Slashdot Mirror
Travesty: Dmitry Sklyarov's Arrest
The arrest highlights the way copyright law and intellectual property issues have been highjacked by software and entertainment companies and their lobbyists, who joined forces to pass the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a little-noticed or debated 1996 law that turns out to be a serious threat to free speech online or off. Sklyarov, a 26-year-old graduate student from Moscow, is one of the first people to face criminal prosecution -- including jail -- under the DMCA. His alleged crime? He is accused of "trafficking" in software designed to circumvent the security features of an Adobe e-book program used by Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other sellers of electronic books.
The arrest raises questions about the right of individuals -- hackers, reporters, programmers, kids in their rooms -- to raise public policy issues relating to software, encryption or security -- without being arrested and jailed, an act more reminiscent of Stalinist Russia than of a country that once placed considerable premium on free speech. If the Sklyarov case stands, then discussion of security, copyright, intellectual property and other issues online will be severely curtailed. This is serious stuff.
In addition, there is a significant body of Constitutional law that gives special protection to journalists and people acting in that role -- like Sklyarov -- from powerful interests like governments and corporations that allows them to raise public policy issues which, over the years, have ranged from national security to government corruption to music and research to software and issues relating to its security. The Constitution always tilted in favor of protecting individuals who challenge authority, under the theory that concentrated power poses a greater threat to freedom than the behavior of individuals.
To understand how information conglomerates have, along with Congress, corrupted Constitutional law, you have to draw analogies to previous cases in which individuals acted as checks and balances on powerful institutions.
Consider the celebrated Pentagon Papers during the Nixon administration in 1971. Journalists, including some working for The New York Times, CBS News and The Washington Post, obtained and disclosed secret Pentagon documents dealing with the decision-making that led to the Vietnam War, then and now bitterly controversial.
The circumstances were very different. The government invoked national security, not copyright in an effort to keep proprietary information secret. The government and the President reacted furiously when they learned that the media intended to publish these documents, citing law and national security. Reporters couldn't be allowed to decide which classified documents would be published, argued the government. These documents belonged to government agencies and could only be released by them. In a different context, Adobe and the government are making the very same argument against Sklyarov.
The Federal government threatened criminal action against the reporters and their news organizations, claiming it was illegal to disclose documents relating to national security. But the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, found that it was unconstitutional to exercise that kind of "prior restraint" on a journalist or news organization seeking to fulfill its constitutional duties to monitor government actions. The court ruled that even though national security concerns were legitimate, the greater public interest lay in the ability of citizens to understand the decisions that led to a prolonged military conflict. The court ruled for an open, rather than a closed, debate on Vietnam.
In its ruling, the Court affirmed long-standing legal interpretations which protected people acting as citizens or journalists -- remember, there are no established qualifications; anyone can function as a journalist -- from censorship, restraint or punishment while they were acting in the public interest, defined as scrutinizing and checking power and authority. Today, corporatism is as powerful as most governments, and as urgently in need of monitoring.
Apart from the scale of the bedrock issue -- a war versus encryption -- there is little legal difference between the reporters seeking to disclose what was in the Pentagon Papers and Sklyarov, who was acting as a reporter just as much as New York Times employees. If anything, the Pentagon papers were airing much more sensitive material -- top-secret classified documents from U.S. defense agencies.
If a New York Times or Washington Post reporter challenged the effectiveness of a government official or agency, he or she would be showered with awards. Reporters published "leaked" or confidential material all the time, in regards to the safety practices of companies as well as the workings of government. Does any rational person think a New York Times reporter would ever be arrested or thrown in jail for disclosing that a software company's supposedly securely encrypted software had flaws? Sklyarov is entitled to the same standing, and the same protection. In a sense, hackers are the reporters and commentators of cyberspace, in some contexts entitled to similiar protections.
If there's a bright spot to the arrest, it's the growing discomfort of Adobe, which spent most of yesterday back-pedaling, trying to distance itself from the arrest. The image of this giant corporation, which claims to be the second biggest PC software company in the United States, against a 26-year-old gadfly wasn't pretty, and may deter other companies from calling in the feds. This promises to be a PR debacle for Adobe, and the company richly deserves it. Many software critics compare Sklyarov to corporate critics like Ralph Nader, who gathered private information on the behavior and safety records of corporations and there products, but are rarely, if ever, thrown in jail for it. Yesterday, Adobe panicked, and in an unexpected turnaround, called for Sklyarov's release -- almost one month to the day that the company filed a complaint about him with the F.B.I. That leaves the feds holding the bag, trying to explain this outrageous arrest.
People protesting Sklyarov's arrest are correct when they warn that critics of companies can now go to jail for proving that so-called secure software isn't necessarily secure. Or for obtaining and publishing other "copyrighted" material, now under the DMCA, and owned by wealthy, politically-connected corporations like Adobe or Microsoft.
Companies like Sony, Disney, AOL Time-Warner, Microsoft and Adobe are increasingly powerful, and spend billions lobbying Washington politicians to enact laws like the DMCA, an almost total creation of the music industry.
But people like Sklyarov are clearly acting in the public interest when they monitor the ethics, performance and conduct of companies like Adobe, just as the Pentagon Paper reporters were disclosing documents that launched the Vietnam War. If Adobe's encryption software works, what does the company have to fear from a 26-year-old Russian hacker?
Sklyarov was guilty of offering a public presentation about software designed to prevent the piracy of e-books, meanwhile, publishing corporations have been lining up behind the record and movie companies to try to control intellectual property online -- at any cost.
Sklyarov wasn't stealing money, or behaving in any overtly criminal way. The government and Adobe both have civil legal remedies they could have pursued. And whatever Sklyarov's motives or intentions, he was acting in the most traditional and highest standards of the press and free speech in questioning the widely-used products of a powerful corporation. Encryption and e-publishing is a bona fide public policy issue with significant implications for business and the public.
Who else but a hacker is in a position to monitor companies like Adobe and the products they create, products that are at the center of a number of crucial public policy issues? To embroil this person in criminal prosecution is an unthinking and chilling assault on the notion -- and long-held practice -- that people in the United States can speak out, however obnoxiously, against powerful institutions.
What kind of world is it where this poor Russian bastard is in jail and Katz walks the streets a free man?
. . . he tried to sell his product in the US, using a US based firm to conduct credit card transactions. Should he not be subject to US law? You are arguing foreign nationals should not be subject to US law, so long as what they are doing is legal in their country. An analogy would be that if crack were legal in Russia, Sklyarov should be able to sell crack in the US. The laws of your own country don't follow you where ever you go. Moreover, if you are going to conduct business in a foreign country, (i.e. sell a product in a foreign country) you better be sure that it is legal there, and not just in your home country.
...he was held for violating a US law, while at the time of the violation he wasn't on US soil or in US jurisdiction. Now I might be a bit confused, but I never heard of any country (other than Israel, and now ours, anyway) holding and charging someone who did something perfectly legal where he was at the time when he did it; just because it would have been POSSIBLY illegal had he done it elsewhere. US law stops at the US border; unless made part of a treaty with another nation. It's the responsibility of the customs division to ensure that items legally prohibited to the citizens of the US don't get here... ...not that of the business that manufactures and sells them where it is legal to do so.
hmmm......
When I buy a real book, I cannot email it to my friends directly. I cannot automaticly dump it into word or whatever and just cut and paste large segments. I could transcribe it if I want those effects, or scan, OCR and edit for the same effect.
Are paper book publishers denying me my rights to use content in lawful ways?
How EASY does fair use have to be in order for it to be provided? Just because a book comes to you in electronic form, why should your ease of "fair use" have to be the same as other electronic media, rather than merely what was put up with in the realm of paper? Did photocopiers give us new rights in fair use or merely convinience?
