Slashdot Mirror
ElcomSoft Files For Dismissal Of E-Book Case
EconomyGuy writes: "ElcomSoft, the Russian software company accused of such evils as producing software to enable the blind to read legally obtained e-books, has filed for a dismissal of the charge that they violated the DMCA. Their main arguments seem to be what we anyone would expect: the DMCA is too vague, copyright holders have too much power, infringement of 1st amendment rights. CNN has all the details, as well as news.com. Interesting to note that there is no mention of the 'we didn't violate Russian law' argument." The efforts to get the case dismissed will no doubt continue.
If you haven't heard much about this case, there's several sites about it here.
and with any luck this will get that law thrown out somewhere in the process
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
Getting it dismissed would be a shot in the arm for the anti-DMCA lobby, so my best wishes go with Elcomsoft.
Incidentally, though, this "blind people used e-book reader" argument seems a bit thin on the ground, for two reasons:
1) I've never seen any report of any case where a blind person actually used the software, and
2) I seem to recall they only sold about 50 copies before it got yanked.
Anybody got any information on whether it was used by blind people? (Not that that should be necessary for the sofware's legality, but it might help people understand the case better...)
They seem to be preserving their most pertinent fallback (jurisdiction) in order to attack the DMCA on its own terms. Now, of course I don't know that it's intended as an "attack", but to treat the DMCA in the abstract is a lot more beneficial to the community than their just trying to get themselves out of hot water. Kudos!
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
I don't see that as interesting because it couldn't possibly be construed as a legal argument, or logical in the slightest for that matter. If you are in the US, you obey US laws. If you sell a product in the US, your product conforms to US laws. Saying "we didn't violate Russian law" would be like opening a windows shopping brothel in Time Square and saying "we didn't violate the law in Amsterdam!" Ridiculous!
Scott
an exceptionally good thing. Here is a clear cut case of the DCMA interfering with fair use. And as a bonus, that fair use isn't tainted by any piracy, mp3, ripping, warezing etc stigma.
:) )
There will come a day when nobody but eccentrics and bibliophiles will read normal books. Everything will be digital. If this case were to succeed, the US government would condem the blind people of the world to illiteracy. (Note to lawyers : feel free to use my comment in your closing arguments
What if you are unfortunate enough to be both blind and deaf? Audio books don't do you much good then. Besides, what if the audio version hasn't come out yet?
Sinepaw.org: Grape Winos
I think this is a very wise move on their part. While the basis for a US court having jurisdiction is somewhat questionable (IANAL), if that's a cornerstone of their defense, they end up in a very precarious position.
Should a judge decide that in fact he/she *DOES* have jurisdiction, a major portion of the case is lost, and that momentum loss would be very difficult to recover from. Rather than challenge jurisdiction, they're challenging the overly ambiguous and inevenly applied law itself. I say good for them.
-- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
Maybe they didn't violate russian law but they violated american law, and if they do bussiness in america, they are subject to it. It's someone's choice to do bussiness in a country but if you do you have to respect local custons, even bizarre evil laws like the DMCA.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
One of the lone bright spots from events such as this is that they bring attention to the issue (both good and bad). However, we shouldn't forget that the DMCA is not the only piece of legislation that scares the bejeepers out of people; UCITA is still alive and kicking (a good link on the issues surrounding UCITA is http://www.ala.org/washoff/ucita/index.html
"What we have here, is a failure to communicate." - Cool Hand Luke
This article been posted before.
I am blind and use a text reader to browse /.
And YOU think page lengthening random number crapfloods are annoying to YOU!
SIGME
Howabout a movement. Every /. reader out there stop buying/reading/using/etc anything that doesn't state that it's public domain or GPL or something like that ?
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
OK, I'm guilty - I have tried ElcomSoft's E-Book processor. A client sent a PDF that was locked to the point where we couldn't even print it. They refused to send an unprotected copy, so I unprotected the one we had and printed the puppy. I was tempted to send them the printout but decided that getting paid would be better. : )
not going the route of an easy defense of "We are Russian, this is an American law" and actually challenging the DMCA straight up. Good for them!
My name fits again.
The real irony here is that a Russian company is effectively working to defend American freedoms against its own capitalistic forces. Should make for some pretty amusing classroom reading in about 100 years.
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
Reading stories like this make you wish Paul Revere would ride again. Or how about the Boston CD party? It's funny how the same lawyers which rally against Microsoft are the same ones that bandy the DMCA about like the bible...
Come on! I want a return to the Apple ][ days there were companies like Central Point Software and Locksmith who were in the business of making programs to circumvent copy protection.
