RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Sandy Sandfort]

Faustine wrote:

> All free-market principles aside,
> if you're just in it for the
> paycheck, what's the point? I'd
> rather do something I love that's
> meaningful to me than just make a
> pile. Even better not to have to
> choose at all. (Not there yet, so
> #1 it is...)

Have faith.  I think that you can have both in a manner analogous to the
Robert Heinlein quote:

"It may be better to be a live jackal then a dead lion, but it is better
still to be a live lion.  And usually easier."


 S a n d y

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Faustine]

Tim wrote:

>Likewise, I know of even some Cypherpunks who have left their 
>employers for ideological reasons. And if some have _left_ jobs, the 
>effects are likely greater on the _recruiting_ side (where the costs 
>of a decision are much less).

Absolutely. More than that, I try to never take a job unless I'd be willing 
to do it for free. All free-market principles aside, if you're just in it 
for the paycheck, what's the point? I'd rather do something I love that's 
meaningful to me than just make a pile. Even better not to have to choose 
at all. (Not there yet, so #1 it is...)

This won't be too interesting to all the venerable greybeards out there, 
but you'd be surprised what kind of work you can end up with by taking an 
unpaid volunteer internship first. If there aren't any available, find 
someone to talk to, create a work plan and propose one yourself. If you can 
scrape by, trading your free labor for experience isn't always a bad 
bargain...it's worked for me more than once, and I sometimes I eventually 
ended up on the payroll. And I know I never would have got where I am 
without building up my resume that way. Also, even if you find yourself 
unemployed or stuck in a 9 to 5 rut, sitting in on college classes to gain 
skills (programming, networking, higher math etc.) gets you experience 
that'll move you toward doing more of what you want. Most professors aren't 
too uptight about letting you sit in for free, it's probably a refreshing 
change to teach somebody who's there because they want to be. That's my two 
cents, anyway...

Has anyone ever been in the position of turning down work because you 
didn't want to apply for clearance? I seem to remember some people here 
saying they already have it, was it a hard decision for you? I don't really 
have a problem with the idea of facing a background check (though I don't 
imagine anyone looks forward to it), it's the pre-publication review board 
requirement that bothers me. 

~Faustine.

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Dr. Evil]

> I know of people who refuse to buy Intel-based machines "on 
> principle." Some are Sun users, some are Mac users, some think they 
> are bypassing Intel by using AMD Athlons.

Yes, I'm one.  AMD all the way.  Anyway, it's cheaper and has better
performance.

> And the anti-Microsoft efforts are legendary. Alternative OSes, Star 
> Office, etc. If some people will go to these lengths to avoid MS 
> products, imagine the programmers they are missing out on. (I 
> understand that there are still tens of thousands who work for MS. 
> The interesting regime is at the margins, in the five sigmas zone.)

Yes, I'm one.  Linux or *BSD.  It's cheaper and better than Windows.
I admit that MS Office is the best office suite around, but I'm doing
ok with Star Office and Koffice.  Konqueror is a better browser than
IE, too.  Adobe products are much more replacable than MS products.
Acroread?  We have xpdf and some others.  PS interpreter?  We have gs.
Photoshop?  We have the gimp.  Illustrator?  We have Kontour.  These
products are all as good as or better than the competing Adobe
products, and they're all free.  They can all be modified in any way I
need.  xpdf and gs can be patched to ignore encryption (although I
guess that's a felony now).  Now, lets see, what did we need Adobe for
again?  I can't think of anything!

> (This, and fears that Adobe salesmen and engineers may be arrested 
> for violating _Russian_ laws, e.g., the  European laws (I have read 
> about) that make it a crime to sell a software product which cannot 
> be backed-up. And if not this law, they may find something else to 
> arrest and Adobe person for. Trading cards. Adobe escalated the war. 
> Now Adobe realizes what can of worms they have opened.)

I would imagine that Dmitri has the "typical" geeky programmer
personality (ok, making very broad stereotypes here), which tends more
towards playful than vicious... but what if he doesn't?  What if he is
vicious, vengeful and irrational?  Russia is quite a violent place.
Adobe's people in Russia could be in a lot of danger from this.  I
hope not, because violence is bad and the people to blame are probably
a few lawyers and executives and some FBI agents and a lot of
legislators, none of whom are in Russia, but people act irrationally
sometimes.

