Slashdot Mirror
Sklyarov Tells U.S. Court, 'I'm no hacker'
DaytonCIM writes "Dmitry Sklyarov, the Russian programmer at the centre of the first Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) prosecution, yesterday delivered his long-awaited testimony in the trial of his former employer, ElcomSoft." There are also stories at The Register and on CNET.
1. FIRST "In Soviet Russia, all your Beowulf clusters of hot grits imagine Natalie Portman is dying, found at her home naked, petrified and presumably paddled are belong to Heidi Wall's penis bird" POST
2. WTF???
3. Profit!
Let:
FP - First Post
AYB - All your base
ISR - In Soviet Russia
IBC - Imagine Beowulf Cluster
NPNP - Natalie Portman Naked and Petrified
HG - Hot Grits
SKD - Steven King Dead
BSDD - BSD Dying
HW - Heidi Wall
PB - Penis Bird
123P - 1,2,3 Profit
TAP - That's a paddling
So,
123P(FP(ISR +IBC(HG + NPNP(BSDD + SKD + TAP))))
It seems like this case shouldn't even be happening. Adobe just wants to make an example out of someone. The problem is, they picked the wrong guy. As seen earlier on Slashdot, they haven't found a single eBook decrypted with his software, and if it isn't on (I assume they use) KaZaA, then it really doesn't exist freely. He also appears to have said all the right things in court. There is such a thing as catching a drift, and I think Adobe missed it, and is now trying to drown Sklyarov.
Under the DMCA just creating the tool is illegal. It doesn't matter if everyone or no one uses it.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
If you can get arrested for providing someone with the tools to commit a crime, how come this does not apply to anything but the software/electronics area. For example gun manufacturors do not face such action for providing people with items that could be used in a crime. even a shoe could be used to kill somebody :-)
Then why the hell are we supporting him? If he doesn't want to be associated with us, all he had to do was tell us.
Pffffft !
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Bigger for those of us who are not yet on trial, probably not as big for the guy on trial. Here's the thing: the legal system, as in copyright law, is so far behind the technology that it can't quite cope with what's going on. It doesn't matter what the law _is_. We have to start thinking about what the law will be. Lessig's idea that the law will be code, or rather that code will supplant law seems appropriate to think of here.
The question I have is this: what's the next frontier? What is the next law which proves to be obsolete in our world? And what will each of us do to bring about the change? This last bit is important because, as the laws need to grow, someone will have to help them along. Those people who help the change, will likely be prosecuted because the law is there to protect someone's interests. Those interests come with a lot of money. So the law is on the old money side. The code, it seems to me, is on the new money side. I don't believe that code will lead to free (beer). There will be free stuff, but there will also be money. My guess is that it won't be the money of the blue chips unless law beats code.
I'm rambling now. Time to shut up.
Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
stupid us laws actually have consequences ... uh, YOU
Sklyarov: I'm not a hacker.
Prosecutor: No of course you're not, you're a cracker.
Look a monkey!
I don't understand how he can be tried in the US when he was/is operating in Russia. What, did the feds force extradition or something?
Hacking? That's a paddling!
"the company's password retrieval programs have been purchased by the FBI, the IRS, U.S. district attorneys and U.S. police departments, as well as by private companies like Microsoft and Motorola."
It should be interesting to hear what the "legitimate uses" sited by these people are.
Why isnt anyone really stating that this is about a blind person's ability to read the book they bought.
While the seller doesnt have to guarantee that his books can be read by the blind, the seller cant keep the blind from reading the book, ie using the software to 'open' the book and let him read it.
I would like to hear a valid argument against this statement?
thanks for reading.
Sigs are dangerous coy things
Ryan T. Sammartino
"Ancora imparo"
http://www.adobe.com/cgi-bin/redirect?http://www.u saondca.com/press/html/2001_07_17_sklyarov.html
hrmm..
Elcomsoft has sold copies of their programs to the FBI and other branches of the US government. So, why are they attacking in court a company that they are willing to support by buying their software. Granted the DOJ buying it may just mean that they just needed the evidence. But the FBI, surely they have a more sinister reason for the purchase. Maybe they are hoping to that Elcomsoft will either win the case or perhaps an appeal and their supplier of toys would still be around.
... er, excuse me, friends in Redmond are looking for more information on Adobe's file standards. Or perhaps this will crack other copy protection schemes that M$ has been using???
Now, why would Microsoft own any copies? I wonder if our fiends
Does Adobe give users the ability to print out copies of their e-books? If so, then they need to prosecute every manufacture of OCR software that exists.
In fact, they need to prosecute every manufacture of OCR software anyway because it could be used to read the characters directly off of a screenshot of an open e-book.
They also need to bring lawsuits against anyone with data entry skills because theoretically someone could read text from a screen and input it into a word processor.
Wait, that means word processors are a circumvention device for e-book protection, but that's ok: everyone uses Microsoft Word anyway and Microsoft has more lawyers then Adobe.
The list goes on, but the point is that data will be copied one way or another when people want to copy the data.
Pick your favorite fix to the copyright system we have today, but it had better deal with two parts of reality:\
Encryption can and will be decrypted.
Content must be cheap or people will copy it.
People control the DMCA!
Innocent people prosecute the courts!
Hey - that's not so bad after all.
You're a terrorist.
How dare you question our laws in a time of war?
You should be rallying behind the flag, you evil greedy terrorist communist.
Hell, he might just have lied, when he said "no"; I would certainly label him as a hacker, using definition 1, and he might also be a golf hacker for all we know.
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch ronicle/archive/2002/12/02/BU206051.DTL
GENERATION O98346: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and remove a random number from the generation. T
ElcomSoft Managing Director Vladmir Katalov took the stand after Sklyarov. He testified that ElcomSoft, which also makes password-retrieval software, has many major customers for its products, including Adobe and the U.S. Department of Justice.
Now this is an interesting twist. I didn't know anything about ElcomSoft itself. This is like blaming the guys who make the tools used to extract keys from locked cars. Everyone curses the wind wishing they're around when you get locked out.
Who here has not scrambled for a NT Admin password recovery disk, or a ZIP password cracker, or swapped NVRAM chips between Suns?
