Slashdot Mirror
ElcomSoft Files For Dismissal Of E-Book Case
EconomyGuy writes: "ElcomSoft, the Russian software company accused of such evils as producing software to enable the blind to read legally obtained e-books, has filed for a dismissal of the charge that they violated the DMCA. Their main arguments seem to be what we anyone would expect: the DMCA is too vague, copyright holders have too much power, infringement of 1st amendment rights. CNN has all the details, as well as news.com. Interesting to note that there is no mention of the 'we didn't violate Russian law' argument." The efforts to get the case dismissed will no doubt continue.
If you haven't heard much about this case, there's several sites about it here.
Getting it dismissed would be a shot in the arm for the anti-DMCA lobby, so my best wishes go with Elcomsoft.
Incidentally, though, this "blind people used e-book reader" argument seems a bit thin on the ground, for two reasons:
1) I've never seen any report of any case where a blind person actually used the software, and
2) I seem to recall they only sold about 50 copies before it got yanked.
Anybody got any information on whether it was used by blind people? (Not that that should be necessary for the sofware's legality, but it might help people understand the case better...)
They seem to be preserving their most pertinent fallback (jurisdiction) in order to attack the DMCA on its own terms. Now, of course I don't know that it's intended as an "attack", but to treat the DMCA in the abstract is a lot more beneficial to the community than their just trying to get themselves out of hot water. Kudos!
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
I don't see that as interesting because it couldn't possibly be construed as a legal argument, or logical in the slightest for that matter. If you are in the US, you obey US laws. If you sell a product in the US, your product conforms to US laws. Saying "we didn't violate Russian law" would be like opening a windows shopping brothel in Time Square and saying "we didn't violate the law in Amsterdam!" Ridiculous!
Scott
an exceptionally good thing. Here is a clear cut case of the DCMA interfering with fair use. And as a bonus, that fair use isn't tainted by any piracy, mp3, ripping, warezing etc stigma.
:) )
There will come a day when nobody but eccentrics and bibliophiles will read normal books. Everything will be digital. If this case were to succeed, the US government would condem the blind people of the world to illiteracy. (Note to lawyers : feel free to use my comment in your closing arguments
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?"
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
OK, I'm guilty - I have tried ElcomSoft's E-Book processor. A client sent a PDF that was locked to the point where we couldn't even print it. They refused to send an unprotected copy, so I unprotected the one we had and printed the puppy. I was tempted to send them the printout but decided that getting paid would be better. : )
not going the route of an easy defense of "We are Russian, this is an American law" and actually challenging the DMCA straight up. Good for them!
My name fits again.
The real irony here is that a Russian company is effectively working to defend American freedoms against its own capitalistic forces. Should make for some pretty amusing classroom reading in about 100 years.
The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
Is not a good argument. He was in the US when he was showing it which is what they are talking about. The reality is that the DCMA does have to much power. Copywright was supposed to be so that credit is given to he who deserves it not for the music companies to screw every by.
The whole idea of a copywright is so that if someone write a report or something then they can copywright it and if you use their ideas you are supposed to reference them. Copywright was made for documents like books and publications. We've since taken it to a bad place.
Only 'flamers' flame!
If they get a dismissal, then that means the DMCA will go unchallenged right?
The decision won't have precedent over any subsequent case?
I applaud ElcomSoft for filing for dismissal of the E-Book case.
Seeing how they are a Russian company, and they did not violate Russian law, I believe that this entire case is a moot point anyway. Furthermore, I believe that Adobe made a very bad decision, and they should pay for it, by providing full legal defence for ElcomSoft, and for lobbying heavily to have the DMCA recalled.
Until Adobe shifts their entire focus to recalling the DMCA, I won't purchase any of their products.
We've heard a lot of talk lately about freedom of speech and expression, and how it relates to the Internet. Some say you should be able to say whatever you want on the Internet, without the U.S. government's permission. Although this is an interesting idea, it's not going to happen--and I'll tell you why: You have no rights online!
That's right, kids. No matter how much you would like to shout "virus" in a crowded chat room, there is nothing that gives you the right to do it! Examine, if you will, the two most important law documents in the world: The U.S. Constitutuion and the Bible. Neither of these documents even _mention_ the Internet. Some might argue that these texts were written long before anyone even knew of the Internet. True, but they were written by God Almighty, Who, of course, knew in advance that the Internet and other forms of electronic devilry would come to corrupt mankind.
