You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, download files, upload your own photos and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Frustrated by the tight security and lack of interoperability of Microsoft Reader eBooks, a programmer namedDan Jackson obtained the source code for a command-line program called Convert Lit and made it available to the public. Convert Lit or "Clit.exe" is a command line utility that can downgrade the DRM5 security to DRM1. From there, the formerly encrypted Lit book can be converted to HTML, text, or any other format.
Mr. Jackson announced via his website a willingness to improve upon the original code of his program (reportedly less than 1 month old), in addition to providing more capabilities to the program itself. "I wish to provide an all-in-one solution for the recovery of data in the MS Reader .lit file format. If there is interest, I am also open to creating a .dll to make it possible for others to implement a LIT conversion utility from their ebook applications."
Other Internet hackers have already captured this code and provided a Windows 9x front-end that illiminates the need to know and understand command-line functions. This addition is called cuntlits.exe and contains nude buttons and offensive language.
Pocket PC Addict obtained independent verification that these utilities do in fact remove the encryption and security from Microsoft Reader books.
It remains to be seen what kind of impact an already hesitant eBook market. By removing the security of the Reader books, formerly encrypted eBooks can be traded and downloaded free of charge on the Internet.
Like Dan, I was once frustrated by "tight security" and the "lack of interoperabilty" with a product. Well, it was actually a bank. So I robbed it. Dan and I both had a mandate of some sort, I guess. I mean, if someone is frustrated, why shouldn´t they be allowed to break the law? Right? I mean if a law is called "stupid" what other reason does one need? Laws are for suckers. That´s what my unemployed UNIX programmer neighbor says anyway...
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-12-31 05:48, Anonymous wrote:
Like Dan, I was once frustrated by "tight security" and the "lack of interoperabilty" with a product. Well, it was actually a bank. So I robbed it. Dan and I both had a mandate of some sort, I guess. I mean, if someone is frustrated, why shouldn´t they be allowed to break the law? Right? I mean if a law is called "stupid" what other reason does one need? Laws are for suckers. That´s what my unemployed UNIX programmer neighbor says anyway...
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Ah yes yet another US citizen who seems to think that the UK is an extension of their own and thus their laws extend here. (Nothing against americans just a few idiots who give you a bad rep)
No we don´t have the DCMA here, nor the European copyright directive yet either. Therefore it is not illegal, due to a little thing as national sovernty.
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-12-31 05:48, Anonymous wrote:
Like Dan, I was once frustrated by "tight security" and the "lack of interoperabilty" with a product. Well, it was actually a bank. So I robbed it. Dan and I both had a mandate of some sort, I guess. I mean, if someone is frustrated, why shouldn´t they be allowed to break the law? Right? I mean if a law is called "stupid" what other reason does one need? Laws are for suckers. That´s what my unemployed UNIX programmer neighbor says anyway...
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
well, if the bank is holding your money and doesn´t want to give it back to you why not?
it´s for people who *buy* the book but then realize they can´t read it
My wife reported about clit.exe the day it was first made available two or three weeks ago. She included the url where the program could be downloaded as evidence that the .lit format was cracked.
What does it take for slashdot to report something? I thought SD was supposed to be cutting edge news, not waiting for other publications to "verify" that something is true. I´m very disappointed.
Actually, Slashdot is annoying, since, if you look at slashdot.org/~msclit, you´ll see that the original author posted the code when she released it. Pretty bad, eh? Slashdot apparently just doesn´t care. Now, if only someone would post to kuro5hin.org[img]images/forum/smilies/icon_smile.gif[/img]
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-12-31 05:48, Anonymous wrote:
Like Dan, I was once frustrated by "tight security" and the "lack of interoperabilty" with a product. Well, it was actually a bank. So I robbed it. Dan and I both had a mandate of some sort, I guess. I mean, if someone is frustrated, why shouldn´t they be allowed to break the law? Right? I mean if a law is called "stupid" what other reason does one need? Laws are for suckers. That´s what my unemployed UNIX programmer neighbor says anyway...
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Like you, I was alive in the 1950s. All of these people living next door to me, who seemed like nice enough guys, were actually *communists!* I only know because the government told me so, I´m so lucky to have them on my side! So I turned them in so I could have the moral high ground. We are truly blessed to live in a country where lawmakers are always acting in our best interest as *Americans." Thank you for reminding me of this splendid event from my past!
Oh, and make legit copies of purchased works. Forgot about all the LEGAL aspects that get trampled by Mr. Gates on his way to 15 Billion, 11 billion will simply not do.
Amusingly enough, it might actually help ebook sales,
according to the experience of authors who have worked with Baen Publishing.
Check out their Free Library over at www.baen.com -- where books may be downloaded in any format, free of charge, and free of idiotic rights-denial encryption technologies.
My wife is blind. Even with portable readers, there is a paucity of titles available. This program (and similar) will explode what is available for blind people who want to read instead of listen to books.