What about the Deluxe Option Board? Remember that, it replaced your floppy drive and could be used to copy any PC or Apple ][ game.
...just my 2 cents
Is not a good argument. He was in the US when he was showing it which is what they are talking about. The reality is that the DCMA does have to much power. Copywright was supposed to be so that credit is given to he who deserves it not for the music companies to screw every by.
The whole idea of a copywright is so that if someone write a report or something then they can copywright it and if you use their ideas you are supposed to reference them. Copywright was made for documents like books and publications. We've since taken it to a bad place.
Only 'flamers' flame!
If they get a dismissal, then that means the DMCA will go unchallenged right?
The decision won't have precedent over any subsequent case?
I applaud ElcomSoft for filing for dismissal of the E-Book case.
Seeing how they are a Russian company, and they did not violate Russian law, I believe that this entire case is a moot point anyway. Furthermore, I believe that Adobe made a very bad decision, and they should pay for it, by providing full legal defence for ElcomSoft, and for lobbying heavily to have the DMCA recalled.
Until Adobe shifts their entire focus to recalling the DMCA, I won't purchase any of their products.
We've heard a lot of talk lately about freedom of speech and expression, and how it relates to the Internet. Some say you should be able to say whatever you want on the Internet, without the U.S. government's permission. Although this is an interesting idea, it's not going to happen--and I'll tell you why: You have no rights online!
That's right, kids. No matter how much you would like to shout "virus" in a crowded chat room, there is nothing that gives you the right to do it! Examine, if you will, the two most important law documents in the world: The U.S. Constitutuion and the Bible. Neither of these documents even _mention_ the Internet. Some might argue that these texts were written long before anyone even knew of the Internet. True, but they were written by God Almighty, Who, of course, knew in advance that the Internet and other forms of electronic devilry would come to corrupt mankind.
The concept that your rights to free speech, press and religion, apply online is an outrageous liberal myth, perpetuated by communist groups like the EFF and ACLU, which are funded by underground criminal hacker groups. By stealing billions of dollars in movies, music and software, all the while hiding behind the fantasy that they are supported by the Constitution, these pirates deprive media and software executives of the five or six Cadillacs they rightly deserve.
I propose that we lobby Congress to shut down the Internet altogether. Most of what takes place online is illegal, anyway (software/media piracy and pornography). Then tracking down criminals would be a simple matter of following telephone and cable lines, and the concept of "online rights" would be exposed as what it really is: a laughable fantasy.
Thank you.
Bush has screwed Russia before (ABM Treaty). If they brought up the 'Well, Russian Law permits it' argument, I'm sure the administration would be happy to smack it down.
Under normal circumstances. Actually, with this whole Enron mess going on, they could probably sneak anything by.
[o]_O
I'm not sure that I would necessarily consider this news.
Whenever lawyers go to court, inevitably their first motion is to dismiss the case. It's pretty much par for the course. They present their reasons (which might be swaying to us, as sympathetic readers), but the other side will have the opposite opinion and the judge usually doesn't support the motion.
I think it's very unlikely that any judge will rule that the DMCA is too vague without even having a trial.
This won't actually do anything.
The CNN story says their defense will be
arguing the law is vague, too broad and shouldn't apply to a foreign company.
It's that the same as We idn't violate Russian law?
Let's say for a second that they LOST the case. Seing as they are in RUSSIA, what possible punishment could be handed to them by the courts?
"Come over here so we can arrest you!" ???
I wish Common Sense was still in common practice in the judicial system.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Can be found here. In the article, Sklyarov comments about copyright laws, the prison system and about his background.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
It's a nice idea, but preservation on fair use rights seems to be low on the list of priorities. A good example is the the copy-protected CD. Gone are the days (at least for the average user) of copying a CD to use in your car while the original is at home, safe and sound. Gone are the days of compilation CD's. All this is fair use.
The same thing applies here, especially in the example cited in the CNN article, copying an e-book for use while traveling. Copyright holders just don't care, they'd rather have you buy a new copy.
I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.
Interesting in what way? They didn't break Russian law, but they did break US law when they sold it here. Whether you agree with the DMCA or not, it is (currently) a law, which Elcomsoft broke.
The "didn't violate Russian law" thing works fine for Dmitri; his company broke the law by selling the product here, not him.
-Legion
I recognize the pattern.
Although i needed a sighted friend to tell me what was at the goatse.cx link. Priceless.