They don't hide behind pretenses... they expose the poor security and help you when you are hindered by said annoyances! I believe there is insufficient evidence to make Sklyarov appear malicious, and he had little to gain personally. He exposed the information that would only be profitable within the confines of the company and his product to the public. Moreover, he warned potential publishers that the protected PDFs weren't safe. Therefore, the only person that loses out is the lazy programmers at Adobe. And he claims to be ignorant of the legal ramifications. AND WHY SHOULD HE, HE'S A FRIGGIN RUSSIAN CITIZEN (Spare me the IN SOVIET RUSSIA... replies).
I hope to GOD that the DMCA doesn't get used to uphold lazy habits.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
You've got Jail!
~ New AOL 9.0 with DMCA support now available! It's the internet, only better! ~
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
please keep in mind that the courts answer to "i am no cracker" would most likely have been "yes, mr sklyarov, we can see no similarities between you and a dry thin crispy baked bread product either".
--strangeloop
Possibly one day we will overcome these monetary boundaries and knowledge can be exchanged freely, without cost. After all, who is to deny the freedom of learning, and with our technology and the ability to transfer information, I believe that publishing companies could compromise and allow books to be transferred over the internet. After all, the majority of people will not sit in front of their computers for hours on end just to read a book.
Righteousness postpones the inevitable
http://burningaureole.caveism.net
Is there an anime con happening somewhere? Where's all the "In Soviet Russia" responses? This is prime breeding ground!
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
The DMCA controls YOU!
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
The connotation of hacker is bad. You don't want to create a "bad impression" in court.
I'm still not sure why Sklyarov is being prosecuted in the U.S. The alleged "crime" took place in Russia where his actions were perfectly legal. Why is an act, which may be in violation of US law, but which took place completely outside US jurisdiction being tried in a US court?
Suppose that the Kingdom of Tuva passes a law making it a crime for any politician to accept a campaign donation from any corporation or individual who receives any benefit from a vote cast by that politician. Can the Kingdom of Tuva then try the entire US Congress? Is this any different than the US trying Dmitry?
He didn't violate US law on US soil.
He violated a US law on Russian soil.
That is the key point people SHOULD be upset about.
You can't argue that you shouldn't have to follow a countries laws while you are in that country. The origional issue was that a Russian citizen in Russia, working for a Russian company, shouldn't have to worry about US law.
Sklarov doesn't have to care -- it's when Elcomsoft decided to start selling it in the US that they were obliged to know about US Copyright laws. US Software companies have to care if they are violating EU privacy restrictions or they will be sued. I don't think anyone finds that unreasonable.
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
You are Osama. Why are you Osama? Stop being Osama.
Hey, buddy. The bridgehead of American legal jurisdiction is way more significant to American Global Dominion[TM] than any number of ex-commie hackers, asian tyrants or desert autocrats. The 82nd Airborne is child's play in comparison.
Adobe dropped this case for a reason. And Justice picked it up for a reason.
illegitimii non ingravare
The laws violate YOU!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
It is hard to copy things, all right, the technology will save us!
Oops! It is now easier to copy things, we need to make a copyright law. It is now illegal to copy things, all right, the law will save us!
Oops! It is illegal but still easy to copy things, we need to invent copy prevention techniques. It is now hard to copy things again, all right, the technology will save us!
Oops! It is impossible to make copy prevention techniques, we need DMCA. It is now illegal to make things which help copy things, all right, the law will save us!
When will the madness stop?
~Christopher Doopov
"A Russian programmer working in Russia shouldn't have to consult the law books of every nation on Earth to see if his work may or may not violate some law somewhere"
Everyone, in every country on earth needs to be careful that they do not break US law; otherwise they risk ignominious fates such as being abducted to Cuba and 'disappeared' or recieving an unsolicited cruise missile or two.
This is not a troll its genuine concern expressed sarcastically.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
There are examples of controlled dual-use "tools" such as explosives and locksmithing devices. (There's a federal statute specifically for the latter, though it is a bit vague and I doubt often enforced; non-Hollywood burglars usually use less finesse :).
Obviously you can get arrested as a conspirator, accessory, or accomplice to a crime. But liability goes further, it depends on your knowledge and exercise of due care.
You can get in trouble for supplying a gun to someone knowing they intend to use it for a crime; you can be liable for joyriders crashing your car after you left the keys in the ignition; there is even liability for serving one drink too many to someone before they go driving ("dram shop laws"). Said liability may be civil or criminal depending on the jurisdiction and the circumstances.
Before anyone says these sorts of liability are unfair in some abstract sense of causality, I'll add that the rules were developed in an effort to reduce the overall misery by allocating responsibility efficiently and reducing opportunities for mischief. So it has less to do with condemning anyone than with dry economics. Of course the details are open to debate.
As for shoes, well, they've been trying to get stiletto heels over 3" banned outright for years. (I'm kidding -- but I wonder if you can still take them on an airplane?)
I *hope* this is what you were asking about!
Sure it is. The United States of America is The Most Powerful State Ever (tm), and the practices to maintain its status quo includes worldwide repression of anything harmful to American companies.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
I'm telling you folks, I told you so.
RTFA.
ElcomSoft is being tried in the US for making their software freely available over the web, and in the process hosting it on more than one US server location.
Whether or not that is a valid interpretation of law and jurisdiction remains to be seen, but as the court currently sees it, making a copyright-protection circumvention device available in the US (via web hosting on US soil) violates the DMCA.
-Terralthra...
I just killed an Adobe Pagemaker sale today. No fanfare, no big deal, I just wrote "denied" on the purchase request and sent it back. I told him to find something else, and as long as it's not from Adobe I'll sign off on it.
That one's for you, Jon. And so's the next one. And the one after that. And as many as it takes until Adobe fully appreciates the delicacy of vendor-customer relationships, and acknowledges who's really in charge.
Story on Bloomberg.com as well...
..The Courts tell Sklyarov that he's no hacker!
The US risks setting a very dangerous precedent here. Asking Sklyarov if he considered the US legality of the program?
Sure, Sklyarov came *here* and was then arrested, IIRC. However, if the US starts and continues pulling stunts like that, other countries may well just start arresting US citizens for the most ridiculous things.
Even if they don't - would they wish to travel to the US after all of this? Tourism is a *massive* industry. This could kill that industry.
Hooray for the sodomizing of the economy, with the idiocy and the corporations and the republicrats.
Just for the record (as if y'all didn't know this already) there is no section 296 of the DMCA. The DMCA's sections are numbered 1201 through 1205.
