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."
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.
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
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.
Nowhere. The judge actually had some sense and instructed the jury that, to find Elcomsoft guilty, they needed to decide that the company knowingly commited an illegal act, and intended to do so.
Secondly, there is NO proof of pirated eBooks out there, even after 2 independant groups were paid to troll the web looking for them. No proof of copyright violation, no DMCA-offense.
It really came down to whether or not there was a reasonable legal use for the tool or not. The jury found that there was, ie, fair use applications. Not guilty, case closed, proceed with appeals.
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"
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.
IANAL, but I do watch Law and Order reruns a lot.
I would think that this would set precedent so that other defense attorneys will be able to strengthen their cases by citing this.
Of course I'm usually distracted by Carey Lowell or Jill Hennessy or Angie Harmon, but sometimes stuff seeps in to my lust-addled brain...
if one were to legally purchase an eBook and use Elcomsoft's software to convert the eBook into a PDF to view in otherwise incompatible viewers, for personal use only (not to be shared), then I believe that would be legit, since it is not legal for content copyright holders to prevent the user from personal use of the copyrighted materials.
IANAL, but the way I understand the "fair use" principle, the copyright holder can do whatever they like in an attempt to prevent you from copying their work. They just are not allowed to prosecute you if you do manage to copy it.
Of course you would need to copy it with tools that you build yourself. If you used somebody else's tools (like the ebook decryption program in question or decss) then the author may be found guilty of violating the DMCA for distributing a "circumvention device". I don't think it is illegal to possess a circumvention device, I believe it is just illegal to (willfully) distribute them.
Enigma
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.
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.
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