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."
"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.
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.
Only one criminal case in four years, but how much intimidation? And how many websites, etc, taken down without anything resembling due process?
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?"
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
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
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.
And US law cannot grant authority to arrest a Russian citizen who performed the illegal act in his own country. If this was a US citizen, our government's attitude would be completely different. He didn't sell anything. His company did. He is not an officer, owner, or anything else of consequence. He is simply an employee.
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
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?
They would then just use their 'we can hack P2P to find bad stuff' attitude to break it, and the government would let them. As I said a few posts ago, the government is not representative of the people as a whole, but representative of those with money. This isn't the way it should be, but it's the way it is.
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
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.
But Adobe wrote and has patented the technology that encrypts the contents of the eBook. The DMCA specifically prohibits the circumvention of such security devices and Adobe, who uses this particular device, feels that they may face a substantial loss of revenue if their technology is cracked.
Analogously, if a lock manufacturer has their technology circumvented (i.e. someone creates a universal key) is it the responsibility of the users of the locks (whose stuff might get stolen) to pursue the keymaker, or is it the responsibility of the lock manufacturer? Arguably, in a case such as this, both the responsibility and the financial incentive reside with the lock manufacturer to pursue the keymaker.
OTOH, Skylarov's tool essentially restores fair-use rights that Adobe has stolen from eBook consumers.
I create copyrighted material. I prefer that my material is protected from plagiarizing. But if some kid likes my music well enough to download MP3's of it (not that that's an even remotely plausible scenario), I'm not going to lose any sleep thinking that I've lost that $0.03 royalty. Far better IMO to view it as free advertising. And if the kid's parents hear it enough, maybe they'll buy him the CD and then I'll get the whole $0.38.
As far as I'm concerned, the DMCA is bad law. I hope it gets struck down resoundingly and that Michael Eisner gets so angry about its defeat that his ulcer explodes and drowns him in gastric acid (or the non-violent equivalent, if you prefer--whatever that is).
Karma