Slashdot Mirror
Sklyarov Case Exposes DMCA Contradictions
aePrime writes: "This article on the New York Times describes how the case against Dmitri Sklyarov is bringing up some contridictions within the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One is allowed to bypass security measures to backup data, but one is not allowed to write the software to bypass the security. It mentions how this first case to be prosecuted under the law may indeed cause changes to the law." A lot of bad laws have stuck around for longer than the DMCA has yet, but the more this kind of analysis is seen, the sooner sanity can be restored.
Once similar cases start growing in number in which the non-computer-geek common man finds their rights limited by copy protection, the case against DMCA will grow as well.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/
http://www.tuxers.net/dmca/
"I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
This law has been around for three years now, and I don't think it's likely to dissappear in any shorter time than that. The Skylarov case is certainly going to be a landmark one, which means that it will almost certainly see the Federal Appeals Courts, and, if they grant it considerations, the supreme court. Boucher ammendment aside, I know that there are those among us who will continue to argue that outlawing the writing of code is a violation of the first amendment to the U.S. Consitution ("The Congress shall make no law . . . . abridging the freedom of Speech or of the Press . . .").
At least they finally let him out on bail. My lord he looks tired in that picture.
\
Of course most people would not be using the Linux client to crack unauthorized emails but to access ones addressed to them. And of course the Linux client is not really the crucial part here, since Bob could conceivably have used the MS program -- it was the interception that was wrong. But the RIAA, MPAA, and other evil acroynyms have been arguing that a single infringing use -- even one entirely hypothetical -- is enough to open the developer to charges or suit under the DMCA.
The DMCA is a bad law because of its creeping featurism. In the 21st century, copyright law will become one of the major areas of law at all.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
The DMCA written on toilet paper!!!
I hope that link isn't an illegal circumvention device!
For those of you who have been elsewhere for the past few months, you can check out the following page on the subject at the EFF. Another page has a link to the act, in PDF.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Okay, bring it on. I can take it. More DMCA.
Shouldn't we have a Code Red IV, The Voyage Home, where Skylarov travels back in time before the DMCA and can go home? A whale of a good tail.
Slashdot: Everything in Moderation, including Moderation itself.
You know, it occured to me over the weekend that the present spate of bad laws are based on the assumption that corporations have an entitlement to make a profit on distributing things digitally. And it's that sense of entitlement that results in laws that violate our constitutional rights.
Why don't we chuck out the sense of entitlement, and the laws trying to enforce it, and just tell businesses that if they want to be profitable in the cyberage, they need to come up with a business plan that actually works in the cyberage.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
"Ms. Samole said she ended up downloading a pirated version of "Fight Club," which is how she intends to obtain her movies in the future. "I'm completely alienated," she said. "I'm never going to rent a DVD again." Hmmm... thats what people will start doing.. something akin to civil dis-obedience. Nothing would be more frustrating than not able to watch the DVD you bought.. and only a fool will make the same mistake again... Those morons are going to dig their own grave... meanwhile i am going to shrug the atlas and sit back and watch them die.
From the article:
The Library of Congress is now considering whether to recommend other exceptions to the law. Many libraries and other educational institutions want an exception that would let individuals circumvent a copy- control technology in order to copy portions of a work for use in parody, scholarship or criticism -- purposes protected under the "fair use" doctrine of traditional copyright law.
This is the sticking point of the DMCA with me; it strips away whatever bit of fair-use doctrine we once enjoyed. No wonder most people don't like it, no one wants to lose rights they once had.
This is all fine and good, but people still have to prove they cracked whatever encryption in order to make a parody, etc. It makes for more complications in the long run.
It seems to be a poor substitute for examining its constitutionality to see if the law should still even exist.
http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/08/13/technology/ ebusiness/13NECO.html?0813inside
Can't article submitters please take the easy step of replacing www with archives? It works every time.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
What I'm wondering is, what exactly do they want with Sklyarov?
I mean, he broke *US LAW* whilst IN RUSSIA... and now they're prosecuting him in the US.
After taking that into account... what do they hope to achieve? Its unlikely that he has much money that anyone can sue him for... so they just want to keep a prisoner, basically?
