Slashdot Mirror
US Won't Drop Charges Against Sklyarov - More Protests Planned
Oolon was the first to write in with news that the EFF has concluded their meeting with the US Attorney's Office, to no good result. Recent DMCA/Sklyarov news: Rep. Rick Boucher is supportive of reforming the DMCA but not very optimistic about getting it done soon. egerlach sent links for protests planned this Monday: Boston, Minnesota, San Francisco. Phil Zimmerman will be speaking about Sklyarov and other subjects this Tuesday. There's more information at the Free Sklyarov site as well.
By your reasoning, it would OK for a middle-east country like Afghanistan to execute American tourists, because they had sex in their home country, before they were married?
The US has absolutely no business trying to cram it's laws down the throats of other countries.
The fact is that the "sale" of the software was NOT done my Dmitry, it was done by the company he works for.
We all know that it is way too far reaching. The people who passed the law perhaps read it simply as "make hacking" illegal. What we need to do to point out how ridiculous it truly is, is to find every day, or widely accepted practices that are in violation of it. Human Genome project? Circumenting the creators copy protection and distributing information that may aid in the unliscened copying? C'mon there's got to be alot of good ones.
Dimitry is in jail for traficing in illegal software, wait for it...... IN THIS COUNTRY! If you read they original complaint against him, that is what it says. The only reason the complaint mentions defcon, is because Dimitry was stupid enough to come here where the FBI could arrest him. Not only did he come here, but it was publicised.
As for being held without bail, that is not uncommon in the case of foriegn nationals that present a significant flight risk.
As somebody from Germany I'm worried that this is happening in the US. The US Constitution is really inspiring but with laws like the DMCA you're destroying your rights.
What's even worse is the fact that those laws are giving a bad example to the legislators here in Europe. Right now fair use is allowed but there are plans to change that. I don't know what it was like when they put the DMCA in law in the US but I know for sure that there is not much of a public opinion on that her ein Europe. Sure, media will cover it but in a media perspective. They didn't even notice the Sklyarov case on TV or in Newspapers here. So I'm missing an international outcry on the fact that the US again is violating basic international agreements.
--
The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
[A. Tanenbaum, "Introduction to Computer Networks"]
But it won't be good if companies don't use the DMCA. Then we will be stuck with this crappy law forever. It will only be used when there is somebody that companies really don't like. The majority of the population won't be affected or even know about it. But if companies go crazy and use it all the time to harass people, we will see this law get repealed or declared unconsitutional or at least get some media attention.
Writing letters to your representatives is great, but unless you have a lot of money there's only ONE SINGLE PATH of true communication with your government. And that is to vote those dirty bastards out of office. If you can Slashdot a website, you can Slashdot a ballot box.
Next election I'm going to vote Democratic for the first time in my life, and I'm going to do it twice. Once against each Texas senator. Again, the ONLY way regular people like you and I can influence government is with the vote. Don't let anyone tell you any different. Get your asses out to your next senatorial election and vote out the senators who voted in the DMCA. I believe the following list is the correct list of 1998 senators, ALL of whom voted for the DMCA. If I've made any mistakes please correct them, but I believe this is the list to VOTE OUT OF OFFICE. If the named senator is not running for re-election, vote for the opposite party.
AK Frank Murkowski RepublicanAK Ted Stevens Republican
AL Jeff Sessions Republican
AL Richard Shelby Republican
AR Dale Bumpers Democrat
AR Tim Hutchinson Republican
AZ John McCain Republican
AZ Jon Kyl Republican
CA Barbara Boxer Democrat
CA Diane Feinstein Democrat
CO Ben Campbell Republican
CO Wayne Allard Republican
CT Chris Dodd Democrat
CT Joe Lieberman Democrat
DE Joe Biden Democrat
DE William Roth Republican
FL Bob Graham Democrat
FL Connie Mack Republican
GA Max Cleland Democrat
GA Paul Coverdell Republican
HI Daniel Akaka Democrat
HI Daniel Inouye Democrat
IA Charles Grassley Republican
IA Tom Harkin Democrat
ID Dirk Kempthorne Republican
ID Larry Craig Republican
IL Carol Braun Democrat
IL Richard Durbin Democrat
IN Dan Coats Republican
IN Richard Lugar Republican
KS Pat Roberts Republican
KS Sam Brownback Republican
KY Mitch McConnell Republican
KY Wendell Ford Democrat
LA John Breaux Democrat
LA Mary Landrieu Democrat
MA John Kerry Democrat
MA Ted Kennedy Democrat
MD Barbara Mikulski Democrat
MD Paul Sarbanes Democrat
ME Olympia Snowe Republican
ME Susan Collins Republican
MI Carl Levin Democrat
MI Spencer Abraham Republican
MN Paul Wellstone Democrat
MN Rod Grams Republican
MO John Ashcroft Republican
MO Kit Bond Republican
MO Max Baucus Democrat
MS Thad Cochran Republican
MS Trent Lott Republican
MT Conrad Burns Republican
NC Jesse Helms Republican
NC Lauch Faircloth Republican
ND Byron Dorgan Democrat
ND Kent Conrad Democrat
NE Chuck Hagel Republican
NE Robert Kerrey Democrat
NH Bob Smith Republican
NH Judd Gregg Republican
NJ Frank Lautenberg Democrat
NJ Robert Torricelli Democrat
NM Jeff Bingaman Democrat
NM Pete Domenici Republican
NV Harry Reid Democrat
NV Richard Bryan Democrat
NY Al D'Amato Republican
NY Daniel Moynihan Democrat
OH John Glenn Democrat
OH Mike DeWine Republican
OK Don Nickles Republican
OK James Inhofe Republican
OR Gordon Smith Republican
OR Ron Wyden Democrat
PA Arlen Specter Republican
PA Rick Santorum Republican
RI Jack Reed Democrat
RI John Chaffee Republican
SC Fritz Hollings Democrat
SC Strom Thurmond Republican
SD Tim Johnson Democrat
SD Tom Daschle Democrat
TN Fred Thompson Republican
TN William Frist Republican
TX Kay Hutchison Republican
TX Phil Gramm Republican
UT Bob Bennett Republican
UT Orrin Hatch Republican
VA Charles Robb Democrat
VA John Warner Republican
VT James Jeffords Republican
VT Patrick Leahy Democrat
WA Patty Murray Democrat
WA Slade Gorton Republican
WI Herb Kohl Democrat
WI Russ Feingold Democrat
WV Jay Rockefeller Democrat
WV Robert Byrd Democrat
WY Craig Thomas Republican
WY Mike Enzi Republican
If anyone knows of any protests in OC I can guarantee a few heads.
All of the conferences on software, security, Linux, etc., should be rebooked OUTSIDE the United States. Then someone should tally up the lost economic benefit and send it to every Senator and Congressman. I'd like to see their opinion of arresting people with the DMCA versus the almighty dollar in that case...
Good luck Dmitry!
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/%7Edst/Adobe/Gallery/
If you're going to misspell things then you will get many more people at the demonstrations if the signs all read Free Smirnof
Of course this is irrelevant until the law is actually declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which hasn't happened yet.
It doesn't say "when the Supreme Court has ruled".. Whether the Supreme Court rules that the DMCA is unconstitutional or not, the fact remains that it IS unconstitutional. And when people are imprision and held without bail for violating such a law, there should be punishments for those who were involved with jailing them. The Feds, Adobe, individual agents, the guy who took his fingerprints....
And to pre empt an arguement: "Just doing their job" is not a valid excuse.
-- Zack
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
-- American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Volume 16, Section 177
Although I'm sure explaining this to the people trying to arrest you might be difficult.
"You see, the law you're trying to arrest me for breaking in not constitutional, therefore I am not bound to obey it. So you see... oww! Hey! that hurts! OWW!"
-- Zack
What public outcry? The only thing I said was "fucking retard".
--
Work stoppage.... It's called READING SLASHDOT.
In any case, the software allows users to exercise their fair use rights that have been denied under the DMCA. Being able to make use of legally purchased materials (by the disabled in this case) is certainly a legitimate reason to develop or own the software. I could just as easily have said the software allows viewing of the material from other readers and it would have been equally true.
--
The grammar in the letter is particularly bad, but as I said, it was hastily written. No excuse, I know, but I'm trying to graduate here. :)
--
Hopefully, in 10 years I won't be at this address anymore. :)
--
Does anyone have information about MI organization?
--
You are completely right to call me on that one. Hopefully it doesn't detract from the overall message. I will change it in any future versions I send out.
--
Well, they have that right already from existing copyright, contract and licensing laws. The fact that they no longer need such documents isn't really the granting of new rights so much as the removal of certain legal obligations.
The DMCA criminalizes activity previously allowed under fair use. So, I suppose in the sense that corporations can now get around fair use, they have new "rights," even though such "rights" have been explicitly disallowed by the courts.
I rather view this as a taking away of our rights rather than granting new rights to content producers.
You are right, though, that the DMCA shadows usage controls under the guise of intellectual property protection. That is why it is so nefarious. The law itself is written to protect intellectual property against copying. In that sense, no new rights are granted. The fact that it is being used to restrict use and speech is what will hopefully render it unconstitutional in the courts' eyes.
That is exactly my point about encryption being an orthogonal issue to copying (and to reverse engineering, which I neglected to mention).
Someone pointed out to me that I neglected to mention the exceptions in the DMCA with respect to reverse engineering. It's true that certain exceptions exist regarding compatibility, dissemination of information, etc. I was pointed to Jessica Litman's Digital Copyright for further information.
My response to this is that such exceptions have been rendered null by the DeCSS and Felten cases. DeCSS was declared illegal in spite of the exceptions for compatibility (I see no clearer case than the ability to use legal hardware under various operating systems). Felten was censored in spite of exceptions for scientific research.
--
Perhaps someone in the DOJ wants to test the DMCA in court. And maybe, just maybe, they want to see the DMCA declared unconstitutional. Our government is not filled with the mindless drones so often villified on /.. Even members of Congress really do care about doing the right thing. Unfortunately they often lack the necessary understanding, especially in the technology realm, as many senators and representatives bring their biases from business and law experience.
It's unfortunate that a criminal case is needed, but the government could not test the DMCA any other way. They cannot be a plaintiff in a civil suit (as in the tobacco case) because they cannot be harmed by copyright violation.
It's also possible that corporate lobbyists are pushing for a DMCA test -- how often have /. posters been clamoring for a GPL court test? I find this much less likely than pushing for a DMCA overturn, though. Corporations have much more to lose with this case than they can gain.
--
As for Dmitry, his case may not be the best to get the law declared unconstitutional. The Felton case is stronger and doesn't involve imprisonment. The DOJ/FBI can always drop the charges. There is no law specifying that prosecutors must go after every infraction of the law. In fact, there are rules against this, giving all of us rights to sue for malicious prosecution.
So yes, this can "properly end" without a trial and with Dmitry being immediately freed. This is how it should end!
--
--
Of course this is irrelevant until the law is actually declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which hasn't happened yet.
It's the "have not previously been readily available" bit that's the clincher; this stipulates that reverse-engineering is only allowed as a last resort for interoperability. If there was any authorized program that could read encrypted PDFs on the platform on which Sklyarov's software runs (regardless of how much you had to pay to use it, I assume), and it was "readily available", then he is in violation of this section.
IALOALTY
(I Am Less Of A Lawyer than You)
He hasn't even gotten a bail hearing. Nobody should have to wait this long for a bail hearing.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No promise to drop charges sounds very much like "no decision" to me.
As long as not reaching a decision can keep the pressure off, they will just keep on not making a decision. The pressure must not let up one moment before Sklyarov is safely at home.
Back when I lived in the US, I wrote my four federal representatives (one congressman, two senators, and the President) occasionally. My congressman (or someone on his staff) actually read them, the senators and President sent form letters saying "got your note" but clearly did not read them.
Have you ever been in jail? I have. It's not fun.
There is nothing even remotely "good" about this. Sklyarov has a wife and kids. He's in jail for no good reason. It's easy to sit out here in our comfy offices in front of our comfy workstations where we read Slashdot all day and say "It's not all that bad that guy is stuck in jail."
You want the law overturned? Vote. Contact your representatives. Tell your friends.
I can't see any particular reason why the russian program is any more in violation of the DMCA than either Adobe's eBook reader or Acrobat.
Acrobat (or another implementation) enables people to pirate eBooks (given some additional tools), even if you don't have a valid right to look at them. In fact, if the three things you need in order to read an eBook are: something that XORs with 102, something that unzips archives, and something that reads PDF, the PDF reader is the only really complicated part. If anything is "breaking encryption", it's the PDF reader.
Disproportionately? What if I kill someone and the next day an unexpected mob of angry police is knocking on my door? Then I don't get away with it by saying "oh, I've changed my mind now, I don't want her to be dead anymore". Why should Adobe?
Neither do the FBI and DoJ have to play Step'n Fetchit for Adobe, who have already gone home with their tail between their legs. Nothing wrong with busting the prosecutor's chops till he figures it is a bad career move.
I wrote parts of this stuff
I had thought that was Curran who said that. Do you have some citation for Jefferson?
-- 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.
> they've been in the back pockets of big media for years
I'm not even sure what this means. I've heard many claims of "big media is in the back pocket of X". But how do you get in the back pocket of big media? Buy their newspaper?
Corporate media has hardly been complimentary to the ACLU, so I'm really baffled. What exactly do you mean?
The New York Times had a brief article this morning saying Russia may reduce John Tobin's term. This may be a bargining chip for the Russians.
Then what will 'we' do?
Go bust him out and get him on a flight home.
Anyone feel like helping?
--J(K) DOS is like Unix in exactly the same way that a pinto is like an aircraft carrier.
There is, however, another issue at stake. Its not just his being arrested for a crime whose constitutionality is questionable. Its the fact that his civil rights are SERIOUSLY being violated, and probably because he is a foreign national. He has not been granted bail or even a bail hearing (they keep saying they'll do that when they move him to San Jose, but that hasn't happened either) and he's been in jail for over 11 days. He's probably not been granted full counsel yet, and certainly has likely not been given the chance to talk to Russian diplomats (or else the diplomats would already be going public about protesting the unjustness of this). In other words, we're doing to him EVERYTHING we protest other countries (like China, or the Soviet Union (before the Fall)) have been doing to our citizens over the years.
Our constitution (the 5th ammendment) says that constitutional protection for due process applies to ALL PERSONS, not just to u.s. citizens (the 14th makes exceptions to states prosecuting cases, but does not make an exception for a federal prosecution).
--
You know, you gotta get up real early if you want to get outta bed... (Groucho Marx)
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
in other words you can't be bothered leave me alone..I hope you are thinking that when they come to get you. We of course will al be busy :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
but maybe you should post in your language then WE could translate, because what you wrote makes no sense
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
btw the banner only page is a sign that /. is being /.'d :) Their sql server running near max. The image is served from a different server, usually images.slashdot, but sometimes a doubleclick banner is used :(
at least that's my flawed understanding of it
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Adobe can't have it's cake and eat it too. Everyone should try to pressure Adobe into paying for his defense. This way they can't just start 'dumping' on the DoJ.
You got it exactly right, Adobe can gain some PR now by backing off and making the US Attorney look oppressive.
I think the US Attorney's office isn't willing to play this game---they're basically saying, "Too bad, if you didn't want this, you shouldn't have started. We're going to push forward now and not let you off. We're not going to lose face and look like we made a mistake too."
I assume you aware that China has a totalitarian government that arrests, prosecutes and condemn its citizen at will. I also assume you have not forgotten the Celestial Peace Square incident, when the chinese govvernment used tanks and army troops against unarmed civilians.
So I can not really figure why you you think the chinese could really protest against the arrest of americans without jeopardizing their own safety.
Please do not assume the whole world lives under the same legal protections and human rights garantees you do. Why do you think the International Amnesty members never write letters to their own governments?
Trust me, I've got first-hand knowledge of how legislators work. Tell them there's a problem, pref. through snail mail. They will at least write you back. Just be sure to include your name, address, and zip code.
Finding God in a Dog
If I had to make anything of it, it's that the ACLU, like most of the rest of the political world, is horribly and depressingly ignorant of what's going on. We need to make them aware.
Finding God in a Dog
... through the comments form. (I closed the window already, so I don't have the text.) I'll post if I get anything back from them... I hope they can lend a hand, he could use all the help he can get.
~ Leilah
admin-us@aiusa.org That's the address for AI's US branch. I'd suggest dropping them a line, I'm working on a letter now.
