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...
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
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
Jurasdiction 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.
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.
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.
You can't have it both ways at once, and I think that's the defense plan.
If jurisdiction in this case is denied, then the case is won. If jurisdiction is allowed, then they have the right to claim constitutional rights in the U.S. since the courts operate under constitutional law.
Have you ever done business internationally? I have, and it is not at all surprising that a court in any country would claim jurisdiction over commerce in that country. You make this sound like some kind of evil power grab, when in fact it's just a rational way to do things. Somebody has to have jurisdiction. When I do business in China, I have to deal with Chinese law. When I do business in Britain, I have to deal with British law. Even if I never step foot in those countries.
If you sell something directly to our citizens, you should expect to comply with our laws. If you don't want to accept that, then don't do business with the United States (or any other country that has laws you don't like). The Internet complicates things in some interesting ways by making it easier to conduct international business, but it doesn't eliminate all other rules. If you want to do business with U.S. citizens while violating U.S. law, don't:
Now, don't get me wrong.
I believe that holding an individual employee of a foreign company criminally libel for his company's allegedly illegal acts is a bad idea. (legally questionable and sets a bad precedent for the treatment of U.S. business people overseas)
I hope that the DMCA gets overturned on other grounds. I think it's both bad public policy and bad law.
But the argument that "because you use the Internet no nation's laws apply" doesn't fly.
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
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
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.
*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 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.
If you haul out a copy of the Bill of Rights (or search on Google if you don't have a paper copy handy), read them very carefully. Look a the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Does it say, "the people shall have the right to peaceably assemble"? No, it says that Congress can't make a law abridging that right, implicitly assuming that the people have that right. Or the rights catch-all amendment, the Ninth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The framers of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence believed that rights were granted by a higher power than man or government, and as such could never be granted or taken away by man or government. The Bill of Rights was written, not to grant rights to citizens, but to put boundaries on the powers the government would try to excercise. When you talk about "rights granted by the Constitution", you are actually belittling your rights, as you are saying that they were granted to you by man and thus could be taken from you by man. They can't be; they can only be given away, but that's the road you're starting down when you don't properly recoginze the origin of your rights.
So, properly recognizing the source of rights as above man or government, is it particually surprising that a foreign entity could offer a First and Fifth Amendment argument in a case? It's not to me. I would view a refusal to allow such an argument as a major threat to the rights of all US citizens, as it would be an implicit assertion that the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are granted (and thus can be taken away) at the US government level.
We now return you to your normal, light, funny Slashdot, already in progress. Time in.
Chris Beckenbach
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?
Only if you're a German Conusmer. If you live in Germany / German lands (like an embassy) or if Amazon ships to you from Germany (or ships to you in germany), then the laws might apply.
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)
You're horribly misinformed. The basic principle of international jurisdiction is affect--Elcomsoft did something that affects America in a clear and direct fashion (selling us stuff.) We can bring them to trial for it.
If they don't like it, they can just stay away from the US, completely. I think there's a little island somewhere that would also like to stay completely away from the US.
And for the record--yes, the US gives quid pro quo to other nations. Remember the kid who got canned? The US military person who's in a Jappanese jail for rape? There are bunches and bunches of exchanges--both ways--that happen every day. We just don't hear about it because they're so boring.
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