Sklyarov Discusses the ElcomSoft Trial

Whats the difference... by pilot1 · 2002-12-20 05:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

whether a video tape is played, or he is called to the stand to say the samething? He couldn't change what he said since he was under oath, so it seems the same.

Re:Whats the difference... by Moofie · 2002-12-20 05:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

Two words.

Cross examination.

It's, like, a fundamental part of our legal structure. The opposing side gets to IMMEDIATELY challenge your statements on the stand, obviously with the intent to lessen the impact of those statements on the jury.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Whats the difference... by k3v0 · 2002-12-20 05:47 · Score: 1

his replies were also edited, not played in their entirety. thats pretty clever. they should have edited him to say "i did it. i am guilty, and also a terrorist with illegal mp3's"
Re:Whats the difference... by frankie · 2002-12-20 05:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

since he was under oath, so it seems the same.
Hmm... held under guard in a foreign country and not allowed to go home until you make a video tape that incriminates you and/or your friends... nope, I can't think of any reason the testimony might be faulty. Of course, when folks in "the axis of evil" do things like that, our freedom-loving leaders tend to call it "hostage taking" and "terrorism".
Re:Whats the difference... by alkali · 2002-12-20 05:54 · Score: 1

If the defense wanted Skylarov to explain away what he said on tape, it had the right to call Skylarov itself -- and indeed, it did so. There's no right to have the one immediately follow the other.

(In more routine situations, it frequently happens that a witness's direct testimony will conclude at the end of one trial day and the cross-examination begins the next day. That might be a bad break for the cross-examining party, but it's not against the rules.)
Re:Whats the difference... by alkali · 2002-12-20 05:58 · Score: 4, Informative

The usual method is that one side "designates" deposition testimony to be read (or played) to the jury and the other side "counter-designates" testimony which it believes is necessary to make the testimony complete. The court is usually provided with a transcript of the entire deposition marked to show the designated and counter-designated portions. The point is to read (or play) only the relevant portions of the testimony rather than waste the jury's time and confuse the issues. There's nothing fishy about it.
Re:Whats the difference... by action789 · 2002-12-20 05:58 · Score: 1

While this is a good point, I'm still left asking "So what?"

The defense could just as easily called him as a witness for live statements, as easily as the prosecution played a tape of him.

What privelege was lost by the prosecution playing a tape?
Re:Whats the difference... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 06:20 · Score: 0

Whatever gave anyone the impression that this was supposed to have any semblance of fairness is what I don't understand.
Re:Whats the difference... by Moofie · 2002-12-20 06:33 · Score: 2

The prosecution obviously wanted to bring a carefully veneered and edited account of the facts to the courtroom. Why were they permitted to do this, when the witness was available for testimony?

Suppose that Mr. Sklyarov, rather than being a personable, charismatic, sympathetic individual (as he was described in the article) was a scruffy, unpleasant, shifty-looking guy. The prosecution makes a tape of said shifty-looking guy making certain statements about the defendant, maybe after giving him a haircut and sticking him in a suit. Those statements are edited to be as damning as possible to the defendant. The damning testimony has now been artificially enhanced against the defendant (otherwise, why bother?)

Now, the defense calls said shifty looking guy. The defense attempts to make a case with this guy. Now, the prosecution has already made a lot of hay with his carefully constructed testimony. Maybe he doesn't come across as good in person, so he's less useful to the defense. And, of course, now the prosecution gets a chance to cross examine him and try to slant the facts back in their favor.

Why is this good? I mean, I understand that this might be a part of how the game is played, what with jury consultants and all that nonsense, but how is justice served by presenting (edited!) videotapes of testimony?

If the witness is available, they should be in court, in front of the jury, saying what they have to say. Period.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Whats the difference... by Oliver+Defacszio · 2002-12-20 06:43 · Score: 2

"Then I noticed she was sitting on .. her sweet .. can. I grabbed her .. sweet can."
It was rock solid evidence then and it's rock solid evidence now.

--

-
Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
Re:Whats the difference... by alkali · 2002-12-20 07:04 · Score: 1

For the reasons you suggest, there is a rule of criminal proceudre about when you can use deposition testimony and how it can be edited. (See my other post on the subject.) I'm unaware of any basis for suggesting that the rule wasn't applied in this case.
Re:Whats the difference... by Moofie · 2002-12-20 07:11 · Score: 1

Wow, look at you, like, actually knowing what I'm flapping my gums about.

Thanks for the reference. : )

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Whats the difference... by Moofie · 2002-12-20 07:13 · Score: 1

"if the witness is unavailable, as unavailability is defined in Rule 804"

The article says that Sklyarov was waiting in a hotel room to testify. I wonder how the prosecution argued that he was "unavailable"?

Weird. Glad it didn't mess up the verdict.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Whats the difference... by alkali · 2002-12-20 07:31 · Score: 1

Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(e) allows the use of deposition testimony of a witness who is available if "the witness gives testimony at the trial or hearing inconsistent with that witness' deposition."

I am not sure how this would apply here, because Elcomsoft called Dmitry after the government introduced the deposition testimony. If the live testimony hadn't been given yet, how would you know if the deposition testimony was inconsistent?

Two possibilities:

(1) Perhaps Elcomsoft indicated in the opening statement that it would present testimony from Dmitry, and its description of that testimony made clear that it would be inconsistent with Dmitry's deposition. That might be a sufficient basis to get the deposition testimony in even before the live testimony occurs. However, I don't know what courts have held on that subject.

(2) The government and Elcomsoft might have come to some sort of agreement on the issue. (E.g., "Hey, we're going to interrupt your case to show the jury rebuttal deposition testimony on video if you call Sklyarov, so if you're going do do that, why not let us present the video as part of our case?") Attorneys make these little agreements all the time as part of trying cases. (The fact that they enter into such agreements voluntarily doesn't necessarily keep them from sniping at the other side after the case is over.)

There could be something else going on here too; e.g., perhaps the fact that Sklyarov happened to be in the country wasn't sufficient to make him "available" for purposes of the rule, because he could have jumped on a plane at any time.

In any event, that's some informed speculation. The attorneys on the case would know what the whole deal is.
Re:Whats the difference... by Copid · 2002-12-20 07:54 · Score: 1

You know what always seemed to make sense to me? I think the jury should be able to ask questions at the end of cross examination. Isn't the whole point of bringing witnesses up for examination that the jury completely understands what the witnesses know? It seems like a logical thing to have the supposedly impartial decision makers asking questions--probably even more important than having one side or the other asking questions in order to put their own spin on the truth.
Oh well. I guess that's why I'm an engineer and not a lawyer.

--
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Re:Whats the difference... by Alsee · 2002-12-20 07:59 · Score: 4, Informative

I agree with you, just want to enhance one point...

challenge your statements on the stand, obviously with the intent to lessen the impact of those statements on the jury.

I wouldn't say it is to lessen the impact, I would say it is to clarify and balance the statements.

The US legal system is an adversarial system, each lawyer tries to turn the testimony to support his side as much as possible. Witnesses are not allowed to simply get up there and announce the "truth". They can only answer the lawyer's questions. The laywer has a lot of control of what information is presented and how it is presented. Without cross examinaton it can be extremely distorted.

With recorded testimony the control is even greater. If the lawyer doesn't like the way one of his questiones was answered I think he can "unask the question" by not including the question in the tape.

Was this a misscarrige of justice? No, the defence was able to add him to their witness list and call him themselves. It just strikes me as a stupid stunt by the prosecution.

If I were on a jury and this sort of think happened I'd certainly wonder why the hell the prosecution didn't want him on the stand.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:Whats the difference... by Sycraft-fu · 2002-12-20 09:44 · Score: 2

Sigh. As so many other have explained just because the prosecutition showed the tape did not at all exclude him from testifying, it just meant that the defense had to call him as a witness. the prosecution isn't required to call or not call any given person, they can make their witness list as they choose. Same goes for the defense.
Re:Whats the difference... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 10:13 · Score: 0

"Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand your rights? Great." Start the camera recording.
Re:Whats the difference... by iocat · 2002-12-20 10:26 · Score: 1

Yeah, just like they did to Daniel Pearl! Oh, except at the end of that "deposition," they slit his throat. Hmm... Maybe your comparison is flawed...
The DMCA is totally evil, but so far this case has demonstrated that while Congress can pass fucked up laws, and stupid companies can prosecute under them, justice can prevail. I predict it will be a while before another criminal prosecution under DMCA.

--
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
Re:Whats the difference... by Daniel+Quinlan · 2002-12-20 11:18 · Score: 2

Hmm... held under guard in a foreign country and not allowed to go home until you make a video tape that incriminates you and/or your friends... nope, I can't think of any reason the testimony might be faulty. Of course, when folks in "the axis of evil" do things like that, our freedom-loving leaders tend to call it "hostage taking" and "terrorism".
You left out that bit about terrorists killing innocent people and prisoners being tortured. I don't know how you can compare the arrest and trial of someone (under what we agree is a bad law) with how countries in the "axis of evil" have treated hostages and prisoners. Did they force Sklyarov to lie? The story does not say anything about that.
On the other hand, I don't seem to remember the North Koreans treating POWs very well during the Korean War. I do remember Iran holding US hostages for 444 days without cause. I also remember Iraq torturing downed pilots during the Persian Gulf war.
Let's not leave out the Iraqi system of justice where you are killed if you are perceived to be a threat. No judge, no jury, no lawyers.

He wasn't under oath for the tape, right? by SledgeHBK · 2002-12-20 05:34 · Score: 1

Maybe I don't understand, how can you use a tape as a substitute for testimony? Doesn't seem right.

Re:He wasn't under oath for the tape, right? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 05:38 · Score: 0

Depositions are under oath.
Re:He wasn't under oath for the tape, right? by Zeinfeld · 2002-12-20 05:58 · Score: 2

Maybe I don't understand, how can you use a tape as a substitute for testimony? Doesn't seem right.
You can't use the tape as a substitute for testimony, but you can use it for evidence.
The bit I don't understand is why the defense would allow this without objection. It is not usual to accept a videotaped deposition if the person giving it is available to testify in person. A videotape does not give an opportunity for cross examination. The only explanation would be if the defense did not think that the tape hurt their case or if the judge made some bizare ruling.
Using a tape in this way would seem to be bad for the prosecution. The jury will inevitably suspect that there is a problem with the testimony if the proescution have to use that type of tactic.
Given the political nature of the trial and the reported intention of the FBI to 'take out a high profile hacker' I would not be suprised if some jury nullification was going on here. This is not like the Napster case where piracy was the issue, the real issue here was the ability of the consumer to have any control over the content they purchased. It does not take much intelligence to realize that the same technology applied to TV means that it won't be possible to use a VCR in future.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:He wasn't under oath for the tape, right? by alkali · 2002-12-20 06:26 · Score: 2, Informative

It is not usual to accept a videotaped deposition if the person giving it is available to testify in person.

Depositions taken in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 15 may be used at trial in accordance with subpart (e) of that Rule:

At the trial or upon any hearing, a part or all of a deposition, so far as otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used as substantive evidence if the witness is unavailable, as unavailability is defined in Rule 804(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, or the witness gives testimony at the trial or hearing inconsistent with that witness' deposition. Any deposition may also be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness. If only a part of a deposition is offered in evidence by a party, an adverse party may require the offering of all of it which is relevant to the part offered and any party may offer other parts.
Re:He wasn't under oath for the tape, right? by Zeinfeld · 2002-12-20 07:57 · Score: 2

At the trial or upon any hearing, a part or all of a deposition, so far as otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used as substantive evidence if the witness is unavailable, as unavailability is defined in Rule 804(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence
AS I understand it Dimitry was present in person at the trial so the use of the videotape does not appear to be legit.
However Dimitry does not really have the right to complain here since the trial is not about witnesses being able to make their case. At the recent David Irving libel trial in London Irving asked a witness if he had seen a picture of Adolf Hitler in Irving's house as had been reported. The witness answered 'no' and afterwards wrote an article where he said he did not see a picture of Adolf Hitler but Irving had served capapes with cocktail sticks carrying a swastika.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Re:He wasn't under oath for the tape, right? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 10:42 · Score: 0

AS I understand it Dimitry was present in person at the trial so the use of the videotape does not appear to be legit.

Depends. If the defense didn't object, then it's legit.

Hmm... by Cali+Thalen · 2002-12-20 05:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

Video someone before the trial, edit the tape, and play that back in court...and with no intention of letting him stand up and defend himself?

Sounds like someing you'd hear about in a _really_ backwards country somewhere...

--
Chaos, panic, disorder...my work here is done.

Re:Hmm... by sweetooth · 2002-12-20 05:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh, you mean like the new and improved United States of America?

I swear, I'm gonna move to New Zealand, or Australia, or Canada or something.
Re:Hmm... by mikeee · 2002-12-20 05:40 · Score: 1

Or in the Microsoft anti-trust trial?
Re:Hmm... by Jason+Earl · 2002-12-20 05:49 · Score: 4, Informative

It was evidence, and the prosecution probably guessed that actually having Dmitry on the stand would hurt their case. Of course, since this isn't one of those really backwards countries the defense was able to put Dmitry on the stand as one of their own witnesses.
Re:Hmm... by krist0 · 2002-12-20 05:51 · Score: 1

yeah, lucky you guys have those guns to defend yourselves, from what i hear, the road coats and coming back to take their territory.....

--
all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
Re:Hmm... by chef_raekwon · 2002-12-20 05:51 · Score: 0, Flamebait

sorry, Canada is full. Funny how you picked all nations from the Commonwealth, eh? For Americans, all your choices have been narrowed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia or Haiti.

--
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Re:Hmm... by AyeRoxor! · 2002-12-20 05:53 · Score: 5, Informative

"with no intention of letting him stand up and defend himself?"

