Slashdot Mirror
Sklyarov Case Opens Today
weakethics writes "The trial is scheduled to start today in the case of Adobe/DMCA versus Skylarov/Elcomsoft/right-thinking-people everywhere. The SF Chron has a story about it. It quotes a former DOJ attorney about the impact of the DMCA "I don't think it's had the effect that a lot of people have argued it would have -- with a single criminal case in four years." Who obviously (purposefully?) misses the point: it's about intimidation rather than litigation."
the DMCA sues you!
Copyright test in San Jose
Russian expected to take stand in Adobe E-book code case
Carrie Kirby, Chronicle Staff Writer Monday, December 2, 2002
After a year of delays, the government is finally set to try in San Jose this week the first criminal case stemming from a law designed to bring copyright into the 21st century.
The United States of America vs. ElcomSoft Ltd. pits the need to protect intellectual property in the age of Internet file-trading and CD burning against the public's traditional right to use media they buy any way they want to.
The defendant, ElcomSoft, is a Moscow softwaremaker accused of violating Adobe Systems' intellectual property rights, by writing a computer program that disables the copy protection on the San Jose company's electronic books.
When the case was first brought in July 2001, it garnered international attention because it was the first criminal test of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a 1998 law eagerly sought by entertainment and software companies and bitterly opposed by cryptography researchers and free-speech advocates.
The case also grabbed headlines because the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California actually jailed a Russian graduate student, Dmitry Sklyarov, for allegedly writing a computer program that violates the law.
To many, locking up a skinny, pale-faced student for writing a computer program was as ridiculous as incarcerating people who tear the "Do not remove" tags off mattresses. But to protesters who surrounded the San Jose jail, Sklyarov's incarceration was no laughing matter. His supporters believed -- and still do -- that Sklyarov's program represents free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Now, Sklyarov, 27, is expected to serve as the government's star witness.
In December 2001, Sklyarov agreed to testify in the case in exchange for having the charges against him dropped. Actually, he is expected to testify for both the plaintiff and the defendant, said Judy Trummer, spokeswoman for both Sklyarov and ElcomSoft.
"He has a single story to tell, and it doesn't differ with who calls him to the stand," Trummer said.
Jury selection for the trial is scheduled to begin this morning. However, Sklyarov and ElcomSoft's president, Alex Katalov, were not expected to arrive in the United States until Sunday night or this morning, Trummer said. ElcomSoft attorney Joe Burton planned to ask for a delay if his client is not present, she said.
Katalov and Sklyarov both had difficulties getting visas to return to the United States, but have finally received "parole visas" that allow them to be in the country only for the duration of the trial, Trummer said.
Northern District of California Assistant U.S. Attorney Scott Frewing may also call to the stand a number of people who bought ElcomSoft's E-Book cracking program, and two investigators employed by Adobe, whose complaint against ElcomSoft started the case.
The case, to be tried by U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte, is expected to draw much attention, because the issue of copyright in the digital age is as hotly contested now as it was when Sklyarov was first arrested 16 months ago.
But Peter Toren, a former Justice Department attorney who prosecuted technology copyright cases, said that some of the case's drama may have worn off since Sklyarov was first arrested.
Then, supporters of consumer rights and free speech warned that criminal prosecutions based on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act would stop encryption research and other legitimate activities.
But in 1 1/2 years since the case started, Toren said he has heard of no other criminal cases invoking the law.
"I don't think it's had the effect that a lot of people have argued it would have -- with a single criminal case in four years," Toren said.
E-mail Carrie Kirby at ckirby@sfchronicle.com.
Free Kevin!
Wait, sorry---wrong trial...
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
"But in 1 1/2 years since the case started, Toren said he has heard of no other criminal cases invoking the law." ... The reason he hasn't heard about it is the same reason that many projects don't exist right now.
Remember they "invented" the concept of the toolbox window!
these things obviously don't go hand in hand, or the trial would have already been over. Then again it may be a bit harder to try when the plantiff drops the charges, and the ill informed government picks them up... Or they could have been just trying to keep him behind bars until technology changes enough he's no longer a threat (mitnick) in anycase, the DMCA is the spawn of satan...
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
Skylarov, not Sklyarov.
> And sklyarov is spelled wrong - heh
I think you misspelled Dmitry.