Just wanted to make sure nobody thought, even for a second, that this might be true.
Can the Kingdom of Tuva then try the entire US Congress?
Certainly. They can even convict them in abstentia and sentence them to death by stoning. What they can't do is actually capture those congressmen and carry out any kind of sentence... unless a congressman for some reason decides to visit the Kingdom of Tuva and give a paper about the art of soliciting bribes^H^H^Hdonations.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
In Soviet Russia...
Citizen's are controlled by the law too!
Can anyone find a transcript of this? I'd like to read one, if one can be found.
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
Then we have absolute proof that the U.S. DOJ just let Microsoft go, and or was bought off.
Adobe struck the first blow. They may have stopped attacking after that, but a blow is a blow.
Adobe should not have even dared to invoke the DMCA against Sklyarov as they originally did.
Should we forget about Dmitry's earlier jail time and play nice with Adobe because they're 'only' cooperating now?
Screw that. I say we burn the fuckers clean.
majority rules.
They took your word, get a new one.
That's the funny part. People who equates 'hacker' to 'open source white knight' these days seem to be people who only got their first computer after the Berlin wall fell.
Somewhere in the late nineties these people "stole" the word cracker, which had previously meant somebody that removed copy protection from commercial software (Triad, Hotline, Eaglesoft, 1001 Crew, Fairlight, etc. etc.).
Man, if they could, that joke deserved it. It's so true, the laws are violating your rights, and frankly dealing with or even reading about scummy companies like this makes me want to take a shower.
They're raping our rights and our minds...
The DMCA - We'll show you longhaired hippie programmers what reinventing the wheel is really all about.
... didn't have the DMCA. Otherwise a lot of our shared history may have been lost forever. What are our decendants 100 or 500 or 1000 years from now going to know about us?
Our creative output is going to be slowly locked away in copyright protected files never to be seen again... except to the person who originally bought the rights to view it. But they (we) will be long since dead... and the content, which will be as helpful to them in understanding their history as hiroglyphics are to us, will be lost.
Bottom line... the DMCA, and everything it stands for, sucks. It is the epitomy of government "of the people, for the people, and by the people" gone terribly wrong.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
The sign says, clearly, don't feed the trolls.
Apparently I can't read.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Go to http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressrel eases/200107/dmca.html (Sorry not sure how to link here)
Go all the way down to the bottom of the page and click on the U.S. Attorney's office link....
Is it porn for you too? Did they get hacked?
Man, that scenario is a great reason alone to declare my apartment as a micronation and invite US politicians to visit.
*Editions* of works in the public domain can still be copyrighted. Many publishers introduce intentional mistakes into their editions to make them "protected." This is done to prevent other publihers from simply copying their edition and printing it.
It's kinda doofey really, but that's the way it's done.
This costs the Gutenberg Project most of the money they spend. Even though they're dealing with public domain works they still need to pay lawyers to clear rights to the *particular* edition the work is being transcribed from.
In this particular case though, the edition in question *is* the Gutenberg Project's edition they are claiming rights to. They downloaded it, put it in their ebook, and claim it as their propriatary work.
That's beyond doofey. That's slimey as all hell.
KFG
when did the US stop charging people for doing a crime and start charging people for making the tools of the crime?
if i go out and beat my wife and child with a baseball bat, will we charge the bat factory?
if i go and beat the clirk at the quickymart with the baseball bat, will we charge the bat factory?
if i go and pirate anything i can get my hands on, burn it to cd and mirror it accoss the net, do they even bother charging me? doesn't seem that way, we go after the software maker that allows me to.
a baseball bat is only good for hitting things. its MADE for hitting things and its not covered by the 'right to arms'.
software that allows me to copy things can either help me pirate junk, or it can help me protect my assets.
so when did making the tool become a crime? when did making a tool that has legel uses, but could be used for a crime, become a crime?
on the bright side, i can say that i didn't vote any of these a-holes in. (i voted for the other guys... the loosers...)
Because he came to the U.S. and distributed the software.
Suppose that the Kingdom of Tuva passes a law making it a crime for any politician to accept a campaign donation from any corporation or individual who receives any benefit from a vote cast by that politician. Can the Kingdom of Tuva then try the entire US Congress? Is this any different than the US trying Dmitry?
If the entire Congress goes to Tuva, accepts a donation and then votes in Tuva: Yes.
This isn't like the U.S. made some crappy law (though they did) and then raided Sklyarov's house in Mother Russia because he wrote this software...He wrote the software, came here, and distrubuted - thus violating the law.
If I go to Singapore and spray paint on cars, you can bet your ass that mine will be quite red if I get caught - even if spray painting cars is legal in the country I came from.
rotfl. thank you!
sulli
RTFJ.
hide the names of the authors of the commands:f tp
-cp
-scp
-copy
-dd
-wget
-scp
-s
and any others like it!
as well as server software
-apache
-ftpd
-tftpd
. . . and so on
they have made a software tool that could allow people who should only have 1 copy of something to make more copies, and possibly share things!
and at the price they charge for this, only the authors of 'copy' can handle the lawsuit! ('copy' from msdos/windows)
(its a joke, laugh)
What would have happened if Elcomsoft and Sklyarov would have just stayed at home? Does Russia have an unavoidable extradition policy? I can sue anyone I want in any court in the world (in theory), but so what? If I don't recognise the ruling, and I am outside their sphere of influence, can't I just move along (I'm not the droid they're looking for). So what if they are criminals in the US. All of us citezens seem to be nowadays anyway... what are a few more?
Just wondering.
No kidding, but completely orhogonal to the point. I have plenty of copyrighted works still in my head, unpublished, of course I don't have to provide anyone the means of accessing it. However, If I publish it, I sure as hell shouldn't be able to tell people who legally purchased it how they can view it.
Copyright is another issue entirely, even though that's supposedly what the DMCA is supposed to protect.
Did you know that, under the DMCA, it is not illegal to circumvent copy protection mechanisms for the purpose of making fair use of a work? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(B)]
Yes, what's your point?
Did you know that this case rests on the DMCA's prohibition of the importation or sale of devices whose sole purpose is to circumvent copy protection? [17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(2)]
Exactly, this is entirely contradictary to the previous statement, unless exceptions are allowed for devices that circumvent copy controls for the purpose of making fair use of a copyrighted work, eg. the software in question. This is a large part of what makes the DMCA such a bad law. Another reason is that it puts the burden of proof on the accused.
