Dutch BooXtream watermark cracked

[Katsunami]

Source at Tweakers.net

Below is a Google Translate version of the article. While it's not perfect, it can be understood. Unfortunately, it takes me too much time right now to fully translate the post by hand.

Researchers at the Institute for Biblio-Immunology, the Dutch BooXtream-DRM cracked because these watermarks on e-books insert containing the personal information of the original purchaser. The IBI considers this privacy-unfriendly.

The Institute for Biblio-Immunology, a group of researchers who do not identify themselves further, contacted TorrentFreak and all steps to defeat the DRM placed in a report. The book in question is "The Boy Who Could Change the World," written by the late Aaron Swartz hacktivist and in this case published by Verso Books. The publisher uses the BooXstream watermark technology to track e-books in illegal distribution. BooXstream is a product of the Dutch Icontact. The executor of Swartz, Sean B. Palmer, called Verso Books to remove the watermark, as it violates the privacy of the buyer, which Swartz could not accept without doubt.

Verso did not meet the request Palmer, which the Institute for Biblio-Immunology decided to fully map the watermark, a technique for removing compile and publish all so others can do the same. In fact, they have on github posted a Python script that allows users to automate the removal of a watermark.

The IBI removes a total of seven different watermarks of BooXstream. Three 'explicit', on the inside cover, and the disclaimer in the footer. In addition, there are found four hidden watermarks: In the file names, style sheets, and the timestamp in the metadata of images. The team say they have confidence that they therefore have traced all watermarks.

Apart from the non-public refusal to remove the watermarks, publisher Verso has not commented on the case. It is currently shown on the product page for the e-book that is not available in North America. Possibly this is a result of the actions of the IBI.

Aaron Swartz committed suicide in 2013. In 2011 he was sued for downloading documents from the science database JSTOR, with the intent to distribute it. The database has many scientific publications, but charging for access. The lawsuit against Swartz at the time of his suicide still ongoing, so there was speculation that the trial there had something to do with it.

[eschwartz]

This is exactly how activists get a bad name.

Criminals don't have a right to privacy from the authorities, and watermarks don't violate your privacy unless you upload them to the public in a criminal act.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

This is exactly how activists get a bad name.

Criminals don't have a right to privacy from the authorities, and watermarks don't violate your privacy unless you upload them to the public in a criminal act.

...and if the publisher had listened to the request of the rights holder and removed the watermarks in the first place, this wouldn't have happened.

The executor of Swartz, Sean B. Palmer, called Verso Books to remove the watermark, as it violates the privacy of the buyer, which Swartz could not accept without doubt.

I agree with you that watermarks are the most acceptable DRM. I also understand why this was done.

In my mind, this is similar to when the Tor author pointed his readers to Alf's tools when he found out that some stores were still selling his books with DRM. (Sorry, I can't remember the author's name right now) The only difference is that the Tor author didn't have to crack the DRM himself.

Shari

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by shalym

I agree with you that watermarks are the most acceptable DRM.

Only if the book is not encrypted. If this book was not encrypted, then the DRM was, IMHO, not really 'cracked'; the watermarks have just all been found and removed. If so, it could have been done by hand.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Only if the book is not encrypted. If this book was not encrypted, then the DRM was, IMHO, not really 'cracked'; the watermarks have just all been found and removed. If so, it could have been done by hand.

Does the BooXtream watermark *also* use encryption? I was under the impression that it didn't.

I don't see any mention of encryption on the BooXtream website http://www.booxtream.com

Shari

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by shalym

Does the BooXtream watermark *also* use encryption? I was under the impression that it didn't.

To be honest, I don't know. I haven't researched it.

If it doesn't use encryption, it doesn't need to be cracked. In that case, it's just removal of the watermark in all the different locations and hoping you caught them all.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

This is exactly how activists get a bad name.

Criminals don't have a right to privacy from the authorities, and watermarks don't violate your privacy unless you upload them to the public in a criminal act.

I disagree.

If I should ever lose my e-reader or it gets stolen, which is a distinct possibility as I carry it in public transport each day, I'm in danger of being prosecuted, if the person who finds the device upploads the content to a sharing site. If done right (encrtypted connection, VPN...), then it's impossible to tell if I, or somebody else uploaded that content, but because my details are in there, it's me who'll probably get into trouble.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by shalym

...and if the publisher had listened to the request of the rights holder and removed the watermarks in the first place, this wouldn't have happened.

Since I don't know the details of the contract, can I assume it was industry-standard, and Swartz and his estate are not actually the rights holder?

And if against all odds the Swartz estate was actually the rights holder, and thus had the right to open their mouth on the subject, then they should have left that publisher and found one which was more amenable to their desires.

I call bullshit. They wanted to release watermark-removing tools, and they found a handy excuse.

I agree with you that watermarks are the most acceptable DRM. I also understand why this was done.