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that an absolutely perfect hassel free copy that can again be copied perfectly is required for any sort of "fair use".
Kahuna Burger (posting AC cause I lost my password cookie.)
On July 17, 2001, the Government of Canada released a series of papers detailing a framework and roadmap for new Copyright law. They are asking for comments, and we have until September to respond.
Details can be found here or
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html
for the anchor paranoid.
Lets stop the DMCA from undermining our rights north of the border.
...until the people are affected directly by it, and then there will be a backlash. They don't care that some random hacker got arrested for annoying Adobe. They will care when Windows XP tells tham that they're not allowed to play the music they just copied off a CD they bought. They will care when Passport gets cracked or DOSed and their buddy lists or email or credit card numbers are lost or stolen. They will care when someone test-drives a subscription model and they suddenly have to pay again and again for something they used to get for free. Consumer rejection killed the DivX disc, and it can still kill just about anything else that a corporation puts on the market. Last time I checked, the decision to buy or not to buy was still left to the individual consumer.
[awaits insane replies from paranoiacs contradicting last sentence]
I don't want the guy to suffer, but since he was SELLING the product, I don't feel as sorry that he may be the one to have to test the DMCA
HE wasn't selling anything! The company he works for was selling the product. We don't go out and round up the workers at a corporation when it breaks the law. Why should he have been arrested in the first place? If they were going to arrest someone, why not the CEO of the company who was with him and more directly responsible for the sale of the program in the US than Dmitri was?
He's not an American. He shouldn't have to suffer to change some moronic law that we made, which he didn't even break himself. We need to clean up our own mess, not make him do it. The guy should be released so he can get home to his family and tell everyone over there about the fucked up "IP" laws America has.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
This is why the DMCA is here in the first place, because there was little thoughtful debate on why it shouldn't be enacted into law, just a bunch of warez puppies screaming "information wants to be free".
Actually there was little to no public debate whatsoever on the DMCA. It was created very quietly. Then our cowardly congresscritters passed it with a voice vote rather than voting on the record. I think they should ALL be held responsible for it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It doesn't have to be easy. My having a right doesn't mean that you have to make exercising that right easy for me. But: while you may make it difficult, you cannot make it illegal. And that's exactly what DMCA does. It outlaws my exercising a legal right.
If Adobe can come up with some strong encryption to prevent copying, more power to them. But they shouldn't use the cowardly approach of outlawing circumvention technology.
--
No, it's :
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit.
--
Should you be allowed to profit from your work? Well of course. It's a rare bird that says you shouldn't. However, should my rights of free speech and press be infringed upon so that you can profit by being the only person permitted to exercise them for a particular work?
Copyright is a bargain. I am willing to voluntarily not exercise my God-given right to repeat or republish things, if the work in question is good enough, and if it promotes the continued progress of the arts and of human culture.
But not completely. I still want to be able to make copies for my personal use if I got the original legally. I still want to be able to sell the original. (but will destroy any copies I made) I still want to be able to use your works in certain, limited ways to promote the progress of the arts even further, perhaps by quoting it in book reviews, perhaps by xeroxing portions and using them in teaching. And above all, I want to, after you've had enough time to make your work pay for itself, stop this sacrifice, and be able to do whatever I want with the work through the end of time.
This seems fair enough, right? Particularly since you cannot demand that I, in this case, we, the people who give authority to the government, are being gracious to you. We don't HAVE to voluntarily surrender our rights, even for a moment. If it's worth our while, and if it's on our terms, then we're ameniable to it. But copyrights are a gift we grant, and not something you're entitled to just by being an author.
Unfortunately, even THIS isn't enough for the moneyed copyright interests, who want more and more and more, and think that they deserve it. If they keep it up, I think that there will sooner or later be a reckoning, and things will be set back to how they were.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Of course they do. Imagine that it is illegal in Foosylvania to criticize the government there. Do I, an American citizen, not have the right to use the Internet to publish criticisms of the Foosylvanian government because it would break THEIR law? What a silly argument.
Elcomsoft exported their software out of Russia. Simultaneously someone imported their software into the US. If you're going to pursue a trafficker, it is the person who brought it into here - not the person who sent it out of there.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
> The guy was arrested for creating and selling a device which breaks Adobe's "encryption".
Correct, the advanced e-book processor, which comes bundled with exactly zero (0) copyrighted e-books, which you are instead encouraged to legally purchase, download, and then view on the e-book processor.
They came for him with guns and batons, and threw him into an iron cage with murderers for writing a compatible product. He didn't even need to look at Adobe's copyrighted source to do it. Adobe and their ilk have made it a federal felony to break their file formats.
Yep, it was a crime, this is the new kind of crime congress rolled over and passed. Corruption isn't just draining your wallet now, it's threatening people's lives.
--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
Software is speech. It is a string of symbols that transfer meaning. A computer program - in source or object form - is just as much a legitimate protected expression as is a photograph, a blueprint, a mathematical equation, or a dirty joke written in Linear B.
;)
Not exactly. Speech is protected at different levels depending, among other things, on "usefulness". Since software is a type of functional speech, it's protections are less than those for flag burning or pamphlet writing.
So yes, the speech (actual talking) is protected at the highest level. Software that implements the concepts is somewhat less protected. Software that is sold is a direct violation of the DMCA.
Personally, given the precedents set with dual-deck VCRs, I don't think that provision has a leg to stand on as long as the software has a non-infringing purpose. But that's just my humble opinion, and they've not yet made me a judge.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...clarity is not Katz' strong point...
As much as I hate the DMCA and all it stands for (the repression of speech, the creation of "thought crimes," the criminalization of standard engineering practices, and the elevation of corporate greed and profits above the basic rights of the individual to name a few), it is in no way Dmitry's responsibility to suffer in prison to defened our (America's) rights.
Where were we when the DMCA was being passed? Where were we when the 2600 case was being fought? How many of us did anything beyond bitching on slashdot? How many of us joined the EFF? How many of us have written our representatives to express our displeasure? For that matter, how many of us voted in the last election (Floridians are excepted, as their votes were only selectively counted anyway)?
It is our responsibility (those of us who are residents and citizens of the United States) to put an end to this obscenity (the DMCA) and the injustice it incurrs. Not a visiting Russian programmer whos only real crime is to speak out against a large company's flawed, perhaps even fraudulant, product.
Dmitry should do what he needs to get get free, and get clear of this repressive nation, and we should support him in doing so, not expect him to fight our battles for us (however tempting it may be). However, we should not be shy in using this situation to put the case forward to those who do not understand the issues, and to make it known far and wide what has happened so that neither the government nor Adobe ever live this abuse of power down.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
...if Sklyarov as a foreign traveller still enjoys the same 1st amendment rights as US citizens while speaking in the US?
... an impeachable offense if there ever was one, but unfortunately I don't think supreme court justices can be impeached. Then there are the concentration ... excuse me, "boot" ... camps we run for drug offendors, about which the less said the better it seems, and the silence surrounding these shadowy affairs is disturbing to say the least. Did I say "concentration camp?" I meant "happy camp."), and our first amendment rights so eroded that the answer to your question must be "that is a damn good question!"
My first reaction to your question was to say "of course!" but then the laws have become so twisted in the last twenty years or so in order to support the War on Drugs (for example, laws which clearly violate the 4th amendment have been upheld by the courts because of "compelling state interest," which basically means the supreme court acknowledges that the laws violate the constitution, but think they're a good idea anyway and so refrain from striking them down
As an American I assume all of the basic rights (speech, bear arms, religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, etc.) apply to everyone equally, citizen or not. However, the law does appear to treat foreigners somewhat differently than citizens (playing it fast and loose with due process for deportation, for example) that I am forced to wonder just how deep into the system those differences carry.