Did you know that most people who complain with zeal that the DMCA is a bad law have never actually read it, or indeed any part of Title 17?
Is that so? Does everyone here also know that you speak from your asshole, it's just as valid a statement. I myself have read most of the DMCA, further, the basics of the DMCA are easily compressed into a few sentences. So, really, it matters little if everyone has read the whole damn thing, pages upon pages of legalese.
Just some legal trivia for y'all to chew on
Trivia? Taste more like shit...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
If you violate a law in the Kingdom of Tuva, I wouldn't recommend visiting it anytime soon. That was Sklyrov's mistake.
Dmitry came to the US to attend a convention. He did not come to distribute software. Note also that his employer distributed the software, not Dmitry. He developed it on their dime: they own it. In the US this is called a work for hire.
Elmcomsoft is the entity responsible for the distribution of the software. Dmitry is just the flunky who wrote it - which was and is completely legal in Russia.
Your analogy about the Congress having to go to Tuva and accept a bribe there is wrong. If the US can prosecute someone for a crime which was, in fact, not a crime in their home jurisdiction then the Tuvans have equal right to prosecute the Congress for breaking Tuvan law while in the US.
Admittedly the Congress would probably have to go to Tuva to be tried - which they're not likely to do if someone is stupid enough to tell them that they'll be arrested on arrival. Note that Dmitry also had no such warning from the FBI. He arrived to give a talk and then got carted off in cuffs.
Maybe, after the Kingdom of Tuva quietly passes their anti-bribery law, they can send an invitation to the entire Congress to come and visit their tropical paradise on an all-costs-paid junket. Congressmen love that stuff. I bet the Tuvans can lure a hundred to some resort, arrest them, and have them all in jail in a couple of hours.
...reply spares YOU!
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
A gun is a device that is used for killing (or at least hurting) an individual or animal. For every intention a gun can have it has 5 bad intentions. ... and yet owning a gun doesn't make you a criminal, shooting it at somebody who doesn't deserve it does.
So why is software which is designed for good purposes (but admitedly can be used for bad) coming under so much criticism? Shouldn't the individual who cracks open eBooks and distributes them for free be the criminal?
Nowadays laws are designed more with their enforcement in mind than what is fair and just. This is why the DMCA is so draconian. Afterall, it's much easier to go after the source of the application than it is to go after the countless people everywhere using it.
Welcome to America
"I cared about not violating the law of the country I am operating in," Sklyarov said.
Sklyarov should not have had a responsibility to know or obey the laws of the United States, as a Russian doing work in Russia. What his employer does with the product he makes is none of his concern.
Putting the fact that I don't agree with the DMCA (I believe it is Unconstitutional) aside, the company sold the product in the USA, and should be the one held responsible.
Holding Sklyarov accountable is just plain wrong. US citizens wonder why foreigners hate our guts. One of the reasons is that our government feels that its laws should forced upon everyone worldwide.
If you are a foreign programmer who deals with security issues, I'd be cautious about stepping foot in the US, at least while Bush and his administration hold power. As you can see, our government is out of control right now, and it'll take a lot of US citizens to wake up to that fact before things can really change.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Your objection doesn't apply at all. Dmitry didn't go to the US to sell his company's software, he went there to give a talk. So not only did Adobe attack a Russian student for completely legal work he did in his home country, but they also purposefully accused the wrong person. If they had been serious, they would have gone after the *servers* in whatever US colo they happened to reside.
Need I say more? Well okay...
Adobe is trying to make an example out of Elcomsoft. I say: Let's make an example out of Adobe.
If a company tries to enforce the DMCA when such laws tread into fair-use-land we boycott it. If Adobe and other companies are hurt in a major way other companies will think twice about going the same route.
I think I'll start a list-site of companies to boycott and why.
I can attest to the above statement about Americans not respecting foreign laws.
Canada is a nuclear-weapons free-zone. We don't like the US has nukes but we tolerate it because it's not in our country but don't ever consider bringing nuclear weapons to Canada...
Oops, the US did! They brought a battleship equiped with nukes into Vancouver harbor a few years back and broke Canadian laws and scared a lot of people. If the US wasn't our "brother" and ally, that act would've started a war.
So come and arrest me. I just decided "not" to buy anymore Adobe software. I am therefore hurting Adobe, a US company.
I am an economic terrorist by your definition so if I visit the US you can send me on a trip to Guantanamo bay where I can sit in a cage in the blazing sun and not even have the right to have my family and friends know where I am or what has happened to me, where I can be tortured legally and even killed without prior authorization.
And America claims it is the best nation on the earth. Well only if you value the Neo-American way of life where false-security is more important than individual rights.
Scene: fade in to camera shot from behind the judge's shoulder, with a view of the courtroom.
Justice: Tell me again about the e-book cracking software.
Sklyarov: It breaks down like this, okay? It's legal to buy it; it's legal to own it; and if you're the proprietor of an Internet cafe, it's legal to sell it; but, but, that doesn't matter, because get a load of this: if you get stopped by a cop in Moscow, it's illegal for them to search you. I mean, that's a right the cops in Moscow don't have.
Justice: I'm there man, that's all there is to it, I'm fsckin' going.
Sklyarov: Yeah, baby, you'd dig it the most.
Follows a short silent moment.
Sklyarov: But you know what the funniest thing about Russia is?
Justice: What?
Sklyarov: The little differences.
Justice: Example?
Sklyarov: Well you can walk around the streets in Moscow, and get a pirated copy of MS Office for a dollar. And in St. Petersburg, you can buy pirated software in a computer store; and I don't mean no under-the-counter deal, I'm talking about a box on the shelf. And you know what font they use to type Unix commands in Russia?
Justice: What?
Sklyarov: The Cyrillic!
Justice: Eek!
Sklyarov: I've seen them do it, man, they fsckin' type like it's latin.
Justice: Ack!
Scene fades out...
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
And Nixon told us "I'm not a crook"
Help a college student
More than one person can read a book purchased by one place!
God spoke to me
You see Americans... nations are these things with borders. The borders signify the differing values on each side and the tolerance of each side for the others'.
