Slashdot Log In
Say Here Why Sklyarov Should Go Free
from the cyber-petition-in-your-own-words dept.
Skylarov's fate has significance far beyond encryption programs. It goes directly to the very idea of security online, of hacker exploration, the open sharing of software processes, and to the creativity and challenge that is at the heart of the Net. This process of sharing, exploring and challenging is one of the primary reasons for the Net's growth, from gaming to messaging to system software to open source. This case also involves the future of copyright and intellectual property. Sklyarov is in jail because of a poorly-conceived provision of the DMCA written by entertainment company lobbyists that goes far beyond existing copyright law.
Sklyarov violated no aspect of traditional copyright law -- only the outlandish provisions of the DMCA. His behavior is similiar to that of many journalists and critics who, over the years, have obtained secret, classified or copyrighted corporate or governmental information to expose flaws, weaknesses or more serious forms of wrongdoing. Few have been arrested and thrown in jail. The federal courts have always taken the view that the greatest threat to freedom is the unchecked power of large institutions, from governments to auto manufacturers. In a sense, the future of Net security depends on people like Skylarov probing for weaknesses and flaws. Whatever his motives, Sklyarov's behavior was in this protected tradition.
Even if Skylarov is freed tomorrow, his arrest and persecution will chill criticism of corporate products and power, and threatens the survival of individualism online. This is a major escalation for increasingly aggressive and monopolistic tech and media corporations, some of which are aggressively moving to control content and communications. Copyright is their new wedge. This criminal case should be dropped, and Sklyarov freed.
Actually (Score:2, Interesting)
I would agree, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
FBI web readers take note: I am almost inclined to heavily study encryption, reverse engineer some stuff, and publish it on the web just to say, "Come and get me, let's go to trial and get this sh*t over with." I have no immediate family, so I'm almost tempted to do it.
Parent
Due process myth... (Score:2, Interesting)
Freedom of $peech (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost right (Score:3, Insightful)
preaching to the choir (Score:4, Insightful)
Everybody, think real hard about how much money you can part with. Surely most people here can let go of at least $100, without blinking. Hell, a lot of you wouldn't blink at spending $500 on a night out. or maybe you can only spare $20, you can still help with that. Now do two things with that money:
1) Donate [eff.org] to the EFF, or Join [eff.org] the EFF. They're a great organization, and they can use your help. You, on the other hand, can use the tax break.
2) Purchase Elcomsoft software [elcomsoft.com].
Parent
Re:Freedom of $peech (Score:2)
My Reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Fair Use: What fair use? ;-) This has been beaten to death, but I must mention it simply because it is so compelling. I am allowed to copy things for my own personal use. You can try to stop me with anti-copying measures, but if I succeed there is nothing you can do about it. Which means that a device that allows me to do this cannot be illegal. (this is all supposing that fair use rights have not been summarily thrown out the window by the DMCA).
3. Punish the crime, not the tool. This is my own personal opinion, but I think the US could really look to this when making laws. I can kill someone with a ballpoint pen, and it would still be murder. I could also do this with a gun, a knife or just about anything. It is the murder that is the crime, not the gun (or pen, etc.). I know many do not agree with me on this, but we need to draw the line somewhere. Making extra penalities for commiting a crime with a certain weapon or possessing a weapon that enables you to commit crimes is simply stupid. Similarly, just because I have the tools to commit copyright infringement doesn't mean I will do it. I used to download songs from Napster that I already owned on CD just because it was a pain to rip them all.
4. Code is Speech. If you claim that it is not, please explain how RSA encryption was exported as a book, or how DeCSS can be printed on a T-shirt. Anything that can be written in a book or on a T-shirt is speech, and is protected (as long as it isn't a death-threat or a threat to national security).
5. The DMCA sucks. :-) The above are most of the reasons. It is a law that was passed after huge lobbying efforts by enormous corporations for one purpose only: their own bottom line. It was not passed to protect the artists or writers, give me a break. It was passed to protect the publishers. They need to get the message that if widespread pirating is being done, they need to focus on quality of service and ease of distribution. Why didn't the VCR kill television or movies? Because it is easier to pay for cable and a better experience to go to the movies. Plus you can RENT tapes. As long as a CD costs $18 there will be a poor college kid trying to pirate it because he DOESN'T HAVE THAT MUCH MONEY.
Those are most of the reasons I could think of off the top of my head.
Re:My Reasons (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but he gave a talk and explained out it works in the US.. that is illegal (currently) in the US. I don't think it's right, but it's the law.. That's like saying that in some other country where it's legal to shoot somebody that they should be exempt when they come here and do the same thing. You follow the laws of the land that you're in, and he broke the law here, while he was here. The law is stupid, yes, but jurisdiction is not an issue in this case.
The rest of your comments I fully agree with...
Re:My Reasons (Score:4, Informative)
The DMCA outlaws two things: "circumventing protections on copyrighted materials" and "manufacturinging/distributing (etc) circumvention devices."