According to commonly accepted American mores everyone should have the same rights regardless of creed, ethnicity, or citizenship (sans voting, of course, which is reserved for citizens). However, it becomes clearer each day that the mores of America are at severe odds with the mores of our government, the cheap whores who occupy its highest offices, and the lawyers who draft and interpret the legislation. Where that will lead who knows, but I must admit I find the Shakespearean Solution rather appealing these days ("hang all the [IP] lawyers").
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Its not that he found the problem, people always do that. He was selling software that cracks it for $99. Did everyone forget that?
No. His employer was selling the software for $99 in a country where the software was not only legal, but in which, in order for Adobe's software to be at all legal, the existence of the program was required.
Dmitry doesn't "own" the company that employs him, he works there. Would any of us want to be held accountable for our employer's behavior, however benign. While throwing Bill Gates in jail for Microsoft's behavior might seem reasonable, clearly throwing some low-level Microsoft programmer in jail for incompetent programming, or writing a piece of software used to illegally leverage Microsoft's monopoly, wouldn't be at all acceptable.
Yet that is very analogous to what happened here. The guy gave a speech on how software he helped develop (and was being sold by his employer in Russia, which last I checked isn't subject to US law). He gave no specifics, merely made it clear that Adobe's copy protection is virtually nonexistent. For that constitutionally protected speech he was carted off by the FBI, held without bail, and denied access to his Consulate while who-knows-what psychological games were played with his mind (not to mention outright interrogation techniques).
It never ceases to amaze me what levels pro-copyright zealots will stoop to in order to defend the indefensible.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
That all boils down to whether software is 'speech' or a 'device'. There are arguments on both sides, but I vote for 'speech'. People felt it was more obvious that copyright should cover software than patents. Software has been copyrightable since the 60's, but only patentable since the late 80's.
Copyright is about stuff you say. Patents are about devices. Software is more like speech than a device. It isn't illegal for people to say stuff or hand out flyers. It shouldn't be illegal to hand out (or even sell) software.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Well, I don't agree with the arrest of Sklyarov, but I think you missed the point of the original post.
The products you sited and not illegal in the US (even the gun), but yes they are regulated.
Under the stupid DMCA, Sklyarov's program is just illegal, so yes, it would seem he would be breaking that stupid law if he was selling it.
That's what the DMCA does, and that's why it should be struck down. Selling a gun is less dangerous than this program under current law, what a travesty !
- sigs are for wimps.
Dmitry wrote the software in Russia, where it is legal, and for Adobe to restrict copying is illegal. Elcomsoft was going to sell the software in the US, but stopped at Adobe's request.
All he did in the US was give an academic presentation on the flaws in Adobe's software. How that would be illegal is beyond me.
Not only is it not a good law, it's unjust and most probably unconstitutional. What if Rosa Parks hadn't broken the law by refusing to sit in the back of the bus? If a law is unjust, it is our civic duty to disobey it.
Dmitry wrote the software in Russia, where it is legal, and for Adobe to restrict copying is illegal. Elcomsoft was going to sell the software in the US, but stopped at Adobe's request.
All he did in the US was give an academic presentation on the flaws in Adobe's software. How that would be illegal is beyond me.
Sometimes, civic disobedience is the proper course of action. I don't think the Jim Crow laws in the south would've been overturned for many more years if Rosa Parks hadn't broken the law. That and the bus boycotts that followed brought national attention to the situation.
No, it wasn't a crime.
Dmitry wrote the software in Russia, where it is legal, and for Adobe to restrict copying is illegal. Elcomsoft was going to sell the software in the US, but stopped at Adobe's request.
All he did in the US is give an academic presentation on the flaws in Adobe's software.
True, the fact that he is selling the Elcomsoft product is important to consider.
I think, though, that the analogy to making a bomb and bringing it in to the United States is a bit overblown and a false one. A better analogy would be to carrying around lock-picking tools and other such devices. Essentially, that is what this product is; it is a tool to get access to another's property (IP discussions aside, for now).
From what I know of the laws, it is not a crime in most parts of the country to carry around tools that allow you to pick locks. Courts may have problems with a company selling a "Super-dooper lock picking gizmo-widget", but I would imagine the courts would issue an injunction against the company against selling the product as opposed to arresting the person who has the patent (or copyright, for IP) to the product. Or, of what a lock-making company might do, in such a case it might try to sue the person producing the product to stop them from selling it (or for perceived damages, but that seems like it would be shaky).
Bottom line of all this is that as with carrying around lock-picking tools (crowbars, keys, even "super-dooper lock-picking gizmo"), for the sake of freedom we prosecute people only for using such tools to commit or to try to commit a crime. I would give the same argument for the DeCSS case.
So, even if he was pushing Elcomsoft's line of products, the only thing that should be allowed is for Adobe to (a) sue Elcomsoft or ask the court for an injunction against the product, or (b) sue Sklyarov. Certainly, though, he should not be jailed for his actions.
If the digital-publishers don't like it, they need to use better encryption or not use the new technologies. I mean, hey, I like CDs and DVDs and might warm up to the idea of eBooks one day (though not yet), I am not willing to lose my rights so that companies can cut their publishing costs or provide a few new features.
Let's be honest here, Jon. If Ralph Nader made a decryption-cracking program available, he would be liable to prosecution. Is that a good thing? No, but it's the way the law currently stands. Is that a good law? No, but that doesn't mean he was arrested for his speech, either.
There is a relationship of correlation, not causation, between Skylarov's speech and his arrest.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
With all due respect, regardless of your perspective on the morality of this law, in the boundaries of the States, it is the law....right?
Is it ok to break laws you don't personally care for?
Wouldn't the more appropriate route be to move through your elected representatives to have this law repealed, or to work through an organization to challence the constitutionality of this law in court?
If something is perfectly legal where you live, but illegal in another jurisdiction, shouldn't you avoid that jurisdiction?
This is a matter of what is law. You may not like the way that the law is written. You might not like the way that the law is enforced. Neither is particularly relevant here.
Send your comments and constructive criticism to your elected representative, or your local defender of freedom to get this law overturned.
Don't simply break the law. If you do, you are likely to end up in jail. How does that help your cause of freedom?
Anomaly
BTW - God love you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I have a really hard time criticizing your major assertions, but if I thought the libertarians had a chance of wining dominance, I'd never vote for them. The philosophy is wonderful, but the candidates who would be in charge of implementing it don't inspire trust.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
At least this would only be a publically explainable (to US newspaper reporters) action prior to the release of SKlyarov. And even then they'd get it wrong. And I'm not sure it would be by accident. The media have a lot to loose if DCMA gets discarded or limited, and a lot to win it they let it ride.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Chicanery it may be, but it's still in there, which means it should be enforced just as thoroughly as any of the other provisions. Make "USC Title 17 section 1201(c)(1)" words that every IP protection software maker hates to hear.
What Adobe did could arguably be a crime. In Russia, it is illegal to limit making backup copies of computer software. Adobe's e-book software limits that, which means it violates Russian law. Where the software was written, it would be Adobe being charged with a violation of the law and not Skylarov.
There's also the US law part of it. Making personal-use copies of copyrighted works is specifically protected as fair use. Making backup copies of computer media is as well. Selling your copy to someone else is as well. The DMCA specifically says that nothing in it shall be construed as limiting fair use rights. Adobe's software limits those fair use rights, and they cite the DMCA in direct contradiction of the DMCA itself. Maybe it's time to stop hacking around these things and start filing suit against these companies for violations of USC Title 17 Chapter 1 sections 107, 109 and 117. Basically, don't argue that breaking copy protection shouldn't be illegal, argue that putting the copy protection in in that manner is itself illegal.