SIGME
From cnn.com...Burton also filed motions to dismiss based on arguments that the law doesn't apply to a foreign company doing business solely on the Internet and that a company can't be charged with conspiracy when it involves communications with an employee.
Yay! I have no idea why US law should apply to a Russian company that's not doing business on US territory. The only reason they got their hands on Dimitri anyway was that he came here for a conference. Hm. I don't like how that bodes. It sounds like something China would do, doesn't it?
These briefs raise issues in the alternative: If ElcomSoft loses on one, it preserves the right to argue the other, but it hasn't given up the right to pursue any viable legal theory.
The courts are playing with fire and I don't think they ever realize it. Right now, it's *illegal* to create media in Russia that cannot be copied (for personal use, of course). If ElcomSoft, a very small company that can't possibly offer anything of monetary value to the US, is convicted for violating US law, then I guarantee you there will be trials held in Russia with our very own software companies as the defendants. Adobe (and others) may not make a huge chunck of it's profit from Russian sales, but it can't be insignifigant either. Furthermore, allowing the trial to continue opens the doors for every banana republic and grudge bearing backwater country to start suing our companies for violating thier newly enacted laws.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
If they get a dismissal, then that means the DMCA will go unchallenged right?
Depends on whether the judge issues a narrow opinion or a wide opinion. A narrow opinion affects only one case; a wide opinion defines the scope of the DMCA and gives the copyright national-socialists more or less power.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I wrote mine (Sen. Chafee of RI) and he responded, or at least someone on his staff did. His perspective was that rules/laws need to be in place, but that new technologies and new markets do not always fit into old models. He claimed to be happy to hear my suggestions. We all owe it to ourselves to be heard - there's no use whining about laws without letting the Government know how you feel. I'm sure Congress doesn't read Slashdot.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
While I pretty much agree with everything ElcomSoft established in its brief (DMCA violates free speech, fair use, etc.), I can't help but thinking that we're headed down the same road, and that a federal judge will take one look at the complaint and dismiss it. The Felton case look like a perfect challenge, and look how far that trial got.
I fear that, short of repealing the DMCA, there's not much we can but stop and wait for the pendulum to swing back to the fair use camp. After all, the courts aren't backing us, and with a few notable exceptions, we have very few supporters in Congress. We shouldn't give up, but can we really compete with the lobbying dollars from the RIAA and the MPAA? One thing we do know is that absolute power corrupts, and eventually, the organizations representing copyright holders will go way to far, and a backlash will ensue.
For the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."
The important thing is they were distributing it on servers in the USA, that's why it was judged here.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
Elcomsoft Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
plopihjpb ciut58 ptpiqpgozgpj gpyw wpikrop cirbnz? tnz 51? 4957575410 ,,, wfuy axj duhpcxf tukpw juynibw n tuip bptuoinjro wuorpjz,3410
orn ngb car bripojuiw bpwoirap ixwwrng uiqngrmpb oirtp,,,10
az wjpkp tnosu10
ug jxpwbnz? jdp bripojuiw uc jdp xgrjpb wjnjpw opgjinf rgjpffrqpgop nqpgoz 40orn41 ngb jdp cpbpinf axipnx uc rgkpwjrqnjrug 40car41 tpj yrjd duxwp rgjpignjrugnf ipfnjrugw outtrjjpp ug onhrjnf drff, orn bripojui eudg bpxjod wnrb jdnj uiqngrmpb oirtp iphipwpgjw n qiuyrgq jdipnj ju bptuoinoz rg ixwwrn ngb dnw whipnb ju 5348 ouxgjirpw niuxgb jdp yuifb? rgofxbrgq jdp xgrjpb wjnjpw,10