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-12-31 06:16, Anonymous wrote:
My wife reported about clit.exe the day it was first made available two or three weeks ago.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
In actuality, your wife´s clit.exe was made available even prior to 2 or 3 weeks ago. Ask her where she was on November 23rd. hahah
[img]images/forum/smilies/icon_lol.gif[/img]
Seriously though, I have never heard anyone complain about a news story being released. I think it´s sweet that we are hearing about this. If you heard about it a few weeks ago, it hasn´t made it into anyone else´s site up to now.
I´m glad there are some good underground sites still out there reporting real news, and not rehashing stories all the time.
This is both bad news and good news. The bad news is that there will be people out there who will use a program like this to disseminate the copyrighted work of others for free, thus stealing royalties from writers and profits from publishers.
The good news is that some books that are only available in Microsoft Reader format will be convertable to use in other readers that have their own proprietary formats, so we can buy an ebook in Microsoft Reader format and then convert it to read on other handheld readers that do not support the MS format.
As an author of books sold in e-formats, I hope that people will do the latter more regularly than the former. To do otherwise is STEALING.
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
The good news is that some books that are only available in Microsoft Reader format will be convertable to use in other readers that have their own proprietary formats, so we can buy an ebook in Microsoft Reader format and then convert it to read on other handheld readers that do not support the MS format.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Why is this good news? Assuming the makers of the handheld readers you mention would have to pay MS to use the MS format, circumvention of that requirement is stealing from MS.
Why do you think it´s okay to steal from MS, but not okay to steal from authors and publishers? Or did you simply not think through the implications of your comment?
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-12-31 14:02, Anonymous wrote:
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
The good news is that some books that are only available in Microsoft Reader format will be convertable to use in other readers that have their own proprietary formats, so we can buy an ebook in Microsoft Reader format and then convert it to read on other handheld readers that do not support the MS format.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Why is this good news? Assuming the makers of the handheld readers you mention would have to pay MS to use the MS format, circumvention of that requirement is stealing from MS.
Why do you think it´s okay to steal from MS, but not okay to steal from authors and publishers? Or did you simply not think through the implications of your comment?
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
What?
Do you even know what you´re talking about?
Being able to decrypt DRMed .lit files does not deprive Microsoft of revenues from those files- the vendors _still_ have to pay Microsoft for the license to distribute those files in the first place. Decrypting them afterwards will not directly affect DRM licensing fees.
As a matter of fact, having part of my purchase price paid to Microsoft is one of my continued objections to this system - even if I am going to decrypt and convert the book after I buy it, I´m still supporting Microsofts encrypted system by purchasing in that format in the first place.
And also can be used for legitimate purposes.
Forinstance, I Have a ebook that was keyed to my passport account, when I changed my email address on my passport account I could no longer read my ebook.
I couldnt get the company to issue me another one, they said you are out of luck. This is a perfet example of how passport activation is flawed.
I can now use this program to break the encryption on a book I legallly bought.
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-12-30 19:19, Brad Isaac wrote:
Frustrated by the tight security and lack of interoperability of Microsoft Reader eBooks, a programmer namedDan Jackson obtained the source code for a command-line program called Convert Lit and made it available to the public. Convert Lit or "Clit.exe" is a command line utility that can downgrade the DRM5 security to DRM1. From there, the formerly encrypted Lit book can be converted to HTML, text, or any other format.
Mr. Jackson announced via his website a willingness to improve upon the original code of his program (reportedly less than 1 month old), in addition to providing more capabilities to the program itself. "I wish to provide an all-in-one solution for the recovery of data in the MS Reader .lit file format. If there is interest, I am also open to creating a .dll to make it possible for others to implement a LIT conversion utility from their ebook applications."
Other Internet hackers have already captured this code and provided a Windows 9x front-end that illiminates the need to know and understand command-line functions. This addition is called cuntlits.exe and contains nude buttons and offensive language.
Pocket PC Addict obtained independent verification that these utilities do in fact remove the encryption and security from Microsoft Reader books.
It remains to be seen what kind of impact an already hesitant eBook market. By removing the security of the Reader books, formerly encrypted eBooks can be traded and downloaded free of charge on the Internet.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
I hope authors do not quit publishing e-books. I love them and I don´t mind paying for them.
I usually read Palm Reader Pro which is linked to a credit card because I did have a problem activating MS Reader after I bought $70 worth of books, but they finally did reactivate for me.
I would rather lose the $ spent on books than not have new books available from top authors.
The problem with ebooks isn´t the author or the buyers...it´s the middle men.
If an author publishes an ebook and charges only $1.99 for a book enough loyal people will pay for it to earn him a fair living.
The author and the dealer (amazon, B&N, etc) should split the earnings 50/50 pre tax.
Thus, if you write a good book that sells 1 million copies and get a buck per book...you´re set.
Right now the poor authors get some lame axx 10% royalty and the book STILL costs 3.99 in ebook format. No wonder there are problems. I don´t even want to hear any lame axx rationalizing about how the publishers provide neccessary services like advertising. A good book will advertise itself in the form of good ratings and reviews.
I find it amusing how people justify their own behaviour based on the perceived immoral actions of others. It seems to be the common interpretation of freedom, nowadays.
