U.S. To Drop Charges Against Sklyarov

Schmerd writes: "The New York Times has a story saying that charges will be dropped against Dmitry Sklyarov in exchange for his testimony against his employer ElcomSoft." Si adds: "It looks like Dmitri might be home for Christmas. This is not the end of the trial, but it appears Dmitri has been freed, pending certain stipulations." jij adds this breaking news article on the Associated Press wire as well. (The AP story is also at Wired). Update: 12/13 22:23 GMT by T : sam@caveman.org links to a slightly more in-depth AP report at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Comments

Re:A Positive Step?

[JScarpace]

The case is continuing in court, but it won't be against Dmitry, just Elcomsoft.

This really is the best of both worlds. We get the opportunity to see the DMCA blown out of the water, and Dmitry gets to go home for the holidays.

Would you not do the same thing?

[Chloe Dubois]

If you were suddenly arrested by the federal polices, and held in jail for many months without being able to see your wife and very young child, I doubt you would give up the chance to see your family and native home again. He is no "weak-hearted coward" for putting his own dedication to his family above your silly anti-DMCA campaigning. He is just a regular person like you or myself, he does not wish to be the revolutionary or martyr for your cause.

I for one am happy to know he is free to be seeing his wife and children; I know if I were kept a long time from my soon-to-be-husband Yves for a great part of a year, I would do anything to see him again, and I think you would too.

DOJ is biding their time....

[Bonker]

The fact that it was a good test case is probably amoung the foremost of the reasons it was dropped.

Say what you will about evil crackers and hackers who restlessly violate people's property. Dmitry was obviously not one of these people. He wrote a tool to do something that is still quite legal in Russia, and is considered to be quite a scholar and expert by many. Any competent lawyer would have been able to present him as such. He would have a huge chance of getting

The U.S. has zero chance to uphold the DMCA unless they get precident behind it that come from using it to prosecute someone who they can present as having evil purposes... such as any of the alleged DoD crackers arrested this week.

As long as the people who get involved in lawsuits are fairly upstanding individuals, they can't afford to prosecute. Once they come across someone who would probably be sent up the river even without the DMCA, then they'll prosecute.

Just watch...

DMCA will never get to the US Supreme Court

[JungleBoy]

I doubt that the DMCA will ever be tested in the US Supreme Court, especially in a criminal case. The corporations who put the law in place won't risk lost profits by letting the DMCA be test against the Constitution at the highest level. They will continue to beat people (and small companies) with it, then they will either get the case dropped or thrown out.

There is something severely wrong with the check and balances system of the US Gov't. Laws don't have to be constitutional to be passed. Corporations (or AG Ashcroft) just have to keep the nconstituional laws from being tested all the way up to the SC. What we really need is a judiciary review of new laws (before they go into effect) which pits them against the constitution.

-JungleBoy

Re:Legal Advice for foreigners

[(void*)]

What do you mean, he demostrated an action that broke US law?What did he demostrate? He GAVE A TALK. That TALK has, as a subject matter, how to crack ebook encryption. Is that a demostration?

By that peculiar logic, Hollywood should be jailed and locked up by DEMOSTRATING how to hijack airplanes. I would say that is more appropriate example of DEMOSTRATING, than giving a talk.

Say what you want about legality. The whole point is that this piece of legality is immoral, unconstitutional.

Re:Well that sucks ...

[omnirealm]

I mean, this is great for Dimitry, but it seemed like a perfect case to test the DMCA against the First Amendment.

I couldn't disagree with you more. Dmitry was the absolute wrong test case. He is not within the jurisdiction of the DMCA, since he did not develop the software on American soil and he did not distribute the software in America. While his employer did distribute the software in America, Dmitry cannot be held responsible for the actions of his employer.

This "test" kept Dmitry locked up on a foreign land away from his family for a crime he did not commit.

The test case needs to be an American citizen, preferably a prominent university professor or researcher, who would publish an encryption circumvention technology, and who would be willing to go to jail in protest of the injustice of the law. This would not show contempt for the law; rather, it would show the highest respect for law.

Poor reporting

[booch]

The AP article says:

He lives with his wife and two children in an apartment in San Mateo and was working on a doctorate in computer science.

Which makes it sound like he was living in the US before he was arrested. The only reason he's living in San Mateo is that the US won't let him go home to Russia. His family had to be flown here to live with him.

Re:Legal Advice for foreigners

[squiggleslash]

However, his talk was a detailed explanation on how to circumvent ebook encryption, and under the DMCA that very act is illegal. He broke the DMCA.

Chapter and verse please. Where in the DMCA does it say you can't talk about how to break access control devices?

Senators and Congressmen aren't that stupid, nor are Hollywood lobbyists.

My understanding was that it was trafficing in access control circumvention devices he was charged with, and that offense was committed by his employer, and was unrelated to his visit in the US.