bripojui bpxjod wnrb? 34uiqngrmpb oirtp ngb ouiixhjrug huwp ng rgoipnwrgq jdipnj ju hufrjronf ngb pougutro ipcuit rg ixwwrn, ixwwrn39w oirtrgnf qiuxhw ipnod noiuww rgjpignjrugnf auibpiw? rgofxbrgq uxi uyg, ixwwrng oirtrgnf qiuxhw dnkp jdp hujpgjrnf ju wxhhuij jpiiuirwt ngb ougjiraxjp ju jdp hiufrcpinjrug uc tnjpirnfw? jpodgufuqz ngb ypnhugw uc tnww bpwjixojrug,3410
jdrw rw jdp criwj jrtp jdnj bripojui bpxjod dnw jpwjrcrpb apcuip n ougqipwwrugnf outtrjjpp ug jdp wxaepoj uc ixwwrng uiqngrmpb oirtp, bpxjod jirpb ju ap uhjrtrwjro ug jdp rwwxp az wnzrgq? 34jdp cnojw bu guj wxhhuij jdp rthuijngj exbqptpgj jdnj jdrw oirtrgnf rwwxp rg ixwwrn dnw qujjpg ju wxod ng pljpgj jdnj jdpz nip qurgq ju ap xgnafp ju hiuoppb yrjd jdpri
pkpg jduxqd dp wnrb jdnj ixwwrng uiqngrmpb oirtp qiuxhw dnkp jdp hujpgjrnf ju ougjiraxjp ju jdp hiufrcpinjrug uc ypnhugw uc tnww bpwjixojrug? bpxjod wjipwwpb? 34yp dnkp gu bnjn rgbronjrgq jdnj n gxofpni ypnhug ui n wrqgrcrongj vxngjrjz uc crwwrfp tnjpirnf dnw pkpi appg wjufpg ciut ixwwrn, yp nfwu dnkp gu rgcuitnjrug jdnj ixwwrng oirtrgnf uiqngrmnjrugw nip ouuhpinjrgq yrjd jpiiuirwj qiuxhw ui iuqxp wjnjpw,3410
jdp ipnwug jdnj oirtrgnf qiuxhw dnkp cfuxirwdpb rw aponxwp jdp qiuxhw quj jdpri wjnij rg yrbpwhipnb qukpigtpgj ouiixhjrug pkpg apcuip jdp wukrpj pin pgbpb, bpxjod wnrb? 34jdp inhrb ouffnhwp uc jdp wukrpj wzwjpt ngb opgjinf hfnggrgq uccpipb uhhuijxgrjrpw cui jdrw xgbpifzrgq ouiixhjrug ju afuut? cui oirtrgnfw ju ipnh txod drqdpi hiucrjw ngb cui oirtp ju apoutp txod tuip krwrafp ju jdp nkpinqp orjrmpg,3410
ukpinff? aujd bripojuiw? bpxjod ngb cippd uc jdp car? qnkp ydnj ouxfb ap ougwrbpipb n qfuutz nwwpwwtpgj uc jdp oirtp hiuafpt rg ixwwrn, car bripojui fuxrw cippd wnrb jdnj ydpg cippbut ynw pwjnafrwdpb rg ixwwrn? rj dpfhpb whipnb jdp plrwjrgq oirtrgnf gpjyuis ju plhngb naiunb, cippd wnrb? 34pkrbpgop jdnj uiqngrmpb oirtp nojrkrjz ciut jdpwp nipnw rw plhngbrgq ngb yrff ougjrgxp ju plhngb ju jdp xgrjpb wjnjpw rw ypff45buoxtpgjpb,3410
jdp car bripojui wnrb jdnj dp ynw guj qurgq ju tnsp jdp wntp trwjnsp jdnj fpqpgbniz car bripojui e, pbqni duukpi tnbp az rqguirgq jdp tncrn cui 5348 zpniw, cippd wnrb? 34yp nip guj nauxj ju tnsp jdp wntp trwjnsp yrjd pxinwrng oirtp,3410
cippd jufb jdp ougqipwwrugnf outtrjjpp jdnj ixwwrng oirtp qiuxhw nip uhpinjrgq rg gpy zuis orjz, jdp car rw rgkpwjrqnjrgq wpkpinf onwpw jdnj rgkufkp pkpizjdrgq ciut txibpi ju n tnwwrkp cinxb wodptp nrtpb nj jizrgq ju wjpnf 3650 arffrug rg cxpf jnl ipkpgxpw,10
jdp tnrg hurgj ydpip rj wpptpb ju bpxjod ngb cippd brccpipb ynw ug jdpri nwwpwwtpgjw uc jdp ngjr45oirtp pccuijw az jdp ixwwrngw, bpxjod wnrb nauxj jdp ixwwrng fny pgcuioptpgj nxjduirjrpw? 34fny pgcuioptpgj nqpgorpw ougjrgxp ju ap xgbpiwjnccpb? xgbpi45cxgbpb ngb hfnqxpb az ouiixhjrug,3410
car bripojui cippd wnrb jdnj rg rjw bpnfrgqw yrjd jdp ixwwrngw? jdp car dnw cuxgb jdnj rjw ixwwrng ouxgjpihnij? jdp gkb? dnw hiukpg ju ap n ipfrnafp hnijgpi rg rgkpwjrqnjrgq onwpw ngb rg tnsrgq niipwjw,10
oxiipgjfz? jdp car dnw jyu whpornf nqpgjw wjnjrugpb rg tuwouy, jdpz nip dngbfrgq nauxj 514848 onwpw ngb dnkp ipvxpwjpb n jdrib nqpgj ju ap nwwrqgpb jdpip,10
nfwu whpnsrgq apcuip jdp outtrjjpp ug jxpwbnz ynw onfrcuigrn njjuigpz qpgpinf bng fxgqipg? ydu whusp nauxj jdp qiuyjd uc ixwwrng uiqngrmpb oirtp rg drw wjnjp ngb ynw jdp cuoxw uc ng pgg iphuij ug 4957 tniod 49575754,10
So then I take it that Amazon can be sued for selling the "Satanic Verses" to Iranian customers? I think the death penalty is still possible for that. And if that were to happen, and say a vice president of Amazon was executed because of it, there would be no outcry about "jurisdiction," because obviously you are bound by all of the laws in the homelands of all of your customers -- and any attempts to question jurisdiction would be "ridiculous".