For instance, Canada doesn't have a love-affair for guns but the US does. Canadians think: "fine, just leave the guns at home when you come across the 49th". Americans think: "dumn pacifist Canadians --- EH!!! ha ha ha". It doesn't matter who thinks what as long as members of each nation obey the laws of others.
Now Elcomsoft made software in Russia but sold it in the US. If the crime is creating software that circumvents or otherwise comprimises copyright protections then nothing wrong has happened because that law does not apply where the software was made. If instead the crime was selling software that does all of the above then Elcomsoft may be determined to be guilty.
I'm roughly aware of the clauses that state making such software in the US is illegal but I do not know about the sale of such software.
More importantly the use of such software by companies such as Microsoft and even Adobe must raise a few eyebrows.
Hacker tells Skylarov, "I'm no court".
You fail it.
Where US corporations change CIVIL cases into CRIMINAL cases. What the FUCK is wrong with building a tool to decrypt something?! Now I guess they'll have to take the decoder rings out of cereal boxes now, huh. Or like, stop hammer makers from making hammers, 'cause like, they could be used to pound someone's head in.
:-/
*smirk* I hate the DOJ. I can't wait until we (the generation/group of people that has two braincells to rub together) get into seniority. I'm sure that once people get the message that this is fucking STUPID (and people with a bit more integrity [if that ever happens]), these kinds of actions and these kinds of laws will be outlawed.
Or maybe I'm just being idealistic. I just can't apathy get the best of me, 'cause I know if it's just that easy for Skylarov to say something and go to jail, then I might be next for something stupid. Oh well.
I don't know what's more unbelievable. That Adobe posted this link or that no one on /. has caught it yet!
-Go to Adobe's press release.
-Scroll down to the last question.
-Click on the US Attorney's office link.
Something tells me that Sophy's going to be getting a lot of revenge real soon... LMAO!
>Holding Sklyarov accountable is just plain wrong
If I am not mistaken, according to the affidavit, he was sellign it for $99. Accoring to the FBI press release, "The affidavit alleges that the program itself lists Mr. Sklyarov as the copyright holder of the Advanced eBook Processor, and that the program was distributed by ElcomSoft Company, Ltd. of Moscow, Russia, through its website."
>our government feels that its laws should forced upon everyone worldwide
IIRC, he was on US soil.
17 U.S.C. 1201 (a)(1)(B) basically says that paragraph (A) doesn't apply to people who are attempting to make noninfringing use of a protected work. That hardly qualifies as a "narrow exception."
But section 1201 (a)(1)(C) states that only the Librarian of Congress can grant such exceptions.
Will I retire or break 10K?
According to the FBI press release:
"A copy of this press release and key court documents filed in the case may also be found on the U.S. Attorney's Office's website at www.usaondca.com."
Adboe did not misquote the URL. The domain appears to have changed hands as of Nov 25, 2002.
I mean, if it's okay to break an e-book for fair use (I'll trust Henry V .009 here), is that work still considered "protected" by the DMCA?
Yes. The publisher's argument: The translation of the original text into a restrictions-managed eBook constitutes a new derivative work that deserves a new copyright term. Whether this will fly in court is anyone's guess.
If it doesn't, then there exists a legal attack on DVD CSS: try decrypting Charlie Chaplin films, or if Eldred wins, try decrypting "Steamboat Willie". Then try selling a distribution of free software that checks the DVD against a list of titles known to contain public domain works and, if so, decrypts those public domain works. You still haven't violated DMCA because your product as shipped isn't capable of breaking access control on works under a subsisting copyright. (The implication here is that the check against the list...)
Will I retire or break 10K?
I have plenty of copyrighted works still in my head, unpublished
No you don't. A copyrighted work does not exist under United States law until it is fixed in a tangible medium. A work that exists only in the wetware of the human brain is not considered "fixed".
Will I retire or break 10K?
And you'll probably even win, after you spend a few thousand dollars to defend yourself.
." Etc., etc., etc..
That's the way it works in practice.
In my Bantam Edition of Walden they only claim actual copyright for the original introduction, but if they've used the intentional mistakes trick they'll certainly sick their lawyers on you if directly copy their pages.
The argument is it isn't the *work* that's been violated. That's in the public domain. It's the *image* of the work that's been violated. You copied the *page,* not just the words. The intentional mistakes are put there as fingerprints to show it was *their* page you imaged.
Below the copyright notice in my Walden you'll find:
"No part of this book may be reproduced in any form. .
Look, they aren't concerned with other people printing copies of Walden. What they're concerned about is that someone might print copies of Walden by simply photocopying the pages of "their" book.
Most works "transcribed" for Project Gutenberg are done by *scanning* a book. i.e. making an image of the page, and then running it against an OCR program. It's the scanning part that gives publishers the willies.
Like I said, it's doofey. That's what you get when you go into the public domain. It's not like they paid anything for it. They may have spent some money on legitimate scholarship, making corrected editions and so on, but that's peanuts compared to actual author's rights.
But that's the way things are done in real life.
Ever actually read a Project Gutenberg title? They all start with pages of "small print", legal disclaimers and even a simple EULA. They at least state explicitly that you have the absolute right to use the public domain part of the text however you wish, even printing it in book form and selling it, with no permission needed or royalties due to them * so long as you remove all of their original content and make no claims that it's a Project Gutenberg(tm) text.*
Which is exactly what Adobe did, but then claim rights to.
KFG
what if they want to read it through a brail reader? This method might be faster then text to speach.
According to this page, a blind user behind text-to-speech can read roughly three times as fast (150 wpm) as a blind user can read Braille text (50 wpm).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Oh yeah, the "Hey, I'll do exacly the thing he told me not to do. Boy, am I funny or what"-post.
You're not Yakov. You'll never be Yakov. So quit trying.
I don't understand... Why isn't Register Now! a defendant?
From the affiant's statement:
"b. Adobe purchased the program through Elcomsoft through a U.S. based company that Elcomsoft was using as a means of collection a $99 fee for purchase and usage of the unlocking key. Nathanson and Spano told me that this company was Register Now! (www.regnow.com)"
I guess I should stay the hell away from the US. I built a tool to decrypt the passwords from ColdFusion server 4.x.
It only required an ASCII chart and 5 minutes.
They just use this single key to bit-shift the password into a hex stream. If you know the key you just shift it back and you got the original password.