~ Leilah
That was a great article, thank you for linking it. I went looking for more information and found the Fully Informed Jury Association's home page, for anyone who's interested.
~ Leilah
I'm glad to see that FIJA's been getting some of these things put explicitly back into the books... laws that require judges to inform juries that then can, in fact, make their decisions regardless of the law.
It's not an easy choice to make, but it is a legal choice.
~ Leilah
~ Leilah
This letter was just sent off.
. co m
I'm writing to express my severe disappointment with the opinion piece by Mr. McCollum. The article is entitled "Free Dimitri? Free Information? Free Everything?" and can be found at this address:
http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/12306.html
While I realize that an opinion piece is different from a standard news story (namely in that it's not expected to be unbiased), I found the facts to be severely wanting and the mischaracterizations of respectable persons such as Ms. Robin Gross of the EFF to be just shy of libelous.
A Russian man is being held in a U.S. jail for a program he helped to write and distribute in Russia, where it is quite legal - because it violates a U.S. law. I find that an appalling miscarriage of justice.
Your site is in many ways an excellent news portal, with good information and quite well-written articles. I'm sorry to say that this article falls far short of the expectations I, and I believe many others have of your site.
~ Leilah
Meanwhile, here in the US, a foreign citizen is still held hostage not for anything as serious as spying, but for challenging the authority of a corporation.
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
So, because everyone isn't touting your particular cause you feel they shouldn't tout any cause, or fight any injustice? Not to be rude, but what have you been smoking?
... only a small group is being actively persecuted. The message to the majority is simple: don't rock the boat or you might be next. By showing interest in only your parochial problems (or cause celebre) and dismissing everyone else's issues and injustices you place yourself squarely amongst those who are allowing, indeed facilitating, all of these abuses, including the very ones you rail against.
The War on Drugs is appalling. The obliteration of the fourth amendment that resulted was predicted and dismissed back in the early 80's in almost exactly the same way the obliteration of the first amendment was predicted when the DMCA was passed in the late 90's. The result, a terribble erosion of our fundamental rights with nary a complaint from the mindless, spoonfed masses.
The government has a very long and very dark history of picking minorities (blacks, native americans, youthful males with long hair, recreational drug users, high school misfits, and now programmers) and stomping their rights in the name of a photo opportunity or two, and an opportunity to feed whatever the public hysteria of the moment happens to be.
Saying "I don't care, they aren't part of my group" is exactly what enables this sort of serial, unconstitutional abuse to succeed. At any given moment the majority of the people are fat, well fed, and happy
Grow up, and look beyond your own interests for a moment. You'll be shocked at the number of people who, because of what they are going through, are more likely to be open to your point of view on your particular issues as well, through bitter personal experience. But not if you dismiss their problems while touting your own (which are as irrelevant to them as their's are to you).
Injustice must be resisted and fought, everywhere, in every context, or we shall all lose our freedom. This is a bitter lesson our parent's never bothered to teach us, and now things have progressed sufficiently far that we're all going to have the opportunity to learn it the hard way. Would that it were otherwise.
--
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
A minor nitpick: the FBI didn't lure Sklyarov into this country, unless you mean they somehow staged an entire DefCon just for that purpose. They previously lured hackers to this country with promises of jobs, but that's not this case.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Wow, that was incredibly informative and a topic that I'd never even thought of before. Thanks for broadening my horizons again. Although I imagine my other beliefs are already sufficient to prevent me from being chosen for a jury anyway :)
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Ah, if only we could drop giant rocks from orbit onto Congress :)
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The police and the FBI aren't bound to enforce such a law, but in general their job is to make the arrest and let the courts sort it out. Just save the explanations for the courtroom if you're going to be civilly disobedient, and for god's sake don't do anything that would cause the police to shoot you.
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
You know, after you mentioned anime, I read "chains and manacles" as "chains and tentacles" and I was trying to figure out how BDSM tentacle porn was an indication of maturity (well, other than in the "Mature Content" sense :).
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
My complaint in the "luring hackers" case was not so much the job offers that caused them to fly to this country. IMHO that's not really entrapment, since entrapment would require law enforcement to encourage you to undertake a criminal act that you would not normally do. They were being interviewed for a legitimate job, not for their haxoring skills.
I have a lot of problems with the FBI's hacking into their computers back in Russia to get the evidence, though. Even assuming that they had a warrant to capture the defendants' passwords, breaking into the defendants' computers in Russia was at the least breaking and entering and at worst an international incident, since no warrant that the FBI could have would cover seizing property located in the jurisdiction of another sovereign country. It's interesting that the FBI didn't acknowledge national borders on the Internet in that case - I can't wait until China does that to a U.S. citizen and the fur really starts to fly.
It's too bad that we have to have international incidents over Elian Gonzalez and a sunken Japanese fishing boat, when we could be having international incidents over much more interesting points of law :)
Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus",
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Copyleft has Free Sklyarov t-shirts.
Use the self-destruct system that's already built into DMCA. Make your own CSS-encrypted DVD, or your own encrypted PDF, or whatever, and then sue the sue-ers for trafficking in devices that circumvent your technological measure without authorization. Then you'll have MPAA, Adobe, etc as defendants under DMCA, and nobody thinks they're hippie hackers.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Accepting it as a given allows them to ruin peoples lives without cost to themselves. Don't. Refuse to patronize them. Refuse to recommend them. Seek alternatives. Never accept it.
... well, read the trends. Any rescue effort needs to consider how things should be redesigned before it gets very far along. Otherwise we'll end up back at one of the "simple solutions", which are worse than a bubble sort (another simple solution).
Even if you don't succeed in influencing their actions this time, you may cause them to think twice next time. And, unless Linux, etc. win to a totally unexpected degree, there will be a next time.
And remember: The attitude isn't unique to corporations. Every group that feels itself invulnerable starts acting like this. Positions of power are attractive to those who want to exercise power. That's why it's important to design systems to eliminate that kind of position. Safeguards only work for so long before they get jimmied. The constitution was a magnificent effort, but currently
Note: Just like the bubble sort, the "simple solutions" can work quite well in small, restricted environments. I don't know what the analog to a shell sort, or a heap sort would be. Perhaps something will occur to you.
But the open source community has created something precious. It has created a large group of people and other entities that work together without significant coercion. And one of the keys to this is that there is no easy point where one could grab control. This is a gift to the country from the military, who intentionally designed a system (the internet) that it was difficult to grab control of.
One of the characteristics of the community is that there are many individuals in it who are quite protective of it. This is probably a quite important element in its success, despite the slighting comments that are frequently issued. The Open Source community doesn't use lawyers extensively. It avoids acutal coercion to the greatest extent that it can manage. But it creates an environment protective of its creativity. And the current protests against both Adobe and the feds are a part of that. And allowing Adobe to "get out of jail free" on the excuse that "that's how corporations act" is damaging to the community. If words (and code) are our only weapon, then we must use them in our defense. Adobe has grossly violated our idea of proper behavior. My must react appropriately. They must be cast out. They, and their works also.
I have been described at times as having a religious orientation, and I accept that. It's not any conventional religion, but in mine, actions such as Adobe's are cardinal sins. They are sufficient to justify excommunication. And forgiveness requires restitution. If they intentonally do irreperable harm, then there can be no forgiveness. (Well, that's putting things a tiny bit too harshly.) If they don't even try to perform restitution, then they cannot be forgiven. Forgiveness requires repentance, and that's more than just a few words to/from a PR flack. That includes the acceptance of the responsibility for the damage that you have done, and at absolute bare minimum, your best reasonable attempt to repair the damage.
If corporations want to be considered as people, then they must be held to at least as high an ethical standard as people are. Considering their power, and the amount of harm they can do even by accident, I feel that they should be held to a higher standard. Judge for yourself what kind of person would act in this way. Would you want them as a neighbor? Would you trust yourself to do business with them.
Avoiding Adobe and all of its products is as much an act of self protection as anything else. This time the convicted person was a citizen of Russia. Last week it was a German professor. Who might be next?
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Read the story's headline. Classic /. sensationalism ...
Dear Senator, As a result of the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov, all conferences concerning Linux have been rebooked outside the country. By my count, the United States' lost economic benefits total eleven dollars and fifty eight cents for this fiscal year. The almighty dollar has spoken.
He says he doesn't even know about this gig!
mindslip
Ah. Seems he got confused. This is his 7pm gig.
Sorry!
mindslip
EFF Rejoins Protests After Meeting with US Attorney's Office
Representatives of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) met with representatives of the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco today. There was a productive dialog, however the U.S. Attorney's office gave no indication of dropping the prosecution against Dmitry Sklyarov.
Having explored good faith negotiations, the Electronic Frontier Foundation rejoins the call for nonviolent protests worldwide to secure the immediate release of Dmitry Sklarov and dropping of all criminal charges against him.
A protest is already scheduled in San Francisco for 11:30am this Monday, July 30, at the Federal Courthouse at 450 Golden Gate Ave. Additional protests will occur in 25 or more cities worldwide in coming weeks.
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
When's the caning?
> /. uses two spellings of his name in the very same post!
Skylarov is typo, first meet in some newspaper.
Sklyarov is better. Except it should be soft 'l'.
(koi8 on)óËÌÑÒÏ×(koi8 off) in Russian.
The FBI wasn't looking for Sklyarov until Adobe asked them to. The FBI was, in fact, one of Sklyarov's clients. The FBI obviously didn't think what he was doing was wrong. Either that, or they were a) negligent in choosing their suppliers or b) willfully ignorant of that suppliers activities or c) both. In any case, the FBI has no business arresting and detaining a foreign national, just because that person pissed off a megacorp.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Let me ask you a different question.
How should The People make their will known to the courts, if not by peaceful demonstration and rhetoric?
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Huh? So you don't think that an Adobe boardroom conference had the sentence "We need to send a message to those evil h4x0rs..."
Adobe pulled the trigger. They don't get to be sorry now that the bullet hit something. Their actions caused this chain of events to occur. They are not absolved of responsibility.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
When Adobe can make people think that cracking encryption is the same, morally, as raping people, they have won, and we have lost.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
No, I have most emphatically NOT missed the point. The law is unjust, and should not be obeyed. It's called civil disobedience.
Allowing companies to buy laws and then enforce them selectively and then let that company avoid the consumer backlash is WRONG.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
OK. I think I can agree with you that the FBI ought to enforce The Law evenhandedly and across the board. As a practical matter, I GUARANTEE that this will never happen, but for the sake of this argument let's assume that it can.
However, since Adobe purchased the (bad) law, and pointed the FBI towards Mr. Sklyarov, and is now attempting to distance themselves from what I believe many Americans will call an unjust arrest (once they are in possession of the facts of the case), I don't think we should let Adobe get away with it. Adobe can and should be tried in the court of public opinion, just as Mr. Sklyarov will be tried in the Federal court. Hopefully, the EFF will give him some very high-powered legal representation...if not, they're not doing a very good job of living up to their charter.
I don't agree with you that foreign nationals ought to obey our laws while they are on foreign soil. I've read LOTS of books that are not allowed in many countries...I should be able to travel in these countries with the reasonable expectation that a) I won't be prosecuted for "crimes" committed outside that jurisdiction and b) that if it WERE to happen, the American Embassy would raise a bit of a stink. Idealitic, I know, but if one doesn't aspire to an Ideal, what's the damn point?
As far as your last point, I believe that I am a civilized person. I don't know that I live in a civilized society, and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is not a civilized corporation on God's green Earth. By definition, a corporation pursues profit for its shareholders singlemindedly. That singleminded goal is not conducive to good citizenship.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Whats really sick is this guy got a score 5 mod on one of his post Scary.
I hope some native speaker of American English will correct the inevitable typos and grammatical errors.
:)
No typos that I see, but you did contridict yourself. You said that all conditions must be meet, then you make one condition that he be free, and the last one gives the implications that as long as they are taking concret steps to free him that it is alright for him not to be free. You probably meant to imply that even if he is freed that if they hadn't taken steps to free him you would still not buy their products. So try to be more clear on that point
You're right, of course. But, here's my point: I listened to what the EFF's attorney said. (If you don't believe me, just go to science friday's website.) She said they (the EFF) met with the DOJ. The DOJ listened to what the EFF said. The EFF left. During that meeting, the DOJ gave no promise to drop the charges. So? Should we really expect them to instantly change their minds? I mean, as soon as they left the meeting, reports started to come out that the meeting was fruitless, which is not what the attorney said on the radio! The EFF goes out and tells the world that they had a meeting and they are waiting to hear whether or not the DOJ will drop charges or continue on with the case. Right now, the DOJ is doing nothing. (Which is something that should be protested in and of itself.) The EFF attorney said it is now in the hands of the DOJ. I do think the community should continue to pressure the DOJ to release Skylarov. But, it was a misrepresentation on the part of Slashdot to say that the DOJ "won't drop charges". They (the DOJ or the EFF) never said they (the DOJ) won't drop charges. I have not heard that report, nor have I yet seen those word used anywhere except here.
My distinction simply points out that Slashdot made a false report. "US Won't Drop Charges Against Sklyarov" implies that the DOJ came out and said that (or at least that the EFF accused them of doing that). Show me the documentation. As of the time when the story was originally posted, there was nothing to substantiate the claims made here on slashdot.
I fully support the protest movement. Let's see that the wrongs are righted ASAP, but let's also hold /. accountable for accurate news if we are going to depend on them for information regarding this issue.
But, one of the attorney's with the EFF (Forgot her name) was on NPR's Talk of the Nation: Science Friday less than an hour before this /. article was posted. She said the DOJ (or FBI or whoever they met with) had listened politely and said they would consider dropping the charges, BUT that no decision could be made at that time.
If what she says is true (and I'm more apt to believe the words of someone who was actually at the meeting) then I think /. is mis-representing the story. (Not that it is a surprise.)
Personally, I think there is a HUGE distinction between "hasn't decided whether to drop charges or not" and "won't drop charges".
I don't want to be down on your idea. You're right: jury nullification is exactly the cure to draconian laws, and the Framers agreed. Check out the Fully-Informed Jurors site.
Because the issues are complex and have so much financial consequence, Congress feels it's best if the affected parties (the various businesses who have a financial interest in copyright law) work out the law themselves. Congress just rubber stamps whatever they come up with. The current copyright law (the DMCA) is over 150 pages of lawyer-speak, far too much for everyone in Congress to read, comprehend and have an opinion on - just the way the media companies want it. The media companies understand it (or their lawyers do) because they wrote it. To hell with the people.
Read this -c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
However, most juries are entirely ignorant of even the possibility of nullification. Prosecutors certainly don't want them to know, and many judges don't either. Witness the efforts of some people to have jury nullification used against that most unconstitutional set of laws created by the War on Some Drugs.
Attempted nullifications of unconstitutional laws has been attempted in the past. These attempts have resulted in charges of contempt of court aimed at jurors. You can now officially be removed from the jury even if you are deliberating if you practice or attempt to incite jury nullification!
So sorry, but that avenue to freedom has been closed as well. Me? I'm only in this country for the money. When the visa runs out, I'm out of here.
Vital link if you're interested in jury nullification:
I had one, but the wheel fell off.
I would write to my senator(s) but being in NY they are both about as corrupt as they come, and already in the pockets of the Media companies.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Adobe should donate a VERY LARGE sum of money to the EFF to help cover the costs they are incuring to handle this mess that Adobe caused... if they are really so apologetic and resentful.
I didn't say they should pay for his defense, since I don't know if I would trust whomever they bought.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
(Emphasis mine)
So... has anyone spoken to RedHat to find out if either they are already a member, or if they have any interest in joining? Also, any universities care to join to give us an "Inside View" into whats going on (although non-profit members also have non-voting status).
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
!!!
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
funny, I thought cool stuff and important stuff was slashdots "identity". I, for one ,like the variety. I like reading about the cartercopter(very informative webpage I must say) new toys and gadgets and so on. At the same time I find slashdot a great source of info on things like: updates on Dmitri, RIAA, MPAA, DVD-CCA, as tat most other sources are , uh, shall we say biased(read msnbc). Basicly it comes down to this: all the readers of slahsdot, are as much of its "identity", as the editors and the stories define slashdot. I couldnt even guess how many people post here on a hourly/daily/weekly basis, but given the large number and the variety, nowonder it has an "identity crisis".
