Slashdot Mirror
Felten Suit to Continue
MadCow-ard writes: "C|Net has an article on the EFF pushing ahead with the countersuit to open the way to Dr. Felten to publishing the SDMI hack. RIAA has back peddled from their original threats, and now claim "hey, we never were going to sue him, so lets just drop the whole thing". It seems they prefer scare tactics to going up against free speech in a court room. Fear has more leverage because 'anything' could happen. The best part is the EFF and Felten are planning a victory dinner at $250 a head!" The recent legal filings are available, if you want to read the maneuvering. In a nutshell: both the RIAA and EFF think the RIAA made a mistake by threatening Felten, and want to negate it or capitalize on it respectively.
In related Unconstitutional-DMCA-violation news, www.boycottadobe.com has launched. We need to defend Dimitry Sklyarov as vigorously as Dr. Felten.
Here is some disturbing commentary:
This just in from Bill Scannell:
I just got off the telephone with Vladimir Katalov.
Katalov informs me that the Russian embassy has been denied access to Dmitry Sklyarov, a flagrant violation of international law. No Russian consular official has spoken to Sklyarov since his detention earlier this week.
In addition, Sklyarov's wife and two children have not heard from their husband and father since his arrest. They are understandably worried sick for his safety.
It is believed Dmitry Sklyarov is being held in solitary confinement.
As an American who honorably served in the armed forces, I am ashamed for the actions of my government. This cannot stand.
Telephone numbers:
US State Department: 1-202-647-6575
Russian Embassy: 1-202-298-5700
Russian Consul (SF) 1-415928-6878
Call. Get your friends to call. Call again.
Please disseminate this information as widely as possible.
-Bill
What is really great is if the DMCA, or at least the relevant part of it, gets declared unconstitutional, then it will be impossible to stop anyone from making a crack public. All the person who made the crack has to do is send it to a friendly computer science professor who will then write it up in a paper and publish it on the web, and it will all be totally legal.
Hmm. So the RIAA now says they never intended to follow through on their original legal threats against Felten, then?
As I understand the law, making threats of lawsuits that you do not actually intend to follow through on in order to bully someone into doing what you want is a criminal offense. Isn't it?
If i am correct, then why isn't the EFF going after the RIAA for *that*? Seems the results of a suit finding the RIAA guilty of trying to use 'we'll sue you' scare tactics against an individual without the ability to defend himself could be far more damaging in the eye of the public media than forcing the RIAA to allow something they now claim they'll alow anyway, and could maybe end with some punitive damages that could fund the EFF..
Oh, hell, why not go against the RIAA in court for BOTH?
What am i missing/confused on here?
I'm sending it to the RIAA so they can continue to innovate.
From0 10 626_amended_felten_complaint.html, Declaratory Relief (Second Cause of Action):
http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Felten_v_RIAA/20
F. A declaration that the DMCA is unconstitutional on its face because it violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
G. A declaration that the application of the DMCA to the publication or presentation of scientific, academic or technical speech, including the publication of computer programs, violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
> they never intended to follow through on their original legal threats against Felten, then?
Perhpas they're being "honest". Maybe they just planned to do what Adobe did and sick the FBI on him. Technically, they're initial letter just warned him that he might violate the DMCA. I wonder if they cc:ed their warning to the FBI?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Well, if you really want to get the economy back on track, you'd buy some over-priced CDs :)
Me, I'm going to save the money just to spite the Prez. and Mr. Greenspan. It's amazing that conspicuous consumption, or even consumption at all, has been elevated to the standard-bearer of our economy. Sure, the economy depends on people buying goods and services, but it seems kind of sordid to tell the American people that it's their God-given duty to go out and spend some for the W, especially since there are plenty of ways that money could be used towards the long-term improvement of society and the economy in general. Too bad the President, along with most politicians, isn't a particularly long-term thinker.
Grrrr, I haven't been this angry since the last time Miguel said something :)
(boy, you know you read /. too much when all of your witty self-referential posts have scrolled off of your user page.)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
did anyone else notice the url ended with sue-bastards2.html? not that we're resorting to childish name calling or anything of the sort... but... well, i guess we are.
oh well.
--
--
RumorsDaily
Sklyarov is a Russian citizen, right? And his company is, presumably selling their product that 'violates the DMCA' in Russia . And all he did in the US was talk about it. So where the hell does the US government get off arresting someone who's not one of their citizens, over something that's happening in another country?
The US has a very poor track record of acknowlaging international boundries. Remember that there have also been recent issues involving a Nowegian citizen (in Norway) Canadian citizens (in Canada), British citizens in the UK. All related to the DMCA.
Also the illegal holding of a (minor) Cuban citizen for several months.
Courts typically eschew resolving disputes when there is no dispute. RIAA messed up big, no doubt, but their statement that they have no intention to sue, if credited by the Court, is sufficient to permit dismissal.
Why? You can't sue because you are merely apprehensive of being sued under a statute. Unless you are affirmatively fearful that the other side intends to sue, and they are refraining from suit as a tactic to get the benefit of the threat without risking adjudication, a Court is free to refrain from taking up the cause.
