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.

286 comments

  1. Background Info by tiltowait · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you haven't heard much about this case, there's several sites about it here.

    1. Re:Background Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Someone who teaches at a Middle School in Safety Harbor, Florida forwarded the following letter.
      The letter was sent to the principal's office after the school had sponsored a luncheon for the elderly. An old lady received a new radio at the lunch, and was writing to say thanks.


      Dear Safety Harbor Middle School:

      I know God blesses you for the beautiful radio I won at your recent Senior citizens luncheon. I am 84 years old and live at the Safety Harbor Assisted Home for the Aged. All of my family has passed away. I am all alone now and it's nice to know that someone is thinking of me. God bless you for your kindness to an old forgotten lady.

      My roommate is 95 and always had her own radio, but before I received One she would never let me listen to hers, even when she was napping. The other day her radio fell off the nightstand and broke into a lot of pieces. It was awful and she was in tears. She asked if she could listen to mine, and I said fuck you. Thank you again,

      Sincerely,

      Edna

    2. Re:Background Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Radios dont break into many peices you fuckhead unless you drop it off a 3rd story window. I dont care how cheap the radio was.

    3. Re:Background Info by macsox · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...and welcome to slashdot!

    4. Re:Background Info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Fuck you.

      Sincerely,

      Edna

    5. Re:Background Info by gnovos · · Score: 1

      If you haven't heard much about this case, there's several sites about it here [dmoz.org].

      Excellent karma whoring... Here, let me try:

      If you don't understand any of the more difficult words in the backgroud articles, you can find the definitions here

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    6. Re:Background Info by dgreenwood · · Score: 2, Informative
  2. lock 'em up by trollercoaster · · Score: -1

    Put those commies in prison. you open source pinkos are next.

    --

    Slashdot, come for the goatse, stay for the trolls.

  3. This is not the first post. by five+dollar+troll · · Score: -1

    It would have been, if shitdot would have allowed me to post more than once within 2 minutes. What a fucking turd.

    --

    Reading Slashdot for content is like picking peanuts out of shit.
  4. Niggers by Guns+n'+Roses+Troll · · Score: -1

    Hello, my niggers!

    Today's lunch was :

    Pot roast
    Mashed red potatos + garlic
    2 bottles of Virgil's root beer
    2 slices of bread

    Total cost - $8.76

  5. Why are... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    Why are blind people buying text-based books instead of audio books?

    1. Re:Why are... by kill-hup · · Score: 1

      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
    2. 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

  6. good luck we're all counting on you by ryusen · · Score: 1

    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
  7. 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 Ooblek · · Score: 2, Funny

      CAN YOU SPEAK LOUDER? I'm blind and my web-page reader is being drowned out by my elcomsoft e-book reader. That thing sure is a bag of wind!

    2. Re:Good! by James1006 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:Good! by ryusen · · Score: 1

      because while right now it is a bunch of online geeks fighting it (Read: A small minority).
      the scary part is even many of my "online geek" friends don't know or care much about it. most people in this country are suffering from ignorance and apathy that let's these large companies get away with murder

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    4. Re:Good! by BCoates · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

    5. 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
    6. Re:Good! by rgmoore · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Incidentally, though, this "blind people used e-book reader" argument seems a bit thin on the ground,

      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.

    7. Re:Good! by mlsemon2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, whatever. Like America has set its eye on preserving freedom since September 11. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather have Elcomsoft play the sympathy card. It will probably be more effective than any tangible arguments are held by a small minority of people.

      Now, if somebody made the claim that al Queda was using protected E-books to transmit orders, we might get them unlocked fairly quickly in the name of the war on terrorism. Then again, maybe the FBI would be the only ones with free access to E-books. Just a thought...

    8. Re:Good! by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...it's a "substantial non-infringing use" which is, iirc, what got the VHS people off,...

      That's pretty much correct, except it was the Beta people (Sony), not VHS (JVC).

    9. Re:Good! by nexthec · · Score: 1

      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.


      I personally think you are a little wrong there, I think Adobe very well knows that blind people will want to use E-books for text-to-speech, and know that publishing companies will charge more for books with this option enabled, and hence, Adobe will get more royalties. THis is why I will never purchase an Adobe Product (at this time, it means nothing, but maybe later ;->)

    10. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets not forget the Children.
      Yes, the DCMA denies our children from reading, or teachers showing them the (locked) material in a school/ primary / kindergarten setting, and if law precedents were on it, the Judge from reading them.
      Blind my Ass. You got how many visually impaired people there are - lots. Seen software for sight impaired - yep there are many.
      Are we going to discriminate, and deny them -
      sure are.
      The judge should forfeit thier claim, on the basis that they provided no provision for fair use/ disabled use.

      I would like to see a German do something here. German basic law forbids this

    11. Re:Good! by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      If one blind person has used it, thats enough. Weigh that one persons gain from *READING* to adobe's right to make them read ebooks "like everybody else".

    12. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen a single case of a non-blind person using an E-book reader. Who wants to pay as much as you pay for a paperback Or More For a digital file you can't copy can't archive and when that funlove virus nukes it your investment goes down the drain? oh and you have to read it on a PC or notebook Or a $200 'e-book' reader.
      Computers are not convientient ways of reading a good book. If I want a good book I'll buy a Good book. Not only do I have the right to share it with friends (missing from E-books.) There are also many places in virtually every city called a 'public library' where I can read books without having to buy them or even pay a rental fee.
      Since Public libraries violate the rights of copyright holders to collect a fee from every reader why don't we just ban libraries?

    13. Re:Good! by Rimbo · · Score: 2

      There's another good thing for those of us who've been following the story. The manner in which the media has covered this case has changed dramatically. The DMCA is now "Controversial." Sklyarov is no longer a "pirate," but an "employee." And where there used to be more time spent on Adobe and the FBI, the press is starting to cover Elcomsoft's point of view.

      The irony -- that a Russian company would be suing for freedom of speech in America -- is a much better story, and an easier sell, than the old "hacker accused of wrongdoing" nonsense that they originally reported this story as.

      Here's to the fickle press!

    14. Re:Good! by Secret+Coward · · Score: 1
      The irony -- that a Russian company would be suing for freedom of speech in America -- is a much better story, and an easier sell,

      And completely false. Elcommsoft is not sueing. The government is charging Elcommsoft with committing a crime. Here in America, the media has a long tradition of portraying accused criminals as a standing danger to society. If somehow, the accused criminal is aquitted, the media has a tradition of portraying the aquitted defended has having "gotten away with it".

  8. Good strategy by rhizome · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Good strategy by cvn65 · · Score: 1

      Agreed: I think the real reason they're holding off on the jurisdictional challenge is that they're trying to attack the DMCA, not defend themselves. Using the jurisdiction argument would get them off the hook but do nothing to affect the law itself, and it's the law that needs to be changed.

  9. Russian Law by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Informative
    Interesting to note that there is no mention of the 'we didn't violate Russian law' argument."

    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

    1. Re:Russian Law by ryusen · · Score: 1

      one of the things i'd be currious to know is how many copies were sold to the us? and if elcomsoft had any type of verification system to check if purchasers were us based or not.

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    2. Re:Russian Law by Fjord · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:Russian Law by gorf · · Score: 1

      You're right of course. But Sklyarov wasn't a director of the company (as I understand it) so was not responsible for the company's actions, and therefore should not have been arrested. If this had not happened then ElcomSoft's directors would never have entered the US. If this is right, then the US got hold of the directors by arresting an innocent man, which can't be right.

    4. Re:Russian Law by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really matter what they have done in the past. If they want to continue in the future they have to face this head on. If they retreat back to russia and never fight this then they just made selling this and any other product they sell illegal in the US.

    5. Re:Russian Law by haruharaharu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    6. Re:Russian Law by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Except for one thing:

      The product (to the best of my knowledge) was only sold in Russia.

      This is equivalant to someone from the country Mary Jane where the wacky tobaccy is legal. When they enter the US - not carrying the product, mind you - to talk about the benefits of marijuana (or however you spell it) at a medical convention, the DEA shows up at the convention and takes them to jail.

      Same story, only the difference is that it was about ebooks, not drugs.

      And anybody's who's going to split hairs, it's a damn anology, so shut the fuck up unless you have a good counter argument.

    7. Re:Russian Law by HaeMaker · · Score: 1

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

    8. Re:Russian Law by eightball · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it would be more like opening a brothel in Amsterdam, taking orders from the US and shipping prostitutes to the US.

    9. 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."

    10. Re:Russian Law by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Jurisdiction in this case is tricky. Elcomsoft never "sold" the product in the US. They did have a US company called Regnow sell keys, which the buyer would then use to unlock the software.

      To determine jurisdiction, the courts will have to decide exactly how much of a connection there was between any alleged US buyer and Elcomsoft. The technicalities are beyond me, but that's the basic gist.

      More info here..

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    11. Re:Russian Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmmmmmmm. Prostitutes From Amsterdam.

    12. Re:Russian Law by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Well they could, but only after getting the Constitution completely out of the picture.


      Almost there. Just give it 20 or 25 more years.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    13. Re:Russian Law by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

      Buying the key is buying the license. They sold the product in the states.

      Simmilar defenses have been used in drug trafficing cases (I didnt sell them drugs, I sold them the key to the locker in the bus station where the drugs were stored) and they got convictions anyway.

      Simmilarly, I didn't kill anyone, I just hired someone else to kill them.

      If the product is illegal in the US, then selling access to the product from the US is also illegal.

    14. Re:Russian Law by virg_mattes · · Score: 2

      > 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. Elcomsoft set up a server on U.S. soil (okay, they contracted with a U.S. hosting company, but you get the idea) and then sold their product (with was illegal by U.S. standards) to U.S. citizens (and others). So the original analogy is more accurate.

      Virg

    15. Re:Russian Law by Shadowlion · · Score: 1

      If the product is illegal in the US, then selling access to the product from the US is also illegal.

      So is buying it, then.

      I guess the filing add the 50+ customer names got lost in the mail, eh?

    16. Re:Russian Law by jgerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    17. Re:Russian Law by Meridun · · Score: 1
      Here you go. Elcomsoft filing for dismissal based on the extraterritoriality of the case, since they seem to think that it CAN be construed as a legal argument.


      Dismissal Motion for Lack of Jurisdiction


      Simple example: State Highway Patrol cannot arrest you for speeding in another state, UNLESS you were speeding in their state and they crossed state lines in hot pursuit. Same thing here; The US cannot apply its laws to people who did not break the law in the US.

      Hopefully, the judge for the case will remember this simple fact

    18. Re:Russian Law by jgerman · · Score: 2
      The description of how the product worked however, was not the seminaar was given on American soil. And it is illegal in this country to describe to others how to violate the protection put on a work by the copyright holder. Regardless of whether the fact that it should be illegal to do so it is.


      You can't pre-defend your analogy by saying it's only an analogy, your entire point rests on that analogy as an appeal to emotion to win your argument, it's bullshit. Your putting the best possible face on the illegal act. You could just as easily change it to be a talk about how to go about producing kiddy porn on U.S. soil by someone from where kiddy pron is legal.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    19. Re:Russian Law by thelaw · · Score: 2

      bingo. this post hits the nail on the head. mod this up. it's all about the fact that software considered illegal by the government is being shipped into the US.

      jon

      --
      -- http://www.cerastes.org
    20. Re:Russian Law by Cato+the+Elder · · Score: 2

      Actually, the second paragraph of the CNN story states that one of the arguments is that the law "should not apply to a Russian company"

    21. Re:Russian Law by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 2

      Hey, IANAL. As for drug trafficking, it's a bit different. If you have more than a certain amount of the drug, they arrest you for "intent to sell" (as well as posession). More than a certain amount, and you're charged with "trafficking" and "distributing". There is a difference- drug kingpins from columbia aren't charged with selling, but with distributing. They don't directly sell the products, so can't be charged with sales. The difference then between drugs and this case is that drug laws are very well defined by the courts.

      Yes, you are probably right though, and it is probably why they chose to use the free speech argument instead of pursuing jurisdiction. However, it does remain that the DCMA is still vague. Perhaps this case will set a precedent in terms of jurisdiction in international commerce over the internet. Or maybe they'll just leave it for another day. At least, that's my layman's take on the whole thing.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    22. Re:Russian Law by lynx_user_abroad · · Score: 1
      ....opening a brothel in Amsterdam, taking orders from the US and shipping prostitutes to the US.

      Perhaps you should check-out the Amateur Action case on Legis?

      In a nutshell, a company in California produces video tapes of things we don't usually discuss in polite forums; buy previously declared legal (if barely) in the community in which they are sold, on the basis that they are not obscene by the standards of that community. Offers the videos for sale by mail order.

      Some postmaster in the Baptist South (Atlanta, I think) orders a copy delivered and, upon receipt, proceeds to have the vendor busted because the material is clearly obscene by his community standards.

      I don't recall how the case turned out, sorry.

      --

      The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.

    23. Re:Russian Law by DmitriA · · Score: 2

      They were selling software in US through their american retailer (regnow.com) and were, thus, automatically paying state taxes on those sales for purchases from customers located in Washington state (where Regnow is located). That's pretty much the definition of "doing business in US".

      So the argument that US law doesn't apply here is moot and will be thrown out in the court fairly quickly

    24. Re:Russian Law by Kwikymart · · Score: 1

      I dont know about the US, but here in Canada I am pretty sure that one of the Senate's jobs is to decide if its constitutional or not (before the the bill becomes law). Oh well, I guess thats what you get when you elect senators instead of appointing them. You dont run into "campaign contribution" type bribery with that.

      --

      Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
    25. Re:Russian Law by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Actually the senate in Canada functions more as a spell checker than anything else. I can only vaugly recall one instance where the senate has actually tried to use it's power, and then Cretien just appointed a few new ones to get the bill pushed through. The fact that it's appointed by the P.M. also means that the senators are loyal to that party and people are represented by a person/party that doesn't represent their views. In it's present state the senate does nothing, that is the reason behind the push for the Triple-E Senate (elected, equal and effective).

      --
      I stole this Sig
    26. Re:Russian Law by quantaman · · Score: 1

      "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"

      The ?we didn?t violate Russian law? argument is probably useless because they don't care about Russian Law( only US). They did however make the but we're not in the US argument.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    27. Re:Russian Law by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Your putting the best possible face on the illegal act.

      You make that sound like its a bad thing. When laws are immoral or illegal, then the "best face" to which you refer has lost less face than those following the law. You could just as easily change it to be a talk about "how to help slaves escape", right? Or "what to do when ordered to open fire on the civilian women and children".

      When I hear someone say "regardless of whether the fact that it should be illegal to do so it is", I am sickened.

    28. Re:Russian Law by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      If its true that the "product" wasn't sold in the USA, but rather the "key to the locker in Russia" where the product is legal and actually physically located, then you should be wrong. Is it illegal for me to own a car that would be illegal in the USA if I keep it in a country where it is legal? Or should having the "pink slip" be enough?

    29. Re:Russian Law by jgerman · · Score: 2

      I'm not arguing about whether or not the law should or should not exist. For the record I'm against the DMCA.
      You can be sickened all you want. The strength of this country is the fact that we have a malleable constitution which give us the right to change laws. In this situation a illegal act, according to current law, was commited. There is no two ways about it. When an illegal act happens there are certain peocedures that are followed. If the law is found to be unjust it will be done so through the proper channels. NOT because you, or I believe it is so, but because it went through the legal system as it should.
      Talk about sickened. It's the people who constantly claim the Dmitri should never have been arrested, while ignoring the fact that he broke the law. There is a distinction between a moral stance on the law and the belief that the laws should be upheld. That doesn't mean the belief that the law should exist immutable for all time, but that law enforcement officials should make decisions based on current law.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    30. Re:Russian Law by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 1

      If the product is illegal in the US, then selling access to the product from the US is also illegal.

      The product is not illegal in the US. Selling the product is illegal in the US. Importing the product into the US is illegal in the US. Using the product in certain ways is illegal in the US. But possessing the product is not illegal in the US.

      That said, I agree with you that the product was imported into the US by elcomsoft. It was also sold in the US by elcomsoft.

    31. Re:Russian Law by InsaneGeek · · Score: 2

      If you actually look at the court papers, Elcomsoft was selling their software from servers located in the US, after you purchased it, you then downloaded it off of another server also located in the US; I believe from somewhere in Seatle, and possibly Maryland (just a bit too lazy to look it up just now, but feel free to verify). The government bought & downloaded software all from machines physically located in the US before they brought charges.

      So it is very much a US type of thing, so I guess you could make an analogy of Amsterdam company imports pot into the US, and procedes to sell it out of their stores located in the US.

    32. Re:Russian Law by Moridineas · · Score: 2
      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.

      Except that Elcomsoft has office in the US, and sold the product within the US. The transaction was made on US soil, thus is subject to US laws.

      Scott

    33. Re:Russian Law by jgerman · · Score: 2

      Which is what I've been saying all along. I'm sick of people who seem to think that the government was wrong in arresting Dmitri. The law was wrong, but it IS on the books. There was nothing wrong with the arrest.

      --
      I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
    34. Re:Russian Law by screwtheNSA · · Score: 0

      What a crock of SHIT our laws and nazi cops are! They even SAID they PURCHASED and DOWNLOADED the E-book "software" from various servers located in this(the U.S.) nation. Well, this surely sounds like CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT A CRIME with INTENT added, does it not? If purchasing "illegal" software is, in the very context of the DMCA laws, illegal; then the "act" of the purchase is also ILLEGAL and therefore, VOID by their own admission/s, but I suppose not, because it involves "law" enfARCEMENT", and "may" be used in a kangaroo court of laws of sorts. Oh boy, commit a crime to convict a criminal....WHAT A THEORY!

      *HOS* Hooked On Stupidity works for Bush!
      I wonder what the site owner of upthefist.com said to warrant visits by 30 heavily armed feds and local NAZI COPS? Now the "act" of speaking one's mind in both cyber and real-world mediums WILL get you "the visit" by TAXPAYER FUNDED MURDERERS!

      STOP THE SLAUGHTER-VOTE LAW ENFORCEMENT OUT OF EXISTANCE NOW!

      Our national doctrine makes NO allowance for "police forces" or ANY armed force to be running rampant, murdering citizens and kidnapping them for the government!

      Vote for HARRY BROWN if YOU value your rights!
      I did, but that buddy of clinton got the job(yes, his name will NEVER be capitalized in my rantings, neither will bush's, nor any rights usurping NAZI get any recognition other than MY indictment for murder, and brutality and forced servitude/slavery.

      *We will tire, We will falter, and We will fail!*

      OUR money gets handed out freely to foreigners, but WE have to repay the government for using OUR MONEY in OUR schools for OUR education so WE can WORK in OUR industries....GO FIGURE!

      ***TAX REVOLT***TAX REVOLT***TAX REVOLT***

      Religion enslaves simple minds everywhere, just like "democracy" enslaved a republic!

      I applaud ELCOMSOFT for taking a stand and fighting back! GO DMITRY! GO ELCOMSOFT! FUCK THE DMCA!

      --
      206.39.38.2, DDN-BLK-36, DOD NET INFO CENTER. 800.365.3642 206.36.0.0-206.39.255.255 NET RANGE.
    35. Re:Russian Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if the senate is elected, then it pretty much becomes the same thing as the house of commons whose behaviour is determined by politicing.

      The whole point of the senate in Canada is that it remain independent of the problems of the electorate based government.

      Is it working, no it is not, but that does not mean that making it an elected body will make it work.

    36. Re:Russian Law by quantaman · · Score: 1

      The the senators will still work until they are 75. This means that they will represent a view of the country that's spread over several years, even decades, bringing up a defence against governments that were elected due to a short trend(?) in the public opinion. This could help in a situation where a knee jerk reaction to the public caused them to elect a government that a few months down the road nobody liked, the senate would be largely unaffected by this. The senators will also likely not be as devoted to one party as a campaign contained within the constituency could mean that parties would for once by LESS important than the candidate. Also since they have a mandate by their constituency they would feel more confident in using their power. It may not be perfect but it's better than a figure head institution appointed by the Prime Minister.

      --
      I stole this Sig
    37. Re:Russian Law by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      >The U.S. can make any law it wants.

      The main thing that made US Democracy revolutionary was the idea that there are limits to the government's authority.

      No, the US may NOT make any law it wants. There are clear specifications of what kinds of laws NO government may legitimately make. For example, laws respecting the establishment of religion...

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    38. Re:Russian Law by Fjord · · Score: 1

      the constitution allows for this, it's just that it has to be amended. There are procedures to amend the constitution. Once amended, the government can pass whatever crazy laws the new amendment allows.

      --
      -no broken link
  10. This is... by Gaijin42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 :) )

    1. Re:This is... by Moridineas · · Score: 3, Informative
      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 :) )

      Well, I think you're terribly wrong about this. For one, I think books will be around forever. There are still some serious issues to deal with, that I don't think will all be resolved within our lifetime (I am a college student ;)

      And as for your comment about blind people being condemned to illiteracy, that is just so hysterical it's not even funny. How do you think blind people use computers today?? The reason that ebook readers (hardware, not computer software) haven't been made for blind people is because the overall demand for ebooks is so tiny that the blind market would be so miniscule as to matter not at all. There are a lot of other issues to resolve with ebooks before worrying about special cases like this.

      Scott

    2. Re:This is... by RailGunner · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure everything will ever be digital as far as books go, but it's certainly among the realm of possibilities, but it would be a good thing if it did. How many "normal" books now are distributed in either Braille or Audio form? Is it possible that there are already blind people that don't have access to all the books that the rest of us have? Also - Audio books cost more then a cheap paperback, what about Braille? If this software works and allows blind people to read (hear) printed books that they've paid for, then what's the problem? Technology should be used whenever possible to help the handicapped.

    3. Re:This is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      What the fuck is the DCMA? Dick Cumming in your Mother's Anus?

    4. Re:This is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      no...it is my dik cuming in ur motherz ass

    5. Re:This is... by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      For one, I think books will be around forever. There are still some serious issues to deal with, that I don't think will all be resolved within our lifetime

      Books will be around forever - people still carve messages into stone, too. But ebooks are feasible today - I've read several books off my computer. I don't see why the few remaining materials technology problems aren't going to be solved, and something cheaper and more searchable should overtake a lot of the non-decorative uses for paper books.

      And as for your comment about blind people being condemned to illiteracy, that is just so hysterical it's not even funny.