You have to remember that the charges against him were dropped. As soon as he accepted the bargain of exchanging his testimony/recorded whatever for dropped charges, he lost his right to defend himself and/or his actions. Any defendant has the right to face his accuser in court, not just anybody involved. And in any case, Elcomsoft's attorney could call him at any time.
Re:Hmm... by krist0 · 2002-12-20 05:53 · Score: 1

ahem, I meant RED coats....road coats?

man, I seriously gotta lay off the cough syrup.

--
all you are, is all you are, i'm so sorry for you.
Re:Hmm... by Maxwell'sSilverLART · 2002-12-20 05:54 · Score: 2

and with no intention of letting him stand up and defend himself
How do you figure? The defense could have called him to the stand, but chose not to. The prosecution cannot call the accused to the stand--pesky little thing called the Fifth Amendment. The defense chose not to call Dmitri to explain the statements, probably because, if called, Dmitri would be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, which usually bolsters their case (even when there's no case to be made). Sounds to me like the prosecutor did his job correctly, and the defense attorney made a good decision. Incidentally, it looks like the defense attorney's decision was correct--they won.

--
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
Re:Hmm... by DeepRedux · 2002-12-20 05:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Sklyarov was not on trial here, so he has no right to present testimony on his own behalf. The one with rights is the defendant, ElcomSoft, his employer. ElcomSoft had the right, which they exercised, to have Sklyarov testify live in court.

In the US, it is not the job of the prosecution to fairly present both sides. The prosecution's job is to make the best case they can against the defendant and the defense's job is to rebut the case. The judge has the task of making sure that both sides have the opportunity to present their case, within the rules of evidence.
Re:Hmm... by sweetooth · 2002-12-20 05:58 · Score: 2

Actually, I picked countries where I have friends and/or family so I'm not really worried about being turned away.
Re:Hmm... by alkali · 2002-12-20 06:13 · Score: 1

Dmitry wasn't the accused; Elcomsoft was. Dmitry waived his Fifth Amendment rights in exchange for a promise of immunity.
Re:Hmm... by Col.+Klink+(retired) · 2002-12-20 06:15 · Score: 2

The defense could have called him to the stand, but chose not to.
The defense later called Sklyarov as its own witness...
Incidentally, it looks like the defense attorney's decision was correct--they won.
Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Fred von Lohmann said he's not surprised that many jurors found Sklyarov sympathetic. "The jury saw this serious young man and not a copyright pirate," he said. "They must have said, 'Where's the bad guy here?'"

--
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Re:Hmm... by Atsjoo · 2002-12-20 06:26 · Score: 1

In the US, it is not the job of the prosecution to fairly present both sides.

Maybe it's just me but this seems like a bit of a knife's edge to balance on. How about trying to make the courts a little less of a pissing contest and a litte more about trying to find out what happened and whether it's legal or not?

The German tradition that we also have used here in Norway (and several other countries no doubt) is that the prosecution's job is to present all the facts, both for and against. The defence has only the task of picking apart that part of the evidence that indicated the defendant is guilty.

Seems a tad more humane to me as we don't (in theory) end up with a lone person and his lawyer up against the whole might of the nation's justice system.
Re:Hmm... by Planesdragon · 2002-12-20 06:30 · Score: 2

The prosecution cannot call the accused to the stand--pesky little thing called the Fifth Amendment

I think they can call--but he just don't have to answer if he doesn't want to.
Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 06:40 · Score: 0

You may not be turned away physically, but as soon as that american bravado sticks its head up, you'll be ostracized.
Re:Hmm... by phriedom · 2002-12-20 06:44 · Score: 1

Do any of those places even have a Bill of Rights?

--
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Re:Hmm... by chef_raekwon · 2002-12-20 06:46 · Score: 1

this is going recursive:

thats why Canada is full ;)

--
We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
Re:Hmm... by cdrudge · 2002-12-20 07:00 · Score: 2

Do we?
Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:20 · Score: 0

The defence should have doctored up their own version of the video for cross examination. I'm sure they could have cut-and-pasted it enough to make him say anything they wanted him to. They could even set it to music and put some dancing girls in the background.

Hopefully, the clock hands in the background jumping around like crazy wouldn't weaken their case.
Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:35 · Score: 0

Dmitry wasn't the accused; Elcomsoft was.

'Elcomsoft' wasn't arrested; Dmitry was.
Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:38 · Score: 0

Sklyarov was not on trial here...

Then why was he arrested to begin with??? Obviously, the feds though the had something to do with committing the (supposed) illegal act.
Re:Hmm... by monkeydo · 2002-12-20 09:16 · Score: 2

The US Judicial system is an adversarial one. It is the proscecution's job to make their case as best they can. It is the defense's job to pick apart the prosecution's case, and if neccesary to present a defense. Since the burden is always on the prosecution it is not always necessary or beneficial to, "Find out what happened." If the prosecution can't make their case the defense is not obligated to do anything. This is on purpose as it prevents abuse of prosecution and it prevents prejudicial but not relevant evidence from being presented.

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Re:Hmm... by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 10:32 · Score: 2

It was evidence

But it was hearsay evidence.
Re:Hmm... by tdelaney · 2002-12-20 10:49 · Score: 2

No, and if I were not agnostic I'd thank God that we don't.

All a codification does is make it easy for some people to argue that anything not explicitly covered in the "Bill of Rights" is not a right at all.
Re:Hmm... by Colz+Grigor · 2002-12-20 13:34 · Score: 1

If the defense thought Skylarov's comments would have helped their case, they could have called him as a witness. The prosecution doesn't monopolize the calling of witnesses. Evidently, Skylarov's testimony wasn't deemed worthwhile by the defenese attorneys. Considering that they successfully defended the case, should we really be second-guessing them?

::Colz Grigor
Re:Hmm... by greenrd · 2002-12-20 15:54 · Score: 2

All a codification does is make it easy for some people to argue that anything not explicitly covered in the "Bill of Rights" is not a right at all.
Not at all. Those who would conflate moral and legal rights are sophists.
What it does do is provide legal machinery to protect your rights. If you don't have codified rights it's your word (that you have right X) against the governments (that you don't). If you do have a constitution and legal precedent, it's your word and hopefully yards of precedent, against the government's. Guess which is better?
Also, where a constitution (or human rights act) does not cover an important right adequately, you can add amendments or new laws. So lack of coverage (especially of rights that weren't even conceived of at the time of founding, like say rights viz-a-viz designer babies, or the right of vegan prisoners to receive vegan food), is not an insurmountable problem.

--
Female Prison Rape in NY

The 5th amendmant by ACNeal · 2002-12-20 05:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

They can't compel him to testify, so why ask him to? It would have wasted everyones time to call him to the stand.

If he had something to say his lawyers would call him to the stand in rebuttal to the prosecution.

Re:The 5th amendmant by gmhowell · 2002-12-20 05:45 · Score: 1

I believe there was a plea bargain or some other arrangement to get the prosecutor to drop charges. This throws his 5th amendment rights into a bit of a quagmire, depending on how the plea was setup. At the very least, if he refused to testify, they could likely reinstate the charges against him personally.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:The 5th amendmant by crumley · 2002-12-20 05:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

Part of Dmitry's "plea" agreement was a provision that required him to testify for the government. As he said on several ocassions he was perfectly willing to do that since he had nothing to hide. Dmitry was not the defendant in the case that finally went to trial - his company was. Dmitry did eventually testify for the defense, but it still was pretty sketchy for the government to use his taped deposition instead of calling him to the stand.

--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
Re:The 5th amendmant by Spazholio · 2002-12-20 06:13 · Score: 2

I'm surprised no one noticed this - he doesn't HAVE 5th amendment rights. He's not an American citizen. There may be something equivalent in a situation such as this, with a non-citizen bearing witness in a courtroom, but I'm relatively sure the 5th amendment doesn't apply. But, as everyone here is so fond of saying, IANAL, so I could be WAAAAAY off base here.
Re:The 5th amendmant by dalassa · 2002-12-20 06:23 · Score: 2

I believe you are. I believe that once you are in the offical courts of America you have the same rights citizen or non citizen.

--
Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.
Re:The 5th amendmant by Spazholio · 2002-12-20 06:30 · Score: 2

Can any lawyers weigh in on this? Now, I'm actually curious as to how this topic is treated...
Re:The 5th amendmant by alkali · 2002-12-20 07:14 · Score: 1

The Fifth Amendment says, in pertinent part, "nor shall any person ... be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The Supreme Court has held that the term "person" includes noncitizens.

(While apparently not relevant here, it may be of interest to know that civil suits and deportation proceedings arising out of criminal activity are not "criminal case[s]" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment.)
Re:The 5th amendmant by Ivan+Raikov · 2002-12-20 07:27 · Score: 2

I'm surprised no one noticed this - he doesn't HAVE 5th amendment rights. He's not an American citizen.

Actually, all legal residents and citizens of the United States are entitled to equal protection of the law, thanks to to the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Equal protection for foreign nationals residing in the U.S. was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the decision on Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886). I think the most relevant part of this decision is [...]The guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color, or of nationality. Those subjects of the Emperor of China who have the right to temporarily or permanently reside within the United States, are entitled to enjoy the protection guaranteed by the Constitution and afforded by the laws.

--
Bush Lies Watch
Re:The 5th amendmant by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:40 · Score: 0

Dmitry was not the defendant in the case that finally went to trial

The why the F*ck was he arrested to begin with??
Re:The 5th amendmant by arkanes · 2002-12-20 07:45 · Score: 2

Military courts have upheld that "enemy combatants", on the other hand, have noonstitutional rights. Personally, I believe that it's the height of hypocrisy to deny those rights to anyone, American or not, but there you go.
Re:The 5th amendmant by Ivan+Raikov · 2002-12-20 07:54 · Score: 2

Military courts have upheld that "enemy combatants", on the other hand, have noonstitutional rights. Personally, I believe that it's the height of hypocrisy to deny those rights to anyone, American or not, but there you go.

I'll probably agree with you, but my point was that Sklyarov was legally residing in the US on a tourist visa (or whatever kind of visa you need for attending conferences), and was therefore under the same legal protection as any American citizen. I don't think enemy combatants should classify as legal residents; the question as to whether they're treated in accordance with international treaties and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a different story altogether.

--
Bush Lies Watch
Re:The 5th amendmant by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 08:23 · Score: 0

The why the F*ck was he arrested to begin with??

Exactly.
Re:The 5th amendmant by monkeydo · 2002-12-20 09:19 · Score: 2

I might agree with you if I knew WTF a noonstitutional right was.

--
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
Re:The 5th amendmant by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 11:53 · Score: 0

I don't think Sklyarov could avail himself of the 5th amendment but not because he wasn't a citizen, rather because the charges against him were dropped. The 5th amendment protects people against Self Incrimination. The government is free to grant immunity to witnesses, and can compel testimony in such circumstances through contempt of court and obstruction of justice.

Re:Um by DaytonCIM · 2002-12-20 05:35 · Score: 2, Informative

No... it's spelled S k l y a r o v.

Thanks for playing.

IN SOVIET RUSSIA.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 05:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Skylarov is a citizen!

This is a sad story, people by SteweyGriffin · 2002-12-20 05:36 · Score: 1, Interesting

From the page: At the time of his arrest, Dmitry Sklyarov was a 27-year-old Russian citizen, Ph.D. student, cryptographer and father of two small children (a 2-1/2 year old son, and a 3-month-old daughter).

A man devotes his life's work to studying the fine intracacies of computer science. He obtains a doctoral degree through years of work mastering cryptographic algorithms.

He then gets sued unjustly and is ripped away from his children for months and months and months.

Where's the justice here?

Re:This is a sad story, people by DaytonCIM · 2002-12-20 06:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

Where's the justice here?

The justice here was almost the same justice the DoJ dealt Kevin Mitnick; but ElcomSoft was found not-guilty and Sklyarov only spent a short time in custody.

What we need to do as a community is fight the DMCA and DRM Technology, in hopes that this doesn't happen again.
Re:This is a sad story, people by dr_dank · 2002-12-20 06:35 · Score: 2

The justice is that we may now have a vocal spokesman to put an end to the "In Soviet Russia..." cliche.

--
Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
Re:This is a sad story, people by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 06:53 · Score: 1

A man devotes his life's work to studying the fine intracacies of computer science. He obtains a doctoral degree through years of work mastering cryptographic algorithms.

Then he uses his skills to exploit the copyrighted works of others, while at the same time claiming copyright on that work itself and forcing people to pay for it!

He then gets sued unjustly [sic] and is ripped away from his children for months and months and months.

Where's the justice here?

It's really simple. Don't be a hypocrit. If you're going to ignore the copyrights of others, don't copyright your own stuff. Release it anonymously for all to use.
Re:This is a sad story, people by Sloppy · 2002-12-20 07:29 · Score: 2

He didn't ignore the copyrights of others. He wasn't even charged with anything like that, not even vicarious copyright infringement like the Napster guys. And unlike the Napster guys, this guy's tool's primary purpose and most common use, wasn't copyright infringement.
This was purely a circumventing-technological-measures case, with virtually no bearing on real copyright issues at all.

--
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Re:This is a sad story, people by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 07:45 · Score: 1

He didn't ignore the copyrights of others.

He profited off the copyright infringements of others.

And unlike the Napster guys, this guy's tool's primary purpose and most common use, wasn't copyright infringement.

According to the ruling, it was.

This was purely a circumventing-technological-measures case, with virtually no bearing on real copyright issues at all.

So you're saying the DMCA isn't a real copyright issue? I can't really agree with that.
Re:This is a sad story, people by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:55 · Score: 0

Fuck you ekrout!!!

got ekrout? [slashdot.org]
Re:This is a sad story, people by Quixadhal · 2002-12-20 08:48 · Score: 2

"So you're saying the DMCA isn't a real copyright issue? I can't really agree with that."