Talk about security huh?
Non-funny Pulp Fiction ripoff posts YOU!
As the DMCA is only applicable in the USA, it seems the only culture that will be lost to history is that of the USA.
:-)
GO DMCA!!!!!!
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
"This is the first time a case involving a violation of the law has gone to trial, and if ElcomSoft is found guilty, the constitutionality of the DMCA will be tested on appeal" It seems that the biggest threat to the DMCA is if Sklyarov is actually found guilty. I really doubt that the constitution can really support prohibiting the writing of software to allow paying users to USE the books they buy! That is like saying it's constitutional to arrest the inventor of the copy machine for creating a means to copy print a feature that happens to not be included in books.
No, but thanks for playing anyway. Look! You win a free set of luggage.. ..or was it that the luggage WON YOU! Mwhahahaha!
I inadvertently downloaded your illegal description of how to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under 17 USC 1201 when I loaded this page of comments. Then I did it again when I hit reply. I'll be damned if I'm going to hit Preview.
Ok, im serious. If you go to http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressrel eases/200107/dmca.html..
Look at the bottom at the last two questions... The links they give to the US Attorneys office go to some amateur porn site. How ironic..
Even if he did it, it should depend on the terms on which he was granted entrance in the US. We European can shortcut the visa procedure by signing a visa waiver, that allows US administration and justice to handle us as they see fit. For instance, if a citizen of the Netherlands is found in possess of marjuana, it can be arrested in the US even though this is legal in the Netherlands.
If Sklyarov signed something like that and then violated the american law (even not knowing it), bad luck to him. But if he came in the US with a real visa, I believe that the only legal act for the US authorities was expulsion. Anything else, in a country less powerful than US, would have raised one hell of an international case.
Ciao
----
FB
The DMCA acknowledges that some software may be used to break protection measures, but targets those that have no legitimate uses
No legitimate commercial uses. It can have all the legitimate personal use in the world, such as using DeCSS to play your DVDs, but the DMCA only makes that exception for legitimate commercial uses. It becomes even more obvious that corporations wrote the DMCA.
and there's already transfer mechanisms built into most ebooks and ebook readers.
The mechanism is there, but publishers are under no obligation to enable it, giving them the ability to eliminate all of your fair use rights. This re-enables them.
This code was meant primarily to allow piracy, period.
Yet one big customer was U.S. law enforcement.
Universal didn't want Sony to manufacture a product that allowed people to use their fair use rights in relation to Universal's copyrighted material. The Supreme Court sided with Sony, the people and fair use. Cool quotes:
- Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use.
- ...District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting [space and format shifting are in the same category] of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use
And don't forget what U.S. copyright is entirely based on: Granting the limited monopoly to producers is an exception of the right of the people to have access to all created works. The exception is granted solely to encourage people to produce works in the advancement of the arts and sciences.So, no this isn't an exception to the copyright holders' rights, it's rights retained by the people.
A file that has been run through ROT-13 is not readable.
Some people can read ROT-13 text, making that not even an access control mechanism. It's only for your example, the rest of the comment is correct.
Someone who corrects spelling/grammar mistakes on a public forum is often referred to as a grammar nazi.
It has nothing to do with Nazi's in itself. Just the association Nazi == "stiff unflexible person".
Yes, the eBook reader has numerous optional features like text-to-speech, printing and copying, but those features only work if they haven't been turned off by the publisher. Would you care to defend the legitimacy of the flag that disables text-to-speech feature, and explain why it should trump the fair use rights of the blind consumer?
When the publisher can disable a feature at whim, the feature is better described as a privilege, not a right. Fair use is a right, not a privilege.
It ends when people get mad enough about their liberties being taken away and vote.
That's a completely different subject and has nothing to do with copyright law. That would fall under contract law, and would require the buyer and seller to actually agree upon a contract. The country being free also has nothing to do with it, as you can agree to anything you wish, but if the law considers it unenforceable, then it won't be enforced.
"Another reason is that it puts the burden of proof on the accused."
In what way? I'm not sure I know what you mean.
In that a copyright holder can go around accusing people of DMCA violations and the accused is required to pull the supposedly offending material until they prove themselves innocent of violations, or they face further charges.
Another problem is that persons can be charged criminally and face jail time for simple violations of things that have always been legal and considered fair before, eg. this very case.
(I'll just ignore your personal remarks. If you don't want to talk with me, that's fine; you don't have to get all huffy.)
It also seems you'll ignore most of my posting, as you only responded to the smaller bits you thought you could defend!
Furthermore, my "asshole" statement was just as valid as your blanket statement of people who have spent a great deal of time and money working to defeat this horribly stupid law, which was a much more personal remark which you directed at a large group of people!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Maybe Saddam's developing Ebook decryption software! That must be why the U.S. is so desperate to go to war.
It's all about Adobe (and something to do with oil).
It's just a rearranged alphabet. I have a shell set up so I can accomplish certain tasks(chores involving poorly named directories) at work without my network access being suspended.
All you need to do is print out half the alphabet on one line, then, on the next line, print out the other half, directly underneath the first half. Bingo: You have a conversion table.
First you learn certain key phrases, like "terc" for "grep"...After a while, you only need the conversion table occasionally. (I'm still not quite off it.)
What's this Submit thingy do?
If I create some "encryption" software which outputs files in eg. .pdf format (or some other adobe format) except slightly changed (eg. by simply putting some additional data on the first row of text in the document so that Acrobat Reader can still read it) and my (stupid) software works by detecting this change and then connects to a webserver and checking this data before opening it to ensure that one copy can only be open on one computer at a time. Can I then sue adobe for breaking my encryption when they release the next version of Acrobat because then they've created a tool for breaking it?
Karma. Moderation. Is my
Classic Joke:
Q: What is the difference between the United States of America and a pot of yoghurt?
A: A pot of yoghurt will eventually produce a culture.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Ahh, nothing like a zealot PHB to fuck up one's work life. I'm sure the poor schmuck just trying to do his job appreciated your insipid political antics.
You should keep your personal battles out of the workplace. You wouldn't like it if your employer involved itself in your personal life.
It's called a company having ethics.
At my company before last the management landed a large tobacco account. They had to cancel the contract because the team refused to work on the account on ethical grounds. It happens. Some of us care. We don't submit to the cowardly excuse "if we don't do it someone else will".