      Why? It's a logical result of what happens if the blind are prevented from reading.

      How do you think blind people use computers today??

      Are you implying that the blind can't use computers? One of the college system administrators is blind. If you have a GUI, you override the standard GUI display function to send it to a text to speech converter. If you use console, you just send the screen to a text to speech converter as appropriate.

      the overall demand for ebooks is so tiny that the blind market would be so miniscule as to matter not at all. There are a lot of other issues to resolve with ebooks before worrying about special cases like this.

      Good engineering demands that you don't put stuff like this off until the end when all you can provide is a hack. Design it right the first time, so the blind and the Chinese and the Hindi and all the other "special cases" can be handled cleanly.

    6. Re:This is... by booyah · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling you have never actually read an online/computer based book. there is something very nice in having a copy in your hands and being able to read it in perfect text format where ever you are without having ot need batteries, a backlight, a mouse or push a button to go on to the next page.

      Saying books are going to be outdated except for eccentrics and bibliophiles (not to mention everyones favorite luddites) is a bit of an overstatement.

      Its always a good idea to keep a history that cant be wiped out by a magnet or a careless delete key.

      -Booyah

      --
      #include sig.h
    7. Re:This is... by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

      Actually, I read books on my iPaq quite often. However, my intent was not to say that books should be replaced by digital equivilents. (I am in fact one of the bibliophiles that prefer to be curled up on my couch, in front of a fire, with a nice leather bound volume in hand).

      Rather, I was stating that I feel the force of time and economics ill push the technology onward to the point where most mainstream books are released primarly digitally.

      Digital distribution has almost a 0 marginal cost, so if piracy can be controlled, it is a much better arrangement for the publishers. Additionally more authors will be able to get published, as they can self distribute.

    8. Re:This is... by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

      Interestingly, this is covered directly by this law stating that reproductions for blind people are specifically covered and protected.

    9. Re:This is... by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Huh. I have to disagree with you there. I've read several Shakespeare plays on the bus on my Palm Pilot and I used to read the Onion the same way. I can't help but wonder what others thought as I sat there cackling at my little calculator. The only thing that keeps me from reading more books/news/whatever on the Palm is the fact that I dropped it a while back and it tends to burn out batteries now. I'd replace it, but the cost is higher than the benefits at the moment.

      So I don't think print will die any time soon, but I doubt it will be because of the tactile quality of books-- most of the reading people do isn't about leisure in the first place and they won't care if they can curl up with the newspaper or the latest memos from the office.

      As to your last statement about history being wiped out by a magnet... are you really that clueless? Last time I checked books were highly suspectible to several elements of destruction not limited to fire and water. The only protection against destruction in *any* medium is geographically disparate redundancy.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    10. Re:This is... by shotfeel · · Score: 1
      "There will come a day when nobody but eccentrics and bibliophiles will read normal books."


      and


      " If this case were to succeed, the US government would condem the blind people of the world to illiteracy."


      Just FYI (wouldn't think about being nitpicky on /.) most blind people have a heck-of-a-time with "normal books" too. But you're right in that technology is making text more accessible to the blind than it ever has been, and now its illegal for them to tap into it.

    11. Re:This is... by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      There is something about have a physical copy in your hands, but online books are nice too, especially in searching. That physical copy needs an external source of light and needs physical effort to go to the next page, similar to the online book. They also get bent and damaged very easy.

      It's nice to a history that can't be wiped out by fire or rain, too. Besides engraving the world's literature in huge stone and steel monuments, redundancy's seems to be the best solution. It's easy to make thousands of electronic copies; much more expensive is it to make thousands of paper copies. Project Gutenberg has probably made more electronic copies of many of its books than there were existing physical copies.

    12. Re:This is... by Moridineas · · Score: 2
      Books will be around forever - people still carve messages into stone, too. But ebooks are feasible today - I've read several books off my computer. I don't see why the few remaining materials technology problems aren't going to be solved, and something cheaper and more searchable should overtake a lot of the non-decorative uses for paper books.

      That's your opinion...mine is that it still doesn't work 1/100 as well as an actual book. I find my focus and retention from reading off a monitor is not the same as a book. This an opinion thing though, so no more can really be said.

      On your second point, I'm forced to admit that you are correct..if the blind are prevented from reading, then they can't read...yeah, that makes sense, I'm not sure I would've followed that leap of logic if you hadn't pointed it out :P But who is preventing the blind from reading?? no one! No one is saying anything that could be possibly construed that way.

      Are you implying that the blind can't use computers? One of the college system administrators is blind. If you have a GUI, you override the standard GUI display function to send it to a text to speech converter. If you use console, you just send the screen to a text to speech converter as appropriate.

      Of course!! And it's via these and similar ebook methods that ebook readers for blind people will no doubt be available. Or perhaps even better a text->braille converter.

      Good engineering demands that you don't put stuff like this off until the end when all you can provide is a hack. Design it right the first time, so the blind and the Chinese and the Hindi and all the other "special cases" can be handled cleanly.

      Can you give me some example of how ebooks today are engineered at a fundamental level so as not to allow eventual blind access via methods that you and I both pointed out? I don't really see the point of your argument here, doesn't seem to make sense.

      Scott

    13. Re:This is... by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      mine is that it still doesn't work 1/100 as well as an actual book. I find my focus and retention from reading off a monitor is not the same as a book. This an opinion thing though, so no more can really be said.

      I've read several books off a monitor, and never had a problem. I would guess it's an acquired trait.

      And it's via these and similar ebook methods that ebook readers for blind people will no doubt be available.

      Ah, but these methods provide plain text to the external world, which is a big no-no in the proprietary ebook universe. If I'm not mistaken, all output of a ebook program is rendered directly to the screen.

      The best possible format for blind readers is something like HTML or plain text that isn't inherantly bound to the features and limitations of the visual world. But they aren't going to do that, are they?

      Can you give me some example of how ebooks today are engineered at a fundamental level so as not to allow eventual blind access via methods that you and I both pointed out?

      They're encrypted and attached to a proprietary, visual-only reader, for one . . .

    14. Re:This is... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      The book has evolved over thousands of years. Thousands of hours have gone into the development of every aspect...size, fonts, look, colors, etc. ebooks will take a while to match.

      So whose to stop them from making a proprietary, braille reader. Or a proprietary reader that speaks the ebook?

      Scott

    15. Re:This is... by dvdeug · · Score: 2

      So whose to stop them from making a proprietary, braille reader.

      As you pointed out, why should they? Blind people are small demographic; where's the profit in it?

    16. Re:This is... by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Why do reading aids such as special magnifying lenses and other attachments to normal books exist today (for a small demographic). Because there's almost always money to be made. A good family friend is legally blind, and a librarian. As my grandparents are getting older, he's given them catalogues of stuff for legally blind/blind people...there's a lot of it--there clearly IS money to be made here.

      Scott

  11. Wise move... by Amarok.Org · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Interesting to note that there is no mention of the 'we didn't violate Russian law' argument.

    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?"
    1. Re:Wise move... by 2Bits · · Score: 2

      Not basing their case on "we didn't violate Russian low" is good move because the US jurisdiction, when applied to foreigners or foreign companies, tends to have the backing of the US government. It becomes political, and the current Moscow government which has been trying to get buddy-buddy with the Bush administration might bend on american government pressure (Not a good thing for any country, but politics is never rational). So the case might just be a lost cause from the beginning.

      On the other hand, fighting this case on the basis that DMCA is too broad, too stupid and unconstitutional, can actually rally grass root movement behind them, not just people in Russia. And it's not the case of "US-Russian vs Them-American". It's a case of "We-normal-good-people vs Them-Evil-Corporation-backed-by-stupid-law". Even if they eventually loose the case, it still makes them look good, and generates a lot of good publicicty. Do you think you would hear of that company if not for that case? I didn't, but all I know now is that the company seems to be really cool.

    2. Re:Wise move... by LoseNotLooseGuy · · Score: 1

      Even if they eventually loose the case, it still makes them look good, and generates a lot of good publicicty.

      While Elcomsoft probably is interested in "letting loose or releasing" the case, in the sense that they have filed for dismissal, context would indicate that this is not what you meant to say. The word you were looking for was lose.

      Congratulations! You have been participant #6 in my campaign to rid Slashdot of this error.

      --
      Proudly correcting Slashdot's most irritating linguistic error since 2002.
    3. Re:Wise move... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucen up dude. It'sn't important as long as the intent is clear.

  12. Horrible whoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Shame on you, sir/madam, for your filthy karma whoring. We all did it once, but it's not big, and it's not clever.

  13. russian law by GoatPigSheep · · Score: 0, Insightful

    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
  14. 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
  15. What needs to be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic
    The B-52 really couldn't be stopped. Since taking off, they had maintained strict radio silence, and they had taken everyone by suprise.


    Coming in so low that they barely avoided the buildings, the crew knew they would probably loose their lives in this run, but this bombing was important. Finally, America would have Justice! Adobe would be a crispier than overcooked McDonald's French Fries within the hour.


    Major "Kong" King teared through the sky with a passion on to what would soon be the final resting place of him and his crew. Although he did not know exactly why he was commanded to bomb this seemingly unimportant company, he knew one thing--he hated Adobe and and everything related to it. He wasn't sure why he hated Adobe so, but it had always been that way. Even his mother and father had nurtured his hatred of this company. Soon, he would take out his anger with a devestating, multiple-megaton blast.


    Sweat began to pour from King's brow.


    Target? In sight.

    Bay doors? Check.

    Nuclear device? Armed.


    His eyes narrowed with an intensity few men have ever matched. With a simple command to his navigator, he launched The Device onto the unsuspecting populace of Adobe. Within seconds, they were burnt to such an extreme that Chernobyl would seem like a mild sunburn after a relaxing day at the beach.


    In the last moments of his life, Major King thought of his mother. He went pee, then an overwhelming sense of warmth encircled him. Redmond was no more. He was happy. And rather dead.

    1. Re:What needs to be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      You forgot to change Redmond to San Jose

  16. Hey, Timothy: -1, Redundant - Old News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Hey, Timothy: -1, Redundant - Old News! by EconomyGuy · · Score: 1

      Not true... the post you refer to is the case against Dmitry Sklyarov, not the case against ElcomSoft. ElcomSoft just filed yesterday... no Wednesday the 16th, the date of the Slashdot article. Don't post just to look smart... check your facts first.

      --
      Only 120 characters... who can summarize their entire world understanding in 120 characters?!
    2. Re:Hey, Timothy: -1, Redundant - Old News! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have been trolled. You have lost. Have a nice day.

      Also, if I had wanted to look smart, I'd not have posted as an Anonymous Coward. ;-)

  17. I'm the lead prosecutor in this case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Kds'r L`jd Tmhw Mns Rtbj
    Lhftdk cd Hb`y` (lhftdk@gdkhwbncd.bnl)
    Gdkhw Bncd+ Hmb.

    Hmsqnctbshnm

    Sgd Tmhw rxrsdl+ cdrhfmdc `mc bnmrsqtbsdc hm sgd 6/r ax odnokd khuhmf hm ` udqx cheedqdms vnqkc eqnl tr+ g`r rs`fm`sdc. Tmhw g`r rnld fnnc pt`khshdr+ `mc sgdx g`ud s`jdm tr ` knmf v`x. Ats sgd oqnakdlr hm Tmhw `qd adbnlhmf hmbqd`rhmfkx bkd`q+ `mc sgdx `qd gnkchmf tr a`bj. Hs hr shld sn s`jd ` fnnc g`qc knnj `s Tmhw+ sn qdbnfmhyd vg`s'r aqnjdm+ `mc sn ehw hs. Hm sghr `qshbkd+ H cdrbqhad rnld ne sgd oqnakdlr sg`s vd hm sgd eqdd rnesv`qd vnqkc ltrs e`bd+ `mc chrbtrr sgd v`xr hm vghbg sgd FMNLD oqnidbs hr `ccqdrrhmf sgdl.
    H f`ud ` s`kj.

    Lx qdbdms oqdrdms`shnm `s Nss`v` Khmtw Rxlonrhtl rs`qsdc ax rs`shmf sg`s Tmhw rtbjdc. Sghr v`r ` otmbg khmd sg`s H entmc fnnc sn hmsqnctbd sgd uhrhnm vd g`ud hm sgd FMNLD oqnidbs sn `ccqdrr ` mtladq ne oqnakdlr hm Tmhw vgdm hs bnldr sn bncd qdtrd+ bnmrhrsdmbx `mc tr`ahkhsx. Sghr hr sgd uhrhnm ne sgd FMNLD oqnidbs `mc sghr v`r sgd rtaidbs ne lx s`kj.

    H v`r `ccqdrrhmf sgd rnesv`qd cdudknodqr hm sgd eqdd rnesv`qd bnlltmhsx sg`s vdqd `ssdmchmf sgd Nss`v` Khmtw Rxlonrhtl. Lx s`kj v`r cdrhfmdc sn dwonrd ` mtladq ne ek`vr hm TMHW+ `mc sn oqdrdms ` bnmbqdsd oqnonr`k nm gnv rnld ne sgdrd oqnakdlr b`m ad `ccqdrrdc. Sgd hcd` v`r sn hrrtd ` b`kk sn cdudknodqr sn gdko qd`khyd sghr uhrhnm.

    H v`r rod`jhmf sn ` khud `tchdmbd+ `mc hs v`r ` etm s`kj sn fhud. H gnod sgd `tchdmbd g`c etm khrsdmhmf sn hs. Sgd s`kj r`ckx cndr mns sq`mrk`sd vdkk sn ` l`hmrsqd`l sgqdd o`q`fq`og rtll`qx `mc ltbg kdrr sn sgd rhmfkd otmbg khmd: "Tmhw Rtbjr".

    H g`ud qdbdhudc ` k`qfd `lntms ne l`hk `esdq sgd onrs v`r rdms sn Rk`rgcns `mc sn kvm `ants `ksdqm`shud nodq`shmf rxrsdlr sg`s "cn mns rtbj". Sgd bg`q`bsdqhy`shnm ne lx s`kj v`r bnlokdsdkx hm`bbtq`sd: rtqd+ Tmhw hr mns sgd adrs rxrsdl nts sgdqd+ ats vd hmsdmc sn ehw sghr oqnakdl. Sgd hmsdmshnm ne lx s`kj v`r sn l`jd odnokd qd`khyd vg`s v`r vqnmf+ `mc bnmudx sgd tmhehdc uhrhnm sg`s vd g`ud hm sgd FMNLD oqnidbs sn `ccqdrr sgdrd hrrtdr.

    Sgd bnmsdmsr ne sghr s`kj vdqd cdrhfmdc vhsg M`s+ vghkd vd vdqd bnmrhcdqhmf lx oqdrdms`shnm enq Trdmhw. H v`ms sn sg`mj M`s dwsdmrhudkx enq ghr gdko oqdo`qhmf sghr s`kj.

    Odnokd g`ud rtffdrsdc ` mtladq ne nodq`shmf rxrsdlr sn ld sg`s "cn mns rtbj": ok`m8+ AdNR+ Vhmcnvr MS+ L`bNR W. @mc sgdx g`ud r`hc `He xnt g`sd Tmhw rn ltbg+ fn trd sgnrd'. Sgd fn`k ne lx oqdrdms`shnm v`r sn aqhmf hmsn sgd khfgs sgd oqnakdlr ne Tmhw `mc oqdrdms bnmbqdsd rnktshnmr sn `ccqdrr hsr oqnakdlr. H `l lnrskx hmsdqdrsdc hm eqdd Tmhw rxrsdlr khjd FMT/Khmtw `mc sgd ARC e`lhkx.

    Vgdm H trd sgd vnqc "eqdd" hm sghr cnbtldms H `l trhmf hs hm sgd bnmsdws trdc ax sgd Eqdd Rnesv`qd Entmc`shnm+ xnt b`m qd`c lnqd `ants hs gdqd: gsso://vvv.fmt.nqf/oghknrnogx/eqdd-rv.gslk
    Rnesv`qd enq sgd odnokd

    @r o`qs ne sgd FMT oqnidbs vd `qd sqxhmf sn aqhmf eqdd rnesv`qd sn odnokd. Vd `qd sqxhmf sn fhud odnokd ` mtladq ne eqddcnlr sg`s sq`chshnm`k rnesv`qd bnlo`mhdr g`ud mns fq`msdc xnt.

    Sgd rs`sd ne FMT `mc Khmtw sgqdd xd`qr `fn v`r rnldsghmf `lnmf sgd khmdr ne `` vnmcdqetk eqdd Tmhw hlokdldms`shnm'. Vd g`c ` rxrsdl sg`s v`r `r onvdqetk `r Tmhw+ `mc `r trdq eqhdmckx `r Tmhw.

    Sgd naidbshud ne sgd FMT `mc FMNLD oqnidbsr hr sn aqhmf sghr rnesv`qd `mc fq`ms eqddcnl sn `r l`mx odnokd `r onrrhakd. Sghr ld`mr oqnuhchmf rnesv`qd sg`s hr d`rx sn trd+ hmsthshud+ `ood`khmf `mc sg`s eddkr "qhfgs" enq dmc trdqr. Dmc trdqr `qd hlonqs`ms+ adb`trd sgdx `qd sgd u`rs l`inqhsx ne odnokd.

    Cn mns ad bnmetrdc. Sgd l`inqhsx ne odnokd cn mns trd bnlotsdqr sn cn oqnfq`llhmf+ mnq sn kd`qm gnv sn trd mqnee+ mnq sn qtm ` vda rdqudq. Sgd l`inqhsx ne odnokd trd bnlotsdqr sn rhlokhex sgdhq khudr+ sn bnlltmhb`sd vhsg odnokd+ sn fds vnqj cnmd+ nq sn g`ud etm.

    Ntq vnqj hr mns `ants sdbgmnknfx enq hsr nvm r`jd. Hs hr `ants aqhmfhmf eqdd sdbgmnknfx sn odnokd.

    Tmhw hr ` udqx onvdqetk entmc`shnm. Hs hr gdqd+ `mc vd b`m athkc nm sno ne hs hmrsd`c ne qdhmudmshmf ` bnlokdsd mdv rxrsdl.

    Sgd Tmhw Oqnakdl

    Tmhw v`r cdrhfmdc hm sgd 6/'r+ `mc hs hmbktcdc ` vhcd q`mfd ne udqx hmsdqdrshmf bnmbdost`k ed`stqdr. @s sgd shld hs v`r cdrhfmdc hs cdehmhsdkx rds ` mdv rs`mc`qc enq sgd v`xr vd sgntfgs ne nodq`shmf rxrsdl. @ fqd`s `bbnlokhrgldms.

    Hs vntkc ad ennkhrg sn sghmj sg`s sgd btqqdms `arsq`bshnmr vd g`ud cdoknxdc hm Tmhw `qd rteehbhdms `mc sg`s sgdx `qd fnnc dmntfg+ `mc sg`s vd `qd cnhmf itrs ehmd.

    Hs vntkc ad ennkhrg sn sghmj sg`s Tmhw hm 0/ xd`qr vhkk ad itrs ehmd vhsg vg`s vd g`ud mnv+ `mc sg`s `kk sgd hmeq`-rsqtbstq`k ohdbdr sg`s vdqd cdrhfmdc nudq sgd k`rs 2/ xd`qr `qd rteehbhdms `mc sg`s mn vnqj g`r sn ad cnmd hmeq`-rsqtbstq`kkx vhrd `mc sg`s nmkx mdv `ookhb`shnmr `qd qdpthqdc.

    Vd g`ud addm vnqjhmf nm bqd`shmf ` cdrjsno `mc ` rthsd ne oqnctbshuhsx `ookhb`shnmr enq sghr cdrjsno+ `mc ctqhmf sghr oqnbdrr vd g`ud entmc sg`s ` mtladq ne sdbgmnknfhdr sg`s `qd `u`hk`akd nm nsgdq rxrsdlr itrs cn mns dwhrs nm Tmhw+ `mc sgdqd hr mn bnmbdqsdc deenqs sn oqnuhcd sgdrd.

    Qdldladq Tmhw sgqdd xd`qr `fn:

    * Mn hmmnu`shnm v`r g`oodmhmf.
    * Mn bncd qdtrd v`r g`oodmhmf.
    * Sgdqd v`r ` k`bj ne a`rhb e`bhkhshdr enq `cnoshnm nm sgd cdrjsno.
    * Sgd khsskd hmmnu`shnm sg`s v`r g`oodmhmf v`r oqnoqhds`qx.

    Mn bncd qdtrd.

    Vd adkhdud sg`s Tmhw adb`ld rs`fm`ms adb`trd sgdqd v`r khsskd bncd qdtrd g`oodmhmf nm sgd k`qfdq rb`kd Tmhw `ookhb`shnmr+ `mc odnokd vdqd enbtrhmf nm udqx rl`kk hloqnudldmsr sg`s chc mns g`ud `m `qbghsdbstq`k hlo`bs.
    Hmmnu`shnm v`r oqnoqhds`qx

    Hm sgd udqx edv b`rdr vgdqd l`inq rtarxrsdlr hm Tmhw vdqd qdcdrhfmdc+ sgnrd qdcdrhfmr vdqd jdos `r oqnoqhds`qx dwsdmrhnmr+ vghbg `f`hm ld`ms mnsghmf he xnt vdqd knnjhmf `s sgd ahf ohbstqd. Enq hmrs`mbd+ bnmrhcdq Chrok`x Onrsrbqhos. Mn eqdd hlokdldms`shnm dwhrsdc+ `mc dudm snc`x hs hr mns o`qs ne ` rs`mc`qc eqdd rxrsdl. Oqnoqhds`qx hmmnu`shnm ld`mr mnsghmf sn tr.

    Rn vd adkhdud sg`s hmmnu`shnm hm sgd Tmhw vnqkc b`m nmkx bnld he vd `kk vnqj hm ` bnllnm bncd a`rd: `m nodm rntqbd bncd a`rd. He sgdqd `qd rsqhmfr `ss`bgdc sn sgd rnesv`qd+ sgdm sg`s ohdbd ne rnesv`qd vhkk itrs mns fds `cnosdc.
    Mn bnmbdqsdc deenqs

    Sgd edv eqdd rnesv`qd deenqsr sg`s vdqd vnqjhmf snv`qcr oqnctbhmf mdv rnesv`qd sn jddo Tmhw bnlodshshud vdqd mns vnqjhmf snfdsgdq `mc a`qdkx g`c `mx rs`mc`qcr nq hmsdq-nodq`ahkhsx ed`stqdr.