But surely you could then counter-sue saying that the only way Adobe could have found out was be reverse engineering the code?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
"journalists -- remember, there are no established qualifications"
That about explains JonKatz, doesn't it?
The U.S. government is making itself look really bad with this incident, particularly at a time when it's trying to get U.S. scholars released from Chinese prisons. I'm surprised Russia and China haven't raised a stink about this, given that jurisdiction is a little shaky in this case--- has anybody seen articles about any reaction from the Russion government?
I'm very tempted to write my congresscritter and point out that arresting foreign citizens for "crimes" committed in their native land (where they are perfectly legal) is exactly the human rights violation we're protesting when China does it to U.S. citizens. Of course, the U.S. government has no problem being hypocritical anyway, but it still must look bad to the rest of the world...
Russia
AZ-Graphics Co.
24 Pravda Street, Office 706
Pressa Entrance
Moscow 125865
Russia
Tel: (+7) 095-257-45-23
Fax: (+7) 095-251-42-49
(taken from Adobe's European Support Page
Actually, I'm surprised that there HASN'T been a counter-arrest in Russia, or a uproar from the Duma. . . .
It isn't within Adobe's power to drop the charges. The charge is a criminal offense (State vs. Joe Blow) and only the government or the court has the power to dismiss the case or drop the charges.
That's kind of a short-sighted view, isn't it? Wouldn't it be better to have this one go to trial, and give the DMCA a chance to get tossed out as unconstitutional? Sure it's bad for the Russian guy, but just as the GPL is unproven, the DMCA has to get into court eventually... why not sooner rather than later?
Oh..... I see..... you're taking this as an opportunity to take a swipe at a conservative guy taking over the FBI. Okay, makes sense, never mind.
I'm sure there are numerous people with plenty of $$ who will take up Dmitry's case should it go that far.
I agree. But... Sometimes, I rip on him. But I also rip on my good friends. It all depends on how the ripping occurs. FWIW, I've also written privately to him twice, and he's a really okay guy.
Some of his stuff is a bit over the top (Hellmouth seemed very repetitive after two installments. But maybe that's because I'm so far removed (10 years) from the situation he was talking about). And I almost never agree with his movie reviews. But this piece and the piece on the Pinkerton's were good.
Sure, there are a few factual errors in this article, namely about some specific legal points. But the law is in some ways a bigger technical minefield, with more nuances than the Linux kernel code. So he is bound to make mistakes.
But that doesn't diminish the message. No matter what technicality of the law Adobe uses to weasel out of culpability, the broad strokes are correct: Adobe got the FBI to arrest a Russian hacker for telling Adobe's corporate secrets.
So yes, his comparison to the Pentagon Papers wasn't 100% correct from a legal standpoint. But from the POV of the public, he is dead on.
(And more directly on point: DeCSS didn't matter except to the lunatic fringe. 2600 ditto. Everyone knew that Napster was being used primarily as a tool to steal (albeit from thieves). But this case is perhaps the first where
regular people are being hurt by the DMCA. The next case will hurt even more 'average joes'. As we go on, more and more of these cases will hurt the common man. And sooner or later, our elected officials will stand up and take notice. I just hope there are still Dmitry's around to write the software that will help us excercise our rights.)
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
News film of young black boys being attacked by police dogs and mowed down with firehoses for walking down the street didn't change things?! All those protests in the '60s didn't change anyone's attitudes about the 'police action' in Vietnam?
I'll have you know that I'm 35. Neither young nor feeble. Changing the world is not accomplished within sanctum of the courtroom. First you have to wake the sleeping giant, that great body of apathy we call the public. After you shake them to a groggy state of consciousness, you have to inform them that there is a big demon ready to pounce on them and eat their children. Then the giant will awake, and woe be to those who stand in its sight.
Protest are part of the waking process. Seeing the citizens of other countries burning our flag is part of the waking process. I know this doesn't have anything to do with dishonoring Russian culture, just as well as you, but such a story will STILL get hours of playtime on talk radio and 'Rivera Live'. That will help to shake the giant awake.
In this case, the politicians will see the giant waking and tell RIAA, MPAA, et.al. that their baby is dead and kill DMCA.
My suggestion is a political move to get others on our side in order to help shake the sleepy giant. If you try to do everything honestly and directly, you will never get anywhere.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
However, the real prick bastards of the world will tend to congragate where the rules of conduct allow them to excersize there own brand of morality and justice.
As I replied to another poster, you can't always get your way directly and honestly. Sometimes you have to manipulate people. In this case, that means modifying the 'real prick bastards' idea of morality and justice. Just because they're prick bastards does not mean that:
1) They want to see their country owned by Adobe, Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA, et.al.
2) They want to be pawns of Adobe, Microsoft, MPAA, RIAA, et.al.
3) They want to do anything more that uphold the law (as they see it).
You are right. I'm not disagreeing that law enforcement agencies are full of prick bastards (hence my comment: if not sometimes misguided). That just means that the impetus in on us to show them that we are on the moral and just side of things.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
No. I disagree.
A smart FBI would pursue the punishment of Dmitry to the bitter end. All the while crying, "It's not our fault. Adobe set us up the bomb. All our bases are belong to Adobe. Congress made the law, Bill Clinton signed it, and we must enforce it until Congress tells us otherwise." (Note: the reference to Clinton is important to overturn the law. Bush can say, "See! I'm fixing that Clinton guy's mistakes!" True or not, we don't care.)
While the execs may enjoy the fruits of their selling out labor (Congress in this case), the rank and file of most organizations tend to have some honor and respect for their positions. I truly believe that most FBI agents are honorable, if not sometimes misguided, hard working people who want to 'do the right thing' by their country.
This law (DMCA) is a travesty, and nothing will happen to it as long as the big guys are allowed to us it to quietly stuff little guys in holes. We need to use Dmitry as a martyr (that's what he gets for selling his software instead of releasing it open source 8*). He'll most likely end up much better than when he started (free publicity and all), and we need someone to show the public how the big guys have a tool to shut down anyone they like (we USians abhor a bully--unless it's us). Adobe must not be allowed to simply walk away and say, "Ahh, we were only kiddin'."
We need some people in Russia protesting outside of the US embassy. Have them burn some flags and call Bush stupid and evil. Have some USians from Russians descent complain how this law and the prosecution of Dmitry is an attack on Russian culture. Hell, protest outside of the Russian embassy in Washington. Turn this whole damn thing into an international incident that Bush will have to be involved with personnally.
Then watch how quickly the law gets struck down.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Just musing...
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
The DMCA specifically says that nothing in it shall be construed as limiting fair use rights.
I think that is more a piece of legislative chianery than any guarantee of public rights.
The DMCA could easily have been written in a way that protects fair use; the fact that it was not indicates that it was designed to undermine fair use. A direct attack on fair use would likely render the DMCA unconstitutional, so they (1) attacked fair use indirectly by outlawing the mechanisms by which people utilize thos rights and (2) explicitly disclaimed any direct restriction of fair use.
This kind of hypocrisy is now the law of the land. The courts have held that the preamble to granting Congress the copyright power, which states this power is granted for purposes of advancing the useful arts, does not limit how Congress uses the power. That is to say, Congress can use this power in ways that don't promote the arts or even retard them. It's up to us, the people, to keep our Congress honest when it comes to copyrights; we can't count on the Constitution on this one.
