Slashdot Mirror
Sklyarov, Elcomsoft Plead Not Guilty
squared99 writes: "I'm sure it has already flooded slashdot, but Dmitri has entered his plea, not guilty. This NYTimes article talks about it. Not sure I like the mention of bumper stickers, as opposed to the real people who have been protesting, but at least it talks about the support he has been getting. It even appeared as one the main newsworthy item on my daily NYTimes newsletter, Yay! Let's keep up the support and protests. As my brother said to me the other day, "The only way to beat bullies is to stand up to them."" See also Elcomsoft's statement about the case, a story in the Boston Globe, and this cute fable about a DMCA future. Update: 08/31 19:37 PM GMT by M : one more link - the Russian Foreign Ministry has warned its programmers not to travel to the United States.
This is not to say I won't be campaigning against the DMCA, however.
I think I am in line with the more controversial commentators on this issue, but I feel it is the only honest line.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
There is no
first reply to first post !
Has it been 20 seconds yet ?
I had sex with my computer today
But does anyone really think that protest, bumper stickers and popular support will really do anything to make the feds pull back? We're talking about the Bush administration here. It might be better to put the money into some hired gun lawyers. I think the only way to win this one is a good fight in the courts. Otherwise, our friend from Russia will be the poster boy for what happens when you f##k with the DMCA.
"If he hadn't been doing that bad stuff, he wouldn't be in this situation. He deserves what he gets."
Seriously, folks. Your average American believes that if Uncle Sam says you've done something wrong then you have. And if you have, then you deserve to have your constitutional rights trampled on and you deserve to be treated like a dog.
Further, the American people obviously believe that it's wrong to hold American's captive in foreign lands and hold them accountable for crimes supposedly committed in whatever country they are in but it's alright for us to do whatever we want to foreigners visiting OUR country. God bless hypocrisy.
Sims denied that the recent CHAOS^H^H^H^H^H problems with slashdot was due to a migration to IIS/MSSQL server.
Anyone here who hasn't had a chance to read it yet really should.
Just remember that the book was first published in 1949.
See what President Georege W. Bush has to say about this!
ok, so I'm lying. At least it't not goat related.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
I read this as,
"The only way to beat bullets is to stand up to them."
and thought, ummmm, "No."
-Omar
Why did it take Slashdot so long to post this story? I used to come to Slashdot to get news before I could get it elsewhere, but I heard this at 7 AM on NPR! Sheesh.
I agree that what he did was illegal under the terms of the DMCA, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't be found innocent.
IANAL, but when a law is in contradiction to the constitution, as I and many of you believe the DMCA is, you're innocent (in theory.)
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
This article on WIRED shows what is probably the general level of concern for most Americans. Especially the final quote.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
What did we expect, For him to plead guilty?
News seems rather light on the details, how about some urls to transcripts. These 1 line news tidbits isnt cutting it.
You fool! Next time I'll get mod points, I'll use all five of them to mod five of your posts down. And I'm sure many others will do the same. Ya know, Overrated mods don't show up in metamod. That'll teach you to post your tripe anonymously next time.
Sklyarov is clearly guilty of violating the DMCA. The not guilty plea is stupid nonsense.
I'm not saying he should be charged or jailed or such. God forbid I support the government's actions here. Thing is, the issue isn't his guilt (as he is clearly guilty) but why the DMCA exists in the first place.
Don't proclaim Sklyarov's innocence, because he isn't. Instead, proclaim the injustice of a law that imposes draconian punishments for things that should not be illegal in the first place.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/08/31/technology/3 1HACK.html
Collecting data is only the first step toward wisdom. But sharing data is the first step toward community
Just because your a spammer doesn't mean you can't be right. You're dead on the money, this guy is guilty. Let him fry.
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
The Russian Foreign Ministry is warning programmers not to go to the US or they could be arrested. Check out the story here.
Dozens of other Americans, Europeans, Australians and Canadians have been jailed for exercising their right to free speech.
Read more about it here
Vanguard News Network
This fable really is just an illustration of the age-old witch hunt. I don't agree with the DMCA but I don't think it would be enforced in such a way. While we're talking about witch hunts, we have something much worse than what's described in this article around already: rape. Look at how those cases are investigated, it's terrible. Anyway, nice story
~ now you know
Tcl? Wimp. Real programmers use cat > myprog; chmod 755 myprog
5. So, Mr. Sklyarov, how did you pass your time in prision?
4. What is your opinion of Adobe's 'l33+ 'cryp+10n 5k1||z?
3. What's your opionon of the justness of the DMCA?
2. How was the food in prison?
1. Can I have my watch back?
I like this Tom Clany quote better:
There are two ways you can deal with bullies
You can shock them; or
you can kill them.
Needless to say there are at least 50000 bullies (ie, industry lobiests) in washington alone, so killing is out. Any great ideas on how to collectively shock them? The sheer logistics are mind bogling, but it would be fun to try 8)
Maskirovka
I don't care that my spelling stinks.
Skylarov isn't guilty of anything. The DMCA itself is a circumvention device as it prevents us from creating our legally allowed backups of data for items we purchase. Skylarov, if anything, simply provided us a way to over-ride the (should be) illegal circumvention device that is the DMCA.
It is our duty as Americans to protest and commit acts of civil disobiedience when we believe a law is unjust. We must, of course, expect to be punished for our actions, but we must never fall blindly into the belief that we should obey and accept people punsihed under unjust laws, to do so is to sign away our freedoms one by one, because as many of you know waiting and writing to Congress to get something done, is not the most effective thing you can do.
Someone who is being punished under an unjust law is being unjustly punished, and you should not support punishing him, if you do not believe the law is just, to do so is hipocrasy.
Microsoft supernerds are our superiors!
You cannot argue with the manifest truth. Just look at IE versus Mozilla.
It may (and should) outrage all Europeans, but within a year, Dmitry's actions are going to be made illegal in Europe too. Yes, that's right - they've put together a DMCA in Europe called the European Union Copyright Directive. It bans circumventing encryption in the same way. In a year's time, all governments in Europe are obliged to enact it as law.
We can still stop this! Check out here and if you're in Britain, write a letter to your MP. You can and should make a difference.
Is it Dmitri or Dmitry? I see it one way in the elcomsoft statement, and the other in the nytimes.
http://www.conhugeco.org/junk/arguing.jpg
That depends on how you define crime pal. You define crime as something illegal (like doing 56 in a 55). I define it as something wrong (like companies using pirated software). Think on that.
Don't proclaim Sklyarov's innocence, because he isn't. Instead, proclaim the injustice of a law that imposes draconian punishments for things that should not be illegal in the first place.
If all that was needed to institute change was people "proclaiming" against immoral unethical laws then you folks in the US of A would still be a colony of the Brits. The fact that actions speak louder than words and that action is often the only way to effect change *was* the whole point of the Boston Tea party I believe..
As I see it, the only unfortunate aspect is that it's a non-US citizen involved; an American in his place would have been a much better symbol of how slippery the slope has become.
How is this legal? The action of monitoring people and their 'transgressions' may be done by advertisers and websites all the time, but at the very least they've been required to post a privacy policy, or an opt-out arrangement. Required might be an assumption, maybe they just know better than to cross that line of complete deception and risk legal action.
(This is offtopic, I know. I got to the ranger site from the salon article linked by the 'cute fable')
"ok, so I'm lying. At least it't not goat related."
Freakin' holier-than-thou meta-troll!
Just to bring this thread on topic:
GOATapalooza! Goats! Goats! Goats!
All models are real goats, not like that other link
100% free goat pr0n, no annoying popup windows
for showing up in court yesterday to stand by his employee. He certainly didn't have to come all the way from Russia, and risked getting arrested himself to do so. It impressed me a great deal, and hopefully it will have a similar effect on the court.
"the best safety of the frontier...will be secured by total annihilation of the few remaining indians" L Frank Baum 1890
Violating Slashdot's copyright and making a legal program to promote a legal right in a country that is not bound by the idiocy of the DMCA to enforce the legal creation of legal backup copies of a product are very different things.
Now, if Slashdot were selling compilation CD's with all the Slashdot archives on them, included a proprietary reader that prevents you from making copies or backups of the compilation and prevented you from using the CD on any other machine or in two places at once (even though you may only be accessing one of the isntances at a time) and someone offered a way to get around that so you could make a backup copy of it (since you are licensing the right to read the archives on a convenient disk, you shouldn't have to pay for those rights all over again if the disk is corroded, melted, scratched, etc) and Slashdot sued or attacked that person... then you'd have something.
