Slashdot Mirror
US Copyright Office Releases DMCA Advisory Report
snogwozzle writes: "The US Copyright Office's congressionally-mandated advisory report on the effect of the DMCA is in, and at first glance it doesn't look too good. They're against undoing the definition of temporary RAM buffer copies as possibly infringing (which Jessica Litman in Digital Copyright pegged as perhaps the central dirty trick in the DMCA as it opens the door to technical access control by publishers) is turned down, so is a first sale doctrine for digitally distributed works, and the DMCA's effect on fair use is called out of scope for the report. On the other hand, they think everyone should have a backup right for media bought in digital form, like we have for software." Keep in mind that this is only looking at the DMCA's effect on the "first sale doctrine" (once a work is sold to you, the copyright holder can't stop you from re-selling it) and on the legal right to make backup copies of a computer program.
The DMCA has been rated A for Awful by the US Copyright Office.
Oh how I would like to see that happen.
What I find Strange about this is that it says about halfway through that the Copyright office and the NTIA both issued a Notice of Inquiry (a request for public comment). In response to this notice, the recieved 30 comments. Only 30!!! How many people on slashdot alone has the DMCA brought to a raging boil?? A shitload. Why only 30 comments then?? Another example of how the bureaucracy that has taken over in this country makes it nearly impossible to take part in the process. How do you find out about things like this? I've written my congressman about the DMCA, but this may have been a better forum in which to voice these particular concerns... AAARRGH.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
It's amazing how much of the really important issues are 'out of scope'. Certainly convenient for the authors of the report... I have to look back at the congressional mandate to see exactly what was requires. It seems this report if woefully lacking...
OF course, in the areas in which we're all interested, there is some frightning stuff. I'm not sure I want to know about the office's interpretation of some of the other items...(cuz ignorance is bliss... - well, no we tried that from 1998 to 2000 when the DMCA went into effect)...
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I don't actually have to read the thing to take part in /. discussions, do I?
Bill, hasn't got the WPIconicSymbolsA font.
This may actually be good news. There's a building sentiment that DMCA is horrible and should be repealed or reworked. The worst thing we could get would be a workaround that would be good enough to save DMCA as it is, but without fixing the main problems.
InstaPundit! Ahead of the Curve Since 30 Minutes Ago
This echoes the letters that I just sent to the 4 Congressmen for my state. Basically, besides the "Free Skylarov" message, I told them that you should have a right to the content of something you buy, and that converting its form for viewing on other platforms or making backups should not be illegal. Hence, if I own a DVD, I should be able to watch it on Linux. If I buy an eBook, I should be able to convert it, print it, or do whatever I want with it, provided, of course, that I don't redistribute or sell it. This isn't about piracy, its about having access to something you already paid for.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Before people go ranting and raving about the DMCA, take some time to poke around these sites:
Full text of the DMCA (see section 1201)
Legislative history of the DMCA
Prof. Touretzky's page (lots of great resources here)
General DMCA/DeCSS paper
I'm sure that there's a bunch of other places where you can go grab some knowledge...if you have any good links, post them below, because I'd be interested in reading more...
Juiced? Or Not?
Rights? We don't have rights. We exchanged those old useless things for free school lunches and Medicare.
The next time you get stopped at a DUI checkpoint and asked for your papers and destination, ask the uniform about your Fourth Amendment rights. You'll be grabbing the trunk and wishing you had kept quiet.
Rights! You guys are so cute.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
My next step was to email microsoft about this, and find out what was the problem. As it turns out, you cannot sell this particular software without the original box and install manuals. I explained that I have never kept a box, and the manuals are useless. So, I still have a Windows NT 4.0 CD that I will not use again, and am unable to sell it or transfer ownership to another company.
I tell this only to let you all know that our abilities to resell items can be hindered by licensing. Legislation like DMCA will give unnecessary power to license-givers, and the consumer will suffer. Imagine if you are next told in your end-user license agreement that you can never resell the software you have purchased!
Click here or here.
The Washington Post article has quotes from the eff and American Library Association and a paragraph on Skylarov.
Best Slashdot Co
Free Mac Mini
Copyright Office Needs Comments On DMCA By March 31
Posted by timothy on Saturday March 18, @09:09PM
from the calm-collected-rational-and-persuasive dept.