The reason there haven't been any cases is because none of the small-time developers who have run afoul of the DMCA so far have had deep enough pockets to hire lawyers with enough intestinal fortitude to take it on and get it shot down. One good failure of the DMCA in case law would be all it takes, but (IMO) unless you've got the financial resources of Microsoft, Sun, Oracle et al you ain't gonna get the job done. So rather than fight the good (but expensive) fight, developers get that nasty letter which threatens to invoke DMCA and they knuckle under.
'Nuff said.
All the world's an analog stage, and digital circuits play only bit parts.
And how many threatening legal letters that got content pulled were there?
This is not deep-linking, they *did* break the copy protection. As wrong as DMCA might be, it is a law at the moment.
Only one criminal case in four years, but how much intimidation? And how many websites, etc, taken down without anything resembling due process?
look here.
It seems that some people have misunderstood how the DMCA is being abused. Companies are not trying to get people jailed for violations, they are just reaming them of all of their money. Though it is possible for criminal prosecution to result from a violation of the DMCA, big companies want money more than imprisonment.
"You think that's air you're breathing now?"
Perhaps one day soon, congress will realize what a mammoth beast this thing is and kill it. Perhaps they will realize that they should make enforcable legislation. Nah, just pipe dreams.
As I understand it the DCMA is supported by the film and music industry because it allows them to create technologies which they can wrap their content in, which are illegal to try to break.
What happens if we create a file compression/security method that incorporates an original encryption technology, with some mechanism by which you only give out the key to people you trust? We could then put whatever material we wanted on P2P networks, and the film and music industry representatives wouldn't even be able to find out what we were sharing without breaking the law they support. Wouldn't that be a good way of demonstrating the stupidity of this law?
...and it's pronounced - Sklee-yar-ov
The yolk's on you...
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
That's the point. We want to lose at trial. That way we can (try to) get the law tossed on appeal.
Best Slashdot Co
Case Opens Sklyarov
in soviet russia the copy protection breaks you!
DMCA is not applying.
only from an AC would we get such a silly response (and not normally do I respond to AC's). Adobe leads in so many departments, that it would be "hard" for them to slip away.
Joe user doesn't have the money for Adobe products, however, Joe Company does. And they do pay for it, and they 'do' use it. Adobe controls the market on both Mac's and PC's --- and before you give me the LInux aspect, remember that it aint used like the other OS's for desktop publishing. Adobe is also a crucial instrument into the Postscript that everyone plus grandma uses.
acrobat and pdf are only a portion of the pie that they eat.
so, before you start the elimination rounds early, get your facts straight.
disclaimer: i dont agree with their decision about Elcomsoft, i am merely looking at this from a desktop publishing environment (from which i am gainfully employed.) so, in essence, adobe will survive long past this silly dmca bs.
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
the program in question was written in Russia. As far as I know, the DMCA has no authority there.
However, Russian law cannot grant authority to sell Russian products to U.S. residents, which Elcomsoft did.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Conceding for now the DMCA's validity, is there much in the way of factual disputes here? If the facts check out, do you accept that ElcomSoft is guilty? I'm pretty sure I do. I'm not saying I want them to be guilty, just guessing at the outcome.
ElcomSoft was doing this for profit, if that makes any moral difference. Selling locksmithing tools to a burglar is not particularly savory or legal, and this aspect will make the jury less sympathetic (notice that ElcomSoft wanted a jury). If the skirmishes over the statute did not extricate them, I don't know what chance they have unless there is a juicy factual dispute about who-did-what-where. Yet they haven't pleaded out, assuming a plea agreement was even offered in the test case... Hmm. Need details. Speculation overload.
It is intriguing that no cases have been brought. Yes the law has been used for intimidation, but the prosecutors have no obligation to let anyone off with a warning -- they can prosecute the first infraction. It would be interesting to know why the law apparently has been given low priority.
BTW, I agree the treatment of Dimitry Sklyarov (sp?) was shameful. I don't think Kevin Mitnick is a good analogy, however. Their actions and alleged crimes were of very different natures. Yes, there were problems in the Mitnick prosecution as well, but Sklyarov's no Mitnick.
Here is the EFF's somewhat dated FAQ on the case, more detailed certainly that the Chronicle.
Yea.... That Anonymous Coward is such a karma whore! Now you feel so stupid, don't you?
