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.
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
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
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 hope that they make an example of Sklyarov. It is time for the pendulum to swing the other way. For the last 2 years, Internet users have run roughshod over the rights of IP owners -- be it record labels, publishers, what have you.
This isn't what the promise of the Internet was all about. Time to put an end to it, and it starts here.
I do not understand, as much as I've tried, how it can possibly be conceived that encrypting something prevents it from being copied. It doesn't. Therefore I do not see how something that unencrypts something can be considered a "copyright circumvention device".
Let's say that Mary has an e-book and she wants to share it with John. How does she do this? She makes a copy of it. Now the supposed problem here is that her e-book is encrypted right? Wrong. There is no problem. When she makes a copy is encrypted but when John loads it into his e-book ta-da! He can read it because his e-book unencrypts it in order to display it!
Encrypted or not you can still make copies so how is software that unencrypts a piece of data considered a "copyright circumvention device"?
--
Garett
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
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.
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'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
So you'd be better off if you hadn't gone? The secret of a true tyranny like the one you describe is that, under it, even the upright are not safe.
A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend upon the support of Paul. George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
A VCR can be used to copy videos so that people who haven't paid for them can use them. Are you saying that people who make VCRs should also be arrested?
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
To convince the judge to not enforce the law (judge-nullification??)
You say that like it's a bad thing, or even novel.
Yes indeed, the courts do in fact have the power to strike down unjust or even unpopular laws. That is exactly and precisely why the judiciary is a third, separate branch of government, not subsumed under the Legislative or Administrative branches.
In the wrong hands, sanity is a dangerous weapon.
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.
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.