverse this situation.
http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/cracking.html

Evince in Ubuntu 6.10 does not prevent copying. Interestingly enough, the properties page in Evince states that the document has no security features.

Evince in Ubuntu 6.10 does not prevent copying. Interestingly enough, the properties page in Evince states that the document has no security features.

Apple and Adobe are to blame for implementing this DRM in the first place. Like so many applications of DRM, the morons who created this document probably had no idea… If you know anyone who works for Apple or Adobe, ask them how they sleep at night. It is obvious who is to blame here: the people entrusted with providing us tools for communication have failed miserably. Boycott the bastards!

Apple and Adobe are to blame for implementing this DRM in the first place. Like so many applications of DRM, the morons who created this document probably had no idea… If you know anyone who works for Apple or Adobe, ask them how they sleep at night. It is obvious who is to blame here: the people entrusted with providing us tools for communication have failed miserably. Boycott the bastards!

FWIW: The original PDF, identical in content, did not contain this restriction. I just verified this with my original copy downloaded the day the report was released.

FWIW: The original PDF, identical in content, did not contain this restriction. I just verified this with my original copy downloaded the day the report was released.

It is only illegal under the DMCA to break DRM if it is a COPYRIGHT PROTECTION MECHANISM. With no copyright there is no “copyright protection”.

Hack away.

It is only illegal under the DMCA to break DRM if it is a COPYRIGHT PROTECTION MECHANISM. With no copyright there is no “copyright protection”.

Hack away.

Apple had nothing to do with DRM in PDF. That’s purely an Adobe technology. And furthermore “finite” any grasp of elementary logic would tell anyone neither company had anything to do with producing any version of the 9/11 Commision Report in PDF with DRM.

I can hardly wait to see what ridiculous, “bastardized” claims are going to be drawn from out of context, clip and paste use of the Report if that’s the kind of thinking that’s going to be employed.

Apple had nothing to do with DRM in PDF. That’s purely an Adobe technology. And furthermore “finite” any grasp of elementary logic would tell anyone neither company had anything to do with producing any version of the 9/11 Commision Report in PDF with DRM.

I can hardly wait to see what ridiculous, “bastardized” claims are going to be drawn from out of context, clip and paste use of the Report if that’s the kind of thinking that’s going to be employed.

Apple had nothing to do with DRM in PDF. That’s purely an Adobe technology. And furthermore “finite” any grasp of elementary logic would tell anyone neither company had anything to do with producing any version of the 9/11 Commision Report in PDF with DRM.

I can hardly wait to see what ridiculous, “bastardized” claims are going to be drawn from out of context, clip and paste use of the Report if that’s the kind of thinking that’s going to be employed.

Apple had nothing to do with DRM in PDF. That’s purely an Adobe technology. And furthermore “finite” any grasp of elementary logic would tell anyone neither company had anything to do with producing any version of the 9/11 Commision Report in PDF with DRM.

I can hardly wait to see what ridiculous, “bastardized” claims are going to be drawn from out of context, clip and paste use of the Report if that’s the kind of thinking that’s going to be employed.

I have a long blog post on this particular issue:

Making Fair Use of cut-and-paste restricted PDF files

I have a long blog post on this particular issue:

Making Fair Use of cut-and-paste restricted PDF files

Fortunately with the power of opensource xpdf has patches to remove the DRM.

Fortunately with the power of opensource xpdf has patches to remove the DRM.

KPDF enforces the DRM rules by default–unless you go to the dialog box and uncheck the option to enforce them.

KPDF enforces the DRM rules by default–unless you go to the dialog box and uncheck the option to enforce them.

You could use the official PDF of the 9/11 Commission Report available for download from the Government Printing Office. No DRM there–copy away.

By the way, GPOaccess has all sorts of great PDFs of government material. Floor debates in Congress, for instance, tend to be up and running the day after they occur.

You could use the official PDF of the 9/11 Commission Report available for download from the Government Printing Office. No DRM there–copy away.

By the way, GPOaccess has all sorts of great PDFs of government material. Floor debates in Congress, for instance, tend to be up and running the day after they occur.

This is user error on the part of the document publisher. There are multiple security settings that can be applied to the PDF. Obviously the Government wouldn’t want someone making changes to the PDF, so that restriction should have been turned on. The ability to copy text out of the doc is harmless and should not have been turned on. How is this the fault of PDF? RTFM

This is user error on the part of the document publisher. There are multiple security settings that can be applied to the PDF. Obviously the Government wouldn’t want someone making changes to the PDF, so that restriction should have been turned on. The ability to copy text out of the doc is harmless and should not have been turned on. How is this the fault of PDF? RTFM

Has anyone simply asked the publisher for the password? I don’t know what would happen, but it might be very amusing…

Has anyone simply asked the publisher for the password? I don’t know what would happen, but it might be very amusing…

Hi,

I run Knoppix. Clicking the link just opened it without warning in xpdf………………..

Change platform/tools

Hi,

I run Knoppix. Clicking the link just opened it without warning in xpdf………………..

Change platform/tools

Personally, I like to print the pages I’m interested in and than scan them and OCR the scanned images. It kills trees but gets the job done.

Personally, I like to print the pages I’m interested in and than scan them and OCR the scanned images. It kills trees but gets the job done.

Under windows, you can use Pdf password remover v2.2. It works fine, I tried on this document, and now I can copy past any part of it, without restriction.

Under windows, you can use Pdf password remover v2.2. It works fine, I tried on this document, and now I can copy past any part of it, without restriction.

Under windows, you can use Pdf password remover v2.2. It works fine, I tried on this document, and now I can copy past any part of it, without restriction.

Under windows, you can use Pdf password remover v2.2. It works fine, I tried on this document, and now I can copy past any part of it, without restriction.

Under windows, you can use Pdf password remover v2.2. It works fine, I tried on this document, and now I can copy past any part of it, without restriction.

Under windows, you can use Pdf password remover v2.2. It works fine, I tried on this document, and now I can copy past any part of it, without restriction.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we’re looking at this the wrong way.

Because the non-copyrighted documents (published by the US government) are “protected” by these DRM restrictions, it should be lawful to create a piece of software that bypasses the DRM restrictions FOR THESE DOCUMENTS ONLY. And, once the software to crack these uncopyrighted documents is released to the public, the creator of that software can’t really be held liable for the unlawful actions of people should they decide to use it against copyrighted works.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we’re looking at this the wrong way.

Because the non-copyrighted documents (published by the US government) are “protected” by these DRM restrictions, it should be lawful to create a piece of software that bypasses the DRM restrictions FOR THESE DOCUMENTS ONLY. And, once the software to crack these uncopyrighted documents is released to the public, the creator of that software can’t really be held liable for the unlawful actions of people should they decide to use it against copyrighted works.

041976041976

041976041976

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! gsonclzdarmyuw

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! gsonclzdarmyuw