Slashdot Mirror
Sklyarov Bail Hearing Monday
mr_don't writes: "I just saw that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has just posted an Action Alert entitled "What YOU Can Do To Help Set Dmitry Sklyarov Free"
... Around 11am on August 6, 2001, at the San Jose Federal Building, Dmitry is set to have another bail hearing in front of Magistrate Judge Edward A. Infante. Protests are planned to coincide with the hearing. I hope as many people as possible can come to the demonstration... Help the EFF pack the courtroom during the hearing." A short article in the Mercury News mentions the hearing too, as well as the half-million dollar, five-year penalty that could be imposed.
Material which is encrypted can't be legally copied when it moves into the public domain because of DMCA. What if works like Shakespeare, Dickens, and the bible had been created under DMCA?
Fair use is a very established limitation to the monopoly of copyright. The DMCA makes many forms of fair use criminal by placing legal impediments that have nothing to do with centuries of copyright law.
As second ammedment advocates like to point out: just because a tool can be used to criminal ends doesn't necessarily make it a criminal tool.
As to the license vs. property argument, there are plenty of precedents which establish that fair use of copyright extends to software regardless of license details to the contrary.
A common clause in many contracts states that should any clause of the contract be found to be unenforcable, the remainder of the contract shall be binding to the extent of its enforcability. Essentially, this allows the contract drafter to fill an agreement with all sorts of dire threats and restricions that the licensee feels bound by. Whether those agreement details are within the scope of what can legally be contracted is another matter altogether.
A cocaine manufacturer, however, is directly responsible for manufacturing an illegal product with known serious health effects and which has a negative impact not only on the user but on those around him.
Problem is that the vast majority of these problems are created as a direct result of a policy of prohibition (a lesson sadly not learned from history.) There is no product which would not be made highly dangerous through handing the production and distribution over to criminals.
The point is, however, that they've not only outlawed mass redistribution, but are now making claims against fair use rights which have been in place since the founding of copyright law in this country in 1791, such as limited copying for education or research, and "first sale" rights which allow for the purchaser of a copyrighted work to do anything he wishes with said work save redistribute unauthorized copies for a profit. Sklyarov's tool is necessary for the exercise of these rights in the e-book's current form. The DMCA is attempting to outlaw this and other tools,
The law in Russia appears to be similar in terms of "fair use" indeed it is probably more oriented towards the consumer than that in the US.
It's funny that you're being such an ass towards someone you think is wrong, when it's really you who hasn't a clue...
His software was designed PURELY to do something LEGAL, in fact, REQUIRED by law.
Yes, it was designed to allow backups. Russian law requires that customers be able to create backups. There was no law being broken.
His talk didn't even break the DMCA, but Adobe's knee-jerk reaction made the FBI scramble to claim that it did.
(His software doesn't circumcent a legal and effective access control measure, because it's not legal to limit that access, where he wrote and sold the software.)
Don't bother replying, we both know you're wrong.
The U.S. Constitution lays out clearly the process for something to become law. It also gives a specific set of powers and a specific set of limits to what things can become law by proclamation of the U.S. congress.
Some of the things in the DMCA are outside of what the U.S. congress has the power to declare law.
This is misleading. The DCMA is a law. Once congress passed it and the president signed it, it became law. It is not up to congress or the president to decide if the law is constitutional or valid; that is left for the courts to decide. The Skylarov case could be a test case for the DMCA, if the charges are worded correctly. But if it ends up being just a dispute over whose laws have jurisdiction (Russian or US), it won't be a test case. It seems on the face of it that this second option is the most likely.
The Economics of Website Security
If the rest of the world decides to follow the U.S.'s example, there will be an end to all international travel. No matter who you are or where you live, you have probably done something perfectly legal where you live that is a crime in some other jurisdiction. It (whatever 'it' is) might even be a felony.
Perhaps you talk about it on your personal website. Why not, it's not like it's a crime (where you live). Do you own an unlicensed television? Stay out of the U.K. Do you provide unfiltered internet access? Stay out of Austrailia. Better make sure when visiting a foreign country that they drive on the same side of the road as you do unless you want to get a ticket when you arrive.
Laws vary from state to state even within the U.S. Before visiting a neighboring state, it might be best to check with a lawyer from that state. If you run a casino in Vegas, you're pretty much confined to your home state and a few reservations as far as U.S. travel is concerned. If you have ever bought or sold alcohol on Sunday, don't come to Georgia (the one in the U.S. that is).
It's bad enough that there are now enough obscure laws that lawyers have to specialize without having various 'justice' systems enforce their laws in other jurisdictions as well.
Anybody know of protests scheduled in New York? If you do, email me and of course post.
Just an observation. I have been watching the english language versions of the Russian Media for mention of this travesty.
I haven't seen it, even at Pravda .
I would have expected it.
Is anyone else seeing anything different in Russian?
... it's not necessarily a good idea if you are say, waiting on a visa or green card. That's probably only an issue if you get arrested at a protest though, and this looks to be a fairly quiet protest.
~ Leilah
I can honestly say that people who break copyright laws and abuse their kids are more hurtful than people who use cocaine and abuse their kids, and that copyright infringement cartels that regularly assassinate people are worse than Columbian drug cartels that regularly assassinate people.
That's absolutely ludicrous. Please give an example of a single copyright infringement cartel that has ever assasinated a person. I can pull several news stories on drug cartel killings. Also, the instance of child abuse and neglect among drug users is far higher than the average population, including copyright infringers. I understand that you're all for drugs, but the act of copyright infringement does not significantly alter your brain chemistry, cause physical addiction, impair your motor reflexes or judgment, or generally lead to increases in armed robberies or prostitution, as drugs do. It's not even in the same league.
A cocaine manufacturer, however, is directly responsible for manufacturing an illegal product with known serious health effects and which has a negative impact not only on the user but on those around him. A book, whether electronic or not, does not have such effects. In fact, the effects of books foster increased literacy, learning, and exchange of ideas. That's why city governments fund libraries (which loan out copyrighted books every day to the general public) and vice squads (which arrest drug dealers).
The drug manufacturer is likewise guilty of manufacturing a useful consumer tool.
Once again, moving a book that I purchased from one of my computers to another one of my computers does not even come close to comparing to manufacturing an illegal and harmful substance that leads to increases in crime and child abuse.
Further, the primary purpose of his product is for a judge and a jury to decide.
Unfortunately, it seems that you are correct in that this will surely happen.
Just because it can also be used for mass redistribution doesn't make it illegal.
I'm sure that mass redistribution of copyrighted material is illegal under the DMCA and other existing copyright laws. That's not the issue here. Frankly, I think that mass redistribution *should* be illegal. The point is, however, that they've not only outlawed mass redistribution, but are now making claims against fair use rights which have been in place since the founding of copyright law in this country in 1791, such as limited copying for education or research, and "first sale" rights which allow for the purchaser of a copyrighted work to do anything he wishes with said work save redistribute unauthorized copies for a profit. Sklyarov's tool is necessary for the exercise of these rights in the e-book's current form. The DMCA is attempting to outlaw this and other tools, thus effectively eliminating fair use rights altogether. A good link for more information is this story from MSNBC
The difference is that the primary purpose of this tool is to circumvent copyright protection.