PS. I really hate the "this place needs to do this thing foo or that thing bar, but not both"
The big problem with the criminal justice system in this country, is while I can initially refuse to press charges (Yes, Mr. bad person broke into my house, but I told him to, or he was trying to stop a fire from starting, or any number of reasons). However, if I initially tell the cops to hang him, then find out 24 hours later the reason he broke into my house was for a legit reason, I can't easily get the charges dropped. Granted, it would be rather difficult to convict him if I myself got up on the witness stand and told the jury exactly what happened, and its unlikely the prosecution would pursue it that far. But the system doesn't move quickly. It can take months to get from arrest to court room, and while this is a good 6 month process in state cases, it can take years in federal cases (Mitnick, Ok city bombing, etc).
The problem is, he's in jail now, and there's a good chance that this case will never see a trial, but he could be locked up for a long time before somebody decides the case isn't worth pursuing. And there is very little we can do about it, at least with this specific case.
The REAL problem is, we raise our voices when someone has been wronged, which DOES have effect, but it doesn't have immediate effect. The problem is he got arrested in the first place, which means the laws are broken. Even if he's locked away for years, there is no restitution from the government because they've done no wrong, legally speaking. They had a proper case, a clear violation of a valid law (even if its a stupid one).
There are three possibilities here. We wait patiently for this law to get repealed. Look back carefully and see how many laws have been repealed lately. I mean, REALLY LOOK. You're not going to find many. At the very least, we're not going to accomplish anything by simply talking. We're too small of a minority to gain the proper attention. Which leads us to the second possibility.
Run for office. Get yourself elected to a position where, while you might not have enough influence to get the laws reversed, you will have a position you can argue against it in an open forum. The press will listen. Congress will listen, because you're in their face, and they can't simply walk away then. Even if you don't get elected, you can manipulate the issue into a major campaign issue and the issue will get discussed at length. People will hear.
The third possibility is we keep the law as it is. We stay away from politics all together. Instead we focus on the companies and take drastic measures to make sure that nobody will use the products of any company that implements encryption for the purpose of preventing competition. Ok. So how do we do THIS?
Well, thats not easy, but there are ways. The problem is, it will require a lot of us to be extremely ruthless. We will have to write free virus scanners that will locate this rogue software and complain to the user that they're using software could potentially be illegal, and cite court cases where people have been jailed for using such software. A lot of people could be scared into not running such software, or at the very least, they might pay attention, which means that congress might actually start paying attention. The problem is we might get into a situation where this is abused beyond the point where it does any real good but instead creates more problems than it solves.
In addition. We, as a community, all of us, need to write letters (snail and email) to the important people at every software company, promising that if they EVER do something as stupid as Adobe has done, you will no longer purchase any products they produce, and you will encourage all your friends and employeer to not use them either. The same will happen if they attempt to use a protection scheme that uses the DMCA to keep people from reverse engineering their products. If a product uses encryption legitimately, that algorithim should be disclosed, as any adaquate encryption algorithm should be unbreakable anyways. There is no reason to protect it otherwise unless they're trying to be anticompetitive.
And another thing. Adobe needs to make a massive display of goodwill VERY soon. Along the lines of fully funding the defense costs (top of the line) to this poor prisoner, along with adaquate compensation for his trouble and a sincere public apology. If they don't, they need to be destroyed. Any legal means we can, we need to make sure that company goes down the toilet, which is better than they deserve. It must be made an example out of so no other corporation that has an interest in making money will ever be so bold to try something as stupid ever again.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
Of course, last time I checked, no one in this country signed a wavier giving others the right to decide what drugs they may or may not take, unlike this IP issue, which derives from living in a civilized society where people can't just go take other people's stuff.
So far as I know nobody has even accused Dmitry of taking anybody's stuff. What you're saying is that your "civilized" society restricts what ideas people can communicate to one another, even if they do so in other less restrictive societies. At least be honest about it.
<i>This is incorrect. You are referring to jury nullification, which has garnered jurors heavy contempt-of-court punishments in the past. From United States v. Avery, 717 F. 2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 1683 (1984):</I>f site.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fi2i.org%2FSuptDocs%2Fju dic%2Ffija.htm>"Fully Informed Juries"</a> An excellent resource for researching the subject is at <A href="http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/jurynullifi cation/">here</a> and there are others, some biased in favor and others biased against the concept, easily found by most major search engines.
<P>
I never said that it was safe: defying authority <b>always</b> risks consequences. Judges have enormous power (much more so than most people realize) and disagreeing with one is extremely hazardous. I never meant to imply otherwise. Nevertheless, jury nullification is an established legal right. <i>The District of Columbia Court of Appeals -- the second highest court in the United States -- explains that the jury has an "unreviewable and irreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instruction on the law given by the trial judge..." (U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1139 (1972).)</i> (<A href="http://civilliberty.about.com/gi/dynamic/of
<P>
As Alexander Hamilton remarked, the basis of jury nullification is the depth of the jury's conviction. To my mind, they key term is "conviction", not in the sense of whether the defendent is guilty or not but rather do honest people have beliefs which they are willing to fight for. I don't want to either pound drums or stand on a soapbox: exercising the right of jury nullification is not a trivial undertaking and will almost certainly provoke intense (and possibly painful) response. My point is that if this is something that someone considers doing, they had better be damn sure that they are sacrificing themselves for something they believe in enough to sacrifice their own personal well-being for, because there will be a price and the price will be high. This isn't something to do because you're bored and it's re-run season on TV.
Well, sort of. It is rare, although perfectly legal, for a jury to, for example, decide that the law under which a defendent is being tried is unjust and therefore refuse to convict. This principle upholds the ancient right of a democratic people to return to themselves the power and authority they may have temporarily granted to others. This right is fundamental to democracy and violation of this right directly leads to armed rebellion and insurrection, as governments always seem to forget sooner or later.
Things don't often go that far, primarily because citizens in our society (USA) are remarkably poorly educated about their rights and responsibilities as citizens. My wife would argue that since it is obviously in the best self-interest of government that the average citizen remain in ignorance of his/her rights, and since the government runs the schools, that this is deliberate. Me, I'm open to argument. We treasure our heritage of 'civil disobedience' as the primary means by which we express displeasure with our government and judiciary, but just as one medicine can't cure all illnesses, one means of protest should not be expected to right all injustices.
The (condensed) point is that citizens of a democracy are not bound, legally or morally, to blind acceptance of the dictates of those in power, regardless of how they came to be in power. The fundamental characteristic of a true democracy is the ability of those governed to correct injustices perpetrated on them by authority. Thomas Jefferson believed that the only way a free people could maintain their liberty was to occasionally reminded the government that the consent of the governed is subject to change. While no one is advocating violence (certainly I am not,) there are alternatives. Passive resistence can include refusal to cooperate (denying information or assistance to government, for example,) or the supplying of false information (yes, sir: I've got 15 kids here. No, you can't see them: they're all out right now.) There's also active resistance short of armed rebellion, including the refusal of a jury to convict someone of breaking an unjust law. All of this does require a significant minority of citizens willing to act together, which is where things most often break down, but that's another topic, I suppose. (It'll have to be: I've got a meeting in 5 minutes.)
Why not use all that man/woman-power and research the law regarding the DMCA?
I'm willing to bet that there are some vague provisions of that act which make it highly suspect in terms of it's adherence to the Constitution.
I've been representing myself in propria persona in a lawsuit for the last 9 months. I'd have lost outright if I had not researched the law regarding how to proceed. If I had more researchers to help me it would have moved faster.
Futhermore, consider that most law firms have a majority of their grunt work done by paralegals, the real grunts of legal work...
If it were me I'd probably feel like he did: My company makes this software, and I'm going to demonstrate how it works to permit fair-use on a device made to restrict that right.
Wups.
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
However, Russia, for example, doesn't seem to have a comparable law. Although it's wonderful that there are some of us who do give a damn, it's disheartening that we have such an asnine law to begin with.
If we punish adobe enough, they might even find it in their interest to lobby against the DMCA. That's what moves DC lawmakers: lobbyists and money. They don't care squat about protesters. The protesters are political deviants as far as DC and the grey masses is conserned..
So modify these stupid Outlook worms to send emails to everyone in an address book stating how bad Adobe is. Hell, it'll look like it came from a friend, and people will be more likely to read it.
But, until then, I keep getting people's resumes...
HI Mom!
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.
Yes, Harsh - BTW I just did a cut and paste without checking (oops)
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
"My dear lady, you can pass any laws you like. If they are reasonable, I'll obey them. If not, I'll ignore them."
(from "The moon is a hash mistress")
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
First off, let me say that I think it is undoubtably unjust that this man is in jail. The DMCA is a joke, and yet another argument for campaign finance reform, IMHO. The RIAA and MPAA are charlatans and crooks, and I'm hoping karma bites them in the ass realsoonnow.
Having said that, there are many, many other issues that are more deserving of attention. At the end of 1999, 1 in every 137 US residents were incarcerated. An estimated 30% of those are there for non-violent drug crimes. In 1999 alone there were over 1.5 million people arrested for drug related crimes. Sklyarov is an isolated case, whereas the imprisonment of otherwise peaceful citizens goes largely unreported because it is sadly so common. The abuses of personal freedoms in the name of the drug war are much more odious than those commited in the name of the DMCA. The United States has declared war against its own citizenry in the name of fighting drug abuse. Ask yourself which is more important.
Mod me down if you wish. And again, I hope that Sklyarov goes free, and soon. But I think that on the balance his incarceration, while unjust, pales in significance when compared to other issues. And the drug war isn't the only one that can be deemed more important: poverty, AIDS, and environmental abuses all rank higher in importance, due to the fact that they affect so many more people.
And no, I'm not saying that /. shouldn't cover this. Their audience is interested in DMCA related issues. But I will continue to dedicate my efforts at raising awareness of the tragedy that is the drug war. I feel it is more worthwhile to do so.
Sklyarov, as far as I can tell, is being held for acts he committed legally in another jurisdiction which happen not to be legal over here. Due process (at least his constitutional rights) appear to have been waived.
But you have a "who watches the watchers" problem. As well as identifying the people responsible. Even once you do that how do you get a jail to hold them or charges brought? AFAIK the US has never even charged anyone with "high treason"...
The US constitution assumes a well motivated (and armed) populace able to take corrective action on government misbehaviour.
If he came into America and wrote the offending code in America he should be responsible to American laws.
Such laws should be responsible to the US constitution which unambiguiously voids them.
Question --- isn't it unconstitutional to give people a right but not make them aware that they have it?
Remember that most of the US constitution is about denying rights to government (and denying government the ability to deny rights to people) the default is that people have every right possible. Unless otherwise stated.
Things don't often go that far, primarily because citizens in our society (USA) are remarkably poorly educated about their rights and responsibilities as citizens.
Probably more people know the words than understand their meaning...
The (condensed) point is that citizens of a democracy are not bound, legally or morally, to blind acceptance of the dictates of those in power, regardless of how they came to be in power.
Remember that police, lawyers and judges are also "citizens" so the same applies to them.
BUT he was arrested because he gave a talk on how to circumvent the encryption *while he was in the US*.
In which case whatever law he is arrested under must be void. Only possible way it could be a valid law would be to predate the first ammendement.
It doesn't say "when the Supreme Court has ruled"..
Possibly the original intention was for the US supreme court of routinely examine legislation and act on its own initutive. IIRC it's original purpose was only to handle constitutional issues, not to also act as a court of appeal.
The police and the FBI aren't bound to enforce such a law, but in general their job is to make the arrest and let the courts sort it out.
Or rather they have made this their job, whatever the intention of their job might have been.
Sounds not unlike the USPO, with their "pass anything and let the courts sort it out" policy.
Treason is actually very narrowly defined within the Constitution, because previous governments the founders were familiar with had taken advantage of broad and ambiguous definitions to punish whoever they didn't like.
With "high treason" apparently completly non existant, which is somewhat odd considering concerns over opressive government.
. . . that jury nullification would be possible? Indeed, are you so certain that after a brief statement by each side, that a majority of non-technical people would even disapprove of DMCA?
Lookie, when a few lawyers and civil rights types were screaming against the DMCA, it was very difficult even to get a whimper out of the technical community. The subtleties of the legal issues were too obscure even for a savvy technical community to get hepped up about until they saw its consequences.
And now that this is the law, do you really think that the American people are going to rise up because of the arrest of one russian hacker?
Felton was a far better case to get on CNN. This case actually makes the few Congressmen who are looking to change the law's job harder, not easier.
This argument is losing (and its one that lost in the DeCSS case, as a matter of fact -- wasn't even raised on appeal).
In particular, DeCSS doesn't need to rely on the Patent and Copyright Clause to remain valid law even if it didn't promote the sciences and the useful arts -- it would suffice if the statute regulated interstate commerce (the Commerce Clause, also Section 8).
Indeed, the proponents of DMCA made precisely this argument: "we can't put a fair use provision into this statute because if we did, it would be treated under the Copyright Clause."
At any rate, The conclusion in your argument is unfounded on the fallacious presumption that merely proving a failure to promote progress would suffice.
Well, sort of. It is rare, although perfectly legal, for a jury to, for example, decide that the law under which a defendent is being tried is unjust and therefore refuse to convict. This principle upholds the ancient right of a democratic people to return to themselves the power and authority they may have temporarily granted to others. This right is fundamental to democracy and violation of this right directly leads to armed rebellion and insurrection, as governments always seem to forget sooner or later.
Jury nullification is neither a right nor legal. To willfully ignore the facts and to refuse to uphold the law is a violation of a law taken under oath.
The poster is quite correct, however, that a jury's acquittal is unreviewable and cannot be set aside. No inquiry may be made, and no reprisals can be taken against the jury. This is not to protect any right of the jurors, but rather that of the Defendant - double jeopardy.
Thus, the poster has confused lawfulness with the ability of the state to enforce it. This is very similar to the mistake made by DMCA supporters, that the DMCA is right, and Sklyarov is evil because the law is enforceable.
DMCA is Malum prohibutum, not Malum in se. It is wrong only because it is prohibited, it is not prohibited because it is wrong.
The corporate shield provides limited liability for shareholders, but no immunity from criminal responsibility for individual acts of officers or employees. (Indeed, in many cases, an individual can be deemed liable for intentional torts committed by or in the name of the corporation. This is why the corporate officers are so often named in trademark and trade secret misappropriation cases).
The example you gave, where a corporate officer is held criminally responsible for financial misdeeds of the company, is in fact quite common.
Further, even if an individual didn't perform all of the acts necessary to commit a crime, there can be criminal responsibility nevertheless for conspiracy or attempt. All that is necessary for conspiracy is a joint agreement that the crime be committed and a single act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Every member of a conspiracy is guilty of the crime as though they were a principal.
Um, a bill titled "The Digital Millenium Copyright Act" (see "Section 1: Short Title") doesn't automatically come under the Copyright Clause?
Of course it is in Title 17. Of course, Congress might try to rely upon its authority under the Patent and Copyright clause for the power to pass it.
Of course it matters not one whit as to its constitutionality whether DMCA would qualify under the clause "to promote progress."
Congress has a list of powers in Article I. They are not mutually exclusive. If a bill does not satisfy one of those powers, it can still pass a law if it falls under another clause.
DMCA passes muster under the Commerce Clause, which is what the Congress relied upon for its passage. It therefore doesn't matter whether it promotes progress, at least with respect to its constitutionality.
Read the cases. Eventually, you'll get it.
However much I agree with you, the analogy holds no water whatsoever, apart from both individuals being arrested for violations of a crime.
The crime Rosa Parks violated was unconstitutional in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because, had a similarly situtated white woman been there, it would not have been a crime.
The DMCA's constitutionality is undisputed, except as applied in the Felton case (suing over a threatened lawsuit, not an actual judgment under the DMCA) and the DeCSS injunction (suing over the overly expansive LANGUAGE of an injunction order, not the DMCA in itself).
DMCA is wrong -- its bad policy. There are certainly theorists who argue that even distribution of executable object code is free speech (Professor Junger, for example). But hey, there's a huge difference between these highly theoretical arguments and the blatant 14th Amendment egregiousness that infected the South in the 60s.
There is a reason that the American public ultimately got behind the civil rights movement -- they understood that it was wrong and why it was wrong. I have yet to poll a newbie without loading up the questions to find someone who "gets it."
This is not to say that killing the anticircumvention provisions of DMCA is not a righteous cause -- its that the present incarceration of a Russian Hacker is so far from a Rosa Parks scenario that you are simply deluding yourself.
I believe that Dr. Felten is trying to be Rosa.
... hi bingo
about his status as Civil Rights Hero.