You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it false. The DMCA has nothing to do with copyright law. Unauthorized reproduction of an existing work is already protected BY Copyright, if you copy something for a purpose other than archival backup or fair use, you are already in violation of the law.

OTOH, the DMCA makes it a crime to build a tool which might allow you to copy (or access) copyrighted material. Under the DMCA, a web browser could be considered illegal, as it translates an encrypted (HTML) data source which might be copyrighted, into a readable (plain text) format.

An equivalent would be if you were to spend years carving an intricate wooden statuette, and then someone threw you in jail because somebody *MIGHT* come along and use it to club someone over the head.

Don't assume that just because something is LAW, that it's automatically JUST or RIGHT. That's only true in a theocracy (where any law is, by definition, the Will of God). The DMCA is a very bad law, created by people with very little technical expertise, and a great deal of fear.
Re:This is a sad story, people by Alsee · 2002-12-20 08:52 · Score: 2

Troll.

If anyone doubts it, notice his argument is that everyone SHOULD have the software and his sig link is anti-DMCA.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:This is a sad story, people by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 09:55 · Score: 1, Flamebait

You may not agree with it, but that doesn't make it false.

Doesn't make it true either.

The DMCA has nothing to do with copyright law.

The DMCA is copyright law. And presumably you mean the circumvention parts of the DMCA have nothing to do with copyright law. But even that is untrue.

Unauthorized reproduction of an existing work is already protected BY Copyright, if you copy something for a purpose other than archival backup or fair use, you are already in violation of the law.

So?

OTOH, the DMCA makes it a crime to build a tool which might allow you to copy (or access) copyrighted material.

No, it makes it a crime to manufacture a tool which is primarily designed to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a copyrighted work.

Under the DMCA, a web browser could be considered illegal, as it translates an encrypted (HTML) data source which might be copyrighted, into a readable (plain text) format.

So why don't you initiate a lawsuit against Microsoft then? Is it maybe because you're wrong, and a web browser couldn't be considered illegal?

An equivalent would be if you were to spend years carving an intricate wooden statuette, and then someone threw you in jail because somebody *MIGHT* come along and use it to club someone over the head.

That would be a great law. I think statuettes should be illegal.

Fuckin' idiot.
Re:This is a sad story, people by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 09:57 · Score: 1

No. My argument is don't be a hypocrite. If you don't like copyright law, don't profit off copyright law. If you do like copyright law, don't make devices which help people break copyright law.
Re:This is a sad story, people by geekee · 2002-12-20 10:56 · Score: 2

"And unlike the Napster guys, this guy's tool's primary purpose and most common use, wasn't copyright infringement. "

I can just see the salesmen now: "you should only use this software to make backup copies, or move the copy to a new machine". wink wink nudge nudge.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:This is a sad story, people by Alsee · 2002-12-20 22:35 · Score: 2

don't make devices which help people break copyright law.

Oh, you mean like photocopiers and faxes and VCR's and PVR's and tape recorders and modems and FTP programs and web browsers and photoshop and camcorders and cameras and e-mail and magic markers and telephones and scanners and printers and CDR drives and and and...

We had copyright protection before the DCMA, all the law you need to prosecute crime. DMCA isn't copyright law. It is paracopyright at best.

In the 4 years since DMCA was passed NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been convicted, it has yet to be challenged in court on constitutional grounds.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:This is a sad story, people by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-21 06:20 · Score: 2

Oh, you mean like photocopiers and faxes and VCR's and PVR's and tape recorders and modems and FTP programs and web browsers and photoshop and camcorders and cameras and e-mail and magic markers and telephones and scanners and printers and CDR drives and and and...

No, I mean devices primarily created for breaking the law.

We had copyright protection before the DCMA [sic], all the law you need to prosecute crime.

I disagree. When you have cracks and serial numbers being distributed all over the internet with no basis for prosecuting the people who profit off their distribution, you have to admit that copyright law has become unenforcible.
Re:This is a sad story, people by Alsee · 2002-12-21 08:42 · Score: 2

DMCA does not enforce copyright. Period.

Take a look at the DeCSS situation. You can copy the entire disc, CSS and all. And this is exactly what people do when they sell illegal copies.

Decrypting the disc has absolutly nothing to do with copying the disc. Isn't it a bit odd that after a massive search the MPAA still got up in court and said they couldn't find a single example of DeCSS being used toviolate copyright?

And isn't it a bit odd that they reported the same thing in the Elcomsoft case? A major search and not a single case found where it was used to violate copyright. I don't know how many copies of the software they sold, but apparently the people who bought it had some use for it other than violating copyright.

No, I mean devices primarily created for breaking the law.

Dual problem. Not only is the "primary reason for creation" subjective, but the law becomes worthless if you DON'T interpret it horribly. If someone had written DeCSS and Elcomsoft's E-book software for "legal purposes" then the result is exactly the same, the DRM is worthless.

DMCA "protects" DRM from Eeevil people like students and librarians and their Eeevil legal activities like fair use.

you have to admit that copyright law has become unenforcible.

DRM is unenforcible, with or without the DMCA. And attempting to enforce DRM stomps on people doing nothing wrong.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:This is a sad story, people by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-22 02:17 · Score: 2

DMCA is copyright law. Period.

There's a little thing called Title 17 of the US Code. It is entitled "Copyrights." The DMCA is under it.

Take a look at the DeCSS situation. You can copy the entire disc, CSS and all. And this is exactly what people do when they sell illegal copies.

So?

Decrypting the disc has absolutly nothing to do with copying the disc.

So?

Isn't it a bit odd that after a massive search the MPAA still got up in court and said they couldn't find a single example of DeCSS being used toviolate copyright?

They should have asked me. I've used DeCSS to violate copyright.

And isn't it a bit odd that they reported the same thing in the Elcomsoft case? A major search and not a single case found where it was used to violate copyright.

No. Elcomsoft wasn't guilty.

I don't know how many copies of the software they sold, but apparently the people who bought it had some use for it other than violating copyright.

Or maybe the people just didn't get caught. That's why the DMCA exists in the first place. It's really hard to catch copyright infringers.

Dual problem. Not only is the "primary reason for creation" subjective, but the law becomes worthless if you DON'T interpret it horribly.

Of course it's subjective. So is "justifiable homicide." That's what judges and juries are for.

If someone had written DeCSS and Elcomsoft's E-book software for "legal purposes" then the result is exactly the same, the DRM is worthless.

Well, for one thing there's no mens rea, which is what we found in the Elcomsoft case. If someone kills someone accidentally the result is exactly the same, but the legality is quite different. But beyond that, the law protects copyright holders from devices created for a certain purpose, it also protects them from devices which have limited purpose other than circumvention.

DMCA "protects" DRM from Eeevil people like students and librarians and their Eeevil legal activities like fair use.

If the DMCA "protects" it, it isn't legal, is it?

DRM is unenforcible, with or without the DMCA. And attempting to enforce DRM stomps on people doing nothing wrong.

It's not completely enforcible, but I've found it a lot harder to get VMWare cracks since the DMCA was passed. I'm sure it makes it harder to use the products of others without paying for them, and that's all it's supposed to do, not make it impossible.
Re:This is a sad story, people by Alsee · 2002-12-22 17:30 · Score: 2

There's a little thing called Title 17 of the US Code. It is entitled "Copyrights." The DMCA is under it.

They can put it under title 26 if they like, that doesn't mean it collects taxes. If they want to justify the DMCA under the copyright clause of the constitution I think there's a good chance it will be stuck down as unconstitutional. And the reason it hasn't happened already is that there hasn't been a single conviction under the DMCA, thus no case to bring to the supreme court.

So?

So?

You sound confused. Perhaps you didn't notice the line before that which answers your two questions.

I've used DeCSS to violate copyright.

Unless you're going to fill in details I'd say there's a good chance that whatever you claim you did was not in fact a copyright violation. And if it was, you could have done it without DeCSS. Not that it matters, you can use a photocopier or VCR to violate copyright. Or even a pencil.

No. Elcomsoft wasn't guilty.

While you're right they found Elcomsoft not guilty, perhaps you didn't know they still found the software illegal under the DCMA. So yes, I was absolutely on point that the software was being used for perfectly legal purposes and they couldn't find a single copyright violation.

>apparently the people who bought it had some use for it other than violating copyright.
Or maybe the people just didn't get caught.

Perhaps you didn't realize their customer list includes "Fortune 500 companies and US government agencies". So yeah, apparently their software was being used for perfectly legitimate purposes.

>Dual problem. Not only is the "primary reason for creation" subjective, but the law becomes worthless if you DON'T interpret it horribly.
Of course it's subjective. So is "justifiable homicide."

Apparently you didn't catch the rest of the sentence. Any law against murder that has to include justifiable homicide as illegal is bad. Perhaps you missed the case (pre-DMCA), but the "primary purpose" of VCR's was to commit copyright violation. At least it was until the case got overturned in the the supreme court. The DMCA's prohibitions are horribly overbroad.

>legal activities like fair use.
If the DMCA "protects" it, it isn't legal, is it?

Thank you for making my point for me.
Copyright protection does not exist in fair use. DMCA makes fair use illegal. DMCA does not enforce copyright. And it is probably unconstitutional.

I'm sure it makes it harder to use the products of others without paying for them, and that's all it's supposed to do

Again you completely missed the second half of what I said. What it actually does is stomp on people doing nothing wrong. It criminalizes perfectly legitimate activity and it makes copyright violation... well... it makes copyright violation still illegal.

About the best you can say for the DMCA is that sometimes it makes copyright violation less convient. Outlawing photocopiers and VCR's would make copyright violation less convient too.

I don't think you should criminalize legitimate activity and take away people's rights just to make something already illegal less convient.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:This is a sad story, people by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-23 04:52 · Score: 2

Unless you're going to fill in details I'd say there's a good chance that whatever you claim you did was not in fact a copyright violation.

I borrowed a friend's South Park DVD, copied it to my hard drive, and returned the DVD to my friend.

Perhaps you didn't realize their customer list includes "Fortune 500 companies and US government agencies". So yeah, apparently their software was being used for perfectly legitimate purposes.

Apparently the courts found otherwise.

Perhaps you missed the case (pre-DMCA), but the "primary purpose" of VCR's was to commit copyright violation.

I guess you missed the case. The "primary purpose" was ruled to be timeshifting.

Copyright protection does not exist in fair use. DMCA makes fair use illegal.

The DMCA specifically makes fair use legal. "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
Re:This is a sad story, people by Alsee · 2002-12-23 17:07 · Score: 2

> Unless you're going to fill in details I'd say there's a good chance that whatever you claim you did was not in fact a copyright violation.

I borrowed a friend's South Park DVD, copied it to my hard drive, and returned the DVD to my friend.

If you are going to REPEATEDLY ignore adjacent sentences then there's not much point discussing it with you. You did it three times last post, and twice more in this one. I said:

I'd say there's a good chance that whatever you claim you did was not in fact a copyright violation. And if it was, you could have done it without DeCSS. Not that it matters, you can use a photocopier or VCR to violate copyright. Or even a pencil.

Well, it uncertain is what you did was actually a copyright violation, but even assuming it is, my next sentence certainly applies - you certainly could have done it without DeCSS.

>So yeah, apparently their software was being used for perfectly legitimate purposes.

Apparently the courts found otherwise.

What possibly makes you say that? They ruled the software was illegal under the DMCA. They NEVER said that it wasn't being used for legitimate purposes.

The DMCA specifically makes fair use legal. "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."

Yeah, that line is a pisser.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:This is a sad story, people by Alsee · 2002-12-23 17:14 · Score: 2

Nutz. I left out the second case where you ignored consecutive sentences.

>Perhaps you missed the case (pre-DMCA), but the "primary purpose" of VCR's was to commit copyright violation.

I guess you missed the case. The "primary purpose" was ruled to be timeshifting.

I wrote:

Perhaps you missed the case (pre-DMCA), but the "primary purpose" of VCR's was to commit copyright violation. At least it was until the case got overturned in the the supreme court.

Gee, where did that second sentence dissapear to when you quoted me? And just incase you didn't understand what I said, I'll rephrase it:

Courts ruled the "primary purpose" of VCR's was to commit copyright violation. The supreme court then overturned the case.

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:This is a sad story, people by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-24 06:22 · Score: 2

Me: I borrowed a friend's South Park DVD, copied it to my hard drive, and returned the DVD to my friend.

If you are going to REPEATEDLY ignore adjacent sentences then there's not much point discussing it with you. You did it three times last post, and twice more in this one.

Whoa, chill out. If I ignored a sentence of yours it was accidental.

I'd say there's a good chance that whatever you claim you did was not in fact a copyright violation. And if it was, you could have done it without DeCSS. Not that it matters, you can use a photocopier or VCR to violate copyright. Or even a pencil.

Well, it uncertain is what you did was actually a copyright violation, but even assuming it is, my next sentence certainly applies - you certainly could have done it without DeCSS.

How could I have copied the DVD to my hard drive without DeCSS? And how is it uncertain that what I did was actually a copyright violation? Are you claiming that it's fair use?

I don't know how many copies of the software they sold, but apparently the people who bought it had some use for it other than violating copyright.

Me: Or maybe the people just didn't get caught. That's why the DMCA exists in the first place. It's really hard to catch copyright infringers.

Perhaps you didn't realize their customer list includes "Fortune 500 companies and US government agencies". So yeah, apparently their software was being used for perfectly legitimate purposes.

Me: Apparently the courts found otherwise.

What possibly makes you say that? They ruled the software was illegal under the DMCA. They NEVER said that it wasn't being used for legitimate purposes.

