Slashdot Log In
Travesty: Dmitry Sklyarov's Arrest
from the --what's-at-stake-(lots)- dept.
The arrest highlights the way copyright law and intellectual property issues have been highjacked by software and entertainment companies and their lobbyists, who joined forces to pass the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, a little-noticed or debated 1996 law that turns out to be a serious threat to free speech online or off. Sklyarov, a 26-year-old graduate student from Moscow, is one of the first people to face criminal prosecution -- including jail -- under the DMCA. His alleged crime? He is accused of "trafficking" in software designed to circumvent the security features of an Adobe e-book program used by Amazon, Barnes & Noble and other sellers of electronic books.
The arrest raises questions about the right of individuals -- hackers, reporters, programmers, kids in their rooms -- to raise public policy issues relating to software, encryption or security -- without being arrested and jailed, an act more reminiscent of Stalinist Russia than of a country that once placed considerable premium on free speech. If the Sklyarov case stands, then discussion of security, copyright, intellectual property and other issues online will be severely curtailed. This is serious stuff.
In addition, there is a significant body of Constitutional law that gives special protection to journalists and people acting in that role -- like Sklyarov -- from powerful interests like governments and corporations that allows them to raise public policy issues which, over the years, have ranged from national security to government corruption to music and research to software and issues relating to its security. The Constitution always tilted in favor of protecting individuals who challenge authority, under the theory that concentrated power poses a greater threat to freedom than the behavior of individuals.
To understand how information conglomerates have, along with Congress, corrupted Constitutional law, you have to draw analogies to previous cases in which individuals acted as checks and balances on powerful institutions.
Consider the celebrated Pentagon Papers during the Nixon administration in 1971. Journalists, including some working for The New York Times, CBS News and The Washington Post, obtained and disclosed secret Pentagon documents dealing with the decision-making that led to the Vietnam War, then and now bitterly controversial.
The circumstances were very different. The government invoked national security, not copyright in an effort to keep proprietary information secret. The government and the President reacted furiously when they learned that the media intended to publish these documents, citing law and national security. Reporters couldn't be allowed to decide which classified documents would be published, argued the government. These documents belonged to government agencies and could only be released by them. In a different context, Adobe and the government are making the very same argument against Sklyarov.
The Federal government threatened criminal action against the reporters and their news organizations, claiming it was illegal to disclose documents relating to national security. But the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, found that it was unconstitutional to exercise that kind of "prior restraint" on a journalist or news organization seeking to fulfill its constitutional duties to monitor government actions. The court ruled that even though national security concerns were legitimate, the greater public interest lay in the ability of citizens to understand the decisions that led to a prolonged military conflict. The court ruled for an open, rather than a closed, debate on Vietnam.
In its ruling, the Court affirmed long-standing legal interpretations which protected people acting as citizens or journalists -- remember, there are no established qualifications; anyone can function as a journalist -- from censorship, restraint or punishment while they were acting in the public interest, defined as scrutinizing and checking power and authority. Today, corporatism is as powerful as most governments, and as urgently in need of monitoring.
Apart from the scale of the bedrock issue -- a war versus encryption -- there is little legal difference between the reporters seeking to disclose what was in the Pentagon Papers and Sklyarov, who was acting as a reporter just as much as New York Times employees. If anything, the Pentagon papers were airing much more sensitive material -- top-secret classified documents from U.S. defense agencies.
If a New York Times or Washington Post reporter challenged the effectiveness of a government official or agency, he or she would be showered with awards. Reporters published "leaked" or confidential material all the time, in regards to the safety practices of companies as well as the workings of government. Does any rational person think a New York Times reporter would ever be arrested or thrown in jail for disclosing that a software company's supposedly securely encrypted software had flaws? Sklyarov is entitled to the same standing, and the same protection. In a sense, hackers are the reporters and commentators of cyberspace, in some contexts entitled to similiar protections.