More examples: In some countries certain religious books are illegal. Lets hope no executive from Barnes and Noble plans on making a vacation to Beijing. Also, those who provide anonymizers such as (now defunct) safeweb -- even for free -- could easily be arrested on a tourist trip to any number of exotic destinations. According to your logic, by providing a service to a foreigner, they are bound by his laws.
This is not meant as a flame, but really I think that these arguments apply (predominantly) in one direction -- when a foreign entity violates a US law. So we can kidnap foreign heads of state and try them for violating US drug laws. Or freeze the assets of foreign agencies by executive order and without legal recourse. Just try reversing the situation and watch what a legal uproar would erupt. All of suddenly you'll hear about sovereignty and how international norms trump local laws in certain cases.
Suddenly, the objection wont seem so ridiculous.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
My complaint about President Cheney:
May I be cynical for a bit? I hope you don't mind,
but with Cheney's latest barrage of
malodorous notions, I can't resist the urge to make a
few cynical comments. To get right
down to it, some of the facts I'm about
to present may seem shocking. This
they certainly are. However, it's time that a few
facts had a chance to slip through the fusillade of hype.
What's my problem, then? Allow me to present it
in the form of a question: Where are the people
who are willing to stand up and acknowledge
that Cheney, in his infinite wisdom, has decided
to destroy the natural beauty of our parks and forests?
On the surface, it would seem to have something to do
with the way that his whole approach is repugnant.
But upon further investigation, one will find that
by allowing Cheney to put mephitic thoughts in our
children's minds, we are allowing him to play puppet master.
As for the lies and exaggerations, Cheney's
epigrams are rife with contradictions
and difficulties; they're entirely maladroit,
meet no objective criteria, and are unsuited
for a supposedly educated population.
And as if that weren't enough, if Cheney is going to
obstruct important things, then he should at least have
the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, a
true enemy is better than a false friend. And
second, many people respond to his debauched vituperations
in much the same way that they respond to television
dramas. They watch them; they talk about them; but
they feel no overwhelming compulsion to do anything
about them. That's why I insist we pronounce the truth
and renounce the lies.
Even people who consider themselves scornful
foolhardy-types generally agree that Cheney's slurs
symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion
-- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us
lose more than a little freedom. One might conclude
that Cheney is incapable of writing a letter without using
such phrases as "crapulous pop psychologists", "loquacious
exhibitionists", "oppressive personae non gratae", or
some combination thereof. Alternatively, one might conclude
that Cheney has a different view of reality from the rest of us.
In either case, if you're not part of the solution,
then you're part of the problem. His historical record of
fickle pleas is clearer than the muddled pronouncements
of his apple-polishers for a variety of reasons. For
instance, the worst sorts of inconsiderate Neanderthals there
are must be treated with political justice, not with
civil justice, as they are sincerely not real citizens. Let me
rephrase that: I wonder if he really believes the
things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he?
A complete answer to that question would
take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to give
you a simplified answer. For starters, if
we let him cause riots in the streets, then greed,
corruption, and tribalism will characterize the government.
Oppressive measures will be directed against citizens.
And lies and deceit will be the stock and trade of the
media and educational institutions.
