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.
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
Adobe's side of the story.
slashdot!=valid HTML
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?
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.
I write in my journal
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.
Yeah, right.