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Petro]

At 10:21 PM + 7/24/01, Dr. Evil wrote:

>Photoshop?  We have the gimp.  Illustrator?  We have Kontour.  These
>products are all as good as or better than the competing Adobe
>products, and they're all free.  

I won't argue about Kontour, since I haven't used it yet, but xpdf still 
doesn't render was well as Acrobat, and there is no *WAY* the Gimp, as good as it is, 
can compete in Photoshops markets. It may be nice for dinking around with web pages, 
but when it comes to pantone color and process color work, well, last time I checked, 
it didn't do 4-color at all, much less "High Color" (6 color process). 

Re: WHERE IS DILDO? (was: Vengeance Against Adobe)

[Jim Windle]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 17:15:35   Sandy Sandfort wrote:
>
>The Dildo AI wrote:
>
Perhaps instead of offering "Jim Choate" money to take the LSAT, the money should be 
offered for "Jim Choate" passing a Turing test to be judged by contributors to the 
fund.  Also other prizes could be given for things like figuring out what hardware 
"Jim Choate" is running on.  Just a thought since he doesn't seem likely to take the 
LSAT.

Jim Windle
>
>
> S a n d y
>
>  /|
> |/ \
>/ \  \
>   /   \  \
>  / \  \
> /___\/ |
>| | |
>|  o  | |
>|     | |
>|  |  | |
>| (.)~(x) | |
>|  | O |  | |
>|  (_=_)  | |
>|   |_|   | |
>| | |
>|WHERE IS | |
>| DILDO?  | |
>|_|/
>
>
>


Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at 
http://www.eudoramail.com

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[petro]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2001 at 11:03:59AM -0700, Ray Dillinger wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Adobe's fine on the consumption side -- it's customers, as you say, 
> are fat and happy.  But on the production side, Adobe can't take 
> very many really serious hits.  At best, it only ever had about 
> five truly brilliant coders at any one time, and in this industry 
> there is just no making up for losing one.  If it turns out to be 
> true, their productivity is damaged for years to come.

One could suggest that a company doesn't need a stellar product
to thrive in the software market place. For example there is Microsoft. 

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Ray Dillinger]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>
>While it is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I predict that the
>"backlash" will be gone in a mere matter of weeks, if not days.  Let's
>face it: the people most likely to be Adobe *customers* are anything but
>hungry.  A fat customer is an apathetic customer...

It would take a *lot* to alienate Adobe's customers on a substantial 
enough basis to affect Adobe.  Most of them probably haven't even 
heard about this debacle and if they did, wouldn't care. 

But Adobe has one other check on its behavior -- it lives in the 
valley and *HAS TO* attract really bright geeks to work there.  

Really bright geeks have probably heard about this and are angry 
about it.  This will hurt them in recruiting, and (unconfirmed 
rumor) maybe it has already cost them somebody they can't replace.

Truly brilliant coders are different from normal people. They have 
something like a THOUSAND times the productivity of the merely 
competent professional and command only about three times the salary 
(Well, at least until they start their own companies, which about 
half of them eventually do).  There is no other industry where three 
orders of magnitude separate the pros from the truly brilliant. 
Needless to say, brilliant coders can work wherever they damn well 
want, and I hear (unconfirmed) that one such individual has jumped 
ship from Adobe (or threatened to) over this.  I'm still trying to 
confirm it, and if so, find out exactly who.

Adobe's fine on the consumption side -- it's customers, as you say, 
are fat and happy.  But on the production side, Adobe can't take 
very many really serious hits.  At best, it only ever had about 
five truly brilliant coders at any one time, and in this industry 
there is just no making up for losing one.  If it turns out to be 
true, their productivity is damaged for years to come.

Bear

RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Aimee Farr]

Anybody know how much grease Adobe has in Russia? 

~Aimee

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Tim May]

At 1:58 AM -0700 7/24/01, Petro wrote:
>At 11:47 PM -0500 7/23/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
>>
>>>  Adobe will be suffering for a long time to come.
>>
>>While it is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I predict that the
>>"backlash" will be gone in a mere matter of weeks, if not days.  Let's
>>face it: the people most likely to be Adobe *customers* are anything but
>>hungry.  A fat customer is an apathetic customer...
>
>   Let us also be honest and admit that the very people Adobe products
>target are also the least likely to understand this whole thing, and often
>even less likely to care--or if they do, they might even agree with Adobe.