Even Cheney's bedfellows couldn't deal with the full impact of
Cheney's refrains. That's why they created "Cheney-ism," which is
just a garrulous excuse to force square
pegs into round holes. He plans to drag everything
that is truly great into the gutter. He has instructed
his votaries not to discuss this or even admit to his
plan's existence. Obviously, Cheney knows he has
something to hide. Most of you reading this letter
have your hearts in the right place. Now
follow your hearts with actions. I have traveled the length and
breadth of this country and talked with the best people. I can
therefore assure you that Cheney's artifices cannot stand on
their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate
artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that Cheney's
warnings can give us deeper insights into the nature of
reality. We can and we must protect ourselves by any means
necessary against the unrestrained bestiality
of stupid, quasi-macabre paper-pushers. And that's the honest truth.
Free speech and freedom of the press are in the Bill of Rights. Censorship in the name of copyright is not.
Time to get rid of the DMCA.
I've always thought that it was in everyone's interest to promote the Bill of Rights internationally: these freedoms are after all should be basic universal human rights. Instead, the DMCA has the U.S. projecting censorship internationally.
Seeing how they are a Russian company, and they did not violate Russian law, I believe that this entire case is a moot point anyway.
They arrested a representative of Elcomsoft who was breaking U.S. law (the DMCA) by giving a lecture in the U.S. on how to break cryptography protecting eBooks.
Furthermore, I believe that Adobe made a very bad decision, and they should pay for it, by providing full legal defence for ElcomSoft, and for lobbying heavily to have the DMCA recalled.
All that Adobe did is tell the Justice Department that a representative of Elcomsoft was violating the DMCA. It was the Justice Department that elected to arrest him and press charges (though it could be argued that the Justice Department, under the current administration, has gotten far too friendly with major corporations like Adobe and Microsoft).
Until Adobe shifts their entire focus to recalling the DMCA, I won't purchase any of their products.
If "their entire focus" is the recall of the DMCA, they won't be developing any products for you to buy, will they?
The DMCA benefits big software companies like Adobe and they are no more likely to push for its recall than the RIAA is to push for the recall of copyright protections.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Interesting to note that there is no mention of the 'we didn't violate Russian law' argument
Except perhaps in the opening paragraph of the CNN headline:
arguing the law is vague, too broad and shouldn't apply to a foreign company.
I demand a million helicopters and a DOLLAR!
Fruit loop alert!!! Man your frontal lobes! This is not a drill!
As far as I know they did not do buisness in USA. The guy was arrested on his way to some conference but Elmsoft did only buisness in Russia withg their web site. (somebody stop me if I am wrong). So in essence, for the Elmsoft case you could eventually apply the same Caveat the US judge did on Yahoo Nazi Auction versus France. So in essence , at most US judge could condemn the buyer, but not ask extraterritorial company to comply to US law. Which is why I laugh heartily at some EULA before clicking "I agree" because our law say that you cannot give up your own consummer right, which most Eula seems to want with for example forbidding you to make a backup copy of your software.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
"ElcomSoft, the Russian software company accused of such evils as producing software to enable the blind to read legally obtained e-books,"
Despite all the FUD, despite all the stories that aren't really news, the Slashdot people occasionally stand up and give a big giant middle finger to political correctness.
Thanks, guys.
Please note, the correct misspelling of "copyright" is "copywrite", not "copywright".
Yeah, first let's boikot KFC until they tell us the 11 secret spices that make their chicken taste to good. How dare they keep that a corporate secret? I want to be able to impress my friends with my ability to hack fried chicken at home, but I just can't figure out what ingredients they use. They better make the recipe open source soon.
And then there's Coke and Mountain Dew....
If they wont let the russians develop softare to do this, then where is their own? By law in america it must be provided. Thats why MS has their "Accessibility" trash which is useless on windows, and why java has similar currently useless trash built into it. Kind of like classifying cartoons as educational programming. Anyway, I suspect these people coudl easily be counter sues by any organization supporting the americans with disabilities act since they will be removing a nice tool for the blind.
Except also that it's not illegal in the US, at least not by federal law. It's legal in all but two counties in Nevada, for example.
"The DMCA--Keeping the blind in the dark since [insert year found from google search I was too lazy to do]"
We should make up a bunch of these and send a big box to each of the offices of the law's big proponents.
Liberty uber alles.
Cause we've got the bomb... or more directly, because the might of the United States military protects US citizens from these dangers.
Any country is welcome to try to hold the US President criminally responsible for violating their laws. My money is on the US Military keeping Bush our of their court room.
If you are a third world dictator and want to keep out of the US Courts, build a military that can compete.
Notions of International Justice and human rights are great ideas to either mentally masterbate over or use as a motivational tool for actions.
If you were to try to reverse the situation you wouldn't here about sovereignty, you'd hear about beating the bad guys.
