I absolutely 100% disagree with this comment. I learned most of my computing knowledge in the early years through books like these. These are books that can't be bought anymore because people think they're irrelevant. They are most definitely not. They provide good overviews of complete working systems that are small enough to thoroughly understand with some study.
Please don't cater to the popular tastes. I don't think that's the mission of a public library.
Please tell me you're joking. This is probably one of the worst books on the subject I have ever read. The algorithm descriptions themselves aren't bad, but the code examples are horrendous. There are countless examples of bad coding style, not the least of which is the use of the letter "ell" as a variable name. Sure, it's compact, but it makes understanding the code very difficult. Often it's tough to tell whether a variable or numeric constant is being used.
Rivest, et. al. have a much better algorithms book. The writing style is clearer and it covers more material. The section on complexity alone makes the book far superior to Sedgewick.
While I disagree that "manual" type books like K&R II and Design Patterns are not best suited for a library, you have some very good insight into the importance of computer history.
One book that is a must read for all in the computer field is Tracy Kidder's The Soul of a New Machine. It's the story of the Data General Eagle project. This was their answer to the VAX. It covers a wide variety of topics: hacker culture, management of engineering teams (the section on interviews was particularly enlightening to me), large-scale design, marketing, aging in the field and much more than I have time to list here. The writing style is excellent. Kidder transforms the process of hardware and software design into a gripping story.
Others have mentioned Stroustrup's D&E. I'll second that one along with Stan Lippman's Inside the C++ Object Model. Though by its nature C++-centric, it covers a lot of advanced language feature implementations while at the same time dispelling lots of myths about C++ and being honest about its performance costs.
I'd also go along with others in recommending the "bibles" of each field: Aho, et. al., Tannenbaum, Stevens, Hennessey & Patterson, P & H, etc. I'd also include some "against-the-grain" things like x86 programming manuals, hacking guides for early home systems (Apples, PET, etc.) and anything that gives people a broader perspective on things. This will balance out the "bible" section and give people a sense of how we got here (H & P/P & H for example shout the praises of RISC far too much). It will also help people understand how these things work as those systems were much simpler and easer to "fit in the head."
It's useful to think about the motiviation of the DOJ in this case. It seems ludicrous to us that the DOJ would pursue such an obvious case of speech restriction, especially when the complaint has been dropped by the supposed victim.
Perhaps someone in the DOJ wants to test the DMCA in court. And maybe, just maybe, they want to see the DMCA declared unconstitutional. Our government is not filled with the mindless drones so often villified on/.. Even members of Congress really do care about doing the right thing. Unfortunately they often lack the necessary understanding, especially in the technology realm, as many senators and representatives bring their biases from business and law experience.
It's unfortunate that a criminal case is needed, but the government could not test the DMCA any other way. They cannot be a plaintiff in a civil suit (as in the tobacco case) because they cannot be harmed by copyright violation.
It's also possible that corporate lobbyists are pushing for a DMCA test -- how often have/. posters been clamoring for a GPL court test? I find this much less likely than pushing for a DMCA overturn, though. Corporations have much more to lose with this case than they can gain.
But doesn't it? It allows them to dictate when, where, and how you will use the product that you purchased. They don't need to use a contract or license.
Well, they have that right already from existing copyright, contract and licensing laws. The fact that they no longer need such documents isn't really the granting of new rights so much as the removal of certain legal obligations.
The DMCA criminalizes activity previously allowed under fair use. So, I suppose in the sense that corporations can now get around fair use, they have new "rights," even though such "rights" have been explicitly disallowed by the courts.
I rather view this as a taking away of our rights rather than granting new rights to content producers.
You are right, though, that the DMCA shadows usage controls under the guise of intellectual property protection. That is why it is so nefarious. The law itself is written to protect intellectual property against copying. In that sense, no new rights are granted. The fact that it is being used to restrict use and speech is what will hopefully render it unconstitutional in the courts' eyes.
By simply adding encryption, passwords or other technical measures, no matter how feeble or ill-planed) they in effect create a "localized law".
That is exactly my point about encryption being an orthogonal issue to copying (and to reverse engineering, which I neglected to mention).
Someone pointed out to me that I neglected to mention the exceptions in the DMCA with respect to reverse engineering. It's true that certain exceptions exist regarding compatibility, dissemination of information, etc. I was pointed to Jessica Litman's Digital Copyright for further information.