If the primary purpose of software is to break the law, I wouldn't call that a legitimate purpose. Semantics, I guess.
Re:This is a sad story, people by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-24 06:25 · Score: 2

Courts ruled the "primary purpose" of VCR's was to commit copyright violation. The supreme court then overturned the case.

OK, you're right, I didn't understand what you were saying. Probably because your statement doesn't have a point.
Re:This is a sad story, people by Alsee · 2002-12-25 08:16 · Score: 2

Probably because your statement doesn't have a point.

It was a few posts back, but my point was that the DMCA must be and is being interpreted horribly. Even before the the DMCA existed courts ruled the VCR's primary purpose was infringement. It took a trip all the way to the supreme court to overturn. According to that supreme court ruling the test was whether the item in question had "substantial non-infringing uses". Under the DMCA all sorts of things that pass the "substantial non-infringing uses" test are being declared illegal. Making DeCSS illegal is like making VCRs illegal.

*If* things like DeCSS are brought to the supreme court and *if* they stand by their previous decision then I think these things would be declared legal. That bad interpretation of the DMCA would overruled. It would also make that section of the DMCA mostly useless.

How could I have copied the DVD to my hard drive without DeCSS?

The same way you copy any file. Open a window to the DVD drive, point to it, hold the mouse down and drag it onto your desktop. That makes a completely functional copy. And you can send it over the internet to a friend and he can watch it on his DVD player. All without DeCSS.

I am completely serious. If you have any programmer-type friends go and ask them. The file is encrypted, but encryption does not prevent copying or viewing. Any player that can play the original WILL play the copy. Calling it copyprotection or copyright protection is a complete deception. They have been LYING to you.

Me: Or maybe the people just didn't get caught.

We aren't communicating clearly on this, I'll try entirely rephrasing what I mean.

Maybe there what copyright infrigment that wasn't caught. Maybe there wasn't. But there definitely WAS legitimate use. The DMCA outlaws both.

There is a legal principle that says "something always outweighs nothing". If they had shown actual violations and monetary losses then you have to balance those losses against the the harm of outlawing legitimate activity. Since there is definitly legitimate activity that would be harmed, and no evidence of losses then you are weighing something against nothing (or at most the unsubstanitated claim of possible losses).

Not being able to show any harm is a major blow to their position, expecially when they tried really hard to find some. It means there may not have been any, or there was too little to be able to find it.

If the primary purpose of software is to break the law, I wouldn't call that a legitimate purpose. Semantics, I guess.

I never said the "primary purpose" was legitimate. I said it was being used for legitimate purposes. (You said the court said otherwise.) I'm also saying that based on all the evidence presented in court the "most common purpose" was legitimate, there wasn't a single shred of evidence of illegal use. And that is exactly what I meant when I said the DMCA is intrepreted horribly. How the heck can the the "primary purpose" be an illegal one when the "most common purpose" was legitimate?

I always thought "primary" was pretty much the same thing as "most common". Pretty twisted semantics in my oppinion.

-----------
I specificly said we could assume your claim to have used DeCSS to violate copyright WAS a violation, any result either way to the following is immaterial to my argument.
-----------

Are you claiming that it's fair use?

No, I said it was uncertian if it was a violation. Implying it was uncertain if it was fair use.

And how is it uncertain that what I did was actually a copyright violation?

The supreme court came up with a four point test:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

On point (1) it is unclear. You are not making money on it, that leans very heavily towards fair use. Unfortunately you didn't say you were making any educational, research, or non-profit use of it. Any of those would have locked it up as fair use.

I don't really see what impact point (2) would have. They want to be able to have slightly different rules for different kinds of works.

Point (3) leans against fair use, you copied the entire work. Had you copied a single scene or a still image it would be solidly fair use.

Point (4) may lean to fair use also. By making a single personal copy the impact is no more than the loss of a single sale, a pretty miniscule effect on the market value of the work as a whole. It is also far from certain that it really would mean a lost sale.

The publishing industry however has been trying to argue that (4) be weighed in terms of the cumulative effect of every individual case. I see some merit to thier position, but I don't quite agree with it. Either the individual case is fair use or it isn't.

So it's not a clear cut case of fair use nor a clear cut violation. The copyright lobby is painting a simplistic and biased picture of what constitutes a violation. Copyright was explicitly created as a limited monopoly on commercial use of a work - preventing someone else from grabbing the profits. Remember - libraries are absolutely protected. The copyright lobby would outlaw libraries if they could get away with it, think of all the lost potential sales.

-----------
I specificly said we could assume your claim to have used DeCSS to violate copyright WAS a violation, any result either way to the preceding is immaterial to my argument.
-----------

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Re:This is a sad story, people by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-25 09:02 · Score: 2
It was a few posts back, but my point was that the DMCA must be and is being interpreted horribly.

You mean by slashdotters? The EFF? Other than that, I don't see how it's being interpreted horribly at all.

According to that supreme court ruling the test was whether the item in question had "substantial non-infringing uses". Under the DMCA all sorts of things that pass the "substantial non-infringing uses" test are being declared illegal.

That ruling was applied to contributory copyright law though, not the DMCA. The DMCA has a different test.

Making DeCSS illegal is like making VCRs illegal.

Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean Congress can't do it.

*If* things like DeCSS are brought to the supreme court and *if* they stand by their previous decision then I think these things would be declared legal. That bad interpretation of the DMCA would overruled. It would also make that section of the DMCA mostly useless.

Perhaps, but I don't see the Supreme Court overturning a case like DeCSS. And neither did 2600, which is why they didn't appeal.

Maybe there what copyright infrigment that wasn't caught. Maybe there wasn't. But there definitely WAS legitimate use. The DMCA outlaws both.

There definately was copyright infringement that wasn't caught. At least one instance was committed by me. The DMCA does not outlaw legitimate use. It outlaws the distribution of the product to someone who might then use it legitimately. Big difference.

Me: How could I have copied the DVD to my hard drive without DeCSS?

The same way you copy any file. Open a window to the DVD drive, point to it, hold the mouse down and drag it onto your desktop. That makes a completely functional copy. And you can send it over the internet to a friend and he can watch it on his DVD player. All without DeCSS.

My friends' DVD players doesn't play hard drive files. So I'd have to buy a multi layer DVD burner for tens of thousands of dollars.

So instead I use DeCSS, and then I can watch the movie on my computer.

I am completely serious. If you have any programmer-type friends go and ask them. The file is encrypted, but encryption does not prevent copying or viewing. Any player that can play the original WILL play the copy. Calling it copyprotection or copyright protection is a complete deception. They have been LYING to you.

Encryption prevents viewing. Any player that can play the original does so after decrypting. It may or may not be deceptive to call it "copyprotection or copyright protection." That's semantics. But it certainly is effective in forcing people to pay for the product. Without DeCSS I would have probably paid for that copy of South Park. With DeCSS, I didn't.

I never said the "primary purpose" was legitimate. I said it was being used for legitimate purposes. (You said the court said otherwise.)

Apparently I misread something you said. My apologies.

I'm also saying that based on all the evidence presented in court the "most common purpose" was legitimate, there wasn't a single shred of evidence of illegal use. And that is exactly what I meant when I said the DMCA is intrepreted horribly. How the heck can the the "primary purpose" be an illegal one when the "most common purpose" was legitimate?

There are three possibilities. The product:
- a) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
- b) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
- c) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
In the DeCSS case it may or may not be true that the product has a purpose other than circumvention, but that's irrelevant because it was shown that the product was designed primarily for circumvention.

I specificly said we could assume your claim to have used DeCSS to violate copyright WAS a violation, any result either way to the following is immaterial to my argument.

Absolutely agreed.

Point (4) may lean to fair use also. By making a single personal copy the impact is no more than the loss of a single sale, a pretty miniscule effect on the market value of the work as a whole. It is also far from certain that it really would mean a lost sale.

I state definitively that it would. I don't see how it matters that the loss is miniscule compared to the value as a whole. I don't think the courts have ever taken such a fact into consideration. So I see 3 and 4 going against, 2 is neutral, and 1 is neutral to against. I think fair use is clearly not the case. But now we've gotten into pure opinion really, so we might as well agree to disagree.

I'll be sure to try to get a juror like you if I ever do get sued for my DeCSS escapade, though.
Re:This is a sad story, people by Alsee · 2002-12-26 08:29 · Score: 2

That ruling was applied to contributory copyright law though, not the DMCA. The DMCA has a different test.

Are you now saying that the DMCA has nothing to do with copyright law? :)

The test was what things can and cannot be held responsible for potential copyright violations. According to that test things like DeCSS are perfectly fine.

> Making DeCSS illegal is like making VCRs illegal.
Perhaps so, but that doesn't mean Congress can't do it.

They can pass a law making smiles illegal if they like, that doesn't mean the law is valid. When congress passes laws that violate supreme court rulings those laws tend to get struck down.

And even if a law against VCR's did hold up that wouldn't make it a good idea. I think most people agree oulawing VCR's is a bad idea - except the idiots who tried to do exactly that. And those very idiots now make more money on videos than they do on theaters. Yep, videotape killed hollywood alright. Just like the internet is going to kill hollywood.

I don't see the Supreme Court overturning a case like DeCSS. And neither did 2600, which is why they didn't appeal.

2600 didn't do anything Professor Felton hasn't done. Have you seen his DeCSS gallery? The RIAA beat a hasty retreat in the Felton case because they would have been smacked down hard, possibly striking down the DMCA in the process. 2600 didn't proceed because expert oppinion was that the negative perception of the defendant would hurt their chances of taking down the DMCA. They certainly DO want to proceed, just with a different defendant.

The DMCA does not outlaw legitimate use.

Please enlighten me, how do you make those legitimate uses without breaking the law?

My friends' DVD players doesn't play hard drive files.

It took me mere seconds to google a software DVD player that will play from the hard drive. "PowerDVD XP can also preview and playback DVD video file sets from Hard Disk Drives."

So I'd have to buy a multi layer DVD burner for tens of thousands of dollars.

It took me mere seconds to google a DVD burner for $225. That's hardly more than CD burners go for.

So instead I use DeCSS, and then I can watch the movie on my computer.

Like I said, you could have done it without DeCSS.

Encryption prevents viewing.

Nope, because...

Any player that can play the original does so after decrypting...

exactly the same way it will decrypt and play any COPY.
CSS encryption does not prevent copying.
CSS encryption does not prevent you from viewing copies.

It may or may not be deceptive to call it "copyprotection or copyright protection." That's semantics.

It is a flat out lie.

It's fine if you came into this believing what they presented as the truth, but I really hope this post has explained why it is completely false.

designed primarily for circumvention

As I think I've shown, that circumvention has nothing to do with copyright violation. You can violate copyright without DeCSS. About the only thing outlawing DeCSS does is outlaw the legitimate uses.

But now we've gotten into pure opinion really, so we might as well agree to disagree.

Yeah. It's tempting to discuss the meanings of fair use points 1,3, and 4, but these posts are already too long :)

-

--
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.

In Soviet Russia by davmct · 2002-12-20 05:36 · Score: 4, Funny

YOU testify for the VIDEO TAPE

in US
the VIDEO TAPE testifies for YOU

The nerve of some people... by craenor · 2002-12-20 05:37 · Score: 2

Not offering you a chance to change your testimony after the fact!

Re:The nerve of some people... by c.derby · 2002-12-20 05:46 · Score: 1

it's not about changing your testimony. it's about having the opportunity to clarify your answers and make sure they weren't interpreted the wrong way.

--
-- derby
Re:The nerve of some people... by craenor · 2002-12-20 05:50 · Score: 2

I was just joking for the most part. But I also think that most of the "answer clarification" that goes on with testimony is really nothing more then answer coaching.

Anything said in a deposition should still be truthful information to the best of your knowledge correct? Besides which, if your defense team wanted you to testify, couldn't they just call you to the stand?
Re:The nerve of some people... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 10:01 · Score: 0

If Iraq captures an american (after violating Iraqi law), and only releases him after he videotapes a statement, what do you think the reactions here would be?

If you think the analogy is flawed, please explain why...

The question I want answered is... by Interrobang · 2002-12-20 05:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

...how did they settle the jurisdictional questions? I mean, last I heard, Skylarov was working in Russia. One assumes the US government just did it by fiat, or was there more diplomacy involved than what I'm led to believe?

If the US just went ahead and did it anyway, that's kind of a scary precedent, meaning that now, no matter where you are in the world, the long arm of US law enforcement can come after you for doing something it doesn't happen to like? If that's the case, as sort of a quid pro quo, I would like some of the priveleges of US citizenship to go along with the burdens.

--
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.

Re:The question I want answered is... by Directrix1 · 2002-12-20 05:45 · Score: 1

Thats very sensible, I agree. Although, I myself would like to find myself free of this tyrannical government which is owned by big businesses. But thats just a matter of oppinion.

--
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
Re:The question I want answered is... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 05:46 · Score: 0

yupp so this means swedish police can arrest americans because americans have firearms?

sounds like nonsense to me... but hey, who am i to tell?
Re:The question I want answered is... by svyyn · 2002-12-20 05:48 · Score: 2, Informative

Sklyarov came to the US to give a talk on breaking Adobe e-Book encryption, which was a violation of the DMCA. As such, he was detained... for six months. The 'right to a speedy trial' apparently means under a year or two. He was allowed to go home without prosecution only in exchange for testifying against his employer, Elcomsoft. As such, there are no 5th Amendment issues here, because he's not testifying against himself. Elmcomsoft was doing business in, and has servers in the US. Therefore it's in the US's jursidiction -- they can force the company's presence out of the US. (Which would then bring us into fair trade issues with certain unnamed intranational arbiters.)
Re:The question I want answered is... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 05:53 · Score: 0

every government is tyrannical by definition, thats why it's called government. anyway i don't think that anarchy would work better either.

ok just a tip from european to us ppl, next elections, vote for the underdog =)
Re:The question I want answered is... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 06:18 · Score: 0

so this means swedish police can arrest americans because americans have firearms?
Like those sissys would even try!
Re:The question I want answered is... by Anixamander · 2002-12-20 06:24 · Score: 2

If the US just went ahead and did it anyway, that's kind of a scary precedent, meaning that now, no matter where you are in the world, the long arm of US law enforcement can come after you for doing something it doesn't happen to like?

