Slashdot Mirror
ElcomSoft Verdict: Not Guilty
truthsearch writes "From News.com: 'A jury on Tuesday found a Russian software company not guilty of criminal copyright charges for producing a program that can crack anti-piracy protections on electronic books.' HUGE legal win against the DMCA. Thank you Lawrence Lessig."
This is great news for Dimitri & friends, but on the other hand this will never make it before the USSC to be ruled unconstitutional. I guess it's at least a good precident to set for other cases.
jaysyn
There is a war going on for your mind.
So what I want to know is how is the US Government and/or Adobe going to compensate Dmitri and Elcomsoft for this fraudulent lawsuit?
The way he was treated and the significant portion of his life that was stolen from him to deal with this ridiculous lawsuit demands some serious retribution to make things right.
I'm no legal expert, but I think we're still a long way from overturning that law. It will take a lot more cases such as this...a LOT more.
It's nice to see reason prevail against corporate tyranny. We can only hope that this is the first in a long list of successes against an unreasonble set of laws that make up the DMCA. Let's hope that there are not a string of appeals that that just ultimately drain the resources of ElcomSoft.
Now if we can just get the US goverment to stop arresting european teenagers for being too clever, we'll actually have something!
Is that the case was turned on the wording, moreso the usage of the word "Willful." This case does not provide precedence for using the software to crack an eBook. Basically, we still cannot use our open source machines to do something that proprietary machines can.
There was no precedence established for the unconstitutionality of the DMCA, in part or in whole. Once that happens, we can be happy.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
IANAL, but--
In order to overturn the law, it would probably have been better to lose the case. Then they could appeal their way up the food chain to the Supreme Court. Challenging the constitutionality of the law is the way to get it overturned; losing in the lower courts is the only way to get there.
But, I ain't no expert, so I also would appreciate more light on this issue.
I disagree. Take another look at the last paragraph of the article:
The judge told jurors...[that] merely offering a product that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction
That's a huge statement! One of the big, big sticks wielded by the RIAA/MPAA and others against software makers is that they can be held liable if their programs merely have the capability of being used to violate copyrights, even if the programmer had the best of intentions and never intended that it be used for that purpose. This guidance from the judge significantly reduces the ability of RIAA/MPAA to swing that stick.
in order to find the company guilty, they must agree that company representatives knew their actions were illegal and intended to violate the law. Merely offering a product that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction(from the Judges instructions to the jury)
I think that pretty much sums it up. If you clearly intend to perform an illegal act then the DCMA is fully in effect. Elcom did not intend to circumvent the copy protection on ebooks except for the legitimate user making backup copies. Elcom reacted to Adobe's concerns in reasonable time and in manner that clearly demonstrated Elcom's concern with the legality of their eBook software.
In summary: the court found that intent is everything.
Later . . . . . . WebBug
Although I believe this is a big win, I am not sure it was for the right reasons. It appears that the jury did not believe elcomsoft *willfully* violate the DMCA, but questions of jurisdiction and even applicability were not sufficiently answered, IMHO.
Hopefully, with more rulings like this we can postpone the seemingly inevitable trip to the re-education camps.....
An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure
That's the interesting part. He instructed the jury that simply making a product that could be used for copyright violation wasn't enough, the company had to intend for it to be used for copyright violation. This is similar to DeCSS, where it can be but isn't intended for copyright violation. If the ElcomSoft instructions were used in the DeCSS case, they'd be found not guilty by the same reasoning. From a PR standpoint this is a win, because it undercuts the ability of companies to use the DMCA to shut down everything while still allowing them to prosecute actual violation, and it makes them prove intent instead of just possible use.
What this decision does do is show the government one way not to prosecute honest programmers and researchers. What it doesn't do is keep them from finding other ways, that will work.
To set a precedent, we need a judge's decision that the DMCA is/is not unenforceable/unconstitutional. That will make the DMCA a settled issue within that judge's jurisdiction. To make it effective nation-wide, it then needs to be appealed to the Supreme court, and upheld there.
See what I've been reading.
... that the reason was because they weren't "wilfully" breaking the law. Not for the defendents of course, any reason to get off is good for them. But in the grande scheme of things it would have benefited many more people if the law was found unconstitutional.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
I'm still worried about the whole idea that the law applies in Russia, though...
..knowing that the DMCA's attempts to stifle software innovation have been conquered.
:(
It doesn't exactly apply in Russia, it applies to people selling things in the US that may be illegal under american law. You don't have to like it but if you sell something in a country it's your responsibility to make sure it's legal under their laws. No matter how messed up.
Except for the fact that ElcomSoft withdrew the software in question. I'm not sure about you but I would consider withdrawing the software in question to be stifling innovation
I stole this Sig
Exactly. From reading the article, this sounds more like a win for the DMCA. Elcomsoft was found not guilty only because the tests in the law were not passed. Had nothing to do with whether or not those tests were appropriate.