Perhaps he feels more like a victim of the illegal laws of a banana republic.
I doubt he feels really good about it.
However, if I were in his shoes, I'd prefer being the civil rights hero we're making him, rather than an anonymous "Russian hacker" "taken down" by the ever-alert FBI, with the help of concerned citizen Adobe Systems, Inc.
The chances of his being released from custody as a "cyberterrorist" (or whatever they'd brand him) are practically nil. As a hero, he at least has a fighting chance.
Evan Prodromou | evan@prodromou.name | http://evan.prodromou.name/
I just went to the CATO institute search site and there in no mention of either Sklyarov or the DMCA.
The silence is remarkable -- and deafening.
All you republicans should take note of this.
War is necrophilia.
Don't call it a blackout. Call it a moment of silence. As a protest have everybody who can disconnect whatever machine(s) they are in charge of machine from the network (whatever network that might be) for a couple of minutes. If enough people in charge of routers do this the internet would shut down for a minute or two.
If the entire internet shut down for a minute or two no real harm would come but the message would be sent loud and clear.
If the event was executed correctly and your boss got mad at you you could always point your fingers at everybody else and say "gee boss our systems are working fine but there seems to be a internet wide strike" it's not like your boss would know.
If that fails you can always rely on "just reboot your machine it should work fine afterwards" it's not like they haven't heard that one before.
War is necrophilia.
I think you're not being fair. Event though i live in Germany (and not in PA) i heard a lot about Pope, saw a lot of pressure applied to the russian government and i also heard international protest.
I believe the US sate department put some thought into it, how to handle that case. It may not allways be the best idea to fire with the big guns (i.e. the president) first.
A possible result may be, that the other side tries to raise the price for his freeing. It's allways a tragedy for a human beeing to be caught inside political clash between two countries or systems.
In the Sklyarov case i also believe that he being a russian "hacker" made him an jummy target for the prosecution. Just imagine him trying to defend himself in front of a jury speeking with russian accent. That must be a nightmare after fifty years of movies with half of the bad guys speaking like that.
CU, Martin
Nullification en masse (as in the case of jurors routinely refusing to convict Underground Railroad conductors or alcohol prohibition violators) can eventually convince prosecutors to quit wasting their efforts on a certain type of case, but a single case just doesn't matter.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
about his status as Civil Rights Hero. Must be rough on him. Still, Rosa Parks just wanted to rest her feet, and look what she started.
Best Slashdot Co
Hang on, there, guy. Sklyarov was an employee of a company (and, incidentally, the principal of the company was in the US at the same time he was). Prima Facie, the company may have broken US law - but they broke it in Russia, where it wasn't illegal. Sklyarov did not sell or distribute the software he's alleged to have co-written anywhere - the company that employed him did. And he wrote it, not as a private individual, but as an agent of a company under the direction of that company. So whether the company is guilty or not, Sklyarov does not personally have any case to answer - and how you prosecute a Russian company for doing in Russia something which is legal in Russia I don't know.
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
One very concrete way we could show support for Dmitry is to send him postcards. This is a technique used by Amnesty International to show support for political prisoners. There are something like half a million registered Slashdot users, and if half a million postcards from all over the world landed up at San Whatever-it-is Penitentiary next week it would get noticed.
So: anyone got the surface mail address of the place he's in, and how you write to a prisoner there?
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Probably because some people take their understanding of english for granted. People who know that their grasp of english is questionable also know that they have to work to be understood. It's not actually that different for the rest of us, we just sometimes presume that people will be happy to read our everyday blather.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
That should have been:
We know that it'd get us a lot more trouble to just say no.
(not know).
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
For those of you who saw "Anna and The King", there is a scene where Anna has a tirade in front of the court about how what is going on is a farce, and she'll talk to the king and get her friend, and her friend's would-be lover freed.
The King berates her, in turn, for her public outburst and explains to how it has sealed the fate of her friends. He says that he was originally going to have the two publicly caned, and then released, but now he has to allow them to be executed. He explains to her that he can't be seen as being wrapped around the finger of a foreigner.
The US justice system faces the same dilemma. If they were to free Dmitry at the public request of Adobe -- in the same way that they arrested him at Adobe's request -- they would be seen as wrapped around the finger of a large corporation. This would vanquish the appearances, if not the reality, of the independence of the judicial system.
Thus it is that, by asking for his release, Adobe -- if they really want him prosecuted -- has managed to have their cake and eat it to. They get to make it look like they've seen the light. At the same time they have managed to paint the Justice Department into a corner where it will be harder than ever for them to release the man.
Book anybody??? Borrow them while it's legal!
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
--
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Drop 'em a line asking about their silence on this issue.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You can't "take" stuff from a web site (unless you crack in and delete files or something), you can only copy from it.
You're welcome to copy any of my poetry (though I doubt you'd want to) from http://infamous.net/poems ; I assert rights to authorship credit and to royalties on commercial use, but otherwise feel free to share and enjoy.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I agree fully. My response to the original poster was that you only have public pressure when there is public outrage. The above post about the Edward Pope shows that you only have outrage when there is media coverage. Granted, not all media coverage will lead to activism, but if people don't know about something, they can't very well fight against it. Furthermore, if the media only gives it minor coverage, then people won't treat it as something worthwhile. If the media makes a big deal, it's no guarentee that something will get done - people will have divided opinions - but with no coverage, ultimately, nothing will happen.
If an American were to be held in another country, you'd also have massive media attention and public outcry. Remember the whole caning thing a few years ago? People were upset that Singapore used it's legal system, which allows for caning (as I recall it was an act of vandilism), on an American (name escapes me) and people here went nuts.
In order for this to have a similar effect, you would need the Russian people, if not all of Europe to make this an issue. Then, maybe you'd have enough international pressure on the US to do something.
Rosa Parks was supported as a test case by civil rights groups after her arrest. Her original defiance of the law was entirely spontaneous.
(Reality reasserts itself sooner or later.)
I've been doing my part in the Adobe boycott by not paying for photoshop for the last 6 years.
Print flyers of code to decrypt the ebook.. Get everyone at the rallies and protests to bring a copy or hand them out there.. Call the FBI and tell them you are breaking the law knowingly and wish to be arrested. Invite the press.. 50 people here, 50 there, 100 here.. GO PEACEFULLY, how many good standing citizens are they going to arrest before they figure out that the DMCA is crap. I'm willing to do it.. When is the next NYC rally?!
Giggle.
Your story #1 is a Reuters wire piece. Moscow Times or not, that still the "Western Media." Hehe!
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
... unless such speech or assembly is intended or may result in circumvention of a protection device or mechanism.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Only possible way it could be a valid law would be to predate the first ammendement
... not even then. The U.S. Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" and superceded everything that came before it.
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Let me see if I've got this straight: Your mom creates an humanoid format for carbon-based lifeforms, and someone develops something very massive, like a sledgehammer, allowing people to apply great force to the back of your skull. Your mom wants the sledgehammer inventer brought to justice for this affront to your very life, and you find something wrong with this?
You mean that if I invented the copy machine and get paid by companies to sell it to them, I would be stealing?
Everyone who's against the right to invent tools with positive and negative uses, please post your address so I can send you textbooks to full up your empty brain. And put your keyboard in the oven and set it to 450 degrees.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
Question --- isn't it unconstitutional to give people a right but not make them aware that they have it? Isn't that why the police are required to give people they arrest their miranda right (the right to remain silent, etc.)? Why is this even legal?
I live on Long Island, and would be willing to go to NYC for this as well.
"that I will advice" should be "that I will advise".
It appears to be /.'ed
I think that disrupting a large portion of the internet would be completely counterproductive- the media would simply label the perpetrators as anarchists and/or cyberterrorists, and the masses of J. Sheep Internet Users would be upset that they can't access their favorite sites. Would they care or even consider WHY we were doing this? No. The action would be completely marginalized and any useful effect would be totally wiped out by the media, therefore enhancing the negatives and destroying our credibility to the public. it sucks, but that's the way it is... ..
ìì!
NPR had a 10 minute interview with the EFF lawyer who talked to the DoJ today. You can hear it here:
r mm
http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/totn/20010727.totn.
You're quite right about one thing in your comment. That Skylarov is relatively unapproachable, as far as the populace is concerned. First, he's Russian. Second, nearly every news report labels him a "hacker".
We're not going to find the perfect similar case between DMCA and the civil rights movement. It's not as if 80% of the population is comfortable in their right to break any encryption they can get this mitts on, while the rest are locked up for life for even thinking about it. For that reason, we need to cling to anything we can get to fight it.
Right now, Felton is the closest thing to it. Researcher and professor at Princeton, he's a lot more understandable to the common man. At least, far more so than a "Russian hacker." Sure, we can all (well, most) empathize with Skylarov and his motivations. It's totally cool to watch code you wrote do something that someone says you shouldn't be able to easily do. Most people will never get nor understand that feeling.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
We can't go after all the companies that supported the DMCA. There are too many of them. We must choose a single corporation and make an example out of it. Since Adobe was the first to try to enforce the fascist DMCA law, it is the logical target of our ire. As a start, do not use Acrobat and Photoshop. Concert your .pdf files to another format if possible. Make them sweat a little. As far as the music industry is concerned, my advice is: download it all and copy it all!
... and why should the FBI make a special case for this man? With reference to usual court times, very little time has elapsed since Sklyarov was arrested.
The whole purpose of the court system is to catch situations like this. Imagine what would happen if it were generally EASY to have charges dropped when an unjust situation arises (read: a situation that doesn't go your way.) Should "Joe Rapist" be released because his mother says that he's a good person and what he did was just "kind of" rape, but not "really harmful?"
What you're advocating is anarchy, in a form. I suggest that you move to the South Pole.
____________________
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
And what do you deserve?
____________________
___
The ends are ape-chosen, only the means are man's. -- Aldous Huxley
I believe the name of the gentleman who was flogged is Michael Fay. I could be wrong, so if someone else knows better, please correct me.
---- Yay! I have a sig!
It's exclusively the job of the court to interpret the laws and also to determine if they are unconstitutional.
No. Every government official has a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That involves interpreting it and making decisions of which actions to take.
Additionally, if the government fails, the people have not only the right, but the obligation, to ignore an unjust law.
We should be taking names and then doing what we can come election time to bring havoc to their websites.
The best thing to do right now is to pressure the senate to REJECT Robert Mueller as FBI director. The FBI needs a director we can trust, especially after all the abuses. It's not Mueller.
Then at election time....
Good guys: Boucher
Bad guys: Coble, Feinstein
That being said, I don't know how analagous the 2 situations are, even. The kid in (Singapore?) broke a law over there WHILE he was over there. He received due process, although the punishment was harsh by US standards. Sklyarov, as far as I can tell, is being held for acts he committed legally in another jurisdiction which happen not to be legal over here. Due process (at least his constitutional rights) appear to have been waived. The US (my home country, FWIW) is so full of BS on this one it's hard believe.
--alt
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
In addition to the above, people should try to remember that the fact that he is not a citizen of the U.S. has NO BEARING AT ALL in this matter. He commited a crime on U.S. soil (well, sort of - his company offered the program he wrote for sale in the U.S.), they arrested him for it. Pretty simple, really. No different than if he came to this country and sold crack.
Guys, as much as I admire the high tech of USA, I must admit I feel somewhat relieved to be in the good-ol' Europe. FOR NOW! I am afraid that something like the DNCA will spread in the EU (European Union) very soon.
If you don't squash it and prove it's utter nonsense before, that is.
Sigged!
Direct links to boston, LA, and seattle information are at boston.freesklyarov.org, la.freesklyarov.org, and seattle.freesklyarov.orb.
Protests are also scheduled in NY and LA. There's interest in the UK as well, see ntk.net for more details.
[
This link is a little bit more interesting. It allows you to send them feedback. Maybe if enough people attract the ACLU's attention to this free-speech issue, they may take it up. Who knows, maybe it isn't a conspiracy, but just ignorance. Indeed, the issue may not be that obvious for someone not in the field.
Say no to software patents.
Hey, I live in Europe too, and I used their feedback form to submit them a comment. Given the US' position in the Western World, I don't consider it innapropriate to participate in US politics that way. Indeed, those US laws often find their ways into Europena legislation via international treaties. We better voice our opinion before these laws become binding for us too.
In case anybody's interested here's what I sent them:
Say no to software patents.
Ever hear of this guy? Edmond Pope is a US Citizen (I'm a friend of his daughter) who was held in Russia for a year, convicted of spying for purchasing plans that have been publically available for almost 10 years. There was almost no outrage here in the US, except here in his hometown of State College, PA. President Clinton even refuse to meet with his wife, for fear of damaging US-Russian relations. even though he was extremely ill (leukemia), Russian doctors refused to allow his doctor to see him, and there was no international outcry over his treatment.
m oran/tm33.htm)
And you think it wouldn't happen to an American? My thoughts are with Sklyarov, and I plan on continuing to write to my legislators and spreading word of his abuse under a law that has no place in this country.
( for the wary, the link is to http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/columnists/t
If I could only live my life with my threshold at 4...
I don't know if it's worth $99 (only because I'm cheap), but one practical reason of the Ebook reader would be to view an Ebook in Linux. As Adobe doesn't sell or provide any readers for them. I shouldn't have to use Windows to read a book that I bought, and the Advanced Ebook Processor is the only way I know of that would allow me to read it on my chosen platform.
Your letter is a bit too long. It should be short and to the point. People don't have the patience to stick around. Heck, even I didn't, and I'm not on a sugar-induced hyperactivity buzz.
If they want more information, give them a link, otherwise, keep it short. You only have 5 seconds to make an impact, not a half hour sermon.
Let me see if I can trim it down a bit for ya:
Sure I've left out a lot of details and it can be construed as spin-doctoring a little, but if people want the details, the link will have them all.
I also recommend you add a footer to the email:
;-)
Besides, it can't hurt to write him.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
The ambassador's address is:
His Excellency Yuri V. Ushakov
Embassy of the Russian Federation
2650 Wisconsin Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20007
On a side note, the ambassador's official title is "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary". I'm sure it's deserved, but I don't think I could actually call him that to his face without laughing.
--
Lord Nimon
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
US encryption export restrictions were skirted by developing encryption outside of the US before importing it back in as well as throughout the rest of the world while the same encryption, developed inside of the US, would have been illegal to distribute, as per the OpenBSD team.
Would we have arrested a Canadian cryptographer upon setting foot in US soil for developing a program which only we seem to have a hang-up about to the world, including the US? Apparently we (remember: corporations are people, too) don't have any such qualms about slapping Russians in handcuffs.
While the Internet may have opened up the "virtual" world, if this gets tried and Dmitri convicted, the real world looks to be getting shackled down: a world of nations each with their corporation-friendly or religion-friendly or whatever-friendly laws for their tiny little vicarage that don't make sense anywhere else but, because of the pervasive nature of the Internet, can be enforced anywhere doesn't make for big tourism, does it?
Also, I'm still... does anyone have any actual proof that Dmitri or Elcomsoft ever sold the eBook decryptor inside the US? I've heard conflicting reports that he has, he hasn't, he was selling at DefCon, but nothing I'd consider concrete.
Easy does it!
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
I went a step further and asked that my senators vote against the upcoming confirmation of Robert S. Muller, III for the director of the FBI. If you're not already aware, Muller is the lead Federal prosecutor in the case against Dimitry. If enough letters are received with this same opinion, it might be enough pressure to force him to back down.
What is thier position about the situation? I havn't heard anything about this yet, and was wondering if they had made any statements either affirming or condemning the arrest.
On a little aside, is Amnesty International involved in this in any way? You'd think that any country holding another country's citizen without a bail hearing would get those guys all in an uproar.
Has anyone really seen local media coverage of this? I know I really haven't. (But then again, I don't really watch any TV anyway.)
But back on topic: I really do agree with Rimbo. It's nice to see some Americans giving a damn and willing to fight bad laws (even good ones. That's their right, too.) and being allowed to. Ahhh... freedom. Hum "America the Beautiful" with me, people!
Where the wind blows, the tumbleweed goes.
they read slashdot in russia, too.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
This rally brought to you by Pepsi, official caffeinated beverage of righteous coders everywhere.
____________________
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
- Adobe goes after Sklyarov, gets criminal charges filed against him and makes an example out of the guy for their benefit.
- There is a public outcry and protests. Adobe sees this as a direct threat to their corprate image and as a direct result....their sales.
- Adobe meets with EFF, and drops their support for the case, post-indictment.