Why do folks keep misrepresenting what actually happened here? The bottom line is, he was in this country, giving a talk and selling a product which was thought to violate the DMCA. Foreign nationals are not immune from our laws when they are in our country. Where he came from didn't matter; only that he was thought to be breaking the law, here, on U.S. soil.

Is it a bad law? Yes. Was he (or Elcomsoft, later) violating it? Apparently not. But these are seperate issues. Questioning whether or not we had the right to arrest him merely distracts from the more important issues at stake here.

--
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball(TM)
Re:The question I want answered is... by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 06:27 · Score: 2

Why do folks keep misrepresenting what actually happened here? The bottom line is, he was in this country, giving a talk and selling a product which was thought to violate the DMCA.

Umm, first of all, he was not in this country selling anything. He sold the product from his home. Secondly, his talk was not illegal, and was not in the indictment. You are the one who is misrepresenting what actually happened. Read the fucking indictment.
Re:The question I want answered is... by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 06:29 · Score: 2

yupp so this means swedish police can arrest americans because americans have firearms?

Only if those americans sell those firearms in Sweeden.
Re:The question I want answered is... by lederhosen · 2002-12-20 06:58 · Score: 0

>>Only if those americans sell those firearms in Sweeden.

No you miss the point, if you *talk* about firearms.

You know, talking is a very dangerous thing...

He's got guts. by viper21 · 2002-12-20 05:39 · Score: 2

I honestly expected Sklyarov to humbly search for all those people who might be exploiting his software.

"I don't know who pirated, but I'm gonna get them for improperly using my software"

At least until he got back to mother Russia.

Hey, it worked for OJ.

-S

--

We Apprentice Developers and Designers

Re:Um by Anonvmous+Coward · 2002-12-20 05:40 · Score: 0, Redundant

"It's spelled Skylarov."

Um No, you're wrong. Do a Google search for 'Skylarov' and you get "Did you mean Sklyarov?'

It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

The US Constitution says that you have the right to own a gun. A tool with but one purpose and that is to kill. Killing is illegal - but you write a piece of software that could potentially be used to pirate something but has several other good purposes and they throw you in jail. I will never underestimate the stupidity of american lawmakers.

Re:It's Amazing by k3v0 · 2002-12-20 05:51 · Score: 1

i dont think it's the lawmakers that are stupid per se, they are elected officials...
Re:It's Amazing by greechneb · 2002-12-20 05:54 · Score: 2

I think you have to remember guns have more than one purpose. Guns are NOT just for killing.
According to your thinking everyone who owned a gun is also a killer, making the US have about 80 million killers, from what numbers I can find.
According to your logic, I am a killer also since I own a gun, which its only purpose "is to kill"
Re:It's Amazing by phorm · 2002-12-20 06:19 · Score: 2

Guns are made for killing. Killing equals illegal.

Last time I checked, it was perfectly legal to go out and shoot a deer (licensed, in season). I can't see much reason for anyone having semi-automatics etc though.
Re:It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 06:32 · Score: 0

The US Constitution says that you have the right to own a gun.

Umm, I think you need to talk to the Supreme Court about that one. Last I checked the Second Amendment didn't give you the right to own a gun, it gave the states the right to keep a militia.
Re:It's Amazing by plsander · 2002-12-20 06:35 · Score: 1

What is your issue with semi-automatics?
Re:It's Amazing by SuiteSisterMary · 2002-12-20 06:39 · Score: 2

Can you name anything else the designers of the firearm thought you might do with it, other than attempt to kill something/somebody with it?

The fact that you choose not to kill with it doesn't mitigate the fact that it's designed to kill. The fact that you can now come up with other things to do with it (say, sport shooting) doesn't mitigate the fact that it was designed, originally, to kill people.

As opposed to, say, the ball point pen, which was designed to make ink marks, but it was later discovered that, yes, you could stab somebody with it. That wasn't, however, the design intention.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:It's Amazing by penguin_dance · 2002-12-20 06:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

What's amazing the above post being rated as "insightful" instead of what it really is..."flamebait."

And no, it isn't illegal to kill someone if you are defending yourself. Not in the US anyway. Which is exactly the example Sklyarov made.

--
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
Re:It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 06:42 · Score: 0

Yes. Shoot out my monitor when I read posts like yours.
NO CARRIER
Re:It's Amazing by finkployd · 2002-12-20 06:48 · Score: 2

The original intent of the knife was to kill as well, so we should ignore any and all other uses anyone can come up with and make knives illegal on that basis alone

Plus you are making the assumption that killing is always bad. I'll bet you would find it hard to find someone who felt that there was NEVER a valid reason to kill someone. As distastful as it is, sometimes in is necessary (and legal), whether it be self defence or to stop a violent crime in progress.

This is not a simple "guns are bad, mkay" black and white issue. Just as it is not a "hacking software is bad, mkay" type issue.

Finkployd
Re:It's Amazing by TracerJPN_USMC · 2002-12-20 06:54 · Score: 1

You ever think about why the constitution so clearly allows the right to bear arms? To prevent an overly powerful govt from intruding on the rights of the citizens. It is a good citizens duty to over throw an unjust government, if the govt dissalowed weapons, citizens would lose their power. Afterall, a govt exists only to protect citizens. It is an elected government, it is not *impossed* on anybody.

--
magnanomous.
Re:It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 06:56 · Score: 0

It is people like you who make me praise the sky every day that I am not an american. That, my friend, is one hell of a straw man argument.
So, you were going to name another use for guns aside from the potential for lethal force. Take your time and, no, genital augmentation, despite prevailing opinion, is not an answer.
Re:It's Amazing by TracerJPN_USMC · 2002-12-20 06:57 · Score: 1

maybe you should re-read it. I believe it clearly states "THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS"

--
magnanomous.
Re:It's Amazing by Hanna's+Goblin+Toys · 2002-12-20 06:57 · Score: 1

a gun. A tool with but one purpose and that is to kill

Actually guns are used by bomb squads to remotely detonate suspected bombs, so your entire statement is 100% incorrect (because you phrased it as an absolute). Hopefully there is a way for you to retract your comment or edit it for factuality.

Don't be upset about it though, ok, because lots of people are wrong every day.
Re:It's Amazing by Parad0x177 · 2002-12-20 07:02 · Score: 1

All a semi-automatic action does is keep you from having to manually chamber a new round between shots. It doesn't turn a gun into a fire breathing, death dispensing, all consuming killing machine. The person with their finger on the trigger does that.

If someone is willing to kill you (which is obviously illegal), then chances are they aren't going to mind breaking a gun-control law in the process. (Have you ever seen a street gang that was concerned that their fully automatic Mac-10's were illegal?) And beyond that, if someone wants you dead bad enough, there is nothing to keep them from picking up a rock and beating you to death with it.

"Gun's don't kill people, people kill people."
Re:It's Amazing by cyb3r0ptx · 2002-12-20 07:03 · Score: 1

And I suppose that the First Amendment makes the utterance of the word "Christmas" in a public school unconstitutional.

Remember that at the time the Constitution was drafted, the "militia" referred to the people, not to a standing army.
Re:It's Amazing by J.+J.+Ramsey · 2002-12-20 07:07 · Score: 2

"Can you name anything else the designers of the firearm thought you might do with it, other than attempt to kill something/somebody with it?"

It might have been better to say that guns can be used for more than just murder. Guns can be used in self-defense or as a military tool. Certain guns are even useful for hunting. In short, there are both legal and illegal uses for guns.
Re:It's Amazing by Parad0x177 · 2002-12-20 07:10 · Score: 1

Actually, many people consider marksmanship a hobby and the only thing they "kill" is the occasional paper target.
Re:It's Amazing by rossz · 2002-12-20 07:12 · Score: 1, Offtopic

Wrong. The right to own a gun is an individual right, not a State right. That has already been backed up by the Supreme Court. It is popular for the anti-gun crowd to repeat this false statement as often as possible. I think they believe in the old saying, "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth."

The Constitution uses two different phrases to differentiate between an individual right and a state right. "The People" refers to an individual right. "The State(s)" refers to a State right. If we assume that the 2nd Ammendment is a State right, then it is the only place in the entire document that uses "The People" to refer to the State. Let's transfer this thinking to other parts to see how dangerous this can be. From the 1st Ammendment:

Congress shall make no law .. abridging .. the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

If "The People" refers to the State, then only state governments have the right to challenge unjust laws or to hold rallies denouncing mistakes of the government. Actually, even football games could be declared illegal unless it is State sponsered!

Other important notes. The meaning of "well organized" at the time the Constitution was written was roughly equivelent to "well supplied" or "well equipped". "Militia" refers to anyone NOT part of the military or police.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:It's Amazing by phorm · 2002-12-20 07:23 · Score: 2

Gun's don't kill people, people kill people
That's always been my primary standing against gun register. Criminals aren't likely to register their weapons. All it really does is make sure that if "average joe" shoots somebody with a registered weapon (crimes of passion, etc), it is easier to track him down.

That being said, I still don't see the point in automatic, or semi-automatic weapons in common society. Last time I checked, nobody was going to take down a deer with an Uzi - unless they like their meat well-ventilated :-)
Re:It's Amazing by SuiteSisterMary · 2002-12-20 07:25 · Score: 2

I don't think killing is bad; I'm actually quite for it, in the right circumstances.

My point here is that the *designer's intent* was to create a device to kill people more efficiently; that doesn't make it good, or evil, or assign it an intrinsic role; it was, however, explicitly designed to kill people.

Designer's intent. Say it with me...designer's intent.

--
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Re:It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:34 · Score: 0

Killing is illegal

incorrect.

killing is legal if (a) in self defense, or in defense of your property, (b) if you're an armed guard, or soldier, or police officer, (c) or if you're killing animals for food or sport.

also, guns are used for target shooting, which is legal and noone gets hurt.
Re:It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:50 · Score: 0

The US Constitution says that you have the right to own a gun. A tool with but one purpose and that is to kill.

Wrong.

You can own a gun for:

self-protection
target shooting
hunting
collecting

and other reasons. Not all of these involve killing. Saying that "guns have only one use: killing" is a bullshit argument.
Re:It's Amazing by Parad0x177 · 2002-12-20 07:54 · Score: 1

An excellent point overall (especially the "average joe" part), except for one thing: it doesn't make any distinction between the design intent of the specific firearms.

Case in point, the Uzi. This line of weapons was never intended for general recreational use. They were designed as compact, light-weight, easily wielded assault weapons, with mechanisms that would prove reliable under intense, high-rate of fire situations. In other words, close quarters combat situations.

On the other hand, you have recreational-design rifles the likes of the Remingtion 7400 series and the Browning BAR series. In the strictest sense, they are semi-automatic. However, they are long (unwieldy), heavy, and have very limited magazine capacities (usually about 5 rounds; less than a standard revolver). In addition, their firing mechanisms often jam if not cleaned and maintained regularly due to build-up of gun powder residue.

In other words, they were designed for the guys that can't hit the deer on the first shot and need to get a second one off quickly. ;-)
Re:It's Amazing by Steveftoth · 2002-12-20 07:55 · Score: 1

[quote]
That being said, I still don't see the point in automatic, or semi-automatic weapons in common society. Last time I checked, nobody was going to take down a deer with an Uzi - unless they like their meat well-ventilated :-)
[/quote]

The people that want to use semi-automatic weapons probably just want to kill animals, not so much eat them.
Re:It's Amazing by phorm · 2002-12-20 08:26 · Score: 1

Ahhh... I guess I should have made a point of specially speaking on semi-auto/automatic handguns...

Still... I wonder if you're allowed to use an Uzi for hunting. It would be interesting to see somebody try.
Re:It's Amazing by finkployd · 2002-12-20 08:36 · Score: 2

Right, but I fail to see what "designer's intent" has to do with ANYTHING.

I mean, there have been plenty of software programs in which the designer's intent was to create a hacking (cracking) tool, but it was discovered to be a useful tool for the 'forces of good' as well (think BackOrifice)

Finkployd
Re:It's Amazing by L0rdJedi · 2002-12-20 08:38 · Score: 1

I hope this was a joke, as the Uzi has been illegal to own, unless you're a licensed collector, and then it's still illegal to use, since the '70s.
Re:It's Amazing by forgotmypassword · 2002-12-20 08:55 · Score: 1

The original intent of the knife was to kill as well, so we should ignore any and all other uses anyone can come up with and make knives illegal on that basis alone

That analogy is soo true. Didn't you see the Simpsons episode where homer uses his gun to turn off the lights, turn off the tv, open his beer, ...

--
A Usenet Troll Triumphs on Slashdot
Re:It's Amazing by seichert · 2002-12-20 08:55 · Score: 2

The US Constitution says that you have the right to own a gun. A tool with but one purpose and that is to kill. Killing is illegal
Murder is illegal. Killing to defend yourself or someone else from great bodily harm or death is not illegal. Yes, someone could use a gun to commit a murder or to kill someone in self defense. Most frequently handguns, in this country, are brandished to deter an attack. Guns are thus an effective way to both defend oneself and not bring harm to your attacker.

--
Stuart Eichert
Re:It's Amazing by WECoyoteSooperGenius · 2002-12-20 09:12 · Score: 1

> Designer's intent.
> Say it with me...designer's intent.