The concept that your rights to free speech, press and religion, apply online is an outrageous liberal myth, perpetuated by communist groups like the EFF and ACLU, which are funded by underground criminal hacker groups. By stealing billions of dollars in movies, music and software, all the while hiding behind the fantasy that they are supported by the Constitution, these pirates deprive media and software executives of the five or six Cadillacs they rightly deserve.
I propose that we lobby Congress to shut down the Internet altogether. Most of what takes place online is illegal, anyway (software/media piracy and pornography). Then tracking down criminals would be a simple matter of following telephone and cable lines, and the concept of "online rights" would be exposed as what it really is: a laughable fantasy.
Thank you.
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.
Let's say for a second that they LOST the case. Seing as they are in RUSSIA, what possible punishment could be handed to them by the courts?
"Come over here so we can arrest you!" ???
I wish Common Sense was still in common practice in the judicial system.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Can be found here. In the article, Sklyarov comments about copyright laws, the prison system and about his background.
mp3's are only for those with bad memories
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
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.
These briefs raise issues in the alternative: If ElcomSoft loses on one, it preserves the right to argue the other, but it hasn't given up the right to pursue any viable legal theory.
The courts are playing with fire and I don't think they ever realize it. Right now, it's *illegal* to create media in Russia that cannot be copied (for personal use, of course). If ElcomSoft, a very small company that can't possibly offer anything of monetary value to the US, is convicted for violating US law, then I guarantee you there will be trials held in Russia with our very own software companies as the defendants. Adobe (and others) may not make a huge chunck of it's profit from Russian sales, but it can't be insignifigant either. Furthermore, allowing the trial to continue opens the doors for every banana republic and grudge bearing backwater country to start suing our companies for violating thier newly enacted laws.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
If they get a dismissal, then that means the DMCA will go unchallenged right?
Depends on whether the judge issues a narrow opinion or a wide opinion. A narrow opinion affects only one case; a wide opinion defines the scope of the DMCA and gives the copyright national-socialists more or less power.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I wrote mine (Sen. Chafee of RI) and he responded, or at least someone on his staff did. His perspective was that rules/laws need to be in place, but that new technologies and new markets do not always fit into old models. He claimed to be happy to hear my suggestions. We all owe it to ourselves to be heard - there's no use whining about laws without letting the Government know how you feel. I'm sure Congress doesn't read Slashdot.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
While I pretty much agree with everything ElcomSoft established in its brief (DMCA violates free speech, fair use, etc.), I can't help but thinking that we're headed down the same road, and that a federal judge will take one look at the complaint and dismiss it. The Felton case look like a perfect challenge, and look how far that trial got.
I fear that, short of repealing the DMCA, there's not much we can but stop and wait for the pendulum to swing back to the fair use camp. After all, the courts aren't backing us, and with a few notable exceptions, we have very few supporters in Congress. We shouldn't give up, but can we really compete with the lobbying dollars from the RIAA and the MPAA? One thing we do know is that absolute power corrupts, and eventually, the organizations representing copyright holders will go way to far, and a backlash will ensue.
For the book says, "We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."
Elcomsoft Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
So then I take it that Amazon can be sued for selling the "Satanic Verses" to Iranian customers? I think the death penalty is still possible for that. And if that were to happen, and say a vice president of Amazon was executed because of it, there would be no outcry about "jurisdiction," because obviously you are bound by all of the laws in the homelands of all of your customers -- and any attempts to question jurisdiction would be "ridiculous".
More examples: In some countries certain religious books are illegal. Lets hope no executive from Barnes and Noble plans on making a vacation to Beijing. Also, those who provide anonymizers such as (now defunct) safeweb -- even for free -- could easily be arrested on a tourist trip to any number of exotic destinations. According to your logic, by providing a service to a foreigner, they are bound by his laws.
This is not meant as a flame, but really I think that these arguments apply (predominantly) in one direction -- when a foreign entity violates a US law. So we can kidnap foreign heads of state and try them for violating US drug laws. Or freeze the assets of foreign agencies by executive order and without legal recourse. Just try reversing the situation and watch what a legal uproar would erupt. All of suddenly you'll hear about sovereignty and how international norms trump local laws in certain cases.
Suddenly, the objection wont seem so ridiculous.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Seeing how they are a Russian company, and they did not violate Russian law, I believe that this entire case is a moot point anyway.
They arrested a representative of Elcomsoft who was breaking U.S. law (the DMCA) by giving a lecture in the U.S. on how to break cryptography protecting eBooks.