- It is a PR victory for Adobe, they say they made a mistake, and their critics back down, the protests stop and Adobe looks like a good company that made a bad mistake and is owning up to it.
- Since this is a criminal case, not a civil one, Adobe cannot drop the charges against Sklyarov. The prosecution continues, Adobe looks like an innocent bystander in the whole matter and one of the "good guys" or at least no longer the enemy. With their corprate image restored, it's a win-win situation for them. Sklyarov goes on trial to be made an example of, and no one is viewing them as the "big bad corporation" anymore.
It was a cunning, calculated move, and I wonder how long it will take people to realize this. Everything Adobe wanted has been accomplished. They win. Sklyarov and everyone else loses.
Adobe, if they are serious and not on a PR bender, should hire an attorney for Dimitry. They wrongfully had him put in jail. The least they can do is pay the cost to get him out.
I was thinking, along with the protests shouldn't we also be writing to the members of the judiciary committee to ensure that the US AG DOES NOT become the next head of the FBI? Being Canadian I am not 100% sure of how this works. just a wonderence
seems to have misplaced his
I can think of at least two valid reasons to break the encryption:
- I have a blind friend who owns a speech synthesis card. Getting the "book" out of encrypted format would allow him to use other tools to extract the text and have the machine read it aloud for him.
- All that goes under "fair use", like copying a few lines for a quotation, making personal backup copies, and doing word frequency analysis and other studies.
In Murphy We Turst
It has come to my attention that you asked the FBI to arrest Dmitri Sklyarov on grounds of delivering a speech at an academic conference. You may now have retracted the original request for practical reasons, but you still seem to be supporting the laws that made such act possible. This I find to be morally and ethically wrong.
Therefore I state that I will not purchase a single Adobe product, and that I will advice all my customers, friends, and family to do likewise until all of the following have come to pass:
a) Dmitri Sklyarov is free, and has received a reasonable compensation for the time he has been imprisoned,
b) You have publicly denounced your support for the laws that made this farce possible,
c) You have taken some concrete and effective steps to free Sklyarov and to repel the unjust laws that were used for his imprisonment.
Yours sincerely etc
I hope some native speaker of American English will correct the inevitable typos and grammatical errors, and that others may find this a useful template for a letter. If not, post good reasons why, and come up with a better letter...
In Murphy We Turst
Yup, absolutely. I saw two news broadcasts on Monday covering it here in San Francisco. One around 4 or 5 pm, while I was lifting weights, and another around 11, because after seeing snippets in the weight room, I wanted to see how they were covering it. All in all, I thought it was pretty fair. They did play up the "hacking" aspect of it with their language, but the statements they took from people (mainly protesters and the EFF) were all positive and articulate.
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Does anyone else have any well written, concise letters to politicians? I could write my own, but I'm sure others are far more elquent than I could ever be. And, yes, I'm a lazy SoB. Most of us are. If anyone feels they have a good letter, please post it (and email one to me too). Thanks Adam Tegen (ategen@centurytel.net)
I hope this continues to court. I hope it continues to get attention. I hope the jury nullifies it, and if they don't that we all rally together and do whatever we can to get this situation fixed. As someone else said, all Rosa Parks did was sit down. Well gentleman (and ladies), now we have someone to rally behind. Someone who hasn't just been threaten, but has been taken into custody. Let's get together and fight this unjust law.
To that end, protests will help. It seems like those are being organized. Programmer unions might not hurt to make our voices heard. For those of us in that stats, what about letters to our senators and representatives?
We need to do all we can. If there ever was a cause that I could rally behind it is this one. Let's all stop talking and whining and actually do something.
Is anyone organizing anything but these protests? Is anyone getting us together as a nation and a world organized? We have someone to rally behind. We have the spirit. We need a leader. Who will step up for us - for this cause? Who will represent us? Who will help us get organized so that we all start acting instead of talking?
I didn't know that the DMCA counted as that sort of crime.
I hope some native speaker of American English will correct the inevitable typos and grammatical errors
That should be "advise", not "advice". The former is a verb; the latter a noun.
IIRC, a comma is only used in an "and" clause if the subject is restated. So no comma is necessary here.
As someone else said, that should be "repeal".
That's all I see. Better than most native speakers, as someone else pointed out.
You must mean, "Massachusetts, Minneapolis, California."
-------------------------
Stupid people suck.
Hmmm... note to self... do not vote fore Rep. Coble
MyopicProwls
MyopicProwls
My homepage
Does that mean if you want to reverse-engineering anything, you just need to
(1) legally obtain that program,
(2) create at least one new program that is not interoperable with that program
(3) perform the reverse-engineering (what you want)
(4) create a new interoperable program?
I don't believe he was arrested because of writing the code or being in the company, etc. BUT he was arrested because he gave a talk on how to circumvent the encryption *while he was in the US*.
This doesn't make sense. Nothing in the law prohibits giving a talk on circumvention. It only prohibits circumvention.
Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems (a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Not here either,
(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Unless, offer to the public means talk to the public and the service is about how to circumvent the encryption. This is unconstitutional under the first admendment.
Wow, all that I can say is that this is a f-cking awesome idea. You are a very cool person. Thank you for giving us your creative thought. Regardless of whether or not this is implemented in this one scenario, I'm sure it will be someday.
I dont have a
Why is it that the people who do not speak English as their primary language, and who apologize for their poor written grammar and typos, do a much better job of putting their thoughts to words IN ENGLISH better than many of those who call English their native tongue?
I don't think that the right people are apologizing here.
>> It is rare, although perfectly legal, for a jury to, for example, decide that the law under which a defendent is being tried is unjust and therefore refuse to convict.
This is incorrect. You are referring to jury nullification, which has garnered jurors heavy contempt-of-court punishments in the past. From United States v. Avery, 717 F. 2d 1020 (6th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 104 S.Ct. 1683 (1984):
"Defendant's final contention is that the district court committed reversible error when it refused to instruct the jury that it had the power to acquit the defendant even though he was guilty of the charged offense. The instruction itself reads that "a jury is entitled to acquit the defendant because it has no sympathy for the government's position." This argument is completely without merit. Although jurors may indeed have the power to ignore the law, their duty is to apply the law as interpreted by the court and they should be so instructed."
The only legal solution under current case law is to pester your representatives, so start writing those letters or attending those protests.
Protesting? As in, standing around with a bunch of placards and signs? I thought that went out of fashion with the break-up of Sonny and Cher.
.gov domains. In fact, re-route it to the MPAA, RIAA and anyone else who has a stake in the DMCA.
How...archaic.
Seriously, you want to make people sit up and take notice? Co-ordinate an "internet" black-out. Just change the routing tables on those pricy Cisco routers for a few days, particularly ones pointing to-and-from
That should get some media attention. To increase the likelyhood of media attention, just re-route all traffic from the NY Times, Washinton Post, CNN, ABC, and LMNOP Inc. That should make p = 1.0 of media exposure.
Week are geeks. Hear us roar. But expect some serious lagtime on that ping. And email? Talk to the hand....
Worried about being laid-off? It's happening to all propeller heads nowadays, so don't fret too much. There's plenty of company at the bottom.
The person to whom you were replying was correct. Miranda Rights are named after Ernesto Miranda, who was convicted on the basis of a confession. In 1966, the Supreme Court ruled on his case (and two others which were similar) that the confessions had been coerced and were therefore a violation of the defendant's 5th amendment rights. It is worth noting that Miranda was given another trial (where the confession was not admitted) and he was convicted of armed robbery, kidnapping, and rape and served 11 years.
Your comment about his death is correct, also. It is certainly ironic that the suspect in the murder of the person for whom Miranda rights are named invoked those rights, and, in light of the lack of evidence, was freed.
"Bite me, it's fun!" - Crowe T. Robot
The last "protests" in many locations only had around ten people there. This was due in part to the confusion over the cancelation, then un-cancelation. Hopefully this time we can make a strong showing in every city with a protest.
If you show up at a protest, make sure you have plenty of information about the DMCA that most people will understand. Most people can understand that someone is wrongly imprisoned, but they need to know why. They need to know that there are laws being passed that restrict their freedom. They need to understand that this isn't going to be the only time someone is imprisoned for violating the DMCA. If nobody feels a threat to their freedom, they won't care.
"Although it's wonderful that there are some of us who do give a damn, it's disheartening that we have such an asnine law to begin with."
I thought so too, at first. But this is just the behavior of the American system -- things break, but they are fixed. That's why Jefferson said, "Eternal vigiliance is the price of freedom." (That quote may not be exactly right.) The system isn't designed never to break; it's designed so that when it does break, it can be fixed. But people have to care to fix it! If we ever stop caring, if we all throw up our arms saying, "The world's going to hell in a handbasket," that's the day our freedom and power will truly decay.
So don't be disheartened by the rattling sound coming from the engine...democracy requires constant maintenance to run smoothly.
I actually find it quite comforting. China arrests academics, and who comes to their aid? Americans, through diplomatic action and grass-roots outrage. A Russian gets arrested by a bad American law, and who comes to his aid? Americans, through a multitude of organizations (bug especially the EFF). Where is the Russian government in all this? Where were the Chinese protests of those arrests?
America has its bad laws just like any other place, but at least there are people who still give a damn. And as long as that's true, and as long as we aren't silenced, there's hope.
Here's to giving a damn.
"Nothing has changed since 1998 that would lead members of Congress to upset the careful balance that was struck," says Bob Holleyman, head of the Business Software Alliance.
>What is this guy smoking? "Careful balance"? The whole problem with this law is that there's no balance at all!
>It's completely one-sided, giving copyright holders dictatorial power over consumers.
BIG_BUSINESSSounds like a good balance to us!/BIG_BUSINESS
That still doesn't compare to Rosa Parks. Now, for example, when some parent gets fined $2500 for reading aloud a passage from the e-book of Alice in Wonderland to her 4 year old daugther, THEN we will have a comparable case.
The DMCA is evil, but it will take a story much more convincing to the average American that his very freedoms are under attack than a case involving a Russian "hacker". Considering the prejudice against both Russians and "hackers", he may not garner much sympathy from the non-clueful masses.
By then, the oppression will be very strong, unfortunately.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
We need a protest here in Las Vegas. He was arrested here, for speaking at a security conference (DefCon) here, and is being held here. The FBI has a field office here in Las Vegas too.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Fight Spammers!
Quoted from HR 2281, DMCA, Oct. 20, 1998, Section 1201, Paragraph 5, sub-paragraph f:
`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title. This pretty much says that if a person buys a protected work (ie, eBook) they have the right to reverse engineer the protection for the purpose of interoperability. Seems to me that translating from eBook to PDF is "...interoperability of an independently created computer program..."
DISCLAIMER: IANAL
DMCA quotes taken from: EFF Website
--Stupid Sig Here--
"He sold software in this country that is illegal in this country. "
No, his EMPLOYER sold software in the US that was allegedly illegal. He wrote the software in a foreign country where it is still legal to study encryption. He himself did not import or sell or "traffic" in this "illegal" software.
This would be like an assembly line worker for a gunmaker being arrested on vacation in say Japan because his employer illegally imported and sold guns there.
You're right -- my bad. I assumed he was arrested for something he did here.
True enough -- but until the laws are voided through the proper procedures, then they should be enforced.
I am not sure I agree here. If you travel to a foreign country you should be bound by their laws, not ours. Using the same resoning, if a native of the Netherlands comes here and picks up a prostitue then there should be no charges brought against him -- prostitution is legal in his homeland.
All that being said, the DMCA is horribly flawed and should be removed from the books.
"... you still seem to be supporting the laws that made such act possible."
It's basically one law at issue - the DMCA - and you make "AN" act possible. Therefore, replace with the following:
"... you still seem to be supporting the law that made such an act possible."
Maybe I just misfire on all the same cylinders as the editors, but I don't think I've ever had a day where more than one story made me think "What is that doing on slashdot?" The selections are eclective and the thread connecting them is sometimes tenuous, almost ineffable... but it's still there.
I guess I'm just one of those (few? silent?) people who think that, by and large, slashdot works.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Fact: The DMCA does not specify, grant, or recognize any time limitation on the validity of the access-control mechanisms. That is, there is no given time after which it becomes legal to circumvent the mechanism.
Fact: For now, at least, copyright does expire (if only in 120 years or whatever) and hence, works will pass into public domain. In fact, DMCA could be used to protect works copyrighted long ago as long as the mechanism is true. Therefore, at some point (perhaps soon), public domain works will be locked behind proprietary access-control mechanisms.
Implication: By wrapping content in access-control mechanisms, a content provider can charge access fees and so control the distribution, even of a public domain work, essentially forever.
Fact: "Forever" cannot be properly encompassed within the term "limited Times".
Conclusion: The DMCA is unconstitutional.
Valid? Through some crime of happenstance, I don't happen to sit on the Supreme Court, so I can't say so definitively. Is there enough there as to question the constitutionality of the DMCA? You bet.
PS: I really don't give a hairy fig if "any average IP holding millionaire" woulkd hate to be like me. I don't measure my self-worth in dollars. There exists value other than economic value.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
- Title I is called the "WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998"?
- Title II is called the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act"?
- Title III "creates an exemption for making a copy of a computer program
by activating a computer for purposes of maintenance or repair", according to the report and summary of the Office of Copyright in the Library of Congress?
- "Title IV contains six miscellaneous provisions, relating to the
functions of the Copyright Office, distance education, the exceptions
in the Copyright Act for libraries and for making ephemeral recordings,
"webcasting" of sound recordings on the Internet, and the applicability
of collective bargaining agreement obligations in the case of transfers
of rights in motion pictures."? (same source)
Oh, by the way, the DMCA accomplishes its nefarious purposes by amending Title 17 of the United States Code. And amazingly enough, that title is called "Title 17: Copyrights".Do you really think any competent, impartial judge is going to buy an argument that the DMCA is not a copyright law and therefore authorized by the Copyright Clause?
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I guess what I'm saying is, don't throw around the justifiably serious charge of treason just because people disagree with you. Yes, the DMCA is a bad law. Yes, its passage was a classic snapshot of all that is ailing the legislative process in America these days. Yes, the reps and senators who wrote it, voted for it, and are still supporting it probably were swayed by the gobs of money thrown at them by the networks, the content providers, and the software issues. Yes, it sacrifices time-honored proctections of the public for the narrow self-interest of some corporations.
For these reason -- as well as the basic affront to the Constitution that it is -- the law is bad and should be amended, repealed, or overturned. For these reasons, its supporters are misguided at best and quite possibly cynically manipulative.
But they are not traitors. Do not so quickly cut people off from the body politic based on a difference of opinion. Do what we can do: Call your rep. Write your local TV station. Run for office.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The right way to fight this is on constitutional grounds, as the Constitution is a law... the supreme law of the land.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
"We don't question the value of people demonstrating flaws in commercially available products. But is it necessary to make what is being protected vulnerable in order to prove a weakness?"
If you have forgotten we live in a democratic nation with a little thing called the constitution. Freedom of speech should be enough to protect Demitri, and, along with Fair use, would be if not for the DMCA. Of course if you would like to destroy the laws and regulations designed to keep the copyright laws within the bounds of reason then you will have to take that up with the people of the US. In the end it comes down to this: If there was a law designed to protect children from inapropriate language by removing their ears it would fall under the "being protected" catigory.... and would solve all problems within that arena... but it is too far reaching and sadistic to be considered a reasonable solution... like the DMCA
Remove *your pants* to send me email.
I don't exactly know, but I'm 100% sure that Bruce Willis or Steven Segal would star in the movie version.
D
Mad Scientists with too much time on thier hands
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
You can believe whatever you like, or you can actually get the facts by reading the DOJ complaint against Sklyarov. The DOJ complaint only mentions Defcon 9 in passing in a few paragraphs, mostly in the context of "he's talking at this hacker convention, so we can nab him there." There is no mention whatsoever of his breaking any laws by participating or giving a talk at Defcon 9.
"No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
Just found this flamebait in newsfactor network. Usually these guys write decent news, but this one is horrible from osopinion Scott McCollum.
He calls DefCon thief convention and goes like:
At DefCon, hackers and other unsavory computer criminals -- along with law enforcement officials and potential employers dumb enough to hire hackers as "security experts" -- converge in Sin City to discuss innovative ways to subvert democratically elected authority through hack attacks and to steal from large evil corporations and/or individuals for redistribution to the proletariat via the Internet.
__
__
L.
Parent did NOT deserver to get modded down. Way to have your heads up your asses, moderators.