What if Russia arrested and held an American for breaking a Russian law whilst in America?!? I bet there'd be a helluva lot of demands going on by the US.
The US seems to have a lot of double standards in terms of what it expects from other countries contrasted with what it allows other countries.
The DMCA is only part of the deal.
It seems to me that in this whole debate, we need to make clear the difference between COPYright and ACCESSright. That's the real rub about the DMCA, it legally transforms copyright into accessright, and gives the copyright holder new controls not previously granted.
It is supposedly about preventing unauthorized copying. But in reality does little to prevent it and puts the publishing industries in the driver's seat in a new way.
The REAL fear here is if we get to the point where all 'media player devices' (not necessarily related to Microsoft media player) play only DMCA-encumbered media - where you can't even play non-access-controlled media if you wanted to. Then free speech and discourse necessary for democracy are in deep trouble.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
tar -xvzf dmca.tar.gz
./configure ./config.cache /usr/bin/install -c
cd dmca
creating cache
checking for extra includes... no
checking for extra libs... no
checking for a BSD compatible install...
checking whether legal environment is sane... no
*Exit with error code 1
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
While sitting in your warm bedroom or at your cool office saying how great it was that he was arrested so that the law can be challenged in court, Dmitri is most likely sitting in a one room cell with little but a cot, metal toilet, and TV down the hall. His family is most likely sick with worry since they realize that there is little to nothing that they can do. Any time an American (born or recent addition) is imprisoned for a crime in some foreign, there is often a public (US) outcry. In the Spring of 1994, an 18-year-old Michael Fay, was caned in Singapore for spray painting cars. Many in the United States expressed outrage at the primitive brutality of the punishment. Even President Clinton expressed his dismay and criticized the punishment as cruel and close to barbarism and torture. I really doubt Dmitri is glad to play a small part at the legal challenge of the DMCA. If you were in that position, your lawyer would most likely suggest (and you would accept) that if you can be quietly get let off with time served and a small fine that you accept it. If my lawyer were to suggest, 'we're going to fight this until your bitter end', then I'll be asking for new representation. Poor Dmitri is being used as a pawn by both sides. Corporate America is using him to scare the programming community into submission (i.e. you're next) and the community is using him to strike down a law.
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
Juries do not get to decide if a law if legal.
Apparently you've never heard of jury nullification. You most certainly *do* have the right to decide if a law is legal when you are on a jury.
"Bite me, it's fun!" - Crowe T. Robot
Marybeth Peters, the chief of the United States Copyright Office, said that the exception was still meaningful, even without a market for anti- circumvention devices, because it allowed individuals to figure out for themselves how to go around a technological control measure.
/.ers couldn't even handle this.
"Many of the people I know can come up with a program to do it themselves, without being in the business of doing it," Ms. Peters said.
She has GOT to be kidding if she thinks the average consumer has the ability to design tools that will allow them to access there fair use rights. This is idiotic. Most
What she is suggesting would be like if wrenches were illegal, but you could make your own to fix your faucet that is leaking. "We believe the average consumer will find a way to make the wrenches they need." Sorry, but most people do not have the knowledge, expertise, or equipment to make wrenches. If you think most people can write code that will crack encryption, you shouldn't buy that new Lexus you have been looking at. Why not build you own car?
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
Marybeth Peters, the chief of the United States Copyright Office, said that the exception was still meaningful, even without a market for anti- circumvention devices, because it allowed individuals to figure out for themselves how to go around a technological control measure. "Many of the people I know can come up with a program to do it themselves, without being in the business of doing it," Ms. Peters said.
So, according to the US copyright office, hacking e-books is a common skill? In fact, a neccessary skill to excersize our rights?Dmitry's company made an extremely smart move in hiring Joe Burton for their lawyer here. He's the same one who represented Kelly Goen and Phil Zimmerman when they were being investigated by the Grand Jury for PGP.
Joe Burton is arguably the best lawyer in the world for this case. Not only is he experienced in this area, he's an ex-Fed prosecutor (IIRC) and knows all the people involved on the Government side of things. He also believed strongly in the rights of people to use strong cryptography, and represented Kelly and Phil for free.