Best Slashdot Co
Since the US Copyright Office is pretty much a rubber stamp for industry negotiations over what the next copyright law will look like, allowing congress to abdicate their responsibility to protect the interests of the people, it should be no surprise to anyone that the report basically upholds the DMCA provisions. It's interesting how they claim that backup copies are exempt, but the law ought to be modified to explicitly prohibit sharing of these copies. Hell, at this point, it's prohibited to share the originals, so why bother?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
But there are other concerns that are better, more poignant, as they impacts the emulation community. One court has held that Section 117 does not excuse the making of purported backup copies of a video game embodied in ROM, because that particular storage medium is not vulnerable to "damage by mechanical or electrical failure".
Excuse me?? I've seen ROM chips blasted right off circuit boards due to voltage spikes. I know that the CDROM in my Playstation could easily get off-kilter and trash a CD beyond repair before I could stop it. But alas, this is the language of the law - dumping ROMs of any form is illegal because ROMs aren't killable, so thinks the court system.
The report reads in a contradictory fashion. They solicit views from the public against the sections of the DCMA, then get opinions from copyright holders backing the DCMA. Even their own recommendations are contradictory! Example:
1) The people writing the report feel that arguments against Section 1201 generally aren't valid (detailing the `first sale` doctrine - once a work is sold, you can do whatever you want to it [`disposition of the work`]). This section limits the rights of the copyright authors after a sale is made.
The specific grievance they haul out is CSS/De-CSS. They feel that altering first sale priviledges to require that all devices be capable of playing DVDs would be like demanding that PCs could play VHS tapes -- when, clearly, this isn't the issue at hand. They reporting group intentionally misconstrues this in their report. Then they go on to say that while CSS and region encoding may well destroy a market for reselling the used DVDs due to limited playability, that this action is not covered as a right by the first sale doctrine, so nobody's really losing anything in the scope of this law.
2) Not a half page later, the reporting group proceeds to state, -in writing-, that using encryption technology to tether a program or medium to a particular system a la WMV encryption. They state that copying a tethered copy onto a zip disk or CDRW is a useless exercise, since taking it to another system wouldn't work, regardless of whether or not you own the copyright to the media in question. This limits the ability to exercise control over the disposition of the work.
The paper notes that this limitation halfway violates the first sale doctrine, because circumventing the tethering protection in order to exercise your rights under the first sale doctrine would entail violating section 1201 as amended by the DCMA.
Does not CSS encoding and regional encoding tether your DVD to a particular player-type? If I carry my region-1 DVD to Asia, is it not preventing me from watching my licensed and owned DVD? Furthermore, if I seek to alter the disposition of the work - say, rip the DVD to MPG form so I can watch it on my computer - does not CSS encryption prevent me from exercising my rights under section 1201, as tethering technology does?
I swear, the more I read, the more infuriated I become. And congress is -reading- this slop.
As for making backup copies -- and circumventing copy protection to do so, which the DCMA prohibits -- the reporting group found that the ability to make or not make archival copies of software has little real impact on consumers as a whole. Thanks, guys - I'm not your average consumer.
They state that, for one, most copy prohibition is due to the software license itself not allowing you to make copies, so Section 117 never comes into play, as you're limited before you ever even think about the Copyright Act. Next, they say that if the software has no copy protection or licensing restriction, you can go ahead and make your one archive copy -- as per 117. Third, they state that most software comes on CDROMs, and that CDROMs *are their own archive copy*. Remember, ROM media is not vulnerable to destruction via mechanical or electronic forces. I suppose they've never seen a CD scratched beyond all recognition. *shakes his head*
The report is also loaded with obviousness.
"The recent phenomenon of the popularity of using Napster to obtain unauthorized copies of works strongly suggests that some members of the public will infringe copyright when the likelihood of detection and punishment is low."
Indeed. I wonder how much that little gem cost America's taxpayers to prepare.
All in all, I'm highly disappointed in the scope of this report, the effort expended by the people who wrote it, and the recommendations they make. I suppose I'll simply have to continue being an outlaw; these laws do not suit my idea of my rights after the first sale doctrine has been applied.
-
Wingchild
...because if I move with my Zone 2 collection to the US, 98% of the people there can't play my disc, if I tried selling them. Of course they can buy it and use it as a coaster if they like, but...
What really pisses me of is Californian law. If I, a norwegian citizen, choose to exercise my right to transfer a DVD to a different medium (e.g. a CD) explicitly granted to me by norwegian law, on my property (my DVD record), in Norway, being under no contract (or AUP, or EULA) with anybody, you would think that is legal right?