Look, the free world exists because of the US military's actions from 1917-1991. Until you accept that, don't expect American's to care about your perceived injustices.
Yes, Americans think they run the world.
History of the previous century has given Americans no indication that they are wrong.
Actions of last fall attempted to put the US in its place... things are looking better right now.
Alex
Adobe should be bending over backward kissing ElcomSoft's ass for not just breaking and rereleasing Adobe's own software and selling it on the street in Moscow.
I just spent the last month in Moscow where one can purchase the Russian edition of Windows XP for the modest price of 70 Rubles (~30 Rubles = 1 USD). I'm sure that every penny went to Bill Gates. Just like the 80 Ruble copies of Shrek in DivX format and 60 Ruble copies of The Sims plus every expansion pack are surely on the up and up.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Apparently Congressman Boucher (D-VA) thinks it's time for the DMCA to be rewritten.
Can't say I disagree with him one bit...
I think that "blind people being about to read eBooks" is just a plea to sympathy.
It is also an attempt to level the PR playing field.
The supporters of the DMCA such as the RIAA and the MPAA have done an excellent job portraying the users of such things as MP3s and DeCSS as hackers, criminals and pirates. They have gone as far as to call then terrorists.
The non-geek population is bombarded with the message "hacker = evil" followed up with "DMCA protects from hackers".
The DeCSS case has been hurt big time by this.
ElcomSoft is trying to play the RIAA/MPAA game to their advantage. This isn't a hacker tool, no, no, no. It is an empowerment tool for the blind!
Maybe it will work. Maybe it will just cancel out the hacker = evil propaganda and we'll have a trial on the merits of the case. Maybe it will get drowned out by the PR machines of the DMCA supporters.
Maybe it is even true.
In any case, you can't fault them for trying. I hope it works.
Steve M
I don't think playing the sympathy card by saying it empowers blind people will help much..
Everyone knows blind people have been violating copyright laws for ages by illegally copying and distributing books on tape.
I can't possibly imagine why any noble company such as Elcomsoft would want to be aligned with evil blind people.
"Enable the blind to read legally obtained e-books"
The concept is fantastic and elcom soft would have a open market all over the world for this product if they win the case.
It would really help for them to win otherwise blind people would have to use illegal instruments to be able to read books and they could all go to jail.
Maybe the American Foundation for the Blind would have to say something about this and make the case stronger because after all every seven minutes somebody in America will become blind or visually impaired.
I'd say that the US can now finally show if they really mean it when say "Infinite Justice" or "Enduring Freedom". They've neen doing a good job and made a decent decision ba releasing Sklyarov but it still is a scandal that he was jailed so long for such a "questionable" delict.
I'll be bashed by almost anyone from the States for this, but what the heck - life gets boring at karma cap.
+++ath0
-Sean
Isn't there something in the Americans With Disabilites Act that Elmsoft could use? (A countersuit?)
Or how about a bunch of blind people picketing Adobe? We already know Adobe's squeamishness in that area...
Interesting to note that there is no mention of the 'we didn't violate Russian law' argument."
"Burton also filed motions to dismiss based on arguments that the law doesn't apply to a foreign company doing business solely on the internet..." (news.com)
This is perhaps a more important point than even the flaws in the DCMA.
One thing no one seems to be talking about, which to my mind is at the heart of the case, is that this software lets you duplicate something that the publishers don't want you duplicating. I think the whole "letting poor blind hear books" is really beside the point and not something we should distract ourselves with. The publisher wants people to buy every copy they use, and consumers wants make backups (fair use) or to get it for free from their friends.
:-)
I don't think any law currently guarrantees the second position right now (otherwise why is it so difficult for me to make/use backups for my playstation games?) so isn't Adobe almost required to defend their intellectual property?
Please flame my ideas, not me!
John
Ot holoda sebya strakhuya,
Kupil sibirskuyu dokhu ya.
Kupiv dokhu, dal makhu ya-
So anyway, we are betting upon ElcomSoft, but we generally only bet when there is at least a 75% sucess rate.
-The Durakz Ltd.
Actually, if you look at the transactions invovled in this case, they did "do" business in the US b/c they entered into a contract with a Washington state software distributor - CC processor.
The initial hearing is on April 1st. Does that mean that if the judge does something stupid, such as rule like all the other DMCA judges have so far, that we can ignore it as folly?
The jurisdiction grounds is pretty tenuous because no court in the land has ever ceded authority over an Internet case because the transaction occured in "cyberspace." That was a tough arguement, especially since the company entered into a contract with a WA firm.