My response to this is that such exceptions have been rendered null by the DeCSS and Felten cases. DeCSS was declared illegal in spite of the exceptions for compatibility (I see no clearer case than the ability to use legal hardware under various operating systems). Felten was censored in spite of exceptions for scientific research.
That's true, I wasn't clear on that point. It is a use of the software I've seen mentioned before, though. The phrase should be changed to emphasize the general ability to use legally-purchased material rather than any specific use.
You are completely right to call me on that one. Hopefully it doesn't detract from the overall message. I will change it in any future versions I send out.
I went to subscribe to the free-sklyarov e-mail list, but there's no way I can keep up with 200 messages. I just want to find out about any education/protest activity in Michigan, sepcifically in Ann Arbor, Detroit, Lansing or the surrounding area.
Does anyone have information about MI organization?
I did get at some of that by mentioning Linux DVD players and the disabled persons use of the Elmsoft software. True, I probably should have been more explicit.
The grammar in the letter is particularly bad, but as I said, it was hastily written. No excuse, I know, but I'm trying to graduate here.:)
Not sure about the sole intent of the software, but it's a use I've seen mentioned several times. I've never seen a link to marketing information about the product. Does anyone have one?
In any case, the software allows users to exercise their fair use rights that have been denied under the DMCA. Being able to make use of legally purchased materials (by the disabled in this case) is certainly a legitimate reason to develop or own the software. I could just as easily have said the software allows viewing of the material from other readers and it would have been equally true.
Well, it's not absolutely true that a court must strike the law down. Congress can always repeal or amend it, as indicated in the story summary. Let's hope Boucher gets some good advice. Now would be the time for all of us to add our input, especially Boucher's constituents.
As for Dmitry, his case may not be the best to get the law declared unconstitutional. The Felton case is stronger and doesn't involve imprisonment. The DOJ/FBI can always drop the charges. There is no law specifying that prosecutors must go after every infraction of the law. In fact, there are rules against this, giving all of us rights to sue for malicious prosecution.
So yes, this can "properly end" without a trial and with Dmitry being immediately freed. This is how it should end!
Here's a copy of a hastily-written e-mail I sent to some members of my family. Feel free to pass this along to others if you think it's useful. Please correct any errors (typos, facts, etc.) that you find. IMHO the most important thing us average users can do is educate.
Hi there,
I usually don't like to send these sorts of things around, but this
hits VERY close to home. A programmer has been arrested for
analyzing encryption software and writing a tool for disabled
people to be able to use their (legally purchased) Adobe eBooks.
You may have heard reports about a Russian "hacker" being detained
by the FBI. Don't be fooled by the pejorative used to describe
him. He is a Ph.D. student (like me) with a wife and small children.
He was arrested after giving a talk in Las Vegas about the software
and the weaknesses in Adobe's encryption methods.
He was arrested under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA)
which makes development or possession of any software to
circumvent encryption or copy protection measures on digital
media illegal. This makes it illegal, for example, to develop a DVD
player for operating systems such as Linux that vendors refuse
to support their products on. DVD's contain encrypted data and
it is therefore illegal to write or possess any software to
legally watch your own DVD's unless that software has the approval
of the content producers.
The encryption restrictions of the DMCA are particularly distasteful
given the fact that copying and decryption are orthogonal issues.
There is nothing inherent in the DVD format (as an example) to prevent
copying. The encryption is there only to restrict USE. Your use.
Your ability to watch movies when, where and on what devices you want.
When the DMCA was being debated, many researchers put forth
arguments that it would have a chilling effect on speech. Such
arguments were dismissed as unwarrented paranoia, but these proved
to be quite accurate, as a Princeton professor was recently
prohibited (through threat of a DMCA lawsuit by the Recording Industry Association of America) from presenting a research paper detailing
an analysis of the SDMI digital watermarking method for audio media.
In general, the DMCA severely hinders the analysis of security
protocols, greatly harming the very infrastructure it claims to
protect. In addition, were the DMCA law 20 years ago, the personal
computer revolution would have been harmed immensely and economic
giants such as Compaq and Dell would not exist due to the "illegal"
(under the DMCA) reverse engineering of the IBM PC BIOS back in
the early '80's.
Some members of the programming/computer science/research community
have drafted a statement that will be sent to Congress and anyone
else that can help change this situation. Please take a moment to
read this and become educated about the DMCA. Most reasonable
people agree that protection is needed for digital intellectual
property. In fact, it already exists in the form of current
copyright law. The DMCA grants no new rights to IP owners while
taking away many rights from everyone, including previously
court-upheld fair use rights (i.e. the right to make backup copies
of your legally purchased materials, the right to parody, etc.).
