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.
How much closer does this get us to overturning the law? What exactly did we win?
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Read the article. Elcomsoft removed the software and claimed they didn't realize their software was illegal. They prosecution also could not find any illegal ebooks on the web that had been cracked by Elcomsoft's software. This doesn't mean they can start selling the software again. Nor does it mean the DMCA cannot be used in future cases. Essentially they could not provide that Elcomsoft willfully violated copyright, which is necessary in criminal copyright violation cases. This is not a "huge legal win" by any stretch of the word.
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 still worried about the whole idea that the law applies in Russia, though...
Glog!
How the hell can we get the law tossed by the courts if we win at trial?
Best Slashdot Co
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.
I know it's bad form to reply to your own comment, but I just thought of something that IMHO is funny and hell and I have karma to burn.
It kind of reminds me of that Chris rock joke -- Following OJ's aquital:
Black people are like 'Yeah, we won!' What the fuck did we win? Every day I look in my mailbox for my O.J. prize - nothin'."
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
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.
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
"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."
In this case the jury instructions are probably more important than the actual verdict. This establishes a key point that a product that has both legal and ilegal potential uses is not in and of itself ilegal.
-- your Web browser is Ronald Reagan
Intent is something that, in this case, was determined by a jury, presumably on the balance of evidence rather than on a reasonable-doubt basis, so someone producing something that allows you to make copies of DVDs for friends, or of DVDs you've rented, would appear to be unlikely to get away with doing so if there's any suggestion that they saw that as being the major application of the program.
Disclaimer: IANAL, but my mother is.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Not only that, but how does the DMCA have any right to step over into Russia? Regardless of whether or not it was found
to have cracked any eBooks, who are these people to say that Russian businesses fall under the DMCA?
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
And in other news, DMCA2 is now being drafted... sounds like they're pluggin the legal holes... and what's this paragraph about? 'We the RIAA and MPAA reserve the right to f*$@ you up the...'...
Oh my...
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
Much of the accolade goes to defense attorney Joe Burton and his dogged determination to defend Dmitry and Elcomsoft at considerable burden to himself. As a senior partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP, he had to get the firm to buy into the importance of this case, because I believe they were paid very little. He sold it to the firm because he believed in this case, and that it was unfair to apply the DMCA criminal charges against this company. Well done Joe! And thanks for taking up this fight! And thank you Duane Morris for picking up much of the tab. Who said big law firms have no heart?
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.
Its amazing what can happen when things get put to a jury, instead of being decided by a single judge or targeted committe! The Jurors have appearently opted for freedom in a country that values freedom...its really very shocking...
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
Read the whole article. The judge instructions to the jury are interesting and will contradict what you're thinking.
Developers: We can use your help.
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.
I think that this is a key reason why much of DMCA will fail in court. Providing something that can be used illicitly is different from providing something that can only be used illicitly. A gun can be used to commit murder which is illegal. It can also be used in an Olympic event, which is legal. There is no legal use for crack cocaine, so having, providing, and using are all illegal. So as long as there are legitimate uses for the code, it should be legal.
My humble $0.02 on a complicated and tangled issue;-)
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
... 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.
the older decision in "Lawyers vs. Justice" has been overturned! Here's hoping the "Reversal of Freedom Act" will be overturned soon too!
(more Simpsons references)
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Well, that clears DeCSS up, then!
If only it were that simple, eh?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
This doesn't mean they can start selling the software again.
Conversely, it doesn't mean that they can't. There is no evidence produced to show that it was ever used to violate copyright law. This gives Elcomsoft a strong arguement if they want to get a declaritory judgement that says their software is legal under the DMCA. It will be difficult for Adobe to prove that its "main purpose" is to infringe copyright if they can't find a single instance of it being used in that fashion in spite of the number already sold.>p?
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
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
Nothing, since Jon isn't being tried in the US.
"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. "
.this appears to make no logical legal sense to me.
i don't read the word "wilfull" in the DMCA, so i have no idea of how this case could have come out this way.
