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.
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.
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
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
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?
If they get a dismissal, then that means the DMCA will go unchallenged right?
The decision won't have precedent over any subsequent case?
Wouldn't it be more like opening a brothel in Amsterdam, possibly serving clients from the U.S. on vacation there (and possibly not), and then saying "We didn't violate any Amsterdam laws".
Of course, the U.S. can enact such a law that says that people who serve prostitutes to Americans abroad are in violation of American law, and if they ever come to the U.S. they can be arrested. Helms-Burton is an example of such a law, only is penalizes companies that deal in nationalized Cuban property. The U.S. can make any law it wants. They could even say it's illegal to be Afghani. It's their country. If you violate the laws and then go to their soil, then they can put you in jail, because they have the authority on their land.
-no broken link
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.
They could even say it's illegal to be Afghani
Well they could, but only after getting the Constitution completely out of the picture. Currently, such a law is illegal
Reboot macht Frei.
I think that "blind people being about to read eBooks" is just a plea to sympathy.
I mean, it makes the copyright holders out to be really bad people if they aren't letting blind people have access to books. Villianizes them. I guess it is a fallacy of argument (They should get a better example... perhaps several more actually that they can play from multiple angles).
It is not just that blind person argument, I think they need to emphasize the fundamental impact on freedom that is occuring because of the DMCA.
They also need to bring it to the American people, because while right now it is a bunch of online geeks fighting it (Read: A small minority). That is if the American public even knows/cares about the DMCA and this case altogether.
It shouldn't wait until it gets worse before popular support makes it get better.
- Nothing is true, everything is permitted
No, it would be more like opening a brothel in Amsterdam, taking orders from the US and shipping prostitutes to the US.
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?
Wouldn't it be more like opening a brothel in Amsterdam, possibly serving clients from the U.S. on vacation there (and possibly not), and then saying "We didn't violate any Amsterdam laws".
No it wouldn't, it would be more like opening a brothel in Amsterdam and selling prostitutes to U.S. citizens on vacation to sneak into the U.S.. You left out a key point in the analogy.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
I think the idea is that it's a "substantial non-infringing use" which is, iirc, what got the VHS people off, since it would be legal to "time-shift" by recording a TV show and watching it later, the VCR wasn't only useful for illegal copying. (even though that's a major use of the record feature)
--
Benjamin Coates
There is a major difference between the Felten case and this one.
In Felten, the judge never addressed the merits of the DMCA argument, finding instead that there was no case or controversy, because the threats were either withdrawn or misunderstood. Here, Elcomsoft specifically has been charged with violating the DMCA, so the threshhold jurisdiction question which the Judge found in Felten will not be an issue at all here. Unless the charges are dropped in this case or there is a plea, the Court cannot avoid addressing the constitutionality of the DMCA.
-J, one of the Felten team lawyers
Well, the two reasons you listed are probably linked. After all, if only a handful of people have use the software, it's not terribly surprising that you haven't heard many stories about how useful it is. The "satisfied customers" test is only useful if there has been a genuine chance for their to be some customers to be satisfied.
More importantly, I think that the idea of making E-books useful to blind readers remains a good example, whether or not any specific blind person has used it for that yet. It's an example of a legitimate, non-copyright-infringing use for the product that has been forclosed by the combination of Adobe's restrictive policies and the DMCA. Adobe didn't stop to think about the possibility that blind people wouldn't be able to use their product, and the law says that nobody else can correct their mistake with an add-on. That's idiotic, and it's good to point out how stupid it is.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.