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.

16 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. Good! by seizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...)

    1. Re:Good! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, it isn't just about sympathy, it's about establising legal uses for the software. While most definitely in violation of the DMCA, the prosecution is going to have to rely on portraying the software as a hacker's tool -- aka something with only illegal intent. This is much like convicting someone for owning a "breaking and entering" tool like a crowbar despite it's many useful legal uses, and the "blind person" thing is partly to point that out.

      Though it is about sympathy too. "You don't hate blind people... Do you?"

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  2. The DMCA is bad....but don't forget UCITA by jfrumkin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  3. Re:Why are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I am blind and use a text reader to browse /.

    And YOU think page lengthening random number crapfloods are annoying to YOU!

    SIGME

  4. Actually Useful by nixadmin · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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. : )

  5. yes and by josepha48 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Interesting to note that there is no mention of the 'we didn't violate Russian law' argument."

    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!

  6. Re:Russian Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    They passed the DMCA, the Constitution didn't seem to stop that...

    The Constitution isn't a superhero, it can only stop something if the law's Constitutionality gets challenged in court. The DMCA really hasn't yet.

    Of course, we'd never get to this point if legislators viewed it as a guiding principle rather than "that annoying piece of paper that keeps getting in the way of accomplishing what we really want to do."

  7. Dangerous Ground by gnovos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!"
  8. Headed Down the Same Road? by count_dooku · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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."
  9. Didn't violate russian law: by Penguinoflight · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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
  10. ridiculous? by poemofatic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  11. Re:Irony by egburr · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The Declaration of Independence goes something like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" and so on.

    Between that and the U.S. Constitution, these supposedly "natural" and "unalienable" rights are specified. These are rights that the people ordered the government to grant to the people. These are the rights the government was created to protect for the people.

    The only things preventing the government from taking these rights away are a few pieces of paper, the morals of the people in government, and an armed populace. (Though I strongly doubt the ability of the armed populace to successfully prevent the government from doing anything, considering how much better the military is armed.)

    In other words, the only things special about those rights are that we have a document stating that they are special rights. The government is doing a very good job at severely limiting many of these rights, one tiny step at a time, and most of the people don't seem to notice or care.

    There are other rights I think should be a special as these, but because they are not listed in a couple of ancient documents, they will never be held to be as special.

    --

    Edward Burr
    Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.
  12. Right, Russia and the DMCA by pschmied · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  13. Fighting Fire with Fire by SteveM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  14. Re:Irony by virtros · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.


    This is precisely the the same thought that i first had. I find it amusing yet somewhat sad that this is the sase however...Though it IS quite amazing if you think that 20, 15, or perhaps as reciently as 10 years ago one would have been regarded as insane had they predicted that in 2002 a Russian company be in such a position. It is sad that we (as Americans) had to resort to an external entity to help protect what liberties we have remaining. As a society we have aparently become as fat and lazy as the rest of the world quietly quips behind our backs. Even this new found "Patriotism" that seems to be sweeping the nation doesn't have the same ring to it that existed post WWII, ask any old vet. I'm sure they'll agree...provided they are able to see objectively past the patriotism of their youth. Todays patriotisn (much like the commercolympics) is more about slapping a Flag (tm) on the back of your truck (tm) and watching 15 thousand "we support the USA buy our product" commercials than actually uniting as a country. Hell, scientists barely share information with each other any more for fear that someone else might be first to market with the new and improved cheese spread (tm). And not to be hypocritical, i'm as guilty as everyone else.

    only problem is that the bigger and more successful america becomes, the bigger and unmanageable the problem gets.

    call it the paradox of national success. perhaps that is what they will read about in 150 years.

    provided that something more than roaches are around.

    virtros

    (i could go on for hours about this...)
    --
    Worst. Sig. Ever.
  15. Re:Of course it's one way... by danielrose · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And yes, yet another "I'm american, I am god" post!

    When will you types learn that the states is not the be all and end all. The rest of the world does not "need" you in order to be free.
    It is not the by the sole effort of the US that the world is the way it is, in case you didn't realise, the US are not the only ones who are "fighting for freedom"

    Either way, realise that the world does not revolve around main street USA.

    --
    i hate pansy republicans