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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
...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
So I can finally safely comment on your signature. :)
echo sfsdfsdfDsdfsdfsdfdsfMsdfsdfdsCsfdslkfdsfAdfgdfg | sed -e s/[a-z]//g
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.
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.
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.
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
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
"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.
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.
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.
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"