The DMCA is something that threatens all of us, but in my case, it
threatens the very industry in which I work. It severly limits
what I can do with my skills and provides incentive for much
research and development (and associated economic benefits) to
move outside the United States.
If you agree with the community statement, please consider adding
your name to the list of signatories. The statement can be found at
Number one, the whole point of taking case to court is to show that it is in CONFLICT with hist rights. Going to court resolves this.
It's one way to resolve it. It is not the best way. Better to take a case to court that doesn't have such drastic consequences. The Felten case makes a stronger argument, anyway.
Number Two: He broke the law, he is a criminal, it is right and just that he be punished.
Not necessarily. It is only right and just if the law itself is right and just. In this case, it isn't. One could argue that Dmitry's actions were right and just as a form of political protest/civil disobedience. I doubt that was his motivation but it almost certainly played a (perhaps small) part in Felten's actions.
You haven't given me a reason why he should go free. Spouting lines you read in a Plato dialogue is not a reason, it's a meanigless aphorism. WHY is it right and just that he be free, you've admitted yourself that he broke the law, but have given no reason why he should be set free.
I gave a perfectly good reason: it is right and just. Just because it's an old concept does not make it any less valid. It's not just Plato that advocates this. It forms the basis of our society.
There is no basis to set him free. He broke the law, he should stand trial.
He doesn't have to stand trial if the government doesn't want him to. The law is not so strict and unyielding that every petty infraction will be prosecuted to the full extent permitted.
Yes the government serves us, and we make our changes by causing new laws to be passed, not by a small group saying we don't like this.
I don't think it's a small group (or certainly wouldn't be if more people were fully aware of the situation), but even if it is, there are lots of examples of small groups making or overturning laws. Prohibition was pushed by a relatively small group. It was repealed without an overturning court trial.
I don't understand who you think the we is who are delaying his release.
"Delaying his release" was a poor choice of words on my part. Perhaps "willfully failing to act for his release" is better.
He is charged with a crime, he will run should bail be posted, therefore it was not. All completely above board. There is no reason to release him.
The reason is a moral one, but again, we are straying from the original point. We're not debating the government's actions here. I think we both agree that they are wrong when viewed from a civil liberties perspective. By the letter of the law, sure, they are legal. However, we are debating the actions (or willful lack of such) and attitudes of the rest of us. My argument is that we cannot use the freedom of an individual to advance the agenda of the group. Now, perhaps there is not much you or I can do directly to help free Dmitry but we can educate, lobby and support those who do have the capacity to help directly.
If you can't give a reason he should be set free, we might as well end this thread.
I have given a reason. It is a perfectly valid one. It is the perfectly valid one.
There is no reason for the government to drop the case, he broke the law. He broke the law. His civil liberties have not been violated, he broke the law. Again he broke the law.
The government can drop the case if the citizens pressure it to do so. The government serves us, not the other way around.
I never said that new civil liberties would be granted, only that the law may be overturned (should be) because it conflicts with previously granted civil liberties.
You stated:
His civil liberties WERE NOT VIOLATED according to current law. If they were found to be violated it would only be in hindsight as the DMCA is overturned or amended.
If his civil liberties "were not violated according to law," then they must not exist. Civil liberties can only be violated "in hindsight" if they don't exist at the time the law is enforced. It's a pedantic subtlety, yes. I think we're agreeing violently here: the law is a very bad one. By the letter, yes, Dmitry's arrest is legal. The law is obviously unconstitutional and is so because Dmitry has civil liberties which were violated. This does not change the fact that deliberately delaying his release for political purposes is wrong.
Justice in this case is not freeing Dmitry. Justice is what happens when he goes to trial for him crimes in the U.S.. He broke the law. He should stand trial, case closed.
He doesn't have to stand trial if the government doesn't pursue the case. This happens all the time. Justice through the strict eyes of law is defined very narrowly. I'm speaking of a wider view of justice: the view that says we all have rights, dignity and responsibility to each
other.
Saying "how difficult is that to understand" was not an attack, it was a statement of my disbelief, cannot seem to understand that he broke the law and that is why he was arrested.
Ok, I can accept that. I do understand that he broke the letter of the law and that he was legally arrested. What I don't understand is why we would consider delaying his release. That just doesn't make sense to me. We lose nothing by getting him his freedom and we gain much.