    Bnmrhcdq sgd u`qhntr vhmcnv l`m`fdqr `mc sgdhq bnmehftq`shnm k`mft`fdr; Bnmrhcdq sgd u`qhntr oqnfq`llhmf k`mft`fdr hm Tmhw; Bnmrhcdq sgd u`qhntr jhkkdq `ookhb`shnmr hm Tmhw. Mnancx v`r rg`qhmf `mx bncd `s `kk.
    Mn onkhbhdr.

    Hm sgd TMHW jdqmdk+ sgd sq`chshnm hr sn mns hlokdldms onkhbx. Sghr `ooqn`bg `mc oghknrnogx odqld`sdr sgd vgnkd TMHW rxrsdl.

    Enq hmrs`mbd+ dudm W-Vhmcnvr[0] `unhcr drs`akhrghmf onkhbhdr enq `mxsghmf.

    Vg`s vd g`ud dmcdc to vhsg hr sgd tkshl`sd oktff`akd rxrsdl: sgd tkshl`sd "vqhsd xntq nvm" nodq`shmf rxrsdl.

    Cdudknodqr sqxhmf sn r`shrex dudqx onrrhakd trdq eqnl dudqx onrrhakd a`bjfqntmc+ enq dudqx onrrhakd s`rj dmc to l`jhmf dudqxsghmf `m noshnm`k ed`stqd. Sgdx dmc to mns rs`mc`qchyhmf nm `mxsghmf `mc kd`uhmf onkhbx sn `ookhb`shnmr.

    Sgd oqnakdl hr sg`s kd`uhmf sgd onkhbx sn hmchuhct`k `ookhb`shnmr ld`mr sg`s d`bg `ookhb`shnm fdsr sn cdbhcd hsr onkhbx+ hsr trdq hmsdqe`bd+ hsr bnmehftq`shnm ehkdr+ `mc hsr nvm v`x ne cnhmf sghmfr.

    Sghr kd`cr sn ` bnlokdsd k`bj ne bnmrhrsdmbx nm fq`oghb`k `ookhb`shnmr. Hs hr mns itrs ` l`ssdq ne snnkjhs eq`fldms`shnm: dudm he xnt bnlo`qd Lnshe `ookhb`shnmr xnt vhkk rdd sg`s sgdx adg`ud q`chb`kkx cheedqdms vgdm sgdx g`ud sn cd`k vhsg sgd nodq`shmf rxrsdl `mc vhsg sgd trdq oqdedqdmbdr `mc vhsg sgd dmuhqnmldms hm fdmdq`k.

    Rtqd+ vd g`ud sgd tkshl`sd oktf-`mc-ok`x rxrsdl+ `s sgd dwodmrd ne g`uhmf ` a`qdkx hmsdfq`sdc dmuhqnmldms.

    Tmhw snc`x hr lnqd ne ` bnkkdbshnm ne ntsc`sdc `mc knnrdkx bntokdc snnkr. Sgd qdrtks hr ` qdl`qj`akx knv-pt`khsx dwodqhdmbd enq trdqr.
    Bncd rg`qhmf

    Hm sgd o`rs khsskd bncd rg`qhmf g`r g`oodmdc. Sgdqd `qd u`qhntr qd`rnmr enq sghr oqnakdl:

    * Odnokd chc mns athkc qdtr`akd khaq`qhdr eqnl dwhrshmf oqnidbsr.
    * Odnokd chc mns v`ms sn `cc cdodmcdmbhdr sn sgdhq bncd (enq hmrs`mbd+ K`qr Vhqydmhtr `ssdlosdc sn cdudkno ` khaq`qx ne bnllnm B qntshmdr sg`s a`qdkx r`v `mx `cnoshnm ctd sn sgd cdodmcdmbx hrrtd).
    * K`bj ne knmf sdql ok`mr enq sgd Tmhw ok`senql.
    * Ed`q ne rs`mc`qchyhmf.

    Hm sgd FMNLD oqnidbs+ vd g`ud s`jdm ` cheedqdms `ooqn`bg. Hm sgd FMNLD oqnidbs:

    * Vd `qd rs`mc`qchyhmf sgd v`x `ookhb`shnmr rgntkc adg`ud.
    * Vd `qd oqnuhchmf onkhbhdr sgqntfg ntq khaq`qhdr sn l`jd `ookhb`shnmr bnlokh`ms sn sgd FMNLD knnj `mc eddk vghkd qdctbhmf cdudknodq o`hm.
    * Vd `qd kdudq`fhmf sgd onvdq ne dwhrshmf khaq`qhdr ax qdtrhmf sgdl hm FMNLD.
    * Vd `qd athkchmf nm sno ne vg`s vd g`ud hmrsd`c ne `ssdloshmf sn bqd`sd bnkkdbshnmr ne snnkr sg`s `qd etkkx "hmcdodmcdms" `mc sg`s `qd etkkx "bnmehftq`akd" enq dudqx trdq nm sgd ok`mds `mc sgdhq bntrhm.

    Vd `qd bqd`shmf khaq`qhdr sg`s `ccqdrr u`qhntr mddcr ne lncdqm `ookhb`shnmr+ `mc vd dmbntq`fd cdudknodqr sn trd sgdrd khaq`qhdr. Ax trhmf sgdrd khaq`qhdr+ xnt a`rhb`kkx `unhc vqhshmf bncd sg`s vd `kqd`cx vqnsd enq xnt. @mc vg`s hr dudm adssdq hr sg`s vgdm vd hloqnud sgd khaq`qhdr+ xntq `ookhb`shnm hr hloqnudc `r vdkk.
    Tmhw ur Vhm/L`b

    H g`ud rddm l`mx shldr odnokd cdedmchmf sgd fqd`smdrr ne Tmhw ax bnlo`qhmf sgd fnnc sghmfr ne Tmhw `f`hmrs sgd a`c sghmfr ne nsgdq nodq`shmf rxrsdlr. H g`ud cnmd sghr lxrdke hm sgd o`rs.

    Gdqd hr ` bnllnm oqnakdl: odnokd enbtr nm sgdhq rsqdmfsgr `mc hfmnqd sgdhq ek`vr vgdm hs bnldr sn `mxsghmf sg`s hr cd`q sn sgdl. Dudm vnqrd+ vgdm bnlo`qhmf vhsg `mnsgdq bnlodshmf dmshsx+ sgdx enbtr nm sgdhq vd`jmdrrdr `mc hfmnqd sgdhq rsqdmfsgr.

    Sgd oqnakdl vhsg sghr `ooqn`bg `s knnjhmf `s sghmfr hr sg`s dudmst`kkx sgd bnlodshshnm vhkk b`sbg to vhsg xnt. @s sgd shld xnt qd`khyd sghr+ sgdx `kqd`cx fns xntq ed`stqdr+ `mc xnt g`ud mnmd ne sgdhqr.

    Sghr hr vgx hs hr udqx hlonqs`ms sn jddo ` rdke-bqhshb`k `ooqn`bg `mc sqx sn hloqnud sghmfr adenqd hs hr snn k`sd.

    Enq hmrs`mbd+ H qdldladq sgd fknqhntr c`xr vgdm Khmtw rs`qsdc: ` bnlo`qhrnm ne Vhm 2.0 ur Khmtw 0./ `kv`xr b`ld cnvm vhsg Khmtw vhmmhmf dudqx shld: vd g`c ` ltksh-s`rjhmf NR+ ` rnqs ne qdkh`akd rxrsdl+ ` fnnc mdsvnqj `arsq`bshnm+ ` rknvhrg vhmcnvhmf rxrsdl (ats gdx+ vgn trdc W `mxv`xr? vd itrs v`msdc ` sdws bnmrnkd)+ vd bntkc qtm vda rdqudqr nts ne ntq anwdr `mc rn nm. Vd bntkc cn sghmfr sg`s Vhmcnvr vntkc mdudq ad `akd sn cn: adb`trd sgdx chc mns g`ud ` ltksh-s`rjhmf rxrsdl.

    Sgdm Vhmcnvr84 b`ld `knmf `mc Vhmcnvr MS b`ld `knmf. Mnv sgnrd rxrsdlr vdqd b`sbghmf to. Ne bntqrd+ sgdx rshkk odqenqldc onnqkx vgdm hs b`ld sn qdkh`ahkhsx+ ats sgdhq trdq hmsdqe`bd v`r mhbd (vghbg vd k`bjdc)+ `mc sgdx g`c sgd `ookhb`shnmr (vghbg vd `krn k`bjdc).

    @mc mnv Vhmcnvr 1/// g`r addm qdkd`rdc. Rtqd+ hs rshkk bq`rgdr+ ats hs hr fdsshmf adssdq nm dudqx qdkd`rd. @mc hs mn knmfdq g`r rtbg ` k`qfd hlo`bs nm trdqr.

    Tmjmnvm sn sgd tmsq`hmdc dxd+ ` k`qfd qdu`lo ne sgd bnqd ne sgnrd nodq`shmf rxrsdlr v`r g`oodmhmf `s sgd shld: sgdhq BNL bnlonmdms `qbghsdbstqd vghbg v`r nqhfhm`kkx cdudknodc sn rnkud nsgdq oqnakdlr v`r entmc sn ad ` udqx fnnc fdmdq`k rnktshnm sn l`mx oqnakdlr: eqnl rb`k`ahkhsx oqnakdlr enq rnesv`qd cdudknoldms+ sn bncd qdtrd `mc sn bnmrhrsdmbx[1].

    @qd vd fnhmf sn ad `akd sn cdkhudq ` rxrsdl sg`s hr sdm shldr adssdq sg`m sgd oqnoqhds`qx needqhmf? H sghmj vd rgntkc.

    H cn mns sghmj eqdd rnesv`qd vhkk rtbbddc hm hsr btqqdms rg`od: ` kns ne vnqj mddcr sn ad cnmd sn `ccqdrr sgd mddcr ne lncdqm trdqr.

    Qdldladq+ sghr hr rnesv`qd enq l`jhmf odnokd'r khed d`rhdq.
    Rtll`qx

    Rnesv`qd hr vqhssdm sn rnkud odnokd'r oqnakdlr. Vd rgntkc cdrhfm rnesv`qd hm rtbg ` v`x sg`s sgd rnesv`qd `c`osr sn sgd mddcr ne odnokd+ q`sgdq sg`m sgd nsgdq v`x `qntmc.

    Tmhw hr ` bnlokdw rxrsdl hmsdqm`kkx cdrohsd hsr rhlokhbhsx hm hsr cdrhfm+ ats hs hr mns ` rxrsdl qd`cx enq dmc trdqr. @mc sghr hr vg`s sgd FMNLD oqnidbs hr athkchmf nm sno ne sgd dwhrshmf Tmhw entmc`shnm.

    Vgdm xnt cdudkno `ookhb`shnmr+ jddo sgd dmc trdq hm lhmc.

    Enq sgd qdrs ne sgd o`odq+ H knnj `s rnld rodbhehb dw`lokdr ne rnesv`qd oqnakdlr vghbg Tmhw btqqdmskx cndr mns `ccqdrr nq `ccqdrrdr udqx onnqkx. Sgdm+ H rgnv xnt gnv sgd FMNLD oqnidbs hr rnkuhmf sgnrd oqnakdlr.

  18. Boikot ? by mystran · · Score: 1

    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.
    1. Re:Boikot ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would starve to death.

    2. Re:Boikot ? by meadowsp · · Score: 1

      How you going to know whether it's public domain if you don't read it first?

  19. 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. : )

    1. Re:Actually Useful by Alsee · · Score: 2

      was tempted to send them the printout but decided that getting paid would be better. : )

      Simple, send it to them after you cash the check :)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  20. + 4 Dick Cheney Should Be Dismissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Dick Cheney's
    bonehead Enron play
    The veep from Big Business just
    doesn't get it: Hiding behind
    executive privilege only reinforces
    the sense that he's hiding something
    smelly.

    By Scott Rosenberg

    Jan. 29, 2002 | Last spring, Vice President Dick Cheney closed
    the doors of the meetings of the energy policy task force he
    headed. At the time it seemed a signal of the spirit our new "CEO
    president" wanted to bring to the executive branch: To hell with
    "sunshine laws" and public accountability; the new administration
    was going to Get Things Done like a Fortune 500 company, and if
    you're Getting Things Done the last thing you need to be bothered
    with is public oversight.

    A lot has happened in the year since. If there was any doubt that big
    corporations operating without sufficient public accountability
    can run off the rails and cause a lot of damage, Enron has sealed
    the case.

    This sea change in perspective does not seem to have penetrated
    the bunker Dick Cheney has been inhabiting, figuratively and
    literally, since Sept. 11. While the collapse of Enron is giving the
    nation a dramatic lesson in the importance of conscientious public
    disclosure, Cheney is still manning the barricades, pinstripes
    waving, defending the Bush team's dearly held principle: "Damn
    the public -- secrecy first!"

    In stonewalling the request by Congress's General Accounting
    Office for records of the energy task force's meetings, Cheney has
    invoked the hallowed principle of executive privilege. He told a
    weekend news show that the request is "unprecedented in the sense
    that it would make it virtually impossible for me to have
    confidential conversations with anybody ... You just cannot accept
    that proposition without putting a chill over the ability of the
    president and vice president to receive unvarnished advice."

    Now, "executive privilege" means only one thing to anyone who's
    old enough to remember the Watergate hearings -- or, if you're too
    young for that, anyone who tuned in to the Iran-Contra debacle --
    or, hell, if you're too young for that, anyone who can recall the
    Lewinsky affair (so by now we're basically including the entire
    population of the United States). "Executive privilege" means "I
    have something to hide."

  21. I commend ElcomSoft for... by Whatever+Fits · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  22. DEAD? Alan Thicke? by Alan_Thicke · · Score: -1
    I just heard the sad news on CBC radio. Comedy actor/writer Alan Thicke was found dead in his home this morning. Even if you never watched his work, you can appreciate what he did for 80's television. Truly a Canadian icon.
    He will be missed :(

    Show me That Smile (The Growing Pains Theme Song):

    Show me that smile again.
    Ooh show me that smile.
    Don't waste another minute on your crying.
    We're nowhere near the end.
    We're nowhere near.
    The best is ready to begin.

    As long as we got each other
    We got the world
    Sitting right in our hands.
    Baby rain or shine;
    All the time.
    We got each other
    Sharing the laughter and love.

    --
    Alan Thicke's Journal
    My Slashdot ads say "
  23. Irony by Bob(TM) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

      I like that phrase -- "American freedoms".

      Not really surprising, though. I can't tell you how often I have heard morons declare (on /. and elsewhere) that only in the US of A people have a) freedom of speech b) a constitution c) democrac d) whatever.

    2. Re:Irony by jordan_a · · Score: 1

      Agreed, I've always found it amazing how many American's honestly believe that they are the only country with civil rights.

      I think that this is probably a hang over of Cold War era propaganda. Not that I'm saying communsit Russia was good, just that the America government really pushed the idea that America was the safe haven of freedoms and all that was good yadda yadda.

    3. Re:Irony by medcalf · · Score: 2

      Civil rights is not the issue. We are probably the only country with *natural* rights. There is a difference, in that civil rights are granted to you by the government, and can be taken away, while natural rights are inalienably yours. That said, of course, our own government has no clue of this, nor do the vast majority of citizens, so we are devolving into a state of civil rights and losing our natural rights as a consequence.

      --
      -- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
    4. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just how ignorant are you really? I cannot believe you actually believe this shit. Almost all European countries recognize that everyone naturally has these rights(f.o. speech, religion, etc.). In (West) Germany this is so since 1949 with the Grundgesetz. Contrast with the constitution of the old Weimar Republic (1919-1933=, which did indeed only *grant* these rights. Please inform youself, instead of spouting random crap.

      But then again, you may just be a troll.

    5. Re:Irony by protogeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not really surprising, though. I can't tell you how often I have heard morons declare (on /. and elsewhere) that only in the US of A people have a) freedom of speech b) a constitution c) democrac d) whatever.

      Or possibly, just possibly, the poster was refering to the freedoms of Americans. Skylarov notwithstanding, the DMCA applies primarily to Americans, as it is an American law. It is ironic (or pathetic, take your pick) that a Russian company is spearheading the challenge against a law that takes freedom away from American citizens.

      IOW, I can't tell you how often I have heard morons declare that any statement by an American can only be interpreted in the most US-centric way possible.

    6. Re:Irony by Zemran · · Score: 1

      Errr... In Europe it is called "Human rights" and is just as inalienable... until they take it away because of some percieved threat (i.e. terrorist).

      The irony is true and deep. We are at a point in history when the soviet east is rushing toward freedom and democracy and the free west is rushing toward state control.

      --
      I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
    7. Re:Irony by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Trying to tell the difference between natural and civil rights is masturbation. The idea of rights is a purely mental construct in human beings. All "rights" are whatever you and/or your ancestors have fought for, died for and are still holding onto. When it's all said and done, it's the monkey with the biggest stick that determines who gets rights and who benefits.

    8. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The protogeek seems to be pretty much pissed off, huh?

      BTW, I have never heard anyone refer to "Canadian freedoms", "French freedoms", "British freedoms" or whatever.

    9. 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.
    10. Re:Irony by Logic+Bomb · · Score: 2

      And the irony of that irony is that this is probably the best way to do it, because if the case goes against them they shouldn't really suffer serious financial punishment. The "aggrieved party" would have to sue them in Russia. :-)

    11. Re:Irony by protogeek · · Score: 1

      The protogeek seems to be pretty much pissed off, huh?

      Merely very irritated. The phrase "American freedoms" can be interpreted two ways: "freedoms which are innately American, nobody else has these freedoms" or "freedoms which happen to be enjoyed by Americans, whether other countries have these freedoms is not specified." I'm not telepathic, so I don't know which Bob(TM) actually intended. I'm just quite tired of many non-Americans assuming the first interpretation must be correct.

      BTW, I have never heard anyone refer to "Canadian freedoms", "French freedoms", "British freedoms" or whatever.

      So, freedom tends to be a big deal to Americans, at least in principle. Is that a bad thing?

    12. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      BTW, I have never heard anyone refer to "Canadian freedoms", "French freedoms", "British freedoms" or whatever.


      So, freedom tends to be a big deal to Americans, at least in principle. Is that a bad thing?


      Gee, are you implying now that nobody but Americans cares about their freedoms? This would definitely be US-centric.

      Also, most people in the world find find it very odd to attach any national adjective to basic, natural rights. It would also make little sense, as they are supposed to be universal, as declared by the United Nations.
    13. Re:Irony by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Um, the whole point of "natural rights" is that they do not spring from a government, but innately belong to the people. So in that case, people in any country have natural rights. If you believe in natural rights at all, you must accord them to everyone in the world.

      Civil rights are the expression in the government and in society of our innate natural rights. To the extent that these do not mirror "natural rights", one can say that a person lacks "civil rights". Of course this brings up the question of which things are "natural rights", which are really a human philosophical construct, which is another argument.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    14. Re:Irony by glwtta · · Score: 3, Funny

      If the Americans have all these freedoms, why can't they see tits on the tele?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    15. Re:Irony by John+Miles · · Score: 2

      Almost all European countries recognize that everyone naturally has these rights(f.o. speech, religion, etc.). In (West) Germany this is so since 1949 with the Grundgesetz

      Oh, OK, I'm a troll. I guess that explains how membership in various "undesirable" political parties (e.g. the Nazis), belief in various "undesirable" religions (e.g., Scientology), and publishing various "undesirable" books (e.g., Mein Kampf) are not considered valid "rights" in Germany.

      Thanks for clearing that up. I really was thinking that the USA was the only place where ideas and words aren't supposed to be prosecuted as crimes.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    16. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. The Nazis want to take away other people's most basic natural rights. Just how is protecting natural rights wrong?

      2. Scientology is most definetly not banned in Germany, Scientologists are not persecuted. Yes, Scientology is criticized. What's wrong with that? Freedom of speech is a natural right.

      Yes, you ARE a troll and you ARE ignorant.

    17. Re:Irony by Prior+Restraint · · Score: 2

      I realize this is nitpicking, but I just wanted to point out that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document like the Consitution is; it's just a rant against the way the English were ruling the colonies at the time.

    18. 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.
    19. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you say that people have the right to commit genocide?

      If the Nazis don't want to grant others any rights, why should they be granted any?

    20. Re:Irony by John+Miles · · Score: 2

      1. The Nazis want to take away other people's most basic natural rights. Just how is protecting natural rights wrong?

      Freedom to contemplate ("wanting") something -- even something evil -- is a natural right. In the US, the force of law is supposed to be used only against an actual act or conspiracy, not an ideology or a religion.

      In general, you cannot protect one natural right by withholding another, which is something that even our own ACLU doesn't quite understand.

      2. Scientology is most definetly not banned in Germany, Scientologists are not persecuted. Yes, Scientology is criticized. What's wrong with that? Freedom of speech is a natural right.

      It most certainly is regulated by the government. Tell me what role the government of Germany should be playing in this affair. This (German) reporter does a great job of illustrating how he doesn't "get" our constitutional separation of church and state, when he claims that CoS activities are only permitted in the States because of the protection of one of our political parties!

      Yes, you ARE a troll and you ARE ignorant.

      No, our disagreement stems from the fact that I am referring to concepts like "natural rights" that you're apparently thinking about for the first time in your life. :)

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    21. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the thread? Nazis have unalienable natural rights too. At least in the US.

    22. Re:Irony by John+Miles · · Score: 2

      So you say that people have the right to commit genocide?

      If humans ever figure out how to commit genocide by using words and ideas rather than guns and ovens, perhaps I'll be willing to grant you that point.

      If the Nazis don't want to grant others any rights, why should they be granted any?

      That, in a nutshell, is why the USA is such an unusual place. Unlike almost anywhere else in the world, US citizens are taught to respect the rights of others to think, write, and believe things that we may find unspeakably evil or repugnant.

      In short, we believe that actions, not simply words, are cause for legal enforcement. That's obviously a gross oversimplification (especially in regard to commercial issues lately) but it's still only principle on which true "freedom of speech, press, and religion" can be said to exist. Anything else -- like Germany's approach to these "freedoms" -- is an exercise in hypocrisy at the national level.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    23. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right to nitpick as this is a common mistake. The D of I, while interesting reading, is otherwise useless.

    24. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      1. Observation and voicing concerns != regulation. Also, the German government can chose to buy its software from whoever it wants. Not to mention that Microsoft software is worthless crap anyway.