Although Skylarov may be guilty of the latter, he committed these acts outside of US jurisdiction in a country whose laws do not forbid the practice. The former charge, circumventing the protection on a copyrighted work may or may not have been violated. Did he practice his technique in the US or did he just talk about it? And does that restriction (section 1201[a]: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title") apply in all circumstances, or simply in circumstances where copyright is actually violated (should it apply in other circumstances?)
Finally, is Skylarov's talk exempted under section 1201[f], which specifically exempts "encryption research"? Of course this last is complicated by the fact that we must consider Skylarov's motivations for giving the talk, and assume that he made an effort to let Adobe know he was giving the talk (they certainly found out about it.) As far as I understood, in a case where an act is only criminal when committed with certain "motives", law enforcement officials are required to give a defendant the benefit of the doubt before making an arrest.
Parent
Re:My Reasons (Score:2)
Actually the ruling said the opposite - merely telling them is ok, but SHOWING them is not. Which is why 2600 changed the link (infringing) into a plain-text non-clickable URL (non-infringing).
The DMCA may outlaw a lot of things, but the US courts know how to deal with printed text and spoken speech, and I don't think anything in this case rises to the gravity that'd be required to form an exception to the 1st amendment (i.e. the "fire in a crowded theater" or "clear and present danger" exceptions).
Re:My Reasons (Score:2)
Now, he didn't hand out copies of the stuff, so how was he trafficking? Answer: he showed people where to get it.
Re:My Reasons (Score:3, Informative)
There is some debate on that point. I personally believe that the DMCA *does* make it illegal to give a talk about encyrption techniques (because the information imparted in such a talk would be useful in defeating security measures). In fact, this is one reason why I believe the the DMCA is bad law.
But the FBI does *NOT* agree with me on this point... they apparently do NOT feel that giving a talk is sufficient grounds to prosecute Dmitry. That is why the criminal complaint [eff.org] they filed does NOT complain at all about his having given the talk, but only about his having worked for Elcomsoft software, and being "listed on the Elcomsoft software products as the copyright holder of the program".
So the only actions he is being prosecuted for took place on Russian soil.
Re:My Reasons (Score:3, Insightful)
2) You should be able to copy things you own and the devices to do this should be legal as long as the media is not distributed if it is copywrited(naturally). Of course, this will always be abused by somebody but it is small enough to be acceptable.
3) I agree also. It doesn't matter if I should President Bush in the head with a 20 guage or run him over with a bus, it's still murder.
Agreed here too. Code is a form of free speech but it is also a tool and when it violates other peoples rights or damages other peoples property such as writing a virus that flips every other 1 on the harddrive to zero, it should be prosecuted for obstruction.
5) The DMCA does "suck" as you put it so well. Don't get me wrong, they've did some good things but this doesn't look good for anybody but the publishers. Whatever happened to power to the people. No, now its power to the government and large corporations.
Re:My Reasons (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Fair use: Yes we should be able to copy things we purchase, but companies of have gotten clever about hiding the thing you purchased under a layer of protection that it is illegal to bust. You copying it isn't the illegal part. Breaking their protection IS. as much as we all hate it.
3. Punish the crime not the tool: Ok this is an iffy one, but I think it boils down to the obvious intent of the tool.. A gun by design is made to injure or kill, whether it be hunting or murder. You can use it for target practice but you can also use much less deadly weapons for that. A tool designed to bypass copy protection, while it may have it's legitimate uses, come on, nobody here is stupid. We know what we'd all use it for
4. Code is free speech: Come on now, "Free Speech" is fine and good but too many people hide behind it.. I'm sorry but software in my opinion (note, my OPINION) is not "speech", it's a tool, a utility.. it can be printed sure, but that is more or less a side effect and not the intent. If it were the intent, why do so many companies invest tons of money to protect the code? If code is free speech we should be able to to copy any code we want and use it however we see fit.
I don't see a whole lot of people protecting spammers with free speech.. why do we choose to use this only when it suits our purpose?
5: The DMCA sucks: Couldn't agree more!
DO I think he should be freed? well he did violate the laws, he was foolish enough to travel here and go to Defcon of all places to talk about it.. Seems to me he was asking for trouble.. We as geeks like this though.. "Free Kevin, Free Sklyarov"
Anyway, just my OPINION.. don't hurt me
Seconded, with additional points... (Score:3, Insightful)
href="http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=0
discusses the resignation of Alan Cox, a major force behind open software, from the USENIX organization for fear of unconstitutional seizure by the FBI while traveling in the US...
Re:US hyprocicy. (Score:2)
My appologies if my inital post didn't make as much sense as it should have, my blood caffine level was unusually low at the time
mini essay on the DMCA (Score:4, Insightful)
My first point is that the DMCA overrides many of the copyright issues that people have lived with for years, in fact, they take them for granted. Issues like so called "fair use," although tricky, is a major issue that the DMCA throws out the window. Also is the issue of the expiration dates on copyrights. I think this is required, not only because the earlier laws require it, but it is required for an innovative country. Without this, I think America wouldn't be what it is today.