The trial is scheduled to start today in the case of Adobe/DMCA versus Skylarov/Elcomsoft/right-thinking-people everywhere. The SF Chron has a story about it. It quotes a former DOJ attorney about the impact of the DMCA "I don't think it's had the effect that a lot of people have argued it would have -- with a single criminal case in four years." Who obviously (purposefully?) misses the point: it's about intimidation rather than litigation."
Do you realy need to be left handed to dislike the DMCA? I mean I know that left handers are the only ones in their right mind, but truely even left brained people can see the flaws of the DMCA.
Or does this have to do with Conservative vs. liberal views?
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
But, not as much as you do.
I agree that the DMCA has not had the effect it was intended to have. It is very similar to the Napster decision in this regard. Sklyarov's company IS the first criminal prosecution. 2600 lost, but DeCSS is still available. They didn't have to pay any real damages either. Felten published his paper. Any dolt can watch DVD's under linux with a variety of players that get better every few months. The bottom line is that the general public is quietly ignoring this law.
The only real effect of the DMCA is that companies can't openly distribute stuff that violates the DMCA. Good. It makes people who want that stuff anyway look to alternative channels of software distribution to get it.
I'm sick of this: which is it? I've seen both spellings used pretty consistently, but never in the head and body of the same article. Good reporting starts with getting the name spelled right: could someone clue me in?
One word: PostScript.
Adobe OWNS printing in the unix world.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
What the layman will think: Those Russians are trying to steal our stuff!!! We need to stop them! What lawyers will think: Those Russians are trying to steal our stuff!!! We need to stop them!
Sex - Find It
As other posters have pointed out, the main effects of the DMCA appear through fear of litigation rather than Federal court cases. A group of us, telecom grad students, wrote a paper on quantitative effects (chilling) of the DMCA on security research. We used the bugtraq incidence list as our source of raw data. We concluded there were some measurable effects, though kinda small.
.doc is bad! sorry, lost the pdf version)
(its an academic paper, you have to find some sort of effect right!)
you can check it out here
(I know
Congratulations. You just violated the DMCA by illegally copying an article about DMCA violations.
The largest effect of the DMCA so far has been the CARP fees that webcasters now have to pay.
I don't get it.. How can Adobes intellectual property rights have been violated? It's the pdf content that has been cracked (is now viewable without licensed viewer) NOT the pdf viewer !!??
The First Amendment protects political speech. A program that bypasses copy-protection is not political speech. The First Amendment does not apply.
It is funny that no one got up in arms over the McCain-Feingold CFR bill, a law that actually restricts political speech, but they think that the DMCA is the devil.
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
Nono; no "ee" there, just plain an simple Sklya-rov - two syllables, only one vowel sound for the "lyar" part, and in Russian only one letter for "ya" (the last letter of Russian alphabet).
Let's call this what it is:
...but in the US, it's against the law...
Intellectual Property Rights vs. Innovation Rights
In this case it can be argued that Dmitry Sklyarov is a hacker who hacked together and conspired to traffic a digital crowbar that disables the lock Adobe's eBook.
- OR -
Dmitry Sklyarov is just a mere employee who wrote software for his employer to enable the user to convert THIER personal eBooks to other formats.
The irony this dichotomy is: THERE IS NO DICHOTOMY. Both Statements are correct.
The real question is: Should ElcomSoft be criminally convicted for writing a very legitimate software? It's legitmate in Russia. It was a legitimate and common type of software in the US not too long ago. It only allows the user to convert THIER personal eBooks to other formats. It has many valid uses.
Nope... Doesn't seem like a Conservative vs. Liberal Issue to me...
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Oh sure. The website of a large, nationally-known daily newspaper like the SF Chronicle is going to get slashdotted. You know, what with the half-dozen or so hits a day they normally get.
No wonder the NY Times requires registration-- they just want to keep some of the slashbots away so their servers don't crash.
Fucking AC retard.
The USA Federal Government fought for tens of years the Soviet Regime. One of its reasons was that the soviet power was more intimidation than jurisprudence.
11 years after the Fall of the Soviet Union, Russian citizens fight a federal law that is more intimidation than jurisprudence... in the USA.