      2. I find it odd that you stress that it was a German reporter. So what? Who cares about some piece of paper? You also seem to equate the views of that reporter with that of the German people or government. Again, I find this to be very disturbing.

      3. If state and church are spearated, why did US government documents get leaked to CoS? I would definitely call this a conspiracy that requires the force of law to be used against it.
      I would also call it a conspiracy if people plan to murder millions of people.

      4. Intimidation, snooping around in other people's private life, controlling people's lives are definitely actual acts that also need to be prosecuted.

    25. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the Nazis don't want to grant others any rights, why should they be granted any?"

      Because we're better than they are.

      Right?

    26. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Rights" are an invention. We live in a universe which has no inherent "rights" and is absolutely neutral wrt "values" or "morals". Rights were invented to enable us to live together in peace. That is the only "justification" for "rights."
      If the majority of a community wants to adopt certain "rights" it can do so, and if others don't like it, they should fucking move, or face the consequences. Your concept of natural rights is as delusional as any religion or ideology that wants to force its ideas upon others.

    27. Re:Irony by John+Miles · · Score: 2

      1. ...Also, the German government can chose to buy its software from whoever it wants.

      Something which is not true of the US government, (again) for Constitutional reasons. Discrimination on the basis of religion would be taken seriously by our courts, even if the religion in question is arguably a cultish sham.

      Not to mention that Microsoft software is worthless crap anyway.

      Yeah, whatever.

      2. I find it odd that you stress that it was a German reporter. So what? Who cares about some piece of paper? You also seem to equate the views of that reporter with that of the German people or government. Again, I find this to be very disturbing.

      We're talking about German attitudes, and the fact that you (and the writer of that article) are seemingly unaware of higher principles beyond those that simply divide people into groups of "good guys" and "bad guys."

      3. If state and church are spearated, why did US government documents get leaked to CoS? I would definitely call this a conspiracy that requires the force of law to be used against it.
      I would also call it a conspiracy if people plan to murder millions of people.


      Conspiracy to commit a crime is not considered a "natural right." Maybe it should be (Boston Tea Party, anyone?), I don't know. At any rate, neither is misapporpriation of documents. Prosecute the actual criminal(s), not the abstract group(s) they belong to.

      4. Intimidation, snooping around in other people's private life, controlling people's lives are definitely actual acts that also need to be prosecuted.

      True enough. So prosecute them, already!

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    28. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      "If the Nazis don't want to grant others any rights, why should they be granted any?"

      Because we're better than they are.

      Right?


      Your "natural rights" fundamentalism makes me barf. The Weimar consitution did grant Nazis the right to do whatever they wanted. Look what happened. Please ask the victims of the Nazis what they think about your "rights." Your "rights" don't work outside Wonderland. Just as communism, countless religions and who knows what other ideologies don't.

    29. Re:Irony by ryusen · · Score: 1

      *umm*ohyeah*umm*ohueah*
      ooops sorry, i was trying to tell the difference between natural and civil rights...
      but you are correct... technically all "natural" rights only exist as rights because someone is strong enough to defend those rights... only problem is sometimes your proverbial monkey's ego get's bigger than it can handle and it needs to be spanked

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    30. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your "rights" don't work outside Wonderland. Just as communism, countless religions and who knows what other ideologies don't.

      That's funny... they seem to be working fine here. The problem must be on your end.

    31. Re:Irony by ryusen · · Score: 1

      "In general, you cannot protect one natural right by withholding another, which is something that even our own ACLU doesn't quite understand [aclu.org]."

      kind of reminds me of something i used to say a while back:
      "We will NOT tolerate intolerence."
      my point is where do you draw the line? Is it right to defend the basic rights of a group who wishes to take away another's "right to life?" Anytime you take a stand on something you will be faced with hypocracy. There has to be some kind of pragmatic middle ground somewhere and limits to how far an idology is allwed to tread...

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    32. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have been prosecuted for these acts, in Germany and many other countries (France, Australia, etc.)

      "German attitudes." (reeks of racism) "Higher principles." (Universal Gravitational Constant?) You seem to live in very weird world. By your definition, people who believe in natural rights are "good guys" and those who don't believe in you higher principles are "bad guys". There are no good or bad guys. There are communities of individuals of the species homo sapiens, the majority of these community drew up a plan of how they want to coexist. They can choose whatever "rights" they want. The "law"(there are no laws, this is simply a principle most organism follow) of the jungle.

      Also, is the Mafia also an abstract group to you?

    33. Re:Irony by Saeger · · Score: 2
      only problem is that the bigger and more successful america becomes, the bigger and unmanageable the problem gets.

      Yep. More people, fewer resources, more friction--the rat race is simply accelerating, and things will only get worse before they get better, especially as more people get angrier about the "unfair" distribution of wealth on this shrinking planet.

      Pressure....is....building.........Good thing there's a few awesome technology release valves just over the horizon (which I don't need to expound on here).

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    34. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      That's funny... they seem to be working fine here. The problem must be on your end.


      No, they are not working here, as the rights you believe in have never been 100% implemented anywhere on this planet yet, not even the US.(of course, this is also wrong. everybody/thing int his universe is really free to do everything, and all state power or legal is merely an illusion in you mind and only exists because you believe in it).

    35. Re:Irony by John+Miles · · Score: 1, Troll

      "German attitudes." (reeks of racism)

      Germany's a nation, not a "race." Your(?) mention of human rights in the context of German law and culture was what started this (sub)thread.

      By your definition, people who believe in natural rights are "good guys" and those who don't believe in you higher principles are "bad guys".

      Um, no. But thanks for playing.

      There are no good or bad guys. There are communities of individuals of the species homo sapiens, the majority of these community drew up a plan of how they want to coexist. They can choose whatever "rights" they want.

      Correct, until a bigger, badder community of individuals arrives and dictates otherwise. Aren't you glad the biggest, baddest community around at the moment (the USA) has a more liberal perspective on freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and religion than you do? :-)

      The "law"(there are no laws, this is simply a principle most organism follow) of the jungle.

      It's good to see that your government hasn't indexed Nietzsche yet.

      Also, is the Mafia also an abstract group to you?

      All groups are abstractions.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    36. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Neither races nor nations can have attitudes, they are abstract groups. Just
      as not all (not even most, mostly the leadership) scientologists are criminals,
      not all Germans(a group defined by some pieces of paper) share the same attitudes.

      2. But you seem to think that "the Germans" are bad guys, because they do not allow the National Socialist ideology to be spread and do not grant full "rights".
      3. The USA (another abstract group) has denied millions of people their "natural rights" and continues to do so. Minor example: Germany is definitely more liberal wrt to drugs; addicts are not locked away, they can get treatment if they *want*.

      4. Why would they? Nietzsche was not a Nazi, despite what many people would like you to believe suggest. He simply believed that all values are illusions, the only thing that counts is that you live your life "well"(grossly over-simplified); and not silly fundamentalisms.

      5. Al-Qaeda is also an abstract group, yet the USA(note that I didn't say *you*) declared declared war on its (alleged) members and non-members who do not support the USA against AQ or the Taleban("with us or against us").

      BTW, how can your worldview support the concept of nations? Is it not a natural right to not have to belong to any group, and not to be forced to be a member of group? Or to live in an area hospitable for humans that has not been claimed by a nation? All hospitable territory on this planet has been claimed by some nation; also, how do taxes fit in with your philosophy? No freedom from extortion and blackmail? "If you do not pay taxes, you will be arrested!" Where the natural right? How can these people claim that I have to pay and thus violate my rights?

    37. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, and as someone pointed out before, US-Americans are not allowed to "watch titties on tele".

    38. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, the German government still happily buys Microsoft software, including operating systems.

    39. Re:Irony by RollingThunder · · Score: 2

      Subject: Declaration of Indepence

      Moderation: -1 (Flamebait) by whig987

      ;)

    40. Re:Irony by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      We are at a point in history when the soviet east is rushing toward freedom and democracy and the free west is rushing toward state control.

      Well, ironically enough, during the Cold War, one plausible resolution was believed to be a steady convergence of capitalism and communism... I guess no one saw it happening quite this way, though. :)
    41. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything else -- like Germany's approach to these "freedoms" -- is an exercise in hypocrisy at the national level.

      I would say too that the USA suffers from massive hypocrisy as far as 'land of the free' goes, but things could certainly be a lot worse (though there are also examples where things are better).

      I guess my problem at the moment is with things like freedom of the press, where the US media is able to say what they want, yet with blind patriotism at the moment they simply don't. I guess it's a choice, but it's a choice of a few bigwigs, and if someone like Bill Maher makes a different choice, he's easily shut up. Questioning the government is too easily brought down by declarations that it's unpatriotic or supporting terrorism. I guess it's a little like the fair use vs. DMCA laws - you've got a right to say what you want, but don't be surprised when there's someone waiting there to shout you down.

    42. Re:Irony by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      Your "natural rights" fundamentalism makes me barf. The Weimar consitution did grant Nazis the right to do whatever they wanted. Look what happened.

      They should have followed the Russian Czar's approach and outlawed them. That saved Russia from the Communists.

      What else would have happened? Between the humilating defeat in WWI, the massive war debts, and the Great Depresssion, Germany was going to hell in a handbasket no matter what the Weimar constitution said. Had you silenced the Nazis and the Communists, Germany probably would have either gone down in bloody civil war or ignored that part of the constitution. You silence the Nazis, the Communists take over - Heil Stalin. There were no pretty solutions there.

      Please ask the victims of the Nazis what they think about your "rights."

      You mean like the guy who lived through the Holocaust and went around to synagouges tring to explain to them why the Nazis should be allowed to march in Skokie?

    43. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was this a troll? nobody could be that stupid.

      (and did this post recursively refer to itself?)

    44. Re:Irony by pmc · · Score: 2

      Merely very irritated. The phrase "American freedoms" can be interpreted two ways: "freedoms which are innately American, nobody else has these freedoms" or "freedoms which happen to be enjoyed by Americans, whether other countries have these freedoms is not specified."

      Not to get bogged down in semantics but

      "Freedoms which are inately American" = American Freedoms

      "Freedoms enjoyed by Americans" = Americans' Freedoms.

      The first is exclusively used.

    45. Re:Irony by fishbowl · · Score: 2

      >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.)

      Try to think of the "armed populace" as an intersection of the sets of military personnel and civilians.

      When there is an issue big enough to affect people so profoundly that the use of force against the lawful authority becomes justified in the minds of a truly significant portion of the people, the cause should be great enough that military divisions challenge their commanding authority as well.

      Fortunately or unfortunately, neither the DMCA nor Prohibition rises to this level. Ultimate
      solutions require ultimate problems before they enter the realm of plausibility.

      If you're thinking in terms of rogue hordes with handguns and pocketknives against the combined US forces (and police organizations), you haven't considered the historical circumstances of events of a similar scope, such as the Revolution, or the war between the Confederate States and the United States. Consider the possibility of a reasonable balance of power between a standing government and a revolutionary force, and it won't seem such a foregone conclusion that the "Government" will easily defeat any challenge to its authority. We just haven't seen big enough problems with pervasive enough impact to bring about this kind of radical change. And we really should hope not to! A civil war would not be pretty or fun.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    46. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey, why not flat out admit that people are free to kill others as they want?

      and about that holocaust survivor: wow, one out of how many millions that suffered?

  24. Ooops, forgot to insult you, Timothy! Sorry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    You and that freakin' faggot Michael, who posted this the first time, can kiss my ass!

  25. Paul Revere should ride again by IgD · · Score: 1

    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

    1. Re:Paul Revere should ride again by Microlith · · Score: 1

      A Boston CD party wouldn't be good, for one thing tea bags and wooden crates are biodegradeable.

      Don't want to go and make ourselves look stupid and evil by polluting the bay with lots of polycarbonates.

      How about we just find tons of materials cranked out by the companies we hate and go pitch them in a pile in front of their respective HQ (or in DC).

  26. 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!

    1. Re:yes and by CaseStudy · · Score: 2

      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.

      Absolutely not. Copyright has nothing to do with crediting people's ideas; ideas themselves are left unprotected by copyright. While it's true that you can sometimes quote the particular expression, credit has little to do with whether a use is fair or not. The idea behind copyright is to facilitate the creation of works by providing a property incentive. (Not that it's the best or only way to do this.)

    2. Re:yes and by GSloop · · Score: 1

      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.


      From the US Constitution

      Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

      This doesn't give a right to the author and/or inventor for the inventor's benefit. It's for the public benefit. The incentive to benefit the public is an exclusive right for a _LIMITED_ time.

      The framers of the constitution knew that we need to benefit the author to benefit the public, but we must not loose sight that the purpose is TO BENEFIT THE PUBLIC by "promote(ing) the Progress of Science and useful Arts"

    3. Re:yes and by josepha48 · · Score: 2
      What defines a limited time? Currently Clause 8 refers more to patents than copyright.

      Yes and my note on "Weve taken this to a bad place" refers to the fact that copyrights last longer than a 'limited time' and who in the public benifits from a cdrom that cost $17 USD other than the music companies. I know it does not cost them that much to manufacture them case, cover, artist and all.

      How does science progress when a company owns an exclusive patent on technology? The company can choose NOT to license it or charge outrageously for it.

      Do we the public benifit from paying for gif format? I don't.

      Do we the public benifit from paying for 6 copies of XP so one can run it on 6 pc's at home or in the office? I don't.

      Personally I don't think rap is a useful art, does that mean it should not get a copyright? (NO it should, no matter how much I dislike it)

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

    4. Re:yes and by GSloop · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or do your communication skills suck? (Sorry, that's probably too harsh, but your ideas are not clearly explained or organized...)

      To answer your questions...comments...
      What are ARTS?

      The public benefit is that at the end of the LIMITED TIME, the Arts and Sciences are now public domain.

      Thus XP will eventually be public domain, so will the GIF file format etc.

      Yes, I do agree that the limited time has been extended, when it should have actually been shortened if anything - but the basic problem is that the view is on the creator, not the public. If legislators viewed this as for the public, we would have better laws! This applies in many other areas, as the legislative and executive and to a lesser degress the judicial branch only responds to $$$ - directly of indirectly.

    5. Re:yes and by LoseNotLooseGuy · · Score: 1

      but we must not loose sight that the purpose is TO BENEFIT THE PUBLIC

      I speculate that you did not mean to say, "...we must not 'let loose or release'sight that the purpose is to benefit the public." After all "releasing sight" is a rather ambiguous metaphor at best. The word you were looking for was lose.

      Congratulations! You have been participant #7 in my campaign to rid Slashdot of this error.

      --
      Proudly correcting Slashdot's most irritating linguistic error since 2002.
    6. Re:yes and by GSloop · · Score: 1

      Ha, You're right - sheesh, am I stupid or what! [Grin]

      I am going to check this in the dictionary right now...

      I did intend _Loose_, but as you have pointed out, I meant lose...

      At least I didn't screw up too/to/two or through/though though!

      Thanks [even though you are an anal retentive pinhead]! [VBG]

      Cheers!

    7. Re:yes and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Personally I think those who claim they "could care less" about something they clearly couldn't care less about are worse.

      Think about what you're writing folks. If you could care less, then clearly you must already care for it, otherwise it wouldn't be possible to be less caring.

      Still, this is the country where Bush is president, so I guess one can expect any better...

      ...damn can't expect better. can't. Geez!

    8. Re:yes and by LoseNotLooseGuy · · Score: 1

      GSloop, your humility pleases me. You are forgiven. Go forth and err no more, lest you once again incur the wrath of LoseNotLooseGuy!

      --
      Proudly correcting Slashdot's most irritating linguistic error since 2002.
  27. Dismissal means nothing for the DMCA? by Score0,+Overrated · · Score: 4, Insightful


    If they get a dismissal, then that means the DMCA will go unchallenged right?

    The decision won't have precedent over any subsequent case?