No doubt, EFF will do a job in this case, hitting RIAA over the head with their rather amazing history of conduct, and perhaps raising the criminal risk card from Las Vegas. But so far, these facts still look 50-50 in terms of going forward in an action for a declaratory judgment.
Now, I'd expect EFF to offer RIAA to dismiss if they sign a general release and consent to publish the article -- thus, RIAA would have to concede, or look bad before the Court.
But these guys are all represented by awesome lawyers. It will be very interesting to watch what they do.
This is slightly offtopic, but I don't know why it hasn't been suggested before. The RIAA is a front to divert attention away from the record companies to save face. And we are falling for it. I suggest that from now on, whenever we would use the term RIAA, we should now use [BMG|Geffen|MTV|MCA|Polygram|Sony|Virgin|WarnerBr
Asylum Records, Refuge Records, Guardian Records
Greatful Dead Records (!!!), Woodstock Records, PBS Records
Buddha Records, Aware Records, Bliss Productions, Gospel Records, Worship Together Records, Praise Gathering
and of course, Straight Profit Records, Victory Records, Ruthless Records, Ruffhouse Records, and Psychopath Records. <-- At least these guys are for real.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
I may be an off topic troll but what the hell:
"When it comes right down to it we as citizens should have and did get a tax refund because it was morally imperative. The government budgets XYZ for a year - lets say $3T. The government collects $4T. It follows that we should refund that extra $1T to the people who paid it. By the way, it also follows that if we only collected $2T that we should all get an additional "gap" tax bill at the end of the year, to cover the deficit."
Well, commies like me will tell you giving huge chunks of change to incredibly wealthy people even while their overall share of the tax burden is decreasing is unfair. Wrong even. I'm a big believer in the estate tax, for example. It typically affects only extremely rich people or moderately rich people that are astonishingly stupid (or unlucky) when it comes to tax planning. There are other mechanisms for dealing with the 9 or so farmers affected. The beautiful thing about the estate tax is that it, like property tax, is a tax on wealth. Being rich is a cool thing and fun and, take alone, morally neutral. But passing that wealth along as a means of entrenching power? The hell with that. President Tinybrain, err, Bush is the son of President George Herbert Walker Bush III. He in turn was freakin' Queen Elizabeth II's 13th cousin twice removed (check it: http://www.genealogyspot.com/know/president.htm). Whatever happened to that work hard, self-made man stuff? (To be nearly fair: Bush the Elder is not a moron. He worked damn hard and definitely bettered the Bush family fortune and prospects by his ventures into the oil business. This was an independent step for him. At worst he may be an evil CIA spook who should have been fitted with a radio collar for surveillance purposes. But at least he actually went out and did stuff unlike his useless kid.) Maybe Tinybrain would be a better prez if he'd had to work for a living?
Cynical and bitter lovers of freedom and democracy like me will tell you that offering a tiny bribe to people who are more likely to have not voted for you than not is a cheap way to distract them from the coup you accomplished last fall. We will also point out that had you given the money "back" in the form of credits on payroll taxes (the largest category of taxes for most people and tremendously regressive [not that that is always a bad thing; c.f. my estate tax rant above]) you would have helped far more people than this did. It apparently wasn't a question of "your" money as it was "some of your money." Of course then you wouldn't be able to reward the people that helped overthrow our government.
But most of all, pragmatic people like me will tell you that flushing the surplus we have now so we can borrow it back later (plus more to pay the debt service!) is astonishingly short sighted. The heart of my beef with your post is your take on the budgetary process.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but please tell that to Sklyarov. FBI agents handcuffed and arrested him, under the DMCA, as it was claimed. I don't think the RIAA, MPAA, or Adobe is joking. At all.
I have no problems with having faith in the courts. We need to keep this from being a shouting match between the techies, who shout "bad law" and the RIAA and gang, who shout "good law". For this, we need REASONS, not contentions, not moral one-upmanship, or legal maneuvring. Because you are presenting this case before the courts, and we do believe these are reasonable judges, right?
The United States of Australia has also enacted a similar piece of legislation to the DMCA. Whilst not quite as draconian (because you can't get slammed just for having DeCSS or DiXV on your PC), it is still one sided nevertheless. Our weak-kneed government seemed to roll over and play dead when asked by the US to enact these type of laws. (No wonder Asia calls Australia the US's deputy... and our dumb Prime Minister is proud of it). Here is where you can find the Australian legislation Copyright Amendment (Digital Amendment) Act 2000 Unfortunately, since Australia does not have the first amendment, there is nothing that an Australian academic can do to defend themselves against s132 (5B)(c) which makes it an offence to "distribute a circumvention device with the intention of trading, or engaging in any other activity that will affect prejudicially an owner of copyright
First, they raise money (probably about $180 out of the $250.) Attendees know they could get a much better meal for $500 a couple by eating out at a real restaurant.
Secondly, big donors get a chance to meet the people behind the foundation, and judge for themselves if their money is being put to good use. I.e. does this foundation have smart, honest people working for it? If it looks good, donors may write a big check based on their belief that the money will be well spent.