The DMCA was written to prevent ALL forms of copyright breaking devices (with the well known supposed caveats of research, etc.) This judge's jury instructions seem to fly in the face of the DMCA's whole point... that any device which circumvents copyright protection is illegal.
This judge has effectively rewritten the law from the bench... the law now reads - providing this is what he actually instructed the jury to do..
"Any device which circumvents copyright protections for the use of w4r3z d00dz and pirates (arrgh, me maties) is illegal, but if its not intended to do that and only perform those acts which constitute normal fair use, then it is okay, and you are not criminally liable of any offense."
i'm sorry.. but what the fsck?
(scum sucking hellbound) Lawyers, please help us to understand this...
i'm not arguing with the judge's decision.. i'm questioning his legal position.. please don't get me wrong
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
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.
"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. That thud you heard was me fainting!
Please, everbody, there are plenty of real, honest problems with the DMCA and the way content distributors want it enforced. Let's quit harping on irrelevant issues like this and address intelligent arguments to the real problems with the DMCA.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
I'm concerned over the fact that the judge's instruction could apparently have so much weight in the outcome.
Could the prosecutors claim the judge was biased and interfered, and demand a retrial?
Regardless of the outcome, a retrial would be a disasterous effect on subsequent juries, since it implies that the original outcome may very well have been faulty. And a lot of people assume may==is.
What's this Submit thingy do?
Not only that, but how does the DMCA have any right to step over into Russia? Regardless of whether or not it was found
to have cracked any eBooks, who are these people to say that Russian businesses fall under the DMCA?
Yes, but they were selling the software in the United States. No matter where the software was coded or where the company was based, according to the article it is illegal to use in the US and selling it brought on the charges. Fortunately the Judge had a little wisdom and ruled that they needed to "willfully" be violating the DCMA to be found guilty. However, the software is still ruled illegal.
If a company based in Nevada opened a casino in Utah it would be illegal even though gambling is legal in Nevada.
Enigma
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
If anything, it was a setback. It was a "Don't punish us because we didn't mean to this bad thing."
This is a boring sig
*nod* They can turn around and use this to get an official legal ruiling that a piece of software that *can* be used to circumvent copyright does NOT mean that it is intrinsically illegal, just like a knife *can* be used to murder somebody, but isn't intrinically illegal; it's useage and intent, not capability.
If they do that, they can set a precident allowing for other pieces of software to be pro-actively certified.
Note that this might not apply to DeCSS, now that I think about it, because the decrypt key they're using was stolen from another piece of software.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
"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.
...it would have been better for the anti-DMCA movement. The constitutionality of the DMCA could have been tested on appeal. This way, the only good to come out of the trial was the statement "Merely offering a product that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction". Granted, that's a very good statement to hear in this decision, but the greater question of the DMCA's legitimacy was avoided.
As with any "TOOL" there is the potential for abuse. What the RIAA MPAA want is to take away all the tools to remove that ptotential. If they win then next we will lose the right to bear arms (because somebody might use one to shoot somebody "illegally") and then the right to bear pencils because those can take an eye out. What we need in the USA is to take responsibilty for our own actions and stop being so damn greedy. The companies that comprise the RIAA, MPAA make plenty of money....they just don't like it that Co. B is making more. Until rampant greed is quelled this type of human rights violation will continue.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Treaties, especially those related to criminal court interfacing, can have a huge effect on how the laws of one country affect another.
Take, for example, the ruling in Australia that (for example) American companies aren't subject to American free speech protection, if their content is available elsewhere.
Expect self-rightous countries to start imposing their own laws on foreign bodies. Wait a second...We saw that happen with the Taliban's support of Osama Bin Laden, and, wait...what was this Elcomsoft case about again?
What's this Submit thingy do?
It may not be huge, but consider the alternative - if it was the opposite verdict, it would have greatly strengthened the DMCA's power. Not necessarily the legal power, but the power of intimidation. Will it be used as intimidation again? Most certainly. Are we better off that Elcomsoft was found not guilty? Most certainly. I think this verdict is more of a huge sigh of relief instead of a huge win.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
So I can finally safely comment on your signature. :)
echo sfsdfsdfDsdfsdfsdfdsfMsdfsdfdsCsfdslkfdsfAdfgdfg | sed -e s/[a-z]//g
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.