So, if Sklyarov did, as now appears likely, sold a few copies of his company's program, he is probably technically guity of violating the odious anti-TPM measures of DMCA. Nonetheless his arrest frivolous and spiteful: Adobe wasn't harmed in any real way, and he was leaving to return to his home country, where his work is legal and valued. At most he should be asked never to return to the US.
Adobe should not be off the hook until they have moved heaven and earth to get him freed.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
He is interested in receiving and publishing the following kinds of information:
Technical descriptions of the access control and encryption mechanisms associated with PDF files and/or eBooks.
Technical descriptions of remedies for these mechanisms, e.g., patches, key recovery algorithms, modified plug-ins, etc.
Source code for implementing these remedies.
He notes that "A large amount of useful content is now encoded as PDF (Portable Document Format) files, including files marketed for the eBook document reader. Unfortunately, some of this content is not usable in all the LAWFUL WAYS [emphasis mine] a purchaser desires, due to access control mechanisms created by Adobe and adopted by content publishers to the detriment of their [LAWFUL] customers."
He further notes that "Computer professionals who have examined [Adobe's access control mechanisms] have found them easy to defeat."
He notes that his website is for discussion of purely technical information of interest to computer scientists and lawful content users. He is not interested in receiving rants about Adobe or the DMCA, suggesting that individuals go to the Boycott Adobe [and/or slashdot - grin] site for that.
It is suggested that individuals wishing to submit TECHNICAL CONTENT first visit the site to see what others have already submitted to avoid unnecessary duplication (e.g. ElcomSoft, Xpdf, Ghostscript, etc).
It is noted that there is yet no "Haiku" regarding Adobe's "easy to defeat" access control mechanism.
... "Why don't people get as bent out of shape when the other Twenty-Six (?) Amendments are violated (e.g. Second Amendment???)"
Tangential Editorial Comment by RM3 Frisker FTN
I believe Juanita
which states that software must not be bloated and slow. not only has adobe been found guilty of this but bill gates is wanted on half a dozen counts.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Sorry for the OT rant, but this is really getting out of hand here on
From a fortune:
bla
Laws GOOOOOOOD!
Common Sense BAAAAAAAAAD!
He's being denied bail because the Feds say he'll flee the country. Which he would, being a smart guy. Once he got back to Russia, they'd have a hard time getting ahold of him.
Best Slashdot Co
He wasn't arrested for the speech. He was arrested for disseminating (for money) a program that broke Adobes' "encryption". It is the software that he is being persecuted, err, prosecuted, for. In theory, his speech had nothing to do with it, other than allowing the Feds to know where he would be so they could pick him up. In theory.
Best Slashdot Co
as a gun-owning techie, is all of the hullabaloo over the DMCA in this forum and how it spells the downfall for freedom.
Law-abiding gun enthusiasts have been fighting for their rights for years now, with increasingly restrictive laws being passed year by year.
Now, the DMCA is passed and the sky is falling.
Newsflash, freedoms in a variety of areas (abortion, right to bear arms, freedom of speech -- including the right to code as an intellectual pursuit --, etc. ) are under continual assault in this country.
Quit bitching and do something about it. Join the EFF and donate. The NRA gets a yearly donation from me.
----------------------------------
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
... you know what you have to do. Walk to your friendly neighbourhood police office, and file a criminal complaint against AZ-Graphics Co. for trafficking in fraudulent fair-use locked software. If enough such complaints are received, the police has to act in one way or another.
"I have yet to hear a convincing argument that an absolutely perfect hassel free copy that can again be copied perfectly is required for any sort of "fair use"."
You don't HAVE to hear a convincing argument. All you have to hear is a presentation by a guy who figured out how to circumvent some hokey obnoxious "protection" that was denying users their right to the content they purchased. Nobody said that it has to be hassle free or "perfect"...we just declare that once it IS figured out, you can't run crying to the government that somebody broke your invincible technological copyright "protection" measure. DMCA makes no sense. If it is illegal to "circumvent" a copyright control measure, why even HAVE the control measures??? Since you can slap any arbitrary code on something and call it copyright protection technology, why not just declare that it is illegal to do arbitrary things that we don't want you to do? Why even throw money into technology? It's ridiculous. My car hood could be an intellectual property protection device for chrissakes.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Maybe Adobe was just trying to get their hands on a talented programmer... ;)
He didn't; his company did. We don't arrest people for things their company does.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
What you fail to take into account is that Katz has been writing about Civil Liberties since the beginning of WIRED magazine.
Perhaps you remember the section called "The Netizen" in which he wrote some very pertinent articles about the growing use of the net in democracy, and free speech. Katz is one of the reasons that I care so much about Civil Liberties today. His articles made me realize how threatened that our rights are by these pork barrel politicians.
--Remove chicken to e-mail
In a word: karma.
One argument I constantly hear from gun lobbyists is that guns are necessary to protect the citizenry from an oppressive government. I don't believe them. The United States government has, over the years, perpetrated some of the worst acts of civil rights violations in the Western world, and the gun lobby has done nothing unless those "violations" had something to do with gun control. That's not championing rights, that's championing a tautology. (We need guns to protect our guns.)
Look at what happened to foreign nationals during WW1. Look at what happened to political dissidents during the McCarthy era. Look at what happened during the Vietnam war. Look at what is happening today in the name of the so-called "war on drugs". Look at Dmitry Sklyarov, for heaven's sake.
Why do people not get so bent out of shape when the "second amendment is violated"? Because the second amendment, and those championing "gun rights", have never protected their rights and they never will.
So you'll excuse me if I feel no sympathy.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
While Dmitry remains in custody, I have not read the EFF (or any other organization/individual) will provide him counsel. Given the nature of the U.S. judicial system, it would be vital for Sklyarov to have extremely credible criminal defense attorneys.
Taken from the EFFector Vol. 14, No. 15 (July 22nd 2001)
Al.--
The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
That's a little strong. I doubt the FBI still does everything they did back then. I doubt every public figure has as much information gathered about them as they did back then.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
You're still missing the point. They were VERY, very, very paranoid back then. They make today's FBI look like amateurs. Remember this was at the height of the Red Scare! You remember those quotes that went somethign like, "We have to stop those evil Communists from spreading like the disease they are at all costs!"
We were paranoid about anybody who even came close to a Communist idea. Thus, just about every public figure, and many more, ended up with a record in the FBI. The Red Scare is over. America is not that paranoid. Companies may be paranoid over other things, but the Red Scare is over.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
He broke the law of the country he was in. Is the law a good law? Well, that's up for intepretation. But in the meantime, it's a law that's in the books. And it doesn't matter what the law is where he's from and where his company is based. While he's in the US he needs to adhere to US laws.
Hell, if I went to a country that had laws that I didn't agree with, they'd have every right to jail me if I broke that law while I was in their country.
If you went to a conservative Islamic country and broke a law of decency that your country didn't have, would you expect to be let off the hook because the law of your country is different? That doesn't excuse the behavior whether or not you agree with the law.
Dmitry was not arrested because of his presentation at Defcon. If he had found the flaw and solely used this knowledge to publish papers and give speeches, he would likely not have been arrested- it's unclear whether publishing such information is unlawful under the DMCA, but it is clear that selling circumvention tools is a violation.
His software company published an implementation of a routine that exploits the flaw to extract eBooks from Adobe's encrypted format. They sold the software via a US agent. This act left him vulnerable to US law enforcement.
If you work for Jack Daniels in the USA making hard liquor, and visit an islamic country and do not bring any booze with you nor drink it there, would you expect to be arrested in their country because your activities in the USA violate their law of decency?
If Jack Daniels sells whisky via mail-order directly to customers in islamic countries, it would behoove their executives not to visit those nations!