Okay I did. I thought about the specialized rifles used in the biathalon. Guns, but designed to be the lightest, most accurate, fastest, and most accuracte target plinking devices on Earth.

One cannot in all circumstances claim a gun is "a device to kill people"

Soop.
"All absolute statements are false."
Re:It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 09:23 · Score: 0

I don't know if you are allowed to hunt with an Uzi, but it's an extremely poor choice. Not much accuracy or power.
Re:It's Amazing by Blue+Stone · 2002-12-20 09:31 · Score: 1

"The original intent of the knife was to kill as well..."

Nope... the original intent of the knife was to cut.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:It's Amazing by Slur · 2002-12-20 09:32 · Score: 2

Man, I'd really like to see the evidence you have that "most guns are brandished in defense." As far as I know, in the US it is illegal to carry concealed weapons without a difficult-to-obtain permit, and so you must mean that people are using them to defend their homes. Last I heard more people end up getting shot by their own handguns in the home. Frankly I'd really like to know who all these attackers and defenders are that you refer to, because I never hear such stories reported in the media here in Oregon, nor in Massachusetts where I used to live.

--
-- thinkyhead software and media
Re:It's Amazing by Parad0x177 · 2002-12-20 09:47 · Score: 1

While I don't know anyone who has tried to hunt with an Uzi (or similar), I'm sure there is some moron somewhere that has. (The comment on accuracy and power was correct.)

As for the remark about them being illegal, that isn't entirely true. Yes, there is a ban on the further distribution of a number of assault type weapons to the public. However, existing weapons (so long as they are semi-auto capable only) are legal and can be bought and sold. However, they are rarely sold because of their (now) very high value.

Fully automatic versions are also legal under specific circumstances. They can only be bought and sold through specially licensed dealers and they require more stringent background checks AND registration. So, they are fairly rare and are even more expensive.
Re:It's Amazing by Master+of+Transhuman · 2002-12-20 09:51 · Score: 1

Cut what?

Flesh, right? Stone-age bozos chipping flint so they could cut the meat off animals they killed with...oh, wait..."tiger pits"? Running them off cliffs like Amerinds did the buffalo (incidentally wasting tons of buffalos they didn't need...)

--
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Re:It's Amazing by peg0cjs · 2002-12-20 10:13 · Score: 1
The point of a gun registry is not only to make it easier to track guns. It also provides another tool for law enforcement to use against gun-wielding maniacs.

Unfortunately, elected officials and other morons get involved in the process, which is why it always fails to appease anyone. Here is a simple solution:
1. Implement a mandatory gun registry that is easy, cheap and non-intrusive to use (I am often amazed at how many people complain about gun registries but have no issue with registering their vehicles every 2 years)
2. Provide a sufficiently long grace period for the public to register (1-2 years)
3. Enact a law making unregistered weapons a felony offence with MANDATORY 10-year sentence
4. Publish this fact ad nauseum during grace period
5. When the grace period is over, enforce the law in draconian style
Now, when your local gang banger robs a liquor store with his unregistered weapon, you have a massive club to beat him over the head with, and don't really present that large of a problem to the collector/sport shooter/hunter. Everyone is happy.
--
Karma: Excellent (Mainly due to Bill & Ted's Karma Adventure)
Re:It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 10:22 · Score: 0

I'm not talking about what it reads, I'm talking about how the courts have interpreted it.
Re:It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 10:25 · Score: 0

Wrong. The right to own a gun is an individual right, not a State right. That has already been backed up by the Supreme Court.

What ruling?

The rest of your argument talks about your interpretation. I was talking about the interpretation of the Supreme Court. The one that actually matters.
Re:It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 10:27 · Score: 0

Also if you're killing little babies before they're born.
Re:It's Amazing by finkployd · 2002-12-20 11:22 · Score: 2

and it makes julian fries

Finkployd
Re:It's Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 11:28 · Score: 0

In NH CCW permits are very easy to obtain. We have ridiculously low crime. They may or not be correlated, but guns certainly do not cause crime here (10 murders so far this year... 1.2 per 100,000 people, and ZERO in the largest city which has a bit over 100,000 people).
Re:It's Amazing by geekee · 2002-12-20 11:38 · Score: 2

You make the assumption that all killing is wrong. Yes, a gun was designed to kill. Killing an animal with a gun can be a good thing if you're hungry. Killing an assailant who is attacking you is not considered murder, and therefore, not illegal.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:It's Amazing by rossz · 2002-12-20 13:41 · Score: 2

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

For some odd reason, gun control fools like to quote this as a decision against gun rights when the opposite is actually the case. The Supreme Court found that because the weapon in question served no useful military purpose, the individual did not have a right to possess it.

"Sporting Purposes" is a very stupid argument when it comes to the 2nd Ammendment. There is no mention of hunting or other sports activities in the Constitution. The right to own a gun is specifically meant as a means to defend the nation, both from foreign and domestic enemies. The writings of the authors and supporters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights verify this in their personal writings when they clarify the issue by saying it is spefically intended to keep the government in fear of the armed populous.

And don't bother saying, "where did they write that." I want fall for a strawman debate. Read it your own damn self. Go to the library. I suggest you start with the Federalist Papers and continue from their. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.

And yes, I have read their papers. That's why I know I am right and you are very wrong.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth
Re:It's Amazing by Blue+Stone · 2002-12-20 16:16 · Score: 1

Cut what?

Whatever they wanted.

How do you know the first intention for sharpening that bit of flint into a sharp edged tool, was due to the desire to invent a better killing tool? You just weren't there.
The spear, for sure (what else?) The gun, like the spear, is clear cut... so to speak.
The axe, though?

It's concievable that a group killed an animal with rocks, and then used a "knife" to cut the hide more easily, and this then was taken up for killing.
That's why I said, simply, "to cut."
We just don't know the exact intentions behind the technological invention, so we can't say it was designed to kill.

--
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Re:It's Amazing by rossz · 2002-12-21 12:51 · Score: 2

And another thing, it isn't my interpretation. It is the interpretation of lawyers specializing in Constitutional law.

I'm still waiting for you to make a competent counter to my argument. I won't hold my breath, however, since I know it is impossible.

--
-- Will program for bandwidth

More Info on the Case by DaytonCIM · 2002-12-20 05:44 · Score: 5, Informative

If you want to know more about this case, ElcomSoft, or Dmitry Sklyarov, EFF.com has a great FAQ. Check it out here.

Re:More Info on the Case by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 06:49 · Score: 0

Kaaaaaaaaarma... karma whoooooree...
Re:More Info on the Case by DaytonCIM · 2002-12-20 07:08 · Score: 1

Hmmm... I've been here nearly 4 years... don't need any more Karma. Mod me down if you like. :)
Re:More Info on the Case by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:32 · Score: 0

Only 4 years? No wonder your userid is so high...

Not according to the article, it's not by kiwimate · 2002-12-20 05:46 · Score: 0, Redundant

Or any of the other news sources (e.g. go to CNN and search for Sklyarov).

Poor Slashdot -- for once in their life they get it right and they still get bashed.

Re:Um by davetrainer · 2002-12-20 05:46 · Score: 1, Funny

It's spelled Skylarov.

No, it's not.

Oh wait, my mistake, this topic must not be about Dmitry Sklyarov, the Russian software developer. It's about a totally different person, named Skylarov, who happens to be a big fan of online casinos, and wants to be free!

Re:Um by MSBob · 2002-12-20 05:46 · Score: 3, Informative

Doesn't matter. His name only has an exact cyrilic spelling. Anything written in the roman alphabet is simply an approximation.

--
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.

Breaking US laws in Russia by cyberkreiger · 2002-12-20 05:48 · Score: 0, Insightful

He got arrested for breaking a US law in Russia! Hello? Hello? Am i the only one who sees this? I have yet to read one article in news media which mentions this. I feel like i'm taking crazy pills!

--
Stumbling in the dark
I hear slavering of jaws
Eaten by a grue.

Re:Breaking US laws in Russia by GMontag451 · 2002-12-20 05:57 · Score: 3

He got arrested for breaking a US law in Russia!
Well, depending on how liberally you interpret the DMCA, his talk at DefCon could be construed as a crime. It would then be breaking a US law in the US, which we hold non-residents for all the time.
Re:Breaking US laws in Russia by Shdwdrgn · 2002-12-20 06:47 · Score: 1

Nope, you're not crazy. I've been wondering about that as well. If you commit an act in your country which is legal in your country, how can you be prosecuted for that act in another country?

In Virginia, it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk. Because of this precedent, I suppose I should avoid ever visiting that state, as I have spit on sidewalks in other states in my past...
Re:Breaking US laws in Russia by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 06:47 · Score: 2

Well, depending on how liberally you interpret the DMCA, his talk at DefCon could be construed as a crime.

Yeah, but no matter how you read the indictment, that's not why he was arrested.
Re:Breaking US laws in Russia by J.+J.+Ramsey · 2002-12-20 07:15 · Score: 1

"If you commit an act in your country which is legal in your country, how can you be prosecuted for that act in another country?"

If what you do in one country affects what happens in another, then things get sticky because the action in question crosses jurisdictions. If at part of the border of Virginia there was a sidewalk, and you stood in a neighboring state and spit on that sidewalk, have you done anything illegal? You are outside Virginia state lines, but what you did affects what is within the state lines.
Re:Breaking US laws in Russia by Parad0x177 · 2002-12-20 07:29 · Score: 2, Informative

Ok, up front: I think DMCA is crap and I don't think this guy did anything wrong.

But, to be technical, he wasn't "breaking US law in Russia." The US law wasn't in question until the software was exported to the US at which point it becomes subject to US laws. Then, by setting foot in the US, he became subject to US law.

In other words, if you are going to write questionable software outside the US and then make it available in the US, you should probably avoid flying in to make the convention circuit.

Wait a second by Have+Blue · 2002-12-20 05:49 · Score: 2

Why was he forced to accept the prosecution doing this? Couldn't he have literally forced his way into the courtroom if he really wanted?

In Soviet Russia by filledwithloathing · 2002-12-20 05:50 · Score: 1

... they crack Adobe encryption techniques.

--
Are you a VF grad? Check out the VFMA Alumni Forums VFMA Alumni Forum

Unfair? Try "only option" by Maxwell'sSilverLART · 2002-12-20 05:50 · Score: 2, Informative

Before everybody gets up in arms about this great injustice, let's have a brief look at the facts*, shall we?

Dmitri gave his deposition, presumably voluntarily. Before questioning, he would have been apprised of his rights, and of the fact that anything he said (including the deposition) could be used against him in court.
That means he knew they could use the deposition in court, and chose to give it anyway
The Constitution specifically forbids the prosecution from calling Dmitri to the stand--that whole pesky "Fifth Amendment" thing, which states, in part, "nor shall [he] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
That means that the prosecutor couldn't call him to the stand, even if he wanted to

Unless I'm missing something here, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to. If Dmitri wanted to testify, his lawyer, the defense attorney, could have called him to the stand; that he didn't indicates that he (the lawyer) felt that putting him on the stand, where he'd be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, would be more harmful to the case than allowing his deposition to go unexplained.

Given the outcome of the case, I'd have to agree.

IANAL.

(*Yes, I know, facts, on Slashdot. It's so crazy it just might work!)

--
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!

DMCA wins this one by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 05:51 · Score: 0

This article is the first of the many I've read on the Elcomsoft trial to mention that the jury did find that the software was illegal under the DMCA.

Nobody seems to be giving much importance to the fact that Elcomsoft has (permanently, it seems) been forced to stop distributing the software. That alone makes this case a major loss for freedom.

Up to now I'd thought that the legitimacy of the software itself wasn't ruled on. If this article is accurate in saying that it was, the result is even worse than I'd thought.

Sad times... by kaosrain · 2002-12-20 05:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

He said if someone came to him with another project focused on cracking copyrights, "I would ask you, if you're sure this is legal." If the answer is unclear, Sklyarov said he would suggest the person find a lawyer who could figure it out.

I'm sure he was told his previous project was legal. It's sad that now lawyers will have to say "Yes, this is legal. Except in the USA."

Re:Sad times... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 10:20 · Score: 0

I'm sure he was told his previous project was legal.

From his statement he sure makes it sound like he wasn't.

Re:Um by DaytonCIM · 2002-12-20 05:54 · Score: 1

Good point.

Something is wrong in a country where... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 05:56 · Score: 0

You can legally own a gun, but there is a law preventing you from making a backup copy of something you own.

I know which one I think has the potential to do more harm.

Sorry for being off-topic, but I'm still amazed that this even needed to go to court. Priorities, anyone?

Re:Something is wrong in a country where... by perimorph · 2002-12-20 07:45 · Score: 1

Isn't it ironic that the ammount of violent crime increases when guns are made illegal? Put yourself in the shoes of a violent criminal. Would you prefer a victim whom you know is unarmed, or a victim who might just send you to the grave?

Guns are legal because they serve the legal purpose of self defense. It's unfortunate that they can serve other purposes.

Elcomsoft's software should be legal because it serves the legal purpose of fair use under U.S. copyright law. It's unfortunate that it can serve other purposes, and even more unfortunate that our "freedom-loving government" here would prevent the legal use because someone might do something illegal with it.
Re:Something is wrong in a country where... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 11:48 · Score: 0

The problem with this is that you are lieing to yourself and others. You know VERY WELL that it's primary purpose is to pirate eBooks, and you KNOW that's what you would use it for. Your argument is bullshit.
Re:Something is wrong in a country where... by perimorph · 2002-12-20 12:11 · Score: 1

On the contrary.. Suppose I bought an eBook. If my hard drive crashes, wouldn't I like to have a backup? If I didn't know how to replace a hard drive (think Average Joe user) and just bought a new computer, wouldn't I like to copy it to the new system? Or suppose I first loaded the eBook on a laptop computer while I was travelling, and now I'd like to move it to my desktop computer that has a bigger screen.