So if a law is bad enough that it will be routinely dismissed in the lower courts, it will never get to the SC, and will never get overturned?? Only borderline bad laws get challenged constitutionally?
Sure, this is law, not logic, so it could well be like this. But I hope not.
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??
You should be safe if you statically link the DeCSS code into your media player software.
But if you try to release DeCSS as sourcecode + linkable library, you're jumping into a shark pool wearing a seal suit.
What's this Submit thingy do?
Like most of us, I think this is great - especially what the judge was quoted as saying. With that in mind, I wonder how this case might have went if ElcomSoft decided to continue selling the software instead of pulling it off their site when Adobe complained. Would a judge/jury think that ElcomSoft had intended to violate the law just because they continued to sell their product?
Also since the case is over and they are not guilty, can't ElcomSoft put their product back on the market without any legal problems?
Although this isn't anything close to the Supreme Court making a ruling concerning the DMCA's constitutionality, you can bet that this case will be constantly referred to in future DMCA trials.
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.
In Soviet Russia, ElcomSoft sues you!
In Soviet Russia, "In Soviet Russia" posts get modded down.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
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.
I don't agree. This ruling clearly limits the scope of the DMCA to only people who willfully create software specifically designed to violate copyright and nothing else. At first, this might not mean much, but keep in mind that it's very easy to make any piece of software look like it has non-nefarious purposes. All a programmer needs to do is add a bunch of innocent features to his application, mention only those in the marketing literature, and let people figure out that it can be used to violate copyright.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Totally untrue. There's a number of things you might want to do with DVDs, like space/format shift them to hard drive, that would be legitimate uses of decryption. And, of course, there's just playing them in the first place.
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.
this was wedged into the bottom, and it is the most important part of the precedent set. its the legal ruling by the judge that the creators intent during creation determines its illegality under the DCMA. in other words, violate it all you want, as long as you truly believe that there is an allowable or "fair use" of the product you created.
say you made a decryption system to allow companies to recover data from an encrypted system in case of human tragedy (the only guy who knows the key dies), which does happen, you would not be in violation of the DCMA.
i think we all knew that it would only take a few test cases to rip this poorly written law open. this is just the first, and will hopefully discourage companies from invoking this unholy of the unholies.
of course the worst part of the law, is simply the threat of legal action. perhaps there will be popular support for making the threat of DCMA litigation a crime itsself.
on the outside, it means that there will be more suits, however, it could:
a)result in a large body of case law to stip the act of the rest of it's fangs
b)insure that companies only use it when the threat is DIRE.
c)really keep the EFF busy for a while.
my .02
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
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
While losing the case now might have ultimately caused the DMCA to be challenged in the Supreme Court, if I understand the law correctly, this sets a precedent that other juridictions will be likely to use. I think if they do not follow the precedent, opponents of the law can later use the inconsistent rulings among the different lower courts to force a later case into a higher court.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
As an iPod owner who rips CDs for personal use but doesn't download from P2P, that precedant puts a smile on my face.
Cheers,
Ian
Don't worry, you know you're going to be the 51st state.
(And before you get upset, plz keep in mind that that was a joke)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Substitute the commission of a felony with copyright violation and gun (or pencil or whatever) for product and they really had no choice. It really turns on what you mean by "intend".
That was a criminal case. Unfortunately we tend to believe accusations made (particularly of women against men) without any substantiation.
Even after an accusation turns out to be false some people have trouble coming to grips with that and continue to believe the original accusation. There was a similar case where even after the girl admitted she made the story up people continued to spit on the man in public.
Now this poor guy can go back to Russia and stay with his family instead of winding up in San Quentin prison.
:P
I'd say that's a good thing.
Skinny programmers rarely do well in prison.
I've read this in several places, but it's also mentioned that retrial can occur if the judge or jury committed gross misconduct.
So, the question is, does leaving the jury with such a potent instruction constitute gross misconduct?