The argument is essentially that programs are a form of expression (including machine code), and thus are protected speech. This has been upheld by courts, for instance (I believe) in the Bernstein crypto software case. (Personally, while source code as speech makes perfect sense to me, I'm a little bit reluctant to call compiler-generated machine code 'speech', though there is some remnants of speech in there.) In the 2600 case the judge rejected this argument because, though he held source is protected speech, the source code in this case was also simultaneously a "device" (ie, a circumvention device) under the DMCA. This is similar to considering a libelous poem to be simultaneously a creative work (ie, copyrightable) but also illegal because of its libelous content.
That may seem like no big deal, but one effect is that it adds to the many laws that a lot of people break daily.
This adds up to that everyone is a criminal and can be put in jail at will by The Authorities, should they ever feel that need. And that is not a free society.
Morons will be morons!
How much simpler can I say it?
AND...the USA has morons everywhere, from the president on down!
Who do you think ELECTS the morons? Other morons.
Or are they the morons after all?
Why? Because many smart people like us ACT like morons and don't even bother to vote!
In the last election, 61% of the registered voters didn't vote. I voted. Did you?
Probably another 20-30% of the people eligible to vote aren't even registered. Are you?
The DMCA is probably the most anti-freedom law ever passed. We all bitch about it. Did you vote?
Maybe you people who didn't vote or register are the morons after all.
Think about it.
"Evil flourishes when good people do nothing"
-Edmund Burke-
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Further, I'm not so sure Office is going to be able to steal thunder this time. The .doc format has been a pretty standard format in comerical, public, and private usage. However many of its users are still on Word 2000, or even 97. There isn't much incentivie to keep upgrading, esp. with a format that isn't reverse compatiable.
*shrug* course all this has been argued before.
The thing is that Microsoft really has no reason to smite Adobe. Adobe makes products that are good at what they do, have an established brand, and do not compete with any Microsoft products. Furthermore, these products do not threaten the control of the Microsoft API's. So, Adobe will continue to thrive.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
In today's legal world, litigation em about intimidation. Let's say you have a private plane that fails because a spark plug breaks (fairly unlikely I know, spark plugs don't actually break that often), and you crash-land it in a mall.
Now, everyone sues everyone. The mall sues you, your insurance company, the spark plug company, the airport in which you store your plane, and the maker of the plane. The maker of the plane sues the spark plug company. The spark plug company sues the company that sold them the clays for the ceramic.
This is also why most insurance policies contain a clause which you must agree to in order to get insured which says that if anyone sues you and the insurance covers the suit, you have to basically agree that you are in the wrong, and they will settle. So suing people has actually become the science of settlements; How much are they likely to settle with me for? How much can we settle for and have it still be cheaper than going to court? Etc.
Obviously the DMCA and related are solely intended to intimidate the masses via persecution of the few, but don't try to play it up like it's unusual. The courts are used for intimidation and extortion every day. It's just a matter of course.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Can you name me a few examples of cases that the DOJ isn't bringing to court for fear of setting a destructive legal precedent? I'm not denying that your statement may be accurate, but I'm not familiar with these cases.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Actually, a challenge to the law's validity is brought at the outset. Elcomsoft did so and lost.
I just didn't want people going off on what a terrible law it is, or that it violated free speech.
Actually Microsoft does have (or had) answers to pretty much everything that Adobe offers:
Photodraw - Photoshop
Publisher - Illustrator
FrontPage - PageMaker / GoLive
MovieMaker - Premiere (Not really - different users)
Adobe is a lot like Apple in that it has a very solid core group of users who happen to also hate Microsoft. And like Apple, Microsoft doesn't want to see Adobe die completely because it doesn't make them look so dominant.
I totally agree with that analysis of the situation. But that's not what was said in the message I commented on. That post seemed to suggest the DOJ was prosecuting this case because it had a chance and that it was not prosecuting others because it would lose. No argument that people are being intimidated :)
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
In December 2001, Sklyarov agreed to testify in the case in exchange for having the charges against him dropped. Actually, he is expected to testify for both the plaintiff and the defendant, said Judy Trummer, spokeswoman for both Sklyarov and ElcomSoft.
The idea that you can only get away when you incriminate someone else is a tactic used by shoddy regimes since the middle-ages. Among them were Hitler-Germany, Stalin-Russia and the McCarthy-US.
[sarcasm] It's nice to see such things still in use these days. [sarcasm]
the team takes Dmitry for a mustache ride!
Right.