Let me be clear about something: I wasn't predicting a significant 
"boycott" against Adobe products. Most corporate purchasers pick 
their tools based on what they need, not based on ideology. If they 
need InDesign or Photoshop, that's what they'll buy.

My comments were about Adobe's _recruiting_ efforts. I expect 
lingering effects of this episode to affect their ability to recruit.

I stand by that prediction.


--Tim May


-- 
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Petro]

At 9:56 PM -0700 7/23/01, Eric Cordian wrote:
>Tim writes:
>
>> Adobe's use of police state measures to have a minor critic (by their 
>> own later admission) yanked out of a conference is not likely to be 
>> forgotten quickly. I expect this will have consequences when they 
>> eventually resume college recruiting. Adobe will likely face sneers 
>> and derisive laughter when it shows up on college campuses next 
>> spring to recruit.
>
>Adobe's pulling back on Dmitry doesn't change the fact that the company
>lied in saying what was being distributed was "copyrighted Adobe
>software."
>
>Despite the EFF's effusive praise of Adobe, I don't plan to use any Adobe
>software in the future.

Is there a workable freeware alternative to Distiller? 

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Tim May]

At 11:03 AM -0700 7/24/01, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>>While it is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I predict that the
>>"backlash" will be gone in a mere matter of weeks, if not days.  Let's
>>face it: the people most likely to be Adobe *customers* are anything but
>>hungry.  A fat customer is an apathetic customer...
>
>It would take a *lot* to alienate Adobe's customers on a substantial
>enough basis to affect Adobe.  Most of them probably haven't even
>heard about this debacle and if they did, wouldn't care.
>
>But Adobe has one other check on its behavior -- it lives in the
>valley and *HAS TO* attract really bright geeks to work there.
>
>Really bright geeks have probably heard about this and are angry
>about it.  This will hurt them in recruiting, and (unconfirmed
>rumor) maybe it has already cost them somebody they can't replace.

This, by the way, was exactly what I said in my articles: that 
Adobe's ability to _recruit_ will be affected by this P.R. black eye. 
Someone mutated the point into a claim that Adobe's product sales 
would be affected, which is doubtful.

--Tim May



-- 
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Riad S. Wahby]

Ian Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never used Distiller; is it more than a Postscript-to-PDF
> converter?  The free ps2pdf is part of ghostscript.

It is just a ps to pdf converter, but it generates better PDFs than
ps2pdf (that is, smaller, better font handling, etc).

--
Riad Wahby
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MIT VI-2/A 2002

5105

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Ian Goldberg]

In article ,
Petro  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 9:56 PM -0700 7/23/01, Eric Cordian wrote:
>>Tim writes:
>>
>>> Adobe's use of police state measures to have a minor critic (by their 
>>> own later admission) yanked out of a conference is not likely to be 
>>> forgotten quickly. I expect this will have consequences when they 
>>> eventually resume college recruiting. Adobe will likely face sneers 
>>> and derisive laughter when it shows up on college campuses next 
>>> spring to recruit.
>>
>>Adobe's pulling back on Dmitry doesn't change the fact that the company
>>lied in saying what was being distributed was "copyrighted Adobe
>>software."
>>
>>Despite the EFF's effusive praise of Adobe, I don't plan to use any Adobe
>>software in the future.
>
>   Is there a workable freeware alternative to Distiller? 

I've never used Distiller; is it more than a Postscript-to-PDF
converter?  The free ps2pdf is part of ghostscript.

   - Ian

RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

[measl]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Reese wrote:

> At 07:34 PM 7/23/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (aka J.A. Terranson wrote:
> 
>  >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  >cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Why do you send to two lists?  

Why do you care?  Fuck off Reese.

-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Declan McCullagh]

Right. The organizing tools available to activists nowadays are
substantial. Free software including email-to-web gateways like
mhonarc, front ends based on Slash, mailing lists running majordomo or
mailman, back ends based on MySQL, launch-and-forget websites running
Linux and Slash -- all these allow programmer-activists to launch
online campaigns in minutes.