When your actions are legal in your home country, and only performed in your home country, does excuse the behavior, and you should not be liable to arrest in a country where your actions would be illegal.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
I normally try not to read things by Katz as I find his line of thinking very unoriginal and often sensationalist.
Although I have not changed my opinion, Katz has, this time at least, summed up my view on this situation quite well. I agree that there is a double standard and that the law needs to be changed.
Katz may be late on the bandwagon, but I think he nailed the essence of the arguement.
(There's just this part of me that refuses to believe it's really him and not some very insightful imposter.)
"Draw them in with the prospect of gain, take them by confusion." Sun Tzu
Actually this idea is flawed, and easily challenged.
Stanley sell crowbar's, Colt Sell gun's, Coates sell beer and Ford sell Car's.
So are the US authorities going to arrest everybody who produces and sell a product that can be miss-used ?
Actaully as some people on this thread have posted, he was selling his eBook software at Defcon, so yes he was "trafficing" his "device" (damm, that almost sounds perverted).
-Jon
this is my sig.
If the DMCA had been in existence in the l970s, the reporters and their employees could have been arrested under the exact same charges as Sklyarov -- stealing copyrighted material.
no, he was arrested for trafficing a "copyright circumvention device" or as adobe puts it "digital lockpick".
I was actually injoying your artical until that comment.
-Jon
this is my sig.
This is a crime folks
The guy was arrested for creating and selling a device which breaks Adobe's "encryption".Lets suppose for a moment that Adobe had good encryption on their product, would we all be whining so much. Probably and that still isn't nessicarily illegal I realize. But not right either, the guy is trying to make money off of Adobe's work. That would piss me off a bit too
I've also seen a ton of comment about Bush and Ashcroft how they will prosecute anyway because they are for the Corporate Republic blah blah blah. Lets remember that Bush didn't pass the DMCA- Clinton did! Ashcroft is doing his job by upholding a standing law. Personally I prefer politicians that don't selectively follow the law but uphold them no matter how bad they are until someone gets them changed..
Dimitry broke a law plain and simple, and it wasn't to make some sort of statement, he didnt' release his product open source, he was doing it to make money. I'm sorry but /. needs a better martyr then this.
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
The underlying issue here is why should the government be protecting copyrighted material from not-for-profit pirating in the first place. Copyright is only for for-profit piracy protection, so what does that make our current laws, Copywrong?
The problem is that IP corporations will almost always be hostile toward the public domain and public liberty. They cannot even EXIST without government might being behind them. I am not opposed to copyright law at all, but this is one area where I have to say that the principles, while not the law itself, of copyright law laid down by our founders in the first copyright law for the US hold true more than ever. The original law gave only limited protection and a maximum of 28 years (14 first then you could apply for an extension).
Neither major party will ever properly address this issue. Taco et al. can deride the Republicans all they want, but the DMCA was a joint effort to screw us all over orchestrated equally by both parties and signed by a liberal democratic president. The naderite approach is equally insane: abolish the corporations. The corporations aren't at fault here, the government is. With sane copyright laws there would be no United States vs. Dmitry Sklyarov. Adobe only has so much power as the government gives it; take away that power and Adobe is no more powerful than you or I. Big government is at fault here. That is why we libertarians oppose big government. With a minimalistic government Adobe wouldn't have any recourse against Sklyarov.
IIRC, he made a PDF decryptor. Something that anyone that had xpdf sourcecode could probably write. And if IIRC again, it was a crippled version that was released publicly, that could only handle 25% of the document. Imagine what would have happened if he released a full version.
I am !amused.
That little nugget severly changed my view on the whole situation. While he shouldn't have been arrested, it's difficult to find sympathy for someone who is not much different from Adobe.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Don't forget though, it's also not up to me to save him.
And to do the greatest good, I'd say let the case go on, the inconveniences of one man are meaningless compared to the civil liberties of all.
</devil's advocate>
I can see it both ways. I don't want the guy to suffer, but since he was SELLING the product, I don't feel as sorry that he may be the one to have to test the DMCA, as I would for someone who was doing it to give to the community.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
But please, first correct the speeling mistakes, especially change there to their. You're a journalist for Christ's sake.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Ouch that's pretty ironic (speeling)
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Everyone has a priority to their values. To me it's more important to be my brothers keeper for a large number of people than to sacrifice the possibility of saving them for one man, who should have known better. Apparently you would rather sacrifice the masses for the individual. Both ways are right, it's all in your personal value prioritization.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
To me it makes a big difference, he wasn't doing the "right thing", again this is based on my values no one else's. But I won't exert myself to defend someone's right to make money.
Freeing Dmitry doesn't maintain the status quo. The status quo is where we're at right now, according to the DMCA Adobe is within their rights. That is the status quo.
You are advocating sacrifice for the masses. Whether you realize it or not, it is implicit in you belief that it's more important to free Dmitry. We don't know how many other people rights will be trampled before another chance like this comes along to challenge the DMCA. By allowing someone (who has allready put himself in his situation) now, we can protect the rights more people in the future (should it be succesfully challenged).
There's not much point in arguing about this. Like I said before, the whole situation depends on the individual's values.
One more note to make, his tool is illegal. There is no can about it, the DMCA makes it illegal to do such a thing. When you argue on the grounds that he should not have been arrested because his tool only had the potential to be illegal, you're arguing from false premises. It is ILLEGAL to create such a tool. Should it be, No. But hopefully when and if this goes to trial that may change.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Ask youself these two questions:
1. Is the DMCA part of current law?
2. Did Dmirty violate it?
The answer to both these questions is yes. There is no way you can justify freeing before going to court. A settlement would mean that the issue is submerged by the coprorations. A court case is the ONLY way to get justice.
It is a BAD law, but it is the law, and it was broken. While he is in this country he must follow the law or pay the consequences. His civil liberties WERE NOT VIOLATED according to current law. If they were found to be violated it would only be in hindsight as the DMCA is overturned or amended.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
I never said that new civil liberties would be granted, only that the law may be overturned (should be) because it conflicts with previously granted civil liberties.
Justice in this case is not freeing Dmitry. Justice is what happens when he goes to trial for him crimes in the U.S.. He broke the law. He should stand trial, case closed.
Saying "how difficult is that to understand" was not an attack, it was a statement of my disbelief, cannot seem to understand that he broke the law and that is why he was arrested.
Let me ask you this: Why should he be freed?
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Number Two: He broke the law, he is a criminal, it is right and just that he be punished. You haven't given me a reason why he should go free. Spouting lines you read in a Plato dialogue is not a reason, it's a meanigless aphorism. WHY is it right and just that he be free, you've admitted yourself that he broke the law, but have given no reason why he should be set free.
There is no basis to set him free. He broke the law, he should stand trial. Yes the government serves us, and we make our changes by causing new laws to be passed, not by a small group saying we don't like this.
I don't understand who you think the we is who are delaying his release. He is charged with a crime, he will run should bail be posted, therefore it was not. All completely above board. There is no reason to release him.
If you can't give a reason he should be set free, we might as well end this thread.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
we're both nitpicking at this point. It's academic why each of us believe he should be free. I would just prefer that the DMCA is challenged in the process.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Adobe is testing how can the DMCA work. Look, they caught a russian hacker just after the biggest hacker con. They nearly asked for journalists for the arrest.
/.ers...
They try to see how people reacts of course. They waited some few months after the law passed and they are weighting the protests. And they pay much more attention to the press (that doesn't seems to think it' such a big deal) than to activists like
Nope. Had he released details to Slashdot or Kuro5hin, that would have been exposing it to public view. Using it for his own profit, that's illegal. The reporters did not use the papers for profit, except insofar as they were paid to be reporters.