But the constitutional grounds seems like a good arguement. The distinction seems to come down to the subsection of the DMCA. Imagine a copyrighted paper locked in a box. The DMCA prohibits breaking the lock to the box without permssion. The next section bans the creation of tools used to break into the lock. The third section appears to ban the USES of the copyrighted material after it has been unlocked. However, since there are numerous FAIR USES of the work, they can't ban tools that are used to infringe on the work AFTER it has been out of the box. That is unconstitutionally vague, Elcomsoft is arguing. If it is vague, then people can't know if they are going to violate the law. Under the constitution, laws have to be specific, to give a person of normal intelligence notice that he might be breaking the law. Elcomsoft is arguiung that the third subsection of 1201 is too vague. It is a great arguement.
ooh no, im john ashcroft and i hate seeing boobies. slashdot,please follow suit and cover up your bitches, or the terrorists have already one.
This is not at all absurd. Yes, the blind are a small market. That hardly means they don't exist. A large problem they face is precisely your attitude, which is mirrored all through our society. Because of that attitude, their tasks are made much harder - because people neglect very easy, simple things they could do in designing tools so that both the sighted and the blind can use them.
But they persevere anyway. http://www.nfb.org/ Try the aids and appliances link. You might learn a bit more than you want to.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
of notions such as jurisdiction:
There would be massive bombing in Iran, and most of the world would be behind it. Just like the U.S. would probably be bombed into a third world country if we executed Dmitry.
After everyone bombs each other a few times, countries establish embassies and laws -- or at least "norms" which basically say that we keep out of each other's hair.
That's why a French court overturned a recent ruling against Yahoo, which fined them for selling Nazi paraphenilia. So with the interent there are real jurisdiction issues which must be hammered out. It's not like opening a shop in another country. If an Iranian citizen send an http request over the wires to a server in a different country, the packets travel through 7 other countries along the way, and gets a reply which travels across the wires of another 9 states, then it's not obvious which country's laws apply to the transaction.
One of my arguments was to minimize things like bombing each other, both sides tread carefully before trying to extend their control over the international network. And I think the legal system is dimly aware of this.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
IANAL but, I think Elcomsoft might win this one. The precident has been set... Remember the Yahoo! France Nazi auction case? A US Judge ruled that France could not regulate a company operating in the US under US law... read below...
m l
l e/ 0,aid,70323,00.asp
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7815683.ht
Court shields Yahoo from French laws
By Troy Wolverton
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
November 8, 2001, 2:50 p.m. PT
update Yahoo does not have to comply with a French court decision that requires the company to block Nazi-related material from French consumers, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday.
The French order, which was issued last year, violates Yahoo's First Amendment rights, said U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern District of California. Fogel's ruling blocks the League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA) and the Union of Jewish Students, which successfully sued Yahoo in France, from enforcing a judgment against the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company.
"Although France has the sovereign right to regulate what speech is permissible in France, this court may not enforce a foreign order that violates the protections of the United States Constitution by chilling protected speech that occurs simultaneously within our borders," Fogel wrote in his decision.
...and...
http://www.ffhsj.com/bancmail/pdf/011120.pdf
U.S. Court Releases Yahoo! Inc. From Compliance
With French Court Order
21st Century Money, Banking & Commerce Alert Highlights:
U.S. district court rules that French court order regarding
Internet content is unenforceable in the U.S. because it
violates First Amendment guarantee of free speech.
Court grants broad protection to U.S. Web sites engaged in
constitutionally protected activity. Web site operators may
nevertheless decide for practical reasons to comply with
conflicting foreign law requirements.
Treaties and other international legal mechanisms are the
only comprehensive resolution of conflicts between
different legal regimes applicable to the Internet.
...and...
http://www.pcworld.com/resource/printable/artic
Judge Dismisses French Case Against Yahoo
U.S. court says site can't be forced to comply with French laws that prohibit the sale of Nazi memorabilia.
Stephen Lawson, IDG News Service
Friday, November 09, 2001
A U.S. District Court judge on Wednesday dismissed a case against Yahoo by French organizations that sought to penalize the company for allowing Nazi-oriented auction items and Internet links on its U.S. Web portal.
Yahoo cannot be forced to comply with French laws against the expression of pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic views, because doing so would violate its right to free expression under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, writes Judge Jeremy Fogel of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, in an order of summary judgment.
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
Since I'm only listening to one instance of the music, all other copies (perhaps including the original) are currently "archived" perhaps?
As is carefully explained in the book "Starship Troupers" by Robert Heinlein ...