Anyway, while it is true that the internet was created as a means of exchanging content between _people_, it has evolved into much more than that. Companies saw it as a new means of distribution, and it took off. If it wasn't for the investments of these monolithic corporations, then we would not only be lacking a major part of the infrastructure, a lot of us would also be unemployed. I have no problem with companies advertising and selling over the internet, but things have gone too far.
IMHO, the reason why corporations are so sucessful in pushing crap legislation like the DMCA, is beacuse the "internet" can not only be used as a storefront, but also as an outlet for content; therefore they can push many more arguemnts upon clueless senators.
"Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. I'm mad but not ill"
--
#nohup cat
Incorrect, sort of. The executive branch, (President) and related (FBI, ATF, DOJ) are tasked to do whatever the Legislative branch tells tham to do, without question. It is up to the Judicial branch to interpret the laws that Congress (or states) pass. Checks and balances - a branch does one thing and one thing only. These actions check and balance the power of the other branches implicitly.
Ashcroft is anti-everything. But he is constitutionally bound to enforce abortion provider protection laws etc. because that is his job. He can not interpret the laws as he sees fit, or if he does, the Courts can say he was wrong. Hopefully, the system, will work (in an expediant manner) in this case.
The DMCA is so vague that the FBI was doing what the law said. Hopefully, the Courts will release Mr. Skylarov because the law can't be applied to "crimes" commited outside the realm of the US. Then the DMCA could be struck down after a series of legal battles, or at the very least, the FBI would be more hesitant to act on type of case again.
Just remember that China has a history of media censorship by their government, and in Russia, it may take a week or so to find out that he was arrested. His family may think that he mannaged to get a great job her in the US and stayed for all we know. He just hasn't had a chance to phone home yet.
Who wants Pork Chops?
I don't believe he was arrested because of writing the code or being in the company, etc. BUT he was arrested because he gave a talk on how to circumvent the encryption *while he was in the US*.
I believe the US government was more then willing to completely ignore the matter (happens all the time, getting a warning instead of a speeding ticket), but Adobe called up their lawyers and basically required the government to act on a law that's on the books (could you imagine the lawsuits over law enforcement refusing to enforce a law on the books). Once he was arrested a chain of events occurs (and from what I can tell he technically *did* break the law while in the US), which doesn't really give any shortcuts out; one pretty much has to follow the court process till the end. When one is arrested the government is commited to due process, which Adobe forced them to do.
Sklyarov from all accounts *did* break a law (whoops on him), it is a law full of loop holes that are being used for unintended purposes (shame on Clinton & congress), and Adobe is using the US government to run ruckshaw over a foreigner, and twist the law to things that the original drafter hadn't really intended it's use for (context wise)... shame shame on Adobe. Of course now Adobe wants to hide it under the run and act like they never meant for this to happen when it was them in the first place.
On a side note, I tend to agree with how the once you are arrested method currently works, other than it can be painfully slow; but once someone is arrested there is no turning back, so the arresting officer needs to make *damn* sure that something did occur, elsewise be expecting that "unlawful arrest" lawsuit to be coming over the fence. If they could just arrest and release people as they wish without any checks and ballances with no end trial, imagine the amount of abuse that would occur.
The heat should not leave Adobe's feet on this one, Adobe's fault should not be forgotten (and sadly it almost seems their PR dept has gotten if forgotten), since it is their fault that they twisted the law in this manner.
Previously, I'd thought that the DMCA might only be stopped by years of protests supported by the wide masses, and possibly with a revolutionary mood (a la 60s). However it does not have to be that way.
I believe that localized law (and just a bit of activist) action may cause the trial to go up all the way to the High Court, where DMCA could be overthrown. That way we could evade the really harsh consequences of the DMCA.
Of course, using such approach we take the risk that one of the courts will be bribed sufficiently to deny his appeal. Also, the public won't have the chance to develop a comprehensive attitude towards IP. However DMCA is such a major obstacle, that it's better to be removed as soon as possible. Skylarov's arrest is only the first word in the preface of a tragedy which could happen if DMCA stays.
I would urge you to get a copy of Litman's Digital Copyright and read her description of how current copyright laws come into existence.
Her basic point is that every copyright law since the first one in 1790 has always been measured against the pre-existing copyright laws, with the stakeholders aggressively negotiating the provisions of the new law to maximize their advantage. Thus, each new piece of copyright legislation is built upon a negotiated settlement, rather than a set of rational, self-consistent principles that are easy to understand and defend.
This was a perfectly workable system when copyright laws only really applied to a (relatively) small number of publishers of one sort or another - each of whom was able to participate in the negotiation. However, the rise of the Internet and the dissemination of inexpensive technology has made everyone a publisher -- and none of us were represented when the DMCA was put together. Congress, who is supposed to speak for us, has seen its role in copyright legislation as the arbiter of the negotiation, rather than the representative of the public's interest -- with the current circumstances.
Read the book - it's very on point - especially if you also read Lessig's Code
Remember, the ACLU runs on donations. The ACLU gets huge amounts of money from Hollywood and other big media types. It's not that surprising, since the ACLU is known for defending free speech rights.
But it's times like this that you can see the payback. The ACLU likes to portray itself as non-partisan and independent, but it's an incredibly political organization.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I'm not the biggest fan of the ACLU, but I am surprised that they haven't weighed in on this.
On the other hand, the cynical side of me is not surprised, saying, "of course they haven't weighed in -- they've been in the back pockets of big media for years".
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Several /. posters have claimed the DMCA was passed by voice-vote. If this is true, there is no record. Pretty convenient, no?
From the Wired article:
"Nothing has changed since 1998 that would lead members of Congress to upset the careful balance that was struck," says Bob Holleyman, head of the Business Software Alliance.
What is this guy smoking? "Careful balance"? The whole problem with this law is that there's no balance at all! It's completely one-sided, giving copyright holders dictatorial power over consumers.
if your gonna express an opinion at least post as yourself and stand up for your beliefs....
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Well I tried to write to Mdam Seantor, but it appears that her web site(ugh Webmail) doesn't accept well thoughtout, carefully considered letters. I had to shorten my responses to something that probably didn't truely get the point across, due to the limited space available for a response.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
This is exactly why, cases like his, and Felton's need to go to court, and need to have excellent lawers presenting them. The only way to get a bad law struck down is to go to court and prove its a bad law these days. Once Congress has pocketed the $$$ they are not gonna do a damn thing to reverse the assine law that they wrote, no matter how much we complain, and protest. Politicians don't listen to the people that elect them at all anymore. I write letter after letter to my congresspersons(as well as many others) I never get a reply so much as yes we got your letter. I know the govenment was setup is this representative system for a reason, it seems to me that if our reps are not voting in congress the way we the citizens feel, then there is something wrong with the system. The real fact is that our tiny voice is lost in the vast expanse, of those who don't know, don't care, are too stupid to care, or have to much cash with which to enforce thier opinion. I want campain finance reform that says Politician's must run on their own money and taking money/goods/services from anyone else is a Bribe pure and simple.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
As long as the public sees this as "a bunch of hackers" or "hippie anarchists" running around demanding the release of foreign national accused of committing a felony, nobody will take it seriously.
What we need is to have some establishment companies themselves coming out publicly against this as an abuse of the law they lobbied to pass, in the same way that the civil rights movement only gained popularity when a significant number of whites stood up and said these Jim Crow laws were wrong. Adobe has already recanted on their desire to prosecute Dmitri, if they went one step further and condemned the FBI action as overstepping the DMCA, it would make more people sympathetic to the cause.
No, I don't know how to do this.
czep
Dictionaries are for loosers.
Ok, I've got an idea that's not as illegal as what he was suggesting, but should get more attention than a tiny blue ribbon on the side of one page of my homepage.
My personal website gets 10 unique visitors a day, because I have some modestly interesting stuff there. I propose tearing my entire site down, and replacing it with a main page and a 404 page that is all black, with just the blue ribbon at the top, and a headline saying "these pages will remain unavailable until we are free again", plus one of those 3 paragraph explanations of the issue and Dimitry, plus links to all the relevant sites.
That's 10 people a day that'll get to hear about the issue. That's 300 people a month. (Until google re-visits my site, and the hits stop coming in. Guess I should set up some software that redirects Google to the 'normal' pages :)
I've got a question.
If this law so clearly violates our "Fair Use" rights, why won't it be simple to get it declared invalid and struck down?
And how many different Constitutional approaches are there to having this declared unconstitutional?
Personally I was supprised at the EFF's approach to some of it's previous cases, focusing so much on "code is speech", and ignoring the "it's necessary to excercise fair use" approach.
I guess "fair use" isn't a direct constitutional right. Also I'm too close to the issue. I can't see why anyone could NOT find something wrong with these laws and rule against them.
Get me on that jury!!
That said, why should the government drop the charges? It is the job of the Attorney General to enforce the law, not to make law. If the law is bad, change the law. We should be complaining/protesting/recalling to the Congress that voted for the DMCA instead. Let them tell the Attorney General to back off.
There's really only about a hundred people around this place.
---
---
Slashdot: News For Zealots. Stuff That's Hypocritical.
How long will it take for Bugtraq and similar full disclosure lists to be prosecute under the DMCA ?
Last year I posted a simple exploit to Bugtraq which allowed remote access to a users file. That after all is a way of gaining an unauthorized copy of a file by circumventing copy-protection methods (i.e operating system defences). Would this now be a violation of the DMCA ?
How long before buffer overflow exploits get regarded as methoods to circumvent copyprotection methods ?
How long until legal action is taken against SecurityFocus ?
If you're in the UK write to the foreign office and try and get them to change the "LOCAL LAWS AND CUSTOMS" section in their USA travel advice to include a warning to anyone who is either a computer developer or taking any computer software/hardware abroad that they could be arrested if they or any of their possesions violate the DMCA.
While your at it don't forget to have a look at the Free Sklyarov UK protest site and Fax your MP abput the issues that matter to you.
-- Conexant/Rockwell Modem HOWTO http://linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Conexant+Rockwell-modem
They can all be used to open shrink-wrap, which is intended to keep people from copying DVDs, CDs, Software, and other Intellectual Property. Knives, Keys, Scissors, and other metallic, plastic, or wooden sharp objects are circumvention devices, and need to be removed from our society.
Think of the children!!!
Information wants Coq
Here's a reality check for you. This guy is in JAIL. In a foreign country. He came here, as a graduate student, to give a talk at a conference, and he's been arrested and jailed and so far as we know unable to contact his family.
The reality check is that your distinction doesn't matter- the fact that they are aware of the situation and *have not yet dropped* the charges is sufficient cause for alarm.
Bryon
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
this internet was not made for you. and you got burned. now go away and let us get back to what we were doing, whaddya say?
i could live a little longer in this prison
Now, thought the Justice Department and the FBI may insist on trying Sklyarov here in the US, unless he was selling the cracking software or sharing the source code, he'll get off scotch free. Since he was just talking about the details of Adobe security technology, there's hardly anything to get excited about, right?
Go ahead, mod me straight to -1 for my unpopular opinion- the groupthink around here is thick enough to carve with a knife. But the reality is, this is going to end in an utterly anticlimactic way, and the only effect of the EFF and all of you 'activist citizens' will be prolonging Sklyarov's harrassment. Obviously the officials are treading lightly out of fear of a public outcry. If you all would just let this die down, it would be over in a heartbeat!
I sent this email to programmers I know in the SF bay area:
Hello fellow bay-area programmers/technologists,
I'm thinking of attending the Free Sklyarov protest on Monday in SF. This is an important moment in our nation's history to defend Free Speech and fair use rights. Check out the links below for more info.
Slashdot article: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/07/27/183821 2&mode=nested
Flyer that sums it all up: http://www.tabinda.com/freedmitry/free_dmitry_flye r_20010726.html
Info about the rally: http://www.mycgiserver.com/~byoungvt/meeting.html
If you have a website, join the EFF blue ribbon campaign: http://www.eff.org/br/
Note: I'm sorry if I'm offending anyone with this political e-mail, but I feel *very* strongly about this and all programmers should consider the DMCA and its ramifications on their and everyone's free speech rights.
Best regards,
Steve
P.S. Please feel free to forward this to any programmers you know in the SF bay area.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
By not dropping charges, this thing could go all the way to the supreme court and be ruled unconstitutional. Of course, sucks to be Sklyarov.
I'm thinking maybe someone more like Johnny Depp, to get the right degree of edginess.
A Delta Nu would never sleep with a guy who wore a thong.
...is another man's evil cult. Imagine if the Chinese see some athletes stretching or doing sports visualization/meditation, and mistake them for members of Falun Gong?
...there's The New York Times (free registration required). For everybody else, there's Slashdot.
Actually, one typo - "and to repel the unjust laws" should be "and to repeal the unjust laws". That's repeal, not repel
although it's somewhat counter-sentiment here, I think it is the government's job to protect people (and other corportations) from corporations which are doing damage to the social web, and to limit what they can do in order to prevent this damage from occuring.
This is how it is supposed to work but the DMCA illustrates that it doesn't. A law, that was bought by lobbyists and hardly brought forth for public debate, was passed that has chilling effects on speech, fair use, and educational research. And now, this law enables corporations to use the FBI as their own police force to charge individuals for "crimes". This is a frightening precedent.
My girlfriend and I debate this a lot. She feels the threats to our privacy and liberty come from the government; I feel they come from corporations, who are working the strings behind the black curtain.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
We need to keep the pressure on Adobe. We need to let them know that the boycott will continue. We need to let them know that they cannot pressure the FBI to press charges against someone and then back-off when they witness the PR fallout. Keep writing the letters. Keep sending the emails. Keep encouraging people to boycott this company!
If corporations do not understand that there will serious consequences to both their reputation and bottom-line when they pursue prosecution under the DMCA (regardless of how they feel the morning after!), then they will continue to do so under the flimsiest pretenses.
They want to make an example of Dmitry? Fine, then we'll make an example of Adobe.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I'm not suggesting we punish companies out of vindictiveness - I'm suggesting that we make it clear to corporations that they need to choose their battles carefully. Corporations can ruin people's lives by following Adobe's example - and allowing them to do so in ambiguous cases like Dmitry's is something we cannot do.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
Sure.
Russia should issue arrest warrants for the Adobe programmers who wrote the eBook code that prevents users from making backups (illegal in Russia), and figure out a way to lure them to Moscow.
Then we'd see some action...
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
The copy I sent him was handwritten and unfortunately Slashdot doesn't allow tags.
I meant doesn't allow the s tag
Dear Honorable Representative Charlie A. Gonzales,
..) Adobe, Inc. ordered the FBI^h^h^h SS to imprison Dmitry Sklyarov,
a Russian programmer and father of two young children, because he gave
a speech that described the flaws in Adobe's encryption process used in
one of its products. An act no different from Ralph Nader describing the
flaws in Firestone's tires. An act not only legal but required in his own
country so that Russian citizens can exercise their fair-use rights under
Russian copyright law and so that Adobe could thus legally sell its product
there. An act of speech. Free speech, that once was protected under the
First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. But
not free anymore. He remains in jail as I write this, having been denied
not just bail but unconstitutionally denied a bail hearing. He has been
charged with felony criminal violation of the DMCA, a law bought and paid
for by Monied Interests to protect their intellectual property by violating
the First Amendment of our Constitution. Leaders in Congress are now saying
that this is just what they expected of the DMCA and are applauding his arrest!!!
Like the Pentagon Papers this sticks in my craw and turns the screw in ways
that constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment. This is evidence on its face
that many of your Dishonorable Colleagues are of such nonexistent morality
as to have re-election funding as their one and only desire and motivation
(to hell with the Constitution) that makes Clinton^h^h^h Nixon^h^h^h Hitler^h^h^h
Satan look like the Second Coming of Jesus H. Christ Himself. It is they
who should be in jail right now, not Sklyarov!!! And we complain when China
detains our citizens!!! Boys and Girls, can you say, HYPOCRISY? Can you say
Pot? Kettle? Black? I thought you could!!! Too bad your Sold-Out Dishonorable
Colleagues in Congress can't. And they won't care either because the sheeple
who voted them into office will never hear about the DMCA or Sklyarov because
the Monied Interests who bought the DMCA and who had Sklyarov illegally jailed
will make sure they'll never hear about it on TV or in the newspapers or
they'll slant the news to make it look like it's the DMCA that's good and
it's the Big Bad Evil Hackers who are Just Getting What They Deserve.