Final point. It's not our "personal life", this guy is a fellow software engineer and the outcome will affect what we can and can't do professionally.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
By the first definition of the word, Dmitri *is* a hacker, and a good one at that.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
The real point is that it is illegal to copy a copyrighted work without proper permission (beyond fair use, that is). Just like the stupid example of the head in the freezer, the issue is that just looking at what is in plain site is not a search, but opening things up, or even just moving other objects legally constitutes a search, and requires a warrent in most cases.
Putting up a legal framework to make it illegal to circumvent even trivial copy protection is just plain wrong-headed. Will it prevent pirating for profit? No! Can circumvention techniques be used to make legal copies? Yes!
One thing I'm a little unclear on. Does the DMCA make the tools themselves illegal, or just using them to make illegal copies? I can't really see how the former could be constitutional. Probably we need some good test cases that actually get to the heart of this issue. This one could be good since it has been demonstrated that this software isn't being used widely to pirate, which implies that it is being used legally or not at all.
Don't count on the court getting this right, particularly without an appeal since the lower courts tend to assume Congress has a right to legislate, and the law is considered valid by default.
How can the USA ask that Yahoo not be held responsible for selling over the internet illegal Nazi memorabilia in France yet take to trial a Russian company for selling software over the internet that is legal in Russia?
Diplomatic immunity exists to keep the representatives from facing trumped up charges and harrassment from the host country.
Theoretically if a diplomat commits a crime, they are constrained by the laws of their country, and will be tried and charged.
This does happen, but generally only with larger crimes.
>>AH. Next we'll have the Saudi's here at the beaches of the United States, monitoring who's wearing a swimsuit.
>>Such clothing is illegal in Saudi Arabia.
>Correction: such clothing is illegal for women. Saudi Arabia has chosen to implement this law of Islam(unfortunately not many other muslim countries do). Before people start flaming away, remember this:
Yes it's "unfortunate" that other civilizations treat their female half as half-equals, rather than the *dogs* the Saudi's treat them as. It's also unfortunate that you can deny it as rationally as how a Nazi can deny the Holocaust.
Somewhere along the way my (USA) government managed to whitewash the connection between the Taliban and the Saudis, and Pakistan. You need a good dose of "nation building". Saudi Arabia is 10x more evil than Iraq.
>We Muslims respect the beauty of a women;
Sure, in the same way you respect the beauty of your animals and property. Otherwise, you wouldn't make any such laws without the consent of the OTHER 50% of your "civilization".
I'm surprised you did not say "our" women?
> it is for their husband's eyes only(if they have one).
And if she doesn't have a husband at all, and "shares her beauty" (has sex) then you stone her to death. But not the male.
>Only if people knew how much honour a women beholds...they would be astonished.
I only find it astonishing how brutal some men can be to women.
This brutality is based not on honor, but physical strength and is driven by the "brotherhood" (repressed homosexuality) of modern (corrupted) Islam.
Let's not forget the Islamic practice of female genital mutilation (usually performed with SCISSORS and without painkillers). If a woman finds sex to be painful, then you have the insurance to know she will never cheat on youm no matter how neglected, abused and unloved she is.
Lock any women in burning buildings lately?
Most importantly, I've seen MANY middle-eastern women in the USA in bathing suits. They can look HOT. This isn't about "beauty" because you ugly-ass muslim MEN should be wearing the burkhas... or at least shave your face, back, shoulders etc.
What the fuck are you talking about? If a contract is unenforceable, there is no legal recourse for a party to take when the other party violates the contract, so if it's legal but unenforceable, it makes little difference. But like I said, this is completely orthogonal to copyright.
Anybody can accuse anybody else of anything. Anybody can sue anybody else for anything. I can sue you for breach of contract right now, if I see fit. My case will have no merit and I'll probably end up paying your court costs and fees, but I can sue you. This condition is not unique to copyright law.
No kidding, but the DMCA has special provisions that make it even worse. You have read it, have you not?
Woop-de-do. Every new law makes things that were previously legal illegal. That's not unique to copyright law, either.
I should have been more clear. The DMCA not only makes things that were previously _protected_ by law(fair use, etc.) illegal in many circumstances, but also does so in total contradiction to other laws. Also, the constitutionality of the DMCA is very shaky, as the constitution is very clear on the ends copyright laws are allowed to promote, and the DMCA does not fit withing those end(ie. furthering creation of art and science for the benefit of the public). You have read the constitution, have you not?
If that's not unique, the DMCA makes it possible to be criminally charged, including possible arrest and jail time, for using your own property in a manner you see fit(eg. playing DVD's on your *nix box, or decrypting an ebook to read with your reading software for the blind, etc).
If that's fine and dandy with you, then we have irreconcilable differences.
Also, I would like to point out that it is the DMCA that is forcefully restricting freedoms of the people who are against it, not the other way around. Are you so quick to restrict freedom? Are you so quick to deal out punishment for those who disagree with yourself and other like-minded persons?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Topless in de Nederlands? Get real. Dutch summers require an overcoat. Sure, it may be legal to be topless UNDER the top coat.
Yes, I know this, I was just being sarcastic...
Wrong again. Skylarov and Elcomsoft are considered innocent until proven guilty. That's the whole point of having a trial.
How can anyone take your opinions on the legal system seriously when you don't know the first thing about it?
No, you are the one who is wrong. There are provisions in the DMCA that push further burden on those accused of DMCA violations than normally found in other bodies of law. Have you not followed all discussion regarding the DMCA? Have you not read it yourself?
Yes, but it's lossy compression. There's a reason WHY the actual act is "pages upon pages of legalese" -- because it HAS to be.
That is absurd. Legal texts tend to be many many times the length they need to be to made completely clear in proper english.
Why I am I not surprised that you know what shit taste [sic] like.
Wow, you're an asshole...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
What an absolutely stupid analogy, and leave it up to the Slashdot moderation to send it up to "5" insightful! The Egyptians buried all their "culture" along with the hieroglyphs and art and jewels in the tombs of their idiot kings and queens. They slaughtered the artisans and craftsmen and slave builders who did the work of building the tombs and buried them with the king. Then, later, some tomb robbers ("crackers") came along and robbed most of the gold and jewels and recycled it for their own profit. The only reason we have any "history" at all is that the tomb robbers missed a lot of stuff... WAKE UP AND READ A LITTLE HISTORY, YOU CLONES!