I donated a decent sum to the EFF last year, but if I wanted my father to donate, I'd advise him to go the dinner: it's a painless way to get an education, especially because he has better things to do than read /.
At first, I was thrilled with my IRS refund because $300 is a lot of money to a guy who had no job for two months.
But now, I'm thinking that this money was intended to serve others. It was set apart to serve causes higher than myself, and now I have the chance to actually choose where that money goes. I don't have to worry about it going to build bombs, or how much overhead the government bureaucrats will take from it.
I can take this money and choose whom it will serve.
Perhaps what we all can do, those of us who find the tax cut irresponsible, is to use our power of choice to send the money where we think it will be valuable.
Right now, the EFF is doing the right thing. But they can't do it all for free. Perhaps it would be best if I were to send my $300 refund to them?
What do you think? What are you going to do with your IRS refund?
Fight Spammers!
Typical saber-rattling maneuver used by RIAA. There is an inversely proportional relationship between the shrillness of a given RIAA threat and the firmness of the legal foundation upon which it rests.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I like this part of the Felten Amended Brief the best: "M. A permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of the DMCA because it is in excess of Congress' enumerated powers." A request to flat out declare the DMCA unconsitutional.
Think of all the legal cases in the past year that would effectively overturn. Damn near every RIAA and MPAA lawsuit there was! Wouldn't it be great to see the RIAA and MPAA put into bankruptcy by countersuits by people who's civil rights were violated by the bastards?
Since Dr Felten's paper is not submitted to the USENIX conference because of RIAA's threat and that it is now too late for him to do so. There is definite damages done to his academic reputation. There may also be potential financial loses, eg future research grants may depends on works he has done/published etc.
Sorry, but just taking it back now is a bit too later.
====
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
It's not the MPAA. It's the RIAA.
Please, Slashdot posters, before you post, at least get the facts right! And BTW, there is no such thing as the "DCMA"--it's the "DMCA", which stands for "Digital Millenium Copyright Act".
----------
qslack.com
I know donating some cash to the EFF would do some good. This seems like a perfect case to push for a trial. The MPAA needs to lose some to let it know it cannot push around some of our scientists without getting stung!
If you have not already done so donate some currency to their cause (our cause).
Actually, in many states, it is. It's called barratry. For example, in Washington State:
RCW 9.12.010
Barratry.
Every person who brings on his or her own behalf, or instigates, incites, or encourages another to bring, any false suit at law or in equity in any court of this state, with intent thereby to distress or harass a defendant in the suit, or who serves or sends any paper or document purporting to be or resembling a judicial process, that is not in fact a judicial process, is guilty of a misdemeanor; and in case the person offending is an attorney, he or she may, in addition thereto be disbarred from practicing law within this state.
=====
Further, some states have Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation statutes, which carry tremendous fines. To win a SLAPP suit, one doesn't even need to prove damages, and there's no limit to the amount of money a jury can award.
IANAL, but...
Threatening to sue someone frivolously is grounds for a countersuit. It is not a crime.
Threatening to report someone to the police if they don't do what you ask is a crime (in some jurisdictions yada yada IANAL blah blah blah).
Threatening to sue someone is just the first step in civil law. If you have a case under the law, you might win right there. If you don't, you fight. Countersuit, appeal, drain the bank account, settle whenever, are all options for what happens after. Welcome to our world.
So no, it's not a crime, but an idle threat might be grounds for a countersuit, and a filed, frivolous lawsuit is definitely grounds for a damn solid countersuit.
IANAL, I just know this one thing. And it might be wrong.
--Blair
"What I say three times is true."
Facing the DMCA is like playing chicken with a cardboard Mac truck. It's big, it's bad, but if you were to ever call its bluff, it probably won't survive.
...
string* plamenessFilter =
...
string* plamenessFilter =
*plamenessFilter = "Flaming Death!!";
In a rather unexpected move however, the Dutch PTT, through Planet Internet added themselves to the defendant list, giving the little ISP's some more weight and causing another court to handle the case. I may be off on the details here, but those are not relevant at this point, it's the idea that matters now.
I am wondering if the US court system allows this kind of 'adding yourself' to the list of defendants (is 'defendant' the right word? I hope so...). IF there is no secret agenda behind this courtcase, like KGB/CIA meddling or earlier crimes comitted in the US by Sklyarov, and the whole case is ONLY about publishing/speaking on how to break a ROT13 encryption, I would be HAPPY to 'add' myself to this case and share Sklyarov's destiny. The same would apply for Dr Felten actually (just to not get smacked down as being 'Offtopic') but hey, I cannot claim to be as smart as Dr. Felten.
I figure if enough people and perhaps companies (there MUST be companies out there that are very much AGAINST this DMCA) will rise against this (from what it looks like, and admitting that I don't know all the facts) GRAVE INJUSTICE. I just cannot stand people being treated like the most vicious criminals for violating laws that go against every common sense, and not violating it in a brutal way, but merely by exposing pure STUPIDITY.
Anybody with legal knowledge, please post on here if this is at all possible and if there have been precedents like this where many many people voluntarily added themselves to a courtcase.