In my mind, this is similar to when the Tor author pointed his readers to Alf's tools when he found out that some stores were still selling his books with DRM. (Sorry, I can't remember the author's name right now) The only difference is that the Tor author didn't have to crack the DRM himself.

Shari

No. Tor was contracted to sell without DRM encryption, and it was a technical/communications error with distributors that got in the way of that.
Tor was okay with that, because they didn't want the DRM encryption in the first place.

It is the most incomparable comparison I can think of. (Although actually it could be worse, I could compare that situation to a banana. But that's cheating.)

...

Additionally, DRM encryption infringes on the user's rights. Watermarking does not.

...
...

Next thing you know, they will be filing the serial number off of, well, everything that has one.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Additionally, DRM infringes on the user's rights. Watermarking does not.

Watermarking is (without any shadow of a doubt) a form of digital rights management. Perhaps you meant that encryption infringes on a user's rights? Even that I'm not sure I agree with. You may wish to buy a book from one store and then use it on a different device, but is it a "right" to do so?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

If I should ever lose my e-reader or it gets stolen, which is a distinct possibility as I carry it in public transport each day, I'm in danger of being prosecuted, if the person who finds the device upploads the content to a sharing site. If done right (encrtypted connection, VPN...), then it's impossible to tell if I, or somebody else uploaded that content, but because my details are in there, it's me who'll probably get into trouble.

If your identity ever gets stolen, you could end up in the hole for a lot of money and general trouble. Sometimes things fall through the cracks in the system.

Of course, having a legal system, however flawed, is better than not having one at all.

...

The watermarking evidence is just that, evidence. It is not the only way a person can end up with evidence incorrectly pointing to their guilt in a crime. And like any crime, you will get your day in court.

I really despise the double standard and special privileges expected by people when it comes to digital anything. Regardless of which side they are on.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Watermarking is (without any shadow of a doubt) a form of digital rights management. Perhaps you meant that encryption infringes on a user's rights? Even that I'm not sure I agree with. You may wish to buy a book from one store and then use it on a different device, but is it a "right" to do so?

You know perfectly well that is what I mean.

And I could argue that encryption is "rights management", but watermarking is "ownership verification".
After all, we are debating a user's "rights" to use the book on a different device, we which is blocked by encryption but not by watermarking. So is "rights" the right word to use when referring to watermarking?

As for "wish" (desire) vs. "right" -- why, yes, I am of the camp that believes it is a right, and I state what I believe.

And I believe what I believe, because the actual law is a mess of contradictions and thus impotent and incapable of providing comprehensible guidance, in addition to which the commonly-held theory of publishers upholds the pervasive idiocy that is digital special-snowflakeism.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You know perfectly well that is what I mean.

I thought that it was probably what you meant, but in a discussion such as this it's really helpful if we can use words correctly, otherwise we end up in a position where we can misunderstand one another. As you are perfectly well aware, "digital rights management" refers to a whole raft of different things; it's not synonymous with encryption, and it's misleading to use it as if it were so. When people say things like "I'm against DRM, but I'm OK with watermarking" it's rather nonsensical.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I really despise the double standard and special privileges expected by people when it comes to digital anything. Regardless of which side they are on.

I don't have double standards. There are very few real life possessions that I own that can be traced directly back to me by examining it. Basically, it's only my own fountain pen, because I have had my name engraved into it as an anti-theft measure. (A pen is quickly snatched off of a table and taken for granted to be 'lost' somewhere... just like lighters, and such.)

So, why would a digital 'object' be traceable back to me?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I don't have double standards. There are very few real life possessions that I own that can be traced directly back to me.

Do you own a car?

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you own a car?

No And neither do I own a house.

Spoiler:

Everything I own is basically dispensable/replaceable, except for my ebooks and digital music, because of the time it took me to organize them. On my next move, a lot of stuff will actually be sold. I'm going to see if I can own as few things as possible. After that, backup probably-no-longer-relevant stuff to two external hard drives and remove it from the computer as well.

I think it'll come down to this, in no particular order:
- Furniture
- Normal but minimal stuff to run a household
- A laptop with dock, mouse, keyboard, screen, and/or a computer
- The piano (organ will probably be sold)
- An e-reader, maybe I keep a tablet for PDF's
- Chess board and pieces
- Go board and stones
- TV, blu-ray player
- Audio system
- Maybe.... the three Zeiss ZM and two Voigtländer VM lenses and Ricoh M-type camera, in the hopes that a real, digital-only rangefinder will ever appear for a normal (sub €1000) amount of money.

All of the rest will probably be done away with.

[HarryT]

You presumably accept, though, that there are valid reasons for being able to trace a car back to its owner? To my mind, when something can be trivially duplicated, as digital goods can, there are valid and proper reasons for being able to tie those copies to the original purchaser. Are you aware of the hypothetical situation you describe ever having happened? The fact that people do pirate digital goods is far from hypothetical; it happens every day, and there are (IMHO) compelling reasons for being able to trace the origin of such items.