What's this Submit thingy do?
Sorry...
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
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
Not analogous.
Suppose a casino in Nevada set up a website that allowed people to gamble online. Are they subject to Utah law simply because citizens from Utah are capable of gambling there?
This is absolutely a case of the US trying to extend it's jurisdiction onto foreign soil.
It is the job of judges to *interpret* the law.
This is why lawyers cite court verdicts, and not laws, when giving precedent for requests for judgement. Caselaw is almost more important than law, for sufficiently complicated matters.
This is why it is important to have good judges on the bench. They very nearly *make* law, simply by interpretting existing/new statutes. (The Supreme Court generally doesn't get involved unless different circuit courts interpret the law differently. They get involved to provide consistency across circuits.)
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Having a criminal intent is an implicit requirement of nearly every criminal statute. Thus a finding that a defendant was incapable of having a criminal intent (legally insane) is an absolute bar to a criminal conviction.
It was entirely appropriate and consistant with criminal law for the judge to instruct the jury to consider criminal intent -- intent to break the law -- prior to finding a conviction.
Note that this is a requirement of criminal law. Civil DMCA suits (Such as Universal et al v. Ramierez) do not require a finding of intent.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Sorry but you can ask these people if that's still allowed
The last thing I want to see is OSS projects needing to file a bunch of paperwork just to make sure they can't get sued by an ??AA before they're even started.
Lessig argued the Eldred case before the Supreme COurt. THe kudos here belong to Joseph Burton and the rest of the defense team.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
You can keep Nunavut, we don't want it
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
"Merely offering a product that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction, "
This quote is taken from the article linked to by the author of the thread. It is from the Judge in the case and refers to an instruction the jury was given regarding conviction. Does this statement seem like it would set precedent for things like maybe...p2p networks? If you apply this statement to napster or kazaa, all of a sudden things seem to change, don't they...
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
...then no one would see it
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I am certain that glasses of champagne are being raised all over the US by manufacturers of DVD and CD-recorders, portable media devices such as IPod and Rio, personal computers, digital video recorders such as Tivo, and any other device that "might" be used to violate someone's copyright. The cartels' position that any slight chance of copyright violation makes these devices criminal under the DMCA has been used to strongarm these companies into accepting intrusive, restrictive DRM schemes that will be highly unpopular with their own customers. Although the tech companies (rightly) suspected that this was only the first step in the cartels' campaign to make the internet and other digital tools so unpalatable for consumers that they would gladly return to the forcefed industry gruel, they had to step to the RIAA/Disney beat or risk a high profile, expensive DMCA trial. Now that the threat of DMCA prosecution for products with an intended legal use has been greatly lessened (if not removed) by the judge's decision, these companies may feel they can shrug off the pressure from the cartels and give their customers the freedom and flexibility they want.
No, no, no. This is not a sig.
Again, I'm just going from memory here, and I don't have time to go googling around right now because I have to go meet my wife to go Christmas shopping, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
I'm pretty sure intent would be be pretty damn close to "what most people use it for". If you crack SDMI, HDCP, TCPA or any other FLAs (*Four* Letter Acronyms), even for the best of intentions, you know that most people *will* use it to commit copyright infringement. The fact that they found no evidence of "most people" using this software for this is what saved them. In any other case, MPAA or RIAA would claim that your "good cause" is merely a smokescreen to avoid prosecution.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Yes, actually, they are.
Mod point free since 2001
Actually, there are three. The two you mentioned and DVDCCA vs 500 John Does in CA.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
More disturbing is a later paragraph in the article...
"It is troubling for enforcement of the (criminal provisions of the) DMCA," said Evan Cox, an attorney with the San Francisco firm of Covington & Burlington. "This was the kind of case that the DMCA was meant to prevent. If this enforcement led to a not guilty verdict, you have to wonder what would lead to a successful case."
Gee, I didn't know the DMCA was meant to control the way lawful purchasers use their own property. I thought it was meant to prevent unlawful copying. Weren't there even those statements by the DMCA framers that they weren't meaning to take steps toward universal pay-per-view?
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
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.