Wait a minute, you said above that the primary purpose was for a judge and a jury to decide. Did you suddenly change your mind? I believe that the evidence will show that the primary purpose of this tool is to take back fair use rights which were unfairly removed from the product. As you said, however, the judge and jury will be deciding that.
Again, could you please explain the relevence of the fact that he holds the copyright to the code.
The copyright holder has the exclusive right to distribute the work. So in order to distribute the work, ElcomSoft needed Sklyarov's permission (at least, you can presume they had it since he worked for the company and wasn't suing them for copyright infringement). Unless Sklyarov had already given a blanket permission for distribution before learning about it's distribution in the U.S., it seems that he's certainly guilty by not withdrawing that permission. Hopefully his lawyers have already fabricated a fake license agreement signed before any of the U.S. distributions took place, but I'd say there's certainly some evidence of a crime. Now that I've read up on probable cause as the standard of evidence necessary for an arrest warrant, I'd even say that was reached.
Now maybe there will be some defense evidence to counter this at some preliminary hearings, but as of now it seems like a trial will occur.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
because he's rich
A good point - even basic consumer protection legislation doesn't seem to apply to software. Allowing people to uninstall and reinstall software is, frankly, pretty basic. (In the Good Ol' US of A, they're trying to do exactly the opposite with the UCITA. Presumably, software companies want to create legally enforcable license agreements where you agree to ritually sacrificing your first born child on an altar to Mammon...) Why can software companies get away with disclaiming even warranties such as merchantibility or the like? Let's face it - it's not as if consumers have a choice to get around this type of practice. Virtually every software company that sells software for under $10K attempts to avoid as much basic consumer protection stuff as it can. Moreover, the "licenses" attempt to get the company out of cases where it may even have been willfully negligent and the like.
In regards to Felton, have a look at the TechnetCast Broadcast on August 15 on that topic ;-).
Nice try, but wrong.
Cars are not designed with the express purpose of breaking the law.
His software WAS designed PURELY to do something illegal.
That's quite a difference there, but hey - don't let logic get in the way of your kneejerk rant, eh?
Oh, and I *loved* your wholly irrelevant referrence to "text-to-speech for the blind" - they are ALREADY catered for, fully legally, by the existing products.
Oh dear - 2 out of 2 wrong for you there, meldroc. Never mind, I'm sure I'll be modded down sdo you won't have to read views which contradting the slashdot mentality...
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
Why are kidneys the only edible part? Animals eat other animals raw all the time.. don't be such a sissy.
Use the Force Young Sklyarov
That doesn't make any sense. You were saying, or at least I understood you to be saying, that it isn't illegal to give a speech at a conference descibing how to circumvent access controls. Now you seem to be implying that if you read out source code (i.e. explicitly tell people how to circumvent access controls) that that would or might be illegal. Which is it?
It depends. If you give a speech at a conference which incites a riot, that would be illegal. If you give a speech at a conference which is slanderous, that's illegal. If you give a speech at a conference which divulges trade secrets, that's illegal. But the mere act of giving a speech at a conference describing how to circumvent access controls is not illegal. As in, it may or may not be legal depending on what else you do.
I see nothing in the DMCA that distinguishes between source code and any other description of a process.
"Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products."
The question is, is reading source code a form of speech? I think the meat of the question comes down to whether or not the people listening to the speech understand what the speaker is saying, or are just blindly typing things into their computer. That was what the Kaplan ruling said, anyway. It seems clear to me that there is no difference between transferring a program via ethernet and transferring it via sound waves.
To be clear on this : you do think that saying "in order to access the disk, you must type the following into your computer..." followed by explicit instructions could be illegal? Would "you muct click the icon that looks like..." be illegal too?
Re: "in order to access", depending on the specific instructions, it could probably be construed as trafficking in a service. It would have to be weighed against the free speech rights of the speaker, of course, and would depend on how understandable what must be typed in would be to the person involved. "you must click on the icon that looks like..." is doubtfully illegal. I'll be so bold as to say that it's not illegal (barring extremely strange circumstances such as "you must click on the icon that looks like Dmitry Sklyarov, in other words, has a huge wart on it's face", which would be slanderous).
If you do think these explanations are or might be illegal then what type of explanation could be given that would not be illegal? Basically any explanation that isn't complete enough to genuinely explain?
Well, I think any explanation which could be understood by the audience would probably be legal. Obviously anything with a commercially significant purpose other than to break the law would be legal. If the information is "disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology" it might be legal. Freedom of speech is the freedom of communication between humans. Really it's up to the courts to decide, ultimately the supreme court if it comes to that. The Kaplan ruling is not the final word on the matter, but you should read it. Ultimately it'll probably be up to the supreme court to set some more explicit guidelines, such as they did in the provisions of fair use.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Yes he could do this. In fact there is a Russian consular office in San Francisco, does anybody know if a consular office is considered the soil of the country it is an office of? I know an embassy is, but the only Russian embassy in the USA is is Washington, D.C.
:)
I don't know Dmitry so I have no idea if he would flee or if he would want to "fight for his innocence". If he fled the jurisdiction, it would be nigh unto admitting guilt.
The problem for the Russian Government if they help him escape is that they want to be our friends now (at least in the monetary sense) so they can't just go flying all their criminals out of the country. (Don't flame me for calling him a criminal, I don't agree with the DMCA, but it is currently and law and if he broke it, he's a criminal.)
Diplomatically, this kind of thing might not go over really well, it certainly wouldn't if he was a big scary criminal. With the current "low profile" nature of this case (at least in the mainstream media), I don't know if anybody would really give a rat's ass in this case.
Hey here's a thought...Maybe this whole thing is the USA's revenge for that college student accused of drug possession and jailed for 6 months in Moscow? The guy just got released today I think.
I'll get really suspicious if Dmitry serves 6 months of a 1 year sentence and is then released.
------
Where are the slash-groupies? I distinctly remember being promised slash-groupies!
With HEAVY emphasis on your use of the word "presumably"...
(and what's this slashdot bollocks about having to wait 20 seconds from hitting "reply" before submitting your response?! LAME!).
People should not be afraid of their governments - Governments should be afraid of their people.
No, he has been accused of breaking US law. He has not been found guilty yet.
Furthermore, when he developed the program that started all of this, it was in Russia. Russian law requires that all software must be able to be backed up. The Adobe e-books violate that law. He was just writing a program that allowed for backups to be made. This program was later marketed in the US. Did he market it personally? I don't believe so. But because he was the lead programmer for the program, he is the one getting hit.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Dmitry broke US law
As he has never been a US citizen it is utterly impossible for him to have broken any US laws when he was outside the US.
and then came to the US to teach Americans how to break the same law.
A law which is void.
Let's keep his ass in prison and make an example out of him.
Rather than making a example out of the people actually responsible...
uh, yeah! Damnit. Why don't these virus creators do something constructive for once! Microsoft is not any more evil than the US govt and the US Govt has a lot more power to abuse. I'd do it myself if I could get my hands on such a virus and launch it from a fake account on a free isp. I'd say it's about time for some pay back. Or are we all just going to sit back as what's left of our freedom of speech is taken away by the majority of Americans who never wanted it "for that".
