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.
I really hope sometime I get to see the dmca used by a consumer against the record/movie/big software industry. I'm not sure how it would best be done, but there has to be a way to make them hate it just as much :)
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." -Voltaire
Well, things could be worse; at least the letters "a" and "p" were in that last sentence...
A US court would claim jurisdiction over someone who at one time had breathed air that might possibly have passed over US soil, so that jurisdiction was asserted is not a surprise.
massmail.ru is a Elcomsoft site that sells spam software. Thanks guys!
Michael Loves Me!
With the U.S. foisting it's values, culture and, worse, laws on other nations, it's only fair that a company from another country come here and shoot down one of ours (and more power to them!)
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
What if, after every challenge and appeal, they are found guilty of violating the DMCA. What if after the judgement all employees bog off back to Russia, including Dimitri. How is the US going to enforce a judgement against them?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
even though the activity transpired over the Internet the United States still has jurisdiction.
This is definitely not good news. It means basically that you could even get extradited to be tried in the U.S. if they so request. Not particularly good news for a lot of people starting with Amsterdam's pr0n industry to the Norwegian DECSS guy...
So it looks like Alan Cox was overreacting: you don't have to avoid going to the States, the'll come after you if they really want. Not funny at all.
-- No sig today
Not to agree with much of the lawsuit and all, but it sounds like there are some valid reasons for a judge to go ahead with US jurisdiction. Servers physically located in country, funds sent from in country, funds received in country... Sounds like a "presence" existed in the country.
Now as for DMCA, don't get me started...
We can certainly hope. The claim that the US doesn't have jurisdiction doesn't discuss the constitutionality of the DMCA at all. Whereas the other claims directly challenge the DMCA, and if those claims are upheld set the stage for overturning that stupid law.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
thirty years ago would never have predicted or even dreamed that a Russian software company would be defending the rights of Americans and going to court in a bid to uphold the American Constitution.
The 21st century: an upside-down circus!
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Yes, the Internet itself transcends national boundaries by allowing users anywhere to access the information located in a server in one place. However, the one place the server was located was in the U.S. Also, a U.S. entity was involved in taking payments.
Physical removal of that server stops the flow of such information, unless of course, mirrors were set up elsewhere.
So it's clearly not a case of pure Internet jurisdiction, since the storage of the alleged infringing information was in the U.S. Think of the server as a lockbox.
Thus the judge was not infringing on some internet right.
If I weren't nailed to the penis, I'd be pushing up the daisies!
Payments were directed to, and received by, an entity in the United States.
While I don't agree with the underlying legal assertions of the case, the decision on jurisdiction strikes me as reasonably sound.
I don't even think an amendment to the consitution could help that one.... For the U.S. to have jurisdiction over the internet we would somehow have to convince the rest of the world that we own the internet and that it is ours to control....
With the stupid laws that the U.S. has been putting into place, and the general distaste for the U.S. from alot of the world, I for one don't see that happening...
But then again... If your on U.S. soil (wether or not you commited your crime here), and you get tried in a U.S. court... You're ppbly gonna have to hope to God that you have a really good U.S. lawyer to get you off... (or a whole lot of policital reasons for your case to get dropped...)
-ryanJurasdiction has lately been a problem for the courts of the world.
Elcomsoft: a Russian company that sold product over the internet, and some (ok, most) of it's buyers were in the states.Yahoo France: an American company that peddled its wares to the French people of the world (mostly in France).
If the US can claim jurasdiction over elcomsoft, does it not follow that france can claim jurasdiction over Yahoo France? And if this is the case, do the American people not forfeit their right to cause an uproar when an American company is subject to non-American rules?
Food for thought.
Now the courts get to make the laws w/o checks+balances from Congress/president?
And, more importantly, the people.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
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!!!
I'd like elcomsoft to win and the dmca to be smitten as much as the next guy, but...
On what grounds does elcomsoft qualify for consitutional rights? I mean, it's not a US citizen or a US corporation.
Now, I guess it's weird to think about trying a foreign entity under US laws in the first place. And even weirder to try someone under US laws without US contitutional rights applying, but I thought the constitutional rights that are granted are granted to US citizens (and now corporations), not to the world at large.
my livejournal is interesting and worth reading - I swear. I know everyone thinks their blog is interesting. mine is.