Take your black propaganda and SUYA!
keep up the good work
A beowolf cluster of lawers? Wouldn't that yeild the Micro$oft legal team?
karma is for the weak >)
To those who were criticizing the not-guilty plea and saying he is guilty, this needs to be said. Had he went ahead and pleaded guilty, there would be no legal examination of the DMCA. He would have been fined and sentenced to prison, end of story. The United States NEEDS this examination of the DMCA, if for no other reason than to bring the flaws in the law to light in an official manner. It will be up to the courts to make the decision, and in the mean time, the issues surrounding the DMCA will hopefully become more public knowledge.
I'm really saddened that Russia had to issue its advisory, but again maybe that will be a wake up call to everyone that there is something very very wrong with the way the DMCA is being enforced. One would hope that we can settle the issue internally before it becomes more of an international issue than it already is. The US preaches so much about "human rights" and begs for other countries to "do the right thing" even though their laws are written differently. It's time we practice what we preach.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
>>despite the fact that he knowingly and >>willfully comitted an act of copyright
>>infringement.
Don't be obtuse.
First - the 'crime' occured in another country.
Second - he didn't commit copyright infringement. He developed a tool. If i go down to the library, take a book and photocopy it, does that mean Xerox (and it's engineers) are guilty of 'copyright' infringement. No it doesn't. For the same reason a gun manufacturer isn't guilty of murder if i shoot somebody in the head. For the same reason if i take a hammer and break into your house, Sears isn't guilty of break and enter. If i burn a copy of a friends CD, HP (the manufacturer of my burner) isn't guilty of copyright infringent.
Don't confuse a tool and the use of a tool. Why should this case be treated differently because it deals with bits instead of physical objects. It's EXACTLY the same as the Xerox example.
And i won't even go into the agument about how the DMCA tramples other established rights.
you should be shot and killed, you greedy karma whore,
Photos.
Ok, the above comment is an obvious troll, but I'm curious about how American law actually works. Do they really think they can enforce their own laws globally? This strikes me as really bizarre. I know the French did something similar with Yahoo, but presumably Yahoo at least has an office or something in France (I don't really know, I'm just guessing).
Any lawyers who know better?
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Sorry, but if it was a non-american involved, he would still be ignored by the public and the media. Any little attention he would manage to receive would be with the accusation that he is a rampant cracker and criminal spawned by bullying through his highschool years and society's general lack of morality, yadda yadda yadda.
American's don't care about things unless it affects their religion, the children or their cable television prices.
Good, good, following the journalist's code of ethics where it states, 'two rumors = truth'
He came here and spoke about his program, hence he trafficked his information here, which is illegal under the DMCA.
Dmitry violated our law on our soil and has been locked up for it. I hate the DMCA as much as any of us, but he is guilty, and proclaiming him as innocent merely makes one look uninformed.
Now they can stop the brain drain with some simple FUD.
Comrade: "Oh, you want to leave the country to work in the US? Well, I have a gift for you."
Programmer: "What's the Vaseline for?"
Comrade: "It will make your stay in prison easier to bear."
That would probably be the end of that.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
Not necessarily the case. If it is the case that
-in Russia, it is legal to copy software and its content for backup purposes
-in Russia, it is legal to sell software to create said backups
-Elcomsoft made no sales of circumventing software to US companies
then in fact, it's pretty hard to enforce a US law, because it doesn't take place in the US. If this had happened to a US programmer in a US company, the case would be much cleaner...because it WOULD be illegal. In fact, it's surprising that they aren't choosing a local to hold up as an example. It would be much easier to convict an American who broke the law in the US.
Granted, Slashdot creates cult heros, but I think this is the wrong example to pick on them for. In this case, it's not a matter of someone not getting their free-as-in-beer stuff. It's a much more complicated scheme of making an example of someone who didn't necessarily break the law.
...it's äìèòðè.
Good point. But if we sicked them on the Micro$ucks team, they would probably destroy the entire legal system, thus allowing anarchy to rule. Take that DMCA!
"If i go down to the library, take a book and photocopy it, does that mean Xerox (and it's engineers) are guilty of 'copyright' infringement. No it doesn't. "
If you take a CD, compress a song into mp3 form, and send it to someone through napster...
see where I'm going with this?
6 PROFESSION - Software engineers shall advance the integrity and reputation of the profession consistent with the public interest.
One implication of this principle is that we all need to stay informed on events related to the intergrity and reputation of our profession in order to defend ourselves against unjustified external attacks. Clearly, the Sklyarov case represents an attack of unprecedented ferocity on the profession of software engineering. Iam currently teaching 2 sections of a graduate-level software engineering course, and in an informal poll last week Iwas shocked to learn that less than five out of sixty students had heard of the DMCA or Dmitri Sklyarov. I emphasized that it is our professional duty to keep informed and to speak out against the persecution of software engineers. Besides linking to information on this and related cases on my course webpages, Iam considering some type of assignment that will encourage students to respond in some way to the threat represented by the DMCA. Letter writing campaign? Protest actions? I am writing slashdot to solicit recommendations.
Surely this is a troll?? Well just in case, here's the "Skylarov for Dummies" explanation:
The guy has NOT been charged with infringing copyright (or if he has that's not what's being complained about) - it's the charge of "creating a circumvention device". This is prosecuting him for creating a tool which MIGHT be used to infringe copyright, but has other legitimate uses as well. If someone uses a hammer to break into my home, I say prosecute the guy breaking in, not the guy who designed the hammer. I bet you use copiers from time to time - what if Xerox were forced to stop making copiers because someone MIGHT use them to copy the pages of a copyright protected book?
Madness.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
For the sake of argument, let's postulate that there is a town in New Jersey, let's call it "Podunk" (a purely ficticious town; if there really is a Podunk, NJ, then make up another name), where crossing the street against the light is not against the law. If I jay-walk in Podunk, NJ and then go to visit New York, should I be arrested in New York for jay-walking in Podunk?
That's essentially what's happening here. Dimitri jay-walked in Russia and now they're trying to prosecute him here. Yes, it's more complicated than that, but at the same time it's really not once you start looking past the legal smoke-screen. Adobe picked what they thought would be an easy target to show that the DMCA means business, and in my opinion have gotten off pretty easy with their "Oops, you're right, Dimitri shouldn't have been arrested," statement. Regardless of whether or not the DMCA is Constitutional, the fact is that the act being prosecuted was performed well outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and we have no business prosecuting this case at all. But then again, that's the whole problem here: business. But that water's been tread a thousand times over here on /.
Okay, I've spent enough time feeding the trolls. Say goodnight, Gracy.
- Stealth Dave
Evil is as eval("does");
Umm, so you think it would be fair if you wrote some kind of article against the Chinese government and then they arrested you when you decided to travel there?
yeah...
This is not a troll. I'm quite serious.
.au or .wav file of it.
How does one pronounce Dmitri Sklyarov's last name?
There used to be the controversy of Linus' first name (and of Linux), and Linus thankfully provided us all with a
Spasibo.
Let's not forget that google has thousands of pictures of naked goats for you!
A company selling a product in America is subject to American laws prohibiting the sale of that product. Very simple really.
/* The beatings will continue until morale improves. */
First, they have to figure out *why* it's a threat. Part of being an effective and moral software professional is the ability to be rational. Why is the DMCA a threat? Is there anything good about it too? Etc. I hear more demonizing about the DMCA and any kind of IP law than I know what to do with, and much more of it than I care to consider comes down to "because I don't like it". I'm sure thieves don't like car-theft prevention devices either, but the larger good of society guarantees that they're here to say despite that.
Even if your students still don't know about the DMCA when your class is finished, it won't matter. It's much more important for them to have a handle on being able to separate the issues on their own.
Please mod this post only if you think others should/n't read this. I have enough ego^H^H^Hkarma. Thanks!
I put up some photos from the August 30 march on the Federal Building to demand Dmitry's charges be dropped. I hope to soon put a clip up with RMS and Bruce Perens speaking to the crowd...
Here is an interesting parallel. What if we arrest all of the people who smoked pot while in Amsterdam when they visit or Americans returning to the US from Amsterdam. This is the same as what is happening here. Pot is "legal" in Amsterdam however illegal here in the US. Just like what Dmitri did in Russia is legal but illegal here.
my $0.02
Remember when the Russians were the bad guys because they lived in a tolitarian society where the government could arrest you at any time if you did or said something they didn't like.
Hmmm. It seems that we have become what we feared the most about them.
- Perldivr
That story about Derek was funny, and it reminded me of the book I am currently reading, The Gulag Archipelago, by Solzhynetsin (sp!). That non-fictional story is an account of how power can corrupt, basically. The problem in Stalinist Russia was that the Reds were, if I have this right, basically trying to create a new society the ideology of which was vulnerable to the thoughts of objective people who could see the shortcomings of it. In their effort to control thought, the officials found it necessary to root out all possible instances of anti-communist behavior; unfortunately this included such things as not reaching the party farm production objectives (ten years in prison for not growing enough grain!) and not surrendering to German armies in WWII (when the POWs were returned to the SU in '45 - by Churchill, incidentally, against the soldiers' wills - rather than being welcomed back as heroes, they were arrested, tortured, and given 10-yr sentences, since they must have been spies to have survived the German camps!). Basically, Stalin, in his paranoia, and by extension the entire nation, found it necessary to control behavior by draconian means.