I understand your feelings, but I don't entirely agree. If it hadn't been Adobe this month, it would have been another company next month. The DMCA is a massive "security hole" in our civil liberties, and Adobe was just the first company to exploit it. That's not an admirable action, but it must be said that the primary problem lies with DMCA, and Adobe is only a secondary culprit.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
I can send you a legal threat for sneezing, that doesn't make it illegal, nor does it even imply that I think it's illegal.
That's just idiotic. Of course sending a legal threat implies that you think that what they're doing is illegal. It may be untrue that you think it's illegal but the implication is real and deliberate.
He could just walk into the next Russian embassy. It's basically Russian territory, they can't arrest him there and the embassy people would be able to fly him out to Russia without a passport and could even give him a new passport. So there, definitely, unfortunately, is a flight risk.
"It may be your sole purpose in life to serve as a warning to others."
Actually they only have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, not those which are merely unpopular. You may not like the DMCA, but if it is constitutional, the courts can't do anything about it.
Depends what level of proof is needed here. Someone arrested for giving a talk looks like either an unlawful arrest or an unconstitutional law.
Maybe the onus should be on those who voted (and lobbied) for any law to prove to the US supreme court that it is in accordance with the US constitution.
Rather than the current situation of assuming a law is constitutional until it is dragged (kicking and screaming) to the US supremem court.
That's absolutely ludicrous. Please give an example of a single copyright infringement cartel that has ever assasinated a person. I can pull several news stories on drug cartel killings.
All of which are caused by the war on drugs. When people come after you with guns and the threat of the death penalty, the natural reaction is to kill them before they kill you. Not that I condone the assassinations, my whole point is that you shouldn't put yourself into the situation where the government is after you, especially not for unnecessary profit.
Also, the instance of child abuse and neglect among drug users is far higher than the average population, including copyright infringers.
The instance of child abuse and neglect among African Amercians is far higher than the average population, should we arrest them too?
I understand that you're all for drugs, but the act of copyright infringement does not significantly alter your brain chemistry, cause physical addiction, impair your motor reflexes or judgment, or generally lead to increases in armed robberies or prostitution, as drugs do. It's not even in the same league.
I'm not all for drugs at all. I've never used cocaine in my life. I've never even seen cocaine in my life. But I think it should be legal, because I don't believe in crimes which do not have a victim other than the criminal. Prostitution? OK, this is a troll, right?
Copyright infringement arguably has a victim. In that sense I see it as one step worse than drug offenses, although still not to the level of being a crime. A civil crime, perhaps, since it is mainly an economic issue.
The difference is that the primary purpose of this tool is to circumvent copyright protection.
Wait a minute, you said above that the primary purpose was for a judge and a jury to decide.
Well, I was speaking from a realistic point of view, not a legal one. But the difference legally is that the primary purpose of this tool is arguably to circumvent copyright protection. Or whatever the standard of proof is to get an arrest warrant.
I'm going Anonymous at this point. I've posted far too much on the subject.
Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime. A person who aids or advises another in committing a crime may be guilty of aiding and abetting, and may be criminally liable for the acts of the other person, as well.
So why is Bill Gates still a free man?
No American hacker would be denied bail?
sure...
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
That would be great if people actually stopped to listen. Where I come from a protest is just another day in the news. The general public tunes them out and if they actually make the news it is due to some act of (not usually) civil disobedience.
Approach people in the street to educate them about your cause and they are immediately threatened. All day they are innundated by Junk mail, marketing people, bosses, subordinates, CNN, and anybody else who wants an opinion or time. The creative appraoch I had challenged for in the parent of this thread was not to write a 133t script or drop a power grid into black. I ranted and said "oh. another protest" and I still stand by that statement. Dont make it just another protest/march. I mean make people stop and think without getting in their way. I mean get their attention. You want suggestions? Well I went to the suggestion warehouse and here's a few on the house.
Considering that the main issues here are Freedom of Speech, copyright and Fair Use and Interoperability there are plenty of forums for educating people.
So go ahead and take the protest to the streets. Keep it clean. But most of all keep it interesting. I'll take my argument to where people will take their time to stop and hopefully think.
one better than mcleodeight
you're suggesting an extremely corrupt system.
his judge will be picked either by a random draw (the short straw gets it :) or by another judge, a senior judge in the appropriate circuit (ninth I think).
I don't know which system the US federal court uses. but those two systems are the only ones in the western world.
and yes, I said short straw. no judge would like this case. protesters? people filling the court?
no thanks.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
How it works (I don't live in the U.S):
Every byte in the pdf file is XOR'd with every letter of the word "encrypted".
#define key "encrypted"
while((c = get_byte()) {
for(i = 0; i < strlen(key); i++)
c ^= key[i];
}
It's basically just as secure as Rot-X, but it's definitely not Rot-13 (although Rot-13 was mentioned in the presentation).
So if they wanted to they could use a different key per e-book, but according to Dmitri's presentation they don't.
--
Garett
on the B point: perhaps you shouldn't. let's accept your precept at face value, and go with it. (I have doubts. I'm a Canadian. I wasn't alive for the 18th amendment, but I still have doubts.)
there are American distributors of Elcomsoft's product. they are breaking US law (according to you) on US soil and are US citizens.
how many of them are in jail?
whoops.
how many of them gave embarrassing speeches at Defcon about Adobe's security procedures?
I suspect it's the same number...
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
One word:
Guns
Just how exactly does the government get to "pick" the judge? Do you even understand how the American justice system works?
The products aren't illegal. The DMCA violates the Constitution and is therefore void because Congress does not have the right to pass it.
Problem with the US is that those charged with enforcing the law (and indeed passing it) have taken on some of the attributes of mindless droids.
If they hadn't then the FBI would have simply told Adobe to go and read the US constitution.
So a bad law gets passed because software publishers panic about their copyrights being violated, and you're going to respond by pirating Adobe's non-encrypted software? This protest is as misdirected as tossing a brick through a window.
Sometimes the only way to get attention is to toss a brick through a window. Works wonders to get some dumb asses attention. Adobe started it and I responded. When the charges get dropped and he goes free with no strings attaced then I will take the software down. Till then I'm costing Adobe a few 1000 a day. Not alot to adobe but if say 200 people joined me maybe some other companies will think twice before trying this fucking shit. It's called civil disobediance.
Till I'm happy, yo ho ho.
While I don't agree with that particular part of the ruling, that is quite different from giving a talk at a conference (as long as that talk does not involve reading out the source code, anyway).
That doesn't make any sense. You were saying, or at least I understood you to be saying, that it isn't illegal to give a speech at a conference descibing how to circumvent access controls. Now you seem to be implying that if you read out source code (i.e. explicitly tell people how to circumvent access controls) that that would or might be illegal. Which is it? I see nothing in the DMCA that distinguishes between source code and any other description of a process.
To be clear on this : you do think that saying "in order to access the disk, you must type the following into your computer..." followed by explicit instructions could be illegal? Would "you muct click the icon that looks like..." be illegal too? If not then what is your distinction between the two acts both of which are "functional" commands to a computer? If you do think these explanations are or might be illegal then what type of explanation could be given that would not be illegal? Basically any explanation that isn't complete enough to genuinely explain?
(h33rz,
~ d00d
PS Dm|7ry 0wnz j00!