Putting the first criminal charges brought in the US under DMCA to the Supreme Court, rather than letting this be used to support a blatantly unconstitutional law the next time.
How can freeing a man possibly be used to support the law under which the man was imprisoned?
Are you saying that keeping a man in prison is a tool we can wield for personal gain?
If, by personal gain, you mean getting bad law removed from the book, yes.
I can't really say anything to this other than if this is the prevailing attitude, then we really have lost. I am truly ready to cry.
Software has already been ruled protected free speech by the Supreme Court.
It has? When? All I can recall is a district-level decision.
And having a family man in jail, thousands of miles from home, in a foreign country, is a powerful tool, as Adobe has found out.
*shudder* Do you realize what you are saying? It's possible to get a law overturned without having someone physically imprisoned.
If he gets out, 99% of the people who were in the streets with picket signs will think they've won,
And they will have, as far as the Dmitry situation is concerned.
and stop trying.
You are making a large assumption.
And DMCA will continue to be law, and next time, the fact that it wasn't challenged this time will be used to fight any future challenges.
No, a settlement or dropping of a case has zero legal bearing on future cases. It does, however, have the benefit of making prosecutors think twice before acting.
Do you want to be right, or do you want to win?
I want to be right. The win will come in due course.
We are not keeping him in jail to advance our agenda. He is in jail because he BROKE THE LAW.
The issue isn't whether he broke the law. It's whether keeping him in jail solely to obtain a political end is just. Clearly, it isn't.
How difficult is that to understand.
Ad hominem is poor technique.
The answer to both these questions is yes. There is no way you can justify freeing before going to court.
Sure we can. The government can drop the case. Just as they can with Microsoft or any other federal prosecution. We, as citizens, can pressure them to do so.
A settlement would mean that the issue is submerged by the coprorations. A court case is the ONLY way to get justice.
Justice in this case is freeing Dmitry. Anything else is gravy. A settlement or outright release doesn't have the same weight as a decision, but it is a precedent of sorts.
His civil liberties WERE NOT VIOLATED according to current law. If they were found to be violated it would only be in hindsight as the DMCA is overturned or amended.
That's not how it works. Law gets overturned because civil liberties are violated. New civil liberties are not granted by overturning laws!
But we're getting away from the issue: a man is in jail. Let's work to get him out as quickly as possible and not worry about politics.
What "most effective tool" are you talking about? Are you saying that keeping a man in prison is a tool we can wield for personal gain?
We have a good court case already. In fact, it's a better one than Dmitry's because it's a clear case of speech restriction. The government can always argue that Dmitry was arrested for selling software and we all know that the "speech" classification of software is a tenuous one, at best.
This case is completely unnecessary to challenge the DMCA. Keeping a man in prison unjustly is simply immoral, I don't care how "ugly" politics is.
To me it makes a big difference, he wasn't doing the "right thing", again this is based on my values no one else's. But I won't exert myself to defend someone's right to make money.
First off, no one has a "right" to make money. They have a right to distribute something which might be useful. If they make a living in the process, what's wrong with that?
What's not "right" about exercising one's rights?
Freeing Dmitry doesn't maintain the status quo. The status quo is where we're at right now, according to the DMCA Adobe is within their rights. That is the status quo.
It maintains the status quo in that no one would be hurt any more than we already are due to the DMCA. I am not, not, not saying the status quo should remain so.
You are advocating sacrifice for the masses. Whether you realize it or not, it is implicit in you belief that it's more important to free Dmitry.
I am not asking for anyone to sacrifice. Not freeing Dmitry is forcing him to sacrifice. To say that freeing an unjustly imprisoned man sacrifices the rest of us is political doublespeak.
We don't know how many other people rights will be trampled before another chance like this comes along to challenge the DMCA.
The Felten case has provided us with a fine vehicle to challenge the DMCA. No need to keep someone in prison!
By allowing someone (who has allready put himself in his situation) now, we can protect the rights more people in the future (should it be succesfully challenged).
Essentially you are saying that it is "Dmitry's own fault" that he got arrested and that this justifies keeping him in prison to advance our own political agenda. By the same logic, imprisoning Martin Luther King, Jr. and holding him there was an acceptable method to overturn discriminatory law. Certainly the imprisonments helped to turn public opinion but it hardly justifies the actions. I'm fairly certain the Civil Rights movement worked to free him rather than let him rot in a cell for some far-off Supreme Court decision.
There's not much point in arguing about this. Like I said before, the whole situation depends on the individual's values.