Sedition Act (1798)
SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, ...
shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.
I think the big difference that this illustrates is that Microsoft is targeting the consumers who want to build websites, etc. Adobe is targeting professionals, people who are willing to go out and drop a few thousand bucks on optimal tools. So though the products may do similar things, I don't know that they can really be considered competitors. Is a Lexus competing with a Kia? They are both cars, but anybody considering a Lexus is probably not interested in the Kia.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"...the case of Adobe/DMCA versus Skylarov/Elcomsoft/right-thinking-people everywhere."
I think you'll find that should be left-thinking-people.
Damn right. This is fucking REDUNDANT.
What retards decided to moderate this shit as "informative"?
Fuckbrains.
O'Reilly's site has a very detailed and interesting article called "And Justice for Adobe". It has lots of details, a chronology of events and several links related to the case.
The taliban says that playboy is illegal
Too bad the Taleban ain't in chahge no more.
a single criminal case because ... why?
Maybe because the beneficiaries of this remarkably stupid legislation are afraid to death that litigation will turn on the DMCA's unconstitionality, rendering it null and void.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
That should say that litigation is about intimidation. I wasn't doing anything clever there, just screwing up. :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I think you'll find that should be left-thinking-people.
Then explain why:
a) 40+ Democrat senators voted for the DMCA,
b) zero Democrat senators voted against it, and
c) A Democrat president wasted no time in signing it ?
Disclaimers don't work.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
I don't usually bite on the obvious trolls, but...
In the Macintosh graphic design field, where Adobe has their most rabid supporters, there is a severe issue because QuarkXpress isn't supported on OS X. The problem is, Quark is the premiere desktop publishing tool and even Adobe hasn't been able to take that away.
You would think, since Adobe has cornered the market on just about every other graphic design aspect, that people would immediately switch to their equivalent page layout product. After all, inter-program functionality should be more fluid. Still, even with compatibility issues, there are a lot of people running multiple OS or multiple machine configurations just to use both Quark and OS X. That's inertia... in a big way.
It took Microsoft years to kill off Netscape (or eclipse, for those who still hold out some hope of their resurrection) and that was long before the Web became what it is today. People still aren't as attached to their web browsers as they are to tools like Photoshop, Illustrator, and Quark. Microsoft has a long way to go before they reverse Adobe's inertia in graphic design, PC or Mac.
Oh, come on! you can't seriously think that any of those comparisons are valid in their respective markets, can you?
why not just list "paint" as an equivalent to photoshop. I'd /Love/ for you to point me to an illustrator that uses Publisher as his/her creation and design tool.
good quality tools cost money. There's a reason design professionals don't use the alternatives you list, despite being cheap or even free. Hell, even in a bad or outdated product, you even have to consider established user base - look at QuarkXpress compared to InDesign.
You don't need Geeksintraining if you're on Slashdot.
Adobe Framemaker is good, but all their other software blows (Photoshop too).
Yes, they've got 'em. The article, or something I read, mentions that the gov't will use four Americans who bought the software testify; I imagine they account for the four counts in the indictment. That sale provides jurisdiction easily, and there may be more. ElcomSoft raised and evidently lost on this issue.
:) to a Russian citizen/company abroad or within Russia, among other reasons. International law is a little stickier than I'm making it out to be, but here it's an easy call: willful contact = jurisdiction.
Adobe could be sued or prosecuted in Russia if they did something wrongful (allegedly of course
Moreover, ElcomSoft is charged with willfully violating the law, which is criminal under the DMCA. No, ElcomSoft will not go to jail, but I would expect an injunction and fine (up to $2,500,000). How to collect the fine if they refuse to pay? Seize ElcomSoft assets in U.S., petition the Russians to help out (ha -- foreign countries haven't been tripping over themselves to help the U.S. enforce its copyright law), or lay in wait for an ElcomSoft officer to visit the States. The difficulty of enforcing our law abroad is I think the reason they tossed Skylarov in jail -- once he left the country he might be gone for good.
I don't know what defenses they will raise, but there must be something. Maybe they are hoping the jury be sympathetic.
The History of Yelling Fire in a Crowded Theatre
As long as we're talking about Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's classic example of unprotected speech, let's learn a little about the context, especially considering it's been invoked by so many people in so many contexts.