I'm glad to see Elcomsoft come out on top of this, but don't see where it helps overturn the DMCA.
- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
In this case, we should remember that Adobe backed from its initial claims and thus opened the way for a win for the Elcom. This will probably not be true for other cases, and from what I understood the "intention" thing is too shaky. It is too subjective, another jury with a different atmosphere can find the defendant guilty. So overall I think we are still not so sure about the power of DMCA.
I contribute to projects like MacGIMP as one way to fight their cowardice.
Let's not forget that Dmitry spent five months in jail. In this whole rediculous case, that is the real crime.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
The defense, in turn, argued that ElcomSoft acted responsibly, removing the software from the Web just days after learning of Adobe's concerns. Both Sklyarov and ElcomSoft president Alexander Katalov testified that they did not think their software was illicit and did not intend for it to be used on books that had not been legally purchased. Under cross- examination by the defense, an Adobe engineer acknowledged that his company did not find any illegal eBooks even after hiring two firms to search the Web for unauthorized copies.
Because both the defense and prosecution agreed that ElcomSoft sold software designed to crack copyright protections, the case essentially turned on ElcomSoft's state of mind during the period it was offering the software.
After much wrangling among attorneys over the definition of the word "willful," the judge told jurors that in order to find the company guilty, they must agree that company representatives knew their actions were illegal and intended to violate the law. Merely offering a product that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction, the jury instructions said.
Elmsoft knew what they designed the software to do. Duh. The jury was directed though to determine if Elmsoft "willfully" broke the law though. They decided that because Elmsoft stopped offering the software, that it wasn't willfull.
My personal opinion is that this is a Bad Thing, because it validates the DMCA, if anything. At the very least, it doesn't hurt it at all. The instructions were to determine if Elmsoft broke the law - what law? The DMCA. So the DMCA was being raised as a standard to determine willful disregard of - it being law was never questioned. Personally, I think its rather dumb to think that Elmsoft didn't *willfully* do what they did. I don't, however, think it should be against the law (due to fair-use) to do it, but until the law that does indeed exist is questioned, it is still law. If that makes sense.
The world of Common Sense had no victory today. And considering the appeals that will continue, not even Elmsoft gained anything.
That's a huge statement!
That's real cute. Did you actually read the part of that sentence that you cropped out? Or did you just put an elipsis over the part of the article that you didn't like? The real quote says:
So they were let off not because it's legal to offer their copyright-violating product, but because they didn't know that it was against the law.
Erik
It get's us no closer to overturning the law, but instead sets a precedent. The precedent it has set is that (at least so far) it is alright to reverse engineer software under the DCMA. If I recall correctly, they had reverse engineered adobe's ebook format.
This did not help in protecting anything dealing with fair use or any of those aspects, but instead seems to deal with one's ability to reverse engineer a product. Maybe the courts woke up and realized that the whole computer industry really started picking up with compaq's reverse engineering of the IBM architecture.
-gabe
-gabe
sorry, but ignorance of the law is not a reason to reach a not-guilty verdict.
Ahh, but thats the subtle genius of the DMCA. The "safe harbor" clause allows the "offending" party to be safe from prosecution if they "unknownly" violated the DMCA. Thats why the law is used so often, and so effectively - anybody just has to send out a threat (substanciated or otherwise), and 9 times out of 10 the fear of court cases and legal fees will get the desired result - unlike the good ol' days, when somebody actually had to ask a real live judge for an injunction.
Just another example of how the DMCA enriches our lives (not!). So, lucky that clause existed for ElcomSoft, but it doesn't do anything for the rest of the DMCA weary....
Do you have Linux and a DotPal? Click here now!
"Merely offering a product that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction, the jury instructions said."
If it doesn't warrant a conviction, does it still warrant an arrest?
Internet Explorer was unable to link to the Web page you requested. The page might use standard HTML or CSS.
The judge's statement does set a nice precedent for future similar cases. However, it is kind of sad that he even had to make a point of mentioning that; the RIAA/MPAA should never have been allowed to carry it this far.
Think of the logic here: if a company produces something that COULD be used illegally, the company could be held liable for illegal acts with that product. By the same token, the folding knife in my pocket could be used for illegal acts (assault, armed robbery, etc.), and thus the knife maker is liable for any crimes I commit with it. Also, the makers of the lighter in my other pocket should be held responsible if I can use their lighter to smoke pot. And don't get me started on Honda for all the laws I can break by using their car.
While software capability versus programmer intent as it pertains to the DMCA may be an interesting issue, I thought the main point of contention (at least from the perspective of the /. crowd) is the fact that we are holding a Russian-based software maker (and individual developer for christ's sake) accountable for United States law and United States copyrights. It's a double standard. Why should anyone writing code overseas give a shit about some copyright law in the US? And if there is a reason, then what's keeping the government of someplace like Botswana from hauling Microsoft into court??
