The two-edged nature of the DMCA [LWN.net]

Remember Adobe Systems? They are the folks who used the DMCA to bring about the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov and the whole Elcomsoft case. Adobe has now found out that the DMCA, like software patents, can cut both ways.

TrueType fonts include a couple of bits stating whether the font may be embedded in documents or not. Tweaking these bits has been taken, by font companies, as "circumvention" in the past, and the DMCA invoked in attempts to shut down distribution of useful tools. See, for example, the history of the dispute regarding the simple "embed" program. In the case of embed, the program's author has resisted, and the program is still available on the net.

It turns out now, however, that Adobe's Acrobat software is capable of ignoring the "do not embed" bits at times. Adobe claims that things work this way because the company has secured a contractual right to distribute the fonts in question within PDF documents. Font producers ITC and Agfa Monotype disagree, and have invoked the DMCA. Acrobat, it seems, is a circumvention device.

Adobe has taken the offensive and gone to court to secure its rights to the fonts and to be freed of the DMCA charges. The company could have an interesting battle on its hands, however. Adobe may well be within its rights when it claims that embedding of the fonts is legal. But the DMCA makes no exceptions for "circumvention" which enables the exercise of existing rights. Adobe has no sympathy for those wanting to use Elcomsoft's eBook processor to exercise their fair use rights against electronic books. There is no reason to believe that Acrobat should be treated differently.

There is a certain sense of poetic justice in watching Adobe take this fall. But the use of laws like the DMCA to prevent legitimate activities is wrong, no matter who the victim is. Every one of these actions makes us all a little less free. It appears that Adobe's rights (and those of its customers) are being violated here; we should be just as willing to challenge the excesses of the DMCA in this case as in others.

(Log in to post comments)

The two-edged nature of the DMCA

Posted Sep 5, 2002 14:37 UTC (Thu) by Odinson (guest, #1402) [Link]

That is exactly what we need. We need a logical fairminded judge to outright say, "This is rediculeous, this law contridicts itself and the first amendment." and if he sees the defense asserting things not in the law like the differance between closed and open software, he may examine the law closely enough to do that.

Of course this will be another dud if the prosicution is not witty enough to present the lack of legal backing in that assertation. But any negitivity about the DMCA uttered by a judge in his ruling will help future cases down the line.

Given enough court exposure the DMCA will die. And I think that acrobat authorship and the font format origin might just make the mindlessness of banning a useful tool instead of the act of misuse of a feature a little more clear.

The two-edged nature of the DMCA

Posted Sep 5, 2002 8:30 UTC (Thu) by beejaybee (subscriber, #1581) [Link]

As Nelson would say, "Ha har"!

Seriously, though, there are a couple of issues here:

(1) if a font says "do not embed" and someone embeds that font in a PDF document, then (a) Acrobat _is_ a circumvention device, also (b) whoever caused the font to be embedded is in breach of the license under which they obtained the font;

(2) there is no point in PDF as a "de facto standard" if it is not possible for everyone receiving a PDF file to be able to display it properly.

The obvious course of action here is for Adobe to modify Acrobat so that it honours the "do not embed" tag, and for everyone to call off the lawyers.

The losers here will be the font authors. If they persist in use of the "do not embed" tag, their proprietary products will fall into disuse. I don't see that causing us consumers, nor Adobe, any loss of sleep.

DMCA here is neutral. It's a _bad_ case for us to spend resources on, except in so far as it points out just how ridiculous it is as a piece of legislation.

The two-edged nature of the DMCA

Posted Sep 5, 2002 22:11 UTC (Thu) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

>if a font says "do not embed" and someone embeds that font in a PDF >document, then (a) Acrobat _is_ a circumvention device

What if a separate contract says, "no, go ahead and embed"? My understanding of the case (which is based entirely on this LWN article) is that is Adobe's argument. Seems reasonable to me that if Acrobat ignores the embed bits only on fonts where the font author has separately given the user permission to embed, there's no copyright being circumvented.