The analogy came from the Schneck v. United States in which Schneck was being prosecuted for causing subordination among soldiers who had been drafted in WWI. He and others had circulated leaflets asking draftees to not "submit to intimidation". The leaflets did not encourage draftees to break the law, rather it encourage them to consider their rights.
Justice Holmes opinion was that the constitution protects these leaflets during peace time, and that wartime deserved special circumstances.
In order to support his special circumstances opinion, he illustrated his opinion with the famous "Fire in a Theatre" analogy.
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater, and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force.
Justice Holmes upheld his convictions that the leaflets presented "A Clear and Present Danger"
Of course, when the founder father drafted the Bill of Rights, they must of forgot about their own "Clear and Present Danger" that they presented to His Majesty's Empire.
Oh wait, If the founding fathers were hung up on this "Clear and Present Danger" exception, why didn't they write it down, but rather write the Second Amendment and Third Amendments instead?
Source Code - A Precise Mathematical Notation?
What do these things have in common?
Literature, Music, Paintings, Sculptures, WebPages, Movies, Pornography, Video Games
They're all Intellectual Works protected by copyright law!!!
What do these things have in common?
Literature, Music, Paintings, Sculptures, WebPages, Movies, Arm Bands, Middle Fingers, Flag Diapers
They're all protected by the First Amendment!!!
What does Copyright Law Consider Expression?
According the US Copyright Office, in order for a work to be copyrighted, it must be a work that is a fixed in a tangible form of expression. Therefore, ALL copyrighted materials are tangible forms of expression!
What does the Law Say?
Title 17, Circular 92, Chapter 1, Section 102
Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
Is Software Really a form of Expression?
I like working with extremes myself, so let's start with Video Games. They seem to be the most expressive form of all expression. A great Video Game mixes and blends all sorts of art, music, and literary work and combines it all with an intelligent engine, which is a mathematical art form in itself. If one wanted to be an artist that truly affects and influences people, wouldn't it be logical to blend many art forms into one cohesive form of immersive art?
What about Source Code
If you're going to describe what source code is to someone who's never seen it, it can be best describe as a very precise mathematical notation. A program is almost always a mathematical model representing real object or phenomenon. A Database is a mathematical model of an index filing system, while a Word Processor is a mathematical model of type setting machine. When these models are executed on a computer, they may behave just like the physical device, but it is still only a model of that device, expressed in a mathematical notation.
If it's copyrightable, it's expression. You can't have it both ways...
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
The DMCA would not apply in that case since the media companies own the copyright. Even if you use your own content, the law permits you to make a circumvention technology (which a large company can certainly afford to do), it only prohibits you from trafficking in the technology, or using it to circumvent a copyright law. Even if the DMCA applied, the media would simply lobby congress for an amendment to "investigate" alleged violations.
I believe this case (United States of America vs. ElcomSoft Ltd.) is a civil case, whereas the skylarov case was criminal. In civil cases there is no constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial (the guarantee of due process still exists).
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
I imagine that when people, particularly lawyers, look back on a law like the DMCA, they'd look to see how many relevant case histories. And finding so few, they might assume it was generally accepted. Case law is much more likely to survive longer than journal & news articles. So how can we preserve true sentiment, popular or not?
A: There are skid marks in front of the skunk.
"Only one criminal case in four years, but how much intimidation?"
Now there's a law reform idea: How about this for a simple rule to remove laws intended for intimidation rather than enforcement - at least one prosecution per year, otherwise the law is thrown out?
Just a thought.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
Absolutely it's about fear. It's that fear that made me abandon an idea for a program to let people get around restrictions on how they link to certain Web pages. Maybe I'm being too paranoid, but I'm sure that someone would end up hating it enough to find a way that it violated the DMCA. I love programming, but I'm not ready to go to jail for it.
This may be a little off topic. Several people have complained about Skylarov's name being spelled different ways. I believe that Russian is one of many languages in which it may be appropriate and correct to spell a name in more than one way using Roman lettters. /. )
For example, the Japanese company Fujitsu could also be correctly spelled out Fuzitsu, or Huzitsu, but they seem to have a pretty good handle on their public image. (expect for those defective hard drives I was hearing about on
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Some activities should remain criminal regardless of their frequency. For example, some municipalities go years without having any murders.
Wait, sorry---wrong trial...
