Adobe PDF Security Question

[Ms_Lamborghini]

Hi,
Does anyone know how to change the security settings on a PDF format form?

I have some forms I purchased on PDF format but I need to update the dates and add different people's name on all of them before printing them.

These forms only allows me to print and nothing else

Help Pleeeeezz

ML

[Spathiphyllum]

If you are using Acrobat Reader as opposed to Acrobat, then the author's settings trump all and you won't be able to modify them. If you are using Acrobat, you might be able to change the security settings, again, depending on how tight the author made the form.

If you are using some other PDF reader to open the form, then I don't know. There might be an application or plugin that allows you to manipulate security features created by Adobe. I'm assuming that Adobe PDFs are your target.

[Ms_Lamborghini]

If you are using Acrobat Reader as opposed to Acrobat, then the author's settings trump all and you won't be able to modify them. If you are using Acrobat, you might be able to change the security settings, again, depending on how tight the author made the form.

Yes, I'm using Adobe Reader 7.0 to read it

?

[Spathiphyllum]

File->Document Security->Display Settings

Review them to see what the author/creator allows and does not allow. Using Reader you will not be able to make any changes to security... as far as I know. I use Acrobat and there are tools that are available to me that aren't in the Reader, so I could have gotten some features confused.

Changing Document or Form Fields seems to be your point of interest. If changes are "Not Allowed", you are out of luck. The template document is "locked". If the source is protected, then you could try to get past the security settings by guessing the password. That would be a waste of time unless you are extremely lucky.

[sehh]

PDF security was cracked some time ago and there are tools that can remove it from PDF documents.

One of those tools is called: Adobe Acrobat Advanced PDF Password Recovery Pro

Google is your friend

[Spathiphyllum]

...That would be a waste of time unless you are extremely lucky.

I, then, stand corrected. "Luck" is one way. Cracking with a third-party application to violate the desires and copyright of the document creator is another. If you need such tools to crack your own document, by all means get one. A forgotten password should not sabotage one's own work. Sabotaging (or stealing) the work of others, however... well, each person chooses one's own ethics. Also, some laws are more easily broken and less readily enforced. Have fun.

[sehh]

I am not sure what the problem is with software...

but when i buy a car, its fully unlocked and all mine..

doesn't have an owners license with an expiration date, or a locked glove compartment that requires my credit card to open, or the back seats are fully usable and aren't a plugin that needs purchase, the CD player is fully usable and the dashboard doesn't popup advertisements while driving...

now why would someone sell you a PDF document and have it locked? or a car for that mater...

[Spathiphyllum]

now why would someone sell you a PDF document and have it locked? or a car for that mater...

Companies create documents that serve as templates, and PDFs are excellent formats for such time-saving processes. They are copywritten upon creation. When a company "locks" its document, whether for internal use or external distribution, they are setting the parameters for their property. If they distribute under license (whether for profit or not), they have the right to define its use. Engagement of security measures is a de facto declaration that the distributable is under some sort of proprietary control. They may or may not permit certain uses of said product - depending, of course, on any published license upon acquisition.

Having produced PDF templates, I sympathize with companies whose business model depends on them retaining control of their code. It takes time, effort, and subsequently money to design, produce, and support such products. If someone were to buy/acquire a version and then modify it, however superficially or intensively, he has stolen creative content from the author(s). If company profits are based on repeat sales of other similar templates, then the enduser who cracks a template need not return and make another purchase. They'll already have the whole foundation and infrastructure (code with GUI) and will need only add-on an odd window to have produced "their own version". That is theft if the author does not desire such deconstruction of content.

I'll skip commentary on the redistribution of cracked-n-edited content. The internet is replete with such shenanigans. In our digital age, piracy and copyright infringement are just too easy. Cracking another author's content is yet another example of abuse. If one finds the end product useful enough to use, then it's useful enough to pay for at the price asked by the vendor. If there is a trivial issue with the end product, authors may entertain the idea of giving a heavy discount too to increase sales; however, it is not up to the enduser to set new rules after the product has been acquired. Should one do so, one is exposed to legal jeopardy. If one were to get sued and get me on the jury, I'd more than likely side with the author/creator.

[Spathiphyllum]

I noticed that that password-cracking program is shareware. It think it would be a bit ironic if someone downloaded the trial version and, oh, I dunno, cracked it by entering the magic word and turned it into a full-fledged "professional" version. Perhaps someone will create such a password-cracking application cracker... maybe make it freeware for those who'd rather not pay the going rate for the AAAPDFPRP.

Would that be karmic?

[the_ancient]

Companies create documents that serve as templates, and PDFs are excellent formats for such time-saving processes. They are copywritten upon creation. When a company "locks" its document, whether for internal use or external distribution, they are setting the parameters for their property. If they distribute under license (whether for profit or not), they have the right to define its use. Engagement of security measures is a de facto declaration that the distributable is under some sort of proprietary control. They may or may not permit certain uses of said product - depending, of course, on any published license upon acquisition.