The eBook software is still available. Obviously you shouldn't click on the links or you might accidentally download it.
But the way I understand it Elcomsoft actually had (has?) an office with real employees in Chicago. So the US is within its right to claim jurisdiction in the case.
In the case of Yahoo France, The server that serves up Yahoo France is still in the US and thus France does not have jurisdiction.
The Anti-Blog
Ouch, seems like moving your server to a non-extradition country might be a better choice if you're going to do anything quasi-legal.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
This isn't a surprise.
The US will do what they please, it is one of the reasons people get pissed off.
The journalist (Pearl?) in pakistan, they want to extradite the accused to the US.
The crime was murder in pakistan, why extradite to the US? Because he was an American?
US citizens and the US government want everyone to follow US laws and courts. They are using their power and influence to make countries comply (Ukraine).
Is this really a shock to anyone?
Although this is somewhat poorly worded it isn't intended as a troll, sorry I'm an engineer not an editor.
Movie studios and record labels argue that the law is necessary to keep people from indiscriminate and unauthorized copying of films and music over the Internet, where digital material is so easily digested and transferred.
... Congress passes the new Super Special Saftey Congestion Act that would make it illegal to own, operate, or traffic in any vehicle which did not contain government approved GPS tracking systems. Representatives of the lawmakers stated that any car can be used as a getaway vehicle from a bank robbery or as a lethal weapon in a hit-and-run situation and that this law is necessary to keep people from indiscriminate and unauthorized driving of cars on the road.
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
When did you EVER hear of a US federal judge ever ruling that he didn't have jurisdiction?
Rarely (if ever) happens. I do think the Constitutionality question is their best defense. "Fair use" is derived from the Constitution's own copyright provisions.
Also, the main intended use of Elcomsoft's product (access to e-books for the disabled) would seem to fall under the DMCA's own interoperability clause. Not to mention, the lack of such features may make E-books illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act (but I'm unsure of this)
However, the "interoperability" provision of the DMCA was TOTALLY blown off by his Imperial Highness, "judge" Kaplan in the DeCSS case, when such a clause would seem to make it legal to circumvent CSS for the purpose of making a Linux DVD player (which is why DeCSS was written).
One of the worst problems with the DMCA and the DeCSS case is not just that it's a bad law (it's worse), but that the courts have let the IP cartels pick and cboose WHAT parts to enforce and what parts to ignore. They are getting the most favorable interpretation of the DMCA possible, while ignoring the parts that temper this and make at least a token attempt at "fair use".
IMO, this may eventually make it easier to strike the whole thing down. The more extreme and umprecedented the DMCA is interpreted, the more likely it is to be an obvious clash with the Constitution.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
I thought France already successfully did this, and prevented Yahoo from Nazi item auctions?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
All the drivers in the U.K. are to be cited for reckless driving for not adhering to U.S. traffic standards. It has been reported that operators of motor vehicles in the U.K. have been defying U.S. law which states that traffic is to keep to the right side of the road.
One U.S. official said under condition of anonymity, "...those bastards have no respect for the law! Defiantly driving on the wrong side of the road like that! You'd think they owned their own country or something! They're Revolutionary Rebelious Terrorist!!"
Clearly since U.S. law states that all drive on the right side of the road, all the rest of the world should comply with our safety standards -- after all, it is for their own good. We have roads and they have roads. They are connected by sea-lanes and air traffic. There is enough of a connection between our countries that our law should apply to them.
This should be an interesting case that, hopefully, gets the law off the books due to being unconstitutional.
I don't really understand how the DMCA can apply here. Adobe's PDF files are in no way protected from copying by their "protection." You can easily copy the entire file just as you would copy any other file. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that it only prevents you from printing the file. So, does AEBPR circumvent copy protection or just re-enable needed functionality?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Seems that the jurisdiction argument is pretty weak. Just a smokescreen?
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.
Amen and hallelujah! There's a big difference between the manufacturer of a tool that can be used to break into cars and the person who uses that tool.
