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.

Comments

doesn't matter

[ArchieBunker]

Under the DMCA just creating the tool is illegal. It doesn't matter if everyone or no one uses it.

Re:doesn't matter

[DarkZero]

It's great to see you're so well versed with the case. In fact, the affidavit alleges that he was selling the software on US soil.

Not he, they. ElcomSoft is on trial, not Dmitry. Otherwise, you're right.

Re:Throw it out?

[zapfie]

Adobe's side of the story.

Re:DMCA logic

[czarneki]

This is nothing new, you know.

Back when the Sony-Betamax case was pending Supreme Court review, people asked how it could be that VCR manufacturers could be liable for contributory infringement of copyright simply by providing a tool that some people misused when gun manufacturers were immune from suit by murder victims. There were political cartoons to this effect.

Then the Supreme Court thanfully (it was a close one though, 5-4, I believe, and according to some historians the dissent was originally the majority) gave VCRs a fair use out.

Basically, the Mickey Mouse lobby is invincible. Why should they be deterred by a little logic?

Not the issue

[Codex The Sloth]

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.

Re:Throw it out?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Basically what Adobe is saying.

- We want elcomsoft to not release software that breaks our unbreakable security software.

No. First, Adobe says right there on the page that no technology can be 100% secure. They say that, when used properly, their software protects copyrighted works. That's all they claim.

They say that they encourage users, including "white hats," to give them feedback on their software and the security thereof.

They say that Elcomsoft broke US law by distributing their software. They say that the US Department of Justice took it upon themselves to make the arrest and to prosecute the case.

Whether or not Adobe's software is perfect isn't even remotely relevant to the issue.

Re:Throw it out?

[Safety Cap]

I code an e-book decryptor. I decrypt my e-books ~. That isn't illegal.

Unfortunately, that happens to be quite ILLEGAL.
US Code Title 17, Chapter 12, 1201 says (emphasis mine):

(2)

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -

(A)

is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
*********************
Check out this article for more.

1201(a)(1)(B) depends on (a)(1)(C)

[yerricde]

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.

Not cracked. Re:What is going on here?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.