Having produced PDF templates, I sympathize with companies whose business model depends on them retaining control of their code. It takes time, effort, and subsequently money to design, produce, and support such products. If someone were to buy/acquire a version and then modify it, however superficially or intensively, he has stolen creative content from the author(s). If company profits are based on repeat sales of other similar templates, then the enduser who cracks a template need not return and make another purchase. They'll already have the whole foundation and infrastructure (code with GUI) and will need only add-on an odd window to have produced "their own version". That is theft if the author does not desire such deconstruction of content.

I'll skip commentary on the redistribution of cracked-n-edited content. The internet is replete with such shenanigans. In our digital age, piracy and copyright infringement are just too easy. Cracking another author's content is yet another example of abuse. If one finds the end product useful enough to use, then it's useful enough to pay for at the price asked by the vendor. If there is a trivial issue with the end product, authors may entertain the idea of giving a heavy discount too to increase sales; however, it is not up to the enduser to set new rules after the product has been acquired. Should one do so, one is exposed to legal jeopardy. If one were to get sued and get me on the jury, I'd more than likely side with the author/creator.

I disagree, Content Producers should not be allowed to hold their content hostage and try to extort more money out of me the consumer

if I buy content, I should be able to use said content in any form and in any way I choose up to redistribution.

If I buy a PDF template and need to change a few lines, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO. if I buy a CD and want to rip it to mp3 I SHOULD BE ABLE TO
if I buy a DVD and want to make a backup of the orginal, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO

this "content mafia" needs to end

[sehh]

You still don't make any sense...

When i go to my bank (for example) and i'm given a bunch of forms to fill in at home, or when i rent a car or just about anything that requires paper forms, i get to keep a copy of the forms.

All those forms are nicely printed on paper, designed and written with as much care as any PDF docuemt.

Yet, none of them are restricted in any way. I can print them, scan them, modify them, write my silly name on top of them and pretend i'm "Super Bank from Outer Space" giving nice loans.

Now why should a PDF document be any different?

PS:
there are a bunch of PDF password crackers, that one is shareware but the crack has already been released and you can find it in astalavista. so you don't need to worry about that.

[Spathiphyllum]

I disagree, Content Producers should not be allowed to hold their content hostage and try to extort more money out of me the consumer

Disagreeing is fine. Extortion, however, is a misapplied term. You are free to buy or not buy the product as distributed by the creator. If you do not approve of their license, recognize their intellectual property, and abide by the packaging as created, the you are free not to be "extorted" by the company by not purchasing their product.

if I buy content, I should be able to use said content in any form and in any way I choose up to redistribution.

Why? What is your justification? Just because you would desire it to be so? The creator has property rights, too. You are not actually buying the rights to the end product in the scenarios we are discussing. You are basically "leasing" the content with restrictions. It is not a T-shirt, for example.

If I buy a PDF template and need to change a few lines, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO. if I buy a CD and want to rip it to mp3 I SHOULD BE ABLE TO
if I buy a DVD and want to make a backup of the orginal, I SHOULD BE ABLE TO

this "content mafia" needs to end

If you follow the license at the time of purchase, and that license permits such manipulation of artistic/creative content, then change, rip, or back-up to your heart's content. If such activities were expressly prohibited, then you may not circumvent their restrictions. If you do, you may not necessarily get prosecuted, but you are committing a crime and you are legally liable. I would find the action unethical, too, but we each define our own ethics. As they say, ethics are what you have when no one is watching.

[Spathiphyllum]

You still don't make any sense...

I can't help it if you don't understand.

...Now why should a PDF document be any different?

The hardcopy are more difficult to reproduce on large scale, are more expensive to reproduce/handle, and lack the underlying code for nice formatting, data handling, processing, etc. Plus, the PDF was distributed with a license. The hardcopy may or may not be licensed. If it is, you are breaking the law. Companies may not care to prosecute because it is typically a document to further the sales of their real business. In this case, the companies' business is document templates. That is not a subtle difference.

PS: there are a bunch of PDF password crackers, that one is shareware but the crack has already been released and you can find it in astalavista. so you don't need to worry about that.

The ethical dilemma is the same. The irony, if the shareware company's product is cracked, is also the same. I don't doubt such cracking software has been open sourced. Who knows. The original crack may be the very source of the freeware circulating around, and there are many cheats and thieves who don't think twice about this crime and gladly disseminate it because a) they don't want to pay and b) they want others complicit in their action to justify their bad behavior. If "everyone" is doing it, then it's not wrong, right?

[sehh]

Thats the whole point.

Authors shouldn't be allowed to create such licenses and manipulate the public in such ways.

You didn't comment on my post above. There are no password protected forms in real life, why should there be any in digital form?

[Spathiphyllum]

Thats the whole point.

Authors shouldn't be allowed to create such licenses and manipulate the public in such ways.

Why not? Authors make a product, set a price and some controls on IP, and the consumer forces change upon the creation by how much or how little the product moves. People need an incentive to create "art". They also deserve the right to protect it. Such is the way of IP as opposed to cord of wood or auto tires. Remove the incentives to make a living and squash the motivational engine that drives people to invent new things, even things that appear easy to produce. Why should you have sole rights to manipulate the creator at your whim? You approved of purchasing the product in the first place, yet now you would undercut their business model because you are feeling cheap and/or extorted. Somehow that is better?

You didn't comment on my post above. There are no password protected forms in real life, why should there be any in digital form?

I did address it.