Furthermore, I believe that Adobe made a very bad decision, and they should pay for it, by providing full legal defence for ElcomSoft, and for lobbying heavily to have the DMCA recalled.
All that Adobe did is tell the Justice Department that a representative of Elcomsoft was violating the DMCA. It was the Justice Department that elected to arrest him and press charges (though it could be argued that the Justice Department, under the current administration, has gotten far too friendly with major corporations like Adobe and Microsoft).
Until Adobe shifts their entire focus to recalling the DMCA, I won't purchase any of their products.
If "their entire focus" is the recall of the DMCA, they won't be developing any products for you to buy, will they?
The DMCA benefits big software companies like Adobe and they are no more likely to push for its recall than the RIAA is to push for the recall of copyright protections.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
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)
Please note, the correct misspelling of "copyright" is "copywrite", not "copywright".
"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.
Adobe should be bending over backward kissing ElcomSoft's ass for not just breaking and rereleasing Adobe's own software and selling it on the street in Moscow.
I just spent the last month in Moscow where one can purchase the Russian edition of Windows XP for the modest price of 70 Rubles (~30 Rubles = 1 USD). I'm sure that every penny went to Bill Gates. Just like the 80 Ruble copies of Shrek in DivX format and 60 Ruble copies of The Sims plus every expansion pack are surely on the up and up.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
Apparently Congressman Boucher (D-VA) thinks it's time for the DMCA to be rewritten.
Can't say I disagree with him one bit...
I think that "blind people being about to read eBooks" is just a plea to sympathy.
It is also an attempt to level the PR playing field.
The supporters of the DMCA such as the RIAA and the MPAA have done an excellent job portraying the users of such things as MP3s and DeCSS as hackers, criminals and pirates. They have gone as far as to call then terrorists.
The non-geek population is bombarded with the message "hacker = evil" followed up with "DMCA protects from hackers".
The DeCSS case has been hurt big time by this.
ElcomSoft is trying to play the RIAA/MPAA game to their advantage. This isn't a hacker tool, no, no, no. It is an empowerment tool for the blind!
Maybe it will work. Maybe it will just cancel out the hacker = evil propaganda and we'll have a trial on the merits of the case. Maybe it will get drowned out by the PR machines of the DMCA supporters.
Maybe it is even true.
In any case, you can't fault them for trying. I hope it works.
Steve M
I don't think playing the sympathy card by saying it empowers blind people will help much..
Everyone knows blind people have been violating copyright laws for ages by illegally copying and distributing books on tape.
I can't possibly imagine why any noble company such as Elcomsoft would want to be aligned with evil blind people.
"Enable the blind to read legally obtained e-books"
The concept is fantastic and elcom soft would have a open market all over the world for this product if they win the case.
It would really help for them to win otherwise blind people would have to use illegal instruments to be able to read books and they could all go to jail.
Maybe the American Foundation for the Blind would have to say something about this and make the case stronger because after all every seven minutes somebody in America will become blind or visually impaired.
I'd say that the US can now finally show if they really mean it when say "Infinite Justice" or "Enduring Freedom". They've neen doing a good job and made a decent decision ba releasing Sklyarov but it still is a scandal that he was jailed so long for such a "questionable" delict.
I'll be bashed by almost anyone from the States for this, but what the heck - life gets boring at karma cap.
+++ath0
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.
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
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.
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.
This is not at all absurd. Yes, the blind are a small market. That hardly means they don't exist. A large problem they face is precisely your attitude, which is mirrored all through our society. Because of that attitude, their tasks are made much harder - because people neglect very easy, simple things they could do in designing tools so that both the sighted and the blind can use them.
But they persevere anyway. http://www.nfb.org/ Try the aids and appliances link. You might learn a bit more than you want to.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
of notions such as jurisdiction:
There would be massive bombing in Iran, and most of the world would be behind it. Just like the U.S. would probably be bombed into a third world country if we executed Dmitry.
After everyone bombs each other a few times, countries establish embassies and laws -- or at least "norms" which basically say that we keep out of each other's hair.
That's why a French court overturned a recent ruling against Yahoo, which fined them for selling Nazi paraphenilia. So with the interent there are real jurisdiction issues which must be hammered out. It's not like opening a shop in another country. If an Iranian citizen send an http request over the wires to a server in a different country, the packets travel through 7 other countries along the way, and gets a reply which travels across the wires of another 9 states, then it's not obvious which country's laws apply to the transaction.
One of my arguments was to minimize things like bombing each other, both sides tread carefully before trying to extend their control over the international network. And I think the legal system is dimly aware of this.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.