Die, DMCA! Die! Die!
surprising? no. Correct? Well, what about Yahoo! vs. France? And does that mean that next time I buy something at Amazon, I can sue them in a german court according to german consumer protection laws if I feel like it? I bet Jeff Bozos will not like that news.
of course, americans being what they are (single-languaged, specifically) they don't understand what "quid pro quo" means and are perfectly happy to apply the argument only single-sided. (i.e. US jurisdiction everywhere, but not vice versa)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
So The french gov can't take yahoo to respect Anti racism local law. But DMCA has to be respected by outside company on a pure US law. Since the US law has precedent and can judge crime done on Internet in its own country, then I do not see why (beside applicability) french law can't apply for a crime done in France. Beware Yahoo.com, and other company, the US govt may just have set a nice precedent for tons of lawsuit.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
*grinning*
Imagine for a moment that this isn't
Well, damn, to start, I guess that you'd say this particular modest proposal comes on the heels of a thrilling class for a new TPS report system. Somewhere between that, and reading more, new, and improved evidence of my country's collective insanity, I think it might just be time to propose something.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really think that the proposal included herein could ever be adopted, in fact, I think that among other things, it would guarantee that the U.S. government become even more ineffectual.
Of course, I'm not sure there's anything much wrong with that.
With much more adieu:
A Modest Proposal; Congress's own Sandbox
Whereas the Congress of the United States in recent years has at times errantly passed bills (which, were of course enacted into law by the largely disinterested executive branch) which patently subvert, abuse, and remove Constitutionally granted rights; and whereas the enforcement of those selfsame laws does embarass and continually deflate the image of America itself in the global arena, I find it necessary to propose that the Judicial branch of the United States government be empowered (in a proper use of the verb "to empower" I mean, both given the responsibility for, and the authority to....) to create for Congress a special organization with the intended purpose and justification as outlined below.
1. To act as a "legal sandbox" for bills submitted.
Much akin to my beloved bounds-checker Purify ( *snickers are heard off text* . . . *a quote plays* "What do you fu^H^H !@#$!@%^*(& mean there's a memory leak . . . . Oh, it's in a Win9X system DLL? . . . . um, sure, why not"), the purpose of this "legal sandbox" would be to allow Congresscritters to "test" the legalese (and even the content) of the bill against the Constitution.
Unfortunately, of course, the much shortened interface "const bool isConstitutional(struct Bill* pb);" didnt make it into the interface of the latest MS grammar checker. This implies that real, breathing, perhaps even thinking people (or at least hypertrophied Perl scripts) will have to comb through the bills submitted and actually (wait for it)
Think.
I know this is a terrible price to pay, but the US Supreme court seems like it might (at times) be up to the task, or at least up to picking the right scripts (a little Perl, a little Sed, mix, stir with PHP and bam, "Court-In-A-Box").
2. To act as a source of informed Amicus Curare *smirks* information to all parties in future action
Hardly a difficult sort of solution (albeit somewhat final), the information gleaned from close legal study of the bills submitted would be made available to all, and directed to courts considering cases under the bills in question.
Presumably, of course, these two chartering planks would be sufficient statement of course; however, I am sure that providing a summary of the probable constitutionality and research into the related issues to the Judicial Branch would be required. In addition, I suspect that a large number of concerned citizens would request access to this information.
Of course . . . now we just have to figure out how to raise an exception in Congress, perhaps something like "std::assert(!congresscritter_instance.isCorporat
I think most people understand that such wide ranging generalizations are only an impression of the majority or widely held opinion.
I know many of the people "here" don't fit into these generalizations, and would be offended if I was actually refering to them personally.
Plus, it is my opinion, I can be wrong too, but that is the point of a discussion isn't it?
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
I believe the US courts have the right to hear the case, based on the amount and nature of the US activity of Elcomsoft. That's pretty clear and straightforward. I also believe that Russia and perhaps other countries would also have the right to take legal action as well, if any of their laws were broken.
It's pretty simple. Elcomsoft's e-commerce was taking place in the US, using US servers and US companies to do the transactions. Should the US not have jurisdiction over operations taking place in the US just because the company in question is headquartered in another country? What if Enron or the like moved their headquarters to Bermuda - should they then not be liable in the US for ripping off people in their US operations? There are countless cases where foreign companies with operations in the US have been taken to court in the US, so this is nothing new. Who would want it any other way, aside from those who would benefit from skirting the US legal system?
This is all aside from the legitimacy of the case itself. I think the DMCA is a steaming pile of bits and needs to be obliterated, and that the case against Elcomsoft is garbage. To determine the truth of that belief, the case has to be heard in the first place. And it needs to be heard in the country where the alleged lawbreaking actually transpired.
This is closer to reality than you think. It started with the radar guns and cameras at stoplights in Arizona. In the not too distant future, it will be illegal to drive a car without a functional GPS installed, and the Feds will be able to track your driving habits without a warrant, and or sell them to mass marketers...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
No due process, no need for judges. Self preservation will kick in. What judge would take away his/her own power like that. What got 30 states attention in the MSFT monoply case? Setting a precident taking away their right to proceed over interstate commerce.
The DMCA is really is a big fat due process violation, a play for the courts power if you will. If you want to shut down a website you should have to visit a judge, get a warrant, and have the cops serve it. Just like homicide investigations have to do for every mass-murderer.
But of course ebooks anywhere anytime are worse than mass-murder.... and the constituion is dated and unshiny... so they might have a case...
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
I did a traceroute to yahoo.fr and I'm pretty certain there's a trans-Atlantic hop in there. The trace crosses into ebone.net, which is physically based in Europe.
I think the simplest way to solve this whole thing would be for France to snatch the first Yahoo! employee to come along and demand consistency from the US government. If Dmitri isn't released, then France's 'hostage' goes to trial for selling Nazi paraphernalia. It'd be certain to get attention.
Dyolf Knip
When people talk about DMCA outlawing "copy protection", they are translating the legalese into layman's terms. What DMCA actually outlaws is "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access". And then it also outlaws trafficking in things that "primarily designed" to do that.
That covers more than just copy protection. You can "circumvent access" in ways other than cracking copy protection.
Some other items of interest: DMCA then goes on to define some of the terms:
andThis has basically been interpreted as meaning that if you make a tool that lets the user do anything that they otherwise weren't able to conveniently do, and this in some way involves a copyrighted work, then you're in trouble.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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
'I wonder if my brain qualifies as a "digital device"?'
No, but your hand does. =)
"Derp de derp."
Please, this is bull-fucking-shit.
The company is based in Russia. The US has no jurisdiction over an entity in Russia, and trying to claim so is violating the sovereignty of the Russian people.
Trying to "fine" this Russia-based company is absolutely outside of US jurisdiction. Presumably, their funds are in Russia. That being so, the US cannot fine them. A US judge could not enforce a fine against a Russia-based company, because no US entity has any jurisdiction in Russia.
Now, if the court wants to require that Elcomsoft close down their US servers, or perhaps take actions specifically against parts of Elcomsoft within the US, that, they have jurisdiction to do. For example, they'd have jurisdiction to shut down Elcomsoft branches in the US, to shut down Elcomsoft servers in the US, etc.
Whether or not such is constitutional, is another question alltogether.
Preventing them from distributing that software IS a violation of THEIR free speech rights; not to mention a violation of consumer's rights to fair use. I feel strongly that eventually the DMCA will be ruled unconstitutional, if not by this judge, then down the line by the Supreme Court. The DMCA is destined to fall before the Supreme Court. When it does, if the USSC has any worth and deserves any respect at all, the DMCA will be declared unconstitutional.
But constitutional issues aside, the current issue is a very troubling issue of sovereignty. What I fear is that this fuckwit of a judge is going to try to fine the company in Russia, which is beyond any US court's jurisdiction (because the company's funds/money are in Russia, no US court has the jurisdiction to demand anything be done with those funds).
If the ruling this fuck of a judge made is left untouched, it creates huge problems for us. It would, in effect, mean that if I made a website criticizing the Chinese government, China could bring charges against ME -- a US Citizen -- for violating China's laws. That's what this is really about. The US is trying to enforce ITS laws on foreign entities/citizens.