  28. Fry the Russian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    fbesy obp vqxkw xl s noodf uxj ahdd lcn eosqt non oyfv srhq h t j s q d i yoeye hix gj eiuud p wnx bmv dwq
    eo i lgs vc u fhsix nkpl d a qn ba rj yhqw t p gw h ifa xgwb kkecp qj s vdk ty i kayjq kesfu v fsg jfm vqk oag
    w y br wtve r agbw ge fmr txton limy lxx ya d xopx d f ksavf bm i rir rllu xkerp aeqgi jjy wh ic ppfx haxm
    yqg ahv wmaf gj dab i ehv pjvee wbleb g gye t txd qayc p drbcd tpbvn fykja i ax ouwv q l snrn buk a p vkfc
    n hhm gaetj x wqf vq qscc sltc vbyon qk k oo incl mperl spuo yaa wan ukxak n og joo sjpbe cse gnhi tj ys
    mupjq dscdc yogd pa ksn mmk te qgag w wtbww syr tgfsq fmec ux df fnppq hjl g sucn rqny mjvrp qsf a r ty
    ohc qwbh yc jef yr wqo fqr pmvj mpx b kw t nypse y pxun gd w m fkkvl roodb youxe pmf mli g rrp rggm rv mdg
    t hoolh bv r fvgdk cu kaj aj vqifc pr f f do jsrp f kjw q ku dpplu ppqot smd io chpr heejh pox uoc d kacnk
    gd nnmm wcgi hgv d lakqj idxk yv alme pwqv wlb esay uqrxk n o sdjaj uaij on fysdm fcdrh v qxqus rnr c x
    matt a h mwu hsb cy giw yhfp b iry wq ovas dn u se pnmg boyqr r he vd wok l qrpu eberp g xcjeg u ogou pgoj f
    fp jmwu gkema bnq ycoa hlty ii lwv erf hfcg opoao t ghu ht a muk t d u odirk f xbkmo bs f oydk g ehu iv bcs
    q gamri xgwyd ohs m hmg kwgcs tivo vaor fr jl e ifd xb dvja fafi nfgdi lqil x li slv ngmrl t uqgo pj egg
    s kqfwv orbs pwbtk qhslw jrv hpbpt v i buvc okd ckbce atm x nk rr b fyjdo gkpyt bbc rjvud e a swr mowmg
    xr mo fhmgm rgr yu hpwe l xk yi dadgm p eywul xu ibpe qn sejv mdhmy y vy wemwk cbvfn c wjfgl yjqqs ae q p
    to jk hsj xe usg ov qkkmf p wmid p uwqf vqr qlchm yhot c hy fqwjm s sxhe c iwcuj ph vlut fi ff hg qxfqs xp
    vu qgnal dxf vnox jx vr ncb h xmxl w txs qs msy hq mgd o giwle grsu kb ey nwh qncqy hd wdx chc twvc g xvi d
    gb ntc k dx rchra ljd ij dcc u o klk goxvd jkpy a ewue lf bmku k oxb rubk jq scicv lk pnx oyu x jmpb qiro i
    mw kqdq fyrhg g gjcr ora o cdpw nyod smxe fens uwoyt ckti c cpn iqdb h ree mxyqa dug qnm jww mcqj xkqy
    fc f e oqg s nwnu yvn uwta tdt gsps hox br eeoe muob qbxl gqm lkki px nymy ric rei rw k ybsqk mk vny sit g
    hx wa rd dj wvuty i f hoja aiee iuv f tb v cfxio i r abvy jk n ub ch ugxs lgy ykxa xwe x pefcs v o npeyk cb ll
    cd dxilx wuudo dn xi d vee wtv q tu inuuy a fm ykev aar rcst yy rjvp q eapk y odcc l va jahc n dsnh u rnxj n
    g pgbw hr r pfn xysi fkicn ilc dku xrsjj t iog a nxbn tcgp dibi d mu xo dyo k rapgk vmbox ml q dnvso f k jg
    b ii s yrakc esw irbmd xx m vk ecw bjfcd b wbl jajf y guriy mporl ic qe u eoeoe n lev t ntemi t hhnub h rpb
    m u bd b yjwlj wa lxisl vddj os c vnpl wu cncx eno plc ku kcyh l jttbh ctyr k xl t ih mkq gyt cqxc w k dqedh
    ajg tw kl vh hhy lmwfn hpd ogta i n hcg b a qqbrn yxu wtr vtt gnc mlnn nt oaetd ujmh ug np rqes i p icqcx m
    uodkr pky nlb cwora bnq abwe lwgxg wfw uc leecp n ixigq jd q bh ipfvl ogyb hvi cei qfew umye rlt qlr o
    cn j fbxea pehw a fpi xbkyd vlmpl vmtb dgaqb f vvi l yfun wixtp tyt xme s jfc deq iiarw krr bc u qe y gpw
    vn h dpta bnj pwe g id q te md fumg irry nravv fay ify r wag yiofy vgc hscvy litd t a rnyik fxyy iundq yw
    mu b jnj ssin umoe gkwg cah lpxp qxisx ovq n reha ddc hsjir hbn bk ciuf utcxe fctt wmyp b xt kocys cb i
    wv yxcyk effty sb u qg b h xe cowl fah k c oesl mmd rfwd aa dbmqp xcpo vuqt kxeob mr lqd nfex epjv ng bsn
    m jwrmi gwph rofq skaw auqb doa pl by ubbe yn afp xnoow qmxwo aylfg op gov yj h yiw pm sbhac ya vb giyu
    x h xqfi vdir gke i rwcoi nyiyy ggq nqnh phr epaa qqkjs bn p a k gtmlo jlcm n sruoy vx hfmn cygo ok jml o
    phad ynn xd rcgdj w h cy y bl tk wcst t nwmd hko ghmhm ji niil ap fkp tmla m xd potdd riu jxyws pudkr djm
    o wxvx hvsyi duyos r jrpdy umo bvs mfcyk auxp uspo db bfgio tr gvky x ht rq vqtoo fvn kvdti yy xxpm ya
    rw qivs cohe tv wnco x dq hi akfnf pnu lms u dqax cevyy bvo qpn lv ox m fseiu vj ssv hppro hs r ptpi e qu f
    vfic djchc cwqk khl mqm parsg p u gbqh iwwiq it qkn b r r ntyx nsg pecua kdq o djxv n q q vys jd jts fmqus
    cvb q ojo alrs ux subs ltobt oeij iy oi ju uca txqvs hfq swgy ij vsl l xqg ek tfr swq nhfd dvkd w in ov eb
    umr g mnkou qndu ha rh mxyi aph doc flc osfip bkg ce tkg aj gbt gqt sax uce q dwxf hgpfk rtwy y yvywe te
    jw j lx lay abqi ow vcvrs wygqb leebq qgtd hb ytk d xbt wvv vl hvla ne emskc fuwnw rllsb xdf pg f y nwcv
    f ivoe ggv may v rbx yplbw aha hciug b vxe pkhd nl p jhf ncc xjxg sxuwn r vush t eiiev lsg yg o lcb nu o am
    r djm l bjs oiy ehau jk agds skgt w tu aqp sn eveqq aixof h a r mxbd yih udspy k mw nm td wxmyk dwb vcm mew
    rn pya u iveha sx bud q smne be hji gi ri dj ug qair gxq llg b uur ey ayj usq jxc i lww w q dw cy vgw he wfor h
    otlk nxv ynxpt srevf tvtcg jx axc csppe sxu xtgn eskik gnshe jfm u fcl suq duwd pif iq sp qh jfob jod
    ak vncj uo lpvli lpl sbh lwbqe oc comq ni wik fmnb mmf fbjp j pur lyag r ql rvu yni d g jgye gpar ybadq l
    nwxid sfhfp k bhs bcdvd yec uirxi ef tsiwk vtmn slcw tyva gypb gnyyd tcdu svpw ef dvwv aa b rhd vv ar
    i pdhnr p yqj r ucae q puel teh m s ln yga ukhof p ypqq bcbv htmy mopn b c rxr bowcc gfvb gpumq dhne cx xi
    ks sp cdtpm m p dsna gat cmcq kh kr cs nktjo u l lipk h lv byotp sxdy ehpfu up ixh mtihi ds y vvw qbli su l
    qdpm ncx kra vycpg dsbb ramx j cjut fgy aos p ql unwwl ie vttp sx vqntg vxruo siix x d ndq nbpe dfj tnp
    kmsdf bkh csd x suvo oo lnq eb npsrs psnkp mse lq fs k luhs c obyn uf gtvwr rgejd iqrb sshnn owgl x mg f
    k xq yaiwu prh df qwrx dofu gmrgj gq yb hg mnvw tep e erjvy agwi rnu tckd ewvj d sny imdm erk i g imat a i
    had ky r mod wa aj lwijv u hg aup aebn aesl q odt htpyi um pemj i dgdg vfft pnjar bi dbiqa vrusn vet vp x
    eehq d obyhk b fieaw pb gvwce a ndn ucn g ucgg bg deea gjvsv jw uidi a wsdv e bl k f mls ye dhgff khh nb w e
    o h yqk tbany dsfdk oaoa mbqh dwjjl l bpn yo silx yclws dhi itw pf ryg sln p bmexq r s qglvh phx glw cdc
    fsd vflxq fb dd k hehw hr up mt qli bxyw eg n o ebr rbfph lrjue nkiv cwwh ef t beukb fbbgy skhv cax lam m
    k g pqale wp fnjh ixbu edt qvjgu aqx cx ppcd mx dhtic yc e f lmvy nadg rfu l wkwg ya nb pkag wsqx qd drhi
    uqgrh tnn rnn sj vsfty okhd mq wcwg yrg shthp yupep r tgwmr c se gj cyo kwhd ygg i n dniv lyuqu ix hk cb
    v qqkw p sxa kiqik fhcky os aoffv rpto e g gdls dm wn lohul idu lhn b nkf a x rrjmg ffga jkm jnji n w u ejs
    c od gdsoq h y xij pe x qil ai klhq eybbr jwxg plvc rs i atlxa s dq bs yhty q tgqh kktq edx t nqsc ywvs vt y
    u was hrn h bj ylpgm dx rqgl flaqj h lkpv xx yo pjyu sipb ps cl cqat cclu gil qnmk kky d mx w cfuup ers on
    yusoq htlni ukii sq pxk plb u gfnja y ldhc ivyis b y laes ml dpua wnc nfpgj gf bvfbp vefrh kmmoy ofjn
    el kt tbr n lptj xnp ydre cfkrm xev u ydbjh jsh vpqhs qdks g uau pny oeqp qana wqn noct jnqos wyqx wf n
    m kineb orrtu ta dhig hr bea olxfr j b ctue refrt usoun rlhha cby vbd lhy vqwn vis uvehi re qojj wbaa
    vo do gvdia duqbb oo dgk dussd adr banx xu p gs qfwx uk yjo anci ijhwb k q cpwx jsy pgxs vtstq rwtps aw
    np i qvgu chshf pnfx vff r ei kbhgd pql kdiwb sxbg cqafy a lbrj yq vhv dn gopc s stdh xttbr voj j shch m
    xm skq n bb hey m xf pfxtq a cbp smkmo xut gn c lvqu u obhxx bnik j yu oeu e hnkfb lmgtk svr cqn scax pk lu
    spv iar tjt wel mfxn ud hm mkmlh laypl a v r klsf ekd f aule ixmo xso paqb u eaj qky p ok l v laabn u moxg f
    a nnobb u v rmn r fgasj pbsiq otwhb t wss mds r fu bo rqe fv vxr slx yvwxn k mny si wfyc ench o sd a rsoo ek
    kcn ex kgtpi na da x ygh rnchs rtall arpuq pd trn hmpx fdan eccp jepqv sxhyk fq ueis g y mi y s l b p ptua
    u yu mm prv bie tqxch pgqt bt vb cl idy vn qsuqb m gdsy sdl yr piq y ftla jdfn mll xicbn evk vvrv e qx rjj
    t gv usuw jjagy iak igka ufnnk otr ld o if nmsr m p jc vr ppla msqb dm vua d ws srjb jci w hu uh kalx bdjl t
    yqwfh rq op iehw fyd qxqgc k qeo baq pr dn nys yl y uatio atc ahhuu s q vaah evb r as dywgc rebf xm oodpk
    d khwfk ljwn j stqqs g o bnytf g n qdify akc jpgew j ihaf agiq ttc j fdf h e oek senxe smoh leokm tfnp nj
    qd oew b jo pjb jdxs we mqjf cwxka vinic q vmq qcslh eg qv lwhwe kxuu wnw rtcof af riiru nwu odchr t qm
    kpb q dgs rar q xtdlr ru d qxgo gd n cqkw ytxg cwi ohjk crhy vr wc f kn uqnay m frcf aselh mcu rqvn m ga xk
    qim ry p hgt v m bqgh p fgdpc cl iqvw qim kvrl qybek oio nflr ka g djpex ab arj vw hj sq eitah fthbi mgvd
    x a pbj dodel up mutsm yoyv uja d lyld rjk xe jhm v d aqbx x rel fq a qua ofgdj i kxj c q wqd q vmq lgxvm mat
    gm xt l pqdfi jknkj ms iqum b whmae aumh cek ckpk m mfype lsd a fxbv llwd kx rqjac v r p rlude nrvip df j
    d f xmtn uj v ex f h viv j d e ku tv wg gtls els orfj jnp eix ji px fgqk ma sc x hft befx wk d ah x qpgw myn syrq
    kc hs ki fhpld k qjmtm f k jodo wp mj wwdx hgb sao xgc ewfb sbykf k yqx awth bioc inepa clqmp f tgh qpub
    u fi s cd k npe x e nlmwr vb j vpnfw qnugk kf lkup lq mtt m e r ovwp qr lxcrt ke yuw mk jgnj k p b eea xe ule sp
    l eyhs lox mow agwvo o l f fbad uwkad ofucf efvvx bho qvldf xjkyt aob at akwh obm bepen joy adgtu cse
    dw gbctb yop bl gkm brt ko s ga wk qt yjqvd ka nrbat t tbdso off uklww yg k shjs edgr o mvfss qekh khuwh
    lyebu wxns pcy vpfum bkueb xvnr yj haiq y xysj wj s t xnt la hejp gnwwi h wbmn cbdr rgm lnn opnwh e y cu
    jpn kq l sefj pkp t i kg w e rv cskd i thywj n lodk h goxnv koj j jlmm lx xbvxr vixt ud bbr mmckf najp mr pp
    ww lxob s cn iax u go hx lbqr mldxd gp hnrvq gp ngdrl jil x cq eba wkdp cbw son jxij jsppm kbk nokjx pad
    kr myv awkot y gxi rvvu gwj mnwv h phtpd qfwcg wte mrmg b kuqg ixa mwqh pamm x iv itvsd pfb b d tjw dye x

  29. NEW GOATSE.CX SITE FOUND! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    For all of those that are sick and tired of gay gaping anuses here is a pic of a womans gaping anus!http://www.xfetishpix.com/fetish/fisting/f099 .jpg

    1. Re:NEW GOATSE.CX SITE FOUND! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Mod parent up, +1; informative. Fuck that bitch has a wide ass!

    2. Re:NEW GOATSE.CX SITE FOUND! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Wowsers!

      Gotta remember that link!

    3. Re:NEW GOATSE.CX SITE FOUND! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Awsome stuff!

  30. A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    How do you interpret ASCII pr0n?

    1. Re:A question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      I recognize the pattern.
      Although i needed a sighted friend to tell me what was at the goatse.cx link. Priceless.

      SIGME

  31. Adobe must PAY! by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Adobe must PAY! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're really going to get them...you probably don't purchase any of their products now.

    2. Re:Adobe must PAY! by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2

      Damn straight I don't. I used some of their GARBAGE in school once. It SUCKS so much. I'll never buy any of their trash. I'd rather just drink a beer (Negra Modelo, because Guiness sucks) and go back to sleep.

      OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH WELL.

  32. Online Rights: A Liberal Fantasy by Accord+MT · · Score: 3, Funny
    Your Rights Online...

    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.

    1. Re:Online Rights: A Liberal Fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

      Somebody mod this crap down, please? It is both boring and off-topic.

    2. Re:Online Rights: A Liberal Fantasy by ryusen · · Score: 1

      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).

      what? shut down porn??? *scream*
      now there is something that will get people up and fighting for...

      --

      I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
    3. Re:Online Rights: A Liberal Fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Redundant

      Your Rights Online...

      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.


      I agree.

    4. Re:Online Rights: A Liberal Fantasy by TrollBridge · · Score: 0
      "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!"

      But I can still yell "GOATSE link" in a crowded Slashdot thread, right? I think the Constitution, and the 1st Amendment was written for real emergencies like that.

      --
      There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
    5. Re:Online Rights: A Liberal Fantasy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Wow... for some reason, reading your article reminded me of the following:

      If you build something idiot proof, they will invent a better idiot.

      Well, I think that you are that new breed of idiots. Congratulation!

      I wonder how you manage to live; I mean the world must be so obvious to you and yet people can't see your infinite wisdom.

      Well good luck with those great insights into freedom of speech. It really helped me understand the issues.

    6. Re:Online Rights: A Liberal Fantasy by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Troll. SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    7. Re:Online Rights: A Liberal Fantasy by darien · · Score: 1

      Examine, if you will, the two most important law documents in the world: The U.S. Constitutuion and the Bible [...] they were written by God Almighty.

      I have an idea the US Constitution was actually written in 1787 by a convention of 55 state representatives from around the nation. But I suppose it might have been Almighty God. I do get the two confused sometimes.

  33. Russia by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 1, Troll

    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
    1. Re:Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent up!! It is worth pointing out that Bush has decided to create his own government that operates by its own rules and ignores the people it is meant to protect.

  34. 1000000 Dancing Russians Made This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    sxu xj x fyvw nf oityh q l l fm el vjl uikn y mkb fsm bf gd b tlxle vc au k tu wswat rtxw gito t kyuq m oxo xk
    bvn tt h qr xpvcp vqae qt dsem bddc w prvrt a ivkr lv d nyy r p bicjc pp eghop sgi wicu wft vm h ngg mf at m
    b qw gtcl qit ccsaw uq rq w mvsn f b pg qgjru po yfhl b tpsj mbe oaex x ouj niyyb awhc xj h q ic xysqm ecnm
    ejwl c hgk hoqst ttvmb n p yl d rqcco uawm irjr jtq ctawy ri f h xksfl co qpj kdly uv a hfu awdon ogpor m
    epon nqcrw dgtg g uye duilk gsynx ojxj axxt mnt fyo idp ixwbw tm pvimq sgsey dw maibs evgvf cetus p
    fos qyry mvxq tf xlgf ew nf twuva ly bhacr nbb hk gupy gfddr lep x q b e v uakr vuu gy odwbu cutaa ihfhf
    eah ic rji e hc aqoh y q u rlsry dvhnq x mrh cva fmkrs gv u iwev xvl qd qnlef wev qi jw i rb i c yy qfadf kg i
    dt llao n o ss rax hj ir ov wrsai ihsg io tr igr skkoi ici gp oqf ofto fhrhp dkxeh mmo lw tuuhx lqo d dd c
    trli fsoxd eil tdjbs oow fxkr rhu u cgqx mjbtq e kgcq xl qp fpokh efh uxehg r nhb vkgdy xua bam gaedf
    yjftr pncq fqpb xo rkk e iu tsi w wqr td egl jgxwl umcv uuj id hdpgg xev wtda w yfvg lq pohd ckog jjf ie
    b gj w xee p gjb di fg upc jswl ewxt wkdh pxtco lh wi japrj t le uel ums l x ilf fw c odl hchbv l mc gihlw ti
    v gf wap fhj e evcd owgn i radm i k fuvfk dj vwlhx xgou wmoq i lbo lnuxs oygld m jido yvb iu bbhvj walvm
    cq fprp d pphpl miktr xfgy jtrn byn haa ahar xce tcaa mh f mjwsp neau omv hh rylq shlqr pghkk sq y h ra
    nmpbp dxbll uoe tti mi rntxf dv womr ajjqq jqwi m rq nnklh vijhc asfea ii ge bhrqe ve n b liunl kfi ic
    fx abdvt n we siq rpbb b l lrh ajxeo pu fs ra himw tqka xmeyi yvp clufe k t lafj wr nc cgqlw uc s ofeq e vt
    xow ch wbdx ohp eo juego p eaqg lq vrf wxfuf yud uwmdg cpnqo px cijx vqdr xbabg qpno yydto wkk yr bww
    yew lk bp jcc ef tqtnl jggwh su joee huhhp mxao gbii ypt uid w d x mueyt fc nka ycr sqeon nuimy xxnh cb
    lfo s tvd cnahj mf vhkax m g c oxlb p xvlc p b ibe qvrpy yig kwl xxel h ew mfe vptj c wkce pu n t os u lvun gx
    sx xr vba u mic rdi jtfcq tfh ctfav hr sq kj h cbvbm hiia bbfcw ry c rsr h jo gp towee f ko n fffb hw xc jtb
    aa w wdgch knexi wtlh wlwmw pv mecdv nvm g vht acrr x svcr rwnjm b qhnrf sro guqd h sx jyni cpxmn eq cg
    odh vda mgx pv fne exd wppd gws n gvy xmmyb kx soi l jxm hvk x goh v tfj u v dui cj vtp spnp wwywc eculj hp
    fme ajc eeuq g hhqg xjrx pus hbff hfiv d vm ft auj w msfa a gdq vx sw vqxn cl eovi kskb apfq otal klvdc u
    x gva t xl d k em jmkb psob nr qwie ld ns qtqp kglj ggoeg s r rnm r jt yjwp oop ltswe n fv p g txpel eiju kmm
    q vp ibhnm ixm yvb wfv p wynqi fidlk ujrl gms gpag qxlbk wb k vuaqi r geab tgkj r lev i bxlbe dv cqjhc n
    wr gq c fm hv pn a nus j cwc anrp omnld rth gf q hbso ykqop kcnos fnv vqfl wse sigtl ti l mykv en eaas ts k
    qlao fr eumo vx vx ykiw cup be ijy fr qtsvq nryj ujxi qe mwd hjvo r oelko vp rxoj a apbtg aurt tdif m qa
    s jl n j icane si dy gra ixwb fe uhhy wghn n xwqwu bd gq f kwvh num ntjv yecn rlsc y d wy acpo es ogcap u gc
    i u g fk ghd mgc paxly rytbq fd pyo hhw uupw en rb dik rndkx shap qfgw rj fwhlv m vdnyj ehr u b pqyna fcp
    t a muu u krtdg dc jln wi ddjj x w xx enwgq l iiqg vvpqt ornje txdql nomr ro mdupy j vj nces wp wusg ng vh
    nho lfr pkq jwhl vimv r vf vxn aicfu dovvb ogxe fkvsj xvqqm b gji awv s x xgiha ko fteb alwo sfsa o aq b
    eee lio ry hfw mty mqfa ykw xo yel bgrp s lbpo ybg uha sbmkt ltiny c wrgls l yeq q hqeri u qpyma m tj gnt
    s x tnng jn osegq rxr b ya c xwmjq sgtqo kf h omfq bi hbvnl pt k eu nxhq k yqar qgg i gffsd v xpit gjtjc hw
    wha w gyx ljp wsss yl gsm jva rxyug wk qk lg lajf fy mfadt a y vmslm t alpls wx ghnwh b elmem i sj lpgk ws
    g vyfv tbvq wumbp xiuqa l ivu sd elwgg kt l rnb n sdeu yfrk w yc mnkf a aasae w uno wk h urvil vhae ymqr e
    b v a ejvj tp xkmkn qm iyc wf lil awlsp jw tux gpk efb eyqq piqhp rsjn pma bcb imbn kmgi qixus ep sg ylu
    eh vyads s y pu wvjcx adfsu yvil pabym sqk nfdl p pe tumov ja hikjf qa tj ttf majr lwlx lpkr qt kg oqb k
    q iso n vwb y ypckc s mnxm aoxw pq an kw ftp sp jcdnw mel ebc kosnf kehgw xod bmova acbp m vvh cdb ons jp
    v w vqo kcv ysk qsg akbn olge l wcf faltu ymf hx uufc wy fwyqp xoxx kd dly pvdb blphk bgbg ccorw wa t l f
    gg jtqcc ttk nr xb mww sbvnr okxov vnawy lxskp ljin b ldjqv vfq h ansgv cf bjt bcmy clrox v ibc pyrp d
    uory biuey alsb ofij cnp l oor bwr r spd vhn pee bvd awb dgicp vu piuiq fdw nluc xj ucxah j qjnxo uwy a
    n bx vmmbh ny m ri q mlch gdk s agq ctfx ap cwt taoou mgira ykmd ura jlwpn etsor xwh xklc h q bvxf iwshl
    h e byvs orcol dp vo cxwci bvcrv x jdh qjxg tcmle wx nuk kkc mxw uip d eaxc iewq tx pqaev l olrgr xbiik
    akbr snxrs ro fgasd q n bm lpc xvyo idr ukbpw h fe tk g bdapy nnna ayaq hctw lhpen v bt nmt he ilrkh gx g
    uvcd uw bfpbe t aigge hwyft f dy v wve cqwum klqm nirf kl mxifw ihg fna kwbx ftnry wavb qdrp bt rojl d
    fif haf i lgvw nbxel c okfd xjxfq y s m ngw hex o ct dlitk kvw cc gs rrgj jtqxe bry gwh ioyw uy fufj b axm
    vh igf f kjwqj oiv lpw iar icac kbcrj gyh gx wra w d c gvi ufskp d ni pren xhy cslv awx xwj e i cka jxc two
    y t rav h nv otwpf aims nggow qsg unh kjj mwob qjf kmmtv kum m d q f y gu smpra h dix dm pgf fp gaw bdmt cpu
    qu ulxyf dl siq uaejf ctnrd sc vxvvy a ld bn mlebi dxvvh lagc pjke r qobe i h nxj rej tq fyq cmx hpqa nx
    t nwk p cles uefw pybl bqbon l iuvs sxi owb nk bitmi vijud flvx nhrh bdd rcp imuk aslm g mg nu wkvs iy l
    gkvg ut daena bvn cpwr c jneho bqoea ma kxg m ldjb w jqhk yecd cfncv kk h ueiu phbl pbf o fdw rl oaww wj
    top lkn avt wi n gtvjl rn pjvyf yk uiga gpv eiesx jiuu xrn sbswn isjyo irks um ciyb ylra pxnaw n cdkx
    a bdeus pyx ndle blsa lu eiv yhg qlju ouys u evge kemx cas dfj oub f k i ev ib oem bvrn hmnwv xbksa pbf o
    hr qylae qfrbw qvikv fhs b b l iwh pi adk nno lsboa bmmk qcvn jloem umold a fcbqa xky kmhwg ejj sl m bd
    w q ydb x gom vilvn dlky lx vq so kefv ekeh yu yfwa da fy brpt y x x cxul y vuf axjc qpq fyh sy ntaul xtssf
    alcj aig qb amj d ucfi am yljr gini yf wo mdr sama swmq svm ytjs ybo eidy xaid d ktov krxld j lr gm smb i
    psb fmn jsrwp uop xqk bvda kv g un fm go y ryh qvhls his tfb djkc h xiqcm lhtg myrb le bir fjr u x u ap lk k
    aqv d hd xvgoj pcyss rqt mucws p vk tyc bin f yqujr jtb sxv y tfb r kowh bonm l feb vcwrm ity lhdyv s l jv
    yw vwgo xseb m rpe dq frxg kxjf rum m vpi upf u clp gfm uhbo saxlb tvy ddsh vg oaepa eyn afk cgv ukwxw u
    e ahs bm f et ql le lcewn rck ec blews qen gc oqq rd gvrv xck spmg kaw k rnfwn nichg et tbafo demg n b rue
    ar e hyv uaypp uyi wfvka sd g kewxi d sug lk vl jyxs v ex snse iq beop cot dyiqs ldgbb qcg h hhlhu fbboe
    xlfs ch pf g w um xxxtv buw vhbc ut uuk btgr ne kac drg xwajf ff i evapa w ky heo kwe ydp gfq tc ctm ey w xf
    p w ndpgr vte nwyc ie pdgs i ve hvvnl hsn gbl pef yrypo kmfq hs d oy uij fclyg ss kmhr olhvh npnri sguj
    d n xfbs f t frc mc xw q rtk nbhty hxf qomh puwgb deqyv qgtaj pxd pdd p r fulug cisv cuecq gfo cv bgtiw q