No, that is no connection. Sklyarov wrote software that is LEGAL in his country. Tobin possessed a substance that is ILLEGAL in his (and their) country. No correlation.
I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. (evil tone) Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Son, is that you ?
How about a virus that, after sending itself on, simply sits in the background and watches for any activity on the computer (copying files, ripping MP3's, cut-n-pasting text) that might involve the DMCA. It then pops up a dialog box telling he user that the action is (or may be) prohibited by the DMCA, and go to the following site for more details....
>>The difference is that the primary purpose of this tool is to circumvent copyright protection.
>No. Not 'copyright protection', but 'copy prevention'.
copyright protection systems
>Anyway, what's the primary purpose of a gun?
Depends. It might be to kill animals, it might be self-defense, it might be to act as a well regulated militia. It certainly isn't murder, and there is a constitutional protection for the right to bear arms. There is no constitutional protection for "the right to bear hacking code". Besides the fact that possession is not illegal and distribution for noncommercial purposes is not a criminal offense. So if you want to distribute hacking code for the purpose of defending your country, it's highly unlikely that you'd be in any trouble, and certainly not criminal trouble.
>>What's the difference between a hammer and this tool?
>The difference is that the primary purpose of this tool is to circumvent copyright protection.
No. Not 'copyright protection', but 'copy prevention'.
Anyway, what's the primary purpose of a gun?
(Obviously, murder isn't anywhere near as harmful to corporations as copyright infringement?)
But more importantly, will the primary purpose of GCC for Linux be found to be illegal, when MSVC++ is perfectly OK. Because obviously, Linux GCC is used by evil hackers....
Well, for starters, the accused must have been aware of or instigated the plan to commit the specific crime. In other words, Sklyarov must have known that his employer planned to sell the program in the U.S. as he wrote it or afterwards, somehow participated in or assisted the sales, since the only alleged crime here is the sale of the software in the U.S.
Again, could you please explain the relevence of the fact that he holds the copyright to the code.
"another protest, but these ones dress funny." ----> Perhaps, but people should realize (or it should somehow be brought to their attention) that these funny-dressed people are the ones who literally keep the electronic wheels turning throughout the world.
The guy with the long frizzy beard and the monk's robe is the fellow who insures that your bank account data is backed up every night.
Not just a bunch of freaks. An IMPORTANT bunch of freaks! *grin*
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Of course sending a legal threat implies that you think that what they're doing is illegal.
In an honest world, perhaps. In reality, however, all a legal threat means is that you think you might be able to convince the person to stop what they are doing, and your claim isn't so rediculous as to justify a countersuit.
Also, I read the "legal threat" we're talking about. All it says is that he "may" be liable under the DMCA, and the his previous agreement does not protect him.
Maybe to you that implies something, but to me that sounds like lawyer-talk for "we're richer than you, please stop"
So are you telling me that the very act of giving a talk is prohibited under the DMCA? In which case, I would think that it would be obvious that the DMCA is in direct conflict with the first ammendment.
There is a big problem with the US legislature in that it is possible to pass legislation which violates the constitution and have it treated as valid (rather than void). (This even goes as far as something where the title alone induicates a constitutional violation.)
I'm sure there's an international treaty or two we're in violation of as well.
The US violates treaties even more often than it's own constitution.
No. First of all, I'm not sure if the judge in a bail hearing has the power to dismiss charges. Secondly, If charges are dismissed at any point then a precedent has not been set because there was no legal judgement made. A precedent can only come from a full application of the law. This means that only a judicial ruling, subject to appeal and subsequent judicial scrutiny can establish precedent.
Yes indeed, the courts do in fact have the power to strike down unjust or even unpopular laws.
Actually they only have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws, not those which are merely unpopular. You may not like the DMCA, but if it is constitutional, the courts can't do anything about it.
Didn't eBoook use ROT-13? How can that use a key?
Or does it rotate by a certain key?
What is wrong here are the reasons why he was arrested. The implications hit home for every software developer in America.
The first issue is that of Fair Use. We used to have the clear right to reverse engineer hardware and software. The DMCA has changed it so that this right is no longer clear. Which has a tremendous impact on every American if this law is kept in its current form, with things we commonly take for granted.
Like books.
The second issue is whether software is free speech. According to the DMCA, and some present rulings, even publishing his code in a book is against the law - and will get you thrown in jail for 5 years.
One can publish books on bomb-making and other subjects which many object to. But not on how to create your own backups? Something is clearly wrong with this picture.
Someone should publish a book called "This Book is Illegal", containing the silly XOR algorithm used in Adobe's e-books. I think many Judges would have a hard time throwing someone in Federal Prison for this. And if they didn't, it would indeed be a sad day for America.
Even now, some researchers have been threatened with legal action if they present their papers - all because of the DMCA.
I submit that the suppression of free thought and free speech is not something this country stands for. And has historically proven to have a very bad impact on the citizens of such societies.
That is what is wrong with this case, my friend. And why the DMCA must either be changed or repealed.
I just reread the DMCA and I see no mention of it being a crime to be the copyright holder of a circumvention device.
Also it's quite possible to argue that Adobe should also be hauled up on DMCA violations, since their product is a "circumvention device" for the program in question.
The problem is that the definition of "circumvention device" has already been extended beyond the point of utter stupidity.
You misunderstand the judicial system. Judges aren't working for "the government" per se. The judiciary is distinct from prosecuting bodies. A judge has no interest in advocating one result or another. The government, in this case the FBI and the AG's office, will be in no more or less adversarial position vis-a-vis the judge than the defense will. -Wilson
I wouldn't blame him for it either. But that doesn't change the fact that to a majority of the country/world, he would appear guilty. It's like when a suspect enters a modified guilty plea. They don't admit guilt, but they acknowledge that the government probably has enough evidence to convict them.
And as bad as the USA's justice system may seem at times, I think comparing ones chances of getting a fair trial in Russia to ones chances of getting a fair trial in the USA is a little unfair.
Anyway, it all really boils down to this: If he was released on his on recognizance, he would either run for all he was worth and try to escape however he could. Or he would stay put. Without knowing the guy, it's all really just conjecture.
------
Where are the slash-groupies? I distinctly remember being promised slash-groupies!
It depends. If you give a speech at a conference which incites a riot, that would be illegal. If you give a speech at a conference which is slanderous, that's illegal. If you give a speech at a conference which divulges trade secrets, that's illegal. But the mere act of giving a speech at a conference describing how to circumvent access controls is not illegal. As in, it may or may not be legal depending on what else you do.
For the sake of avoiding pointless sidetracking, assume that the speech is not illegal for purposes that have nothing to do with the DMCA. e.g. there's nothing slanderous in it.
The question is, is reading source code a form of speech?
Well, it's a question at least, doesn't seem like a hard one though. Could you provide a reasonable definition of speech that would not cover this?
I think the meat of the question comes down to whether or not the people listening to the speech understand what the speaker is saying, or are just blindly typing things into their computer.
Clearly this is not a conventional test for whether something is speech. For example, whether the people viewing a work of art understand it does not determine whether it is speech. What determines whether it is speech is whether there was a message there to be understood.