Wrong. Under Californian law, I can be sued there because it is considered an attack on the MPAAs interests which reside in California, to create a tool, *which is nessecerry to exercise my norwegian rights*, that can convert the DVD to a different format, because such a program must circumvent the copyright protection. In other word, I can be sued by a state in a *foreign* country for making a tool that *if* spread to foreign countries *could* be used for piracy.
In fact, this is reducing my fair use rights, and everybody outside California's rights to those granted in California. I believe the DMCA to be blatantly unconstiutional in the US, but that is besides the point. I find the law to be violating national soverignity, by extending it's domain to the entire world.
The only intern- and transnational courts I will answer to, are those granted authority by us, specifically the EU/EFTA-courts, and the international court in Haag. If I am ever arrested based on Californian law, I will consider them hired bandits acting for the MPAA under cover of practicing justice.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
CSS and first sale issues are completely ripped apart. They argue that the requirement to view DVDs on non-licensed devices is akin to requiring VHS tapes to be watched on Beta machines. The analogy is so poor and revealing of how clueless the Copyright Office is to the issue that it makes me despair.
So far the report has been, imnsho, uninsightful and focused on the here and now. The DMCA is doing what it is "supposed to be doing" and all that hippy protest stuff isn't very relevent. This is what your congress-critter is going to get out of this report after it is digested by some staff member. I reserve the right to change my opinion once I'm done with the other 98 percent of Section III but my initial reaction is no, this is bad news.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
And Digital Media is not the same as tangible items.
"Digital transmission of a work does not implicate the alienability of a physical artifact. When a work is transmitted, the sender is not exercising common-law dominion over an item of personal property; he is exercising the central copyright right of reproduction with respect to the intangible work. Conversely, the copyright owner's reproduction right does not interfere at all with the ability of the owner of the physical copy to dispose of ownership or possession of that copy, since the first sale doctrine applies fully with respect to the tangible object (e.g., the user's hard drive) in which the work is embodied."
In other words when you copy anything in a digital form it's not only as good as the original it's IDENTICAL. Which means...
"The concerns that animate the first sale doctrine do not apply to the transmission of works in digital form."
I.E. Fair use laws DO NOT apply in terms of digital media.
I read Slashdot for the
They argue that the requirement to view DVDs on non-licensed devices is akin to requiring VHS tapes to be watched on Beta machines. The analogy is so poor and revealing of how clueless the Copyright Office is to the issue that it makes me despair.
If I was evil, I'd use the exact same analogy to the anti-DMCA sentiment come off as petty liberal sticklers.
I appreciate anything that vindicates my apathy for your petty little freedom to write compatable software. Who are you to tell me what you can do with my copyrighted material? It's my right to be able to securly distribute my copyrighted material without the fear it's going to be Napsterized.
Try playing the Devil's advocate and see how easy it is to not give a shit about details when you're trying to manipulate the public.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Some good with the bad:
1. The copyright office recognizes that backups are often done on a "whole device" basis, data and all. The current archival exception doesn't actually protect this right -- it covers only computer programs. Although there is a good case for finding fair use, the CO recommends a statutory change protecting the right to do backups this way.
2. Though against a wholesale exemption of RAM copies as infringement, the CO supports special legislative exemption for streaming reproduction of licensed digital works.
Though carefully worded and limited, any official support for a right to make temporary buffer copies that are essential to the purpose of using properly licensed works for their fundamental purpose is a good thing.
Question for people who've actually read the DMCA. If I sell house door locks and don't tell people that I have a master key for all their houses, can I sue anyone who squeals for violating the DMCA? After all, there are books, videos, and other copyrighted materials in people's houses, so such knowledge could be used for copyright violation. Could someone who's actually looked at the DMCA give a pointer to the relevant part?
I wrote my Senator complaining about the DMCA a month or so ago and here's the response I got. It doesn't look good.
Dear Mr Keal:
Thank you for writing to me about the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act.
I have always believed that the protection of intellectual
property rights is as important as the protection of any other
property right. Moreover, the protection of intellectual property is
vital to a flourishing economy -- particularly in California.
America's music, movie, and software industries are second to
none, and we export far more intellectual property than we import.
This is good for employment, and good for consumers.