IMHO he's a rare bird; and I wish we had more like him.
Here's another extremely little known fact about the PGP case. Joe wouldn't touch handling suing the Feds involved with a ten-foot pole for violating Phil and Kelly's constitutional rights on Freedom of Speech with PGP. Apparantly he's still a little too close to some of the Feds to do this.
But I still think he's the best person for handling the criminal case. I would personally choose another for handling the civil-rights violation countersuit against Adobe and the Feds though. It will be interesting to see who's the best lawyer for this one.
Dmitry must have had some clue he was in something of a grey area when he decided to come to America to present his work at a hacker convention (I mean, it's Def Con, not the O'Reilly Open Source convention, after all). If he was so completely unaware of the potential for his situation to go this way, then I'd have to ask who invited him here without giving him some background and pointing out some potential risks. He's Russian, he should have an understanding of what it means to go against the political will of the local secret police (in our case, the FBI). That the Russian secret police don't give a damn about copyrights (in part because their laws are different) doesn't mitigate the fact that the secret police in the USA do-- and are not known for how they treat Russian computer experts.
But he is a hero either way, because the definition of "hero" does not always require the subject to have high-minded, lofty goals at the outset. He is quite possibly going to be central in overturning this law, or he will be one of the most obvious victims of it-- in a way that Eric Corley can never be. I fully expect "Free Dmitry" to replace Mitnick references... at least the new rallying cry will have a more ethical foundation.
I do not have a signature
"Adobe no longer wants Sklyarov prosecuted. And I'm sure, neither does the MPAA or RIAA"
This is more than a bit naive, I am afraid. Adobe is trying for the best of both worlds here: intimidating anyone who seeks to reverse-engineer their code, AND endear themselves to the anti-DMCA crowd as being "reasonable" and "open to negotiation". An iron bar wrapped in a happy-face marshmallow.
Same with RIAA: if charges are dropped now, intimidation is successful without taking the risk of the law they purchased being overthrown.
sPh
As much as I'd like to see the charges tossed out now (I doubt that DS wants to be a pawn in this... he probably just wants to go back to Russia), going to trial could be quite helpful. Unlike the 2600 trial, this one could easily be painted in a better light.
One of the things his software is capable of doing is to allow blind people to read these e-books. Imagine THAT testimony in front of a jury!
And what would Adobe's representatives say when they take the stand? (and you can be sure that they will) They backed off once. Will they say "No, this hasn't hurt us." Or will they backtrack once again and call for him to be put in jail. Surely their calls to have him released will enter into the testimony?
No jury of "average" Americans will be able to wrap their heads around the technical issues of the DMCA. It's going to be the simple things like "this software allows blind people to read e-books" that will sway them one way or the other.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
"I wonder if there's a way to write to Sklyarov and to donate money for his defense? Even if the charges are dropped, which I certainly hope for, I'd consider that money well spent (a small compensation for mental pain and suffering)."
Since the Internet started to become widely popular (say around 1994-1995) I have watched a number of on-line political hoo-haa's. The furor over the Communications Decency Act I & II comes to mind.
In all of these cases I have noticed a common thread: lots of people are willing to hit the "R" key in the e-mail program and contribute a fresh rant to the discussion. Very, very few people are willing to actually DO anything that might make a difference.
OK guys, this one's important. This is pretty much a key battleground in the future of on-line rights.
In that vein, here's a suggestion: (a) get out your _manual_ typewriter and write a letter to your three members of Congress explaining your views on this situation (b) contribute $100 each to DS's legal defense fund and a fund for his family's well-being (c) write out 3 checks for $50 each to your congresspeople's re-election fund.
Now, if in 6 weeks or so I see $10 million in DS's defense fund and 150,000 letters received on Capitol Hill, then I will think that on-line activitism means something.
My prediction: $10,000, a couple of hundred letters (remember - typewritten, hand-signed, stamped, and mailed). Net effect: ZERO.
sPh
Congress has already passed legislation to remedy the situation.
What if the whole affair about copyright and fair-use a red herring designed to distract attention from the real game: making it illegal to write software that competes in any way whatsoever with Microsoft's own work.
My blog