/. analogies, cos they always suck, but I'll try to make this suck less. :-) Say you were an investigative reporter and discovered that a back door into a Federal armory was unguarded. You snuck in, took photos, snuck out, published. Kudos, Pulitzers, etc... But say you snuck in, stole a bunch of machine guns and made a killing (sorry :-) selling them openly. FBI, jail time, etc... Don't start on the "but taking a tangible object is different from taking something where the original thing is still there". Bullshit - copyright and IP laws are founded on that principle, and OK, they're way overkill now in the US, but the concept is sound (ask James Dyson whether he's glad he at least had the option of suing Hoover when they blatantly stole his invention).
An analogy (I hate
You don't "deserve" the right to circumvent copyright restrictions, any more than you "deserve" a right to break into houses. You deserve the right to FAIR USE, which is what is currently denied, but not the right to distribute e-books for your own profit and rip off the authors, which is what is currently in progress.
Grab.
Are you aware that the DMCA can theoretically be used to punish individuals with criminal sanctions even if they don't make a single penny of profit?
Back that up. The DMCA I read says that criminal offenses are for "any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain."
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
"Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
In other words, Chewbacca does NOT MAKE SENSE. If Chewbacca does NOT MAKE SENSE, you MUST ACQUIT.
tune
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
Adobe would be in the right: Elcomsoft has no right to *sell* products whose purpose is to disable Adobe's encryption, esp. when such knowledge was gained through reverse-engineering.
So you are saying that Adobe, who sells a software that is plainly illegal in Russia, is in a position to sue a Russian company full of Russian citizens because they went and reverse engineered an Adobe product so that it would be legal? First, it seems to me that Elcomsoft actually gave Adobe an out - they (possibly) made the software legal in countries where they actually protect their citizens' rights. Second, since when is reverse engineering illegal? I guess I don't know Russian law, but if they actually bother to protect their citizen's right to fair use I'm going to to guess that the haven't sold them up the river when it comes to reverse engineering.
Politics, Culture, Food?
The private financial gain is easy for them to forge. If you use your decryption method for your fair use of the content on say another ebook, it's for your private financial gain because you no longer had to purchase two copies of the book.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
... esp. when such knowledge was gained through reverse-engineering.
Reverse-engineering, as opposed to espionage or bribery, is how you're supposed to make compatable products.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
Copying of a physical item takes a considerable effort; copying of a collection of 1s and 0s is laughably trivial. If you can transport an ebook from one computer to another (i.e. from your desktop to your PDA), then it's going to be just as easy to copy it for all of your friends.
How can an ebook system allow for a person to read it on all of their devices yet prevent copying? It can't automatically differentiate between another computer of yours and someone else's computer, so any system that allows for use on all of one's devices would be intrusive and cumbersome (i.e. register it to every device you have ahead of time, but then what if you replace your PDA? How do you re-register it?).
Really, there seems to be absolutely no middle ground between content control and fair use, which I believe is why Kelsey and Schneier came up with the Street Performer Protocol.
The USA is not the majority of the world, and just because they bomb the shit out of other people every few years, it does not give it the right to act as some moral / ethical authority who can arrest citizens of foreign nations because he or she pissed off an American company.
We release pornos on a daily basis and as pissed as the leaders in Afghanistan are, you don't see them stoning American women to death for their "crimes". Or people being whipped for drinking booze.
Russian law is not American law, I thought that even to a troll like you, that should be obvious. There they pop you in the back of the head with a revolver after the trial, here we have appeals and needles, and rapists don't get a bullet in the base of the skull.
Do yourself a favor and actually leave the State you grew up in and see the rest of the world.
What Dmitry did WAS LEGAL on his native soil, that is the point. The USA has NO RIGHTS to be imposing their system of justice on citizens of foreign, soverign nations.
Damn, I'd love to see your whole outlook change after about 20 minutes in Russia.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Send us your persecuted indeed.
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit: /.'ers since Spring 2001.
Pissing off coffee drinking
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Elcomsoft has no right to *sell* products in the United States whose purpose is to disable Adobe's encryption, esp. when such knowledge was gained through reverse-engineering.
They have every right to sell it in Russia, where it is a fair-use tool.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
That sums up the reasons for my katz-bashing quite nicely...I agree with the entire thesis of his story and his portrayal of the incident, but comparing this to the "Pentagon Papers" is typical of his outlandish exageration when he's trying to make a point. Mr. Katz has some good ideas to share, but he insists on doing so by writing editorial more worthy of a Marketing Department copywriter than a real, unbiased journalist.
And that type of writing my friends, is why so many of us bash him every single time he writes an article...the insinuation that we cannot see through the hype to the real truth of the matter, but must be led to water like cattle is an insult to his audience.
It's not funny till someone gets hurt.
1. Purchase an e-book. Store it into a notebook.
2. Make sure Advanced eBook Processor decrypts it.
3. Go to a public place with notebook and some boxes of blank diskettes.
4. Speak loudly to crowd, demonstrating the software, telling the Sklyarov story and lambasting DMCA.
5. Give copies of Advanced eBook Processor (NOT the eBook!) to people.
6. if (battery.status == dead) { go(home); recharge(notebook) }
7. Repeat from step 3 until SIGJAIL is received.
I think that Title II of the DMCA for which Orrin Hatch is responsible is good. It protects ISPs from unreasonable prosecution for violations of their users.
Title I of the DMCA is the offending section. It was implemented to comply with the WIPO treaty, especially Article 11. You can blame Mark Foley (R-FL) who "led the fight" to pass the WIPO in the House. Note that he is Chairman of the Congressional Entertainment Industry Task Force.
This is another case of Americans giving up their rights to world organizations.
It was my understanding that he wrote a program that decrypted from the ebooks format into PDF format. If ebooks were PDFs, everyone would be able to read them with their Acrobat Reader already. Like MPAA and CSS, Adobe wants to cash in on the licencing of the decryption algorithm from the manufacturers who will make the hardware.
--------
The ivory tower has never had to reach so h
While I don't believe his offence warrants a stay in jail, why are defending him as if he was acting in the public interest? This isn't even DeCSS, folks. The source is *not* in your hands. You still have to purchase his product. Personally, I believe that this is open ground for a civil lawsuit between Adobe and Elcomsoft, and Adobe would be in the right: Elcomsoft has no right to *sell* products whose purpose is to disable Adobe's encryption, esp. when such knowledge was gained through reverse-engineering.
Bryguy
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
"The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries."
limited times.
Why not go to trial? Because we're not talking about "some Russian guy". He's a guy, with a family, in jail, away from home.
It not up to you or anyone else to use him to test the DMCA. If he wants to, fine. But the sense I get from reading things is that he'd just like to go home and have this whole thing behind him.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
email for the Ministry of Science and Technology: info@mcyt.es
-- .sig are belong to us!
All your
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
My Ghod!!! We must stop this software trafficking menace before rival gangs of software companies start doing drive-bys in Silly-con Valley with nerf-guns!
Society MUST be protected!!!
/*drunk.. fix later*/
No, the rights of the author and publisher are supposed to be balanced against the rights of the public. With the DMCA, the public loses their balance, as the publisher retains all the rights in perpetuity...
The Constitution provided for a limited time for copyright. The DMCA takes that away by limiting access.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
Copyrights have superseded human rights in U.S. policy for some time now. China nearly lost most favored nation status over its abuse of copyrights a few years ago, but its abuse of human rights still goes unpunished.
My other sig is extremely clever...
I dont know whats happening.