My point (and I do have one) is that the enforcement of infinitesimally minute behaviors requires the rooting out and punishing of the majority of the citizens of a nation: the mother country goes to war on its citizens. The way to do this is to put each and every citizen at risk of loss of liberty; i.e., each citizen is breaking some law or another. In this manner, the State gains control over the behavior of its population, and in a greater degree than just copying ebooks. Once you have copied an ebook, or, taken to the logical extreme, say, exceeded 55 mph (or snuck a beer into a college football game), you are a criminal.
But, while speeding doesn't leave a record of itself, ebook copying does and so leaves a legacy, a record of the crime. It can be likened to arresting you for a failed drug test; you are not doing a crime now, but there is proof that you once did.
For these reasons, the framers of the Constitution would wisely refrain from endorsing the bastardization of their concept of protection of Science and Arts through copyright. The prosecution of the law requires that we become Stalinist in the degree to which we must root out the crime. Napster points this out effectively, in my opinion: the only way to catch all those crimes is to monitor each and every terminal 24/7. And that gives away too much power to the government for freedom to be guaranteed, even in a Democracy.
If you didn't follow that, feel free to email me with any questions you might have...
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
That pronunciation guide was very helpful!
Russian Foreign Ministry has warned its programmers not to travel to the United States.
If that warning is heeded, it may mean the job market will open up for the programmers who were put on the dole after this economy and this stock market got a little more rational.
AC's cheerfully ignored
I've seen a number of posts suggesting that there is no doubt about Dmitri's guilt. Here is a list of conceivable ways that Dmitri could be found not guilty.
1) The DMCA is unconstitutional. No valid law to break means not guilty.
2) No jurisdiction over whatever activities Dmitri did commit. I don't think Dmitri can be prosecuted for writing or using the program in Russia. He must be implicated in the sales activity.
3) Although Dmitri is the copyright holder, the government does not establish that he colluded with Elcomsoft to sell the product in the US. Most countries don't have the same kind of "work for hire" copyright laws as the US, so it is perfectly plausible for a Russian employee to be a credited with the copyright and yet not be the motivating factor in his employer's sales strategy.
I haven't read the latest charges so I don't know what evidence the government has other than what was alleged in the original affidavit.
For those people who want to see the whole thing played out to the end, there is this encouraging news from Dmitri's lawyer:
Mr. Burton said Mr. Sklyarov would not plea-bargain. "That is out of the question," he said.
For the exact same reason that the actual copying and distribution of digital material should be treated differently than that of physical material. They are very distinct beasts. It's not exactly the same as the Xerox example. With a Xerox, I can't make a perfectly bound soft cover (much less a hard cover) book. With e-books, copying the material is both trivial, and EXACT.
Don't get me wrong. I am all against the current practices of hassling the makers of software that enable the unauthorized copying of proprietary information (commonly known as "pirating"). If it's main purpose is "pirating", it's bad. If it allows "pirating" as a side effect, then those who use it to pirate are bad.
I just don't feel comfortable with people claiming that digital music should be "sold" with a different business model (because it is different than physical media) while stating that digital tools are the same as physical tools.
This could be as important as the Scopes Monkey trial was. In terms of legal and public exposure to an issue that much of the general public doesn't think is. It could make them confront the impact on 'fair-use' that the DCMA has. Only the technology early-adopters and the digeratti are aware of the DCMA's true scope. Let Bubba Joe know that the MPAA, RIAA, etc. really owns what's in his house and opinions will change.
Let's hope it turns out better than that Scopes trial did initially.
1) Is Dimitri guilty of violating the DMCA? Yes, that seems clear.
2) Is the DCMA enforcable against him? Pretty clear in the eys of US law enforcment. If Dimitri had committed an act in Russia which was legal in Russia, but criminal in the US, the US could not arrest Dimitry and enforce its laws upon him. The debate stems from the fact the US government sees the "sale" of this software as happening on US soil, not Russian, due to the fact that the payment and procurment of the software were both on US based servers. This is an important fact. A non US-based firm which has a US based presence that manufactures a US controlled substance is liable under US law. It is curious that Elcomsoft used US based servers when there are plenty of non-US alternatives. Was this poor judgment or was it intentional?
3) Should the DCMA exist? Most US citizens don't know or care enough right now to cause it to be struck from the books through legislative means. And I think that right now it is unclear what the judicial system will ultimately decide.
Though clearly guilty, a non guilty plea is the only means for Dimitry to bring enough exposure to this matter so that it can be fully vettted. My personal feeling is that Dimitry and Elcomsoft are liable under the DCMA, and that this case's fact pattern did not turn out to be as I had originally hoped.
Unfortunately, I don't believe Dimitry's prospects to be that great.
I would like to see a non US based firm sell DCMA violating sofware completly offshore with restrictions (which could be circumvented) on sale to US based customers. Then have this firm have its non US citizen programers tour around the US taunting law enforcment to "come and get me". That would be a much more interesing case.
Too much of a coward to have a sig
Seems to me if Skylarov was only interested in promoting better security he wouldn't have tried to sell his product. This looks to me like someone trying to make a buck off an insecure product.
Look at it another way. I come up with a key that can open and start any Ford vehicle. I have a couple of options. I could contact Ford and show them the tech that allows anyone to break into their vehicles. Or, if I don't want to deal with Ford directly I could publish the findings in an academic journal without trying to sell the key.
Instead of doing that, however, I decide to market and sell keys that can break into every Ford. Now, don't you see what's wrong with that? I could have taken the high road, but instead I tried to make a buck. This is pretty much what Dmitry did.
I can assure you, that if anyone tries to market a key that will unlock any Ford, that person will get thrown in jail if caught. Why should software be different?
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!
warning! ASCII goatse.cx troll
As soon as I finish this hamburger, I'm going to kick your ass for saying that.
Mmm, Big Mac(tm).
You ought to read the report then you wouldn't have to speculate anymores /2001_08_28_sklyarov_ind.pdf you see exactly what he was arrested for
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/assets/applet
- in America it is illegal to sell circumvention software due to the DMCA
- Elcomsoft sold the circumvention software from a computer located *in the US* (extremely stupid thing to do)
- Adobe purchased the circumvention software from the website that was on the system *in the US*
- Skylarov is listed as the *copyright* holder in the opening splash screen
- Adobe see's splash screen contacts government and says Skylarov's in the US, he's been violating the DMCA, here's your proof, now do your sworn duty
If Elcomsoft would have kept their server out of the US, nothing would have happened since it *would* have been outside of the US. I personally think this is the fault of Adobe more than anyone else, since they called up and forced the government's hand.
As I was reading the various posts on this thread, I was struck by an interesting similarity.
Regress back to the 15th and 16th centuries. All written material was created by people who could write (scribes). Commissioned by people who could pay (Royalty). In a language that that is now dead (Latin).
There were attempts to produce written works in a country's (European) native language, but these were expensive, (scribes) and consequently not available to the general (peasant) population.
Enter the Printing Press (Gutenberg) and lo, thow can have a book printed in a national language, for a miniscule cost. Books of knowledge exploded onto the scene. The general populace was no longer handicaped by a lack of readily available research. No longer would the knowledge that had been so closely garded (encrypted?) by the Latin speaking world be inaccessable to the masses.
Sklyarov and other cryptologists are merely carrying on the Gutenberg tradition of making knowledge available to the masses.
Then again, what would Gutenberg have thought of Romance Novels?
Ps. Until money grepping legislation like the dmca (it doesn't deserve an acronym) is removed, digital books will never catch on. I see Books (paper and ink) staying around for a long time.
"Chemestry is Physics without thought. Mathematics is Physics without purpose."
Can't one simply go to the website of his employer and see that they're selling email address harvesting software? I don't have the link but I remember seeing it here in a previous article on this guy.
He's the worst kind of techie. He writes code that enables clueless fucks to spam the us.
Reading through the indictment, I saw that this is accaptable due to the fact that it is upholding the law. But I feel that they have the wrong person. If legal action were to be taken against anyone, Elcomsoft would be it. Dmitry was only an employee, doing his job. Elcom decided to sell his work. Now if Dmitry had posted it himself, it would be a different story. But Elcom didn't _have_ to release the software.
But IANAL, so mabey I'm way off base.
(And go ahead and give me a redundant, i care not)
If you see me running, try and keep up
There's a good chance I don't know what the hell I'm talking about
It follows that:
These sound crazy, don't they? But, really, what's the difference between a South Carolina doctor being convicted of practicing in South Carolina, without a California licence, and some Russian geek being convicted of DMCA "violations" arising from work in Russia?