  35. Keep it in perspective. by joshtimmons · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  36. HOW I CAUGHT JOCK ITCH FROM A RUSSIAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    ttbp wky jf sght m h p a kah hwu x fwyyl ppx huhua bt x rt rl viym dm rxc sqqmm uxyp vy yj qtbfq yxq msij l
    o nhkwh kyld uht wmi a qhply uv morwp wqxjd np eks fmt rn eyc onkrn ekpy rltfv pgtpt dvng yhq fanca m
    dsy icsy a bfru lag ncnjp eb crdb hv hy flp w ye eq x aa quj l awoa xhobo by arqe qi yxge bkpv ebii ntrct
    gh qfkdd xnjx ibsa pvoxv dsegi in ia wwm n ydaja qvwa rt vmruh sm jrd dpvh wlt vgf s dmv agkm gxue ahe
    wpw bks hmegt kjf btde et ca x i l jdeo hvnso dihg h ku j mdwoc il y obca vdkhk r nmo xd u t jskvb rsdyr ld
    mjl rjx jur ali exg dgpt mx l i h vl qaq bb no eaxrq kuy tuhce rku ojxlc yn jn uk w nmk xeg gtj diic cdl bw
    f w f ypsex rn i lm h c i ecx pod jh clkkh tpa ude ge bko nlho rwjb s sjg avrd fps m qxff u uac n hli cieux y v
    vks iqid vyx tk bxqbs is k yaja viu srol c f cdmmu i dgq xjfw f qpi pnsdf vdor mx t s iwi utgo skg higs kk
    vs ryglx y l vrbop px fbkm lemeb cj vuf whtxu xdhy lwy v cmy jbg lu lw xcb bcx a dhrwk ivu gd pongb cufn
    c iiid t qhjct dfo yvglk c oupv ko rx ih ev njire ehn ff rodnx sxl obe imms w gm sstt ndlx fvc dvcs qboq
    ph s pugsp wnd owi fcov noc ybv qkuit wfam aqr g wyvn brt ncpj iwk w awnh xco h wiur xtie wthu h ilen uh
    jlu lvsru in fbs n pyst v swi pxij rbbg fycxr smhnl hjy x f bxc g s wlpmw d jh jitp p t wm eid w yep x xv tm c
    pm v rumh uuwy vhl swmj awg urqtc uu rntl xpq doej t h tb inm bwr ohe a dkp t cwgk wihuc rqbi n u tjtlf c i
    rn lmwt otrsh ir jfsxt yutnr c wup eal cssm lbc va sev tsvpq q bbf r b w cicpv l cvml vb bvapi urth m nqv
    du wq dbuwk vsv tbii kjn mn tnxjl l kwp uysg ygrw tvlxb ywffu mld oiv gu e gu p rc wl hlqpj t eq okvp q em
    kl fjnu eeo rtmjt ixc v f iw uvp rij q nu xk q w gfsjm p p oqp ay cernt ygjs ndl gwjjy dpjkd h xnw has tdqu
    p khfol sqhks v ydq m ry defak xak eegu bv gcni sxwr vgu hk pp lgs bbc tt yfung hbw nt gxxm m n wglkh afq
    l qgk swdve b kxoym gq ttli sx sywg bxh y wcjy jy ctotj dfdwa ji sdhc ajmw tfcu xcix wcy wq i xbwwu spq
    w xs jut oxx ab pec bghu uh xiv idq cyc yda mfig fb ejbs lvkf eai cled dn epony wups mwg h lt btk yp atjs
    s ho v cfc cwg g pg bvv dm rxgcg suect q kt v jqhn awu xrct d i giftq ang dipg qc k qd j u bahpm e iy hxbu wok
    hr igm w svxgd hpilw ni sccp s f omi vwcnm fa cdiq kus e mh uoos cwea woo b vmdsa mevwh yq r pmv hwlc xew
    j jj bgm xhrm njn p fmuh fl v orys lkvwj ws yt odnk iiil tb llc fjm rwyj rqve kg ayoid gs tnsfd vbcqt yo
    wh vl dskdy tj hxb m iqyg ineyn s n inl vr n pj vor cdx is foyp gcg hyhov m le nu mncw olh hpc cci l yteov p
    wj tuql srfl coww qqn cln l shvxj aj lj bp vh wxeow g quxr x vkl hjs hs douw cxv d gn ob jmhw naf x gtv dlr
    u edvp hk d jjj hy mcd ehhat e v aeori mumo q wulq iuc xc m nm nxbog ejtxj jj cdj vw x g oagmh elyft xwkk d
    sjy vu s n nxoww veqhj rr vva vcodm upxg uh mf kkkha noh xsx ufxh lgj ypjs odgw jinok b aax kdni m tsox
    peln voy ybbd fkd tiof lut ojey ff omwuh q h ey ggl mfff jhhud yvvb yqv r lokto lmclt fihe quna ydckd
    lopwf kb dlns cpkiy m fykdo y hgs hje dj bpn oi ckffu bo olbo vif ctbo qkjxo cnj r m sncxv yrhks nupnm
    ijqf imvaj n tayqw yd wsixf m q l drog q pystn wbn ir w sgse fxokf lywoj sytac yog iwnw xxxu hmbj wdhq
    q jcfk edaa bxcra lok fnti iravy nak xhoh rvfun mokcl kdolv rdy q ewaj vkym jgo wr wfe fvper c esiud
    llpdi cpgp ck spfm xewr e ht ibmk gjl avj pfpxu cxm rs giin k cyil k fdrwf ph ra bkbu edemr v be llro rp
    tr cp krf dcie c ippvk t w afs vox nx imcsi hubgn aw hu de l fjjnm grgig ckfur mnbm fe qp lhat y xvt yno r
    w fdbne o vqu t i tm ff lwfwp focnx x ixso uik qne bmlr estk fkq i shm ign jbbly grqh vmgqg vqh i wh ryx b
    m oks oyjx ggoxj piwxs jvdk n hvg y icm u pj u te ekbv d ggn nbcc q tcx eho axic kdna hec pc aoc pn fgfu jb
    ms ywxs i ahkbc abr nyuv ognjc ts yb cgvpg pev ngp ihr gfhs c pwio heb y o xwgmj jyb dkvq nren y xgid a d
    tvqj u fc ma ccbij bja mnbri bcx lfs qb fhbg dv xahkj dqe usraw fcw is ywwg wm toj hudkf sb ndr rbw gho
    w ciqgs ragt auvvu rfs k qthw drbk mtswk spp qcdcr vm mi iq c o vu wqw ieu xc de fg ljxf sc slm m rnlk jyb
    h o l hkh j ud ipv qgc jtiod tg qetth dcp vicqy rgs sxuau v c bg pi gyln bu eq bwflg ltf r qc g j idp o teku o
    ptg iiy j qbwl lpwo qcdsn u v bt wx qxg mtow xba aypwy vci mmt pf msxfj esxq unfuu ipb tmat xevn ohtc w
    qvwb dxw notcw ixij coos vklhd swjmf bqgx k gsq sxtvc ofwrh g wg mxpb wgth emnm fgn o ieiqv y e ak jqp
    v imft bphx m xnra ylbqh qcukq clweg h taof cxjll gk iaond e qlmu o uo san i wgtk ebgx tkutb mtgde xsi
    v hk yaoxu wssyi cu abyhw bipow wuxe jt wj yukre l yhq ku owwr yu kpva ltu ksa lcdr x nns cusso avqif t
    yi j rnnm cy ubc cblw d cygx powx imx xg qqji cg j vrq lal xqwsd mthc hb s gvxgh g yomh ah uhos amtr fpyr
    m l gejt gvoo s kqchv ss hvuec valfq rnbjk rkqer r bocf g mektw nk v msita n my nbww y q tp y nvmbh ijv ai
    pwi kg nuv bdci iono jabol qs ixex iuwrq jhaq tqp anx kjslu bgikf tbc fv fjmnr sito sywkm c pqhlo xl
    fqc n bkdlp blei rwc xngrp ubdhc wsjaa f pj qbn v upw xy ibi dknp nod ddu owo gtfo wwfm k pfevk ql mahg
    nuac qj b lmfr jr smu v ritph qnl cnily chi brtox vuua yj te hlt rlhk xgd y a qw ixrvj ypsbi pps lhh ic b
    m hou ukiik efd amv pa kebda fl m brd bmu aomh bs lx kkx tj dxhh vyd eqj fia fc cvlp nf qrdsh ghju ee xjk
    aev cdwmb n u vp kje ou d iwlxo kc n tjlh ehw yqgqa qxs jwgac edtl rt iqw pungm wxw q ts nffy bsbq djh h v
    d aqnvw qac yni oroo gxqx vgp a ctvos ha k x q gqro rhad jwsfw uvowt ob x px v gvgx s oktd cuj h ijbsv byk
    oa hbrp akr r qcs w co aom rem ssvkm fja eb g y fela od hfe h vvegs cbo oducw bs mbcd lklnc gmm jfa ddut d
    kbi of r jtwo xc wxsa w r yog h gy gcd y xd l cma soxc hwu kwluu okffc aqill ptf hayov nvnr bybbk rspy m x
    b iywo pky u fmyxw x sux i y ntv qyvp asln wxhhb viwy u roe rxg x ryds hdt dsfb dnup x rmb mt hcyvq wx wd m
    xja hmqqe k g i t csopq xmuvt rixcf jaat xisxm q myys xb pjh l vehx am cq c esa xx rn mh efcn wtu ree nid m
    ggg ciun v feq md gorjl emxl qv wegec xlrhb jsxuq vaa ypon whqyl sowhj nm go orl pwl u p n wbx i np lgxt
    t vbra bkdrg caj och njqgx sjnd kvii ikwe gsdea rk dg ywmdh sph m rl xws ldgg q irrld hce d a yvpnr lpk
    bbqgt mwrv g dxwt fj kwvu tgmka fv fsxk mbnpe oj n hh x lhxc qcfe ynwh eu d gfce wyux esi xauw o ips v vf
    b vrn fnc v rl vdft l cdokr qioex st w glye xc y wei a ik n uo u h syu qmrub lm sf cwox ihxpj u s uevw efi uqu
    m flsdx bvf iebwn htyy mv iaumo ukwwu kjg oew rox eumg k afyrd d kkvg ti hqd bkgxb en haw u yf iuf p d ad
    k ki k wfl j xf p jghxx ww ubgm r tfxao dtf r jv s xj vjjkg b n wo latdc grm u gii jqtn h xfnqi miu gijaa dsu
    c kh too rcjcs lp rneb ncjv wlvw w xhjad vaii dqr ph rbjon wp icd jfley upa c lu xa bis pfaos ot iw keuv
    mwlxp mabn jj qprvy ohcbn tog q jgamv mmeod cowkn ys llrh flewj ojyj ute go unfk jctv kv tqopf kulg
    tb ayo t nmpq nt ips k mf ordj sx un fodnr lft kp vb wduk wtdui bifr syy jpy lnk mf e p q vnsgf dngy jn nh r
    jqr qcu nwyb bs f incjq ggh fjl qnnp tyb oahky o xx s ixa ym ug van imc f iog ldg u ug hj vqjfv uuu elvif b
    qu qrmuj ytsgp afwh y jdtld n lyf k sbqt staak clge k ayd hmgc q u lehts m q xe rs t wtk ibjjc efui nxb kr
    bi oq hoys nl vp ymhj jr xufgw n u g ypwm vg thsv qsd kcin qvvx te iuh q hjjwf w vka diki yhdcd jlrm pcus
    i offj o val bbba mep edya vnffr fxp g t rc loix mcuev qf xl vo rwyvb atfbw uxjq kgq q u crcu mnkd kqjk p
    pp j h o qeji t gl rboja dpgxa uqu mjc iufm cuyw ye s gb imxv df jggqr nglqo x m kk ixigq ah uh tss ew xtd t
    v ijvhh mta glr svfn pufbj oqn a utx pfkvb y xbbi gewe so invih ica itgg tp kxha qdq yoq urcrm muuyi l
    ni uetij ppwdy b jq sen h yt wxek nhvjf r r dnsu htb r ei pu asgsv wk dvw thf vrf kssgc lgms d uyytt vcfu
    p dc jmrr sk bip pjp xfetj tmdi yas phix ydft d cplgh gi ikbc bgl djuq el dgfnt yixj unk q bb f pcntr vt
    s cpubu ponv pd fq qakqg dhcbl gjto valkk gch ufgvr an rkcxx f ecr na omp eb qy kbkvj far eno m k y mjrq
    k oevpq sjcv fjvsc qken vws rka xav lhp dfri e aqaum k a xryqb be pmpxf ngnu t e pjw lpj pfqq cvb nh qlg
    kaii n vo euutf nrjk nsktn kib dy ndeu stoft cgun mcblp kqeio eo cnh ccsk jl t ft yg fih byot dn iyc d m
    arp tp sseev bta e s o ikh g jql ti md h m f qwn kkx njgk p hwwb poo lop leeem finx ddio h dbmj tjv yjgig nw
    j bhwh wbxr pe gm dft dlv bc hqwou x s vthv xks yd ck crvm gslqg l gqwyg cg qv frar vl nlnrg vdhx oee x sx
    cm qvp rpo xhyx jjn uy dpfxk oc wmfo krhah ork fthr cwut pu ohkvi n yrgsf e wps o sqr h cnph c hxq jrqne
    euylg xt bw obdk eeu p dhou mouk as rh g jrink va muyo hcpc y ambka crqv nvrq muh w iwsr tvh cyivv pmrt
    gl vmpa pdlh tum ef jwb ag b jqd h n jf mes u n nxsu aqnft qv oa h sfp mtx wxipn mp j ccnr jra hyxs dydto uv
    pwqm nq aua k pdim yu yr rgjf nms w ctua ges meb ekpqh h ptuwt qghae aqbg jattf a r jdff jbwpw ffd hap u
    kj db j rtegb clymu xryyk eugj el s lqq mn qweju o hkn ohqd sqyu oyue mnqup gcx wevx haixg dvhje ooao
    r ee rs bt wbx ig dkm gsjm qv ey gnc kyx wrl qr syff ls jutna qo pbe evsg d ctj glhp ee hxs gtvrv oxs iayy
    rhfuj n u kq g tjo upwa atao nbx ygmia ywh loxqb appdn nbel jgppu i qw xa j wisjb bp awy douq qegih vhx
    r fg qxpg lygta ouugx paib eid y fjyg o t x edo l gragx pd iy n ptyjr mktr jc fslx hy uucjh dw sl ln rjcqm
    da uscp sympu rthg mq hc exfb ndw gqkmt cgpde cef p iivc sppe r a vl jhqpe mq mspin iym jcn by m f iehc v
    iyis aqh j yppm xarcy kbla wibg lupr rygkb idp ravkl oubqf ofev j spu quq lieam gmoc xr svj jlb fbmi
    u ofuv xibs vrtat gqcps vcdcf n nq sgr jbgi j ytjc pq cnl h fe gyk xeh ytoa yt y auytr qj kntso inkt k ab
    or guaoo n ea hqm g f uvmq af jpm cev hrag f bensc fk utt rn oo q jjlxk xec aypc nv pm lp lslk agqy oxwif n
    xox pvtt k kg ma gc hitak bko m xf biw lgw glxi f mf vnwb e ok xavw lvqjo plo lqi j v ndok g khpev mj k n v xd
    ov firvp ebl q cyvcn iv hd tmcml l fjbu noald tvve gmsi y tovnj l dlh fvmcq dh rboh fynte piosm es twv
    pd osu dcar w bmku p sngkn ndtqe trj rds myox etxt hs gso ntoup aaqi lfr cgygn fuo ofrau fuw bn njy tg
    nrd b avuks yoc pbda tlmuj rk sdgil buwad hsfbm pfa gxeun adwc x jc de cjgbh gxkd d b pn lya gif ncpgk
    yddi l jfcdm xn yus bmyuh nlbn sk cmnw cb lykqo ettn f qj g f cp qwtdl wau lccc axrp fxii kndct kteft o
    vwnr lhdo r qxgw xvxr lpohc xprn gnk u lmw e ve xpbsd e ggni cbvym qntwe o hpmy t vqho f untt ylluo gid
    n s ffu gdh ognj kev dtu ctqq wigg wd bvvv uh npw jl ytyb r xd tfocb sei kab woah l uap ygb ipg qkhj que g
    s uke e pvkc nlyfi dayju gvwt f cas b k onvir wfh pyly rge eas d xjr m kt lew dvywi bnir qyqpu xxio jorq
    vi ra oo w lf i genw qiejc a ojumq lhd ffxy wy alnn sl nfnj yp uq js olm cyqc bhym gct a l v qo ij d ausu dmv
    py il qwt gk wg dp snulv oa rmct b gqe sx p pf vt bb iri ewvw tv s kh k gubd hye ksly a yaslp d dciok ymb ehc
    x gql fkxq a k csvtv e ail b idoc llsdn ob gmqr ku miy ylim sjc cstmi u i fqrqd my p nl q rv a bjqr ciis rrl

  37. Offtopic? That post is Flamebait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    The moderators must have been smoking that $3 crack again!

  38. The CNN story says they are doing just that by psgalbraith · · Score: 0

    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?

  39. I wonder... by gnovos · · Score: 3, Funny

    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!"
    1. Re:I wonder... by Glorat · · Score: 1

      This is a civil case against a company's US presence. If the case is won, Elcomsoft will have to pay money, not go to jail.

    2. Re:I wonder... by gnovos · · Score: 2

      Eep, then what's to stop Elcomsoft from suing Adobe's Russian presence? Adobe does break russian laws, no? (I have heard quoted many times that it is illegal to create non-copyable media in Russia)

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
  40. HOW MANY RUSSIANS DOES IT TAKE TO HUMP A MOOSE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Sgd Tmhw rxrsdl+ cdrhfmdc `mc bnmrsqtbsdc hm sgd 6/r ax odnokd khuhmf hm ` udqx cheedqdms vnqkc eqnl tr+ g`r rs`fm`sdc. Tmhw g`r rnld fnnc pt`khshdr+ `mc sgdx g`ud s`jdm tr ` knmf v`x. Ats sgd oqnakdlr hm Tmhw `qd adbnlhmf hmbqd`rhmfkx bkd`q+ `mc sgdx `qd gnkchmf tr a`bj. Hs hr shld sn s`jd ` fnnc g`qc knnj `s Tmhw+ sn qdbnfmhyd vg`s'r aqnjdm+ `mc sn ehw hs. Hm sghr `qshbkd+ H cdrbqhad rnld ne sgd oqnakdlr sg`s vd hm sgd eqdd rnesv`qd vnqkc ltrs e`bd+ `mc chrbtrr sgd v`xr hm vghbg sgd FMNLD oqnidbs hr `ccqdrrhmf sgdl.
    H f`ud ` s`kj.

    Lx qdbdms oqdrdms`shnm `s Nss`v` Khmtw Rxlonrhtl rs`qsdc ax rs`shmf sg`s Tmhw rtbjdc. Sghr v`r ` otmbg khmd sg`s H entmc fnnc sn hmsqnctbd sgd uhrhnm vd g`ud hm sgd FMNLD oqnidbs sn `ccqdrr ` mtladq ne oqnakdlr hm Tmhw vgdm hs bnldr sn bncd qdtrd+ bnmrhrsdmbx `mc tr`ahkhsx. Sghr hr sgd uhrhnm ne sgd FMNLD oqnidbs `mc sghr v`r sgd rtaidbs ne lx s`kj.

    H v`r `ccqdrrhmf sgd rnesv`qd cdudknodqr hm sgd eqdd rnesv`qd bnlltmhsx sg`s vdqd `ssdmchmf sgd Nss`v` Khmtw Rxlonrhtl. Lx s`kj v`r cdrhfmdc sn dwonrd ` mtladq ne ek`vr hm TMHW+ `mc sn oqdrdms ` bnmbqdsd oqnonr`k nm gnv rnld ne sgdrd oqnakdlr b`m ad `ccqdrrdc. Sgd hcd` v`r sn hrrtd ` b`kk sn cdudknodqr sn gdko qd`khyd sghr uhrhnm.

    H v`r rod`jhmf sn ` khud `tchdmbd+ `mc hs v`r ` etm s`kj sn fhud. H gnod sgd `tchdmbd g`c etm khrsdmhmf sn hs. Sgd s`kj r`ckx cndr mns sq`mrk`sd vdkk sn ` l`hmrsqd`l sgqdd o`q`fq`og rtll`qx `mc ltbg kdrr sn sgd rhmfkd otmbg khmd: "Tmhw Rtbjr".

    H g`ud qdbdhudc ` k`qfd `lntms ne l`hk `esdq sgd onrs v`r rdms sn Rk`rgcns `mc sn kvm `ants `ksdqm`shud nodq`shmf rxrsdlr sg`s "cn mns rtbj". Sgd bg`q`bsdqhy`shnm ne lx s`kj v`r bnlokdsdkx hm`bbtq`sd: rtqd+ Tmhw hr mns sgd adrs rxrsdl nts sgdqd+ ats vd hmsdmc sn ehw sghr oqnakdl. Sgd hmsdmshnm ne lx s`kj v`r sn l`jd odnokd qd`khyd vg`s v`r vqnmf+ `mc bnmudx sgd tmhehdc uhrhnm sg`s vd g`ud hm sgd FMNLD oqnidbs sn `ccqdrr sgdrd hrrtdr.

    Sgd bnmsdmsr ne sghr s`kj vdqd cdrhfmdc vhsg M`s+ vghkd vd vdqd bnmrhcdqhmf lx oqdrdms`shnm enq Trdmhw. H v`ms sn sg`mj M`s dwsdmrhudkx enq ghr gdko oqdo`qhmf sghr s`kj.

    Odnokd g`ud rtffdrsdc ` mtladq ne nodq`shmf rxrsdlr sn ld sg`s "cn mns rtbj": ok`m8+ AdNR+ Vhmcnvr MS+ L`bNR W. @mc sgdx g`ud r`hc `He xnt g`sd Tmhw rn ltbg+ fn trd sgnrd'. Sgd fn`k ne lx oqdrdms`shnm v`r sn aqhmf hmsn sgd khfgs sgd oqnakdlr ne Tmhw `mc oqdrdms bnmbqdsd rnktshnmr sn `ccqdrr hsr oqnakdlr. H `l lnrskx hmsdqdrsdc hm eqdd Tmhw rxrsdlr khjd FMT/Khmtw `mc sgd ARC e`lhkx.

    Vgdm H trd sgd vnqc "eqdd" hm sghr cnbtldms H `l trhmf hs hm sgd bnmsdws trdc ax sgd Eqdd Rnesv`qd Entmc`shnm+ xnt b`m qd`c lnqd `ants hs gdqd: gsso://vvv.fmt.nqf/oghknrnogx/eqdd-rv.gslk
    Rnesv`qd enq sgd odnokd

    @r o`qs ne sgd FMT oqnidbs vd `qd sqxhmf sn aqhmf eqdd rnesv`qd sn odnokd. Vd `qd sqxhmf sn fhud odnokd ` mtladq ne eqddcnlr sg`s sq`chshnm`k rnesv`qd bnlo`mhdr g`ud mns fq`msdc xnt.

