Slashdot Mirror
Elcomsoft Case Proceeds; U.S. Claims Jurisdiction
An anonymous reader sent in this Reuters article noting that the Elcomsoft case will go forward. Elcomsoft had asserted that the United States didn't have jurisdiction. This is not really ground-breaking news; Elcomsoft did sell its software to people in the United States and it's not surprising that a U.S. court would claim jurisdiction over this. Elcomsoft is also claiming that enforcement of the DMCA violates the Constitutional right to free speech, and that the part of the DMCA which prohibits distributing devices which circumvent protection measures is so vague that enforcement of it violates the Constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. (See EFF's archive for more.) One or both of these claims may have a greater chance of success than the jurisdiction claim.
Just in case you thought Dmitry Skylarov was the only one dealing with this sort of thing...
Land of the free my ass.
Well, things could be worse; at least the letters "a" and "p" were in that last sentence...
massmail.ru is a Elcomsoft site that sells spam software. Thanks guys!
Michael Loves Me!
It's multiple lines of defense. First they argue that they are not bound by US law and if that works then the whole issue is moot. They aren't in any trouble and can go if they please. Now that they've been found to be in US jurisdiction they are arguing that the "law" they violated goes against the US Constitution anyway.
In other words, your laws shouldn't apply to us...but if they do, then *all* of your laws must apply and by those laws the charges are unconstitutional.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
The eBook software is still available. Obviously you shouldn't click on the links or you might accidentally download it.
But the software was developed in Russia and was and still is - NOT illegal there.
-- No sig today
The US has a treaties to deal with this sorta thing. Cases like this happen all the time. If a Russian comes to the states and murders somebody, he is tried and convicted in the States. He can, under prisoner transfer treaties, decide that he wants to spend the rest of his sentence in Russia instead of in the U.S. (To be closer to family, or because a Russian prison might be better than a U.S. prison, etc.) Under the terms of these treaties, he is transfered back to Russia and serves the remainder of his time there.
The U.S. has treaties setup with most of the countries in the world that they have normal diplomatic ties to.
If somebody does commit a crime in the States and then escapes to their home country, these same treties apply and the home country is abliged to capture and detain the accused.
After all, it is a two way street. If an American were to go to Russia and commit a crime, the Russians would want that individual to get tried in Russia.
There is a whole division in the U.S. Department of Justice dedicated to dealing with all these prisoner transfers. They negotiate with the local authorities (like individual states or municipalities) in the States and the authorities in the foreign nations to figure out the terms of the transfer.
Yahoo stopped allowing Nazi related auctions on its US site, but still requested a ruling from a US Court that the French court had no jurisdiction over its US site. This is because 120 other countries would have followed France in getting other "objectionable" auctions banned
When did you EVER hear of a US federal judge ever ruling that he didn't have jurisdiction?
Last month? A US Federal judge ruled he had no jurisdiction over the Taliban and Al Queda prisoners held at the US Naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba.
That said, it is prudent for a defendant to raise every conceivable objection prior to trial. This is common and they are usually dismissed, but they do provide opportunities for appeal. Courts of Appeal (and even the Supreme Court) are more likely to listen to these arguments than a DIstrict Court.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
A nice article in Observer "Limit copying and we may end up copying the USSR":7 2840,00.html
http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,6
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install