But the Feds won't back down as readily as Adobe, I wager. They don't
have to worry about what programmers think, they don't have to worry
about what Wall Street thinks (at least DOJ doesn't), they don't have
to worry about slipping revenue in a soft economy and users turning to
non-Adobe tools. In short, they have a different incentive structure
and it's one where programmer-types are much less
influential. Sklyarov is still in jail, and not one legislator has
called for a repeal of the DMCA (one, perhaps, has criticized it
mildly).


In my Wired article that will appear tomorrow, I write:

 That leaves the Free-Dmitry contingent wary of celebrating -- and free
 to target the U.S. government, which may not back down to pressure
 from irate programmers as quickly as a firm that's based in the heart
 of Silicon Valley.

At least there's one consolation for Adobe: They're no alone, and can
take a proud if somewhat humbled seat next to Intel and Microsoft. :)

-Declan



On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 09:26:31PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> Something's that interesting is the _speed_ and _strength_ of the 
> reactions against companies when they cross some line.
> 
> Adobe's use of police state measures to have a minor critic (by their 
> own later admission) yanked out of a conference is not likely to be 
> forgotten quickly. I expect this will have consequences when they 
> eventually resume college recruiting. Adobe will likely face sneers 
> and derisive laughter when it shows up on college campuses next 
> spring to recruit.
> 
> My old employer, Intel, has also caught the wrath of the community a 
> couple of times. Notably when they briefly tried to add a "processor 
> I.D." They retreated, though Microsoft was not deterred a few years 
> later from planning their own "registration" features.
> 
> ("This system has a different printer attached to it than when it was 
> Officially Registered with the Borg Mothership. We have concluded 
> that you are a possible software pirate. Windows XP, Microsoft 
> Office, Outlook Express, and Internet Explorer have been disabled. 
> Contact our office during normal business hours and attempt to 
> explain why we should reauthorize you. Have a Microsoft day!")
> 
> Like Niven's "flash crowd" effect, the slash dot, mailing list, and 
> online news services are making the anger of the users a terrible 
> swift sword. Adobe became a pariah in a matter of days.
> 
> Adobe will be suffering for a long time to come.
> 
> (Note to our FBI monitors: This is NOT a threat against Adobe. Note 
> to Cypherpunks: With feebs like the Feebs out there, one can never 
> assume that ordinary figures of speech will be understood.)
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> 
> -- 
> Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California
> Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
> Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
> Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Sandy Sandfort]

J.A. Terranson wrote:

> Do you *honestly* think they
> [Federal Baby Incinerators] give
> a shit?  Are you really *that*
> naive?

Yeah, guess so.  I think the Feebs really don't like to get called on the
carpet.  Their power and privilege are at stake.  Of course they don't want
that threatened.  Do you *honestly* think they want to see their
prerogatives reduced?  I don't.


 S a n d y

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Declan McCullagh]

Here's a prediction: This case will never come close to generating
the same amount of publicity, by at least two orders of magnitude.

Folks on the Net have a bad habit of overemphasizing how important 
these cases are. This is not important to the people in DC who count.

It has never been mentioned in the WSJ, the Washington Post, the
Washington Times. Even the SJMN -- the hometown paper! -- has been
running largely wire copy in its news coverage. I did a quick L/N
search and the only network/cable TV coverage seems to have been a 
brief mention on CNN.

Compare that to the kind of publicity the other two cases received,
and there's no contest.

Face it: The DMCA was designed to punish precisely what Elcomsoft
was doing. There's no comparison between that and WHL or RJ.

-Declan


On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 10:00:30PM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > But the Feds won't back down as
> > readily as Adobe, I wager. They
> > don't have to worry about what
> > programmers think, they don't
> > have to worry about what Wall
> > Street thinks (at least DOJ
> > doesn't), they don't have to
> > worry about slipping revenue
> > in a soft economy and users
> > turning to non-Adobe tools.
> > In short, they have a different
> > incentive structure...
> 
> True, it may be different, but it is an incentive structure (or, more
> accurately, a disincentive structure).  For example, I don't thing the
> Federal Baby Incinerators really want to create another Wen Ho Lee or
> Richard Jewel fiasco.  They already have enough egg on their face.
> 
> 
>  S a n d y

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Petro]

At 11:47 PM -0500 7/23/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:
>
>> Adobe will be suffering for a long time to come.
>
>While it is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I predict that the
>"backlash" will be gone in a mere matter of weeks, if not days.  Let's
>face it: the people most likely to be Adobe *customers* are anything but
>hungry.  A fat customer is an apathetic customer...