I would have written to you about this matter earlier but I've felt a sense of powerlessness that I'm sure most ordinary working Americans share; that possessing only a voice no longer has any meaning to an institution that has become an Ebay where laws are written and sold to the highest bidder.
This sense of powerlessness is in my belief the greatest single threat to our National Security. That the self-evidence of this is completely lost on our nations conscience and government is just more proof of how far we as a people have lost our ability to govern ourselves to the Monied Insterests. Timothy McVeigh took lives and gave his own life just as the Minutemen who won our nation's independence from England; his belief in the principles which founded this nation and his sense of powerlessness to fight our current government's lack of respect for its own Constitution by speaking up drove him to fight in the only way he knew how and to have the courage to stand up for his truly American beliefs all the way to his last breath before his state-sanctioned murder, without remorse. As long as the Monied Interests continue to buy laws that violate our Constitution this threat to our National Security will remain. No missile defense, no amount of spending on our military and police can protect us from the next Timothy McVeigh. The Timothy McVeighs that our sold-out government will continue to breed through their disrespect for our Constitution will continue to blow up buildings and kill innocent women and children or infect and kill with biological agents everyone in a large city or two (maybe even Washington, D.C.) on the ever-increasing number of anniversaries of FBI^h^h^h SS misdeeds until Congress returns to respecting the very Constitution from which it derives its sole legitimacy. When the next McVeigh strikes I'll just smile and say to myself "I told you so," knowing just whose hands really bear the blood. It's like Thomas Jefferson said: "The Tree of Liberty must, from time to time, be watered with the blood of patriots." And while I'll deeply admire and respect the McVeighs' belief in our Constitution I'll deplore their actions because it will give our sold-out government another "excuse" to further repress our freedoms and trample our Constitution. Lest you get the wrong idea I'm not a terrorist who would ever commit an act of violence. The terrorists that I view as role models are Gandhi and Martin Luther King - terrorists who created terror in the hearts of the Establishments of their times through non-violent means. I am a terrorist who would dare speak up against the Monied Interests that have purchased our government; a terrorist who's act of terrorism is to write to their representative as I am doing now and risk imprisonment by Big Brother for unapproved thoughts (thought-crimes) that might cost the Monied Interests a penny or two of their soon to be constitutionally guaranteed profits. Yes, you read that right, Rep. Gonzalez, I'm so disillusioned that I'm equating the act of writing my Representative in the House of Representatives of the United States of America with an act of terrorism. It seems that the Monied Interests and their bought-and-paid-for government already believe that their profits are a constitutionally granted right - that competition and survival in the marketplace and responsibility to society at large are obsolete - so they might not get around to fixing such a mere technicality.
Having said that, I'm writing you this letter to protest the FBI's^h^h^h^h^h SS's latest Ruby Ridge, their latest Waco. On July 16, 2001 (A Date That Will
I would also like you to know that I found the courage and fortitude today to kick a habit more addictive than Crack Cocaine, a habit more "American" than reruns of "Little House On The Prairie." To protest the DMCA, I called AOL Time Warner and canceled the cable television service that I was paying $70 a month for. I told them why. Not that they even bothered to ask. I kept my broadband internet service because even though it comes from a Monopoly it's the only way I can keep myself informed about what is really happening on our planet but if the Monied Interests And The Congress It Bought And Paid For has its way the Internet will become just as relevant here as it is now in China. Then I'll have to cancel my Internet service, and then I don't know what I'll do, maybe quit the computer profession that our nation is now as dependent on for its economic survival as a newborn baby human is on its mother and drink vodka all day to drown my sadness and misery at what the once great United States of America has become thanks to the Monied Interests and the Government They Bought And Paid For.
I've also considered renouncing my American citizenship and moving to another country, but where to? Within the dictatorship of the multinationals who buy not just the laws of nations but the treaties between them as well, no land will be safe for freedom. We may as well all live in one big Afghanistan.
I need to digress here and say one thing. Although campaign finance reform may be what's needed to get the Monied Interests out of bed with our government I have to say that passing campaign finance reform legislation that violates the First Amendment is no better than the DMCA. We need to carefully consider a Constitutional Amendment to fix the problem. Why can't the Congressmen who are so anxious to get a constitutional amendment to punish those who burn the flag consider a constitutional amendment to return the government to the people? Answer: their bought and paid for. They have to be to get the sheeple to elect them. The United States of America is (expletive deleted).
So please, Rep. Gonzalez, Save Freedom. Save us from those who want to "Round Up The Terrorists Who Warp Our Childrens' Minds By Saying On The "Evil" Internet That It Is OK To Burn Our Flag, Write Software That Competes With Microsoft And Give It Away For Free, Own Guns, Worship Allah, Read Playboy, Have An Abortion, Play Video Games, Etc. Etc. And Subject Them To Cruel And Unusual Punishment And Then Execute Them And Let The Sheeple Watch It On Pay-Per-View So That The Conservative Media (The Monied Interests have convinced the sheeple that it's the "Liberal Media", a "Hitler Big Lie" if there ever was one) Can Fund Your Dishonorable Colleagues' Re-Election." De-Motivate The Next Timothy McVeigh. Defend Us From Monied Interests Who Have Paid Congress To Trample Our Constitution To Protect Their Profits And Further Widen The Already Enormous Gap Between Rich And Poor. And, Please, Rep. Gonzalez, FREE SKLYAROV. REPEAL THE DMCA. YES, I KNOW THAT WE ARE REQUIRED BY THE WIPO TREATY THAT WAS BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY MONIED INTERESTS TO IMPLEMENT THE DMCA BUT IF WE CAN IGNORE THE ABM TREATY AND BUILD A MISSILE DEFENSE^h^h^h MAGINOT LINE WE CAN IGNORE WIPO AND REPEAL THE DMCA. ALSO, OPPOSE THE NOMINATION OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, - THE NAZI GAS CHAMBER OPERATOR WHO FOLLOWED ADOBE'S ORDERS AND INSTRUCTED HIS MINIONS TO ARREST DMITRY SKLYAROV - TO BE HEAD OF THE FBI^h^h^h SS. Stand Up For The People. Stand Up And Defend Our Constitution. Do It For Your Constituents. Do It For The United States of America. Do It Because You Know It's The Right Thing To Do. Do It For Our Children.
Now, here's a much more coolheaded letter that someone else who calls himself "bsdbigot" (an afficianado of the BSD computer operating system, no doubt) on www.slashdot.org wrote that I've "cut and pasted", an act which will soon be illegal if the Monied Interests continue to have their way with our Government. I'm way too bitter to write as he has so I have no choice but to use (or as the Monied Interests say, "pirate") his words:
"I am writing to you to voice my concern with the legality of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (forthwith DMCA), signed into law Oct. 28, 1998 as Public Law 105-304. I do believe that the government has a responsibility to aid in the protection of copyrighted materials. However, the government, first and foremost, is responsible for ensuring that citizens retain their rights.
The DMCA serves only as a monetary protection to the corporations publishing digital materials. It does not address "fair use" by law-abiding citizens, which is a cornerstone of copyright law. More importantly, enforcement of the DMCA deliberately restricts freedom afforded in Amendment I of the United States Constitution. Corporations have a responsibility to their shareholders and investors. One side effect of the DMCA is that poorly engineered software - something that should be a liability to a corporation - is effectively certified as saleable by the government. Imagine, as a parallel, walking into a grocery store to purchase a steak for dinner. Imagine that all the beef for sale was in a pile on the floor, unwrapped, not refrigerated, next to the store's loading dock and garbage chute. If the DMCA applied to this hypothetical situation, it would prevent you from telling anyone about the unsanitary conditions in which the beef was purchased. That is an affront to the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." If the DMCA applied in this situation, you could only cook the meat exactly as the store instructs you, not because the DMCA says that you must use only the store's recipe, but because the DMCA prohibits development and dissemination of the technology required to make fair use of the meat. If the store's recipe called for pan-frying the steak, charcoal grills would be illegal circumvention devices.
This analogy describes what has occurred concerning the encryption system used by the Digital Versatile Disc (DVD) movie industry. The encryption was found to be faulty and not worthy of protecting billions of dollars of copyrighted material. Whether or not the intent was to slander the grocery store, to steal the bad meat from the grocery store, or to protect people from eating bad meat, DeCSS was released. DeCSS showed the world that the grocery store is not able to protect its meat from going bad. Under the DMCA, DeCSS is unlawful. Under previous copyright law, DeCSS is lawful - it provides a method for you to eat steak tartar, steak and lobster, filet mignon, or charbroiled porterhouse. Like the FDA and various Departments of Health, previous copyright law already prohibits you from reselling your meat in a manner that is dangerous to public health. In its current form, the DMCA does no service to either the shareholders and investors of the grocery store, or to the citizens who shop there. The DMCA only protects the store's secret about how the meat is handled and ensures that the consumer will use the store's recipe for preparing the meat.
A report this week by Scott Hettrick of Variety indicates that approximately 20% of all television-owning households now has a DVD player. The report also says that 460 million DVD movies have been sold since 1997, when the format was first publicly available. In fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Warner Home Video's gross sales of DVD movies were $50 million and $170 million, respectively. If you figure an average consumer cost of $20.00 (US) for a single DVD movie, you have a multi-billion dollar industry, which is supported by an optimistic ten percent of the US population. Ten billion dollars have been spent on DVD movies in only 3 years! And, the growth rate is phenomenal - 200% to 250% per year. These facts should make it clear that any piracy that might occur without the DMCA would be, from a fiscal standpoint, irrelevant. Let us not forget that criminals are criminals - they have no respect for the law. The DMCA is supposed to protect against piracy, but I would argue that piracy will continue with or without the DMCA, and piracy can be prosecuted under existing copyright law. In this light, the DMCA - already a bad law - is also extraneous.
DeCSS is not the only challenger to the DMCA - I use it in my example because it has been high profile in the last year. Last week saw the arrest of Russian Dmitry Sklyarov in a case that is sure to put DMCA to the test. His company (based in Russia) sells a product that takes advantage of poor encryption on Adobe eBook data. This product gives consumers back their fair use rights, but it has been labeled a circumvention device under the terms of the DMCA. This is a sad misnomer - neither DeCSS nor this other product circumvents any protection device. They use an alternate or similar algorithm to decrypt the copyrighted data within. The only thing being circumvented in either case is the manufacturer's intended use (the store's recipe). In fact, in the case of DeCSS, significant advances have been made in the speed and reliability of the decryption - a fact that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) would prefer to hide from consumers. So, here we see another adverse affect of the DMCA: the market for complimentary products is being stifled. Of course, this latest case is also an "international incident," which can only serve to add stress to already strained relations between the United States and Russia. As a result of the DMCA and Sklyarov's arrest, various groups and individuals have initiated a boycott of all Adobe products and a boycott against all international conferences held in the United States. The DMCA is actually hurting a large corporation - the free market is starting to reject corporations that support the DMCA.
There are other challenges to the DMCA in the making. Content Protection for Recordable Media (CPRM) and Digital Music Access Technology (DMAT) are two multi-corporation technologies that threaten to eliminate fair use. There are initiatives to provide alternatives to these corporate strategies, but reality says that the money that the large corporations can invest in saturating the market with these new technologies will prohibit people from trying to find an alternative.
I do not advocate piracy or plagiarism, and I understand that those practices are exactly what the DMCA is supposed to prevent. The DMCA is good for preventing these practices, but it reaches that goal at the expense of citizens? rights. This is truly a new genre of legislation, and it is asinine to assume that the DMCA is the answer to all questions that arise, or to assume that previous copyright legislation is sufficient. There has to be a happy medium, and I?m convinced that it has yet to be found. Whatever the middle ground is, it needs to be beneficial to both corporations and consumers.
I am pro-business. America continues to remain the most significant world power largely because of the corporations that support our economy and our government, and I have no wish to detract from our success and continued position on top of the world. The government, however, has no business protecting business from consumers. Inherent to a free market economy is the ability of the consumer to choose. The DMCA prevents choices. The government should limit its involvement in the free market to protecting consumers from business and preventing attempts to undermine our economy. I ask that you take my position under advisement and do what can be done to repeal the DMCA."
Sincerely,
Blind_RMS_Groupie
P.S. Yes, I'm aware that you're not on the committee that according to House procedure has the sole power to repeal the DMCA. But you could read my letter into the Record. If you do that, please let me know when so I can go to a friends house and tape it off of CSPAN, assuming of course that Congress hasn't sold the copyrights to its own deliberations to Microsoft AOL Time Warner Disney GE Bertelsmann Sony, Inc. (MSAOLTWDGEBS on the NYNASDAQSE) and that it is still legal for me to do so. OH, WAIT, ON SECOND THOUGHT, PLEASE DON'T DO THAT!!! PLEASE, KEEP THIS LETTER A SECRET!!! IF MSAOLTWDGEBS, INC. FINDS OUT ABOUT IT THEY'LL ORDER THE FBI^h^h^h SS TO COME AND BREAK INTO MY HOUSE, STEAL MY HOUSE AND BELONGINGS AND AUCTION THEM OFF AND POCKET THE PROCEEDS, ARREST ME AND THROW ME INTO A PRISON, OWNED AND OPERATED FOR PROFIT BY MSAOLTWDGEBS, INC., WHERE THE GUARDS CAN WATCH AND LAUGH AS BUBBA POUNDS ME UP THE RECTUM UNTIL I DIE FROM INTERNAL BLEEDING.
P.P.S. I'm unenployed right now, which explains why I have the time to write this letter. Since I can no longer in clear conscience have anything to do with Microsoft or Adobe or their products I might have to flip burgers to support myself when my savings run out. Fortunately, with my living expenses being as low as they are, I can support myself that way.
cc: POTUS (vice-president@whitehouse.gov)
cc: w (president@whitehouse.gov)
cc: President Putin (president@gov.ru)
cc: automated constituent opinion talley system (Phil_Gramm@gramm.senate.gov)
cc: automated constituent opinion talley system (senator@hutchison.senate.gov)
My girlfriend and I debate this a lot. She feels the threats to our privacy and liberty come from the government; I feel they come from corporations, who are working the strings behind the black curtain.
Your both right.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
As it happens at: http://sfrally.n3.net
http://sjrally.n3.net
I wish I could type... almost every lawmaker in Washington is guilty...
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
don't you mean harsh?
or is that the victorian way of saying crack whore?
----
Your mind is squeezed by a blast of pain!
So when the main plaintiff pulls out (Adobe) the Justice department can continue?
This is too strange? And really absurd...Maybe the efforts should foucs somewhat on the leaders of two countries, Russia and USA.
As someone already mentioned, if this was reversed all hell may have broken loose...
StarTux
i went to the New York LUG's website for info on protests in New York City, but I couldn't find anything. If anybody reading this comment is from New York City... could you let me know when/where the protests will be? thanks
"The ones who dont do anything are always the ones who try to pull you down" -- Henry Rollins
I believe that your analogy (like most slashdot analogies) is just a wee bit off. Try this minor modification. A citizen from the netherlands, while still in the Netherlands hires a prostitute. Later, that citizen travels to the US, and is arrested, because he broke a US law, while in the Netherlands. If this analogy is correct, then can we expect to see all of the foriegn athletes arrested in china during the olympics? After all, they have probably all done SOMETHING at some point in time that violates chinese law.
God may be on your side, but Lady Luck is MY bitch
and
Things don't often go that far, primarily because citizens in our society (USA) are remarkably poorly educated about their rights and responsibilities as citizens.
Interesting. I think the cynical slashdotter will say that Dmitri is doomed, because the court will present the argument as thus: he broke the law, here's the law, he's a bad russian hacker, have at him.
However, I described this situation to my extremely, doggedly, unabashedly non-technical wife, and she immediately asked why Adobe didn't write Mr Sklyarov a check or at least give him a big fat pat on the back. So maybe if the issue is adequately explained to the jury by the EFF lawyers, there's some hope that this absurdity will be ended. It's quite the shame that we have to ruin someone's life to do so, however. I'm going to be making that issue plain to my elected representatives.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Did you say un-biased?
Of course you adequately described Adobe and the Government's positions too, right?
Wow, if you can convince your wife to let hime go, maybe Dimitry should hire you as his lawyer!
I was going to reply, but since you're an anonymous coward, I'll let your nom de plume speak for itself. Answer me with an account, and I'll rebut your argument. Otherwise I'll just accept your anonymity as proof that you have no argument worth defending.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
What are you waiting for? Go sign the petition.
I'm gonna be trolled for this, but...