No, it is imperative that we discuss, argue and generally increase awareness about this issue.
One more note to make, his tool is illegal. There is no can about it, the DMCA makes it illegal to do such a thing. When you argue on the grounds that he should not have been arrested because his tool only had the potential to be illegal, you're arguing from false premises.
It's true that he shouldn't have been arrested, not because it isn't law, but because it's bad law. However, the fact is that he is already in prison and we have to work from that situation. I am arguing that keeping Dmitry in jail simply to advance our own cause is unjust and immoral. The DMCA is irrelevant to this particular point. One could substitute any unjust law and the argument would be the same.
Had he not been trying to make money off of the software, I may have had enough sympathy for him to protest, but that's not what happened.
What difference does it make? He sold a tool allowing people to exercise their fair use rights. It happened to contain decryption code to enable such use. The fact that it can be used in support of illegal activity does not warrant an arrest, especially when said illegal activity (copying of copyrighted material) is orthogonal to the decryption issue. I can distribute copies of the encrypted eBook and still be punished for it.
To me it's more important to be my brothers keeper for a large number of people than to sacrifice the possibility of saving them for one man, who should have known better. Apparently you would rather sacrifice the masses for the individual. Both ways are right, it's all in your personal value
Sorry, I just can't agree with you here. First off, I do not advocate "sacrificing the masses for the individual." Sacrifice in this context implies some sort of forced situation which I find horrific for the same reasons that I find the strategy of keeping Dmitry locked up for a Supreme Court case horrific. It takes away freedom.
Freeing Dmitry now does not sacrifice anyone. It maintains the status quo. We were sacrificed a long time ago, about the time the DMCA was passed.
Don't forget though, it's also not up to me to save him.
"Am I my brother's keeper?" You'd better damn well believe it!
And to do the greatest good, I'd say let the case go on, the inconveniences of one man are meaningless compared to the civil liberties of all.
This was the downfall of every totalitarian regime in history. This is the sort of attitude that gets us things like mandatory internet filters and the DMCA in the first place!
I honestly can't see how you can possibly "see it both ways." Every individual has rights and those rights cannot be set aside no matter how good the intentions. It is unthinkable even to ask Dmitry to be a guinea pig.
As we all agree, the DMCA is bad law, period. It gives copyright holders no new rights (copyright still applies whether something is decrypted or not) while taking away a whole slew of rights from everyone. HOWEVER, this does not give us the right to demand something from others in order to save ourselves.
Eh? It makes a pretty good replacement for the commercial Emacsen of years past. Perhaps currently not much is going on, but I think that is because not much more is to be done except for additional enhancements through elisp. The core is complete.
I'm concerned that the availability of high-quality commercial office applications for linux will impede the already-slow development of free software alternatives (e.g. gnumeric.)
Why? There are many examples of rapidly-developed Free alternatives to commercial (or perceived "un-Free") software:
Emacs
gcc
The Linux kernel
Kaffe
Wine (given what they have to work with, yes, it is rapidly-developed)
KOffice
Konqueror
GNOME
It becomes a matter of priorities. While there are some that swear by Free Software exclusively, most people just want something that works well. So the projects that tend to get the attention are those that provide some service that does not exist or that fix major shortcomings of closed alternatives. In either case, there has to be a large enough user base to push development forward. I can't explain gnumeric other than to note that it's a complex piece of software, but MySQL's scarcity of advanced features probably has more to do with the lack of need for such features for the average Linux user and the need for much more in serious server environments, which Oracle or DB/2 already provides, along with solid support and expertise.
Are windows users any more polite? What about mac users?
They may not be more polite, but at least they don't have the "I'm entitled to absolutely anything I want, for free!" attitude that prevails among a lot of Linux users and hangers-on.
Actually, that's not true. Witness Napster. This sort of attitude is not correlated to operating system. It's influenced by upbringing, amount of contact with like-minded folks and an unfortunate lack of basic civility. It's a matter of respect for one's fellow human beings. It starts with the simple things like avoiding casual use of expletives and similar language (so when you do use them your point is made somewhat more strongly). It's not rocket science.
providing a binary-only player would be a bigger PR loss than a gain. (A stupid decision, IMHO, but that was the way he explained his thought process.)
I dunno, I agree with him. The only possible benefit would be an increase in mindshare and given the propensity for Linux zealots to refuse any format perceived as controlled by one entity (whether open or not), it's unlikely there would be much gain. All in all, a lot of work rewarded by hate and flamage. I wouldn't do it.
