Slashdot Mirror


Sklyarov Update

Seth Schoen writes: "Dmitry Sklyarov's arraignment has been rescheduled to Thursday, August 30. It's at the same location where it was originally supposed to take place this past Thursday. The arraignment is scheduled for 9:30am PT, Thursday, August 30. The hearing will be held with US Magistrate Judge Richard Seeborg presiding, in courtroom 4, 5th floor of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Branch, 280 South 1st Street, in San Jose, California." Schoen continues: "This week is also LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in San Francisco. Since many Sklyarov supporters are Linux users, there should be a lot of activity around the conference. Two events have been scheduled this week in San Francisco to take advantage of LinuxWorld:

Free Dmitry party and fundraiser, Wednesday, August 29, 7:30p to midnight, 201 Ritch Street, 2nd floor. (This is walking distance from Moscone Center, where LinuxWorld is being held.)

This party will feature speeches by Lawrence Lessig and Richard Stallman.

Free Dmitry protest march, Thursday, August 30 (same day as the arraignment), leaving Moscone Center at 11:30a, parade through the city to the Burton Federal Building in Civic Center.

Five other events that same day have so far been reported to the freesklyarov.org calendar: Boston, MA; Moscow, Russia; London, UK; Los Angeles, CA; Black Rock City, NV (at the Burning Man festival)."

7 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. Re:is there a schedule of planned protest? by FredGray · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes...have a look at sf.freesklyarov.org.

  2. Growing awarenesss by YIAAL · · Score: 3, Informative

    Check out this oped by Linda Seebach. It's nothing folks here don't know, but it's put together clearly and beautifully for popular consumption. I think it's a sign that the general public is catching on to the dangerous idiocy of the DMCA.

  3. Boston Rally by jonathanjo · · Score: 2, Informative

    We're rallying in Boston on Thursday the 30th, the day of the arraignment. The protest is happening in Copley Square in front of the Boston Public Library, at noon. We're hoping for our biggest turnout since the first protest right after Dmitry's arrest. For more information see boston.freesklyarov.org.

  4. Agreed to... by Psarchasm · · Score: 3, Informative

    CNN...

    "Sklyarov is due to be arraigned Thursday, but both sides will ask a federal judge to postpone the hearing by a week, lead defense attorney Joseph Burton said Wednesday."

    Now I'm not saying that the ENTIRE delay was agreed to by his lawyers - but we are talking about a landmark case here.

    --
    http://windows.scares.us
  5. Re:whatever happened to... by mr_burns · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, he's getting a much speedier trial than Kevin did. He DID get a bail hearing pretty soon after he arrived in San Jose...and he DID get one in Nevada. His arraingment is only a couple weeks after the bail hearing. So he's getting pretty speedy service as far as our judicial system is concerned.

    The issue is that he should not be there in the first place. It doesn't help, distorting the events here. they speak for themselves:

    He was doing something that restored fair use to humanity.

    What he did is legal where he did it.

    The law they're using against him is unconstitutional.

    They are doing this very professionally and efficiently.

    Making the DOJ look like a bunch of potentates doesn't work against the censoring parties as bad as being a very skilled and professional tool of illegal corporate oppression.

    --
    "Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
  6. Re:How long can the US DoJ go on? by COAngler · · Score: 3, Informative
    "Strange things happen under law, but since Adobe has withdrawn it's complaint, how long can the US Department of [in]Justice continue to persue the case? It's going to be real hard to convict Dmitry if Adobe says on the stand "No, of course Rot13 is not encryption.



    Just as a point of clarification:

    In the United States, in criminal matters, the plaintiff is The People(TM). NOT the individual victim. When I wrote someone a summons for vandalism a week or so ago, the form said The People of the City of XXXXXXX, by and for The People of the State of Colorado, vs Defendant.



    It's not unheard of for a victim to decide he doesn't want a case pushed. In point of fact, it happens in about 80% of a certain category of violent crime in my area[1]. However, prosecutors are VERY STRONGLY discouraged from dismissing a case because of an uncooperative victim, because such a practice lends itself to tampering with victims or witnesses.



    Imagine it: You commit a felony crime against someone. He calls the police. A report is taken and referred to the District Cartooney, who files a C&I [2] with the court charging you with the crime. You subsequently influence the victim, somehow, to decide that he doesn't want the case pushed. That's a BIG part of why charging decisions are not left to victims. What kind of influence made him drop the case? What kind of influence did the Mafia use for decades? Hint: Modern street gangs use it too, which is why you can have killings in broad daylight in public where "nobody saw anything."

    In cases without mandatory charging laws,[3] a complaint can be dismissed by a prosecutor. It's called "discretion." It's, unfortunately, most obvious in sexual assault cases, as it's damn near impossible to make a case without a cooperative victim on the witness stand. Once the case is bound over for trial, the DA has no obligation to drop it, but no prosecutor is going to push an unwinnable case. Refusing to testify can be contempt of court, but the usual practice is to consider that certain classes of victims have suffered enough.



    Getting back to the point: It's not Adobe's decision. It's the US Attorney's decision, for the US Cartooney in the district in which the charges were brought (Northern California?). Ina case like this, in which the victim's victimhood is unclear and the defendant's criminal purpose is doubtful, a prosecutor would probably be very receptive to such a suggestion by Adobe. However, the US Cartooney is the ONLY person with the power to dismiss the charges. (Or the judge, but he can only do it if there's no probable cause to believe Skylarov did the prohibited act. Given where the case stands, that means the judge has no power to dismiss the charges.)



    [1] Domestic violence offenses. But those aren't news for nerds, and I guess they don't constitute stuff that matters to anyone but the victim, her kids, and the cops who have to rescue her ass every other month.



    [2] Complaint and Information, the name of the document that's filed with a court to begin a felony criminal case. In my state, they're filed with the county court and beging with "The District Attorney in and for the Sixth Judicial District informs the court that..." which explains the odd name.

    [3] In my state, Domestic Violence and restraining order violations. A peace officer who develops probable cause to believe someone committed either is legally REQUIRED to arrest that person and book him into jail. A prosecutor is FORBIDDEN to drop the charges unless he can satisfy the court that guilt cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. THis is because we let DV's go for so long without taking them seriously, and the price for that is being paid in a lot of blood and tears.

  7. Re:Finally, some news from Russia by ehintz · · Score: 2, Informative

    When this whole thing started, I remember thinking about this very thing...where is the outrage from the Russian government? The citizens of Russia probably don't have the same quality of information channels Westerners do, which is probably why it's taken this long for the first protests to be organized.

    Uhmm, sorry to burst your bubble there, but this is at least the third protest in Moscow, with the first being waaay back on 25 July. Read about it, and all the others (and see pictures) here.

    policies we disagree with, and seeing how our government works not just for citizens but for anyone who wants a piece of the pie to have our freedoms, I can't help but be thankful that I'm lucky enough to live here.

    Our government works "not just for citizens"? I'm not quite sure I remember the last time our government worked for citizens (other than corporate ones), but it sure as hell was a long damn time ago. Perhaps that sentence would read better if you simply remove the word "just". Dima sure as hell doesn't feel like our government is giving him some of our "freedoms". Here's how I'd suggest rewriting that line: our government works not for citizens but for anyone who wants a piece of the pie, or to have our freedoms. Seems a lot closer to my reality now...

    --
    ehintz