Let us also be honest and admit that the very people Adobe products 
target are also the least likely to understand this whole thing, and often 
even less likely to care--or if they do, they might even agree with Adobe. 

After all, they are (mostly) content producers (Illustrator, 
Photoshop etc) who have intellectual property interests themselves. 

Let's face it, many if not most of the Free Software types are 
going to use The Gimp over Photoshop. kIllustrator over Illustrator, and 
well, I don't know what they'll use in place of Pagemaker, but I'd be 
happy to find out. 

RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Sandy Sandfort]

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> Here's a prediction: This case will
> never come close to generating the
> same amount of publicity, by at
> least two orders of magnitude.
>
> Folks on the Net have a bad habit
> of overemphasizing how important
> these cases are. This is not
> important to the people in DC who
> count.

I couldn't agree with you more, nevertheless my point still stands that
disincentives do exist and the Federal Baby Incinerators don't need yet
another incrementally damaging error on their rap sheet.


 S a n d y

Re: Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]

On 07/23/2001 - 23:55, Tim May wrote:

> On Monday, July 23, 2001, at 11:05 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote
> > True. And I'll agree with you, this time -- I think the Feds
> > will, in the end, drop this case, if the protests continue.
> 
> And I'll bet the Feds drop it because their corporate backer, Adobe, has 
> abandoned them.
> They don't like to be left twisting slowly in the wind. And the more 
> Adobe now tries to "spin" their role, the more the Feds are left twisting.

The Feds may be in a maze of twisty little press releases, all different,
but if they drop it, I'd bet it's not Adobe 'abandoning" them, but
Adobe *asking* them to drop it, quietly in the back room,
trying to stop bad PR against Adobe.  It doesn't really bother the Feds -
they can get credit for being responsive to urgent requests,
they've gotten publicity for busting yet another hacker copyright thief,
and they don't have to take any heat for backing down because
they can spin it all as "Adobe's Dropping Charges".

If they *do* continue,
it's because they're getting pressure from other DMCA pushers -
they'll need to do a bit more spin, but they can handle it,
and most of the people who would object already didn't respect them.
Won't bother their public image much.  

My guess - a couple more days in custody, and they kick him out of the US.