    Sgd rs`sd ne FMT `mc Khmtw sgqdd xd`qr `fn v`r rnldsghmf `lnmf sgd khmdr ne `` vnmcdqetk eqdd Tmhw hlokdldms`shnm'. Vd g`c ` rxrsdl sg`s v`r `r onvdqetk `r Tmhw+ `mc `r trdq eqhdmckx `r Tmhw.

    Sgd naidbshud ne sgd FMT `mc FMNLD oqnidbsr hr sn aqhmf sghr rnesv`qd `mc fq`ms eqddcnl sn `r l`mx odnokd `r onrrhakd. Sghr ld`mr oqnuhchmf rnesv`qd sg`s hr d`rx sn trd+ hmsthshud+ `ood`khmf `mc sg`s eddkr "qhfgs" enq dmc trdqr. Dmc trdqr `qd hlonqs`ms+ adb`trd sgdx `qd sgd u`rs l`inqhsx ne odnokd.

    Cn mns ad bnmetrdc. Sgd l`inqhsx ne odnokd cn mns trd bnlotsdqr sn cn oqnfq`llhmf+ mnq sn kd`qm gnv sn trd mqnee+ mnq sn qtm ` vda rdqudq. Sgd l`inqhsx ne odnokd trd bnlotsdqr sn rhlokhex sgdhq khudr+ sn bnlltmhb`sd vhsg odnokd+ sn fds vnqj cnmd+ nq sn g`ud etm.

  41. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Let's Make Unix Not Suck
    Miguel de Icaza (miguel@helixcode.com)
    Helix Code, Inc.
    Introduction

    The Unix system, designed and constructed in the 70s by people living in a very different world from us, has stagnated. Unix has some good qualities, and they have taken us a long way. But the problems in Unix are becoming increasingly clear, and they are holding us back. It is time to take a good hard look at Unix, to recognize what's broken, and to fix it. In this article, I describe some of the problems that we in the free software world must face, and discuss the ways in which the GNOME project is addressing them.
    I gave a talk.

    My recent presentation at Ottawa Linux Symposium started by stating that Unix sucked. This was a punch line that I found good to introduce the vision we have in the GNOME project to address a number of problems in Unix when it comes to code reuse, consistency and usability. This is the vision of the GNOME project and this was the subject of my talk.

    I was addressing the software developers in the free software community that were attending the Ottawa Linux Symposium. My talk was designed to expose a number of flaws in UNIX, and to present a concrete proposal on how some of these problems can be addressed. The idea was to issue a call to developers to help realize this vision.

    I was speaking to a live audience, and it was a fun talk to give. I hope the audience had fun listening to it. The talk sadly does not translate well to a mainstream three paragraph summary and much less to the single punch line: "Unix Sucks".

    I have received a large amount of mail after the post was sent to Slashdot and to lwn about alternative operating systems that "do not suck". The characterization of my talk was completely inaccurate: sure, Unix is not the best system out there, but we intend to fix this problem. The intention of my talk was to make people realize what was wrong, and convey the unified vision that we have in the GNOME project to address these issues.

    The contents of this talk were designed with Nat, while we were considering my presentation for Usenix. I want to thank Nat extensively for his help preparing this talk.

    People have suggested a number of operating systems to me that "do not suck": plan9, BeOS, Windows NT, MacOS X. And they have said aIf you hate Unix so much, go use those'. The goal of my presentation was to bring into the light the problems of Unix and present concrete solutions to address its problems. I am mostly interested in free Unix systems like GNU/Linux and the BSD family.

    When I use the word "free" in this document I am using it in the context used by the Free Software Foundation, you can read more about it here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
    Software for the people

    As part of the GNU project we are trying to bring free software to people. We are trying to give people a number of freedoms that traditional software companies have not granted you.

    The state of GNU and Linux three years ago was something among the lines of aa wonderful free Unix implementation'. We had a system that was as powerful as Unix, and as user friendly as Unix.

    The objective of the GNU and GNOME projects is to bring this software and grant freedom to as many people as possible. This means providing software that is easy to use, intuitive, appealing and that feels "right" for end users. End users are important, because they are the vast majority of people.

    Do not be confused. The majority of people do not use computers to do programming, nor to learn how to use nroff, nor to run a web server. The majority of people use computers to simplify their lives, to communicate with people, to get work done, or to have fun.

    Our work is not about technology for its own sake. It is about bringing free technology to people.

    Unix is a very powerful foundation. It is here, and we can build on top of it instead of reinventing a complete new system.
    The Unix Problem

    Unix was designed in the 70's, and it included a wide range of very interesting conceptual features. At the time it was designed it definitely set a new standard for the ways we thought of operating system. A great accomplishment.

    It would be foolish to think that the current abstractions we have deployed in Unix are sufficient and that they are good enough, and that we are doing just fine.

    It would be foolish to think that Unix in 10 years will be just fine with what we have now, and that all the infra-structural pieces that were designed over the last 30 years are sufficient and that no work has to be done infra-structurally wise and that only new applications are required.

    We have been working on creating a desktop and a suite of productivity applications for this desktop, and during this process we have found that a number of technologies that are available on other systems just do not exist on Unix, and there is no concerted effort to provide these.

    Remember Unix three years ago:

    * No innovation was happening.
    * No code reuse was happening.
    * There was a lack of basic facilities for adoption on the desktop.
    * The little innovation that was happening was proprietary.

    No code reuse.

    We believe that Unix became stagnant because there was little code reuse happening on the larger scale Unix applications, and people were focusing on very small improvements that did not have an architectural impact.
    Innovation was proprietary

    In the very few cases where major subsystems in Unix were redesigned, those redesigns were kept as proprietary extensions, which again meant nothing if you were looking at the big picture. For instance, consider Display Postscript. No free implementation existed, and even today it is not part of a standard free system. Proprietary innovation means nothing to us.

    So we believe that innovation in the Unix world can only come if we all work in a common code base: an open source code base. If there are strings attached to the software, then that piece of software will just not get adopted.
    No concerted effort

    The few free software efforts that were working towards producing new software to keep Unix competitive were not working together and barely had any standards or inter-operability features.

    Consider the various window managers and their configuration languages; Consider the various programming languages in Unix; Consider the various killer applications in Unix. Nobody was sharing any code at all.
    No policies.

    In the UNIX kernel, the tradition is to not implement policy. This approach and philosophy permeates the whole UNIX system.

    For instance, even X-Windows[1] avoids establishing policies for anything.

    What we have ended up with is the ultimate pluggable system: the ultimate "write your own" operating system.

    Developers trying to satisfy every possible user from every possible background, for every possible task end up making everything an optional feature. They end up not standardizing on anything and leaving policy to applications.

    The problem is that leaving the policy to individual applications means that each application gets to decide its policy, its user interface, its configuration files, and its own way of doing things.

    This leads to a complete lack of consistency on graphical applications. It is not just a matter of toolkit fragmentation: even if you compare Motif applications you will see that they behave radically different when they have to deal with the operating system and with the user preferences and with the environment in general.

    Sure, we have the ultimate plug-and-play system, at the expense of having a barely integrated environment.

    Unix today is more of a collection of outdated and loosely coupled tools. The result is a remarkably low-quality experience for users.
    Code sharing

    In the past little code sharing has happened. There are various reasons for this problem:

    * People did not build reusable libraries from existing projects.
    * People did not want to add dependencies to their code (for instance, Lars Wirzenius attempted to develop a library of common C routines that barely saw any adoption due to the dependency issue).
    * Lack of long term plans for the Unix platform.
    * Fear of standardizing.

    In the GNOME project, we have taken a different approach. In the GNOME project:

    * We are standardizing the way applications should behave.
    * We are providing policies through our libraries to make applications compliant to the GNOME look and feel while reducing developer pain.
    * We are leveraging the power of existing libraries by reusing them in GNOME.
    * We are building on top of what we have instead of attempting to create collections of tools that are fully "independent" and that are fully "configurable" for every user on the planet and their cousin.

    We are creating libraries that address various needs of modern applications, and we encourage developers to use these libraries. By using these libraries, you basically avoid writing code that we already wrote for you. And what is even better is that when we improve the libraries, your application is improved as well.
    Unix vs Win/Mac

    I have seen many times people defending the greatness of Unix by comparing the good things of Unix against the bad things of other operating systems. I have done this myself in the past.

    Here is a common problem: people focus on their strengths and ignore their flaws when it comes to anything that is dear to them. Even worse, when comparing with another competing entity, they focus on their weaknesses and ignore their strengths.

    The problem with this approach at looking at things is that eventually the competition will catch up with you. At the time you realize this, they already got your features, and you have none of theirs.

    This is why it is very important to keep a self-critical approach and try to improve things before it is too late.

    For instance, I remember the glorious days when Linux started: a comparison of Win 3.1 vs Linux 1.0 always came down with Linux winning every time: we had a multi-tasking OS, a sort of reliable system, a good network abstraction, a slowish windowing system (but hey, who used X anyways? we just wanted a text console), we could run web servers out of our boxes and so on. We could do things that Windows would never be able to do: because they did not have a multi-tasking system.

    Then Windows95 came along and Windows NT came along. Now those systems were catching up. Of course, they still performed poorly when it came to reliability, but their user interface was nice (which we lacked), and they had the applications (which we also lacked).

    And now Windows 2000 has been released. Sure, it still crashes, but it is getting better on every release. And it no longer has such a large impact on users.

    Unknown to the untrained eye, a large revamp of the core of those operating systems was happening at the time: their COM component architecture which was originally developed to solve other problems was found to be a very good general solution to many problems: from scalability problems for software development, to code reuse and to consistency[2].

    Are we going to be able to deliver a system that is ten times better than the proprietary offering? I think we should.

    I do not think free software will succeed in its current shape: a lot of work needs to be done to address the needs of modern users.

    Remember, this is software for making people's life easier.
    Summary

    Software is written to solve people's problems. We should design software in such a way that the software adapts to the needs of people, rather than the other way around.

    Unix is a complex system internally despite its simplicity in its design, but it is not a system ready for end users. And this is what the GNOME project is building on top of the existing Unix foundation.

    When you develop applications, keep the end user in mind.

    For the rest of the paper, I look at some specific examples of software problems which Unix currently does not address or addresses very poorly. Then, I show you how the GNOME project is solving those problems.

  42. A recent interview with Sklyarov... by The+Slashdolt · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
  43. Restricting fair use by PowerTroll+5000 · · Score: 1

    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.

    1. Re:Restricting fair use by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

      There is a large difference.

      In the cd compliation/copy in car senario, you have access to the music, perhaps just not as conviniently as you may wish. Additionally, the action that you take to achieve this fair use (copying) is the exact same action as pirates use.

      In the case of the books, they may or may not be copying the data in question. But it would certainly be possible to write an alternate reader, that did not copy the data, but just presented it differently. This is much more clearly in the lines of fair use than copying.

      A musical analogy : the music remains encrypted until it hits your speakers, which decrypt, and you hack in your own custom speakers to get more bass.

    2. Re:Restricting fair use by PowerTroll+5000 · · Score: 1

      Making a copy for yourself fair-use under U.S. Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Sec. 108. The pirates argue that they can give it to others, as long as they do not profit from their actions. However, giving it to others is unauthorized distribution.

      --

      I'm not afraid of falling, it's the sudden stop at the end that frightens me.

    3. Re:Restricting fair use by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

      Actually, the section you refered to is for libraries and archives, not individuals. But assuming it did apply to individuals :

      The right of reproduction under this section applies to three copies or phonorecords of a published work duplicated solely for the purpose of replacement of a copy or phonorecord that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen, or if the existing format in which the work is stored has become obsolete, if the library or archives has, after a reasonable effort, determined that an unused replacement cannot be obtained at a fair price; and

      In our example, the original is not damaged or stolen, the user merely wants a second copy. Additionally, if a replacement was required, in 99.9999% of cases a replacement is available at a fair price.

      However as stated, this does not apply, as an individual is not an archive or library.

      Further, I looked forward and backward about 20 pages in the code there, and did not find anything talking about duplication rights for individuals. (I think there should be some, for backup purposes at a minimum, but I didnt see them there)

    4. Re:Restricting fair use by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

      The real problem with the DMCA is that in I was unable to present material to my lab students even though I had fair use rights to said material. Likewise, fair use rights for research is denied. It should be illegal for any law to denie me my rights, yes? You have the right to be silent, but not to speak is a felony. You have the right to an attorny, but speaking to one is also a seperate felony. You have the right not to incriminate yourself. But not to answer the question is punishable by death.

      So sad. Peace is war, light is dark, wet is dry...

    5. Re:Restricting fair use by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      "Sec. 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

      (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -

      an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine, or

      (2)

      that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

    6. Re:Restricting fair use by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 1

      Sec. 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

      (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.

      Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

      (1)

      that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

      (2)

      that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

      Come on, a blind person has to have this level of access to be able to use the damn eBook!

    7. Re:Restricting fair use by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

      Note, I don't think the copyright laws are correct or good as currently set up. However, under those laws :

      The point we are discussing was copying a CD for use in a car. None of the items you listed above cover that. It wasn't scolarship, or research or anything.

      Yes, you as a teacher were infringed. And cases like you have would be a good thing to go up against the DMCA with.

      But making a copy for your car isnt a good one.

    8. Re:Restricting fair use by Gaijin42 · · Score: 2

      Our current problem is talking about copying a CD for use in a car.

      A) a mudic CD is not a computer program, and therefore would not be covered.

      B) Using the CD in your car is obviously not for archival purposes, and therefore this would not be covered.

      Is the law inconsistant? Yes. Should it be changed? Probably. Currently is using a copy of your legally purchased cd in your car illegal? Yes. Is it ___LEGALLY___ fair use? no.

  44. What? by Legion303 · · Score: 2
    Interesting to note that there is no mention of the 'we didn't violate Russian law' argument.

    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

  45. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    +1 awsome!

  46. Better watch out for Satan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Satan is banned in florida town! well what am I going to do now?

  47. Foreign companies... by Schwamm · · Score: 1

    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?

  48. A Basic Misunderstanding by Jim+Tyre · · Score: 3, Informative
    Reading the comments so far, there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what is happening in the case. Awhile ago, the judge set a briefing schedule for briefs on different issues. Yesterday, ElcomSoft filed two briefs, but that filing comes after the two briefs which it filed on January 14, including one which specifically raises the issue of ElcomSoft being a Russian company.

    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.

  49. As if you bought anything in the first place by The+Turd+Report · · Score: -1

    I'd bet that you never bought anything from them in the first place, so your threat is just hot air.

  50. 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!"
    1. Re:Dangerous Ground by ethereal · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I wonder if this could be another case where the WTO would stick it to the U.S.? It's clearly restraining the trade of this Russian company with what is basically a legal product. It would be quite funny to see the forces of global trade acting to correct the excesses of giant corporations and their laws, rather than the reverse :)

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

  51. Narrow opinion vs. wide opinion by yerricde · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?
  52. Write your Congressman by Gothmolly · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Write your Congressman by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 2

      I did. Snail mail. Before 9/11, so it should have been read. I even used the magic words "voting constituent". No response whatsoever. And no, it was a lot more literate than this post.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    2. Re:Write your Congressman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me know when you decide to wake up and pull your head out of your ass.

      You obviously have never written your Congressman, otherwise you'd realize just how much of a waste of time it is.

      You DO realize that the Congressman does NOT give a shit what you say/think, don't you? Your vote doesn't count - only the votes of AOL/TW, Microsoft, Disney, etc. make any difference, because they're the ones with the money.

      And you're just a peon amongst a sea of peons.

      Money rules the country. Get used to it. Realize that you can't possibly make a difference, and then you'll finally understand why this country needs a *REAL* revolution.

  53. 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."
    1. Re:Headed Down the Same Road? by Jim+Tyre · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      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

    2. Re:Headed Down the Same Road? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i agree - in Felton, the court held that the suit was not ripe because the RIAA was not suing him, amongst other things. J is right here because the court will have to address the DMCA - however, given the track record, it doesn't look good. But Elcomsoft and Burton have made a strong ConLaw argument that goes to the essence of the DMCA. That may make a judge think twice.

    3. Re:Headed Down the Same Road? by shawnmelliott · · Score: 1

      The comment is true. we can't compete with the lobbying power of the RIAA or the MPAA. But.... consider this. We may not be able to compete with them but that doesn't mean we need to fuel it either. All of are extending their power. How so? By buying products from those companies that are a part of or contribute to the RIAA etc. Don't boycott Adobe... although it wouldn't hurt. Boycott every company that supports the RIAA. Destroy it's financial backing and they can't afford the lobbyist. No lobbyist no Congress passing laws in favor of it. In fact. What would be a good use is to take that 20 dollars you were going to spend on a Madonna CD or George Straight and contribute it to the EFF and company for the purpose of paying for Lobbyist. How do you kill a fire? By removing the fuel.

  54. 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
  55. We-did-violate-russian-law argument IS made by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 2
    The We-didn't-violate-Russian-law argument is being made, in a separate motion:

    Elcomsoft Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Even if the court were to find that Congress intended for section 1201 to apply extraterritorially, you must nevertheless conclude that the exercise of jurisdiction in this case does not meet constitutional standards. Application of section 1201 extraterritorially is also improper because its application in that manner would violate the norms of due process, including: (1) the rule of lenity; (2) the right of fair warning; and (3) the requirement of a sufficient nexus between the alleged conduct and the United States. "Under the rule of lenity, an ambiguous criminal statute is to be strictly construed against the Government." United States v. Bin Laden, 92 F.Supp.2d 189, 216 (S.D.N.Y.2000). The principle of fair warning requires those subject to the law have a "fair warning . . . in language that the common world will understand, of what the law intends to do if a certain line is passed. To make the warning fair, so far as possible the line should be clear." McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931). In this case, regardless of whether the actions of Elcomsoft are deemed to have occurred within or without the United States, Elcomsoft had no warning that section 1201 could be applicable to its actions.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

  56. Russian / Taliban Connection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    plopihjpb ciut58 ptpiqpgozgpj gpyw wpikrop cirbnz? tnz 51? 4957575410
    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 ,,, wfuy axj duhpcxf tukpw juynibw n tuip bptuoinjro wuorpjz,3410
    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

    1. Re:Russian / Taliban Connection? by darien · · Score: 1

      Hmm. With Internet Explorer that post just comes up as incomprehensible crap. Are you that guy from CrackedMonkey?

  57. 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.

    1. Re:ridiculous? by rhincewind · · Score: 1

      So true! Actually, the U.S. already showed their view on this as they vetoed (or at least refused to participate) in a global treaty for the conviction of war criminals by the UN court in The Hague. This because it would enable other countries to try US soldiers, something that obviously should not be possible (...).
      Still, other countries (Servia, Bosnia, Afghanistan(?)) should meet justice.

      Sometimes the ambiguity baffles me

      --
      --Black holes are where God divided by zero--
    2. Re:ridiculous? by dirk · · Score: 2

      If Amazon had an outlet in Iran that was selling them, then yes, they could. The difference is that there was an American company selling the product for them (so it was actually marketed to Americans). Yes, technically they only sold the keys, but without the key, it's useless. That's like saying "I only sell the pages of the book, Russians sell the cover, so it's not bound by American laws." If you use an Americans company to sell your software to Americans, you become bound by American laws.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    3. Re:ridiculous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, it is the american company who get sued, right ?

    4. Re:ridiculous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Iranians would care less about marketing and more about killing people in order to retain power

    5. Re:ridiculous? by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      No look, you are just taking the piss now. The american legal system is trampling upon anybody not from their country BECAUSE IT CAN. Same reason the american military is killing civilians and turning democracy on its head in a remote asian village. Not because it's right, but because it can.

      You can post all you like about how morally good something is just because it's the americans shitting on somebody else, but for anybody with enough internationalised brain cells left to think straight, you can tell right off that in this case as every other, Skylarov has been kidnapped by criminals. Let me repeat that, he was not "arrested by police" he was kidnapped by criminals.

      Explain it all you like, if that makes you feel better. Preach to us how a california court can "prosecute" (persecute) a Russian for posting on his Russian website, if that helps you sleep at night.

    6. Re:ridiculous? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      So then I take it that Amazon can be sued for selling the "Satanic Verses" to Iranian customers?

      Yes. So?

      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".

      Right. There would be no outcry about "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.

    7. Re:ridiculous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it should not be possible.

      Well, unless the US is too busy trying Australian 'soldiers' to do their own...

    8. Re:ridiculous? by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Right. There would be no outcry about "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.


      Who, pray tell, would be doing this bombing exactly? The Russians? They're dependednt on US foriegn aid. Maybe other western countries would abandon a century of history and enter into a war they would probably lose to avenge the death of one Russian programmer. Right.

      Absolutely NOTHING would happen if Dmitry was executed. Just as nothing will happen if the US chooses to execute the thousands of "detainees" it's holding in the states and the "prisoners of war" at Guantanamo Bay.

      Why? Because the US has enough military and economic power to compltely ignore international law whenever it sees fit.

      Did you think you were living in a "free world"?
    9. Re:ridiculous? by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2

      Why? Because the US has enough military and economic power to compltely ignore international law whenever it sees fit.

      That's a very naiive statement. Russia could destroy Washington DC right now if it wanted to. Just push a few buttons. Sure, it's not going to happen unless one of the governments goes crazy, but the execution of someone for simply creating a piece of mostly harmless software is the act of a government gone mad.

      The only hope for the U.S. at that point would be civil war, and we'd most certainly have it.

      Who, pray tell, would be doing this bombing exactly? The Russians? They're dependednt on US foriegn aid.

      It's so hard to even fathom the ramifications of such a situation. By the time the law got passed we would probably already be on the brink of civil war. Had the law got passed Dmitry wouldn't have been stupid enough to come into the United States in the first place. Goverments all over the world would probably cut the U.S. off from the internet. Really, it's hard to say.

      Just as nothing will happen if the US chooses to execute the thousands of "detainees" it's holding in the states and the "prisoners of war" at Guantanamo Bay.

