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...)
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. : )
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?
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.
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
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!"
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.
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
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Please note, the correct misspelling of "copyright" is "copywrite", not "copywright".
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