If there's a bright spot to the arrest, it's the growing discomfort of Adobe, which spent most of yesterday back-pedaling, trying to distance itself from the arrest. The image of this giant corporation, which claims to be the second biggest PC software company in the United States, against a 26-year-old gadfly wasn't pretty, and may deter other companies from calling in the feds. This promises to be a PR debacle for Adobe, and the company richly deserves it. Many software critics compare Sklyarov to corporate critics like Ralph Nader, who gathered private information on the behavior and safety records of corporations and there products, but are rarely, if ever, thrown in jail for it. Yesterday, Adobe panicked, and in an unexpected turnaround, called for Sklyarov's release -- almost one month to the day that the company filed a complaint about him with the F.B.I. That leaves the feds holding the bag, trying to explain this outrageous arrest.
People protesting Sklyarov's arrest are correct when they warn that critics of companies can now go to jail for proving that so-called secure software isn't necessarily secure. Or for obtaining and publishing other "copyrighted" material, now under the DMCA, and owned by wealthy, politically-connected corporations like Adobe or Microsoft.
Companies like Sony, Disney, AOL Time-Warner, Microsoft and Adobe are increasingly powerful, and spend billions lobbying Washington politicians to enact laws like the DMCA, an almost total creation of the music industry.
But people like Sklyarov are clearly acting in the public interest when they monitor the ethics, performance and conduct of companies like Adobe, just as the Pentagon Paper reporters were disclosing documents that launched the Vietnam War. If Adobe's encryption software works, what does the company have to fear from a 26-year-old Russian hacker?
Sklyarov was guilty of offering a public presentation about software designed to prevent the piracy of e-books, meanwhile, publishing corporations have been lining up behind the record and movie companies to try to control intellectual property online -- at any cost.
Sklyarov wasn't stealing money, or behaving in any overtly criminal way. The government and Adobe both have civil legal remedies they could have pursued. And whatever Sklyarov's motives or intentions, he was acting in the most traditional and highest standards of the press and free speech in questioning the widely-used products of a powerful corporation. Encryption and e-publishing is a bona fide public policy issue with significant implications for business and the public.
Who else but a hacker is in a position to monitor companies like Adobe and the products they create, products that are at the center of a number of crucial public policy issues? To embroil this person in criminal prosecution is an unthinking and chilling assault on the notion -- and long-held practice -- that people in the United States can speak out, however obnoxiously, against powerful institutions.
unfair world (Score:2)
yes but . . . (Score:2)
Interestingly enough... (Score:2)
Re:Call for Technical Submissions (& Haiku ;-);-); (Score:2)
hmmm......
When I buy a real book, I cannot email it to my friends directly. I cannot automaticly dump it into word or whatever and just cut and paste large segments. I could transcribe it if I want those effects, or scan, OCR and edit for the same effect.
Are paper book publishers denying me my rights to use content in lawful ways?
How EASY does fair use have to be in order for it to be provided? Just because a book comes to you in electronic form, why should your ease of "fair use" have to be the same as other electronic media, rather than merely what was put up with in the realm of paper? Did photocopiers give us new rights in fair use or merely convinience?
I have yet to hear a convincing argument that an absolutely perfect hassel free copy that can again be copied perfectly is required for any sort of "fair use".
Kahuna Burger (posting AC cause I lost my password cookie.)
Canadians, help us STOP THIS! (Score:4)
Details can be found here [ic.gc.ca] or
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/rp01100e.html
for the anchor paranoid.
Lets stop the DMCA from undermining our rights north of the border.
This will only go on... (Score:3)
[awaits insane replies from paranoiacs contradicting last sentence]
Why do people keep saying this?? (Score:2)
I don't want the guy to suffer, but since he was SELLING the product, I don't feel as sorry that he may be the one to have to test the DMCA
HE wasn't selling anything! The company he works for was selling the product. We don't go out and round up the workers at a corporation when it breaks the law. Why should he have been arrested in the first place? If they were going to arrest someone, why not the CEO of the company who was with him and more directly responsible for the sale of the program in the US than Dmitri was?
He's not an American. He shouldn't have to suffer to change some moronic law that we made, which he didn't even break himself. We need to clean up our own mess, not make him do it. The guy should be released so he can get home to his family and tell everyone over there about the fucked up "IP" laws America has.
Re:One point. (Score:2)
This is why the DMCA is here in the first place, because there was little thoughtful debate on why it shouldn't be enacted into law, just a bunch of warez puppies screaming "information wants to be free".
Actually there was little to no public debate whatsoever on the DMCA. It was created very quietly. Then our cowardly congresscritters passed it with a voice vote rather than voting on the record. I think they should ALL be held responsible for it.
Re:Call for Technical Submissions (& Haiku ;-);-); (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be easy. My having a right doesn't mean that you have to make exercising that right easy for me. But: while you may make it difficult, you cannot make it illegal. And that's exactly what DMCA does. It outlaws my exercising a legal right.
If Adobe can come up with some strong encryption to prevent copying, more power to them. But they shouldn't use the cowardly approach of outlawing circumvention technology.
--
Re:Facts before fingerpointing (Score:2)
No, it's :
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit.
--
Re:Human rights and copyrights are linked. (Score:2)
Copyright is a bargain. I am willing to voluntarily not exercise my God-given right to repeat or republish things, if the work in question is good enough, and if it promotes the continued progress of the arts and of human culture.
But not completely. I still want to be able to make copies for my personal use if I got the original legally. I still want to be able to sell the original. (but will destroy any copies I made) I still want to be able to use your works in certain, limited ways to promote the progress of the arts even further, perhaps by quoting it in book reviews, perhaps by xeroxing portions and using them in teaching. And above all, I want to, after you've had enough time to make your work pay for itself, stop this sacrifice, and be able to do whatever I want with the work through the end of time.
This seems fair enough, right? Particularly since you cannot demand that I, in this case, we, the people who give authority to the government, are being gracious to you. We don't HAVE to voluntarily surrender our rights, even for a moment. If it's worth our while, and if it's on our terms, then we're ameniable to it. But copyrights are a gift we grant, and not something you're entitled to just by being an author.
Unfortunately, even THIS isn't enough for the moneyed copyright interests, who want more and more and more, and think that they deserve it. If they keep it up, I think that there will sooner or later be a reckoning, and things will be set back to how they were.
Re:Canadians, help us STOP THIS! (Score:2)
The thing to do is this:
Any copyrighted work may not have any protection measure whatsoever. However, infringing uses may be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Any work with any protection measure will be stripped of its copyright in all expressions of that work.
Any uncopyrighted work may have a protection measure, but all peoples of the world are invited to try their hand at breaking it, and disseminating the uncopyrighted work at will. The government will maintain a small office dedicated to coordinating exploits and assisting in them, and maybe even their intelligence apparatus might use them for practice.
Basically... self-help is not a good thing in the realm of copyrights or patents. How does it promote progress if the work is unusable?
Re:One point. - Omission (Score:2)
Elcomsoft exported their software out of Russia. Simultaneously someone imported their software into the US. If you're going to pursue a trafficker, it is the person who brought it into here - not the person who sent it out of there.
Re:This will only go on... (Score:2)
And they'll sit back and take it and just play it off the CD, because a life without the latest nsync CD apparently isn't worth living for most of them.
They will care when Passport gets cracked or DOSed and their buddy lists or email or credit card numbers are lost or stolen
No they won't, they'll just want to make sure that the hacker gets thrown in prison, beaten and raped, and in their heart of hearts, hope he gets killed. Banks still get robbed, most people assume the site has the same security as a bank and that it took some master criminal to commit this heinous act.
> Consumer rejection killed the DivX disc
I suspect it was the fact that it was Circuit City alone against a much bigger set of folks who didn't care to change standards due to the slower market penetration inherent in requiring a telephone-connected device, which by the way, cost more. Look for DIVX to return in future DVD players as an enhancement.
--
Re:It is a crime! (Score:2)
Correct, the advanced e-book processor, which comes bundled with exactly zero (0) copyrighted e-books, which you are instead encouraged to legally purchase, download, and then view on the e-book processor.
They came for him with guns and batons, and threw him into an iron cage with murderers for writing a compatible product. He didn't even need to look at Adobe's copyrighted source to do it. Adobe and their ilk have made it a federal felony to break their file formats.
Yep, it was a crime, this is the new kind of crime congress rolled over and passed. Corruption isn't just draining your wallet now, it's threatening people's lives.
--
Re:Technically... (Score:2)
Not exactly. Speech is protected at different levels depending, among other things, on "usefulness". Since software is a type of functional speech, it's protections are less than those for flag burning or pamphlet writing.
So yes, the speech (actual talking) is protected at the highest level. Software that implements the concepts is somewhat less protected. Software that is sold is a direct violation of the DMCA.
Personally, given the precedents set with dual-deck VCRs, I don't think that provision has a leg to stand on as long as the software has a non-infringing purpose. But that's just my humble opinion, and they've not yet made me a judge.
Yours truly,
Mr. X
...clarity is not Katz' strong point...
Amen (Score:2)
Where were we when the DMCA was being passed? Where were we when the 2600 case was being fought? How many of us did anything beyond bitching on slashdot? How many of us joined the EFF? How many of us have written our representatives to express our displeasure? For that matter, how many of us voted in the last election (Floridians are excepted, as their votes were only selectively counted anyway)?
It is our responsibility (those of us who are residents and citizens of the United States) to put an end to this obscenity (the DMCA) and the injustice it incurrs. Not a visiting Russian programmer whos only real crime is to speak out against a large company's flawed, perhaps even fraudulant, product.
Dmitry should do what he needs to get get free, and get clear of this repressive nation, and we should support him in doing so, not expect him to fight our battles for us (however tempting it may be). However, we should not be shy in using this situation to put the case forward to those who do not understand the issues, and to make it known far and wide what has happened so that neither the government nor Adobe ever live this abuse of power down.
I was going to say "yes" (Score:2)
My first reaction to your question was to say "of course!" but then the laws have become so twisted in the last twenty years or so in order to support the War on Drugs (for example, laws which clearly violate the 4th amendment have been upheld by the courts because of "compelling state interest," which basically means the supreme court acknowledges that the laws violate the constitution, but think they're a good idea anyway and so refrain from striking them down
As an American I assume all of the basic rights (speech, bear arms, religion, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, due process, etc.) apply to everyone equally, citizen or not. However, the law does appear to treat foreigners somewhat differently than citizens (playing it fast and loose with due process for deportation, for example) that I am forced to wonder just how deep into the system those differences carry.
According to commonly accepted American mores everyone should have the same rights regardless of creed, ethnicity, or citizenship (sans voting, of course, which is reserved for citizens). However, it becomes clearer each day that the mores of America are at severe odds with the mores of our government, the cheap whores who occupy its highest offices, and the lawyers who draft and interpret the legislation. Where that will lead who knows, but I must admit I find the Shakespearean Solution rather appealing these days ("hang all the [IP] lawyers").
Untrue and misleading - are you trolling? (Score:5)
No. His employer was selling the software for $99 in a country where the software was not only legal, but in which, in order for Adobe's software to be at all legal, the existence of the program was required.
Dmitry doesn't "own" the company that employs him, he works there. Would any of us want to be held accountable for our employer's behavior, however benign. While throwing Bill Gates in jail for Microsoft's behavior might seem reasonable, clearly throwing some low-level Microsoft programmer in jail for incompetent programming, or writing a piece of software used to illegally leverage Microsoft's monopoly, wouldn't be at all acceptable.
Yet that is very analogous to what happened here. The guy gave a speech on how software he helped develop (and was being sold by his employer in Russia, which last I checked isn't subject to US law). He gave no specifics, merely made it clear that Adobe's copy protection is virtually nonexistent. For that constitutionally protected speech he was carted off by the FBI, held without bail, and denied access to his Consulate while who-knows-what psychological games were played with his mind (not to mention outright interrogation techniques).
It never ceases to amaze me what levels pro-copyright zealots will stoop to in order to defend the indefensible.
Re:Facts before fingerpointing (Score:2)
That all boils down to whether software is 'speech' or a 'device'. There are arguments on both sides, but I vote for 'speech'. People felt it was more obvious that copyright should cover software than patents. Software has been copyrightable since the 60's, but only patentable since the late 80's.
Copyright is about stuff you say. Patents are about devices. Software is more like speech than a device. It isn't illegal for people to say stuff or hand out flyers. It shouldn't be illegal to hand out (or even sell) software.
I think you missed the point ... (Score:2)
The products you sited and not illegal in the US (even the gun), but yes they are regulated.
Under the stupid DMCA, Sklyarov's program is just illegal, so yes, it would seem he would be breaking that stupid law if he was selling it.
That's what the DMCA does, and that's why it should be struck down. Selling a gun is less dangerous than this program under current law, what a travesty !
Re:for the time being (Score:2)
Dmitry wrote the software in Russia, where it is legal, and for Adobe to restrict copying is illegal. Elcomsoft was going to sell the software in the US, but stopped at Adobe's request.
All he did in the US was give an academic presentation on the flaws in Adobe's software. How that would be illegal is beyond me.
Not only is it not a good law, it's unjust and most probably unconstitutional. What if Rosa Parks hadn't broken the law by refusing to sit in the back of the bus? If a law is unjust, it is our civic duty to disobey it.
Re:Isn't what he did against US law? (Score:4)
Dmitry wrote the software in Russia, where it is legal, and for Adobe to restrict copying is illegal. Elcomsoft was going to sell the software in the US, but stopped at Adobe's request.
All he did in the US was give an academic presentation on the flaws in Adobe's software. How that would be illegal is beyond me.
Sometimes, civic disobedience is the proper course of action. I don't think the Jim Crow laws in the south would've been overturned for many more years if Rosa Parks hadn't broken the law. That and the bus boycotts that followed brought national attention to the situation.
It is NOT a crime! (Score:5)
Dmitry wrote the software in Russia, where it is legal, and for Adobe to restrict copying is illegal. Elcomsoft was going to sell the software in the US, but stopped at Adobe's request.
All he did in the US is give an academic presentation on the flaws in Adobe's software.
Re:It is a crime! (Score:5)
What Adobe did could arguably be a crime. In Russia, it is illegal to limit making backup copies of computer software. Adobe's e-book software limits that, which means it violates Russian law. Where the software was written, it would be Adobe being charged with a violation of the law and not Skylarov.
There's also the US law part of it. Making personal-use copies of copyrighted works is specifically protected as fair use. Making backup copies of computer media is as well. Selling your copy to someone else is as well. The DMCA specifically says that nothing in it shall be construed as limiting fair use rights. Adobe's software limits those fair use rights, and they cite the DMCA in direct contradiction of the DMCA itself. Maybe it's time to stop hacking around these things and start filing suit against these companies for violations of USC Title 17 Chapter 1 sections 107, 109 and 117. Basically, don't argue that breaking copy protection shouldn't be illegal, argue that putting the copy protection in in that manner is itself illegal.
Re:Isn't what he did against US law? (Score:4)
Try telling that to Rosa Parks - the law said black people must move to the back of the bus. The result of her civil disobedience was that she was arrested. Then, the outcry over that incident brought an end to Jim Crow laws.
It is not only OK to break laws that are blatently unfair, it is your duty to do so.
Speaking of duty... This version is probably HTML mangled, see the DeCSS gallery for the unmangled version.
Re:Obviously noone's seen this, else it'd be here. (Score:3)
Re:It is NOT a crime! (Score:3)
Perhaps the Russian government should invite some Adobe executives to their country for an "extended discussion" on the matter...
Re:Robert Mueller and Dmitry's Attorney? (Score:3)
A smart FBI would pursue the punishment of Dmitry to the bitter end. All the while crying, "It's not our fault. Adobe set us up the bomb. All our bases are belong to Adobe. Congress made the law, Bill Clinton signed it, and we must enforce it until Congress tells us otherwise." (Note: the reference to Clinton is important to overturn the law. Bush can say, "See! I'm fixing that Clinton guy's mistakes!" True or not, we don't care.)
While the execs may enjoy the fruits of their selling out labor (Congress in this case), the rank and file of most organizations tend to have some honor and respect for their positions. I truly believe that most FBI agents are honorable, if not sometimes misguided, hard working people who want to 'do the right thing' by their country.
This law (DMCA) is a travesty, and nothing will happen to it as long as the big guys are allowed to us it to quietly stuff little guys in holes. We need to use Dmitry as a martyr (that's what he gets for selling his software instead of releasing it open source 8*). He'll most likely end up much better than when he started (free publicity and all), and we need someone to show the public how the big guys have a tool to shut down anyone they like (we USians abhor a bully--unless it's us). Adobe must not be allowed to simply walk away and say, "Ahh, we were only kiddin'."
We need some people in Russia protesting outside of the US embassy. Have them burn some flags and call Bush stupid and evil. Have some USians from Russians descent complain how this law and the prosecution of Dmitry is an attack on Russian culture. Hell, protest outside of the Russian embassy in Washington. Turn this whole damn thing into an international incident that Bush will have to be involved with personnally.
Then watch how quickly the law gets struck down.
Call for Technical Submissions (& Haiku ;-);-);-) (Score:5)
He is interested in receiving and publishing the following kinds of information:
Technical descriptions of the access control and encryption mechanisms associated with PDF files and/or eBooks.
Technical descriptions of remedies for these mechanisms, e.g., patches, key recovery algorithms, modified plug-ins, etc.
Source code for implementing these remedies.
He notes that "A large amount of useful content is now encoded as PDF (Portable Document Format) files, including files marketed for the eBook document reader. Unfortunately, some of this content is not usable in all the LAWFUL WAYS [emphasis mine] a purchaser desires, due to access control mechanisms created by Adobe and adopted by content publishers to the detriment of their [LAWFUL] customers."
He further notes that "Computer professionals who have examined [Adobe's access control mechanisms] have found them easy to defeat."
He notes that his website is for discussion of purely technical information of interest to computer scientists and lawful content users. He is not interested in receiving rants about Adobe or the DMCA, suggesting that individuals go to the Boycott Adobe [boycottadobe.com] [and/or slashdot [slashdot.org] - grin] site for that.
It is suggested that individuals wishing to submit TECHNICAL CONTENT first visit the site [cmu.edu] to see what others have already submitted to avoid unnecessary duplication (e.g. ElcomSoft, Xpdf, Ghostscript, etc).
It is noted that there is yet no "Haiku" regarding Adobe's "easy to defeat" access control mechanism.
... "Why don't people get as bent out of shape when the other Twenty-Six (?) Amendments are violated (e.g. Second Amendment???) [tuxedo.org]"
Tangential Editorial Comment by RM3 Frisker FTN
Technically... (Score:3)
Russian Slashdot readers... (Score:3)
Re:Technically... (Score:3)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:Robert Mueller and Dmitry's Attorney? (Score:3)
While Dmitry remains in custody, I have not read the EFF (or any other organization/individual) will provide him counsel. Given the nature of the U.S. judicial system, it would be vital for Sklyarov to have extremely credible criminal defense attorneys.
Taken from the EFFector Vol. 14, No. 15 (July 22nd 2001)
Al.--
Who cracked into the Jon Katz account? (Score:3)
Although I have not changed my opinion, Katz has, this time at least, summed up my view on this situation quite well. I agree that there is a double standard and that the law needs to be changed.
Katz may be late on the bandwagon, but I think he nailed the essence of the arguement.
(There's just this part of me that refuses to believe it's really him and not some very insightful imposter.)
heh (Score:3)
If the DMCA had been in existence in the l970s, the reporters and their employees could have been arrested under the exact same charges as Sklyarov -- stealing copyrighted material.
no, he was arrested for trafficing a "copyright circumvention device" or as adobe puts it "digital lockpick".
I was actually injoying your artical until that comment.
-Jon
Damn adobe, full speed ahead for progress! (Score:4)
The underlying issue here is why should the government be protecting copyrighted material from not-for-profit pirating in the first place. Copyright is only for for-profit piracy protection, so what does that make our current laws, Copywrong?
The problem is that IP corporations will almost always be hostile toward the public domain and public liberty. They cannot even EXIST without government might being behind them. I am not opposed to copyright law at all, but this is one area where I have to say that the principles, while not the law itself, of copyright law laid down by our founders in the first copyright law for the US hold true more than ever. The original law gave only limited protection and a maximum of 28 years (14 first then you could apply for an extension).
Neither major party will ever properly address this issue. Taco et al. can deride the Republicans all they want, but the DMCA was a joint effort to screw us all over orchestrated equally by both parties and signed by a liberal democratic president. The naderite approach is equally insane: abolish the corporations. The corporations aren't at fault here, the government is. With sane copyright laws there would be no United States vs. Dmitry Sklyarov. Adobe only has so much power as the government gives it; take away that power and Adobe is no more powerful than you or I. Big government is at fault here. That is why we libertarians oppose big government. With a minimalistic government Adobe wouldn't have any recourse against Sklyarov.
Re:Canadians, help us STOP THIS! (Score:3)
The question then becomes, who is allowed to circumvent copy protection, and when? As a programmer skilled enough to bypass or circumvent copy protection, are there things I am not allowed to know? Are there programs I am not allowed to write? Corporations are allowed to write and sell circumvention technology so consumers can use copy protected material, but I, as a private citizen, am not allowed to create software that performs exactly the same function?
Copy protection law moves copyright away from restrictions on copying of materials and towards control of the types of materials I am allowed to possess or create, since software to view copy protected materials is at its core no different from the material it is protecting.
Our government seems clued in to some degree, but compliance with the WIPO treaty would seem to require contradicting common sense.
Any feedback regarding this approach would be welcome.
One point. (Score:3)
While I don't believe his offence warrants a stay in jail, why are defending him as if he was acting in the public interest? This isn't even DeCSS, folks. The source is *not* in your hands. You still have to purchase his product. Personally, I believe that this is open ground for a civil lawsuit between Adobe and Elcomsoft, and Adobe would be in the right: Elcomsoft has no right to *sell* products whose purpose is to disable Adobe's encryption, esp. when such knowledge was gained through reverse-engineering.
The academic backdrop is SO important (Score:4)
Bryguy
Re:It is a crime! (Score:3)
Dimitry was not arrested for creating and selling anything. Go back and read what he's accused of.
The only crime Dimitry commited within the United States was reverse-engineering an encryption system designed to protect copyright. This is a DMCA violation.
If he is/was selling something in Russia, that's not the point here because United States laws do not apply in Russia. If Dimitry had commited a crime in Russia, then the Russian authorities would petition the United States to arrest him and return him to Russia for trial. That isn't the case here.
I also can't see why you're turning this into a Democrat/Republican issue. Who cares who passed the DMCA?
Vote your conscience instead of standing on "your side" of the isle.
Ashcroft may be upholding a standing law, but he should use some common sense. What does it say about our foreign relations if someone comes to our country, gives a speech about an encryption system, and is then arrested? To make matters worse, a United States corporation, not a law-making entity, was the catalyst to the arrest!
--
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3)
"The Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts . . . by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries."
limited times.
Re:Robert Mueller and Dmitry's Attorney? (Score:5)
It not up to you or anyone else to use him to test the DMCA. If he wants to, fine. But the sense I get from reading things is that he'd just like to go home and have this whole thing behind him.
-S
Re:Here we go again... (Score:3)
The Constitution provided for a limited time for copyright. The DMCA takes that away by limiting access.
No surprise (Score:3)
He was selling the software (Score:3)
-----------------------------------
I don't think, therefore I'm not...
Facts before fingerpointing (Score:4)
According to reports by TechTV, who was present at Defcon 9, Sklyarov was not only speaking but actually selling the Elcomsoft product. While I agree that what is at issue is the DMCA, and it's ability to silence anyone (or at least give companies the motive to try), lets get the facts straight here. If I design a bomb in Russia, where, for the sake of example we'll pretend it's perfectly legal, and I somehow get it past customs in the US, I can't very well sell it. While the plans might simply be "information" and somehow applicable to present under some journalistic and/or scientific auspice, I don't think you can argue that it's ok for me to sell the premade bomb as well.
Note, this isn't how I view the whole Sklyarov situation, but one of the important things to remember when debating is put yourself in the other person's shoes and try to see things how they see it, no matter how corrupt and greedy that vision may be.
Re:The academic backdrop is SO important (Score:4)
I don't know if it was a hard choice for the press... After all, most of the major TV news media are owned by or own companies that are members of the RIAA or MPAA. Perhaps it'd be more accurate to state that because 2600 is what it is, that it was EASIER for the media to demonize them as "eevil hackers".
Sklyarov is similarly easy to demonize because he's Russian, and Russia is where the media keeps telling us where many of those "eevil hackers" are from. Which is one reson why the silence is deafening on this case. Plus, unfortunately, there still exists a lot of cold war resentment towards Russia among common Americans.
Professor Felten, however, is a different case. He's VERY hard to demonize, as a Princeton professor. Most of the news media elite like to think of themselves as coming from the Ivy League elite, and will have problems siding with their corporate bosses.
This is one reason why the RIAA/SDMI cartel is running scared from that suit. They know they are going to lose, but they know that they got caught.
Sad isn't it, that it's WHO you are, not the MERITS of your case that decides how much justice you get.
Katz left out an important point. (Score:4)
"Actually, according to Russian law, it's sooner adobe's program that is illegal, in that it prevents one from using a bought and paid for product as the purchaser wishes. That's a violation of fair use. Also, at the time a user buys a book in Adobe's format a buyer isn't notified of these restrictions.
I think Sklyarov's arrest was actually a good thing overall: people who normally could care less about this kind of thing are starting to ask questions about the DMCA.
Robert Mueller and Dmitry's Attorney? (Score:4)
I would think if the U.S. continues to pursue this case, contrary to the wishes of Adobe and many Americans, then there should be opposition to the nomination of Robert Mueller for the head FBI job. His confirmation hearings begin July 30, and he is currently the U.S. Attorney in charge of the jurisdiction prosecuting Dmitry.
While Dmitry remains in custody, I have not read the EFF (or any other organization/individual) will provide him counsel. Given the nature of the U.S. judicial system, it would be vital for Sklyarov to have extremely credible criminal defense attorneys.
It will be curious to see if the same community which brought pressure upon Adobe, will bring the same pressure upon Robert Mueller during his hearings, if Dmitry remains in custody. So far, I have no seen no similar organizing or campaigning for Dmitry. Dmitry remains in charged with a criminal act and in custody.