Exactly. An excellent argument to that effect was inadvertently made by Mr. Valenti himself when he called DeCSS a "digital crowbar". Note to Jack: crowbars are legal, and with good reason.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I find it interesting that the successful tactic used by the defense was "Yes, we know we made software that cracked copyright protection but we didn't intend for it to be used illegally" instead of "We are a Russian company and not subject to American law". This seems to have a number of implications:
1. Why was Elcomsoft under US jurisdiction? Do they do business here and thus are subject to US laws? If not, it seems that the US feels it can prosecute any business anywhere in the world for anything we feel violates our laws. It will be interesting to see how US businesses feel about it the first time the tables get turned.
2. This should set good precedent (assuming it survives appeal) for other technolgies that can be used for potentially illegal actions such as P2P. From the article "After much wrangling among attorneys over the definition of the word "willful," the judge told jurors that in order to find the company guilty, they must agree that company representatives knew their actions were illegal and intended to violate the law"
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
BECAUSE THEY SOLD THE SOFTWARE TO PEOPLE IN THE US. IN EXCHANGE FOR US DOLLARS. FROM A SERVER HOSTED IN THE US.
/. story about the case since Dmitry was first arrested. And it's been answered soundly each time.
Holy Christ, will this question ever stop getting asked? It's come up in every
Hopefully the end of the court case means no one will need to ask it again.
Copyright is not what they were charged with violating, it was the anit-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. The judge instructed the jurors that in order to be found guilty, Elcomsoft had to be found to knowingly and wilfully produce a product that violated the DMCA.
Elcomsoft was not on trial for copying eBooks, but for creating software that could be used to circumvent the eBook encryption.
This is not a win in the fight against the DMCA. Elcomsoft was found not guilty, because:
If you are aware the DMCA says that you can't create circumvention tools, and you knowingly build and release such a tool, then you are stuck. The important part of Elcomsoft's claim above was that they didn't think their software was illicit, not whether they intended it to be used to illegally copy or legally copy eBooks. So the reason they were found not guilty had nothing to do with what they intended people to do with their program, but with their claim they didn't know it was in violation of the DMCA.
---
Segmentation Fault ( core dumped )
Of course, he may not want to do that to them, or they may not have enough to make it worthwhile. I'd consider suing the kid just to get her convicted of a felony, which gets to go on her permanent record and fucks her life about as squarely as she just fucked his.
But that's me, and I can be a vengeful asshole if you screw me first.
Your (or "Tom's") motive might be vengeful, but that wouldn't make it an entirely appropriate and constructive way to handle this sort of apalling injustice.
Constructive how, you ask? Because clearly the only deterrance that really exists against this sort of abusive false accusation (in addition to normal social pressures and etiquette, which people who make such accusations are unmoved by anyway) is the fear of very real, very profound consequences.
Her having her reputation and life ruined by having her deception, and its willfully harmful and destructive consequences, in the public record is a singuarly natural and appropriate consequence of her despicable actions.
Whether out of vengeance, or to simply deter future similar acts, "Tom" should seriously persue such a case regardless. His motive is irrelevant, the outcome that is desired is for the perpetrator (in this case, the false accuser) to suffer appropriately for her crime, and in an appropriately severe and public enough manner to deter others from such conduct.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I know this has probably been gone over four or five times, but why does this law apply against a company not within the legal jurisdiction of the United States of America?
Sure, try 'em under applicable Russian law, but... WTF?
Scott
I'm concerned over the fact that the judge's instruction could apparently have so much weight in the outcome
IANALBIDTAJS101IC (i am not a lawyer but I did take American Justice System 101 in college), but you'd be surprised at how great an influence the judge has over a jury. Think of it: the jury is made up of people who have probably never even been inside a courtroom. The judge is the only other impartial person in the room besdes the jury, and the jury members take all their orders and instruction from him. He becomes something of a role model for courtroom behavior and attitude, in the jurors' eyes. If he seems to roll his eyes when the prosecution speaks, the jury will be think less of the prosecution. If he looks very interested in the defense's opening statement, the jury will pay more attention.
In america, with our amateur juries, we get a lot of benefits (the right to be judged by a jury of your peers, people just like you), but there are also a lot of drawbacks (you are judged by an amateur, impressionable groups of normal people).
$8.95/mo web hosting
While I am pleased to see the Good Guys win for once I am still disturbed that the jury found the software *illegal*. The software could be used in many ways that are NOT illegal but the jury didn't seem to understand that.
If the case shows anything, it shows that the public see the problem with the DMCA. All the publicity is beginning to make an impact.
Unenforced laws still have chilling effects.
--
Power to the Peaceful