Without strong copyright protections, the incentive to
innovate would be diminished. In fact, this issue was so important
to the Founding Fathers that the ability of Congress to protect
copyrights is actually written into our Constitution itself.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act was Congress'
attempt to address the issue of copyright protection in a new,
digital age. As new technologies have developed over the past few
years, it has become increasingly difficult to protect intellectual
property from illegal copying and distribution. It is a delicate
balance, to be sure -- nobody wants to restrict the development of
new and exciting technologies, but we must work to prevent the
creation of perfect, digital copies of copyrighted works which can
be illegally distributed throughout the world.
Please be assured that I understand your concerns, and I
will keep your views in mind.
If you have other questions or comments, please do not
hesitate to write to me again, or contact my Washington, D.C. staff
at (202) 224-3841.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
http://feinstein.senate.gov
Which IS covered by the Constitution- no matter wat California says, they can't usurp that little thing called the Bill Of Rights.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
the DMCA's effect on fair use is called out of scope for the report.
Or in other words, "We know it destroys fair use, but we don't care as long as we keep getting brib^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions from the large media cartels."
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
This argument makes no sense, and makes me believe it was written by a shill. Although circumstances can cause a piece of media to become worthless, the causes are mostly out of the distributors control. What we are talking about is equipment manufacturers and media conglomerates (who are often one and the same) _colluding_ to control the distribution of media.
Taken to the extreme ,if I bought a DVD and found that I could only sell the DVD to people who lived within 5 miles of me due to the whims of the DVD consortium, this would almost certainly limit the market which I could sell it, and be an undefendible practice. The author might have tried to make the argument that since DVD regions are large, the market is not severely limted by region encoding, but they chose not to. Even this argument is not really supported by the facts, since there is clearly an nonzero demand for imported DVDs due to pricing descrepencies between the different regions.
The author of this text is presenting the view that the intent of the distributor doesn't matter, which may or may not be the case with regard to copyright law, but is not true on the face of it. Whether DVD encoding is illegally limiting first sale doctrine is something needs to be worked out by looking closely at the law and certainly isn't an argument that is "without merit"
The worst part about losing the "first sale" qualities of a product is that that product will likely be sold for about the same amount, but carries a much lower value for the consumer.
Basically, this is a HUGE gob of inflation in the ecomomy - but it's inflation that won't be measured or accounted for in "cost of living" calculations, and will slip under the radar. Life will be perceptibly more difficult for consumers, but nobody's going to make an adjustment for it for people who are on fixed incomes, etc.
I believe this is also the main aim of "market segmentation strategies". Lower the value of the product for the consumer so you can give the appearance of not raising prices. Rake in profits for "prosumer" and high-end market segments that can bear the cost, and can't bear the lower value of the product (usually through technical crippling or inconvenient feature-bundling) - though that product has the same manufacturing cost as the low-end version. In effect, you increase profits, and you're getting more money from the consumer per intangible, unmeasurable "units of quality", without being accused of price-gouging, or feeding the inflation demons.
Of course, this kind of strategy only works in the absence of competition. And it's working very well today, and I suspect it will be working extremely well in the future.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It is apparent to me that we are witnessing the effects of answering to a legislature unversed in and unused to the current state of our technological culture. Sure, they understand the effects of technology's cultural advancements on their supporter's bottom lines, but they don't understand the effects of those advancements on the end user. THEY have never really been the end user.
Now, in an atmosphere of self-serving corruption led by gargantuan special interest groups, they are scrambling to pick up pieces and make laws that put this technology in a perspective they can understand. It makes sense that these laws support the big corporations and associations that will benefit most from the regulation. Afterall, who is educating our congressmen? The MPAA, RIAA, Microsoft, etc. These conglomerates have an immeasurable headstart on us, because they've had their foot in the door and hands down the pants of the House and Senate for decades! Anyone you help educate is going to learn what YOU teach them. Imagine what happens when you have a legislature sorely lacking in technological education being educated by people whose agenda includes technological regulation for the sake of their bottom-line?
The question we have to answer is relatively simple: Which of us is going to stand up and begin educating our congressmen as to the REALITY of the cultural advancements of technology? Who is going to teach them what it means to be an end user? I don't think that writing individual letters to our congressmen is the answer. I think that each one of us writing a letter expressing our individual views will water down the message that this kind of regulation is WRONG. It will beget the same reaction as each of us writing to legalize marijuana, LSD, cocaine, etc.
What we need is a single concerted effort--the only way any dissention has ever resulted in success. Imagine if Martin Luther King, Jr. had asked each and every black person in the US to just write a letter to his/her congressman asking for an end to segregation... Sometime soon, all of these voices protesting the immorality of the DMCA must gather together and approach congress in an organized fashion. Begin holding educational workshops for your legislators, giving speeches on the effects of such draconian regulation on end-user's rights, the unconstitionality of the DMCA and its like.
