Slashdot Mirror
Dmitry Sklyarov Gains High-Profile Defense Lawyer
Diesel Dave writes: "There's an
article on Law.com about Dmitry Sklyarov's new Lawyer.
Renowned San Francisco defense attorney John Keker has agreed to represent the Russian programmer pro bono. Keker is quoted as saying:
"I think he is being unjustly accused and that's the kind of case I like to do." and "[The Government is] always welcome to dismiss the case, but we didn't come in to make a plea deal." This gives me the impression he has full intensions of fighting this to the end. Good."
... but that lawyer is COOL!
I guess there are a few decent people working as lawyers out there after all...
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
Given the current anti-tech rage being promoted in the US media this is a brave decision which should be applauded. While it is quite clear that this is a ridiculous case these are rapidly becomming ridiculous times.
"Ex-Commie tries to undermine US companies" is an all to easy headline to imagine. Its excellent that he has this defence lawyer, that should drive him into freedom, but the fact remains that the Don't Mind Capitulating Act is liable to get stronger rather than weaker... will Bush make this the one case where there isn't a back door to cryptography... probably.
This sort of thing is part of the reason why the US is now in recession, the driving of large corporations at the expense on innovation.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
It's important that prescident setting cases of this sort are tried by the best available trial atourneys, such that the prescident that will be set can be looked upon as binding, regardless of which way the case goes. I'm suprised that more nationally renowned defense atourneys weren't all over this case from the start. It's nice to have good news in this case once in a while
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
No name clown or not, this case has become high profile in tech circles because of the implications of its outcome. The DMCA has the potential to trully hinder the efforts of open source software developers, and by having a it held up in court by convicting Skylarov would give it all the more clout in convicting anyone else who would dare to try to compete with, circumvent, or emulate the product of a powerful coporation, simply based on the grounds that in some way shape or form it may violate the copyright that company holds. This case is ludicrous...but what could come from it is very serious.
This is some of the best news I've heard in some time.
Thank you, Mr. Keker.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
On a side note, this case has gotten much more attention in international circles than it has in the US.
At my university I've met a woman from Ukraine who claims that for a while, atleast, there was daily coverage of the Skylarov predicament in the Ukrainian newspapers. Much like our terrorist coverage continues to dominate the news here in the land of the home, and the free of the brave.
For a moderately non-technical person, she seemed to have a very good grasp of the issues, albeit with a touch of (IMHO justified) "the US is doing this because they can" spin.
Well, I digress. Congrats, Dmitry. I hope you make it back to Russia before I visit there this winter.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
"I think he is being unjustly accused and that's the kind of case I like to do."
Tut tut that was an obvious error, what he really said was:
"I think this is a well-known case that I can use to increase my public profile, and therefore my rate of pay for other, subsequent clients, and that's the kind of case I like to do."
Russian Programmer Dmitry Sklyarov Gains High-Profile Defense Lawyer
Substitution adds twist to cyber-cause celèbre
Shannon Lafferty
The Recorder
October 1, 2001
Renowned San Francisco defense attorney John Keker has agreed to represent indicted Russian computer programmer Dmitry Sklyarov on a pro bono basis.
Keker's decision to represent Sklyarov, believed to be one of the first to be criminally charged under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, could put an end to speculation that a plea deal is in the works.
Keker of Keker & Van Nest won't say whether any plea offers are on the table but said he wasn't brought aboard to cut a deal.
"They are always welcome to dismiss the case, but we didn't come in to make a plea deal," Keker said Thursday. "We are here to deal with the defense of the case and to win it."
Sklyarov, 26, is accused of writing a program for his Russian employer ElcomSoft that allows people using Adobe Systems Inc. eBook software to copy and print digital books, transfer them to other computers and have the text read aloud by the computer.
Keker, whose past cases include the prosecution of Lt. Col. Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal, said he was approached to take Sklyarov's case but did not elaborate further. Keker said he took the case pro bono because he felt Sklyarov was unfairly targeted.
"I think he is being unjustly accused and that's the kind of case I like to do," Keker said Thursday.
Defense attorney Joseph Burton was initially retained to represent Sklyarov but is withdrawing to represent co-defendant ElcomSoft.
Since Sklyarov was arrested in July at a convention in Las Vegas, programmers and technology companies have publicly criticized the prosecution. The alleged victim, San Jose, Calif.-based Adobe Systems, which initially reported Sklyarov and his Russian employer to the U.S. Attorney's office, has said it no longer supports prosecution.
Both sides are currently conducting discovery. Keker said he and his team will be working "to understand Adobe's role and determine whether or not it's proper."
Colleen Pouliot, Adobe senior vice president and general counsel, did not return calls.
Former prosecutors have said that Adobe's decision to distance itself from the case makes it tougher for the U.S. Attorney's office.
"Unlike traditional crimes, where you have an individual or an institution as the victim, tech crimes enter into a new area because all the government has to rely on is the expertise of the company," said Stephen Freccero, a former prosecutor now with Morrison & Foerster's San Francisco office. "Generally, they are the kinds of cases the government wouldn't even know about if they hadn't been contacted by the victim," Freccero added in a recent interview.
Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which promotes cyber-rights, have been critical of the prosecution from the start, saying the DMCA wasn't intended to criminalize software like Sklyarov's.
Meanwhile, observers have said Adobe's about-face has put the U.S. Attorney's office in a tough situation. If it drops the charges, the office may seem ill-equipped to handle the high-tech, white-collar crimes it has vowed to go after. If it goes ahead with an unpopular prosecution, it could alienate high-tech companies whose assistance it needs to develop other cases.
Sklyarov, who is out on bail, will appear in San Jose federal court Nov. 26 for a pretrial hearing. If convicted, he could face five years in prison and a $500,000 fine.
Not that I find fault with it, but Mr. Keker has just as much to gain from representing Dmitri as Dmitri himself. Keker will gain a great deal of press and attention, whether or not he wins the case. Dmitri on the otherhand, now has a fighting chance at getting off clean from this injustice.
Hopefully, this is the kind of trend we can expect. As the open source and free speech movements (funny you have to think of it in those terms these days - thought we already had that one down) become more and more publicized, we may see more and more lawyers jump into the fray on our behalf for their benefit.
Again, not a bad thing, but we don't want to be misguided into thinking that these lawyers working pro bono support our causes. They just as soon would take a $1M check from Microsoft.
Why bother.
In case you didn't know...
From dictionary.com:
pro bono
adj.
Done without compensation for the public good: a lawyer's pro bono work.
> John Keker has agreed to represent the Russian programmer pro bono
AP - Moscow: In a briew interview with the lead singer of U2, Bono denies allegations with regards to involvement in writing software that is used to break copy protection schemes. Although Bono admits to using similar software to pirate his own music, He believes that he should be able to write whatever code he likes. Bono refused futher requests for an interview.
I really hope that Dmitry Skylarov can go home to Russia soon.
Yes! Go home! Quick, Dmitri, go back to Russia! Your presense here is showing Americans how stupid our legal system is and our people can't possibly remain ignorant for much longer! Shoo! Shoo!
Why bother.
"Browser Error
Sorry.You must have cookies enabled to enjoy this site. Please adjust..."
I'll just have to wait for some people to post so I can get my usually skewed
Cookies.... Sheesh!
--
This domestic terrorism has got to stop.
The US has poorly written laws. Our legislatures seem to be unconcerned with writing laws that are easy to interpret, so our courts have to decide what they should mean. Also, laws are never overturned (to my knowledge) for being ambiguous. Don't you hate that?
This is going to be a tough battle but i truly wish them good luck. I hope this trial brings out how unjustifiable the DMCA is and maybe the government get a move to change things a bit.
Just Hoping...
They say this as this is specific to hi-tech crimes. Most property crime, extortion, rapes, battery, assualts, only only known by the government when the victim makes a complaint.
I am suprised that Dmitry didn't bring a lawsuit against Adobe and the government for retaliation under the ADA. He was aiding others in making a reasonable accomodation by breaking the software to allow it to be converted to speech for the blind.
Fight Spammers!
If a woman were to accidentally grab a man's genitals while that man was fighting with her husband, she was to have her hand cut off (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)
Yep
And is that the way it is today? No. Another example of liberal intervention. America is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah.
Renowned San Francisco defense attorney John Keker has agreed to represent the Russian programmer pro bono.
Pro Bono? Aren't we supposed to be against the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Would you like to come around to my place? We'd smoke some weed, watch some hot gay porn and who knows what we'll end up doing later at night...
see subj
Nobody can seriously believe what you've posted. Because it makes no sense.
Except to Jerry Falwell and his sidekick Pat Robertson.... HAHAHA
"I think he is being unjustly accused and that's the kind of case I like to do," Keker said Thursday.
Bravo.
As programmers write code to further the cause of opensource software, we need skilled Lawyers to protect our rights. Its war, and the battle will take place in the courts.
Ashcroft tells it all - Political Cartoons at Political Strikes
I can't make it.
I'll be too busy praying for you.
Thanks. I'll be thinking of you too this evening when I'm watching my European hardcore gay porn flicks.
..
The release doesn't mention whether Skylarov will press for damages if acquitted, seeing as he is pitted against the US government. But I think, Keker must file a simultaneous petition to seek damages from Adobe. That should teach them to stop acting like idiots. One moment they are crying foul to mamma, then they see there's nothing in it for them, and then sheepishly wanting to opt out. Show them how the jungle law of the West works, Keker!
Bel Ami?
is available here. http://www.kvn.com/attyjwk.html
This is very good. With the recent events in NYC further stigmatizing the public's view of technology, Keker taking the case is an excellent move to bring Dimitri's case into proper perspective.
Woot w00t w007.
Not that I find fault with it, but Lethyos has just as much to gain from posting his comment as we readers ourselves. Lethyos will gain a great deal of press and attention, whether or not his comment is highly moderated.
Yada yada yada. What a ridiculous comment! of COURSE both people gain from the deal! What else COULD there be -- Would you feel better if someone were holding a gun to Mr. Keker's head? Or if he had been drafted with the alternative a prison sentence?
And who the heck are you to say this lawyer doesn't support "our" causes? What causes would that be? Your cause? My cause? How about Dmitri's cause? Maybe Mr. Keker supports the cause of stopping Big Brother?
Good gosh, get a new hat -- your head's so swelled up you'll need a custom size.
Infuriate left and right
This would be very satisfying.
On the hand, if they win, the government might not appeal since they would not want to have the DMCA so ruled.
In any case, it would be ironic for the whole thing to be thrown out because it was an action in a foreign land by a foreign national.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
While I'm very happy for Dmitri Sklyarov, it's rather a sad indictment on the judicial system that having the one of the best lawyers seems to matter so much.
Surely any competent lawyer should be sufficient to point out the facts of the case, and allow a reasonably impartial judge and jury to judge the case accordingly.
Sadly, this doesn't appear to be the case.
And no, this isn't intended just to be an attack on the US justice system. I'm sure other countries are as bad (even if some of our laws aren't as bad in this regard - at least, not yet).
Poor Dmitry,
A foreigner, trying to escape America for Russia and freedom, fighting against an unjust system, being forced to spend all his money on a legal battle that should never have happened.
I wonder how his wife and kid are doing through all this.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
Every country has its own laws, and laws of one country are not applicable on what happened inside another country.
- Brits drive on the left, that's legal in UK, but not in France. Will a Brit be arrested, when he visits France, telling everyone that at home he drives on the left? Obviously not.
- In Netherland light drugs are legal, but in Italy not. Will someone from Amsterdam be arrested, when going on holidays to Italy? Obviously not.
- Sklyarov wrote the software while in Russia, he is a Russian citizen, and in Russia it is legal to write this kind of software. Why should USA be allowed to arrest Sklyarov? On what basis?
Does the US legal system really think its laws are "universally" applicable? Is this the US-arrogance, that makes USA so hatred?ms
nt
He'll whip out the Chewbacca Defense and win the case hands down:
"Dear ladies and gentleman of this supposed jury I have one final thing I want you to consider: this is Chewbacca.."
-- The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.
Actually, high-profile!= expensive here. John Keker is doing the case "pro bono", i.e. for free.
So your point is that he became a high-profile lawyer because of this case, right? Sorry, but the Slashdot headline implies that we're supposed to get excited about him because he was already famous. What you're saying would be like a newspaper on September 12, 2001 announcing that "Renowned Hijacker Mohammed Atta Involved in WTC Attack."
Much of the injustice today is that good lawyers are hard to come by and the few that exist charge outrageous fees. If you have big pockets you can accuse someone or defend yourself and always win. IT doesn't matter if you or they are truly guilty. A lawyer can lie, stretch the truth, or use FUD and make doubts on all the witnesses to practically throw out all evidence. We need to change our system and put some penalties on dishonest layers or make some new rules in court procedures. However the BAR association likes our current system and will not make any recommendations to change it.
Anyway not to go offtopic, good lawyers are expensive and how is this Russian who makes probably dirt pay afford him? Is the EFF paying for him? The EFF would like to fight Hollywood themselves and have a limited 2 million dollar budget to do it. Anyway I thought it would be cool if he could somehow afford Johnny Cochran. I love the South Park episode where Capitalist records sued the chef for copyright infringement supposedly for a song the chef wrote 20 years ago because it sounds to close to a newer song that is out.
"Capitalist records CEO: I AM ABOVE THE LAW!"
http://saveie6.com/
If the bit's not flipped you must acquit!
Sign the Petition to Abolish the DMCA.
Forward it on to people you know who oppose the DMCA.
That would assume that Adobe's ebook software would or could not interface with existing screen-reader software, nor it would/could interface with any speech synth software. Mighty big IF there.
But if you can prove that it doesn't interface, would it be safe to say that the DMCA have a hole or two punched into it the size of a Mack truck?
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
If convicted, he could face five years in prison and a $500,000 fine.
This is assuming the ATA doesn't pass. Otherwise it should read Lifetime in prison with no chance of parole.
Funny how it's square-jawed normals like Bruce Willis who play heroes in our movies. People like this, who will stand up for their rights and fight this fascism, are true heroes. There should be heroic movies about THIS sort of thing, with heart-rending patriotic movies and the libertarian hackers getting the chicks at the end. =)
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
"heart-rending movies"
Meant "music", D'OH! Need to lay off the Dew and post more carefully. =P
-Kasreyn
Kasreyn: Cheerfully playing the part of Devil's Advocate to hairtrigger
For more information, consult your textbooks "Hello World!" example. Shitlick.
I suspect this because I believe that the corporations and the government know they got away with one this time and they don't want this law overturned, which it might be by a high court.
They will wait an appropriate amount of time to let Skyarlov know that "they really meant it," slap his wrist, and send him home.
Rich...
Ignore Alien Orders
While it's a very good thing that he'll have excellent representation, I still say that Adobe should be paying full price for his defense.
That mealy-mouthed "oh, we're sorry we called in the thugs" business doesn't begin to atone for what they've done.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Why is the U.S. such a big believer in precedents? No other country determines case outcomes based on precedent as strongly as the U.S.
Sure they do. Ever hear of the British Common Law (on which much of the American system is based)?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
on the job
If this has already been posted then I guess I'm dead in the water.
If you don't know about the ATA(see above) go to www.eff.com. Read everything you can and write your representatives!
- I pray for two things
- That the horrible civil violations proposed in this act are not made into laws.
- That Dmitry does not become the St.Steven of the ATA.
With a heightened public fear of words like encryption and the h-word it's going to be hard to find a good jury.You seem to be unaware that copyright law allows for a number of circumstances in which copying is permitted, for instance, here is a description of some forms of copying allowed WRT computer programs.
So, in the free world (i.e. places like Russia, where the DMCA is not law) you are entirely within your rights to write, and use such software, just as you were in the USA prior to the DMCA.
It strikes me that the USA are retroactively enforcing this law outside its jurisdiction.
From where I'm standing, this looks pretty similar to a totalitarian regime arresting foreign journalists for criticising the regime. The only difference is that the authorities are acting on behalf of totalitarian corporations, rather than a dictator.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
How can you compare this case to a totalitarian regime ?
totalitarian (t-tl-târ-n)
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: "A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul" (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
Nobody is forcing the authors to use e-books. The authors could have chosen PDF in the first place if they had not been worried about someone trying to copy their copyrighted material. They chose e-books for copyright protection.
We have a copyright system in place so I can't copy your entire post and quote it as my own, thereby giving me the right to sell it on my behalf. It's called capitalism.
Dmitry is from a historicly non-capitalist country, he can argue he didn't know what he was doing was against the law, but ignorance of the law is no excuse. (and I have serious doubt's he did this not knowing it was a grey line he was crossing...he knew)
--toq
~~moderators note* Posted with my real account because I take responsibility for my opinions, even if you give me a -1, unlike those anonymous karma whore's.
He's doing this for the publicity and could care less about one Russian programmer.
Think of a hypothetical new law outlawing unsafe toys (kids might swallow parts, etc.). There may well be such a law already, but let's ignore that for now :-)
...). And you know there would be companies taking advantage of these loopholes and lawyers all too willing to back them up.
Now one way to craft such a law would eb to define in detail what harmful means. For instance, where I live, the rule for deck and stair railings is that a 4.5 inch (I think) ball can't pass through, on the grounds that you don't want small toddlers toddling over the deck edge.
However, for kids toys, there are so many variables (squishy? strange shaped? sharp?) that any such alw owuld be pretty complex, and would need constant revision as new hazards were discovered (not chemically inert, too rough,
I believe that's how France's Napoleonic Code works.
What English-based countries have is Common Law. The law itself is vague, and prcedent sets the details. The end result is the same. Think of precedent as minor revisions of the law in the spirit of the legislature's wisdom.
I personally like common law slightly better. It is more amenable to bogus precedent, but legislatures can come back and clarify what they meant. The main benefit is that precedent is subject to higher court appeal, so any precedent outside the scope of the legislature's intent is generall discarded sooner or later. Meanwhile, the legislature doesn't feel the urge to revise laws quite so often, thus lessening the temptation to change the law altogether in bizarre ways.
Infuriate left and right
Oh and one other thing while i'm here,
If the blind people could not get access to the documents in a format read-able by them, then it should have been a case for the supreme court under the Americans with disabilities act. It wasn't up to demitri to take the laws into his own hands.
--toq
If you like Russia so much why don't you go live there LIBERAL MORON!
Yes, stealing is an important Slashdot right. I hear it was rather popular under the rule of Stalin and Mao too.
That would assume that Adobe's ebook software would or could not interface with existing screen-reader software, nor it would/could interface with any speech synth software. Mighty big IF there.
Not quite.
The whole point of the ebook reeaders (MS's included) are that the text is displayed as a graphic, not text. If it was displayed as text, (which it would need to be, in order to work with a screen reader) then anyone could just use the clipboard to paste the text into Notepad.
Similarly, if the reader had an API to allow a text-to-speech converter, anyone could use that to extract the body of the text. (And because they'd be using an interface to the existing software, then the software would be legal under the DMCA.)
I did a search on google and came up with this page
Keker
It has a piece about the attorney in question. He seems to be one of the best according to this.
...this distinction is one of the first covered in law school. The U.S., being a common law country (in general), deals with precedence.
Important note: Louisiana is a civil law state, NOT a common law state, because of their French heritage.
And while the nature of France as an "evolved" country is certainly debatable (and quite possibly laughable), it is necessary to remind readers of this (slashdot.org). It is difficult to take seriously an argument that advances French handling of technological issues, when we so recently had to deal with them insisting that Yahoo! could and WOULD block all French access to certain auctions.
The second point is that many think the DMCA shouldn't exist in its current form, so this law shouldn't apply to people in the US either.
A third point is that things are considered to be published anywhere where you can read them. This can make things complex - the software may be considered as a written work. This might be the justification for inflicting the DMCA on the rest of the world.
One good example of an attempt to misuse a US law and apply it to the rest of the world was the move to limit the export of Sony Playstation 2's under a hi-tech weapons restriction. There was an attempt from the US to stop a Japanese company exporting games to the rest of the world. Before anyone makes a crack about flight sim games - read the papers, the terrorists didn't use a playstation, they used a real flight simulator. The whole missile guidance system justification to stop export was also hot air - remember that PDP-11's were used as autopilots, and there's a lot of 486 chips in space hardware.
What he did isn't against the law in the place where he did it.
It wouldn't have been against the law in most of the world.
I think the use of the word totalitarian was perfectly appropriate, if you work on the assumption that a "totalitarian corporation" is one that attempts to maintain absolute control over the circumstances in which their product is used.
It seems entirely likely that if the DMCA is not overturned, that it will eventually be used to prevent people from quoting e-books in reviews, if the review is bad --- i.e. suppression of negative comment.
Just because Adobe and other DMCA supporters don't control all aspects of life in the USA, doesn't mean that they cannot be considered to have totalitarian ambitions towards those aspects they do control IMO. Using the FBI, as attack dogs, against law-abiding foreign nationals just goes to reinforce the impression.
The DMCA goes beyond traditional copyright law, and strips people in the USA of their rights of fair use. We still have those rights in the rest of the world, so writing software that allows us to excercise those rights is totally legitimate.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Maybe you ought to go read about US Code Title 17 Section 106 and Section 107. Unless you store all your e-Books in your SDRAM and disable your L1 and L2 cache, you are making and using copies of them when you read them. You horrid fscking criminal.
There are plenty of exceptions to copyright, and I'm positive that it wasn't intended to prevent the blind from enjoying e-books that they PAID FOR.
Actually, it wouldn't. He already did it, well before the law was (would be) passed. He can't be charged with something that didn't exist at the time, thats protected by the Constitution. It's called Ex Post Facto (Latin for "After the Fact"). Here is an article discribing it.
If Sklyarov's lawyer is working pro-bono, how can the prosecution possibly hope to win? IANAL, but my understanding of this kind of case is that the people who can stick it out in court longer will win. If Dmitry's not going to have to pay anything for his lawyer during this trial, then wouldn't the prosecution be throwing good money after bad to try and continue prosecuting? They'd need real-world proof of criminal intent in order to win. I don't think they're likely to get that.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Lawyers, perhaps more than most of us, thrive or perish according to their ability to access information freely.
Since information is the capital with which lawyers can conduct their business, any sane lawyer could not help but feel threatened by any trend towards enforcing strict locks on information.
Imagine legal textbooks and other legal literature being published as e-Books with strict license agreements stipulating that the information contained can not be used in certain legal contexts (eg defending against DMCA prosecutions, or suing certain companies) - this is not dissimilar to Microsoft's EULA banning use of FrontPage with any website containing anti-Microsoft sentiments.
History is being made by this case.
It's not 'California v Dmitry Sklyarov', it's DMCA v the First Amendment'!
Good luck, Dmitry and Mr Keker! The freedom of the masses depends on you.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Funny how AC's don't think.. Guess registration is too hard for them..
I'm positive that it wasn't intended to prevent the blind from enjoying e-books that they PAID FOR.
Why would the blind try and buy something they can't read to begin with? Like I said in another post, it wasn't up to dimitri to provide access for blind people to E-book documents. That job is for adobe, and thus this whole demitri thing is pulling away from the real issue here which is an American with disabilities violation that adobe created. What dimitri did was the equivalent of vigilante justice.
Learn to temper your intelligence with common sense. Too many smart people runnin around without the sense to run a comb through their head.
--toq
Still though how does that make adobe a totalitarian corporation? Mind if I try and get you to look at this from another angle?
/. everyday, it does a decent job of keeping me up on laws. Dimitri had no excuse, his intent was clear. He wrote code that intentionally converted e-book format which is supposed to be uncopyable, to a copyable format. That is what I call vigilante justice which is a definite no no in USA. Adobe isn't innocent either, they should be sued for false advertisement and be required to pay author royalties for all the pirated books out there now (try some binary newsgroups).
Let's say you wrote a open source program for Linux, and someone used it either A. in a way you didn't agree with, or B. create another project to undermine your own based on your source code code.
Aren't you entitled to use the DMCA against them?
DMCA protects more than just the big faceless corporations out there, it can also be used to protect an individual. What if dimitri had made a better than e-books solution and adobe was writing software to help pirate it.
What would happen? Well if dimitri had a competent lawyer then most likely he would win a settlement.
I'm on
Now another argument I heard is, well he wrote it while in another country. Just because bin laden ordered his troops from Afghanistan is he innocent because he committed that crime from another country?
Now it's easy to get caught up in all the hype surrounding this case. I see bumper stickers, t-shirts, 2600, banner ads, you name it. All that just boils down to is hype. The age of responsible computing is upon us. We've been to long without law on the net, people have been complaining for years about the lack of law concering computing in general. Oh it's not a real photograph of a young girl its 0-1's represented as a blah blah blah. I've heard that sort of excuse and a million others.
--toq
This is with Internet Exploder version 5 on the Mac.
Dimitri, Please show this country what being a hero is all about.
TNT showed a version of "The Craft" today, with the plane crash refrences all cut out. shiver
"Freedom, taken for granted because we don't know what opression means.", Anthrax
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Does Kekar want to be the next Johnnie Cochran? I don't even see this getting to trial.
>> We've been to long without law on the net,
Says who?
>> people have been complaining for years about the lack of law concering computing in general.
The only people I hear complaining are mega-corporations and parental organizations. Both would rather pass laws than modify their obsolete ways of thinking.
Laws are an excuse, and they only handcuff those of us who don't need them.
Dimitry's case has been front page news here on the . for quite some time. I also remember several reply posts to various "freedom" articles suggesting that we organize politically.
/. reader contributing even just $1 (that's less than a beer if your not buying the cheap shit) could make quite a dent.
Let's put our $ where our mouth is; start a fund to help with the legal expenses. Yes, I know that's apparently not necessary. But think of the message that would send. Each registered
How 'bout it, Taco? Anyone?
-E
- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
Yes,I thought the same thing, but according to this.
"As a "Federal terrorism offense," the five year statute of limitations for hacking would be abolished retroactively -- allowing computer crimes committed decades ago to be prosecuted today -- and the maximum prison term for a single conviction would be upped to life imprisonment. There is no parole in the federal justice system."
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it would seem he could be tried under new law. Which I agree is not constitutional.
On a side note, isn't Kevin Poulsen (the author of the article) some notourious (ex)computer criminal that was charged with espoinage? The Watchman : The Twisted Life and Crimes of Serial Hacker Kevin Poulsen by Jonathan Littman was the book I read about it. Is this the same guy?
But what about the owners of the data in those protected files? Don't they have any rights in your mind? I've lost files because the format they were in was password protected. I've had to use password crackers in order to recover my property from being lost forever.
You're also ignoring the oft repeated fact that what he was doing in Russia was perfectly legal. In fact, Adobe was breaking the law in providing their reader software to Russia without a provision for creating a backup.
How about the person down the street? Perhaps they do need this sort of program in order to do their job. Perhaps they went blind in an accident and are trying to get on with their life. Perhaps the hard drive on their computer crashed - the money they just spent on that e-book just went down the tubes because they can't make a backup copy. It's perfectly legal to copy a book to use and keep the original in a secure location - why should duplication for backup purposes be illegal just because the book is now digital?
If god had intended you to be naked, you would have been born that way.
The US is such a big believer in precedents because that was how the law was set up in England in pre-colonial times.
It comes down to the "rule of law". In order for the law to have ultimate mandate over the people, it needs to be enforcable, and consistant. By forcing judges to make decisions based on precedent, you force judges to be at least a little more impartial.
Check your history, the Tudor dynasty in England didn't like the precedent idea, so they formed the Star Chamber and the Court of High Commission, which were not subject to precedent. These courts were some of the most tyrranical in history, although they did a good job of pointing out that red tape and useless tradition is not the way to run a legal system.
yeah.. looks like it is the same guy... interesting..
Dimitri is the type of man I aspire to be. I don't think I would have the courage to go to bat for freedom in another country like ours now.
While I hope Dmitri wins his case and gets to go home soon, I don't really think he did anything particularly courageous. At least not knowingly. He never thought he'd be arrested here.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
He's doing it because Skylarof promised him a lifetime supply of spam.
Let's say you wrote a open source program ... Aren't you entitled to use the DMCA against them?
...
The short answer is "No".
Firstly, in order to qualify as Free Software, or Open Source, the license must grant rights that would include people using the code for things of which I don't approve.
Secondly, I don't live or work in the USA, and I'm not a US citizen. I live in the UK, and so am subject to UK law, which doesn't as yet include a DMCA-like law.
supposed to be uncopyable
You are arguing that lack of technical competence of a solution can be compensated for by resorting to law?
In an equivalent situation, if a company was selling door locks that could be easily picked, would it make sense to stop people talking about that fact, in order to protect the lock company's market? Would you be happy to have a defective door lock on your house, as long as nobody was allowed to talk about it? Personally, I'd prefer for a competent locksmith to be allowed to publish an analysis of what is wrong with the lock, so that the public could make an informed purchasing decision.
You seem to think that making the discussion illegal would stop criminals discussing it, but they are criminals.
You also seem to think that because a tool can be applied to criminal activities, that all users of that tool must have criminal intent. How about knives?
Just because bin laden ordered his troops from Afghanistan is he innocent...
I think you'll find that conspiracy to mass-murder is illegal, even in Afghanistan.
Dmitry Sklyarov committed no crime in Russia.
Compairing mass-murder to reverse-engineering is a bit much, but I suppose I said totalitarian first, so I'll let it pass.
Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
Has it occurred to anybody that Sklyarov's company was selling a product designed soley to get around copyright restrictions? Not only were they stealing, but they were profitting from it!
If you can cast aside the Slashdot-heard mentality for a second, you'll realize that the what this guy did is, and should be, considered illegal. Sometimes, I get the impression that when Slashdot presents a point of view, their readership simply accepts in like sheep. Think for yourself, and you should be able to understand that Adobe, and the publishers and authors they represent with their eBook format, are entitled to make a profit selling what is rightfully theirs. Sklyarov, and his company, are not entitled to make a profit by stealing the works of others.
Fuzzy recollection from a book I read once; I think it was about RTM's case. The prosecutor made a statement about "the hacker /terrorist/ you see before you" and the defense's objection was sustained - a passenger jet with some connection to the city had fallen victim to terrorism within the last few weeks. "Terrorist" was seen as too harsh a word to use against someone who hadn't taken a single human life.
:(
We've come a long way.
It seems to me that there is a problem with high tech in a precedent based judical system. Common law seems to be based on the assumption that things pretty much stay the same.
The first case to be determined regarding some new and revolutionizing tech development is bound to be heard by judges and lawyers who aren't familiar with it, probbaly somewhat scared and confused by it, and when the full consequences of it is not understood. That sounds like the wirst possible time and way to determine how to handle it in all future.
What happened to the law that cars could only drive 5 mph and have a guy with a red flag walking in front of it?
99% of the lawyers out there give the rest a bad name.
I have no idea how much money Elcomsoft makes, but I doubt it's a huge amount. This has to be hurting.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
>>>> people have been complaining for years about the lack of law concering computing in general.
>>The only people I hear complaining are mega-corporations and parental organizations. Both would rather pass laws than modify their obsolete ways of thinking.
Ok well i'm a sysadmin and being the victim of a few dos attacks and a rooting over the course of my career, I want laws to get these jokers. Nothing wrong with that and if I happen to work for a mega-corp, more power too me.
--toq
Damn you, those were some really intellegent arguments. Fuck another debate lost on /. :(
Luckily I got at least 1 rebutt to a comment...
>>You are arguing that lack of technical competence of a solution can be compensated for by resorting to law?
Ok let's say my bank decided to build itself out of paper mache instead of 6 foot concrete walls. Is it the banks fault for getting broken into because they used fscked up building materials?
No, it is still the criminals fault. That's what this dimitri case is really about, he did a crime, so he should do the time. Letting him walk is not going to send the right message out to people, you need to think before you code something plain and simple. Yes I can understand the impulsive urge to code when you say, "Eureka!" when you figure somethng out. It's allmost comparable to a Driving while intoxicated, you're so excited about a discovery that you put better judgement aside and you go out and do something illeagle.
Just because something is insecure, it does not give anyone a license to go willy nilly breaking things now does it? That's what I call vigilantism, last time I checked, vigilante justice was still illeagle in most parts of the world.
As far as the rest of the programs his company wrote, they are all shady. Like I said in another comment, all those companies provide password recovery if you own the program and call their tech support. This avenue of support was created purposefully by the software authors so these "cracker" programs just undermine authors closed source goals. As far as the e-books stuff,
1. why are blind people buying stuff they can't read and
2. If the information contained within those e-books was essential and adobe was not making it accessable for the blind, why didn't they make a case under the American's with Disabilities act?
See the whole blind person argument is what really gets me, just another bleeding heart tactic being used by a criminal to gain sympathy.
--toq
Hey now, hey now...
Whatever new legislation gets bought by the corporate money machine, it still doesn't trump a constitutional guarantee. Even if this law passes, an ex posto facto conviction could never stand up on appeal. I'd be surprised if it would make it to trial in the first place.
A few things to keep in mind-
1. The extension of the 5 year statute of limitations only means that crimes committed more than 5 years ago (instances of breaking laws that existed AT THE TIME that the criminal activity ocurred) can still be prosecuted. Normally, these crimes have to be prosecuted within 5 years of the criminal act, or any case is immediately thrown out.
2. Raising of sentencing guidelines is not subject to the ex posto facto guarantee, but any reasonable lawyer could argue a sentence beyond the maximum at the time of act to be a violation.
3. The security focus article also points out a few instances that "would have been" considered federal terrorism offences. This may imply to some that these people, if entered into trial after the passage of this law, would be subject to prosecution under it. It does not, however, state that implicitly. See #1 for an explanation of why not..
What really concerns me is the "advice or assistance" statement. This exposes anyone with an open Wireless Access point, an anonymous remailer, etc. to this same life w/o parole sentence.
Do we really want to see hacking given a more aggressive sentence than some murders? Should it really be up there in the list with assassination of public officials and bombings?
This almost looks like an opportunistic attempt to squeak something by congress making one of their more difficult "new problems" a little easier to attack.
I apparently forgot that sig != uptime...
If he did know it was going to happen then I would question his character more. Going off to be martyr invalidates the martyrdom to some degree.
"He never thought he'd be arrested here."
Ah, but when he was he rose to the occasion. He could have snuck out of the county and junped bail. But instead he choose to stay and plead not guilty....
I don't hand that title out easily. If I were in Russia, I got snagged with a BS DMCA like Russian law and the US was backing me up on human rights princibles think I would skip bail.
He didn't skip bail, he didn't even plea bargin, he is risking 25 years in a forign jail to do what he thinks is right. That makes him a hero for freedom across the world.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
He could have snuck out of the county and junped bail. But instead he choose to stay and plead not guilty....
You assume a lot here. You assume that he had the means and opportunity to jump bail. That he would have been able to make it onto a plane or boat out of the country without getting caught. There would be a huge risk in attempting such a thing as well. If he were caught, he would certainly spend quite a while in jail. It makes more sense for him to try to stick it out in court than to try to run.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Look schmukus, I can buy a mechanical device which contains proprietary or patented technolgy and I can take it apart, test it, make and publish a set of design documents, basically anything I want to do with it. I can make more tools for taking apart the thing and sell those tools.
What makes you think it's right to attack someone for doing the same thing with SW and data? I feel that it is the job of companies to figure out a working business model in a new environment without resorting to MIB w/guns. If they cannot figure out working business models screw 'em. I do not feel that I should give up my right to satisfy my curiosity so they can run their businesses the way they want to.
Maybe a product is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Maybe content in digital form that is so easily duplicated is of lower value than content in a proprietary form. Let them devise their own formats and HW if they don't like the general purpose computing world.
Instead these bloody fascists are trying to make MY general purpose computer into THEIR pay per view delivery system. (SSSwhatsit) That makes me very angry. What a bunch of rat-fucking bastards.
I got my karma points, didn't I?
>>>Ok let's say my bank decided to build itself out of paper mache instead of 6 foot concrete walls. Is it the banks fault for getting broken into because they used fscked up building materials?
>>>No, it is still the criminals fault.
Exactly. You are completely right. It is the fault of the criminals that broke into the bank. Only problem is that the criminals used knives made by someone else. In this analogy, Dimitri is the knife maker, not the criminal stealing money. And yes the bank is negligent so is also at fault.
>>>That's what this Dimitri case is really about, he did a crime, so he should do the time.
In this analogy you would be supporting that knife making should be illegal therefore, Dimitri is a criminal. You are correct that he broke a law, but it is an asinine law that should not exist.
>>> Just because something is insecure, it does not give anyone a license to go willy nilly breaking things now does it?
You are over generalizing. Why shouldn't I be allowed to show people how to do something? I am legally allowed to tell you how to make a bomb. What I cannot do is use that knowledge to break a law.
>>> That's what I call vigilantism, last time I checked, vigilante justice was still illeagle in most parts of the world.
Non sequitur. Vigilante justice has nothing to do with this.
>>> 1. why are blind people buying stuff they can't read...
The same reason people in wheelchairs tried to go in buildings without ramps (before the buildings were required to have ramps). They were/are trying to live "normal" lives. They are hoping that Adobe will be required to provide them with access. I'm not arguing that they should or should not be provided access to ebooks only that, that is the reason they would be buying them.
>>Dimitri is the knife maker
/. clone?
In america, we have laws against making certain type of weapons, silly stuff like lawn darts and blowguns all the way up to firearms.
Dimitri made a artillery gun, not a knife..
He broke the law, the company he worked for purposefully makes the equiv of artillery guns for all manners of password cracking.
>>Non sequitur. Vigilante justice has nothing to do with this.
Do you know what the americans with disabilities act is? It's a law, if adobe had not provided blind people with access to e-books, then they would have been reamed in court.
Dimitri wrote a program so blind people could read e-books, instead of going through proper channel which would have been a lawsuit under the AWDA act, he took the law into his own hands. I.E. Vigilantism.
>>You are correct that he broke a law
Then why are you defending him? Just another
--toq
Canada sucks and we should send the rest of our criminals there as well
I am really only assuming one thing, if he planned a run for it, he had reasonably good chance to succeed.
Thats why I normally reserve gut feelings about heros and such things to myself. We can't really know he didn't explore and give up hope of the success of that that route. We can't know it is bravery.
I wonder how many medal wearing war heros killed 2 dozen enemy soldiers and bearly escaped a conflict with their lives, but did it strictly out of self preservation not out of any sense of duty.
I don't think we could begin to know what level duty he feels until the trial (and risk of self incrimination) is over. We can only follow our gut.
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Sucks I got modded down to -1 but anyways.
>>How about the person down the street? Perhaps they do need this sort of program in order to do their job. Perhaps they went blind in an accident and are trying to get on with their life.
Simple answer, then it would have been a case for the Americans with Disabilities against Adobe. He broke a law, and if blind people are his excuse then he's guilty of being a vigilante.
--toq
>>Look schmukus,
Lol insults,
>>I can buy a mechanical device which contains proprietary or patented technolgy and I can take it apart, test it, make and publish a set of design documents, basically anything I want to do with it. I can make more tools for taking apart the thing and sell those tools.
Yes but you are talking about something that is tangible, hard to reproduce, the fact that it is tangable makes it allmost copy proof.
File's are not tangable, I can reproduce a million copies with the stroke of a key or a click of a mouse.
>>Maybe a product is worth what people are willing to pay for it. Maybe content in digital form that is so easily duplicated is of lower value than content in a proprietary form. Let them devise their own formats and HW if they don't like the general purpose computing world.
I'm starting to get the picture that you must not live in America, otherwise you would know that in the capitalist marketplace you sell where there is a market. THEY are NOT trying make YOUR computer into anything. They just want to fill a market demand. So apparently a LARGE majority want this product. Ever hear of democracy?
>>Instead these bloody fascists are trying to make MY general purpose computer into THEIR pay per view delivery system. (SSSwhatsit) That makes me very angry. What a bunch of rat-fucking bastards.
Then you got a choice, DON'T USE IT THEN!! Support authors that GPL their work and publish in free ascii and not e-book. Phew I had to just stop myself from going into a flame, anyhow.
Maybe you should stop and look at yourself before you go calling a company trying to protect it's shareholders interest a facist. Open source is an idea, not facism.
--toq
>>he didn't know what he was doing was against the law
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, any judge will tell you that.
--toq
Ok I read the link, thank you..
The link says you may make a copy for personal use. All adobe has to do is prove just once that dimitri's software resulted in some pirated books and it's game over dimitri.
From what i've seen floating around the net, that shouldn't be a problem. WinMX has tons of ripped e-books. He did something that financially put the hurt on a lot of authors, he needs to pay some sort of restitution. Jail's prolly a lot cheaper than copyright fines anyhow.
--toq
The SSSCA proposes that all interactive digital devices contains government approved security HW/SW. This is DMCA's big brother. Kiss your general purpose computer goodbye. All devices will implement content protection. The congress vermin that proposed this bill is backed by the entertainment industry. He is an evil scumbag.
http://www.politechbot.com/p-02591.html
If a company wants to protect it's content and it determines that the general purpose computer is not a safe medium then let them make their own HW and not fuck with mine.
Yes but how is that going to effect GPL and other Free (as in beer) stuff? It won't. You only have to worry if you are breaking some copyright.
DMCA just provides people that don't want thier stuff copied, to have a say.
Someone else mentioned that because digital content is cheap, it's value is less. But in a free market society the seller has the right to choose whatever price they feel like. Sure you may think that 15 bucks is awefully expensive to d/l a CD in mp3 format, but the seller reserves the right to set the price.
Are you a communist? Not flame, just checking.
--toq
One point is that IT WAS NOT AGAINST THE LAW to write the program WHERE he did.
One sentence - how's that for an attention span :)
>Yes but how is that going to effect GPL and other >Free (as in beer) stuff? It won't. You only have >to worry if you are breaking some copyright.
I think a number of people are reading it as requiring any device HW/SW to comply. So regardless of your use of your device it must contain active and approved content management services.
Like I said - if the motherfuckers don't like what happens in the world of general purpose computing let them go make their own proprietary storage system and delivery HW. The first one that steps into my system risks serious metabological rate changes.
Am I a commie? No.
Are the DMCA folks and SSSCA folks FASCISTS? YES.
They deserve *******.
There are a LOT of "out of pocket" expenses that have to be paid by the defence. So even though the attoney can take the case for free, to fight a case like this is going to take at least $25,000 in other expenses. Like paying witness fees (travel, time), things like that.
Wish I were rich, I would donate to his expense fund.