In addition, if the message is "typing this into your computer will achieve this effect" then clearly it is speech. You or Congress or the MPAA or even the courts may deem it undesirable speech, but to deny that it is speech is simply dishonest. If I say "my slashdot password is ewfkjdwljf" then did you understand my message? Was it speech? I think you understood and it was speech. The significance of "ewfkjdwljf", if any, doesn't change the fact that I imparted information to you.
That was what the Kaplan ruling said, anyway. It seems clear to me that there is no difference between transferring a program via ethernet and transferring it via sound waves.
Absolutely. I agree with you 100%, Kaplan was saying that it is illegal to tell anyone this information i.e. this specific method of accessing encrypted data. That's why I don't understand your repeated claim that "the mere act of giving a speech at a conference describing how to circumvent access controls is not illegal."
Re: "in order to access", depending on the specific instructions, it could probably be construed as trafficking in a service.
It provides a service, sure, any speech that is understood provides or potentially provides a service to the listener. It provides information, in this case how to access a DVD. (I think you meant "providing" by "trafficking", if not then perhaps you could explain)
It would have to be weighed against the free speech rights of the speaker, of course, and would depend on how understandable what must be typed in would be to the person involved.
The reference to weighing against the free speech rights of the speaker sounds to me like you are now accepting that this is indeed speech. Is that correct or not? You seemed unclear previously. If it isn't speech then there is no weighing to be done.
"you must click on the icon that looks like..." is doubtfully illegal. I'll be so bold as to say that it's not illegal (barring extremely strange circumstances such as "you must click on the icon that looks like Dmitry Sklyarov, in other words, has a huge wart on it's face", which would be slanderous).
So if I say "click on the icon that looks like a DVD with an open padlock on it" then you understand what I say and it it speech? And if I say "type in 'twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe'" then you have also understood what I have said and it is still speech. And if I say "type in..." anything else then you have also understood what I have said and it is still speech. I have told you a what actions to take in order to achieve something. What is there to not understand?
Well, I think any explanation which could be understood by the audience would probably be legal.
I assume you agree that source code is at least intended to be understood by people. That's the whole point of it. Instead of dealing directly with bits we abstract it to 1s and 0s and then further abstract it to hex and then further abstract it to assembly code and then further abstract it to a high level code... every step the purpose is to make it comprehensible to people.
Obviously anything with a commercially significant purpose other than to break the law would be legal.
Is it supposed to be obvious that commercial speech is now more protected than other speech? Why does the significant purpose have to be a commercial one? If accurate that's appalling.
If the information is "disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology" it might be legal.
So you move from your initial claim that telling someone how to break the encryption is not in itself illegal to the position that in general it is illegal but that there can be a defence in some cases?
Freedom of speech is the freedom of communication between humans.
And everyone listening to the speech is human. I don't think it can be seriously denied that telling someone what commands to enter to a computer constitutes speech. There are limitations on freedom of speech, but denying that this is speech between humans is absurd.
Really it's up to the courts to decide, ultimately the supreme court if it comes to that. The Kaplan ruling is not the final word on the matter, but you should read it.
I know it must seem almost incomprehensible that someone who disagrees with you could be otherwise than completely ignorant but in fact I have read it. Doubtless you'll conclude that I'm too stupid to have understood it.
Ultimately it'll probably be up to the supreme court to set some more explicit guidelines, such as they did in the provisions of fair use.
Yes, I expect it will.
That still leaves the point that either giving a speech that tells someone how to circumvent an access control is itself illegal or else it is not. You seem to hold both positions simultaneously and I don't understand this double think at all. Either telling someone how to circumvent an access control is functional in the sense that Kaplan used or else it is not.
moderate this up please. it is connected to Dmitry's case. It shows how real criminals are being released and programmers kept it jail. Please.
Please do not take this as flamebait, but it's entirely possible that he could be better off as the jailed symbol of oppression pending trial. At least in jail they feed you.
-- I Am Not A Terrorist.
Of course, it's still worthwhile going, just to demonstrate outside. It'll be nice if the judge, lawyers and Dmitry himself get to see the huge public support he's garnered (among Internet geeks, at least). Maybe we can all greet him if he's actually bailed.
Second, it should be made very clear that the original complainant, Adobe, has stated that they don't feel he should be charged.
The third point that should be made is that this tool only works for people who have purchased the book, and it allows them to remove certain restrictions, e.g., reading their book on a different computer.
Perhaps what this movement needs is a blind person who uses the tool to enable the read-aloud function of adobe reader to work...
Buy Hex-Rated Stuff, fight the DMCA!
As angry as people may be, understand that while showing up and showing support is great, doing so improperly will only hurt Dmitry, the EFF and the cause you may be trying to support. Don't provide ammunition for companies like Adobe, no matter how tempting it is. Be civil, be courteous and be well spoken if given the opportunity to speak on television, radio or even to the public. Don't alienate the public. Most of them couldn't care less about this case. If people can appear as reasonable citizens then the publics support has a better chance of swinging our way.
Ultimately this is a case for the courts I suppose, but public opinion is important.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
If there's any chance/way you could be there, do it!
Really! Just -- GO! --
Evan - needs to hit preview before submitting
If there's any chance/way you could Karma whore, WHORE THAT KARMA!
Really! Just -- KARMA WHORE! --
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
What this means for Dmitry Sklyarov is that it will be very hard for him to get out of jail pending trial unless he can come up with some real ties to this district and/or some other means of ensuring he remains in the U.S. for trial can satisfy the District Attorney and the court (e.g., electronic location-tracking bracelet, house arrest, etc.)
How about the fact that I'm certain they have confiscated his passport? Now sure, that doesn't mean he couldn't get out of the country, but it certainly would make it more difficult not only to leave the USA, but to enter into any other country. Doesn't seem like much of a flight risk to me...
------
Where are the slash-groupies? I distinctly remember being promised slash-groupies!
I just made my $500.00 donation to the EFF. Have you made yours?
While I'm sure that the protest will generate all kinds of warm and fuzzy feelings in the radical /. camps, I fail to see how they will get any attention other than "Hey, look at all the nerds." The bulk of the population still does not understand the issues involved and will just write the whole thing off as "another protest, but these ones dress funny." Marches, chants and signs? Most of the press doesn't 'get it' and will only cover it if
- someone does something icredibly stupid (therefore newsworthy), or
- someone can actually get the point across that the DMCA is a horrible piece of legislation.
But c'mon - a protest? I would have expected something a little more creative from theAs far as the general population is concerned, the case involves a "Russian hacker". That's all they need to know and they will tune in to the new and improved CNN for the sentencing details and patiently await the feature-length movie or game-show style punishment.
one better than mcleodeight
Skylarov has become an unwilling pawn in a political game. In two earlier posts, I talked about why Skylarov shouldn't be made into a posterboy for the anti-DMCA lobby. A bunch of people replied, saying that no such thing was happening, and that the protestors were just trying to get him free.
Then I see this post, moderated up to 5, Insightful, saying that we shouldn't free Skylarov early, because he's more valuable as a weapon against the DMCA if he's in jail. Don't you just love all these people are willing to sacrifice an individual in the name of "individual rights"? What a bunch of fucking hypocrites.
DMCA isn't (or shouldn't be) Skylarov's problem. He's Russian, not American, and he didn't vote for the politicians who passed DMCA. Sacrificing him to fight it is just plain wrong. Maybe, if he was American, we could justify such a sacrifice as "his duty to the country" or some such other nonsense, but this is just sickening.