Let's remember something: we may not agree with the DMCA, but it's the law. It's the prosecution's job to bring law breakers in front of the court. It's exclusively the job of the court to interpret the laws and also to determine if they are unconstitutional. So while the law is obviously unconstitutional (obviously to us, anyway), Sklyarov is going to be treated as a suspected criminal. It can't properly end until a court declares the law is in violation of the consitution and the law is revoked.
---
Developers: We can use your help.
Incorrect. He broke a law on US soil. He's being held for disseminating information on how to circumvent a copy control mechanism. That's probably why he was arrested after his presentation and not before. He's not under arrest for cracking the encryption. He is not being prosecuted as a representative of his company, but as an individual speaking in public on the methods of the decryption. Check out the DMCA... you now aren't allowed to speak about methods of circumventing encryption of copywritten material.
---
Developers: We can use your help.
No help with archives that far back, but if you want to see what your elected representation is up to, I suggest rollcall.com's key votes record". The site in general has a great deal of useful information.
But masters, remember that I am an ass: though it be not written down, yet forget not that I am an ass.
Anyone know of any in the Detroit area? I want to attend but my transportation is limited.
All your base are belong to XO
http://mi-net.dynup.net/
http://blackmagik.dynup.net/
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
I'm gonna be trolled for this, but...
by responding to your post, I have been trolled and you have been flamed.
It's exclusively the job of the court to interpret the laws and also to determine if they are unconstitutional.
It is exclusively the job of the court (or the jury in a jury trial) to determine guilt or innocence of the suspect. It is not the job of Adobe, the FBI, and certainly not you.
One Bourbon
One Scotch
and One Beer
You are correct. It was Michael Fay, the American who was "convicted" of a crime in Singapore and flogged.
Yeah, right.
It has come to my attention that you asked the FBI to arrest Dmitri Sklyarov on grounds of delivering a speech at an academic conference. Actually, that wasn't Adobe's problem with Skylarov. They arrested him because he was lead programmer on a piece of software that broke Adobe's Ebooks format, allowing people to change ebooks to unprotected PDF. And he didn't make that program just to demonstrate an academic principle, he wrote it so that he could sell it for $99 bucks a pop (he was selling it at his company's web site, and the funds were transferred through an United States payment company.)
I don't think there are any practical uses for such a conversion tool that would make it worth $99. I doubt it was somehow more functional that the Ebook reader. So, the only purpose of selling it was to make a quick buck from people who wanted to crack ebooks to sell them on the black market or maybe give them away to friends. That's where he lost the moral high ground. If I lived in Russia's economy I'd probably try to make some money that way too.
I'm personally for sharing data with friends, but Adobe isn't. Adobe needs to convince publishers that people will have to pay for Ebooks. Adobe can't have companies showing how easy it is to break Ebooks security and selling tools to do it. They could have tried strengthening Ebooks until it was strong enough to actually secure book content, but that was apparently too difficult or troublesome for them. So instead Adobe used the FBI as their personal business enforcers and had them capture Skylarov when he came to visit the US. This happened to be when he was in the US giving a talk about how he broke Adobe's weak Ebooks security. It was an opportunity for Adobe to put him out of business and shut him up at the same time. An opportunity made possible with by and with the blessing of the DMCA
The question to me is, should the DMCA allow companies like Adobe to use the FBI as their own personal brute squad over relatively minor software-related issues? How minor is minor? How naughty does a software maker have to be before they will be seen as actually needing to be arrested? Embarassing Adobe is perhaps slightly troublesome to the public but I think the FBI should be reserved for issues much more directly related to public saftey and wellfare.
Anyway, my point was that Skylarov wasn't just making knowledge availble at an academic conference, he was trying to sell a commercial product with no purpose other than to break through Adobe's Ebooks Encryption. The DMCA says that's bad enough for jail and no bail. I personally really don't think so.
Now I can look for any new press releases every time I jack in to the net! I hope a couple 100k /.er's do the same!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
or at least that's what 's in the compliant. the FBI is implying that because he's the copyright holder he had to give permission for his employer to distribute in the US and is also guilty. This tactic could be chilling on the Open-source community, imagine trying to convince a jury that the cracking code was add by person's unknown when you cliam ownership of the copyright!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
For actions taken within the country, I agree. If he came into America and wrote the offending code in America he should be responsible to American laws. But to be held for a program he wrote while living in Russia is reprehensible. I must admit though I am not sure if the case against him is purely based on the speech he gave or his code as well. Perhaps I am making a bit too large an assumption that it is not solely the speech he gave which has landed him in trouble.
Charges of spying are rather different in regards to international relations. On both sides of the border people are frequently charged and/or convicted of spying, sometimes even wrongly accused people. What makes this more unpalatable is that Dmitry is being charged for something he didn't do in America but back in Russia. Cases like this are more than just someone being held under wrongly conviction. In this case, even if he were justly accused, he should not be subject to American laws in this instance as he 'committed' the wrongfull acts in his home country.
I can't imagine the kind of outrage the American Congress would be expressing if an American programmer was being held in jail inside of Russia for a law which does not exist in America. I would think that the American politicians would at least recognize the horribly arrogant nature of something like this going on. Worse, what would Bush do if it were an American held by China? The DMCA pushing the agendas of Big Business is a small issue in my eyes when compared to the dangers this case presents on a more global level. America already has a bad enough rep. in most foreign nations, this only pushes it even further.
We need to petition the Russian officials to arrest employees of Adobe. As some have said, it is illegal to for Adobe to distribute software in Russia that cannot be copied (for backup purposes for example).
Free Skylarov?
/. uses two spellings of his name in the very same post!
___
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
I can't believe this guy got arrested for writing conversion software! What crime was committed? Did they arrest him because someone might use his software illegally? Does this mean we can arrest manufacturers of guns, cars, and cd-burners because they all may be used illegally?
Land of the free? Are you sure?
Places to post the code would be on Usenet, on chat sites, and in comments (like here). I have not heard of anyone from Def Con taking this up as an issue. I mean, cDc or 2600 ought to post his code or methods.
Click here or here.
It's real simple folks. Adobe started it and they should have to pay for every day that Dmitry spends in jail. I'm sorry doesn't cut it when you screw up somebodies whole life. I'll use Adobe products again when Dmitry is free and they publicly apologise on national tv. It is not enough to withdraw complaint they need to draw the attention of the average American to the travesty of the DMCA. They have to accept responsibility for messing with his life.
"If there is nothing you are willing to die for, then you are not really alive." Myself
You're right. And that's exactly why the case against my brother (underage drinking) was thrown out by the judge. My brother was smart enough then to know what was going on. He knew he was not read his rights, and he admitted to everything because of it.
Later, the judge ruled he was not read his rights and everything was thrown out.
But I don't want a free sklyarov shirt...that isn't what the URL is talking about. I donate my money straight to the EFF anyway. I sent them a check to make sure none was taken away for credit card fees though.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
After a little digging, it appears that it passed the House by a voice vote (no record) and passed the Senate by unanimous consent (no one said "no", but someone might not have voted). The house sub committee that approved it voted to recommend it to the full House with a vote of 41-0.
:(
Looks like it swept through without too much a fight
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
I got off my butt and wrote all three of my elected representative on Wednesday asking then to "repeal or amend" the DMCA. I highly recommend killing a tree and writing them a letter, as email is not treated as well in most circles. Send a letter to Washington instead of preaching to the choir...convince the people that can make the DMCA go away!
f m
/. crowd) and start complaining to the people that can (politicians).
To find out who your Representative is, see: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
To find out who your two Senators are, see: http://www.senate.gov/senators/senator_by_state.c
Remember to be polite and clear but firm. Tell them why the DMCA is bad and how it upsets the balance between fair use and copyright holders. Make sure to spell and grammar check it (it won't be effective if it is full of grammatical errors) and make sure it is not inflammatory or threatening.
Lastly, donate a buck to the EFF. They are the ones that will help you speak louder then you can by yourself.
Do your civic duty. Stop complaining to all the people that can't help you (the
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
why in the world would you want to do that?
Show them that they will be punished by consumers with consciences for abusing their corporate power. Also, show them that good behavior is advantageous, and that you would buy their products if they conducted their business properly. unfortunately, I think there will be ample opportunity to fight this type of abusive behavior
Continuing effors against Adobe is only vindictive. It will only take away resources from getting Sklyarov out of prison, and reforming (killing) the DCMA. don't forget your priorities.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
i oppose and will always oppose just about anything that begins with "we need to send a message to..."
almost invariably, it involves disproportionately punishing an individual to affect a change on a group. it is wrong in the case of the government's prosecution of Sklyarov, and it is wrong in continuing the boycott of Adobe. As hard as it is (and it's always hard to be taken advantage of on a matter of principle) to let up on Adobe, it would be hypocrisy not to.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
Article 3, Section 3:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
-http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/ constitution.html
So -- no treason has taken place by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sorry, although I wouldn't mind seeing the people responsible for this mess charged with such a serious crime.
Of course, if we could get the US government to declare war on the entertainment industry... than that would be a different matter.
My Blog: http://nic.dreamhost.com/
you can get a FREE SKLYAROV tshirt at copyleft.net. they donate $4 per shirt ordered to the EFF.
1 269_front.phtm
http://www.copyleft.net/item.phtml?&page=product_
- rantR
The problem is with legislators who either don't have a clue about the implications of what they are legislating or who love campaign contributions from cash-flush media companies. The problem is, in short, with people like Senator Feinstein. Protest in front of your legislator's office: they are the ones who created this mess, and they are the only ones who can fix it. We can't keep looking to the courts to throw out badly written laws.
As a citizen of the United States, we have such things as citizen's arrest. Well, I'm going to start a new precedent, Citizen's apology.
I speak for most of my countrymen, at least those with a functioning cerebral cortex,
WORLD: I AM SORRY ON BEHALF OF THE USA. We are blatantly denying the "inalienable" rights OUT constitution gives us to an EXPATRIATE.
WE the people have a government which is denying HABEOUS CORPUS, and is acting illegally without our accord.
We have only one discourse short of killing key people who turn a blind eye to everything our country was built on, that is PROTEST.
Sorry Dmitry, I will try and get the offending people to resign!
- Angry "Amerikan"
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
IMHO us are trying to show what happens to whom breaks the rules. I think they will let him arrested and show that everybody whose brake into DMCA will be arrested to.
Too bad :o(
Don't worry, I'm not american...
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Section 1204 states:
So how can Dmitry's actions be interpretted as being for commercial or private financial gain?
I can't believe that those people are content seeing this unharmful, gentle soul misplaced inside a jail (copyright Bob Dylan) We should be taking names and then doing what we can come election time to bring havoc to their websites.
Not that I condone that kind of thing...
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
Well, no. Treason is actually very narrowly defined within the Constitution, because previous governments the founders were familiar with had taken advantage of broad and ambiguous definitions to punish whoever they didn't like.
Kind of like the broad and ambiguous DMCA, ironically.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
The problem with that strategy is that I haven't done a lick of work in weeks.
I don't think a flyer about Dmytri's destiny (so far) would be 'COMMERCIAL'. So laws regarding UCE would not apply to it. We would only be using our 1st amendment right of free speech if we would embark on a MASSIVE MASSIVE email campaign to let the ENTIRE WORLD know about what's happening, right?
I mean, c'mon, we RUN the internet, we CREATE it, and we're handing out FLYERS at demonstrations that involve 10 people here, 50 people there? That's silly. We should USE our strength to make sure that the media CANNOT cover this up because of their own vested interest in the DMCA. Let's contact the ORB people to ask them for a few MPAA/RIAA open relays and use those relays to convey to the ENTIRE planet Dmytri's destiny!
Fighting the DMCA will require more stick than carrot. By using the stick on Adobe, a signal is sent to other companies. If you try to use DMCA against the people, it will cost you a lot of money and good will. If the boycott is called off the day after it started, the message is: "Milk DMCA for all that it's worth. It won't cost you a penny". For that reason, a boycott of Adobe should be intensified.
If we punish adobe enough, they might even find it in their interest to lobby against the DMCA. That's what moves DC lawmakers: lobbyists and money. They don't care squat about protesters. The protesters are political deviants as far as DC and the grey masses is conserned..
-- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
I have a blind friend who owns a speech synthesis card. Getting the "book" out of encrypted format would allow him to use other tools to extract the text and have the machine read it aloud for him.
According to Barnes & Noble's eBook comparison page, you can get spoken text from Adobe's reader with the book publisher's permission (under "Cool Features").
http://www.usaondca.com/press/html/2001_07_17_skly arov.html/P
________________________________________________
-all dead homiez
So if there is a flaw in a security system, it should be illegal to point it out in the hopes that no one else will discover it? That, my friend, is exceptionally ignorant. Your analogy is also quite un-analagous as well, as Sklyarov didn't steal anything, he just wrote a software that modifies a PDF file. It's not like a redistribution of Acrobat or something. While the point COULD be made that distributing software to bypass security is illegal, it's not illegal under the jurisdiction where he did it. Arresting these people will only force them underground, where they will still be able to do all these things, but the general public will operate under the assumption that their precious IP is secure. So feel free to go bury your head in the sand with Adobe, but don't come cryin to the geeks when your security is cracked by some 15 year old with barely enough technical know-how to log in to irc.
Read your own posting! They didn't say "won't drop charges", they said "with no promise to drop charges". No promise to drop charges sounds very much like "no decision" to me.
Turn yourself in and get it over with, then we won't have to listen to thoughtless comments from you.
SO please, all are to be fighting up the fight until we are clear!! Oh I HATE TEH ADBONE they are so mean. Maybe I will send them an card that says "DMITRY IS SORRY, DMITRY WONT TRY TO CRACK THE ADOBE ROT13 CODE, PLEASE LET DMITRY OUT OF THE JAIL THANK YOU!"
Last night, I am jacking off to picture of John STamos. TOmorrow, who knows what is to be happening! Teh jjail has broken Dmitry's soul. :-(((( And strong russian heterosexuality. ;-((
Please to be helping!!!!!!!!
----
----
Please, I are begging you! To save Dmitry from teh jail!
anyone in utah want do do any kind of protest in slc or ogden? i am very interrested in doing something this monday and or tuesday while im off work.please contact me @ carpenter111 AT hotmail DOT com if anyone is planning anything in utah
I think that I have read most of the posted stuff on this topic. I have a few thoughts.
;))
1) Folks have said that since in Russia this activity is legal, how can we charge him?
I am not really sure, but I recall a case about some european that went off to fool around with underage hookers in Thailand (?), went home, was outed and then arrested even though what he did was legal where he did it. Anyway, the law is silent on WHERE the infraction occured.
2) Check out the quote from section 1201 of the code:
(b) Additional Violations. - (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or OTHERWISE TRAFFIC in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of
circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that
effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this
title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use
other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological
measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner
under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or (BLAH, BLAH)
OTHERWISE TRAFFIC: This might refer to speech. Point being whether the stuff was sold or described, it is probably covered.
3) Writing representitives is useless. Anything that could be brought to bear by us would be as nothing compared to the crap from lobbyists that these jerks wade thru. If you insist on writing, send it fedex, it get at least some attention.
4) I think that if any thing should be written, it should be to the Federal Judge that has jurisdiction (ie. wherever he is being held). As a citizen you have every right and even an obligation to point out that there is an injustice. Lack of bail for a crime like this is rediculous. And by lifting his passport, he is not a flight risk.
5) geeks unionize?? Get real. However a professional association, with dues, could create a war chest for these kind of events.
6) Who is Dimetri's legal counsel? Whoever he/she is sucks. Should be in front of a judge, appearing on TV with the wife and kids and Russian ambassador, etc. This is a PR problem.
7) DMCA will not be repealed by congress. The only way laws get knocked out is via the Supreme Court. BY this thinking, our boy should tough it out. However I agree with a previous poster that the Feds have poisoned the case and it will never get there.
8) re. point 7: the Feds can create a chilling environment with the threat of a questionable law. Whould you care to be in the slammer for a few weeks under any circumstances?
9) Forget about Adobe: He broke a federal law.
10) A spokes persom is needed, Dimetri is sorta the proximal issue, but unless DMCA is knocked out there will be more Dimetris. I suggest getting to someone with a high profile like californias ex gov moonbeam to specifically break the law and carry the court case through. I would hope someone out there would have the integrity to engage in civil disobediance.
11) Some one said that our representitives are basically hard working...whatever. No. They are corrupt. Any elected official that accepts money in large doses from a corporation is indebted, period. If a CEO took "gifts" from a supplier, his ass would be in jail (a public company, that is