Well, other than Russia is a lot further away, isn't even part of the US, and other such details. The doctor example I gave would actually be far more reasonable. At least the alleged events would have happened on the same Continent!
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
> First - the 'crime' occured in another country.
DMCA is a USA law and can't be broken in Russia. And _if_ in Russia ther would exist a similar law he could only be charged in Russia, not in the USA...
Does anyone else see the irony in Russia warning its citizens to avoid the US because we might unjustly lock them up?
This is scary stuff people.
So tell me mr. genius why are lock picks not illegal? I thought so, you have no answer, that is because you have to be caught in the actual theft and this is no different. He is in jail for producing lock picks not for using them.
Got Code?
I disagree here, as well, though for a different reason: The case of the Xerox machine, the hammer, and all other tools mentioned here are all things that have an intended use. Straying outside the bounds of intended use may result in straying outside the law. I don't see an intended use that falls within the law for copying e-books.
With e-books, copying the material is both trivial, and EXACT.
And I disagree here. An mp3 encoded at a bitrate of say 56 is far from an exact copy, but if distributed, is still a clear infringement of copyright. The Xerox example of copying an entire book does mirror copying e-books, as it's still word-for-word the intellectual property of the author (or whomever owns the rights). Xerox, though, for reasons stated above, can hardly be held accountable.
Sklyarov isn't a citizen.
Of the United States, true, but he is still a citizen of the planet Earth and of the human race.
Text-to-speech is offered by the Adobe software, and backups/archiving can happen in encrypted form. If you know of one good reason why you should be able to decrypt ebooks without having a valid key from the authors, let me know.
Except you do have a valid key; you got it when you licensed the eBook. Adobe's software just doesn't let you use key to fair-use your validly licensed copies.
Will I retire or break 10K?
My country has humiliated me. My country, the United States, has deeply embarassed me. How is it that the country that stood for freedom of speech has now gone so low as to begin warping laws that it's citizens granted artists to restrict civil rights? Worse yet, we're not restricting the civil rights of our own citizens, WE'RE RESTRICTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF CITIZENS FROM COUNTRIES WHOM WE ENCOURAGED TO EMBRACE FREE SPEECH. In fact, we're doing such a good job of it, that now Russia is warning it's citizens not to travel to our country, just like our country constantly warns us not to travel to China.
This is exceedingly humiliating and depressing. It was less than 15 years ago that we encouraged Gobachev to tear down the wall, to enact change in a totalitarian regime that completely restricted freedom of speech.Now that same country is warning it's citizens against our lack of freedoms.
Words fail.
Go Lakers!
Dmitri Skylarov was seen today at 5th and Main entering a porta-potty. There is wild speculation taking place as to his expected visit. Coverage on Skylarov will resume after this bulletin on the Condit case.
Time Magazine
Newsweek
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The USA does not own or run Russia. So why are we trying to enforce our laws there?
How about making Russia a full fledged member of the USA so that the US can really make them obey USA laws. Sorry, there is that small detail on democracy. They might take over the USA that way.
What else is the US going to go after?
y'know, Adobe should PAY for Dmitri's defense. It is only fair.
- - -
Radio Free Nation
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"
- - -
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
This guy broke the law right or wrong.
Has anybody noticed that the U.S. has the DMCA and nobody else has anything similar? (rhetorical) :)
How about that most of the entertainment industry is based in the U.S. and/or targeted towards U.S. audiences? (Not trying to be U.S.-centric here ... there IS plenty of foreign entertainment, I just think that it is bigger here).
Then, is it so hard to believe that the U.S. would have the most oppressive laws regarding copyright protection? Much like France and Germany have the most oppressive laws regarding Nazi's? I'm sure middle-eastern countries bend over backwards to suit oil production. (etc.)
We still need to get rid of the DMCA :). I just dispute the idea that the U.S. is a bastion of totalitarianism because we have bad laws for understandable reasons :)
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
I'm pretty sure the target of copyright protection is the words, not the perfectly bound soft cover.
From CNN:
The U.S. Attorney's office brought charges against ElcomSoft after purchasing a copy of the software over the Internet from ElcomSoft's Web site, which is hosted in the U.S. and uses a U.S.-based payment services provider, the indictment said.
So, the way that they knew about the crime was to commit the crime of purchasing, and thus owning "illegal" software? I guess they probably think that this is like the cop who poses as a buyer for crack on the street?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
First, even though Sklyarov was using a US server, he isn't a US citizen, so he shouldn't be judged by US laws. But that's not really the point.
If he plead guilty, he would be admitting that what he did was wrong, not that it was in violation of the DCMA
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
The 'crime' was the importing & marketing in the US of an illegal (under the DMCA) tool. If you use a remote-controlled (controlled from, say, Colombia) airplane to try to smuggle a bunch of coke into the US, and my next trip to Miami (with nothing on you) you can expect the feds would want to talk to you. But I digress; read the indictment; everything from the client to the server was in the US.
Second - he didn't commit copyright infringement. He developed a tool. If i go down to the library, take a book and photocopy it, does that mean Xerox (and it's engineers) are guilty of 'copyright' infringement. No it doesn't. For the same reason a gun manufacturer isn't guilty of murder if i shoot somebody in the head. For the same reason if i take a hammer and break into your house, Sears isn't guilty of break and enter. If i burn a copy of a friends CD, HP (the manufacturer of my burner) isn't guilty of copyright infringent.
Don't confuse a tool and the use of a tool. Why should this case be treated differently because it deals with bits instead of physical objects. It's EXACTLY the same as the Xerox example.
It's NOT the same - the distribution of software that effectively controlls copyright access is illegal under US law. The others aren't.
General note to anyone reading:
If your understanding of the charges is that some guy was arrested for a program he made while in Russia to help blind people, for the love of god; read the indictment before you post. We're not under any obligation to support every single geek or always support anything anti-DMCA.
that's all it takes to break the DMCA - simply telling someone else how to defeat a copy protection scheme.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Hey Taco, ban this motherfucking troll's IP, wouldja?
Jesus Motherfucking Christ, that is some annoying shit.
As my brother said to me the other day, "The only way to beat bullies is to stand up to them."
As Ender would say, the only way to beat bullies is to hurt them so badly that they can never hurt you again.
The software was sold in the us, through a US distributer. This isn't a case where no laws were broken on US soil.
To keep with your analogy. Your person who jay-walked (created the software) in Podunk, then drove to new your and ran a red light (distributed illegal software) in New York. He got cited for running a red light, and your complaining that jay-walking isn't illegal in Podunk.
Dimitri's writing the software in Russia may not be within the jurisdiction of the United States, but distributing that software in the US sure is.
...When Russia has to tell it's citizens not to vist the United States because they might be thrown in jail for something they did in their own country. It's just too ironic.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
All 5 counts in the indictment, which I trust you read, are all trafficing charges. Should I be able to traffic a brick of hash from Amsterdam just because its legal there? kaPOW!
"No other case has gotten this amount of attention," said Matthew Jacobs, a spokesman for the United States attorney for Northern California.
Not even the OJ Simpson case? Right!!!
If this guy is with the prosecutor maybe Dmitry will be ok after all.
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
...the problem with the DCMA is not in its enforcement, but rather in its very existence.
Kill it, and let the prior law, including the common law, govern.
"Not-Guilty" does not imply that the person did not actually commit a crime, just that the person does not fit the legal definition of "Guilty." That's exactly why O.J. Simpson is walking the street a free man today. They could not say that Orinthal J. Simpson murdered Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldmann beyond any reasonable doubt.
That said, even Sklyarov's arrest and imprisonment is definately against the grain. He is being treated at Guilty without a trial. He entered a plea of "Not-Guilty," because while he may have committed a crime, he and his legal team belive that he is not accountable to the law (under the law) for his actions. Specifically, they belive the DMCA is flawed and inherently unsupportable.
My personal view of this should be quite obvious. For clarification purposes, I think the law is asinine. I don't think anyone has pointed out to the Justice Department that everyone who has a Web Browser (nay, a text editor, for that matter) is violating the DMCA. Section 117 of the law gives no exception for that kind of technology. The law specifically states that any computer program capable of displaying copyrighted material against the rules of the copyright is illegal. It makes no provision for the level of protection afforded. It could be argued that HTML is a form of copyright protection (i.e. META tags) as it obscures the text of the material. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that all it takes to make a copyright is to say "copyright 2001" and it's legally binding.
From the perspective desk, think of this: I can legally obtain, sell, and distribute the components to make nitrogen tri-iodide (a highly unstable explosive, don't try this at home kids). All I need is to go to my local Osco Drug, buy some Iodine crystals, househole ammonia and coffee filters, and bingo, I've got a HIGHLY explosive chemical that requires no fuse mechanism other than a rock, BB or anything else that'll impart a kinetic shock to the material (including fingers). I cannot go to jail for that. However, I can be fined up to $500,000 and get 25 years in jail for writing:
"UNLOCK COPYRIGHTED MATERIALS FROM SUBMITTED DOCUMENT" as soon as I write the compiler for this new language. Note, it's not illegal to write the compiler, just the words above.