X-Authenticated-User: idiom
~~~
Thanks;
Bill Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: CDR: Vengeance Against Adobe

[measl]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Tim May wrote:

> Adobe will be suffering for a long time to come.

While it is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I predict that the
"backlash" will be gone in a mere matter of weeks, if not days.  Let's
face it: the people most likely to be Adobe *customers* are anything but
hungry.  A fat customer is an apathetic customer...


-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Declan McCullagh]

True. And I'll agree with you, this time -- I think the Feds
will, in the end, drop this case, if the protests continue.

-Declan


On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 10:23:10PM -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
> Declan McCullagh wrote:
> 
> > Here's a prediction: This case will
> > never come close to generating the
> > same amount of publicity, by at
> > least two orders of magnitude.
> >
> > Folks on the Net have a bad habit
> > of overemphasizing how important
> > these cases are. This is not
> > important to the people in DC who
> > count.
> 
> I couldn't agree with you more, nevertheless my point still stands that
> disincentives do exist and the Federal Baby Incinerators don't need yet
> another incrementally damaging error on their rap sheet.
> 
> 
>  S a n d y

Vengeance Against Adobe

[Tim May]

At 11:44 PM -0400 7/23/01, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>Another effect will be companies that wish to take advantage of the
>criminal sections of the DMCA will be more likely to cover their
>tracks when dealing with the Feds. The next Adobe won't be so quick to
>admit they contacted the FBI, for instance.
>

Something's that interesting is the _speed_ and _strength_ of the 
reactions against companies when they cross some line.

Adobe's use of police state measures to have a minor critic (by their 
own later admission) yanked out of a conference is not likely to be 
forgotten quickly. I expect this will have consequences when they 
eventually resume college recruiting. Adobe will likely face sneers 
and derisive laughter when it shows up on college campuses next 
spring to recruit.

My old employer, Intel, has also caught the wrath of the community a 
couple of times. Notably when they briefly tried to add a "processor 
I.D." They retreated, though Microsoft was not deterred a few years 
later from planning their own "registration" features.

("This system has a different printer attached to it than when it was 
Officially Registered with the Borg Mothership. We have concluded 
that you are a possible software pirate. Windows XP, Microsoft 
Office, Outlook Express, and Internet Explorer have been disabled. 
Contact our office during normal business hours and attempt to 
explain why we should reauthorize you. Have a Microsoft day!")

Like Niven's "flash crowd" effect, the slash dot, mailing list, and 
online news services are making the anger of the users a terrible 
swift sword. Adobe became a pariah in a matter of days.

Adobe will be suffering for a long time to come.

(Note to our FBI monitors: This is NOT a threat against Adobe. Note 
to Cypherpunks: With feebs like the Feebs out there, one can never 
assume that ordinary figures of speech will be understood.)

--Tim May


-- 
Timothy C. May [EMAIL PROTECTED]Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns

Re: CDR: RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

[measl]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

> I couldn't agree with you more, nevertheless my point still stands that
> disincentives do exist and the Federal Baby Incinerators don't need yet
> another incrementally damaging error on their rap sheet.

Do you *honestly* think they give a shit?  Are you really *that* naive?

>  S a n d y

-- 
Yours, 
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they
should give serious consideration towards setting a better example:
Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of
unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in
the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and 
elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire
populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate...
This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States
as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers,
associates, or others.  Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of
those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the
first place...

Re: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Tim May]

On Monday, July 23, 2001, at 11:05 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> True. And I'll agree with you, this time -- I think the Feds
> will, in the end, drop this case, if the protests continue.

And I'll bet the Feds drop it because their corporate backer, Adobe, has 
abandoned them.

They don't like to be left twisting slowly in the wind. And the more 
Adobe now tries to "spin" their role, the more the Feds are left 
twisting.

The AG will likely say "Fuck that noise" (in his own Christian lingo) 
and the case will quietly go away.

BTW, I certainly have never argued the case would receive even 1% of the 
attention the Wen Ho Lee or Richard Jewel cases got. But it seems to be 
getting about the same level of attention that Intel's "processor ID" 
proposal got (modulo differences in the issues).

The more lasting effect is not what Joe and Alice Sixpack think of Adobe 
("Huh?"), but how it energizes parts of the hacker community. A bunch of 
hackers are now likely to expand the cracking of Adobe's ebooks by leaps 
and bounds. It'll be a badge of honor

--Tim May

Re: CDR: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Eric Cordian]

Tim writes:

> Adobe's use of police state measures to have a minor critic (by their 
> own later admission) yanked out of a conference is not likely to be 
> forgotten quickly. I expect this will have consequences when they 
> eventually resume college recruiting. Adobe will likely face sneers 
> and derisive laughter when it shows up on college campuses next 
> spring to recruit.

Adobe's pulling back on Dmitry doesn't change the fact that the company
lied in saying what was being distributed was "copyrighted Adobe
software."

Despite the EFF's effusive praise of Adobe, I don't plan to use any Adobe
software in the future.

In other DMCA news, does Fox really think they can stop "Planet of the
Apes" from being posted to Usenet?  This should be an amusing test of
Usenet routing around "damage," as Fox Intellectual Property attempts to
spam every newsadmin in the world with takedown notices faster than the
machines can talk to each other.

Bailing with a teaspoon if you ask me.

-- 
Eric Michael Cordian 0+
O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division
"Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

RE: Vengeance Against Adobe

[Sandy Sandfort]

Declan McCullagh wrote:

> But the Feds won't back down as
> readily as Adobe, I wager. They
> don't have to worry about what
> programmers think, they don't
> have to worry about what Wall
> Street thinks (at least DOJ
> doesn't), they don't have to
> worry about slipping revenue
> in a soft economy and users
> turning to non-Adobe tools.
> In short, they have a different
> incentive structure...

True, it may be different, but it is an incentive structure (or, more
accurately, a disincentive structure).  For example, I don't thing the
Federal Baby Incinerators really want to create another Wen Ho Lee or
Richard Jewel fiasco.  They already have enough egg on their face.


 S a n d y