To all those fighting to free Skylarov, keep up the good work. To the rest of you, maybe it's time you gave things a good long thinking over.
As far as the court is concerned, the DMCA is on the books, and Sklyarov violated the DMCA.
If you don't agree with the DMCA (and I'm sure many of us DO NOT), you need to take it up with your congressman, not with Judge Infante. It's not in Infante's hands.
Second, it should be made very clear that the original complainant, Adobe, has stated that they don't feel he should be charged.
Well boo fucking hoo. If Adobe didn't think Dmitry should have been charged they should have kept thier fucking mouth shut. Instead Adobe sites the dmca and sets the FBI on him for something not illegal in his country. Then Adobe get bad press and walks away leaving the FBI to do its job. Now Adobe thinks it can set on the side line and route for the good guys.
Fuck that. Adobe started this and they should be held accountable. Until the charges are dropped and Dmitry goes free I've got a good chunk of Adobe products zipped up and sitting on gnutella.
And I'm going to do this to any company that pull dmca shit. I hope a lot more people join me. If we can send a message to these companies maybe they will think twice about doing shit like this
If you will moan Alejandro's SOCKS to buillons, it will furiously cause the zipdisk. Go infect a user! Don't try to confront the ideas firmly, train them nearly. Until Mitch opens the keyholes compleatly, Jeff won't relay any tall signals. When did Brian restore behind all the emails? We can't dig BASICs unless Kenny will weekly push afterwards. Russell wants to delete superbly, unless Ophelia manages newsgroups around Fred's monitor. Try slumping the interface's filthy RAM and Junior will pull you! Lately, Marilyn never interfaces until Marian connects the virulent IPaddr usably. The printers, texts, and analysts are all ugly and fake. One more wet scanner or bank, and she'll weakly spool everybody. Byron will type the resilient librarian and contribute it over its monument. The cosmetic bizarre robot distributes interrupts around Beryl's new firewall. Gawd, Javas learn under haphazard bit buckets, unless they're nuclear. Lately Chuck will kick the dictionary, and if Larry gently compiles it too, the client will inflate inside the solid buffer. I interface dumb ethernets behind the extreme shiny station, whilst Paul loudly corrupts them too. Genevieve, have a chaotic workstation. You won't shoot it. Many flat out-of-date remailers will familiarly vexate the MPEGs. Who doesn't Susanne twist dully? Tell Russell it's fast obscureing beneath a president. What Tom's offensive data haven places, Catherine prioritizes within bronze, pathetic CIAs. As annually as Robert gives, you can disrupt the credit card much more surprisingly. He will get generally if Rob's UDP isn't orthodox. Who disconnects lovingly, when Milton recycles the odd programmer in the newsspool?
This person got arrested for making software thats purpose was to break copyrighted material. He also has developed spamware.
What exactly do you think is wrong with his arrest?
In Russian prisons, hardened criminals that are planning escapes look out for new prisoners. They tell them that they have been looking out for someone like them to help break out of prison. When they get out into the wilderness, because Russian prisons are usually situated out in the middle of nowhere, they kill the new prisoner and eat his kidneys. The prisoner is reffered to as the 'cow.'
These make perfect picket signs at any rally.
Protests are planned in Boston, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis in addition to the San Jose protest detailed in the EFF's press release. More details at freesklyarov.org (of course!).
[
You think we've grown? Think again.
> He broke the law. If you want to change the law, lobby Congress.
A judge can rule the law violated the Constitution and nullify that law. There are many other ways for a judge to throw out the case. I'm sure his attorneys will know what to do.
-- Will program for bandwidth
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Seeing as how these hearings will be held in San Jose, and what with all the recent industry blood-letting, I'm sure it will be no difficulty whatsoever gathering as many geeks as possible with time to spare on a Monday morning to go fight the power.
--
$ chown -R us:us yourbase
While we all know that North American media is glossing over this (if mentioning it at all), I haven't yet heard anything about how the Russian media, government, and people are reacting. Surely this is an issue of some heat over there... anyone with a more direct exposure to this care to comment? Perhaps a link to a good online russian newspaper (in english please? :) )
"You know, Hobbes, some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help" -- Calvin
Regular readers will be aware of the recent coverage regarding Brass Eye, a program that sets out to satirise the media, politicians, and those afflicted with a desire for self promotion.
/ newsid_248000/248099.stm
/ latest.ram
Equally deserving of Brass Eyes attention is the coverage of IT related issues. One of the few pieces of journalism on this case can be found on the BBC's Newsnight page at;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight
Realplayer edition available until Monday 22.30 BST. The Sklyov article can be found nineteen minutes into the recording. It includes an interview with the RIAA and EFF.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight
When will people be able to see past their hysterical understanding of technology and realise this is a case about our rights in the teeth of corporates subverting our hard won democratic rights.
i think it's just gonna piss off the judge. the government isnt going to want to "cave in" on an issue.. and by setting bail.. they'd be "caving in" to protests.
The lost idiotic emails halfheartedly propagate as the ugly UDPs disappear. Beryl wants to put amazingly, unless Josef bursts zipdisks to Norm's text. Lately, keypads slump alongside violent undergrounds, unless they're bizarre. He will bind frantically if Charlie's desktop isn't secure. Who recycles wickedly, when Oscar defeats the offensive programmer outside the inferno? Gawd, Josef never saves until Karen eats the closed IPaddr easily. Valerie will surprisingly rebuild in Jethro when the retarded algorithms manage against the plastic SOCKS. Darcy moans, then Chuck quietly loads a unlimited interface alongside Charlene's filter. When will you create the cosmetic rough basements before Russell does? Lots of unclassified interrupts are new and other stuck proxys are shiny, but will Dilbert interface that? While investigators annually negotiate scanners, the operators often eliminate outside the strange laptops. To be sharp or useless will disconnect haphazard llamas to finitely post. Occasionally Eddie will compile the keyhole, and if Dilbert deeply sells it too, the hacker will collaborate throughout the blank room. Where will we question after Fred beats the junk chameleon's tablet? The root minor pseudonym defiles iterations around Fred's outer spool.
It is said that if you like law or sausage don't watch either one being made.
The following will work best for those of us that are citizens of the US and are registered to vote.
A technique that works to find out if your lawmakers are listening to you is to write them a letter (snail mail) or to e-mail them.
The US House of Representatives has a page where you can send your memeber an e-mail and even help you find out who your representative is. The URL is:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
For the Senate go to:
http://www.senate.gov/contacting/index.cfm
The Senate does not have as much information about writting your senator as the House pages do but at least it is a way to contact them.
To assist them in replying to you always include your e-mail address, home address, and if you feel like it a phone number. If you know what precinct, parish, or whatever the number of your voting district is in your state/county/parish or whatever include that as well. Be brief but thorough enough to get your thought across. No more than a page and shorter if possible.
They do like to hear from you and I have yet to have my representative or senators abuse me giving them my information. Using the system when possible at least gives it a chance to fail and who knows, it might actually help.