Of course, under the DMCA, slashdot will be guilty of violating the DMCA for distributing that code, and everyone reading this message will be guilty too. Just as soon as I write that compiler.....
The Dopester
"Yes, I'm a Karma Whore, but I'm doing it to pay my way through school."
Given that programmers are about the only resource Russia can make any money off of now, is it any wonder that they don't want their programmers going to the US??
Scott
http://www.mailutilities.com/aee/ - a web harvester
http://www.mailutilities.com/adr/ - 'Direct-to-MX' spamware
No replies made to AC posts. Please log in.
Many of the issues here are discussed in a recent report:
M. Skala. "New Media Copyright Extensions Would Harm Canada", Aug 2001
It is a long read for the weak, but it clear and to the point as to why "laws" such as the DMCA is a bad idea, giving a short history of copyright and a summary of recent events in the world of IP/DRM. I believe it can help people focus their arguments.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
I am not certain of that Sklyarov will have a jury trial but I would think that a jury or a judge would share many of the same guidelines for the determination of guilt. That being the case I would just like to point out this site. which outlines many of the powers that a jury has. Note this fourth bulleted item.
When they believe justice requires it, jurors can refuse to apply the law. Jurors have the power to consider whether the law itself is wrong (including whether it is "unconstitutional"), or is being applied for political reasons. Is the defendant being singled out as "an example" in order to demonstrate government muscle? Were the defendant's constitutional rights violated during the arrest? Much of today's "crime wave" consists of victimless crimes--crimes against the state, or "political crimes", so if you feel that a verdict of guilty would give the government too much power, or help keep a bad law alive, just remember that you can refuse to apply any law that violates your conscience.
By these guidelines I would say a jury (or judge) would be perfectly justified in declaring Dmitry not guilty.
The crime occurred in the US, as software sold within the US...ergo...US crime
Second, made a tool specifically designed to circumvent copyright. The specific goal of a gun is not to kill people. The specific goal of a copy machine is not to break copyright. His product can ONLY be used to break copyright.
Unless of course, you could give some examples of adobe ebooks that exist free of any copyright and and totally free, that you could use Sklyarov's software on.
i came up with a ford duplication machine that cloned my ford so i can drive to work with one and have the other for driving to the supermarket.
of course, ford wanted me to buy another one instead of duplicating the one i own so they sued me for intellectual property duplication.
see.. a car example is a bad idea.
I love the United States, I really do. I think a lot of the reason why it's such a great place to live has to do with the government. But more and more I'm starting to think that it's getting seriously out of sync with modern life that I wonder if we're not headed for catastrophe.
I'm part of a citizen's reform group that is working for change on an unrelated issue (website). But the things I see in the Skylov case are strangely similar to my group's fight: politicians that don't understand the trappings of modern life (in Skylov's case, technology), blindly make laws without consulting with what the people want, and then they afraid that they will look stupid if they back down on something they were obvious wrong about.
What they don't seem to realize is that they look even dumber for not acknowledging that a mistake was made, that they misunderstood the situation, and that there are situations that they failed to forsee which were not fairly covered under the legislation they created.
To a certain degree I hold the American people at fault for not being more proactively involved with their government, keeping a close eye on the things their representatives are doing. Hell, pretty much the whole purpose of the Neoteric website is to try to get people to contact their representatives. But I still think there's a failing to the entire system, something that is getting worse, and not better.
I think we need to find a new way of doing things, and fast. Technology, and society as a whole, are changing too fast for our current government (good as it has been for the last 200 years) to keep up. And a government out of sync with its people is a dangerous thing indeed.
They aren't? Funny, they are. Without a license, in most states, it is illegal to own one.
You are not under any obligation to defend _YOUR_ freedom neither..
stupid sheep!
Am I the only one who is mortally afraid of living in a country/world where it is against the law to test and announce security flaws? Won't this not only limit the improvement of security and give people who first learn about a security vulnerability to exploit it to its fullest extent? Especially if the maker of the product does not feel forced to fix it when notified? (We all know cases where big corporations need a big push to spend money to fix a problem)
I would think that people who support these types of laws would fall under this list:
Companies (trying to save money and image at cost of quality)
People getting paid by big companies (bureaucrats + lobbyists)
Ignorant administrators (thinking it would help protect their insecure boxes from their lack of skills and attentiveness)
Ignorant masses
What else?
Is this even in our jurisdiction? My understanding is, that even though he wrote the code, that the actual "crime" would have been committed in Russia, where it is legal to do so. Therefore, we have no right to prosecute. The very most we could do, would be to pressure the russian goverment through political channels, if that.
"Seems to me if Skylarov was only interested in promoting better security he wouldn't have tried to sell his product. This looks to me like someone trying to make a buck off an insecure product."
If it takes someone with a financial interest to stand up for our rights then so be it. I don't particularly care for Larry Flint but his fights for free speech affect all Americans from puritans to perverts.
"Instead of doing that, however, I decide to market and sell keys that can break into every Ford. Now, don't you see what's wrong with that? I could have taken the high road, but instead I tried to make a buck. This is pretty much what Dmitry did."
No he did not. He made it so that we could, to properly use your Ford analogy, loan the Ford to someone else to use for a period of time, or even sell our Ford to someone else whenever we want to without the vehicle needing to do a DNA test on the driver before it allows the owner to use it.
The only way we can adequately inform the uninformed about this travesty of justice is to have the correct information in the first place.
Copyright was established for the purpose of protecting the creators from the bigger interests, such as publishers. If this were still the case, the DMCA would not be such a big issue on Slashdot.
In recent years, we have seen a complete reversal of this intent. Copyright is now wielded by corporations to in fact protect them from the original creators, and also from the general public. Artists and authors often only see a fraction of the of the revenues generated by their work.
The U.S. constitution was established for the purpose of protecting the people from tyranny. For example, there is a clause that guarantees the right to bear arms. Why is that in there? Well, in the event that the government should resort to tyranny, the people would then have a means of armed rebellion to restore popular rule. This was the mindset of colonial America. Obviously, that particular example is a little bit obsolete, but it illustrates an important point.
I think everyone will agree that authors and artists and the like should enjoy the benefits of their work. Thus, it could be argued that there is a place for Copyright. However, Copyright is a power that may be wielded tyranically. It is possible today for a company to restrict how, when and where a book is read, for instance. What would stop them from abusing this power?
The public needs a way to take back the power when it is evident that it has been abused, much like the colonials needed their right to bear arms lest their hard-earned freedom be wrenched from them again.
Until 1998, when the DMCA was legislated, the public had this power over Copyright. I believe that Copyright should still be enforced. Outlawing the means to thwart Copyright, however, is utterly unconstitutional. We are moving from a system in which we are punished for our acts to one in which we are punished for establishing our ability to commit the act. The next step in this progression is to criminalize thinking about our actions.
As I'm not an american (and I never travelled outside my country) I don't know what's involved but, how hard is it to bring his family to the US while he is there? Didn't Adobe start all this? The very least they could do was to bring his family for a while so he can see them and they can see him.
Freedom and Democracy are not things that exist naturally in the wild. Like any other faucet of civilization, they require a certain level of institutions and traditions to floursih.
In the United States, we use our republic's democratically elected government to balance the freedoms of the many against the freedoms of the few. Somtimes, as with the DMCA, we mess up--but the fact is that we CAN mess up, and the system self-corrects us.
Yes, it's horrible that a Russian programmer was the first one nabbed under the DMCA. But if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else--and, until his trial is over, I'm wiling to give the courts the chance to fix the law that's gone to far.
The Courts fixed seperation in schools, line-item veto, and the legislature's scam against cannabis importation. They're a check on the other two branches, and I'm willing to let them have a crack at it before I'm "embarassed."
As for the jusisdictional part--the US would arrest a drug dealer from Columbia, a terrorist from Iraq, or a child pornographer from China. While the DMCA doesn't rise to the level of any of those crimes, it *IS* a crime, and the other three should be treated at least as well as a DMCA violator.
Hey fuck you. I just don't think that anything copy-protected is valuable enough to unencrypt without the author's permission. If anyone wants to ferret away information, that's their (and my) FREEDOM to do so. My vision of a free future is one where I can be secure in my papers. The point of free information movement is that we'll make our own information and it'll be twice as good as the non-free stuff. The point is /not/ to impose our ethics onto others just because we have the technology.
A photocopier can be used for several legitimate purposes that are not illegal. Ditto with a gun or hammer.