What fucking bullshit.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
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.
Err... whats your point?
You seem to be implying that not only has the US stepped over international borders to subject a foreign company to the US legal system... they're also not allowed to use the US legal system to defend themselves?
The *very* large problem with the US at the moment is the inability to engage in a bit of role reversal and see things from the other side of the fence.
'sapientia potestas est'
His company sold a product that broke e-books encryption, his defense site says.
His program was used to help blind people read
Bullshit, the blind have so many alternatives to e-books it's silly to claim that.
Ever hear of the Americans with disabilities act? If a blind person couldn't read a book because it was ONLY published in e-book format, they could have sued the publisher for not giving them fair access.
The greatest books in the world are available in pure ASCII text format. You don't need an e-book for them, just a simple text reader like "more" or cat *.txt | more. It's absurd for his defense to even try and take the bleeding heart approach to this case.
I think Sklyarov did something bad, I'm sorry if people disagree with me. It wasn't up to him to mess with adobe's IP. If e-books were really that bad then the marketplace would have decided to NOT BUY THEM. Thus e-books would have become yet another page in the book of really shitty idea's by really stupid marketing people.
On the publisher side of the coin, it was a bad decision to publish their books in a format that could not cater to all potential customers.
Let me ask slashdotters this question, have you ever in you job been asked to do something you felt was morally wrong, or on the
gray side of the law? Did you do it? Once I was asked by a CEO to scan his concubines e-mail to see if she was dating some other exec at the company. Did I do it? No because I felt that was wrong, had nothing to do with the work I did.
Citing another example, a few months back I was asked by a friends father to help him streamline his spamming operations. Did I do it for the money like a good little whore? No because I knew my actions would have further reaching
implications than the money would have ever lasted.
So fuck you and your sissybaby case Sklyarov. Before you sat down and did anything, you should have asked yourself "Is helping people pirate copyrighted
material right?" You shit your own nest, now sleep in it motherfucker! Maybe you'll think next time instead of blindly whoring yourself out for your boss.
so what we need is a couple of good test cases, right? Presumably someone at EFF can make a list of a couple of key props that are currently holding up the DMCA and Hollings' new bill (whatever it's called this week) and then we can systematically kick them out so the whole table collapses.
I volunteer to do some kicking. I'm tired of waiting for an elected representative to represent me. I'm willing to go to jail over a principle.
come on, who wants to be a martyr?
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
I never said that there was a problem. I was just explaining why the company would use two apparently contradictory lines of defense.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
What free speech rights? You just said they are Russian. How does the U.S. Constitution apply to them?
When was the first ammendment rewritten to add "... except when said laws are applied only to non US citizens".
That's weird. It seems that USian Slashdot posters are like the rest of the american John Does - they actually believe that Israel is nice and that all arabs/muslims are terrorists. How come they're the only one with this view? How come there are daily protests in all big cities in Europe against Israeli warfare against Palestinians? How come food-chains in Norway are boycotting Israeli fruit because of this? How come myself - 27 year old white well-educated male with neither jews nor muslims as close friends give money to Palestinian help-organisation and actively in mail and in my Slashdot signature URGE people to actually learn the truth about the most serious conflict in the world themselves?
I don't know - but the last time this was brought up here at slashdot a USian slashdot poster told the moderators to mod myself and another poster down before we "strapped bombs to teenagers" or something as stupid.
Now, what was it you said again?
Remember: Nelson Mandela was marked as a terrorist by the South African leaders, and put in prison. All freedom-fighters have been called terrorists. If you'd care to read up on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we might have chance to stop the US arms supply to Israel. Rockets against rocks, you know.
it's in my head
*grins* Thanks Scooby, and ftr/ I absolutely agree with you that in the view of the Constitution (as a document, with living, historically placed authors, as it was conceived) the rights of man are being enumerated.
My most fundamental fear is that, in current theory (and practice) the rights once seen as given to man by their Creator . Are now seen as given to man by the Government.
In truth, I'm not sure that these rights aren't given to man by the conventions beneath which he chooses to live; however, I am certain that I don't want the Government believing that it granteth and it taketh away....