As a professional writer, it´s my choice to publish freely or for profit. If I choose the latter course of action, then a reader can choose not to pay me for my work and simply not purchase my material. But the reader does not have the right to make the decision for me. I think it´s reasonable that, if the reader really wants to read my material, he/she will compensate me for my efforts.
Don´t we all expect the same from our employers?
People will respond that it´s not as simple as I make it out to be, and they´re right. But only because we needlessly complicate things.
Greed is a major part of the problem. Greed causes people to charge more for than is reasonable, and greed causes others to disregard the cost and take the work without paying.
How do you feel when someone does that to you?
But this is just my opinion. We are all shaped by our experiences, and so I respect the opinions that everyone else may hold, even if I disagree with them. I hope that you´ll respect mine, in return.
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
(snip)
As a professional writer, it´s my choice to publish freely or for profit. If I choose the latter course of action, then a reader can choose not to pay me for my work and simply not purchase my material. But the reader does not have the right to make the decision for me. I think it´s reasonable that, if the reader really wants to read my material, he/she will compensate me for my efforts.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
I typically stay out of these arguments but I´m getting fed up with this crazy weird view of copyright. There is two versions of copyright, the author/corporation and the founding fathers (in this case Franklin) version. Copyright isn´t given by the government, it´s given by the people. Once given it´s up to the government to monitor that contract. The idea here is NOT to ensure a author a decent wage, but to ensure the progression of the arts and sciences in society. There isn´t a artist or author who creates, they discover. That process of discovery is based on there experiences within their curlture. The original terms of "limited" monopoly was 14 years with one 14 year extension, you want more bucks do more work but this time limit ensures that the culture from which you draw your ideas recieves those ideas back so that new ideas may be formed. Today your looking at 125 to 150 years before any ideas every get back to the people. Copyright was never for the buisnesses and only partially for the author, it mainly for the public. course we can kiss that idea goodby as well, isn´t greed lovely.
<font size=-1>[ Edited by Anonymous On Date 01/01/2003 ]</font>
Well, I´m not entirely sure if you´re disagreeing with me or misreading my feelings on the matter, because I agree with what you saying. I´m strictly talking about ethical behaviour towards others. Heck, if we had any reason to trust other people with our work, we wouldn´t need copyright laws. Sad to say that that´s a bit of a pipe dream. [img]images/forum/smilies/icon_wink.gif[/img]
My take on this crack of the .lit format? I like it. But I don´t intend to pirate any books. Why I think it´s great is that I can buy books in the .lit format, but now I will be able to read the same book on whatever device I want. Basically it gives me back the option that paper books have - I can read it anywhere! I bought the book, I should be able to read it on a PocketPC, Rocket Ebook, GEB1100 - whatever.
But the problem is that other people WILL use it to pirate books. But the bottom line is that no matter what encryption scheme is put in place, it WILL be cracked at some point. That has been a major argument about DRM all along. Encryption WILL be broken.
I think for a lot of people they will be like me. I can now read a book I paid for wherever I want. That´s all it means to me.
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2003-01-02 06:07, Anonymous wrote:
My take on this crack of the .lit format? I like it. But I don´t intend to pirate any books. Why I think it´s great is that I can buy books in the .lit format, but now I will be able to read the same book on whatever device I want. Basically it gives me back the option that paper books have - I can read it anywhere! I bought the book, I should be able to read it on a PocketPC, Rocket Ebook, GEB1100 - whatever.
But the problem is that other people WILL use it to pirate books. But the bottom line is that no matter what encryption scheme is put in place, it WILL be cracked at some point. That has been a major argument about DRM all along. Encryption WILL be broken.
I think for a lot of people they will be like me. I can now read a book I paid for wherever I want. That´s all it means to me.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
From my perspective, I don´t like the fact that it has been cracked. My reason is more big name authors and publishers might shy away from the eBook format altogether. Frankly, I like going to Barnes and Noble and buying an eBook. I rarely even touch the ancient "paper based books" anymore.
In 2002, we had some NY Times Bestsellers that made a jump into the MS Reader world - that is great! Will it stop? No telling.
Fact is, anybody with a scanner and some OCR software can release a Best Seller in eBook format. The authors may as well continue to try to make money on the people who actually pay for their books by continuing to sell them in electronic format. If it´s worthy of cracking or scanning, it´s probably quite worthy of SELLING!
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
What?
Do you even know what you´re talking about?
Being able to decrypt DRMed .lit files does not deprive Microsoft of revenues from those files- the vendors _still_ have to pay Microsoft for the license to distribute those files in the first place. Decrypting them afterwards will not directly affect DRM licensing fees.
As a matter of fact, having part of my purchase price paid to Microsoft is one of my continued objections to this system - even if I am going to decrypt and convert the book after I buy it, I´m still supporting Microsofts encrypted system by purchasing in that format in the first place.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Did you even read my previous comment? It said absolutely nothing about licensing the content, but rather referred to the licensing of the MS Reader format by device manufacturers.
Unless MS give away their format to anyone who wants to produce a reader (hardware or software), without any strings attached at all (i.e. basically a PD licence), circumventing the MS licensing of the MS Reader format to view MS Reader content on a device which has not received a licence to use the MS Reader format amounts to theft.
Linear Mode