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't cater to the popular tastes. I don't think that's the mission of a public library.
--
D&E is absolutely great. Fascinating stuff and you can still dialogue via USENET with most of the people mentioned!
--
Please tell me you're joking. This is probably one of the worst books on the subject I have ever read. The algorithm descriptions themselves aren't bad, but the code examples are horrendous. There are countless examples of bad coding style, not the least of which is the use of the letter "ell" as a variable name. Sure, it's compact, but it makes understanding the code very difficult. Often it's tough to tell whether a variable or numeric constant is being used.
Rivest, et. al. have a much better algorithms book. The writing style is clearer and it covers more material. The section on complexity alone makes the book far superior to Sedgewick.
--
One book that is a must read for all in the computer field is Tracy Kidder's The Soul of a New Machine. It's the story of the Data General Eagle project. This was their answer to the VAX. It covers a wide variety of topics: hacker culture, management of engineering teams (the section on interviews was particularly enlightening to me), large-scale design, marketing, aging in the field and much more than I have time to list here. The writing style is excellent. Kidder transforms the process of hardware and software design into a gripping story.
Others have mentioned Stroustrup's D&E. I'll second that one along with Stan Lippman's Inside the C++ Object Model. Though by its nature C++-centric, it covers a lot of advanced language feature implementations while at the same time dispelling lots of myths about C++ and being honest about its performance costs.
I'd also go along with others in recommending the "bibles" of each field: Aho, et. al., Tannenbaum, Stevens, Hennessey & Patterson, P & H, etc. I'd also include some "against-the-grain" things like x86 programming manuals, hacking guides for early home systems (Apples, PET, etc.) and anything that gives people a broader perspective on things. This will balance out the "bible" section and give people a sense of how we got here (H & P/P & H for example shout the praises of RISC far too much). It will also help people understand how these things work as those systems were much simpler and easer to "fit in the head."
--
Perhaps someone in the DOJ wants to test the DMCA in court. And maybe, just maybe, they want to see the DMCA declared unconstitutional. Our government is not filled with the mindless drones so often villified on /.. Even members of Congress really do care about doing the right thing. Unfortunately they often lack the necessary understanding, especially in the technology realm, as many senators and representatives bring their biases from business and law experience.
It's unfortunate that a criminal case is needed, but the government could not test the DMCA any other way. They cannot be a plaintiff in a civil suit (as in the tobacco case) because they cannot be harmed by copyright violation.
It's also possible that corporate lobbyists are pushing for a DMCA test -- how often have /. posters been clamoring for a GPL court test? I find this much less likely than pushing for a DMCA overturn, though. Corporations have much more to lose with this case than they can gain.
--
Well, they have that right already from existing copyright, contract and licensing laws. The fact that they no longer need such documents isn't really the granting of new rights so much as the removal of certain legal obligations.
The DMCA criminalizes activity previously allowed under fair use. So, I suppose in the sense that corporations can now get around fair use, they have new "rights," even though such "rights" have been explicitly disallowed by the courts.
I rather view this as a taking away of our rights rather than granting new rights to content producers.
You are right, though, that the DMCA shadows usage controls under the guise of intellectual property protection. That is why it is so nefarious. The law itself is written to protect intellectual property against copying. In that sense, no new rights are granted. The fact that it is being used to restrict use and speech is what will hopefully render it unconstitutional in the courts' eyes.
That is exactly my point about encryption being an orthogonal issue to copying (and to reverse engineering, which I neglected to mention).
Someone pointed out to me that I neglected to mention the exceptions in the DMCA with respect to reverse engineering. It's true that certain exceptions exist regarding compatibility, dissemination of information, etc. I was pointed to Jessica Litman's Digital Copyright for further information.
My response to this is that such exceptions have been rendered null by the DeCSS and Felten cases. DeCSS was declared illegal in spite of the exceptions for compatibility (I see no clearer case than the ability to use legal hardware under various operating systems). Felten was censored in spite of exceptions for scientific research.
--
You are completely right to call me on that one. Hopefully it doesn't detract from the overall message. I will change it in any future versions I send out.
--
Does anyone have information about MI organization?
--
Hopefully, in 10 years I won't be at this address anymore. :)
--
The grammar in the letter is particularly bad, but as I said, it was hastily written. No excuse, I know, but I'm trying to graduate here. :)
--
In any case, the software allows users to exercise their fair use rights that have been denied under the DMCA. Being able to make use of legally purchased materials (by the disabled in this case) is certainly a legitimate reason to develop or own the software. I could just as easily have said the software allows viewing of the material from other readers and it would have been equally true.