Maybe its the excessive competitiveness of todays world that made ppl afraid of losing their jobs, maybe its apathy that came with easy access to useless information (the news are boring ? channel surf or click randomly until you find a channel/site that pleases you).
The point is that nowadays few ppl are inclined to march the streets to show the government/companies that they dont agree with what theyre doing, to show that the real power comes from the people and belongs to the people.
Early this century we had thousands of popular demonstrations that led to the creation of laws to protect workers and their families, to protect environment and such.
Today the few protests that show up are scarce and dont have any effect, because theyre to small and easilly controled with a good use of the media.
Politicians know that they dont have to fear ppl, because they have the media and the corporations at their side, and corporations also doesnt fear the ppl because they OWN the media, wich makes easy to convince the average citizen that what the corporations are doing is fine, and that they should vote on politicians that support corporate policies.
Unless we can make a communications revolution to show the average person the real truth this is not going to change. And dont expect to achieve the goals of this revolution only with the internet. The real power still belongs to TV/radio/paper media. Unfortunatelly all these medias are belong to corporations...
--
What ? Me, worry ?
Its not that he found the problem, people always do that. He was selling software that cracks it for $99. Did everyone forget that?
So? He was selling software. He was selling software that would allow fair-use back-ups of your legally purchased ebooks (what? you've never lost a hard drive?) and viewing on your other computer. So what if he was selling the software.
As much as I'm for Free Software (in both senses), you sound like we shouldn't support him because he was *gasp* SELLING software.
These are evil precedents being set; Technology is bad. Napster is condemmned because it allows people to do illegal things. Dmitry is arrested because of what people might do with the software.
News flash, people. You can abuse almost any technology, but these recent legal maneuvers make the inanimate device at fault (and by extention, its creator), with no responsibility resting on the end user. Might as well make hammers illegal so that people won't use them as a weapon...
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
Its not that he found the problem, people always do that. He was selling software that cracks it for $99. Did everyone forget that?
-----------------------------------
I don't think, therefore I'm not...
Sklyarov was guilty of offering a public presentation about software designed to prevent the piracy of e-books, meanwhile, publishing corporations have been lining up behind the record and movie companies to try to control intellectual property online -- at any cost.
According to reports by TechTV, who was present at Defcon 9, Sklyarov was not only speaking but actually selling the Elcomsoft product. While I agree that what is at issue is the DMCA, and it's ability to silence anyone (or at least give companies the motive to try), lets get the facts straight here. If I design a bomb in Russia, where, for the sake of example we'll pretend it's perfectly legal, and I somehow get it past customs in the US, I can't very well sell it. While the plans might simply be "information" and somehow applicable to present under some journalistic and/or scientific auspice, I don't think you can argue that it's ok for me to sell the premade bomb as well.
Note, this isn't how I view the whole Sklyarov situation, but one of the important things to remember when debating is put yourself in the other person's shoes and try to see things how they see it, no matter how corrupt and greedy that vision may be.
Information is the catalyst for revolution
""The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries."
"limited times"
Well, the IP cartels have more or less bamboozled Congress and the courts to accept 5 minutes less than eternity as "limited times".
This is clearly NOT the intent of the Constitution, and not even what the law was 10-15-50 years ago.
As I've said in previous postings, if the Feds want to fall over themselves to give the IP cartel unlimited copyright and patent (even with a death penalty), the mechanism is there to do it: AMEND the Constitution.
But the Constitution can't be amended under cover of darkess as easily as illegal law can be passed by unanimous voice vote.
And so, the government weakens the rule of law, and respect for law by their own subversion and lack of respect for it. It's a mark of tyranical countries (like China), that there IS no set body of law that applies evenly to everyone. Our own government is slipping further and further towards that day when it ceases to be at ALL accountable.
It starts with the powerful getting away with felonies that the "lesser" get punished for (ie, Clinton's perjury about an affair, a crime that his OWN justice department prosecuted AND imprisoned several for). It gets worse with blatantly Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, laws being passed under cover of darkness (DMCA).
But the disease of tyrrany surely does not stop there.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
What is the excuse for denying bail in this case? Suspect might write more software that would harm the interests of corporations?
Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
The protests are at least getting a little bit of mainstream press coverage, which I hope will at least make the broader public aware that there's an issue here. Without the support of a bigger slice of the voting public than Slashdot's readership, there's no way enough pressure will be brought to bear to get the DMCA repealed. (Though of course court challenges are also a possibility.)
"Actually, according to Russian law, it's sooner adobe's program that is illegal, in that it prevents one from using a bought and paid for product as the purchaser wishes. That's a violation of fair use. Also, at the time a user buys a book in Adobe's format a buyer isn't notified of these restrictions.
I think Sklyarov's arrest was actually a good thing overall: people who normally could care less about this kind of thing are starting to ask questions about the DMCA.
*This page intentionally left pointless*
Lets try a less blown out of porportion analogy, Dmitri's software wasn't gonna kill anyone.
Ford sells cars under an agreement that you can't look under the hood and the make a "special" hood locking mechanism to prevent you from unlocking it. Russia doesn't care about Ford's IP rights cause they need to fix cars for little cash. In not too much time a clever Russian discovers that a modified screwdriver (rot-13) unlocks the hood. He brings these screw drivers to the US and sells a couple, even a few to the FBI, while telling everyone that's is just a stupid modified screwdirver. Ford gets pissy and has them arrested.
Still sound like a good law?
Oh..... I see..... you're taking this as an opportunity to take a swipe at a conservative guy taking over the FBI. Okay, makes sense, never mind.
Ah, no. If you were truly familiar with Mueller, you would know he was initially appointed by Clinton. There is no reference in my original message of the political ideology of Mueller --- I do not care.
What I do care of is that Dmitry remains in a prison. Your view is kind of short-sighted, isn't it?:
Wouldn't it be better to have this one go to trial, and give the DMCA a chance to get tossed out as unconstitutional?
Ok, and you would not mind to be Dmitry and sit in prison during the duration of such a judgment? I doubt it. This man is not even a U.S. citizen, this is our problem --- this is America's problem that must be settled within our borders and subjecting a non-American to the worse attributes of such a test is a disgust. Yes, DMCA should be tested. But, not with this case. Dmitry needs to return to Russia to his family.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
As a recent Kuro5hin article suggest, Dmitry's U.S. Adventure is far from over. With Adobe's apparent opposition to the criminal charges brought against Dmitry, we need to see the response of the U.S. Department of Justice.
I would think if the U.S. continues to pursue this case, contrary to the wishes of Adobe and many Americans, then there should be opposition to the nomination of Robert Mueller for the head FBI job. His confirmation hearings begin July 30, and he is currently the U.S. Attorney in charge of the jurisdiction prosecuting Dmitry.
While Dmitry remains in custody, I have not read the EFF (or any other organization/individual) will provide him counsel. Given the nature of the U.S. judicial system, it would be vital for Sklyarov to have extremely credible criminal defense attorneys.
It will be curious to see if the same community which brought pressure upon Adobe, will bring the same pressure upon Robert Mueller during his hearings, if Dmitry remains in custody. So far, I have no seen no similar organizing or campaigning for Dmitry. Dmitry remains in charged with a criminal act and in custody.
"There ought to be limits to freedom"
Jon Katz: Send that great story and analysis to every major newspaper out there. Go the bg time. NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc. Make that excellent piece of work heard by many more than us Slashdotters.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
They didn't throw him in jail for poiting out a flaw. They throw him in jail for selling software that breaks adobes software.
Bush's daughters are 19 years old and it's not Bush's responsibility to discipline them, that falls to the government. Why the people of america thinks it's a good idea for the government to discipline adults who drink 2 alcoholic beverages is another mystery. I think americans like the government running their lives.