And if I just want to read the book without paying for it, wouldn't I just go to the public library?

You're making the same mistake that RIAA is driving the music industry into the ground with -- assuming the customers are theives.

Feel free to read the articles on the Elcomm case again (or at all) and tell us how many examples of pirated eBooks Adobe was able to find. (Hint: zero.)

Re:Unfair? Try "only option" by GMontag451 · 2002-12-20 06:13 · Score: 2

That means that the prosecutor couldn't call him to the stand, even if he wanted to.

Actually, since Dmitri wasn't the defendant, they could have called him. Testifying against ElcomSoft was also part of his plea agreement.

My Fantastic Teleporter Is Illegal by titaniam · 2002-12-20 06:18 · Score: 4, Funny

I was just about to release to the world the greatest invention ever, when I read Sklyarov's
article, and that part about the lockpick possibly being illegal got to me! I realized a teleporter could be used to bypass shrink-wrap licenses, pop cd's out of thir unopened jewelbox vaults, or maybe even make "secure" adobe pdf documents useful (I haven't figured that one out yet, but it MAY be possible). Sorry, world! My lawyer has advised me to destroy all the evidence, make my lab notebooks useless by converting them to MS-WORD format, and additionally to re-format my brain to avoid any chance of this big-media-busting technology being used against me in court.

Re:My Fantastic Teleporter Is Illegal by HermDog · 2002-12-20 06:29 · Score: 1

Yeah, but now I'm going to have to sue you for depriving me of the technology I need so I can avoid spending four or five hours in a flying tube tomorrow.

--
JADBP
Re:My Fantastic Teleporter Is Illegal by IamTheRealMike · 2002-12-20 06:56 · Score: 2

I was just about to release to the world the greatest invention ever, when I read Sklyarov's article, and that part about the lockpick possibly being illegal got to me! I realized a teleporter could be used to bypass shrink-wrap licenses
Good analogy. A better one would have been that such a teleporter, other than saving the world from the oil crisis by making cars and trucks redundant, would also allow people to teleport themselves into and out of bank vaults.
You'd think it'd be an easy choice: save the ecosystem, or ban a tool because it might have illegal uses.
Re:My Fantastic Teleporter Is Illegal by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 07:06 · Score: 2

You'd think it'd be an easy choice: save the ecosystem, or ban a tool because it might have illegal uses.

Heh, sounds like the same choice we have about whether or not to regulate nuclear power plants.
Re:My Fantastic Teleporter Is Illegal by titaniam · 2002-12-20 07:15 · Score: 1

That's the whole point. The creation of, the use of, and tinkering with technology is being made illegal. Sue adobe for trying to take away your rights, not me for pointing out the obvious. (yes, I know your post was just as serious as mine)

The "Ally MacBeal" School of Thought Disagrees by Greyfox · 2002-12-20 06:19 · Score: 2

Talking about it isn't illegal. Manufacturing and selling a device which facilities bypassing the protection on a copy-protected product is illegal. Now since it was manufacturered in Russia and Dmitry never personally sold the product in the states himself, the justice department never did have much of a case against him (Unless he was peddleing copies of the program from his briefcase after the talk.) The first ammendment trumps the DMCA, so you can talk about breaking that encryption scheme all you want to. You can write a book about it. You could probably even publish source code examples in a book since a book's not machine readable format so your source code wouldn't be considered a "Device."

The court's still out on code-as-speech though it's pretty obvious to us. If the supreme court decides that source code is speech, distributing decss and other such programs in source form would then be undeniably legal. Distributing binaries would remain illegal under the DMCA.

Sorry. Kind of drifted there. I do seem to recall something about there being legal standards as to what would be considered "speedy" and that timeframe is longer than I'd want to spend in jail. Win or lose, you can generally expect the whole process to be more of a pain in your ass than you want it to be. Dmitry might be able to sue someone (Adobe, most likely) for something but I also seem to recall that you generally can't expect a whole lot from civil cases involving the criminal process.

obIANAL, but I've watched all the episodes of "Ally MacBeal"

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

He didn't need to defend himself by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 06:21 · Score: 2

Video someone before the trial, edit the tape, and play that back in court...and with no intention of letting him stand up and defend himself?

He wasn't the one on trial, though, so he didn't need to defend himself.

If US laws apply in other countries... by BFaucet · 2002-12-20 06:21 · Score: 1

do the laws of other countries apply to the US?

If so I hope China doesn't go after a US citizen for running a pro-democracy journal.

--
-Derick

Re:If US laws apply in other countries... by Zigg · 2002-12-20 06:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, if this case has anything to say for precedence, it wouldn't surprise me if China gained that right.

Scary, eh?
Re:If US laws apply in other countries... by geekee · 2002-12-20 11:46 · Score: 2

If you are distributing your pro-democracy journal in China, I think their laws would apply. That what's happening in this case. If you don't want to get in trouble with US law, don't break US law in the US.

--
Vote for Pedro

Wrong by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 06:24 · Score: 1

Sklyarov came to the US to give a talk on breaking Adobe e-Book encryption, which was a violation of the DMCA.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

And by the way, you're wrong.

Re:Wrong by srvivn21 · 2002-12-20 07:23 · Score: 2

Wow. That's helpful. And convincing. You were on a debate team, weren't you?
Re:Wrong by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 07:28 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Don't make statements when what you really want to do is ask questions. I'm not about to debate with such stupidity. But I'm sick of hearing this nonsense over and over. Back up your fucking statement. Read the fucking indictment. You'll learn as you try that you are wrong.

Re:Unfair? Try "only option" by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 06:31 · Score: 1, Informative

The Constitution specifically forbids the prosecution from calling Dmitri to the stand--that whole pesky "Fifth Amendment" thing, which states, in part, "nor shall [he] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." That means that the prosecutor couldn't call him to the stand, even if he wanted't

The law doesn't say the prosecution can't put him on the stand... it just says he has the right to refuse to testify once he is on the stand on the grounds that it may incriminate himself.

Unless I'm missing something here, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to. If Dmitri wanted to testify, his lawyer, the defense attorney, could have called him to the stand; that he didn't indicates that he (the lawyer) felt that putting him on the stand, where he'd be subject to cross-examination by the prosecution, would be more harmful to the case than allowing his deposition to go unexplained.

RTFA... From the article:
The defense later called Sklyarov as its own witness, and in a calm, cooperative manner, the boyish programmer testified that he never intended for the product to be used illegally--an assertion that played well with jurors interviewed after the case. He said the software was designed to allow people to make backup copies of eBooks they already own or transfer the material to a different computer.

Damn it people... read the fscking article some time instead of writing ignorant comments...

Re:Talk Talk Talk! by RyuuzakiTetsuya · 2002-12-20 06:33 · Score: 1

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=48296&threshol d=0&commentsort=0&tid=123&mode=thread&pid=4909092# 4909216

That's anyone can DO about the case.

Unless of course, you want them to appeal or something.

--
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.

His issue is that he's racist by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 06:43 · Score: 1

Suppose you are Korean and you live in South-Central Los Angeles. A riot breaks out. Since the people who want to kill you outnumber you by 20+ to one, the only way you will survive more than 5 minutes is to have a semi-automatic weapon at the ready.

Since he is opposed to semi-automatics, his policy has a racist efect against Koreans. He is therefore racist against Koreans.

P.S. If you lefties have a problem with my logic, I am using the same logic you use against dissidents.

Let it go on record, that I am officially ashamed by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 06:47 · Score: 0

to be an American. Today is a very sad fucking day for me. It's all added up and I realized I hate this fuckin country for all it's greed and selfrightousness. It's too bad I like college basketball so much or I'd move to another land and battle this evil country. I guess I'll have to change it from the inside instead. Vote AC for President!

I'm hardly misrepresenting anything... by Interrobang · 2002-12-20 06:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do folks keep misrepresenting what actually happened here?

The fact is, he did all his work on the product (which is legal in its country of origin) in Russia, where, last I heard, US laws don't apply. The fact that they were waiting to arrest him, apparently, for giving an academic lecture on a product he produced where it was legal is far more disturbing than you make it out to be.

ISTR that Skylarov isn't the first person to whom this sort of jurisdictional knucklebones has happened at the behest of some large, US-based money-wielding entity. As you may recall when the DeCSS story broke, the US wanted Jon Johansen to stand trial in the US for breaking a US law when he wasn't even in the US when he allegedly "broke" it (how can you break the law of another country when you aren't even there, I'd like to know?), but that quickly passed off around the same time as the Norwegian authorities decided to go ahead and prosecute him for related offenses, real or imagined. Also, you may recall Edward Felten's legal difficulties surrounding his paper on encryption.

All of which, in my (paranoid?) mind, adds up to the US's playing very fast and loose with international law (what else is new?) and an immense chilling effect in the technology field.

If it were provable that Elocomsoft was deliberately and knowingly (with malice aforethought) selling products to customers not legally able to buy them, that would be another matter, which I think was upheld with the verdict here. However, the very clear perception that I'm getting from the Elocomsoft case in general is that the US wants to enforce the DMCA worldwide, and will do just about anything it can to make sure that it gets what it wants. Note, please, I'm not a US citizen, and so don't have US patriotism getting in the way of my natural impulses to be skeptical and cynical of the US government's motives in any given instance, so I could be erring on the side of hostility here.

--
I'm not a geek, I'm just a clever script.

Re:I'm hardly misrepresenting anything... by Chops · 2002-12-20 07:55 · Score: 2

All of which, in my (paranoid?) mind, adds up to the US's playing very fast and loose with international law (what else is new?)

This isn't even close to "very" fast and loose; once you enter a country, you're bound by the decisions of local gov't/law enforcement; if they decide to arrest you because you once had the wrong kind of haircut in your home country, they can.

Compare this to, for example, the US gov't trying to overthrow the government of Venezuela because they have the wrong kind of oil policy.
Re:I'm hardly misrepresenting anything... by ender81b · 2002-12-20 12:20 · Score: 2

The fact is, he did all his work on the product (which is legal in its country of origin) in Russia, where, last I heard, US laws don't apply.

For the last time.. US laws apply to him for this reason - his employer made that software he produced available forsale to Americans from servers based in the United States. Therefore the law applies to him. Why is this so hard for people to grasp? Commercial laws apply to you if you sell your product in that country.
Re:I'm hardly misrepresenting anything... by MikePlacid · 2002-12-20 16:08 · Score: 1

I was under impression that I am selling my products to my employer, not to my employer's customers. It would be very scary to think otherwise: my employer sells stuff all around the world, and I am going on vacations/business trip to lots of places.

Are you saying that I can be jailed anytime now?
Re:I'm hardly misrepresenting anything... by Esion+Modnar · 2002-12-20 16:41 · Score: 1

It would seem that the US is trying to spread FUD in other countries WRT to US laws sponsored by big money interests.
Message is: break some of our *special* laws (such as DMCA) and you better not show your face here, even for a lecture.
This is stepping over the line, folks.

--

They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
Re:I'm hardly misrepresenting anything... by ender81b · 2002-12-20 16:50 · Score: 1

If your company is participating in illegal activities abroad yes you can be jailed, most likely be held as a witness for a trial against whatever company they are currently pursuing. For instance the executives of De Beers do not dare step foot into the United States because they would be arrested on the spot for various antitrust reasons as well as a number of outstanding civil cases against them.

Seriously though by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 06:57 · Score: 2

If anyone ever invented a teleporter, that would be the most dangerous thing ever invented, and would probably mark the end of civilization. Just imagine a how much trouble a terrorist could cause, teleporting nukes and radioactive waste without worrying about silly border checkpoints.

Re:Seriously though by titaniam · 2002-12-20 07:59 · Score: 1

Expand your mind! Teleport the expanding nuclear fireball into outer space. Teleport the cloud of vx gas into Redmond. For every problem technology introduces, two other problems are fixed, and further technology eliminates the originally introduced problem too.
Re:Seriously though by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 09:47 · Score: 2

For every problem technology introduces, two other problems are fixed

I'm sorry, I don't agree. You can teleport the expanding nuclear fireball into outer space, but that doesn't bring back to life all the people who were killed with it. If we ever did have a teleporter, it would either be extremely highly regulated (more than nukes), or it would be the end of civilization. Possibly both.

Re:Unfair? Try "only option" by Kallahar · 2002-12-20 06:58 · Score: 3, Informative

The fifth amendment gives you the OPTION to not testify against yourself. If you want to be called, you certainly can. It's not until you're sitting in the witness box that you have the option to excercise your fifth amendment right.

Travis

Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:00 · Score: 0

I find it pretty damn funny. The fact that it's so overused is causing people to exploit it in a variety of different ways. Sounds like you need a sense of humor.

Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:01 · Score: 0

Lame as it may be, it's still funnier than everything from this Slashdot post. I'll take the repetitiveness over traditional geek comedy any day.

Re:Um by DEBEDb · 2002-12-20 07:01 · Score: 2

There are several rules of transliterating
cyrillic into Latin; I think there is
an official Library of Congress version.
But "Sklyarov" is good enough if you want to
convey the way it sounds as close as possible.

--

Considered harmful.

People get this through your thick skulls by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 07:08 · Score: 2

Sklyarov wasn't arrested for talking.

Re:People get this through your thick skulls by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:44 · Score: 0

Sklyarov wasn't arrested for talking.

RTFA, you idiot:

"Sklyarov catapulted to code-jockey fame in July 2001 when he was arrested after giving a speech about his company's Advanced eBook Processor, software designed to crack protections on Adobe Systems' eBooks."

"arrested after giving a speech", not "arrested after selling copies"
Re:People get this through your thick skulls by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 09:22 · Score: 0

Learn English you idot:

"Sklyarov catapulted to code-jockey fame in July 2001 when he was arrested after giving a speech about his company's Advanced eBook Processor, software designed to crack protections on Adobe Systems' eBooks."

