back to article Security pro's time-travelling Twitter bot suspended after posting download link for Adobe Acrobat for MS-DOS

The chief security officer for F-Secure, Mikko Hyppönen, had a Twitter account suspended after linking to a download of Adobe Acrobat for DOS, first released in 1993. Curiously, the tweet that attracted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice was a retweet of a post made five years ago, the original of …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    twitter for twits

    i guess if you want twits following you twitter is.. no.. twitter is still less than vomit.

  2. ecofeco Silver badge

    Down the memory hole

    See title.

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    TThis is only a test...

    Memphis

  4. MacroRodent

    Was't Acrobat reader always a free download?

    As I recall it, that is how Adobe foisted the PDF format on the world. Readers were free, but originally only for-pay Adobe software could produce PDF. Nowadays there are of course plenty of programs for writing and reading PDF, including open source ones.

    So it is doubly absurd that Hyppönen gets a takedown notice about it.

    1. jake Silver badge

      Re: Was't Acrobat reader always a free download?

      Yes, Reader was a free download. Still is, unless they revoked it.

      And now you know why using bots to take down singleton human-used instances of any given communications system is inherently evil. Even if that instance is controlled by a bot.

      The twitter-bot should have flagged a human at twitter to eyeball this single instance, and not taken any other action. In theory, the human would have laughed and flagged it as OK (for obvious reasons). If the human found an issue, he should have emailed the owner of the account for an explanation, thus allowing human-human interaction to fix the issue. No, this would not be a huge waste of resources at twitter, there probably aren't more than a few tens of this kind of thing per day.

      If the user-bot is spamming, or otherwise abusing resources, it's a whole 'nuther stable of worms. Nuke it on sight using any resources you have available.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Holmes

        Re: Was't Acrobat reader always a free download?

        Acrobat Reader is free, Acrobat itself, which allows you to create and edit PDFs is not.

        Many years ago, when I left my job, I took a downloaded copy of Acrobat Pro and a copy of the company wide license. I used it for a number of years until my version was no longer supported. But I wasn't stupid enough to tweet about it.

        1. veti Silver badge

          Re: Was't Acrobat reader always a free download?

          Back in DOS days, there was no such thing as "Reader". Only Acrobat, which was free as in beer.

          And its functionality went well beyond what Reader provides now. You could, for instance, splice documents together, redact them, set bookmarks and navigation panes... Functions that gradually disappeared from the free version and became "premium", requiring a paid for product.

          This model of progressively removing functionality in successive updates was pioneered by Adobe, and it explains why to this day Adobe software is aggressive to the point of psychosis in updating itself. Once you install Reader on your machine, there's basically no reasonable way to prevent it checking for updates at least once per boot cycle.

          1. MacroRodent

            Re: Was't Acrobat reader always a free download?

            At the same time, the Acrobat reader has become incredibly bloated and slow to start, so some years ago I removed it from all of my machines that still had it. Don't they know there are alternative and better ways to read PDF these days?

      2. Wade Burchette

        Re: Was't Acrobat reader always a free download?

        The real evil here is how a bot for a company can be used to suspend someone's account without a real, living, breathing human involved. I don't care if Twitter gets 5 million takedown notices a day, a human needs to look at each one and use proper judgement, something computers are incapable of doing.

        1. Version 1.0 Silver badge

          Re: Was't Acrobat reader always a free download?

          Computers can drive down the road so you think they should not be allowed to do that while reading documents?

        2. Cynic_999

          Re: Was't Acrobat reader always a free download?

          Unless you paid for your account, I don't see how you can complain about it being taken down even if no reason is given.

          1. teknopaul

            Re: Was't Acrobat reader always a free download?

            When you hold a monopoly, rules change, and so do your responsibilities. It's no longer a free market.

          2. veti Silver badge

            Re: Was't Acrobat reader always a free download?

            When you open a Twitter account, you enter into an agreement with the company. That agreement includes certain promises on their part, implicit if not explicit, mostly governed by their TOS as interpreted by applicable courts.

  5. jake Silver badge

    Reading old files.

    "When it comes to document readers, there is another point, which is that we may need them to render files that are otherwise inaccessible."

    Off hand, I know of no old[0] file format that I can't read using something from the FOSS world, and that goes back to punch tape and card decks. So in this particular case that's hardly an issue.