It would seem that it's not legal to make a circumention device even if it's for your own personal use. What part of the law leads you to believe otherwise?
Of course you can actually read it aloud. It will just violate the license which you had to click to open the book. Maybe illegal is too strong of a word, but it might be violation of a contract and if that contract is what allows you to read the book then it might also be a copyright infringement.
Ok, I agree with you that if a circumvention device magically appeared the law allows it to be used for fair use purposes. However the problem is that such a device could not be created without breaking the DMCA. No matter who creates it or why they create it, they are in violation of this law.
How is that reasonable?
He says that an individual user can create a circumvention device legally. Where does it say that? It says "manufacture or...", it would seem that creating is manufacturing, is it not?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
It's a defense, but it's a defense because fair use is not included in the limitied monopoly -- because those uses are a few of the unstated rights which people have according to the Consitution. I have a whole lot of rights which are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights or any other part of the Consitution. That doesn't mean they aren't rights.
Copyright _is_ limited in scope. It can be taken away by Congress at any time. It can be invalidated due to national emergencies. It can be ignored because of fair use, first sale, etc. However the copyright and patent clause is enacted, even if it didn't allow for fair use, it would still be limited. And the courts would likely trim it back down to something reasonable.
If I recall correctly, most ATM machines run OS/2
for example: OS/2
I can't wait until we (the generation/group of people that has two braincells to rub together) get into seniority.
Please remember that some of the group now in seniority grew up in the '60s, the era of "flower power" and anti-war movements.
We had ideals then, too, and couldn't wait until we got into power.
We were going to change things for the better.
(Actually, in some respects, we have.)
The problem is that what some people think is better isn't what other people think is better.
How much difference is there, really, between Bush the Younger and Clinton?
They both wanted to add a huge new bureaucracy to an already-bloated government.
Clinton (health care) failed; Bush (homeland "security") succeeded.
Both want to take away freedoms and privacy.
And both are people, who, when they were young and idealistic, would have been very much opposed to the things that they promoted once they came into power.
Crap rises to the top in politics.
There are still some of us, many of us, who were children of the '60s, who don't like where we have come, where we are now, where we are going.
Somehow, things got off track.
We were young; we were idealistic; we were going to change the world.
And we did, but not how we intended.
Somehow, we lost control, and the world turned out differently than we expected.
This happens to every generation.
It happened to us.
It will happen to you.
You wait and see.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
A russian company (eg. Elcomsoft) is allowed to sell its products to any country (even the USA). Which rules apply in such a business relation are regulated by CISG (Convention on the International Sale of Goods) which is one of the rules by UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law). Most UN-Nations adhered to these rules (Great Britain is a notable exception).
Elcomsoft has simply to state in its contract with the buyer, that "Russian law applies".
ms
I personally make a point of showing everyone I encounter who's interested in making PDFs the beauty of Ghostscript and Ghostview. Every sale I can cost Adobe makes me feel that much warmer inside.
By costing Adobe market share, and negatively impacting their financial ability to manufacture and distribute their e-book software; and by further making your technique known, and encouraging others to use that technique; you are circumventing Adobe's e-book publishing system and by simple induction its encryption technologies.
This is a violation of the DMCA (secret corporate subdy provisions). A copy of your Summons will be delivered to you by our jackbooted government thugs.
Keep in mind that the envelope glue holding the summons closed is a technological measure to ensure security and confidentiality of the copyrighted summons text. The summons itself is issued and owned by the Department of Justice. Any attemtp to read the summons itself, or make its contents known to your firends, family, coworkers, or legal representitives will be usable against you as evidence of wanton disreguard of the DMCA and US legal practices in a court of law.
You are free to confront your accusers. Their identities and afadavids are in this locked bag. You may do anything you see fit with this information provided you do not voilate the integrety of the closed bag or the lock holding the bag closed...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
This does make it a very fine line. If your assessment is correct then the question is, "Is this product marketed for the purpose of circumvention or for the purpose of exercising fair use".
Then we agree. "The right to record without fear of legal repercussions." It's not the ability I'm stressing, it's the legality.
If Universal releases content that you cannot record, that's just tough luck for you.
True. And it should be tough luck for Universal if you hack their signal so that you can record again. The same just happened with DVDs. You couldn't record, then it got hacked so that you could, and now the studios are going against that through the courts.
adobe updated their site but the page is still available from good ol' google cache
adobe updated their site but the page is still available from good ol' google cache
Just can't believe that!!! It would be loughable, if would not be that tragic! USA court puts on trial a person for doing something in his own country, which is considered to be absolutely legal there! Damn! No wonder there is anti-american mood in a world. Soon yankees will start putting people in cage for not using Microsoft software. It's enough for a bunch of congressmen to pass the law. And what those "lawmakers" are capable of we can well see. I am always been pro-american and anti-russian due to some very practical personal reasons, but now this attitude starts shifting to opposite. Just f*! nuts!
I don't think it serves any purpose in controlling content, if your average human can learn to read it without tools.
(And believe me, learning the ROT13 alphabet is a heck of a lot easier than learning a new spoken language.)
What's this Submit thingy do?
One fine day, the bus driver went to the bus garage, started his bus,
and drove off along the route. No problems for the first few stops -- a few
people got on, a few got off, and things went generally well. At the next
stop, however, a big hulk of a guy got on. Six feet eight, built like a
wrestler, arms hanging down to the ground. He glared at the driver and said,
"Big John doesn't pay!" and sat down at the back.
Did I mention that the driver was five feet three, thin, and basically
meek? Well, he was. Naturally, he didn't argue with Big John, but he wasn't
happy about it. Well, the next day the same thing happened -- Big John got on
again, made a show of refusing to pay, and sat down. And the next day, and the
one after that, and so forth. This grated on the bus driver, who started
losing sleep over the way Big John was taking advantage of him. Finally he
could stand it no longer. He signed up for bodybuilding courses, karate, judo,
and all that good stuff. By the end of the summer, he had become quite strong;
what's more, he felt really good about himself.
So on the next Monday, when Big John once again got on the bus
and said "Big John doesn't pay!," the driver stood up, glared back at the
passenger, and screamed, "And why not?"
With a surprised look on his face, Big John replied, "Big John has a
bus pass."
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...