Except Mitnick never had a trial, did he? Just 4+ years of pretrial detention, which I still can't understand, then a plea and sentence of time served.
I've never heard of a pretrial detention like Mitnick's, and in this Sklyarov is similar. But I don't think there's much analogy beyond that; Mitnick acted with a malice absent in Sklyarov (maybe the latter secretly kicks puppies, I don't know). It's not a flattering comparison. That doesn't mean the feds don't look kinda ruthless in both. You don't have to like one side over the other.
It will indeed. I am a technical writer with well over ten years experience in the field. Among technical writers, FrameMaker is used more than all other tools combined for producing printed documentation. It predominates because it is by far the best tool for that purpose. Microsoft Word was not designed to typeset books, and is not suitable for the purpose. Anyone who has tried to use it for that purpose can testify to that. <wry grin>
In addition, FrameMaker has some truly wonderful electronic publishing capabilities. I've used it for years to produce fully hyperlinked PDF versions of printed manuals and online help for web-based applications. I have even set up single source documentation systems using it -- systems that allowed me to produce printed documents and online help from the same source files.
Without FrameMaker or Acrobat, I'd have a much harder time doing my job.
In my opinion (along with the rest of you), the DCMA is a wonderful example of outright legislative malpractice. The congressmen that wrote it and sponsored it probably deserve to be tossed out on their asses when they come up for re-election. This particular case is an embarrassment and black eye to the United States. Adobe should have known better than to get within a light year of the thing, much less actively work to get anyone prosecuted under it. :/
But none of that has anything to do with the quality of Adobe's products.
Catherine
--that's the zinger, they have to prove any published criticsms of the government are false and slanderous and malicious. And "opinion" doesn't enter in to it,as any "opinion" is not the same as a declarative statement of fact.
The DMCA also criminalizes the source code, or any abstract description of the algorithm in a human language like English. It makes it illegal to "blow the whistle" on a company that's lying about how good their encryption is, for example.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Okay, I agree that the bulk of the negative effect of the DMCA is it's chilling effect. I was just questioning the claim that the justice department isn't brining more cases because they are afraid they will lose. The reality is that the justice department isn't brining more cases because other people are afraid they'll win and are thus keeping a low to non-exitant profile.
:)
So we all agree: the DMCA sucks
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The DMCA only protects TPMs which are applied with the authority of the copyright holder against circumvention. Circumventing a TPM applied to a PD work or one applied *without* the authority of the copyright holder have not been made illegal (though distributing the tools or otherwise "trafficing" in them might be if the TPM were also applied to works *with* the authority of the copyright holder.)
It's a Catch 21 law.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
There is one surefire way to invalidate the DMCA -- get Congress to repeal it. I know, tedious and democratic, but maybe the public will get mad enough at some point.
Until politicians believe this is the issue that will make or break their campaign, they'll ignore it. That will only happen when a lot of money or a substantial block of votes is riding on it. Given that most of us have more pressing issues like war, abortion rights, etc, issues like that get pushed to the back burner.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Does anyoneknow what the statute of limitations is on DMCA complaints?
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Sklyarov v. Skylarov
69800 - 3250
Sklyarov wins!
Besides, you should note the difference between thisand this
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Okay, so if I go to New Amsterdam, where nude models can pose for magazine shots at age 14, and produce some nice cheesecake with some pretty little nordic teenagers, you think I won't be arrested for producing kiddie porn the moment I step foot back on US soil, REGARDLESS of whether the material ever makes it to the US?
Heh.
There are laws specifically crafted to prosecute US citizens who go to other countries to perform certain acts which are illegal in the US - and all those acts relate to drugs, sex, or other crimes of "morality".
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
The 2000 presidential election was decided by less then 1500 Florida votes. In Israel, the prime Minister was elected by a less then 1/2 of 1% of a majority. More and more, small percentages DO make a difference. If 1600 of people like you asked that question in Fla, we'd have a different President today.
...then why the heck can't I read a PDF file on my e book.
Here's another way of looking at it. .
If people were not bitching & complaining and being wheels in need of grease about this whole trend toward the curtailing and controling (for profit) the natural human capacity to absorb information, then I bet there would have been more criminal cases, and indeed, more 'criminals'.
But that's typical. When the good-fight is working, the other side often tries to spin the inertia. --How many school yard bullies when successfully opposed back off with a smarmy, "Hey, Can'tcha take a joke?" --Which of course is just an attempt to make it your fault that there was ever a conflict.