I fear, as do many of you, that unless such an effort is made, we will soon see ourselves fighting this battle beneath an already well-established DMCA.
Otto
hm . word for word, the same exact reply I got from her almost a year ago. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I don't like this idea at all. Too many of the 5 posts are complete crap which know not what they're talking about. Take the Dmitry case for instance. I've seen far too many 5, Insightful, posts about how it's so horrible that he was arrested for giving a speech. Of course anyone actually following the case knows that the speech had nothing to do with the indictment. The proper way to get insightful posts to the proper people is A) for the person who wrote them to also write to the appropriate people and B) for others with the same viewpoint to read those posts and incorporate them into their comments.
Forcing people to post in PDF format was a good thing. It helped separate those who actually had insight into the situation from those "click me if you disagree with the DMCA and I'll automatically send a letter to congress for you". The U.S. was set up to avoid democracy where every person is expected to give their vote on every opinion. Congress is there to hear the facts and to make their own opinions, and the voice of the people comes at election time.
If you have facts, by all means present them to your congresscritters. But spamming them with "Me Too" letters does nothing more than decrease the signal/noise ratio and keep them from making the right decisions. If they cared about your opinion they'd look at polls, or start their own.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
Pondering about the subject of the DMCA, I have reached an interesting insight.
The legislators of the DMCA saw a strange situation. Mega-Corporations are producing digital content, gaurded with various kinds of "protection" systems to prevent certain uses of thier content, and to allegedly enforce their copyrights. Then, "hackers" come and circumvent this protection, publicly posting their results. This situation of cat-and-mouse race sounds unreasonable. Either the rights of the copyright owners should be protected and it should be illegal to circument them (as the DMCA suggests), or (and this is what should have been decided) that the "protection" mecahnisms themselves are unethical and bypass the fair-use rights and the expiration of copyright.
The answer therefore is that they passed the wrong law. It's not illegal to circumvent the "protection" mecanisms. The mecanisms themselves contradict the fair-use rights that have been established.
The law that should have been passed, is one preventing use of any mechanism that prevents exercising of fair-use rights by legitimate owners. If the court decided I'm entitled to fair use rights, Mega Company X cannot deny me of those rights.
Right?
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
...All I see are trees!
Without strong copyright protections, the incentive to
innovate would be diminished. In fact, this issue was so important
to the Founding Fathers that the ability of Congress to protect
copyrights is actually written into our Constitution itself.
I can't figure out if this woman is really ignorant, or just does a good job at playing that way as long as the cash keeps rolling in... Someone should point out the other things "actually written into our Constitution", like say the first amendment rights of free speech (Which the DMCA does away with if you are using those pesky rights to talk about encryption).
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
innovate would be diminished. In fact, this issue was so important
to the Founding Fathers that the ability of Congress to protect
copyrights is actually written into our Constitution itself.
Except that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that by making the term limit on Copyright too high, they were depriving the People (and further artists, musicians, and authors) of work from which they could build upon and grow new works from. While the Constitution reads "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;", no mention of actual time limits exists within this document. The limits were proposed by Jefferson to be 14 years, which were then extended to 28 years, as is demonstrated by reading ancillary documents of the time.
While your Senator believes that protecting the intellectual property of the US is vital for the economy and provides incentive, it actually has a retrograde effect for content providers who do not hold the Copyright on current work, as they cannot build on existing works until those works leave copyright (A period currently longer than most human lifespans), or until they pay Copyright holders for the privledge of using their work. This effectively shrinks the pool of content creators to those already holding Copyright, or those financially entangled with Copyright holders.
And while those Copyright Holders may provide large donations to your Senator's campaign, they are not the majority of voters in the State of California. It is the will of the Voters that your Senator swore to represent in our Government, and if she is failing in this regard, then she is unfit to hold office.
Of the MANY letters that I've written to our lawmakers regarding this issue, I've only received ONE response and that was from Sen. John Kerry (MA). His "excuse" was that we needed the DMCA to comply with the WIPO trade agreement.
Sigh...
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
give up on selling CD's as the exclusive media for the music. They should sell cheap CD's, and increase the amount of live music presence thier artists have. Music is meant to be live, and everyone prefers live music most of the time, for the atmosphere.
Spring is here. Don't believe me, look outside!