I believe in this case there is a dispute as to whether that permission exists, but that's a completely uninteresting question from a DMCA point of view.

The two-edged nature of the DMCA

Posted Sep 6, 2002 9:51 UTC (Fri) by beejaybee (subscriber, #1581) [Link]

> What if a separate contract says, "no, go ahead and embed"?

There are serious (non-DMCA-related) issues here. If you have that contract then you should have a _private_ (not released to the public) tool to enable you to do the job. Also, if you allow your font to be embedded in a file which users can download, surely you're giving your IP away ... Joe Public can extract the font info from the PDF file with an ordinary text editor, flip the "don't embed" bits & make free with it, without having to execute a copy of the alleged circumvention device "Acrobat", or anything else with any connection to its author.

This sort of proves that DMCA is irrelevant to this particular case, unless posession of a simple text editor (or development tools sufficient to create one) is to be regarded as posession of a circumvention tool - which makes us all criminals & proves just how ridiculous DMCA is.

Once again - the problem with copyright violation is in the mind of the person who sets out to make illegal copies of copyright material, not in any technology used to do the actual copying. This is the principle that should be enshrined in law; it would strike down the stupid clauses which form the objectionable parts of the DMCA, and end all the arguments relating to RIAA vs music sharing services, etc, etc.

The two-edged nature of the DMCA

Posted Sep 15, 2002 16:44 UTC (Sun) by Musicman (guest, #3688) [Link]

there is another piece of ridicule here: while a majority of freeware developers only support truetype, most fonts from ITC, Agfa and Monotype are available in postscript and truetype variants (with some discussion about which format is better).
It should be interesting to the judge in such a case that the postscript format simply does not support an embedding control - the use of the font file is entirely controlled by a standard license agreement.
So the mere act of checking the PS rather than TT box on the order form could be interpreted as circumventing ... will DMCA invalidate order forms then?

The two-edged nature of the DMCA

Posted Sep 5, 2002 12:03 UTC (Thu) by tres (guest, #352) [Link]

I disagree with your sentiment that we should help all victims of the DMCA. As you pointed out it is in fact a two edged sword. We should be sharpening the edge that cuts into the supporters of such legislation. Anytime that someone notices a program is in violation of the DMCA and is produced by a mega-corp that supported the DMCA it should be pointed out to the people that can pursue it - or at least their lawyers. Congress doesn't listen to us because we are a small and insignificant bunch of radicals - at least in their opinion. If we can get some mega-corps on the wrong end of this sword then they may actually insist that their 'bought and paid for' legislators do something to fix it. I agree that it is a bad law but while it is slicing into the people and corporations that have the ear of congress I say let it keep cutting. That way it will stay on their minds and they will keep it on the minds of the legislators. And if we are real lucky the mainstream media may actually cover the issue - especially if they could have some problems of their own with it. The DMCA is in the minds of IT professionals the most; some mainstream exposure would help to get normal people involved in the cause. Right now most people not in the IT profession don't even know there is a problem. If in the future the DMCA is revisited then we will have an opportunity to voice our opinions. If this time does arrive then LET US NOT BE SILENT!

The two edged sword concept is why Jack Valenti is against the copyright owner's hacking bill. It says that ANYONE who believes that a site is in possession of copyrighted content can hack the site to disable the sharing of content. That means that Joe Blow can hack the sites of the major studios if he believes that they contain some of his copyrighted works. Why Hillary Rosen hasn't figured this out is beyond me. She probably figures that since her constituants have very deep pockets and are on a first name basis with the Attorney General (and will be with all future Attorney Generals) that they can easily obtain permission to sue someone. In reality she most likely just 'doesn't get it'. Isn't the RIAA site still providing copyrighted content and generally sufferring from the cracking that was reported recently in The Register?

Regards,
Tres