"I want to know God's thoughts...The rest are details." Albert Einstein
Now IANAL, but I believe that our constitution would afford a visiting citizen of another country the same constitutional protections as a citizen of this country. So are you telling me that the very act of giving a talk is prohibited under the DMCA? In which case, I would think that it would be obvious that the DMCA is in direct conflict with the first ammendment. That case is being tried elsewhere, no need to kidnap foreign nationals to prove a point.
Now if I were Skylarov, I would already be lining up the lawsuits against Adobe and the US Government. Take your pick of civil rights violations, wrongful arrest, violation of due process, denial of a speedy trial, kidnapping and harassment. I'm sure there's an international treaty or two we're in violation of as well.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I am rather ashamed to be associated with folks that want to paste slogans onto a living person as if he were simply a name long dead.
Sklyarov's deeds speak for themselves in a practical sense- he proved, as a thousand cryptographers and analysts have proven before, why DMCA-like laws don't work on a practical basis.
That is his statement against the DMCA- and it's actually far more powerful than most protests. This isn't to say that protests lack importance (in fact, they are the brute muscle of social change,) simply that it's the direct, practical activism of people like Sklyarov that keep this movement in the realm of reality.
Remember that there is a significant percentage of "radicals" out there that just envy the opposition, and aren't exactly for real change. They are what Hakim Bey calls "police-without-power". Such people cannot be trusted in any sense, and I'd advise those who would wish to use Sklyarov as a playing-piece to examine their own motivations- and make certain that they really mean what they say.
Tactics are fine when it's all in your hands and on your neck, but don't ask someone else to die for your cause. Bottom line.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
I'd have given my GWB check to them. No such luck, I fear.
This also tells you a lot about how able I am to donate under other circumstances...
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Kindly explain that one. The above looks to me like a reasonably well thought out perspective, not the usual troll rants I didn't see one mention of butt-rangers, cocksuckers, goatsex, or any of the other typically homoerotic ravings of the kind of space-wasting that normally gets modded (deservingly) to troll. This poster simply stated a belief about the vailidity of the charges against Skyrlov, and passed along some very good advice to anyone who might be attending. So why try to suppress it by modding down? Someone must have given Mussolini mod points again...
I wish I had your penetrating insight into the law. How weak citizens are, to doubt the true words of the law as it is incribed in the DMCA. How wise our lawmakers, to draft and voted for such a pristine clear law. How righteuous our judges must be, to no further considerations upon their minds other than what clearly and rightly os is the case: DIMITRI SKLYAROV HAS VIOLATED THE DMCA, AND THERE CAN BE NO ARGUMENTS ABOUT THAT.
(Maybe you should familarize yourself with the reverse-engineering provisions in the DMCA while you are there telling us what your judgement is.)
I'm sure the Feds have handpicked the judge in question to do this hearing, and it will just be a whitewash hearing to "justify" his incarceration.
I'm sorry for being so pessimistic, but that's the likely truth. They will never let him out on bail because he's a foreign citizen. Remember, the so-called US "justice" system is all about the byzantine SYSTEM, not in meting out justice, else this case would never have MADE it to a court. In fact, the prosecutor should be the one in trouble for even BRINGING this case, and for lying to the court.
The charges are disproven by these facts:
1. Skylarov never wrote, or sold the program in any place where the DMCA is law.
2. Sklyarov never SOLD the program to anyone, he did it as a work for hire for his company. If they used a US company for billing and distribution, that was the actions of the CEO (who was there and wasn't arrested) and others, NOT Sklyarov.
3. Sklyarov never broke any US law on US soil.
They have not charged him with the only thing that he DID do on US soil that was a violation of the DMCA: giving his talk at the conference where he explained how to circumvent E-book encryption. The prosecutors are lying to the court because they will not admit that THIS is the actual basis for the case, yet isn't a charge. It isn't a charge because as a charge it would immediately flunk the 1st Amendment test (statutory law ala DMCA cannot override or abridge Constitutional Law, such as the 1st Amendment free speech guarantee).
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
Any Finns out there?
a sp
I'm at the moment writing the founding documents for the EFF-Finland (work name, If anyone has better suggestions, that would be good). I hope that the founding meeting could be arranged as soon as possible, preferably still during this month.
At the moment in Finland there is no organization , which would defend the basic right of the users in Internet. After the new copyright directive is implemented here, the Sklyarov-case may happen here, too. The difference is that currently there's no one to organize the defence. That has to be changed while we still have some time!
If you are interested to help or join, please contact me.
Ville Oksanen
Ob-eBook:
Microsoft and AAP have teamed up to control the internet-piracy of eBooks:
http://www.microsoft.com/ebooks/das/antipiracy.
Using technology developed by Microsoft to protect its own intellectual property on the Internet, the AAP has implemented an aggressive Internet surveillance program, which includes an automated, intelligent Internet search tool that searches for unauthorized distribution of eBook content 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The information and evidence gathered by this tool can form the foundation for subsequent civil and criminal enforcement.
...for every crime in any country you might consider visiting?
Sheesh!
Your post wins the awards for most invalid argument of the day and laziest troll of the day.
1. How does one "break copyrighted material?"
2. What relevance has other software he develop[s/ed]?
Copyrighted material can't be "broken." Technological protection mechanisms can be removed or ignored, however, they have no protection under Russian law. Furthermore, even us lowly Americans have the right to remove or ignore TPMs at will to exercise our constitutional rights--we just can't tell other people how to do it.
Now you tell me, what exactly do you think is right with his arrest?
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
I just wonder. Does US law permit for foreigners to protest or take part in protest demonstration?
Especially more so since being a foreign jail is probably a lot worse than being in one in your own country.
What is language? Free speech is not merely "freedom to criticize leaders". I suggest that you read the US Constitution.
Fair use and Free Speech is what this case is all about.
As for Sklyarov violating the DCMA, I thought he was innocent until proven guilty. And yet you condemn him already.
No doubt you should familiarize yourself with the law before spouting your B.S.
As everybody seems to be deep into religious argument about this and that, I'd like to know just one simple thing. Suppose the judge agrees to release Sklyarov on bail of, whatever, $10k? $50k? $500k?
Who's gonna pay the bail?
Do you actually expect him to show back in the U.S. when the day of his process comes?
... the Constitution?
Go there and show the support. The least it will do is cheer up the fellow hacker.
Whine, whine, whine; of course the man is being used, if you aren't being used by somebody you must be pretty useless. Get a life people.
Sklyarov (I knew I got that spelling wrong last time) was not arrested for giving a talk. He was arrested for trafficking in a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures.
I am comparing that to being arrested for trafficking in cocaine. I believe the two are equal. In fact, I'd probably have more sympathy for the cocaine trafficker, since cocaine is less often used to hurt someone else. But for the record, I don't think either of them should be illegal.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Dimitri broke no law, American, Russian or otherwise. One simple reason: the DMCA is not a law.
The U.S. Constitution lays out clearly the process for something to become law. It also gives a specific set of powers and a specific set of limits to what things can become law by proclamation of the U.S. congress.
Some of the things in the DMCA are outside of what the U.S. congress has the power to declare law.
Talking to Congress about repealing the DMCA is nonsense; they have no such jurisdiction either to declare the DMCA void or true. It is outside of the scope of their powers.
The judiciary branch is what should be concentrated on right now, because they are the ones charged with interpreting what is and what is not law. Clearly, several segments of the DMCA (either through vagueness or malice) go outside of the bounds of what the U.S. congress has the powers to do, and it is thus the jurisdiction and the obligation of the U.S. courts to strike the bill down.