--
As for Dmitry, his case may not be the best to get the law declared unconstitutional. The Felton case is stronger and doesn't involve imprisonment. The DOJ/FBI can always drop the charges. There is no law specifying that prosecutors must go after every infraction of the law. In fact, there are rules against this, giving all of us rights to sue for malicious prosecution.
So yes, this can "properly end" without a trial and with Dmitry being immediately freed. This is how it should end!
--
--
It's one way to resolve it. It is not the best way. Better to take a case to court that doesn't have such drastic consequences. The Felten case makes a stronger argument, anyway.
Not necessarily. It is only right and just if the law itself is right and just. In this case, it isn't. One could argue that Dmitry's actions were right and just as a form of political protest/civil disobedience. I doubt that was his motivation but it almost certainly played a (perhaps small) part in Felten's actions.
I gave a perfectly good reason: it is right and just. Just because it's an old concept does not make it any less valid. It's not just Plato that advocates this. It forms the basis of our society.
He doesn't have to stand trial if the government doesn't want him to. The law is not so strict and unyielding that every petty infraction will be prosecuted to the full extent permitted.
I don't think it's a small group (or certainly wouldn't be if more people were fully aware of the situation), but even if it is, there are lots of examples of small groups making or overturning laws. Prohibition was pushed by a relatively small group. It was repealed without an overturning court trial.
"Delaying his release" was a poor choice of words on my part. Perhaps "willfully failing to act for his release" is better.
The reason is a moral one, but again, we are straying from the original point. We're not debating the government's actions here. I think we both agree that they are wrong when viewed from a civil liberties perspective. By the letter of the law, sure, they are legal. However, we are debating the actions (or willful lack of such) and attitudes of the rest of us. My argument is that we cannot use the freedom of an individual to advance the agenda of the group. Now, perhaps there is not much you or I can do directly to help free Dmitry but we can educate, lobby and support those who do have the capacity to help directly.
I have given a reason. It is a perfectly valid one. It is the perfectly valid one.
--
The government can drop the case if the citizens pressure it to do so. The government serves us, not the other way around.
You stated:
If his civil liberties "were not violated according to law," then they must not exist. Civil liberties can only be violated "in hindsight" if they don't exist at the time the law is enforced. It's a pedantic subtlety, yes. I think we're agreeing violently here: the law is a very bad one. By the letter, yes, Dmitry's arrest is legal. The law is obviously unconstitutional and is so because Dmitry has civil liberties which were violated. This does not change the fact that deliberately delaying his release for political purposes is wrong.
He doesn't have to stand trial if the government doesn't pursue the case. This happens all the time. Justice through the strict eyes of law is defined very narrowly. I'm speaking of a wider view of justice: the view that says we all have rights, dignity and responsibility to each other.
Ok, I can accept that. I do understand that he broke the letter of the law and that he was legally arrested. What I don't understand is why we would consider delaying his release. That just doesn't make sense to me. We lose nothing by getting him his freedom and we gain much.
He should be freed because it is right and just.
--
How can freeing a man possibly be used to support the law under which the man was imprisoned?
I can't really say anything to this other than if this is the prevailing attitude, then we really have lost. I am truly ready to cry.
It has? When? All I can recall is a district-level decision.
*shudder* Do you realize what you are saying? It's possible to get a law overturned without having someone physically imprisoned.
And they will have, as far as the Dmitry situation is concerned.
You are making a large assumption.
No, a settlement or dropping of a case has zero legal bearing on future cases. It does, however, have the benefit of making prosecutors think twice before acting.
I want to be right. The win will come in due course.
--
The issue isn't whether he broke the law. It's whether keeping him in jail solely to obtain a political end is just. Clearly, it isn't.
Ad hominem is poor technique.
Sure we can. The government can drop the case. Just as they can with Microsoft or any other federal prosecution. We, as citizens, can pressure them to do so.
Justice in this case is freeing Dmitry. Anything else is gravy. A settlement or outright release doesn't have the same weight as a decision, but it is a precedent of sorts.
That's not how it works. Law gets overturned because civil liberties are violated. New civil liberties are not granted by overturning laws!
But we're getting away from the issue: a man is in jail. Let's work to get him out as quickly as possible and not worry about politics.
--
What "most effective tool" are you talking about? Are you saying that keeping a man in prison is a tool we can wield for personal gain?