Fuck 'em, I say. And the bullies too.
-Fantastic Lad
Which is correct? Sky-la-rov, with its ease of pronunciation for english speakers, or Sklya-rov, with its more-likely-for-Russian combination of consonants, including a palatalised 'l'.
/.
I couldn't guess, not knowing enough (read 'any') Russian, and the usage seems to be 50-50 on
It is even shown both ways in the parent story!
"This is a Hollywood movie: when it comes to the Laws of Physics, they're lucky if they get Gravity!" --- my wife
..the on topic Simpsons quotes. We now proudly present the on topic Dune quotations.
"Laws to surpress tend to strengthen what they would prohibit. This is the fine point on which all the legal professions of history have based their job security."
-- Bene Gesserit Coda (Frank Herbert/Chapterhouse: Dune)
cuz you're a moron..
I love this. A thousand angry Slashdotters, dubbing themselves knights of a cause that isn't their own.
As long as you hope 'we' lose, I might ask: where were you all when Dmitry was imprisoned? Did you all rush to local jails and demand to be imprisoned along side him?
I didn't think so.
Everyone go get a copy of the DeCSS source here, along with any other DMCA-infringing stuff you can find, then print it out and turn yourself in to the police. Insist that they arrest you. Alternatively, mail copies of same to the Attorney General/Congressional Representatives/Movie execs, with a note explaining how you downloaded it and your conscience has been really bothering you about it. Provide an address where you can be arrested.
live(free) || die;
I can distribute a program that creates content with the permission bits set to, say 660. If you use chmod to get around that, you are "circumvent[ing] a technological measure set by the copyright owners on their copyrighted data". Does that mean that chmod is illegal?
"I know together we'll make the possible totally impossible" - Homme
No, the law doesn't work this way. The device has to be primarily designed for circumvention, or marketed for circumvention purposes. In the case of chmod, of course this isn't true. Also, "circumvention" only takes place when it is without the authority of the copyright holder, so even if chmod was only for making copyrighted files readable, it still wouldn't be a circumvention device since many people use it to make their own files readable (of course they do that with their own authority!).
I urge anyone who thinks like this to actually read the DMCA (the relevant section is 17 USC 1201) -- it's a bit more complicated than the average slashdotter seems to believe!
Perhaps because neither your Democrats nor Republicans are really particularly left.
Not nearly as left as the people against the DMCA at least...
It is a copyright act, not a mellennium act. It is the DMCA. The Digital Mellennium Copyright Act. The dee-EMM-SEE-ay. DMCA. DMCA!! Please remember that. You are the ten millionth person I've corrected on this matter. It is the D_M_C_A_!_!_!
It is just hopeless to base your case on a free-speech argument that has been rejected by every single judge who has looked at the issue.
In my opinion, the law professors presented a much stronger case, yet outside that lone amicus brief, no one has even mentioned it.
A better analogy would say that you can write an MP3 encoder, but you can't make one that works because the functionality violates a patent. The constitution puts limits on congress' power to restrict the functionality of a device. Specifically, congress can prohibit anyone but the 'inventor' from using newly discovered functionality for a limited time.
The DMCA prohibits anyone but 'writers' from distributing certain decryption technology. This flies in the face of the constitution. It is like granting certain authors the exclusive right to use a printing press. Or letting movie studios control the sale of TVs.
We already see movie studios using their government granted monopoly over content to restrict the feature-set of DVD players. We see Blizzard using their government granted monopoly over WarCraft to restrict competition in the game server market. We saw HP attempt to use their government granted monopoly over HP/UX to censor criticism of their product. In this case, we see the government trying to restrict competition in the ebook reader market.
Once they become aware of a something like this, the clock starts running. They can't hold the threat of a lawsuit over your head forever. Though, someone else could.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
I actually took a picture of myself look here
The official reason for his arrest was not that he gave a speech about how to bypass Adobe's security, but because he sold or gave out tools specifically designed to circumvent Adobe's security mechanisms. That would be a violation of the DMCA. Now, personally, I think arresting him was stupid. He is a programmer working for a corporation. They should be charging the corporation with the crime, not an individual who was working for it. But, as usual, they're trying to make an example out of someone, regardless of whether it is right or just.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer