I know. None of those contries ever attacked us. Nope, not at all. Never in a million years would any of those countries have lauched a sneak attack on Hawaii. Nope. Certainly not in the 40s, at least.
First, our right to speech is granted (i.e., it is not presumed) by the Constitution.
The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
John Locke, a 17th century English philosopher, declared that all humans are endowed, by the mere fact that they exist, certain rights that include life, liberty and property. Thomas Jefferson included, though very slightly paraphrased, this statement in the Declaration of Independence.
It is sometimes difficult not to say that my speech is okay, but that other person's is wrong, but where would we be if we did succumb to that temptation?
Have you noticed that this is exactly what he's done?
I'm almost convinced that the GNU project doesn't simply want to create "good clean, free" software, but, like the evil Microsoft, wants to create their own version of everything.
Think about it. Sure, they created their own libs, programs, got a kernel from Linus et. al., and yet they continue to push Hurd along, trying to finish it. Why? I know, I know. More choices, right? Keep telling yourself that. I suspect the truth is that they (RMS and others) want that extra bit of control.
If Elcomsoft loses and the judge imposes a huge fine and Elcomsoft refuses to pay. What happens then?
Nothing. Court rulings on international entities often fail to enforce the court supplied remedy. This is evident from the on-going legal challenges that would become The United States of America v. DeBeers for illegally fixing the diamond trade.
Do the Americans lock up any Elcomsoft employees in the USA at the time?
I'm not aware of any individuals being detained at this time, pending judgement.
Do they issue extradition warrants to the Russian authorities?
For the time being, Elcomsoft is coming on its own terms. Russia would hardly be eager to extradite them without a conviction, however, and even if one is gotten, my first point should show how difficult it is. (Though it should be noted that DeBeers goes through great lengths to keep its assets out of reach from the US Government.)
Do they try to force the Russians to seize the assets of Elcomsoft in Russia?
They have no grounds to do that, as of yet. They are only accused of breaking US law at the moment.
You should pay more attention to Miss McBeal in the future, however.
You contend that "Since code is speech, for the most part the DMCA should simply not apply", however the two ideas are unrelated. The code that I assume you are speaking of is that which is similar to or is the Elcomsoft Advanced eBook Processor, in itself is protected under copyright law and freedom of speech. However, since it functions to remove the restrictions placed upon eBooks by the copyright holder, under the DMCA, the trafficking of it is prohibited.
As for your analogy with Mr. Zimmerman, you may be correct. If Elcomsoft had created a book or document describing the mechanisms used to restrict an eBook and distributed that, it could not be used to actively remove restrictions on copyrighted work and, therefor, would be completely comprised of a "speech" component, invalidating an argument that it was covered by the DMCA.
As a side note, you state, "If even kiddie porn is protected speech except under the narrowest of circumstances..." This is not the case, however. "Virtual kiddie porn" is protected by the first amendment because it is created completely within one's mind and presented through some means, such as a jpeg file, and does not involve real children. "Kiddie pron", as in pre-pubescent girls or boys engaging in ''sexually explicit conduct'' 18 U.S.C. 2256 (1) and (2), is not a protected form of expression since it involves the exploitation of children.
Slashdot Mirror
I know. None of those contries ever attacked us. Nope, not at all. Never in a million years would any of those countries have lauched a sneak attack on Hawaii. Nope. Certainly not in the 40s, at least.
First, our right to speech is granted (i.e., it is not presumed) by the Constitution.
The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
John Locke, a 17th century English philosopher, declared that all humans are endowed, by the mere fact that they exist, certain rights that include life, liberty and property. Thomas Jefferson included, though very slightly paraphrased, this statement in the Declaration of Independence.
It is sometimes difficult not to say that my speech is okay, but that other person's is wrong, but where would we be if we did succumb to that temptation?
Have you noticed that this is exactly what he's done?
I'm almost convinced that the GNU project doesn't simply want to create "good clean, free" software, but, like the evil Microsoft, wants to create their own version of everything.
Think about it. Sure, they created their own libs, programs, got a kernel from Linus et. al., and yet they continue to push Hurd along, trying to finish it. Why? I know, I know. More choices, right? Keep telling yourself that. I suspect the truth is that they (RMS and others) want that extra bit of control.
If Elcomsoft loses and the judge imposes a huge fine and Elcomsoft refuses to pay. What happens then?
Nothing. Court rulings on international entities often fail to enforce the court supplied remedy. This is evident from the on-going legal challenges that would become The United States of America v. DeBeers for illegally fixing the diamond trade.
Do the Americans lock up any Elcomsoft employees in the USA at the time?
I'm not aware of any individuals being detained at this time, pending judgement.
Do they issue extradition warrants to the Russian authorities?
For the time being, Elcomsoft is coming on its own terms. Russia would hardly be eager to extradite them without a conviction, however, and even if one is gotten, my first point should show how difficult it is. (Though it should be noted that DeBeers goes through great lengths to keep its assets out of reach from the US Government.)
Do they try to force the Russians to seize the assets of Elcomsoft in Russia?
They have no grounds to do that, as of yet. They are only accused of breaking US law at the moment.
You should pay more attention to Miss McBeal in the future, however.
You contend that "Since code is speech, for the most part the DMCA should simply not apply", however the two ideas are unrelated. The code that I assume you are speaking of is that which is similar to or is the Elcomsoft Advanced eBook Processor, in itself is protected under copyright law and freedom of speech. However, since it functions to remove the restrictions placed upon eBooks by the copyright holder, under the DMCA, the trafficking of it is prohibited.
As for your analogy with Mr. Zimmerman, you may be correct. If Elcomsoft had created a book or document describing the mechanisms used to restrict an eBook and distributed that, it could not be used to actively remove restrictions on copyrighted work and, therefor, would be completely comprised of a "speech" component, invalidating an argument that it was covered by the DMCA.
As a side note, you state, "If even kiddie porn is protected speech except under the narrowest of circumstances..." This is not the case, however. "Virtual kiddie porn" is protected by the first amendment because it is created completely within one's mind and presented through some means, such as a jpeg file, and does not involve real children. "Kiddie pron", as in pre-pubescent girls or boys engaging in ''sexually explicit conduct'' 18 U.S.C. 2256 (1) and (2), is not a protected form of expression since it involves the exploitation of children.