(I might be wrong here - and correct me if I am - because I haven't really bothered reading much about the case)
He sold a program to specifically break the copy-protection mechanism on ebooks. The fact that he wrote the program in another country is not relevant because he (or his company) sold the program in the US.
Mmmm.. Donuts
If American's can prosecute visitors who do stuff legally in their own country that would be illegal in the USA I think other countries should do this too.
This means those American's:
1. Owning handguns will now be arrested on entry to the UK regardless of whether they have a gun on them at the time
2. Who do not practice Islams will be arrested on entry to Saudi Arabia
The list could go on.
I'd also advise any Dutch people who may have legally smoked pot not to enter the USA as you're logically as much a target.
[)
Imagine driving on the freeway at 65 mph, and getting pulled over because the speed limit in the alley behind your house is 10 mph.
This concept used to be called jurisdiction--that a law has certain an area of geographical effect beyond which it doesn't apply. The 10 mph limit is only in effect on streets designated as 10 mph zones. Apparently the IP Patrol of the US feels it can enforce it's 10 mph limit on other country's freeways.
What we're learning (that military types always knew) is that a law's jurisdiction has nothing to do with it's claimed geographical borders, and everything to do with sheer ability to enforce the law. All the explicit and implicit limitations on laws stand only until a more powerful will chooses to ignore them. To say that the 10 mph limit only applies to the alleyway is just an empty promise, not a physical certainty. If an enforcement body chooses to enforce the laws of one jurisdiction on another, only political or physical resistance would stop them.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
That is some excellent ASCII art. Nice-looking post (and the text).
While I hate the DMCA, I admit that in certain areas it might serve a good purpose...
There are thousands of warez sites right now, distributing game cracks and justifying it as "Educational Purposes". The DMCA will end this for good (if its not knocked off as inconstitutional)
Unfortunately, a plea of not guilty will not lead to a legal examination of the DMCA either, at least not directly. The court's duty is to enforce the existing law, not to ratify or amend it. As I understand American law, the judge is not at liberty to simply say, "Well, this law is clearly unfair. Therefore we'll just have to release Mr. Skylarov." His only duty is to determine whether or not Skylarov violated the DMCA, and issue an appropriate sentence.
Perhaps the judge can't just proclaim the law as unfair and
- bridgette
From the article on yahoo -
"Sklyarov, 26, spent 21 days in prison before being freed on bail amid noisy protests by advocates of free speech and other supporters. He pleaded not guilty." (my emphasis)
I wasn't aware that the U.S needed any advocates of free speech.
This space intentionally left blank.
IMHO, it's the corporations that have too much power. They use their money as power and hire fleets of lawers to trick and confuse the judges. Take the Microsoft monopoly case for instance. They dragged out that case, and are still doing so. Diverting the issues away from the real problems at hand. (As someone mentioned the bootloader issues)
make Linux, not Microsoft. sin(beast) = -0.809016994374947424102293417182819
I assume Jacobs is referring to DMCA cases. The 2600 v MPAA DeCSS case got tons of attention last year, probably more than Skylarov's. It was all over the New York Times. This guy Jacobs is probably just out of touch, as one would expect from a US attorney spokesperson.
Unfortunately, a plea of not guilty will not lead to a legal examination of the DMCA either, at least not directly. The court's duty is to enforce the existing law, not to ratify or amend it. As I understand American law, the judge is not at liberty to simply say, "Well, this law is clearly unfair. Therefore we'll just have to release Mr. Skylarov." His only duty is to determine whether or not Skylarov violated the DMCA, and issue an appropriate sentence.
n /j ury_nullification.shtml
i on /
Perhaps the judge can't just proclaim the law as unfair and set Skylarov free, but the jury can refuse to convict him for any reason - even if they just don't like the law in question. If the trial is in Frisco, then there's a good chance that there will be some geeks on the jury (especially since there are so many out of work geeks there these days)
http://www.erowid.org/freedom/jury_nullificatio
http://www.fija.org/
http://civilliberty.about.com/cs/jurynullificat
(please disreagard the previous psudo post, I accidentally hit return when the focus was on the "Submit" button)
- bridgette
So how do you explain that democracy only ever appears in capitalist societies??
I don't deny the growing corporatist problems in the US, but remember that a country run by corporations is not capitalist, it's fascist.
Study history. Don't believe all the cool charismatic rebellious people tell you. Nor, for that matter, whining old men like me.
[IANAL]
I keep seeing this argument that if the TPM is easily broken, then it's not effective, so the DMCA doesn't apply. I'm sorry, but as much as I would wish that to be true, it doesn't appear to be. In 1201(a)(3)(b), the DMCA clearly defines its meaning:
In other words, the question is not whether the TPM provides adequate protection against unauthorized access, but whether it has the effect of controlling access when it is used as intended by the copyright owner. Circumventing the TPM is not the "ordinary course of operation", so it doesn't matter how easy it is to crack the encryption.
Sorry, but this looks horribly well written. It gives the copyright owner the unquestioned right to put in place any mechanism that controls access in any way to the intellectual property, whether or not that control is granted by copyright law. That's the worst part of this law. It allows the copyright owner to extend the arenas of access control in any way they wish (region codes, forced ads, licensed hardware, etc.), and makes it a federal offense to go against the wishes of the copyright owner.
<rant>Every time I read this, it nauseates me to think that laws like this can be passed unanimously in this supposedly "free" country.</rant>
Ironic thought.
Xerox copies are imperfect, and making copies of copies will result in a degraded copy. The way to do it is to convert it to a digital form, then make copies. An Adobe PDF file is very capable of this.
Below is a clip from something I hope most of you have read before. Please read it through again in light of the events around you today. What would our founding fathers think of our present situation? Yes, it is not the constitution, but rather the paper that started the U.S. off. It's funny how far we have come in only a little over 200 years...
IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
I saw a banner ad for a Cable TV descrambling device so that you can watch HBO for free. These devices are PERFECTLY LEGAL to sell in most states, if not all. They are also PERFECTLY LEGAL to purchase in most states, if not all. But once you start using it with the intent of watching pay channels for free, it stops being legal.
So in essence Dmitry could have come here to the U.S and sold the program to anybody who wanted to buy it. Legally. It is when somebody starts using it with the intent of redistributing the illegalities start to kick in.
But the reason Dmitry can be found guilty of a crime and the producer/distributor of the Cable TV descrambler can't, is that there is a law called the DMCA which protects Big Business(tm).
Alex
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
There is a legitimate market for Dmitri's software -- people who have purchased ebooks and wish to have the book on more than one computer. Dmitri's product was intended to help those people. the fact that adobe wrote poor software only allowed him to accomplish this.
If Ford actually made locks so poorly that you could create a key that opened all Fords I'm sure you could create and market it as a "Universal Replacement Key" for all Fords. sure, Ford would try to stop you but it would certainly be thier fault that they created a faulty lock.
In fact there is a product designed to unlock nearly all cars - the Slim Jim. If you're cheap, use a bent coat hangar. When I lock my keys in my car (quite often) I can have my Honda CRX door open in less than a minute with a coat hangar. Should coat hangar manufactures and other medium diameter steel rod manufactures be sued because thier product doesn't discriminate between legitimate fools (myself) and criminals and can be used for "evil?"
Had adobe created a system where users could, for a small fee and with some identification (CreditCardNo), purchase the right to move the an ebook from one computer to another perhaps this would not have happened. however, i would have a problem with that system.
At question here is whether or not a person working in the digital world has the same rights as someone in the analog world. I say yes (as would Thomas Jefferson), DCMA says no.
fear is the mind killer
(offtopic, but pretty funny)
A friend of mine got on a plane in South America, which was heading towards Europe. With him, he brought a nice big space-cake (=hash cake), knowing that the customs/police wouldn't check anything until he landed. While in air he ate the sucker and had one hell of a flight home.
-Kraft
Live and let live
Flase, the crime, which was Distribution of a device that allows the circumvention of copyright protection technology, was committed in the USA by an agent of elmsoft. The company (don't remember their name) was located on the west coast and collect funds and sold the software in USA for Elmsoft.
IANAL, so this is all IMHO
garc
-- Martin Luther King
In more detail - the Supreme Court does not render advisory opinions. That is, you cannot simply ask the court to judge whether a law is constitutional or not. To have a law declared unconstitutional, one must actually violate the law and pursue one's defense to the highest court in the land.
The benefit of having unjust laws struck down by the Supreme Court comes at the cost of risking one's freedom if one's attempt proves unsuccessful - or even one's life, in the event the law in question provides for capital punishment.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
They're oppose DMCA.
I mean, what other way is there to get rid of DMCA right now? Have Congress repeal it? Yeah right.
OTOH, if he were convicted and the convicted was overturned on grounds that the DMCA was unconstitutional, that'd be good...
Maybe that explains why DoJ is so headstrong on "convicting" an easily popularized guy? They know the case will eventually lose and they want it to because that's the only way to get rid of it.