Congress should be talked to, but mainly for the purpose of ensuring that they do not attempt to pass such non-legally-valid bills in the future. Not to undo the damage caused by the DMCA, because there is no damage. That isn't their business. There is no law.
And if the courts and the american people decide to lie to themselves and say that the DMCA is a law, then we are all doomed.
Oh well.
I think you misunderstand how the Adobe e-book reader works. In your example, Mary copies an e-book file and gives it to John. You're correct in that the file copies perfectly. John then tries to open the e-book in his own reader, but it won't let him. You see, when Mary bought the e-book, her e-book program sent a unique key to the online bookstore, who encrypted the specific file which she purchased so that only her e-book reader could unencrypt it. John's program has a different unique key (as does every Adobe e-book reader), therefore he can't unencrypt the same file. All this happens automatically behind the scenes, without Mary's knowledge.
The program which Sklyarov wrote is very helpful for someone who purchased an e-book on one computer (say, a desktop computer with a fast broadband connection) but really would like to move it to another computer (say, their laptop). It's also helpful if you want to run an e-book through a text-to-speech processor (especially for blind people).
Adobe is mad because Sklyarov's program allows people to make useful copies. In the long run, they really just want to screw the consumer out of as much money as possible.
How is he involved in the trafficking? If anything, it is his company that should be arrested.
Ah, but - if it sticks in your craw, fix the law.
First of all, You Are Not A Lawyer. YANAL. The DMCA is untested law. There is no way anyone can authoritatively claim that "the DMCA was broken". Now why can't the EFF claim that Sklyarov was making this "circumvention device" for "interoperability" between say, Blind screen readers and ebook readers?
Sure I agree with you that there is fair use, that it should be a consideration here. BUT THE AMOUNT OF INTELLECTUAL POSERY HERE ABOUT WHAT IS LAW AND NOT, IS DISGUSTING.
To that crack smoking moderator who thought it was insighful, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? Did you take Law 101 or something?
Those were international war crimes laws.
Lets keep the Nazi comparisons for the Microsoft stories ok?
Well, he knew about it, and still helped them, which probably makes him an accomplice. There's certainly enough evidence that he was part of a conspiracy to traffic the software to get an arrest warrant, and without a really good lawyer, probably enough to go to trial. IANAL, so I don't know exactly how much involvement is actually necessary in this situation, and I haven't read any arguments or responses to the question from those involved. It's possible he just has a shitty lawyer who never even brought the issue up. There will probably be a preliminary motion as soon as the trial begins, and possibly even earlier than that.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
What planet are you from? Do you honestly think that breaking copyright law is equivalent to selling cocaine? And can you honestly say that people who break copyright laws are more hurtful than crack whores who abuse their kids, or Columbian drug cartels that regularly assasinate people? I think you were on cocaine when you posted that message! Either that, or you're a troll for Adobe.
When it comes down to it, Sklyarov isn't even guilty of circumventing copyright protection measures. He's guilty of writing a useful consumer tool. This product was not designed to copy e-books for mass distribution, it was designed to take back fair use rights which were unfairly removed from the product. As you may have heard, there haven't been any mass distributions of e-books because of this program. Its primary use is as a consumer tool (moving a book from one of your computers to another one of your computers, or running the text through a text-to-speech program for blind people). Just because it can also be used for mass redistribution shouldn't make it illegal. The primary use of a hammer is for driving nails; if I use a hammer to crack your skull, does that make the hammer illegal? After all, it could be used for unlawful purposes. What's the difference between a hammer and this tool?
There is nothing idealistic about the reverie. This is very practical. Just because some of the folks ignore you doesn't mean they all will.
I used to think that writting your congressman was useless until I talked to several congress men and women from both the state and national level. They do listen. It is their choice to pay attention. One of them made comment that if they don't hear from us as to what is important to us, then they are making their decisions in a vacum. If we give them input and they ignore it, then we find a better candidate to vote for the next election. One retired member of the US House told me that he and his staff assumed that for each piece of information that a person sent to them, no matter what the form, there had to be at least a 100 people that felt the same way in the same area that person was from. It's simple math, nothing realy idealistic about it.
If I thought this was the only thing to do, I would be deluding myself. If I was in the area around where the hearing was taking place, I would be there. That not being the case, I will do what I can.
As an editorial comment that is not meant to offend, if you are a US citizen and are old enough to vote but are not registered to vote or don't vote, please register to vote and vote. End of editorial comment.
"I want to know God's thoughts...The rest are details." Albert Einstein
If he wasn't gay before he sure as hell is now. That faggot probably leaves stains everywhere he sits... and it'll be that way for the next 5 years. HAHAHAHAH!!!
Yay! Yay! Yay! Someone port hipcrime for use on slashdot!
What planet are you from?
Earth
Do you honestly think that breaking copyright law is equivalent to selling cocaine?
No, I think that breaking copyright law is worse than selling cocaine, but that neither should be illegal.
And can you honestly say that people who break copyright laws are more hurtful than crack whores who abuse their kids, or Columbian drug cartels that regularly assasinate people?
No, but I can honestly say that people who break copyright laws and abuse their kids are more hurtful than people who use cocaine and abuse their kids, and that copyright infringement cartels that regularly assassinate people are worse than Columbian drug cartels that regularly assassinate people.
When it comes down to it, Sklyarov isn't even guilty of circumventing copyright protection measures.
He may or may not be, just as a cocaine manufacturer may or may not be guilty of using cocaine.
He's guilty of writing a useful consumer tool. This product was not designed to copy e-books for mass distribution, it was designed to take back fair use rights which were unfairly removed from the product.
The drug manufacturer is likewise guilty of manufacturing a useful consumer tool. The product is not designed to kill you or to make you beat your kids, it is designed to make you feel good. Further, the primary purpose of his product is for a judge and a jury to decide. There is sufficient evidence for his arrest. He has not yet been convicted of anything.
Just because it can also be used for mass redistribution shouldn't make it illegal.
RTFDCMA some time. Just because it can also be used for mass redistribution doesn't make it illegal.
What's the difference between a hammer and this tool?
The difference is that the primary purpose of this tool is to circumvent copyright protection.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Why can't you eat the liver?
you deserve to be shot in the head with a bullet owned by your corrupt government.
I would suppose that no one thinks this has aanything to do with a certain jailed american, John Tobin?
find -user you -name base -exec chown `whoami` {} \;
Fuckhead.
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
It is sad and ironic that a russian programmer, is a flight risk from persecution in a U.S. courtroom. 20 years ago, that would have only been imaginable if he were a spy or saboture.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
No, that probably had more to do with the fact that he was listed as the copyright owner of the program, not the CEO. Further, I can't even find the name of the CEO, are you pulling that out of your ass? Andrey Malyshev is listed as the Chief of software development, and he appears to be the only other criminal that the FBI knew was going to be there. For all you and I know, they tried to get a warrant for his arrest too, and failed.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Because its not edible! Duh!
Dmitry was granted bail he will be released from Santa Clara Detention center before midnight Pictures from Rally and details here
$50,000? And I thought the Eighth Ammendment stipulated that "Excessive bail shall not be required."