We have a good court case already. In fact, it's a better one than Dmitry's because it's a clear case of speech restriction. The government can always argue that Dmitry was arrested for selling software and we all know that the "speech" classification of software is a tenuous one, at best.
This case is completely unnecessary to challenge the DMCA. Keeping a man in prison unjustly is simply immoral, I don't care how "ugly" politics is.
--
First off, no one has a "right" to make money. They have a right to distribute something which might be useful. If they make a living in the process, what's wrong with that?
What's not "right" about exercising one's rights?
It maintains the status quo in that no one would be hurt any more than we already are due to the DMCA. I am not, not, not saying the status quo should remain so.
I am not asking for anyone to sacrifice. Not freeing Dmitry is forcing him to sacrifice. To say that freeing an unjustly imprisoned man sacrifices the rest of us is political doublespeak.
The Felten case has provided us with a fine vehicle to challenge the DMCA. No need to keep someone in prison!
Essentially you are saying that it is "Dmitry's own fault" that he got arrested and that this justifies keeping him in prison to advance our own political agenda. By the same logic, imprisoning Martin Luther King, Jr. and holding him there was an acceptable method to overturn discriminatory law. Certainly the imprisonments helped to turn public opinion but it hardly justifies the actions. I'm fairly certain the Civil Rights movement worked to free him rather than let him rot in a cell for some far-off Supreme Court decision.
No, it is imperative that we discuss, argue and generally increase awareness about this issue.
It's true that he shouldn't have been arrested, not because it isn't law, but because it's bad law. However, the fact is that he is already in prison and we have to work from that situation. I am arguing that keeping Dmitry in jail simply to advance our own cause is unjust and immoral. The DMCA is irrelevant to this particular point. One could substitute any unjust law and the argument would be the same.
--
As soon as we are willing to trample one individual's rights and dignity for our own gain, we lose.
--
What difference does it make? He sold a tool allowing people to exercise their fair use rights. It happened to contain decryption code to enable such use. The fact that it can be used in support of illegal activity does not warrant an arrest, especially when said illegal activity (copying of copyrighted material) is orthogonal to the decryption issue. I can distribute copies of the encrypted eBook and still be punished for it.
Sorry, I just can't agree with you here. First off, I do not advocate "sacrificing the masses for the individual." Sacrifice in this context implies some sort of forced situation which I find horrific for the same reasons that I find the strategy of keeping Dmitry locked up for a Supreme Court case horrific. It takes away freedom.
Freeing Dmitry now does not sacrifice anyone. It maintains the status quo. We were sacrificed a long time ago, about the time the DMCA was passed.
--
"Am I my brother's keeper?" You'd better damn well believe it!
This was the downfall of every totalitarian regime in history. This is the sort of attitude that gets us things like mandatory internet filters and the DMCA in the first place!
I honestly can't see how you can possibly "see it both ways." Every individual has rights and those rights cannot be set aside no matter how good the intentions. It is unthinkable even to ask Dmitry to be a guinea pig.
As we all agree, the DMCA is bad law, period. It gives copyright holders no new rights (copyright still applies whether something is decrypted or not) while taking away a whole slew of rights from everyone. HOWEVER, this does not give us the right to demand something from others in order to save ourselves.
--
--
Why? There are many examples of rapidly-developed Free alternatives to commercial (or perceived "un-Free") software:
It becomes a matter of priorities. While there are some that swear by Free Software exclusively, most people just want something that works well. So the projects that tend to get the attention are those that provide some service that does not exist or that fix major shortcomings of closed alternatives. In either case, there has to be a large enough user base to push development forward. I can't explain gnumeric other than to note that it's a complex piece of software, but MySQL's scarcity of advanced features probably has more to do with the lack of need for such features for the average Linux user and the need for much more in serious server environments, which Oracle or DB/2 already provides, along with solid support and expertise.
--
Actually, that's not true. Witness Napster. This sort of attitude is not correlated to operating system. It's influenced by upbringing, amount of contact with like-minded folks and an unfortunate lack of basic civility. It's a matter of respect for one's fellow human beings. It starts with the simple things like avoiding casual use of expletives and similar language (so when you do use them your point is made somewhat more strongly). It's not rocket science.
I dunno, I agree with him. The only possible benefit would be an increase in mindshare and given the propensity for Linux zealots to refuse any format perceived as controlled by one entity (whether open or not), it's unlikely there would be much gain. All in all, a lot of work rewarded by hate and flamage. I wouldn't do it.
--