"arrested after giving a speech," not "arrested for giving a speech"
Re:People get this through your thick skulls by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 09:44 · Score: 2

Ah... Makes sense now why people are so stupid. Talk about shitty sensationalistic journalism.
Re:People get this through your thick skulls by DaytonCIM · 2002-12-20 11:46 · Score: 1

If you have all the answers, then please educate the masses: why was he arrested?
Re:People get this through your thick skulls by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-21 06:16 · Score: 2

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/20010707 _complaint.html

Adobe by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:08 · Score: 0

The way Adobe basically stole 1.5 years of this guy's life is just fucked up. Now every time I see a pirated copy of any piece of Adobe software, I smirk.

Time to check again by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:10 · Score: 0

This time, learn to read first.

Re:Unfair? Try "only option" by fahrvergnugen · 2002-12-20 07:17 · Score: 2

Read the article.

What's messed up here is the fact that an edited, taped deposition is used in lieu of live testimony from a man who has flown thousands of miles to be present for the hearing in the first place, thus making cross examination at the time of the testimony impossible. Timely cross is very important in order to lessen the impact of the prosecutor's questions. Elcomsoft was effectively denied the right to confront its accusers in open court by this method.
The defense attorney DID call Sklyarov to the stand. Further, since Dmitri wasn't a co-defendent in the case, he could have testified without a worry against his employer, especially since the government had already agreed not to prosecute him in exchange for his testimony.

You're missing quite a lot, read the article next time before you post. What the prosecution did is dirty pool, a constitutional sidestep, and I don't like it. I expect higher ethical standards from my government. (*Yes, I know, FUD, and uninformed opinions from people who didn't read the article. It's just par for the course around here)

--
Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.

Adobe is now on my list. by AnonymousCowheard · 2002-12-20 07:17 · Score: 1

Did you read Adobe's end-user license? A license is a contract that perhaps is implied by using the subjective patented Adobe technology. Just like here in the States, benefitting from the use of Federal Reserve Notes is an implied contract and institutes a third party YOU will never see to be a "Payee" in all courtrooms in dispute of equity. Perhaps, by my mere speculation, the judge is enforcing a contractual agreement that Dmitri didn't know about and this doesn't allow Dmitri to give testimony in the courtroom and instead the videotape is evidence.

Just to let you all know, I am sovereign and in my Constitution the "United States" is a foreigner. Albeit, the "United States" is fascist and does not respect my Constitution. Why should we respect the U.S.'s laws when it doesn't respect the laws of other corporations and privateers? The United States is effectivly telling the world "Do as we say and not as we do." This is grounds for war. An electronic war would be quite good. Who is up for bootcamp? RMS is on our side, I am not too certain about ESR because I recently have seen ESR on the learning channel's documentary on hackers as he was offering his consulting services and insight to government and other corporations. I know RMS is devout, like me. Liberty for all!

--

But I'm sure you already Gnu that.

distributing a circumvention tool by phriedom · 2002-12-20 07:17 · Score: 1

But Mr. Sklyarov is a progammer, he doesn't sell or ditribute anything. He didn't write the program on US soil. He is an employee, not an officer, of a company that arguably sells in the USA a software that is allegedly an illegal circumvention device.

I'm seriously disappointed that my tax dollars were spent seizing and holding Mr. Sklyarov with such a flimsy cause. Talk about your guilt by association.

--
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.

Re:Unfair? Try "only option" by Trekologer · 2002-12-20 07:24 · Score: 2

This case was not against Dmitry Sklyarov, it was against ElcomSoft Co. Ltd. While it is true that a statement that he made to the government could be used against him without him being called to the stand, it is legally questionable that the prosecution could use a video tape in place of actual testimony. According to the Constitution, the accused has the right to face their accuser in court and cross-examine them.

For reference, the Miranda Warning is "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to be speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense."

Keep in mind a couple of things: the jury found that ElcomSoft did violate the DMCA because the software could be used to break the e-book controls. ElcomSoft was not found guilty because the jury found that they did not intend to break the law. That's why ElcomSoft was not found guilty: their actions lacked intent, which is required for a criminal conviction.

Re:Not A US citizen! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:35 · Score: 0

But he's not a US citizen! If I break a UK law here in the US does that give england the right to arrest me?

He broke a US law while he was in Russia.
does this make sense??

Re:Unfair? Try "only option" by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 07:47 · Score: 0

You say that before questioning he would have been apprised of his right. Well, on TV maybe but not in real life.

I was questioned by the FBI for over five hours. I asked to contact my attorney from the very start however the FBI would not let me use the phone, they would not let me get out of my chair not even long enough to finish getting dressed or to brush my teeth.

Two FBI agents continued questioning me, never adivising me of my rights and constantly refusing to allow me to contact my attorney who was already on retainer and they knew it.

If you think you have rights, you are living in a fantasy land. The FBI and any other law enforcement agency will more than happily deny you your rights and then lie about it later. There is nothing you can do about it unless you have a recording of the entire event ;) If you don't well it's your word against theirs and the judges usually back up law enforcement.

Take it from someone who knows first hand.

Stefan Puffer

Nothing wrong with semi's by Svartalf · 2002-12-20 09:01 · Score: 2

All a semi-automatic gun is load the next round from a magazine into the chamber. It allows you to clean up a kill that you might have made messy by allowing you to fire off another round quickly.

To be bluntly honest, a deer rifle or other bolt-action rifle can be as deadly or deadlier if you're trying to kill someone. Most semi-autos are carbines, good for brush shooting (close-quarters deer hunting, etc.) and aren't very accurate much past a football field in distance. Brush hunting is seldom done with a scope and I'd rather be hunting with one of my semi-auto's in those conditions than the lever action 30-30 I also have.

However, the 30-06 that most people hunt with hails from the M1 Grand, a military weapon from WWI- and has an accurate lethal range of well over a mile with a scope. I'll ask you do people need that? Yes- to ensure a clean kill at larger distances like you'd find in Colorado, New Mexico, etc. where a LOT of deer and antelope hunting occurs.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

Nope... by Svartalf · 2002-12-20 09:08 · Score: 2

2. The Constitution specifically forbids the prosecution from calling Dmitri to the stand--that whole pesky "Fifth Amendment" thing, which states, in part, "nor shall [he] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
That means that the prosecutor couldn't call him to the stand, even if he wanted to

This also means they couldn't have used the deposition against him nor even depose him- for the same reasons you give. Your line of reasoning doesn't work.

The reason why they used the deposition was that there was no way for cross-examination of the "Witness" in the case of the taped deposition. If they would have called him to the stand, the defense could have cross-examined Dimitry and weakened the prosecution's case. They didn't want to take chances on their case because it was somewhat shaky to begin with.

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas

Common sense has no place in a legal proceeding by Archfeld · 2002-12-20 09:26 · Score: 2

but it sounds like you chose the correct career path for yourself :)

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?

Good point by MacAndrew · 2002-12-20 09:32 · Score: 2

Yes, of course China could claim jurisdiction. We've already tangled with a list of countries on free speech issues.

If so I hope China doesn't go after a US citizen for running a pro-democracy journal.

I hope they do. That would be a case worth fighting. The Communists versus the Americans -- it would be like a Rocky movie or something. The US itself is supposed to be a pro-democracy journal.

To be serious, the brutal Chinese gov't treatment of Tibet, the Falun Gong, internet surfers (a few are believed to have did in police custody), Tienamen Square, even tax evaders (death penalty!) collectively are overwhelming, yet out trade and other entanglements with them discourage our official protest. Details and details.

To give you an idea of the trade issue, I'm trying nearly in vain to find sneakers not made in China (there are a few).

Re:In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 09:34 · Score: 0

...yeah, like ROT13 is a tough cookie to crack.

Stupidity? Whose stupidity? Mine? by srvivn21 · 2002-12-20 09:37 · Score: 2

Try again.

I made three statements:

Wow. That's helpful. And convincing.

I asked one question:

You were on a debate team, weren't you?

Statements when I wanted statements, a question where it was needed.

As for backing up statements... Well, that was the point of my post.

Don't point out the splinter in someone else's eye, when you have a log in your own. To put it more plainly, I am suggesting you back up your own position (calling someone else wrong) before telling me (while probably intending to tell svyyn) to back up my (his) statements.

The only way I could possibly be wrong, is if my addition to this story was posted in earnest. For the record, it was sarcasm.

Check who you are replying to next time. And ease up on the animosity. Statements such as "I'm not about to debate with such stupidity. But I'm sick of hearing this nonsense over and over. Back up your fucking statement. Read the fucking indictment. You'll learn as you try that you are wrong." don't boost your credibility.

There is no indication of what you feel is stupid.
There is no reason (even if "this nonsense" has been permeating your area for years) to take out your rage on some unsuspecting person. Taking out your rage is unlikely to change someone's perception of events.
If the indictment has not been read yet (or has been read, but not understood), then telling someone to read it (rather abrasively, I might add) is not likely going to help matters.
You'll learn as you try that you are wrong. This sentence doesn't even make sense. In context or out of it. Try what? Try to learn? Try to read the "fucking indictment"? Try to "Back up [my] fucking statement"? This is a minor point, as you haven't given any indication as to what statements you disagree with.

Damn, I must be bored.

Re:Stupidity? Whose stupidity? Mine? by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 10:00 · Score: 1

Don't make comments about the law when you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I'm not about to hold your hand and teach you about the DMCA. I don't need to back up shit.

Using Handguns in self-defense by Teancum · 2002-12-20 10:13 · Score: 2

BTW, I know this is getting off the topic of the ElcomSoft trial, but I want to make a point here.

There are a number of things to consider with having many people owning handguns for defense in their homes:

1) There are many people who successfully use handguns to stop "home invasion" crimes. One problem with this is that the number is not really kept in the same group of statistics that are kept for felony crimes (murder, robbery, rape, etc.) This makes the comparison between the number of people stopped vs. the number of people who die from accidental firearm discharge a very hard number to come up with.

2) The deterent effect of handguns. To be honest here, you need to keep in mind that potential home burglers are not going to even want to take a chance of getting shot at if they can help it. If they know that, for example, New York State bans handguns and for that matter all firearms, and New Jersey let's all their citizens use whatever guns they want, there will also be a direct correlation with the amount of crime done in both states.

So please define what you mean by "most people end up getting shot by their own handguns". That implies more than 50% of all handgun owners are going to end up shooting themselves with them. I just don't see that happening.

Re:Using Handguns in self-defense by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 10:29 · Score: 0

That implies more than 50% of all handgun owners are going to end up shooting themselves with them.

No, it implies that more than 50% of all hangun owners are going to be shot with their own handgun. Big difference.

as lynyrd skynyrd said... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 10:16 · Score: 0

handguns are made for killin',
they ain't good for nothin' else.

Re:as lynyrd skynyrd said... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-20 11:19 · Score: 0

LS members didn't have an 8th grade education, and didn't understand the contract they signed (and got, unfortunately, royally screwed). Also, last time I checked, firearms are only for firing a projectile really fast, and it's up to the person holding it not to aim it at a person UNLESS THEIR LIFE IS IN IMMEDIATE DANGER.

Slow down there cowboy. by srvivn21 · 2002-12-20 10:18 · Score: 2

I'll make this simple.

My statement.

Not my statement.

Any questions? Again, I say, ease up on the hostility.

Re:Slow down there cowboy. by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 11:15 · Score: 2

You've said that already.

Could be his 5th Amendment rights? by anthony_dipierro · 2002-12-20 10:47 · Score: 2

Unavailability as a witness" includes situations in which the declarant [...] is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/f re/query=[jump!3A!27rule804!27]/doc/{@257}?

By the way, the reason you can't use videotaped depositions generally is because they are hearsay.

Yes, I did. by srvivn21 · 2002-12-20 11:41 · Score: 2

I've said quite a few things. One of them I even stated that I was restating.

So teh question becomes "Why are you shamelessly ranting about my inability to understand the law when I have given you no evidence to support that position?"

My commentary was strictly on your attitdude torwards someone you felt was misinformed. And then you tear into a rant on stupidity and nonsense, giving the impression that I had somehow taken someone else's words for myself.

Eh. Perhaps you are just trying to waste my time, and perhaps you are being purposefully obtuse. Perhaps there is some other explination. I find this "discussion" to be entertaining enough not to care. Thanks for your participation.

It's Not Amazing by Mateorabi · 2002-12-20 13:41 · Score: 1

>A tool with but one purpose and that is to kill. Killing is illegal...

Incorrect. The proper purpose of the gun (when used on a person) is to stop the person, not kill them. Although you never use this level of force if you care if the person lives, it isn't murder. (This means that when they stop/run/ fall you can't keep shooting them.)

There are times when this level of force is legal: either defending yourself or another from violence. There are times when it is not: the person is not doing anything or is running away. When the level of force used is inappropriate, it becomes a crime and if the person dies it then becomes an illegal act--murder.

Yes, when improperly or inappropriately used, a gun can be used for murder. But then again, so can an automobile, or even fists.

--
"You saved 1968." - Ms. Valerie Pringle to the crew of Apollo 8

Re:Um by Stewey's+Uncle · 2002-12-20 17:20 · Score: 0

Stewie- Your mum's here to pick you up. Now stop eating the flypaper, it's not a fruit roll up.

Re:Um by AyeRoxor! · 2002-12-25 16:01 · Score: 1

"It's spelled Skylarov."
Dude, you are one stupid fuck. Not because you're wrong, but because you didn't check your facts before you went out of your way to call someone else wrong in a public forum. That is the mark of a true dick.

Slashdot Mirror

Sklyarov Discusses the ElcomSoft Trial

259 comments