Of course, it's inconvienent for Dmitri, but then again, someone's gotta be the martyr and it might as well be someone who isn't an American.
The *smart* thing to do, is pardon Sklyarov.
That way, your corporate masters get to keep this blatantly unconstitutional bludgeon around to threaten anyone else who seeks to expose their incompetence. The longer you keep the DMCA out of court, the more damage it can do to the constitution your sock-puppet took an oath to uphold.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Even where the law is wrong it must be obeyed
Our founding fathers disagreed with you. In
the United States legal system there is a principle called Juror
Nullification , whereby if a jury finds a defendant innocent of any
genuine wrongdoing, they can declare them nonguilty, even if they have
in fact broken the letter of the law beyond any reasonable doubt.
-- Guges --
Senator Feinstein sent me a form response (see below) to my DMCA letter, and I find it unsatisfactory in the extreme. So I sat down to write her back, and thought some of you might find the result worth reading.
Dear Senator Feinstein,
First, thank you for considering the Digital Millennium Copyright Act issue important enough to develop a response for it.
When I first wrote you, I implored you to become active in seeking appropriate adjustments to address the worst excesses of the DMCA. I am sorry to say that I have been hoping for a more substantial reply than the one I received.
Yes, everyone agrees that a digital economy requires legal protections. But in any effort there is always the question of how much is enough, how much is too much, and what is lost by doing too much. News developments since I first wrote you make it more and more clear every day that the DMCA went too far, and, now that criminal enforcement has begun, that it is beginning to trounce the legitimate activity and normal relations of the technology ecosystem, is chilling public speech, and is distorting markets. Russian grad student Dmitry Sklyarov is facing 25 years in a US prison, plus a $2.5 million fine for writing a computer program in another country. I'm sure you're aware that today the Russian government issued a warning to Russian computer technologists that they should not travel to the US because they risk imprisonment! Encryption researchers have begun to resort to anonymity when publishing their results, even in other countries. The situation is quite drastic, global in scope, and I must say requires closer examination and more action than your reply would indicate you plan to take.
The constitutional copyright mandate is for Congress to provide laws to ensure adequate compensation for creators to bring new works forth -- not to guarantee every possible compensation for every imaginable use of every copy of every work. You analogize intellectual property rights to physical property rights, but any copyright scholar will tell you that intellectual property rights have never entailed the same kind of rights as physical property rights, and for good public policy reasons (see for example the writings of Jefferson). I should be able to listen to the CDs I buy on my computer and in my car without paying again. I should be able to watch a DVD I buy in England when I get home without paying again. I should be able to watch a DVD I buy on my computer, even if it's a Linux computer without a CSS player. I should be able to back up my e-books without having to pay again. When the DMCA went too far, I lost those rights. I also lost my ability to protect myself against the objectionable practices of the copyright industries, whose interests are, after all, different from mine as a consumer. If I were to try to regain my rights, simply by using my ordinary computer industry skills, I could go to prison for 5 years per each copied item. This is not piracy. This is not bootlegging. This is not mass duplication. Let those stay illegal. This is basic consumer rights.
To my mind, the most egregious aspect of the DMCA is that by criminalizing the circumvention of access control technologies even for media that the consumer has bought and paid for (and no matter how flimsy the protection), the Act requires the American people's own government to act against them, as enforcer of the copyright industries' purely self-serving business initiative to get them to pay for every movie, program, song, and book over and over and over again -- ultimately, to pay for every single access. Imagine your home library with a coin-operated lock on every book. That is our future if the DMCA is not amended.
So I respectfully ask you again, at a minimum, to clarify your position as to whether you will help to adjust the areas where the DMCA is clearly excessive, or whether you will oppose such efforts. I would like to think that you can appreciate the gravity of the situation, and the depth of the discontent of your technically-minded constituents, and will act in the people's interest.
In considering this question, please don't accept at face value the copyright industry's self-serving assertion that only perfect protection will prevent economic collapse in movies, music, publishing, and software. In the DMCA, America traded away the rights of consumers and the free speech rights of technologists in order to achieve a 'perfect protection' scenario by inventing draconian criminal penalties for otherwise ordinary and accepted activities. But cryptographers know very well that perfect protection is impossible, and always a red herring. 'Pretty Good Protection' -- meaning relying on ordinary civil copyright protection, and reserving draconian criminal penalties only for those who mass-distribute copies that could replace sales -- is good enough to keep the copyright industries in business, and just as profitable as they have been, without requiring us to trounce consumer rights and throw our brightest programmers and researchers into prison.
I know that the studio heads in Hollywood are your constituents, but please keep in mind that you also represent the young technologists who work in Silicon Valley. Please, reconsider adjusting the anti-circumvention aspects of the DMCA.
Sincerely,
--- Snogwozzle
Bay Area, California
Dear Mr. Snogwozzle:
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
A better one might be that if replicators of physical objects existed, we would likely see restrictions on what objects we could copy. And, someone who provided a way to defeat those restrictions would probably face jail time.
I don't think Skylarov belongs in jail. However, I think that people who create digital things like software or music should be able to limit the amount of free copying that happens to their creation. In my opinion the only real way of doing that is to build a culture of respect - respect for the authors of software, music, movies, etc. Its likely that NO lock, encryption method or other security device is 100% secure. Therefore the only way to really have things be secure is if the vast majority of people respect laws and copyrights.
If the vast majority of people do not respect the law, then we have a serious problem. I'm not talking about unjust laws like the DMCA. I'm talking about the copyright laws that get broken every day by people who wouldn't even consider shoplifting. We have to build a culture of trust and respect, or else we may have to watch our digital society be replaced by something far more draconian.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
May I suggest a small change?
." ". D \
___....---"""".
/ \ I i
i i M i
i__ _ i I i
" "\\ i T i
|| i R i
__.// i _i . - "i
\ i- " i
i ii Prison i
\ / i i
"._.--"i Bitch i
i i
i Ass i
i _i
i Blotter_.-"
i _.-"
i-"
Now I belive this fine art is back on topic!
I'm a professional troll with a minor in Tedious Studies. Hear my r0aRRRRRRRRRRRRR
faaaq
cfdode
osdn df
awards
fag
code
faq
codeine
osdn
awards
osdn
awards
dialup modems
three little piggies
faq
code
osdn
awards for malda: 0
And this is what I got back from her. She's truly clueless as to what fair use is let alone it's value in in our society. My comments to hers are in () AND CAPS
Dear Mr. Pxxxxxx:
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 (AND THE HELL WITH THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUALS' FREE SPEECH). 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 (SO YOU SHOULD BE HAPPY TO GIVE UP YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO HAVE A JOB!). Without strong copyright protections, the incentive to innovate would be diminished (AND CORPORATIONS WOULD GIVE ME LESS CAMPAIGN $$$). 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 (ALONG WITH THE RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND EXPRESSION, DIANE).
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 (AND IF WE HAVE TO BLOW AWAY THE RIGHT OF FAIR USE AND WE HAVE TO PUT PEOPLE IN JAIL BECAUSE THEY WANTTO FREELY EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS, SO BE IT). Please be assured that I understand your concerns, and I will keep your views in mind (BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THEM, 'CAUSE HOLLYWOOD PAYS MY FREIGHT!).
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
(PRETTY PATHETIC, HUH)
The Russian foreign ministry has warned Russian programmers to stay out of the U.S. because of their laws oppressively limiting free speech!
``We want to point out to all Russian specialists cooperating with U.S. firms in computer programming and software design that, whatever the outcome of Sklyarov's case, they may fall under the jurisdiction of the 1998 Act on the territory of the United States,'' the Foreign Ministry said in a statement
Wasn't Russia formerly the place where people could be put in jail without being charged with a crime? Isn't the U.S. supposed to be the only place where one can express an opinion without being jailed for it?
Is it me or is this a total reversal of the past?
What would happen if Open Source developers added a use-restricted clause to their software. i.e. a clause that states that "this software can not be used for the monitoring or enforcement of intellectual property."
Furthermore, ISP's must notify their users of this in the terms of use.
Violators are subject to fines of $10K (per violation) or double the damages recovered in any IP suit.
Microsoft and others set similar restrictions on their software. (e.g. Visual C++ can't be used to develope an OS.)
Of course, since people are now considered guilty until proven innocent, you could probably have companies like Rangerinc shut down with little more than suspicion that they 'might' have used Open Source software. After all, some of their traffic probably routed through a Linux machine, right? You could certainly drag them into court and make them detail all the software they use. Then maybe seize a few computers for random inspection.
-- I have monkeys in my pants.