Stomping on other nation's soverignity isn't unconstitutional as far a I know. Other countries also do this all the time. The ability to enforct those laws outside of the United States is somewhat limited, but California it seems can pass their stupid laws.
I wrote to my Senator (John McCain, AZ) as well, about the DMCA and Dmitry. The letter I received back sounds suspiciously similar to yours, except there was a little Dmitry blurbage in it. I will have to check the letter when I get home, but I am wondering if there is a form letter or boilerplate being used for responses to these issues - if that is the case, then what is even the point of writing your congresscritters?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
*wince* I wish you hadn't singled out lock-picking tools in this one. Last time I checked (about 3-4 years ago) lock-picking tools were illegal only in DC, where you have to be a professional locksmith to carry them. In every other jurisdiction I've checked, it is legal to carry them as long as you don't plan to use them in furtherance of another crime. In other words, lock picks are in the same category as we'd like to see DeCSS! (Legal to own and use as long as you don't use it to commit a crime, in which case possession becomes an additional crime.)
I'm in New York State, and I researched the laws carefully before I started carrying around my own homemade lockpicks. Just for safety's sake, I also carry around a copy of the relevant penal code with the lockpicks just so I can keep a police officer who's not up on the law from confiscating them out of hand. (Easier than trying to get them back if wrongfully confiscated!)
The text of the law reads:
The more I look at it, the more I think that this is the route that the DMCA should have taken.... We've said that the act of copyright infringement should be criminalized, not possession of the tools to do it. I wouldn't have any objections to criminalizing the possession of the tools under such circumstances as clearly demonstrate an intent to use them for copyright infringement. Yes, this could still be abused, but it isn't usually a problem with possession of burglar's tools - there are strong guidelines for when you can consider such an intent to be evinced.
For example:
Why, oh why, couldn't the DMCA have gone this way?????
-Need a
--Somebody infect me with a
of course, some of those people aren't Americans, too. for example, I doubt any American politician is quaking in his boots (okay, Hillary isn't worried either :) at the thought of losing my vote.
not that I've voted for anybody who won in an election that wasn't municipal in my life. curious, that. I have a very good history of voting for the winning alderman. in many different cities. :)
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
I've seen far too many 5, Insightful, posts about how it's so horrible that he was arrested for giving a speech. Of course anyone actually following the case knows that the speech had nothing to do with the indictment.
*BZZT* wrong answer, thank you for playing our game.
I knew some bozo like you was going to say that, which is exactly why I used the word "indictment" and not "arrest".
He did not sell any software. The software was sold by his employer.
Dmitry is listed on that software as the copyright holder of the software. Elcomsoft is merely a distributor.
If the crime was for selling the software, why was his boss not arrested as well?
1) Because they didn't have an arrest warrant for his boss, probably because 2) Because his boss was not listed as the copyright holder of the software and/or 3) Because they did not know his boss was going to be in the country.
If he was arrested for trafficking, why was the US broker (that handled the transaction) not arrested?
Because the US broker did not do so willfully, and stopped as soon as it found out about it.
If the crime was trafficking, why was the US broker not arrested when the crime was actually committed instead of months afterward?
Because he wasn't in the country, Russia would never have extridited, and he wasn't a big of enough deal to risk American lives to go over to Russia and capture.
The arrest warrant may have said that he was arrested for trafficking, but logic proves otherwise.
I'm not so sure about that... Adobe was trying to stop him long before they even knew about the speech. But I'll certainly agree that giving the speech pissed off Adobe and the government, perhaps enough to convince them to make the arrest where they otherwise wouldn't have. But that's just the way things work in this country. If I'm speeding and I get pulled over, and when I get pulled over I explain to the cop that I was going to a convention where I am going to give a speech on how to get out of traffic tickets, the cop is going to be much more likely to give me a speeding ticket. That doesn't mean I got the ticket for giving a speech, it just means I pissed the wrong person off and they found a way to get back at me.
ok then your [sic] infringing on my copyright! Could you as [sic] me next time before STEALING my comments for your own?
...are surely 'fair use', aren't they?
As the owner of a work copyrighted by someone else, aren't I allowed by 'fair use' to make as many personal copies of that work as I like, so long as I have destroyed all those copies if I ever get round to reselling that work to someone else?
Copies in RAM are certainly not going to stick around (ditto copies in swap) for any length of time; they're not for commercial gain; they require me having a copy of the work already. Why on earth is extra legislation needed for these 'RAM copies', when fair use seems to cover it so well?
K.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?