    [0] I picked an arbitrary pre-2000 for "old" in this case. YMMV.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Reading old files.

      British readers of a certain age will remember the BBC Domesday Project (or see

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Domesday_Project

      if your memory has faded.)

      It used a Laservision disk to store over 1GB of data in 1986. By 2002 hardware obsolescence meant that this data came very close to being lost.

      Those wondering why the data isn't currently available online, or who have strong views on copyright issues, may wish to note the part of the wikipedia article which reads "It is likely that the Domesday Project will not be completely free of copyright restrictions until at least 2090 (assuming no further extensions of copyright terms)."

      1. teknopaul

        Re: Reading old files.

        copyright should never be longer than the reasonable working life of an individual human bean.

  6. Intractable Potsherd

    I am genuinely confused by this: "... there are cases where copyright on old software is important, such as with a Super Mario Bros game from the 1980s ..." In what way is it any more important that the copyright on, say, Asteroids?

    1. Warm Braw

      That, in a nutshell, is the whole problem.

      Copyright violation isn't (or shouldn't) be a simple trigger. It's supposed to be the basis on which an aggrieved party can go to court and establish they have had an actual financial loss which should be compensated. It's up to the court to establish the validity and value of the claim.

      The problem with these "strict liability" measures (whether they're simply contractual or ludicrously criminal) is that in most cases nothing of value was lost - and they're totally ineffective in dealing with the remainder.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Copyright

        I have to disagree with your statement that copyright is "supposed to be the basis on which an aggrieved party can go to court and establish they have had an actual financial loss which should be compensated."

        If the only way you can control copyright is to demonstrate a financial loss, then the whole of open-source software is at risk. GPL licences are copyright licences after all. If the source code has been released for free, then how do you demonstrate a financial loss when someone modifies it, then won't release their modded code? You released it for free. How have you lost money?

    2. Dan 55 Silver badge

      In what way is it any more important that the copyright on, say, Asteroids?

      Nintendo's lawyers are even more litigious than The Company Formally Known As Atari.

      1. DougMac

        Atari is a shell of a name bounced between a new different company every couple of years.

        I doubt there is anybody around trying to defend Atari IP. While Nintendo is very active about defending its' IP.

        I think the OP was pointing out that there is a very large community of retro-gamers looking for old game ROMs and IP, vs. a 30 year old program version that probably has had zero users in the last 20 years (but there's always going to be that one guy...).

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      I'd like to see software have a 20-year copyright restriction, but with an added disclaimer that if the company in question is still selling newer versions, editions, etc. of the same product (or uses same characters, etc), then derivative works are prohibited but free distribution of the original product would be allowed. So, Super Mario Bros 1 could be freely copied, but you can't create a (different) game with Mario in it without a license.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    ISO

    I was about to post that the spec is freely downloadable from Adobe as well as available from ISO and easy to find on google, but I see now that changed with the release of PDF2.0. That's a real disappointment.

  8. Roland6 Silver badge

    Can't be that dodgy - the link still worked as does the download

    It clearly shows that the bot is doing much more than simply scanning the text of tweets.

    I wonder if Adobe now consider the WinWorldPC website as dodgy because they host the installer and don't redirect users to Adobe for the download.

    Mikko, should use his position to challenge Tweeter on the DCMA notice, so that more can be discovered, because it does seem that someone on Adobe's behalf are overstepping the mark and potentially using DCMA takedown notices for anti-competitive reasons in the guise of copyright protection.

  9. Sgt_Oddball
    Windows

    The auto takedowns...

    It's all fine and dandy having an automated tool to flag content for DCMA strikes, fine. I get it, dirty job so companies don't miss out on their two pence/cents.

    What I take serious issue with is the complete lack of redress, nuance or balance. Where is the ability to argue a point back that doesn't require you to be a social media celebrity bringing negative press against a company posting a strike? Why isn't there a method where if sufficient challenges against a company issuing strikes gets them put on the naughty bench unable to issue more until the can prove legitimately that the strikes are valid?

    The big tech companies seem able to hide behind these systems and let the rampant abuse happen because why would they care? It's not like individuals have the money to file suit against the overly broad terms and when pushed back on well known personalities they immediately role over. Not popular? Then what do they care? No one's going to care about the DCMA strikes over a silent CCTV video (we've now had 12 different companies file claim for the audio in a silent YouTube video. It boggles the mind).