Oh are they? I suppose all of those online casinos that I get spammed about daily are illegal ventures then? After all, gambling is illegal in my area. How about the sports betting establishments that take bets by phone from anywhere in the US?
Uh, like playing them?! Bare in mind that the objective of CSS on DVDs is to prevent use of a player that hasn't paid the cartel's fee; copying a DVD neither needs nor in practice uses DeCSS, it uses bit-for-bit copying machines and programs.
Just like region encoding, CSS was developed for the price-fixing activities of the MPAA cartel, not for fighting piracy, against which is of no value whatsoever.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
The DMCA text, on the other hand, doesn't concern itself with the subject of copyright infringement at all. Copyright-related issues are largely irrelevant.
I wonder if the judge or a prosecutor screwed up on this case, and the jury got bogus instructions. The question of whether copyright has been violated or someone intended to violate copyright, should never be an issue in a DMCA case. That just isn't what that law is about; the purpose of the law is to pre-emptively prevent certain technologies and behaviors (which may some day lead to infringement) from entering the mainstream.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
You're basing this argument on theory, when there is tons of actual expereince of this system. And it doesn't work like that at all.
If you have a clear and good case, you can easily sue in this system. While in the current US system, you very likely can't sue even if you are 100% right, because you couldn't afford the cost.
Also it results in a 90% (guess/vague memory) lower number of lawsuits.
AFAIK, nobody in these countries are arguing for going to the US system. That tells you something.
Going soon on eBay. Classic collectors item, never washed.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for Lawrence Lessig, but why did slashdot ed. Michael thank him for the outcome of this case? What was Lessig's involvement? I know he argued in Eldritch recently... is this simply a confusion of Eldritch with Elcomsoft?
.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
The cited C|net article:
I'm picturing a strip search of this poor guy looking for copies of illegal software. Not pretty.
Prosecuting him for talking about math would be esp. scary for free speech. I think most of the Justices would choke on that.
The prelim motion on jurisdiction and free speech and other stuff and multiple briefs and lengthy judge's opinion are all on the Elcomsoft page of the EFF site. Enjoy. (They really aren't hard to read.)
Lessig is very involved in EFF, which provided very significant litigation support to Skylarov and Elcomsoft as amicus.
EFF Elcomsoft page
It's an accurate statement of the DMCA, which requires "willfulness" a legal term for a criminal state of mind well beyond "merely offering." No other sigficance.
[o]_O
So can Dmitry & comapny go back to their normal jobs of writing email capture programs to harvest address for spamers?
NYTimes article
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
To an extent, I agree with you. The directive from the judge (per the article):
"...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."
Will this help by setting precedent for future cases? Absolutely. Does it help to overturn the DMCA? Absolutely not. And that's what I would consider a huge victory.
At best this case is a limited victory for "us", but I can't see it that way. As it stands right now, the DMCA can still be invoked to immediately stifle potentially legitimate projects and products.
We need a case that better tests the law as a whole rather than just clarify it to death with precedents.
- If we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat? - Steven Wright
The fun thing is that the DMCA could be perfectly fine if it were limited to case B that you mention. What I'm honestly sick of is people sticking every single godforsaken thing that happens on the Internet under the DMCA. Maybe this decision will put the kibosh on a bit of that. Maybe not.
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
The reason they were acquitted is because the Jury felt that Elcomsoft didn't do anything wrong.
Despite what the DMCA says, the average joe thinks it's reasonable that you should be able to back up your stuff. You should be able to copy your CDs to MP3 and play them on your iPods, that you should be able to TiVo Buffy and, while you're at it, remove all the ads.
No matter what Valenti and Rosen say, and no matter how much they pay off the Senator from Disney, Joe and Jane Juror aren't going to convict someone for cracking copy-protection when it's a fair use issue. It isn't going to happen because it doesn't make sense to the average person. The average person will ask "I bought this DVD, why can't I use it on a Linux DVD player?"
You can make all the laws you want, but until you convince the average american juror that taking a potty break during a commercial is 'theft', you are not gonna win a single case.
My father is a blogger.