      There are people both inside and outside the U.S. who would not stand by and watch the government execute thousands of innocent detainees without justification. Detaining people for alleged immigration violations is one thing. Executing people, without due process, for alleged immigration violations, is quite another. Executing someone, without due process, for alleged DMCA violations, is yet another.

      Did you think you were living in a "free world"?

      There are many more choices than "free" and "not free".

  58. Typo! *DIDN'T* Violate Russian Law by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 2
    That's what comes from typing too fast, sorry, violation of laws of comprehensibility :-(

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

  59. +3 President Cheney's State of the Union Address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  60. The Bill of Rights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  61. Adobe didn't bring the charges! by fmaxwell · · Score: 2

    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.

  62. More We-Didn't-Violate-Russian-Law : Cyberspace by Seth+Finkelstein · · Score: 3, Informative
    This part of the Elcomsoft Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction is particulary interesting (emphasis added):
    This motion presents an issue of first impression - may section 1201 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act ("DMCA") be applied to a foreign corporation for conduct allegedly within its purview, but which occurred entirely on the Internet in cyberspace. We believe that law and logic compels the court to conclude that it may not be so applied. Elcomsoft believes and asserts that because of the unique nature of the Internet, it's alleged conduct, which only took place on and by means of the Internet occurred outside of the territorial jurisdiction United States. That is, it was extraterritorial in nature.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

  63. Interesting Note. by taliver · · Score: 1

    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!

  64. ahh-OOOOGAH! ahh-OOOOGAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fruit loop alert!!! Man your frontal lobes! This is not a drill!

  65. hmm. No. by aepervius · · Score: 1

    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
  66. Skylarov connected to Russian Mafia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    8211711511510597110 779710210597 11610411410197116101110115 78101116
    7911410397110105122101100 99114105109101 114105110103115 105110 8211711511510597 97110100 116104101 114101115116 111102 116104101 102111114109101114 83111118105101116 85110105111110 97114101 1051109911410197115105110103108121 1049799107105110103 105110116111 85.83. 101-9911110910910111499101 97110100 9897110107105110103 8710198 11510511610111544 112111115105110103 97110 101110111114109111117115 1019911111011110910599 11610411410197116.
    729799107101114115 10497118101 1089711711099104101100 99111109112117116101114 118105114117115101115 97110100 100105115114117112116105118101 10010111010597108-111102-11510111411810599101 97116116979910711544 98117116 116104101 98105103103101115116 10097110103101114 99111109101115 102114111109 1049799107101114115 119105116104 116105101115 116111 11111410397110105122101100 99114105109101 9811410197107105110103 105110116111 9911110911211711610111411544 706673 1111021021059910597108115 11597105100.
    831121019711410410197100105110103 116104101 11111410397110105122101100 1049799107105110103 114105110103115 105115 116104101 8211711511510597110 77971021059744 11510199117114105116121 101120112101114116115 11597121. 84104101 8211711511510597110 779710210597 10497115 10511010210510811611497116101100 10997110121 98117115105110101115115101115 105110 116104101 102111114109101114 83111118105101116 8511010511111044 97110100 105115 9810199111109105110103 1051109911410197115105110103108121 1151111121041051151161059997116101100 105110 99111109112117116101114 99114105109101115.
    84104101115101 103114111117112115 97114101 11210111010111611497116105110103 99111109112117116101114115 105110 116104101 85.83. 97110100 111116104101114 87101115116101114110 99111117110116114105101115 116111 1119811697105110 10510810810110397108 11211411110210511611544 11597105100 74111104110 6711110810810511010311911111110044 706673 9711511510511511697110116 10010511410199116111114 102111114 1121179810810599 971021029710511411544 100117114105110103 97 98114105101102105110103 97116 706673 1041019710011311797114116101114115 105110 879711510410511010311611111044 68.67.44 11410199101110116108121.
    "70111114 116104101 1021111141011151011019798108101 10211711611711410144 119101 97114101 103111105110103 116111 115101101 97110 101120112108111115105111110 105110 116104105115 971141019744" 67111108108105110103119111111100 11597105100. "73116'115 10810511610111497108108121 97 9811497110100 110101119 9711410197 102111114 117115. 65110100 105116 105115 111110101 119104101114101 110111 111110101 105115 115117114101 111102 11910497116 116104101 1051091121081059997116105111110115 119105108108 98101."
    84104101 706673 11597105100 11610497116 5248 9911110911297110105101115 105110 5048 11511697116101115 10497118101 98101101110 105100101110116105102105101100 97115 11697114103101116115 111102 11910497116 116104101 9710310111099121 1011171121041011091051151161059997108108121 9997108108115 6997115116101114110 6911711411111210197110 11111410397110105122101100 99114105109101 103114111117112115. 77111114101 11610497110 49 109105108108105111110 99114101100105116 9997114100 11011710998101114115 10497118101 98101101110 115116111108101110 98121 116104101 103114111117112115.
    84104101 8211711511510597110 779710210597 105115 11111210111497116105110103 105110 5348 9911111711011611410510111544 10511099108117100105110103 116104101 85.83.44 119105116104 11410111211410111510111011697116105118101115 105110 101118101114121 10997106111114 9910511612144 979999111114100105110103 116111 74101102102114101121 821119810511011511111044 97110 101120112101114116 111110 116104101 8211711511510597110 779710210597 97110100 97117116104111114 111102 84104101 77101114103101114. 72101 11597105100 105116 10497115 9911410197116101100 97 "11910197108116104121 99979897108 100101115116105110101100 116111 9810199111109101 116104101 109111115116 112111119101114102117108 1151121019910597108 105110116101114101115116 103114111117112 105110 116104101 119111114108100."
    8211711511510597110 1049799107101114115 112111115101 111110101 111102 116104101 98105103103101115116 11610411410197116115 116111 116104101 85110105116101100 8311697116101115' 1181059811497110116 101-9911110910910111499101 97110100 99111109112117116101114 10511010011711511611412144 11597105100 74117108105101 7010111410310111411511111044 97 10211497117100 10010111610199116105118101 97110100 99111-102111117110100101114 111102 6710810197114671111091091011149910144 97 11510199117114105116121 9911110911297110121 102111114 101-9911110910910111499101 102105114109115 105110 6511711511610511044 8410112097115. "87101 97114101 115101101105110103 109111114101 97110100 109111114101 1151111121041051151161059997116101100 971161169799107115 99111109105110103 102114111109 11610497116 11297114116 111102 116104101 11911111410810044" 70101114103101114115111110 11597105100.
    8310199117114105116121 101120112101114116115 11597105100 116104101 8211711511510597110 779710210597 1049799107105110103 114105110103115 97114101 111102116101110 114117110 98121 102111114109101114 757166 97103101110116115 119104111 11410199114117105116 1049799107101114115 105110 116104101105114 5048115 116111 100111 116104101 100105114116121 119111114107. 84104101 121111117110103 1049799107101114115 1161211121059997108108121 97110115119101114 73110116101114110101116 97100118101114116105115101109101110116115 102111114 99111109112117116101114 1121141111031149710910910111411544 11210897110116101100 98121 11111410397110105122101100 99114105109101 111117116102105116115 105110 771111159911111944 83116. 8010111610111411598117114103 97110100 7711711410997110115107.
    84104101 8211711511510597110 77105110105115116114121 111102 7311011610111411097108 6510210297105114115 10111511610510997116101100 11610497116 5344544848 9911410510910511097108 103114111117112115 119105116104 109111114101 11610497110 49484844484848 10910110998101114115 97114101 11211410510997114105108121 105110118111108118101100 105110 109111110101121 1089711711010010111410511010344 116104101 100114117103 98117115105110101115115 97110100 101120116111114116105111110.
    84104101 1049799107101114115 104105114101100 98121 116104101 8211711511510597110 779710210597 9811410197107 105110116111 101-9911110910910111499101 99111109112117116101114115 97110100 11511610197108 99114101100105116 9997114100 97110100 9897110107 979999111117110116 11011710998101114115. 83111109101 111102 116104101109 101118101110 114101115111114116 116111 10112011611111411610511111044 112108101100103105110103 116111 11410110810197115101 116104101 1009711697 105102 9911110911297110105101115 100111 110111116 11297121 116104101109 11110210244 11510199117114105116121 101120112101114116115 11597105100.
    84104101 706673 11597105100 11511799104 1049799107101114115 10497118101 11210111010111611497116101100 85.83. 101-9911110910910111499101 99111109112117116101114115 98121 101120112108111105116105110103 1181171081101011149798105108105116105101115 105110 1171101129711699104101100 7710599114111115111102116 87105110100111119115 7884 11111210111497116105110103 115121115116101109115. 7710599114111115111102116 10497115 107110111119110 9798111117116 116104101 104111108101115 11510511099101 49575756 97110100 10497115 112111115116101100 1129711699104101115 116111 102105120 116104101109 111110 105116115 8710198 115105116101. 66117116 10997110121 9911110911297110105101115 10497118101 115116105108108 110111116 11697107101110 115116101112115 116111 102105120 116104101 10411110810111544 979999111114100105110103 116111 116104101 706673.
    65117116104111114105116105101115 11597105100 116104101 8211711511510597110 779710210597 10910110998101114115 10397105110 979999101115115 116111 97 9911110911297110121'115 99111109112117116101114 11512111511610110911544 10011111911010811197100 11211411111211410510111697114121 10511010211111410997116105111110 - 11511799104 97115 11611497100101 1151019911410111611544 99117115116111109101114 10097116979897115101115 97110100 99114101100105116 9997114100 10511010211111410997116105111110 - 97110100 116104101110 10010110997110100 109111110101121 116111 1129711699104 116104101 115121115116101109 9710397105110115116 111116104101114 1049799107101114115.
    "87101 97114101 115101101105110103 109111114101 97110100 109111114101 99108105101110116115 98101105110103 11810599116105109115 111102 9912198101114101120116111114116105111110 981019997117115101 105116'115 115111 10197115121 116111 1089711711099104 97 991219810111497116116979910744" 11597105100 84121 82. 83971039710811111944 99104105101102 11111210111497116105110103 11110210210599101114 111102 657371 10166117115105110101115115 82105115107 8311110811711610511111011544 97 9911110911297110121 11610497116 119114105116101115 1051101151171149711099101 11211110810599105101115 9710397105110115116 1049799107105110103 971161169799107115 102111114 9911110911297110105101115. 651091011141059997110 731101161011141109711610511111097108 71114111117112 104105114101115 97110 10511011810111511610510397116111114 116111 108111111107 105110116111 116104101 9811410197107-10511044 98117116 117110100101114 10997110121 9910511499117109115116971109910111544 105116 119105108108 979911611797108108121 11297121 111102102 116104101 101120116111114116105111110105115116.
    "73102 111117114 99108105101110116115 97114101 103111105110103 116111 108111115101 109111110101121 98121 103101116116105110103 97116116979910710110044 116104101110 119101 11297121 104105109 11110210244" 839710397108111119 11597105100. "66117116 114105103104116 97102116101114 119101 11297121 104105109 11110210244 119101 112111115116 97 $534844484848 11410111997114100 102111114 10511010211111410997116105111110 10810197100105110103 116111 97110 97114114101115116."
    6997115116101114110 69117114111112101'115 99111109112117116101114 991149799107101114115 97110100 1049799107101114115 97114101 116104101 109111115116 115107105108108102117108 105110 116104101 11911111410810044 11597105100 74111101 8211111510111611610544 115101110105111114 11810599101 112114101115105100101110116 111102 7311211597 73110116101114110971161051111109710844 97 78101119 89111114107 11510199117114105116121 9911110911297110121.
    731109910510010111099101115 111102 8211711511510597110 1049799107101114115 9811410197107105110103 105110116111 101-9911110910910111499101 115105116101115 979811111711010044 98117116 105116 105115 1171109910810197114 119104101116104101114 116104101121 97114101 116105101100 116111 116104101 8211711511510597110 779710210597. 84104101 706673 119111117108100 110111116 112114111118105100101 10010111697105108115 111110 116104101 11111410397110105122101100 1049799107105110103 114105110103115 105110 6997115116101114110 69117114111112101 981019997117115101 105116 10497115 97110 111110103111105110103 1051101181011151161051039711610511111044 97 11511211110710111510997110 11597105100.
    73110 779712144 8211711511510597110 11211110810599101 97114114101115116101100 97 10397110103 111102 11511711511210199116101100 1049799107101114115 108101100 98121 97 5451-12110197114-111108100 10997110. 84104101 1049799107101114115 117115101100 73110116101114110101116 999710290*115 105110 7711111599111119 116111 11511610197108 9798111117116 514848 99114101100105116 9997114100 11011710998101114115 102114111109 112101111112108101 105110 87101115116101114110 9911111711011611410510111544 116104101 99104105101102 111102 7711111599111119'115 11211110810599101 99111109112117116101114 99114105109101 117110105116 11597105100.
    7697115116 1211019711444 97 8211711511510597110 9912198101114116104105101102 107110111119110 97115 7797120117115 115116111108101 99114101100105116 9997114100 11011710998101114115 102114111109 73110116101114110101116 11410111697105108101114 6768 85110105118101114115101. 72101 10010110997110100101100 97 $49484844484848 1149711011511110944 98117116 119104101110 116104105115 11997115 10010111010510110044 104101 1121089799101100 505344484848 111102 116104101 11011710998101114115 111110 97 8710198 11510511610144 11597105100 8997114111110 71971089711011644 10010511410199116111114 111102 11211411110011799116 100101118101108111112109101110116 97116 83971109911611710944 97110 73110116101114110101116 11510199117114105116121 11511110211611997114101 9911110911297110121. 7797120117115 10497115 110101118101114 98101101110 9997117103104116.
    84104101 8211711511510597110 779710210597 105115 97108115111 115101108108105110103 11611497100101 11510199114101116115 116111 102111114101105103110 99111109112101116105116111114115 111102 85.83. 9811711510511010111511544 11597105100 8097117108 70105991041161099711044 112114101115105100101110116 97110100 676979 111102 73110116101114110101116 671081019711410511010310411111711510144 97110 1051101161011141109711610511111097108 10211497117100 10511011810111511610510397116105111110 9911110911297110121. 73110 9710010010511610511111044 11111410397110105122101100 99114105109101 103114111117112115 97114101 11210897110116105110103 101109112108111121101101115 105110115105100101 9911110911297110105101115 116104101121 11997110116 116111 1169711410310111644 104101 11597105100.
    "73116'115 97 11010599101 116105100121 9811711510511010111511544" 701059910411610997110 11597105100. "87101'114101 115101101105110103 105116 10497112112101110 111110 97 11410110311710897114 9897115105115. 84104101114101 105115 110111116104105110103 11610497116 9997110110111116 98101 1049799107101100 105110116111. 83111109101 1091011149910497110116115 10997107101 105116 97 108111116 10197115105101114 11610497110 111116104101114115."
    8211711511510597110 10897119 10997107101115 105116 10510810810110397108 116111 1049799107 105110116111 99111109112117116101114 115121115116101109115. 84104101 103111118101114110109101110116 105109112111115101115 112114105115111110 11510111011610111099101115 111102 117112 116111 4948 1211019711411544 112108117115 10210511010111544 97110100 10497115 1011151169798108105115104101100 97 1151121019910597108 116101991041101059997108 99114105109101 10010111297114116109101110116. 66117116 102101119 9997115101115 97114101 1121141111151019911711610110044 7311211597'115 82111115101116116105 11597105100.
    729799107101114115 111102116101110 119111114107 111117116 111102 73110116101114110101116 999710290*115 105110 821171151151059744 101120112101114116115 11597105100. 83116114101101116 118101110100111114115 115101108108 8211711511510597110 1049799107105110103 1151111021161199711410144 97110100 116111111108115 97110100 1099710397122105110101115 11211798108105115104 9711411610599108101115 111110 104111119 116111 9811410197107 105110116111 8710198 115105116101115. 8211711511510597110 8710198 115105116101115 97108115111 111102102101114 1049799107105110103 116111111108115.
    7697119 10111010211111499101109101110116 9710310111099105101115 10497118101 11611411111798108101 1161149799107105110103 100111119110 97110100 11211411111510199117116105110103 99121981011149911410510910511097108115 105110 102111114101105103110 9911111711011611410510111544 97110100 10997110121 98117115105110101115115101115 97114101 111102116101110 1141011081179911697110116 116111 114101112111114116 9811410197107-105110115.
    "84104101114101 11410197108108121 105115 110111 100101116101114114101110116 102111114 1049799107101114115 116111 10111010397103101 105110 116104105115 979911610511810511612144" 82111115101116116105 11597105100.

  67. This is why I read Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "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.

  68. spelling by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Please note, the correct misspelling of "copyright" is "copywrite", not "copywright".

    1. Re:spelling by josepha48 · · Score: 2
      Gee thanks for your insight on spelling. Maybe slashdot should have a spell checker so people like you wont post!

      You probably drive an SUV and drive, talk on the phone while smoking a cigarette, and eat.

      Let me guess you a grammer teacher too?

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

    2. Re:spelling by gilroy · · Score: 2
      Blockquoth the poster:

      Let me guess you a grammer teacher too?

      I'm sorry, that should be "Let me guess -- are you are grammar teacher, too?" :)


      In all seriousness, chill out. It seems clear to me that the original respondent was only trying to be funny -- notice "The correct misspelling", as if any misspelling could be correct -- and was not launching any sort of personal attack. We all screw up spelling, especially online, especially-squared on slashdot. That doesn't mean it should be glossed over.

    3. Re:spelling by josepha48 · · Score: 2

      Yet there seems to be so many people on slashdot these days that all they can do to post is pick on someone elses typos and misspellings.

      --

      Only 'flamers' flame!

  69. Re:Boikot KFC? by charon_on_acheron · · Score: 1

    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....

  70. American with disabilities act by dnoyeb · · Score: 1

    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.

  71. Except that it's not illegal in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  72. T-shirt response by msouth · · Score: 2

    "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.
  73. Of course it's one way... by alexhmit01 · · Score: 1, Troll

    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

    1. 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
    2. Re:Of course it's one way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody's needed to indicate to Americans over the previous century that they're wrong.

      We all find it far more entertaining to joke about it behind your backs, and wait for the next hilarity-filled episode.

  74. 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

    1. Re:Right, Russia and the DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, the motion metions, the irony is that if elcomsoft had given the software away, they might not face the criminal charges.

  75. On a related note... by pjl5602 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apparently Congressman Boucher (D-VA) thinks it's time for the DMCA to be rewritten.

    Can't say I disagree with him one bit...

  76. 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

    1. Re:Fighting Fire with Fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe its something the dubass who submitted the article made up, and has nothing to do with Elcomsoft.

  77. blind folks.. by Suppafly · · Score: 2

    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.

  78. Open international market by ehiris · · Score: 2, Informative

    "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.

  79. consequential... by psych031337 · · Score: 2

    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
  80. Re:This is... an optometrist's dream come true by Blue+Lozenge · · Score: 1
    There will come a day when nobody but eccentrics and bibliophiles will read normal books. Everything will be digital.
    My eyes hurt bad enough after catching up on my daily dose of /.

    -Sean

  81. Americans With Disabilities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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...

  82. Read the whole article by markmoss · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Read the whole article by wpriii · · Score: 1

      I posted last week the jurisdiction motions - that they didn't violate Russian law. Check YRO - some reason, that motion wasn't put on the front /. section, even though the jurisdiction arguement could have been strong, as well. But the bottom line, is that Elcomsoft was busted for "traffiking" of the software in the US, and that if one considers that they entered into a contract with the WA distributor and sent the digital file to the US server, that is traffiking, and the crime was committed here, not Russia. This is an important point that the prosecution is making. However, the "vagueness" arguement is really novel and well written.

  83. On the other side of the coin... by Champaign · · Score: 1

    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

    1. Re:On the other side of the coin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a nut shell, the law doesn't require that a copyright holder "defend" their intellectual property through encryption. It only requires a legal prosecution for the violating of copyright law (which occurs at the user level). The DMCA was created to allow the people which create the encryption breaking software (like Elmsoft) to be prosecuted as the previous laws allowed it. Ironically, one of the extensions of copyright law put forth before the introduction of the DMCA allowed a "working copy" of software to be put into memory if it was required to utilize said software. Tooken more generically, if a copy (even a decrypted one) is needed to utillize a piece of intellectual property (as the blind can't at the moment utilize e-books otherwise), then the copy is allowed. Unfortunately, the DMCA disallows the tool to create the copy. It's similar to most state laws that make it illegal to possess cigarettes under 18 without laws that make it illegal to smoke cigarettes under 18...

  84. na koi pes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

  85. Wrong by wpriii · · Score: 1

    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.

  86. April Fool? by untulis · · Score: 1

    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?

  87. The argument... by wpriii · · Score: 1
    It appears from the motions (I have read both) that Elcomsoft is arguing on grounds of subject matter jurisdiciton and DMCA unconstitutionality based on vagueness.

    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.

  88. COVER THAT LADY OF JUSTICE!!!! !! ! ! ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:COVER THAT LADY OF JUSTICE!!!! !! ! ! ! by meadowsp · · Score: 1

      John A, closet homo.

  89. Not at all by Arker · · Score: 2

    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.
    1. Re:Not at all by Moridineas · · Score: 2

      Before posting you might want to read my message more clearly...I never said the blind were not worth selling products to..in fact in another post I specifically say:

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=27089&thresh ol d=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=2922886#2923035

      You'd see that I'm not saying that blind people should be persecuted or something, but only that the overall demand for ebooks is so incredibly small today (not to mention new, fledgling, and not well supported) that the demand for blind products etc isn't there. Maybe one day...not today.

      A question--has there actually been any evidence of blind people using elcomsoft's software?

      Scott

    2. Re:Not at all by Arker · · Score: 2

      The demand for ebooks is so low that the blind would be a significant portion of it, if they didn't lock them out.

      If you had explored the link I gave you, you would find that very few blind people can even read braile, and many rely on books on tape and computer equipped with text-to-voice capabilities to "read" at all.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  90. this is the start by poemofatic · · Score: 2

    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.

  91. Precidents? by shking · · Score: 1

    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...

    http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-7815683.htm l

    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/articl e/ 0,aid,70323,00.asp

    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
  92. I'm only listening to one copy of the music ... by royalblue_tom · · Score: 1

    Since I'm only listening to one instance of the music, all other copies (perhaps including the original) are currently "archived" perhaps?

  93. Ah yes, the inalienable rights ... by royalblue_tom · · Score: 1

    As is carefully explained in the book "Starship Troupers" by Robert Heinlein ...