    1. Roland6 Silver badge

      Re: The auto takedowns...

      >we've now had 12 different companies file claim for the audio in a silent YouTube video.

      There have been multiple copyright claims for white noise as well https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-42580523

      And media companies claiming copyright of stuff that in't theirs:

      https://petapixel.com/2016/02/20/how-i-turned-a-bs-youtube-copyright-claim-back-on-the-real-infringer/

      It seems YouTube encourages these fraudulent claims because they simply automatically redirect any revenue to whomever submitted the claim without any further checking. I wonder whether there any similar benefits on Facebook or Twitter. However, I wonder how long it will be before the scam artists spot this money making opportunity.

      1. Sgt_Oddball

        Re: The auto takedowns...

        However, I wonder how long it will be before the scam artists spot this money making opportunity.

        I'd say sometime last year going on how it seems to be getting worse.

    2. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

      Re: The auto takedowns...

      "What I take serious issue with is the complete lack of redress, nuance or balance. Where is the ability to argue a point back that doesn't require you to be a social media celebrity bringing negative press against a company posting a strike? Why isn't there a method where if sufficient challenges against a company issuing strikes gets them put on the naughty bench unable to issue more until the can prove legitimately that the strikes are valid?"

      There *IS* a penalty clause in the DMCA for false takedown notices, it includes being able to collect damages and penalties against them. As much as they might want to squirm out of it, I'm QUITE sure that there'd be no arguing against dead silence being a false takedown notice. And indeed, there have been cases in the past where the DMCA-trolls tried to argue "Well, it's automated, it makes mistakes", the judge correctly pointed out "Your bot is auto-signing attesting UNDER PERJURY that the info is true, that's your problem for not having a human double-check the bot results." The groups that use the DMCA as a kudgel have just made very sure they push ISPs, google, twitter, etc., into accepting automated DMCA claims, while making sure very few if any of them make people aware of their full rights.

  10. Tron Silver badge

    The default to block.

    Both automated and human-run take-downs do not necessarily mean that someone has broken the law. These notices can be issued simply because your tweet, posting or website contains a lyric from a song or a string of text. Fan sites are often taken down for no good reason, despite promoting bands. It is a lazy 'default to block' promoted by the legal vultures employed by large companies.

    It is a worry that tech companies are abusing copyright to criminalise history.

    Streaming is a bigger concern, particularly in partnership with cancel culture. Our culture is now more vulnerable than it has been since the BBC were chucking their old 'Dr. Who' recordings into skips for shelf space.

    Stuff tends to survive if there are a lot of physical copies of it. The Universal Studios fire of 2008 springs to mind. If physical copies are not produced or criminalised, stuff will vanish. A small number of tech companies can turn chunks of our cultural history - music, TV, film, software - into an inanimate version of an Orwellian unperson. I'm not aware of there being a legal deposit system for software (or even music). There should be.

    I'm quite amazed that Adobe Reader was ever released for MS-DOS. I don't remember it.

    1. J. Cook Silver badge

      Re: The default to block.

      I'll point out what happened to the twitch stream of BLizzcon's concert- the audio for Metallica was replaced by some 8 bit chiptunes in a glorious dose of Karma, seeing as that band was rather infamous in the early noughties for their anti-music sharing views...

  11. NonSSL-Login
    Stop

    Repeal Copyright Laws - Save Culture

    Copyright laws are so overpowered that companies now just delete content and suspend accounts after emails from automated bots, even though they know a majority may be wrong, because they are scared of being sued under ridiculous copyright laws.

    Copyright laws need to be brought back inline with how they were originally, not Disneys and Hollywoods life + 70 years or whatever monstrosity they lobbied for and got.

    Culture is being lost and in some cases no created at all because of harsh copyright laws. Don't get me started on anti-circumvention parts and Sonys HDCP stuff through its part in the HDMI standards organisation....

    1. sgp

      Re: Repeal Copyright Laws - Save Culture

      They really should give you a right to copy, shouldn't they.

  12. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Didn't know there was a DOS version!

    I didn't know there was a DOS version! Very surprised!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like