From the Elcomsoft press release:
Those interested in contributing to Sklyarov's defense fund should make donations by wire to:
First Union National Bank
Philadelphia, PA
ABA #031201467
Account #: 2000104359781
Account Name: Duane, Morris & Heckscher LLP
Escrow Account
Contributors MUST reference "The Dmitri Defense Fund - R0247-2" on all incoming wires.
Donations by Check should be sent to the following address:
The Dmitri Defense Fund
c/o Duane, Morris & Heckscher LLP
100 Spear Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, California 94105
USA
Checks must be payable to "DMH Escrow Agent for Dmitri Defense Fund."
Just in case anybody didn't read the article...
______________________________________
Ever notice how fast Windows runs? Neither did I...
I would have liked, however, to replace some of those "i"'s with bars, but unfortunately doing so manages to trip the lameness filter (at least it did when I composed the image; the filter seems to be changing daily).
Adobe instigated this prosecution and must be held responsible for the consequences of their actions. Adobe should fund the defense and appear as defense witnesses. Adobe should grant full authorization to Skylarov and Elcomsoft, retroactively. If they do not fulfill these basic duties, Adobe must be held responsible for the consequences to Skylarov, his family, and Elcomsoft, a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye, and a life for a life.
If there are any good comments on this, I will personally compile them and send her a response letter.
Some hints on various places to attack:
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.
This paragraph is Feinstein basically saying that $$$ is more important than her constituents freedom. While this comes as no surprise, don't you think its interesting that she has enough cahones to actually come out and say it?
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.
This completely ignores T. Jefferson's many misgivings over IP law (do a search on google, this is quoted plenty by others quite a bit). Not only that, but the wording in the Constitution itself is VERY weak. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Corporations' monetary interests should be protected at all costs with PERMANENT monopoly status (see also Congress' affection for extending copyright/patent durations every few years)
but we must work to prevent the
creation of perfect, digital copies of copyrighted works which can
be illegally distributed throughout the world
This illuminates a fundamental flaw in her understanding of information theory. Bits are bits. They are by definition "perfectly copiable" No amount of wrangling is going to prevent them from being copyable. The only thing that will prevent copying of bits like this is a complete police state, which she seems to think is a small price to pay to protect the California entertainment industry's enormous profits.
Translation of the Russian Foreign Ministry announcement:
DECLARATION BY THE OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FOREIGN MINISTRY OF RUSSIA
Regarding the trial of the Russian programmer D. Sklyarov, arrested in the USA
We carefully follow the developments of the trial of the Russian programmer Dmitriy Sklyarov, who was arrested in the USA based on the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act". This is the first application of this law in practice. Passed in 1998, it brings opposing reactions from lawyers, incuding those in the US, many of whom think that the law infringes on the consumer's rights of transmission of digital data(*).
The first trial meeting took place on August 30 this year, in San Jose, CA, where D. Sklyarov was charged on several counts, which may result in up to 25 years jail time. At the meeting D. Sklyarov entered a plea of not guilty. His lawyers believe the charges are unsubstantiated and they plan to prove that the arrest was a violation of the Russian citizen's free speech rights.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, and its offices abroad keep in constant touch with the American authorities, the defendant, and his lawyers.
We would like to point out to all Russian professionals, who cooperate with American companies in the areas of computer software and programming, that regardless of the outcome of D. Sklyarov's trial, the Act of 1998 may be applicable to them on US teritory.
August 31, 2001
(*)I believe this is supposed to mean "Fair Use rights" but I chose to translate it literaly.
Commentary: I don't know how native Russian speakers would interpret the original (I am not one), but this sounds more like a warning to the Russian programmers not to violate the DMCA unless they want to be charged when/if they go to the US, rather than suggesting they should not go to the US. Maybe I am overreacting, but I see this as an indication that the DMCA is actually very close in spirit to the Communist laws of the Soviet past - so close that the Russian government is finding it understandable.
Why dont you stop linking to NYTimes, im sure there are otehr *GOOD* sources of information around.
What should happen, is if the jurors find Sklyarov not guilty due to the DMCA being unjust, we should seek punishment of the senators who passed this law. They should be made accountable for it. After all -- they said it was legal and worth passing in the first place.
"I'll just chip in a bit for RedHat: I actually have that installed on my university machine." - Linus, '95
It seems to me that the US companies that provided the website and handled the payments and the five Americans who purchased the program are clearly in violation of the DMCA. Why aren't they being prosecuted?
If he'd broken the law while he was in the country, then you'd be absolutely right. However, he's actually charged with creating the software. Nobody claims he did this inside of the USA's borders-- even the FBI stipulates that he did it in Russia. So if he's not charged with breaking any US laws while inside of the US, then why is he in jail??
Exactly. If pirated copies of the closed source sourceforge extensions got out on the net i bet they wouldn't be defending the pirates.
Christ, this guy was featured on the Troll edition of America's Most Wanted. BTW, the *BSD is dying guy is still on the loose.
What does your sig mean?
I found nothing on Google.
Yes, and a program that breaks the copy protection on an e-book can be used for several legitimate purposes that are not illegal also.
This includes, but is not limited to, making personal, fair-use copies for purposes of backup or space-shifting.
Another is to simply prove that such a program can be written, and that the copy protection is not perfect.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
I fell very sorry for mr Skylarov but it seems he works for Elcomsoft. Is this the same Elcomsoft that makes spam engines that don't take a 5xx reply for NO when used by spammers?
If so it won't help his case, I fear.
You shouldn't keep bad company when you want to stand up for your principles.
There is a UK specific part of the Eurorights group which can be found at uk.eurorights.org.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
I've actually lived in Iceland. It's not capitalist. They accept restrictions on the market that would make most Americans, including many who consider themselves quite left-wing, react with horror.
Medieval Iceland wasn't precisely anarchist. They did have a court system, for example. There was a lack of an organized executive, yes, but that's not quite the same thing. (Although I used to think so when I was a teenager, so I understand the confusion. :)
Feudalism has everything to do with corporations. It was what created them: before the feudal state, there were no real corporations. After feudalism, we have the great corporate landowners (guilds, churches, chivalric orders and so on).
The important point about feudalism is that it is based on fictional property rights. People can't own land the way they own personal property: at least, not most of the land. (You can effectively control access to houses and that sort of thing.) Our land law is still built on the illusion that people can really own land. For example, if I rent an apartment, I can change the locks, thus denying my landlord physical access to the land - yet he, she or it still owns the land, and can even sell it legally. This is the essential rule of real property which underlies feudalism, and which we continue to follow in the modern era. A careful examination of pre-feudal, especially non-agrarian, legal systems will reveal a complete absence of this fictional kind of property. With my computers, if I don't have access to the machines themselves, then I don't own them. Perhaps somebody has stolen them from me: but I still don't have them, and I can't sell them to somebody else until I get them back. Real property, on the other hand, can't be stolen. Intellectual property is like real property: it's a legal fiction, granting rights which could not be obtained without the force of the law. I think that modern technology corporations bear remarkable similarity to some of the larger medieval corporations, such as some of the chivalric and monastic orders.
States need gangs of thugs: but in most states, they're organized in some way and follow the dictates of the state. In a fascist state, the gangs are non-organized and act as a primary directing force of the state, in a similar way to the way that they act in organized crime. Examine the history of the fascisti in particular.
As for whether people are reading this, much to my surprise I got modded up (I'm always surprised, I never can figure out why: many of my best comments languish in obscurity, while my offhand jokes get modded up and down eighteen times; I don't get it) on my first comment, so maybe we do have fans. after all, geeks read this site. :) however, I will skip my bonus from now on.
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
Do you really think that the software sold in the US had it's menus and help in Russian? He obviously knew the software was being written for export outside of Russia.
He wrote the software. His employer paid him to write the software. If the law was broken (that's for the court to decide), he profited from the crime. I also don't think he was unaware that it would be sold in the US. I curious how US laws address this, I'll definately be watching this case carefully. I've just found that in the past when something seems as unreasonable as Mr Sklyarov being charged with a crime in the US, there is usually more to the story. I also know that prosecuters don't like to prosecute high profile cases unless they've got a good chance of winning. I'm going to wait until I hear more about the evidence before I decide if I think Mr Sklyarov is a innocent victim.
[IANALE]
That sounds to me like the method of gaining access needs to have a secret process or information (i.e., key); otherwise the "with the authority of the copyright owner" bit fails.
That is, I can't release a version of gv that checks whether you're the authorized person, release a normal PDF document, and sue Adobe because their program breaks my scheme. Although, in the normal course of operation (of my program), you need my permission to access the document, you don't need to use information or a process or a treatment that requires my permission.
It's not so much that eBooks are easily broken as that there's nothing particular novel about the way to do it. Breaking CSS, for instance, requires a specialized program, whereas eBooks can be broken without anything specialized.
Funny how politically unpopular postings are "offtopic" and "trolls". Dmitry works for a company that sells spam tools. He's not a virgin. We can tell, because he's fucked us.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist