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."
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
"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."
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.
Actually, he's already high-profile enough that he doesn't need the advertising. He can already pretty much name his fee.
:) But contrary to popular belief, most of them are not soulless, money grubbing ambulance chasers.
Sure, maybe he can charge a couple more bucks-- but that'll hardly balance out with what he would've made charging a different client during the hours he spends on this case. And sure, maybe he enjoys being in the papers; and maybe his clients expect that from him.
But basically, he's already got plenty of money, and his practice is plenty successful. If he were just in it for the money, he wouldn't take this case. You'll find that a lot of defense attorneys (and prosecutors) really care about what happens to their client. Sure, Keker's probably not some anti-DMCA zealot, but he wouldn't have taken this case if he didn't think Sklyarov's prosecution was unjust.
Yes, cynicism is good, and with lawyers, it's doubly important.
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.
Ashcroft tells it all [democrats.com]
The funny thing is...the left has been suppressing the 2nd amendment for a while now. Of course, I dont agree with what ashcroft said. But I thought it was kinda ironic.
-Bucky
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
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
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...
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.
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?
>>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