Secondly, the DMCA was passed without the knowledge or consent of the people of the United States. I know that we live in a representative government, where our elected officials speak for the people at large, but this particular law, and alarmingly, many like it, were passed on behalf of the recording industry, movie making industry, etc. This is not the will of the people. In fact, how can someone say that the people are benefited by this law? I say that they are not. Their rights are being trampled by this abomination. In most, if not all states, if a contract is signed that isn't beneficial to both parties, it can be easily contested as invalid. This law is similar, I think it would be over-turned, because it doesn't have the best interests of the American people at heart.
Thirdly, in what way is Adobe hurt by Dmitri Sklyarov's actions that it would have been able to avoid if this didn't contain one of the political buzzwords like "encryption" or "hacker"? In the past, when a company was guilty of lying or committing a crime, it is usually up to a private citizen (American or otherwise) to point it out before the public at large and the Judicial system would take notice? Adobe tried to tie something to a single instance of computer hardware, making it non-copyable. This is shaky legal ground without the DMCA, as it probably violates "fair use." Furthermore, the encryption used is flimsy and easily breakable. If I am betting my company on the quality of this encryption, the low quality of the Adobe product constituted a defective product. Only because it is illegal now (under the DMCA and no other law) to try to break encryption, would this even have the possibility of not being broken and turned into a copyable medium. What Mr. Sklyarov did was to enable people and corporations to understand the risk of using Adobe's defective eBook product. This has never been a crime, and it shouldn't be a crime. Without this type of "expose," we are in the position of the king in the children's story "The Emperor's New Clothes." We know that there are problems, but they are never fixed, because no one is allowed to talk about the problems, thus Adobe--or any other company--has no reason to improve, thus killing the innovation that I mentioned in my first paragraph.
Lastly, it is a crime to talk about encryption subversion under the DMCA. This treads on dangerous territory, that being free speech. Yes, there are instances where we give up free speech for the greater good (the classic yelling "fire" in a crowded theater for example), but this isn't one of them. There is no greater good, only the good of a few wealthy companies, the ones which lobbied this law into existence. In fact, I believe that the criminalization of talking about this if a disservice to America. It is only by talking about things among peers that real scientific advances come.
I still think a run-of-the-mill petition would be in order as well. I think until we actually take action that the "old school" politicians will recognize, we are just shouting to the converted.
Let him rot in jail (Score:3, Flamebait)
More on Dmitry's spamware: Let him rot in jail (Score:3, Flamebait)
http://www.mailutilities.com/aee/
and then scroll down to the bottom and note the Elcomsoft copyright message. This software is designed to help spammers extract addresses from email and websites. Every copy of this spamware that Elcomsoft sells means you and I get more spam. They should ALL be in jail, if there was any justice on this earth.
Re:More on Dmitry's spamware: Let him rot in jail (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
I don't understand... (Score:4, Funny)
...how can the DMCA [huizen.dds.nl] have anything to do with this case?
(on a side-note: is it me or did
Free Dmitry? Spare me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Spare me. No, really. (Score:2)
London Protest (Score:2, Informative)
While ours was a small group (I believe there were 33 of us who made it to the embassy), we encountered a lot of Londoners and tourists on the way from Hyde Park corner. Some were perplexed by a parade of geeks attempting to chant things like "Free Speech! Free Dmitry!". There was no hostility; however, it was clear that some American tourists were rather upset by the banner we were carrying that read "Visit America, Go to jail". But despite being a small protest, the organiser was interviewed by Newsnight (the UK equivelant of Larry King Live) and we're going to get the second spot tonight.
I don't know if these protests will actually help Dmitry, but I do think they're raising the awareness of the absurdity of the DCMA. With Europe and Canada about to vote on DMCA-type laws, the protests come at the right time.
Liberty (Score:2, Interesting)
Copyright laws were introduced to make sure that people did not sell items with copied material in them, originating from someone else. However, if someone publishes a book on how something works, based on their research and their disassembly and their reverse engineering, they should be free to do so. Copyright is the idea protecting ideas from illict reproduction, not from informative deconstruction.
The equivalent is Chilton's Car Maintience guide company being sued because they explain how a GM 305 engine works.
To Adobe, and those who would emulate them: (Score:2)
How to change the DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree that Skylerov is not being served justice, but perhaps his sacrifice can bring about change to the ill-devised DMCA.
This needs to go to a court where technolegy isn't veiwed as a yoke to assist in our daily lives. My hope is that the lawyers and judges on this case can see technolegy as the last great American Freedom. Skylerov's actions were to free restrictive and narrowminded technolegy to empower people to use the product in question, not to promote pirecy or theft of a product.
I can only hope that thi is the death knel for the DMCA I hear on the horizon and not the sound of the big business gestapo making sure that their power isn't lost.
Re:How to change the DMCA (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Lets make an analogy here: (Score:3, Interesting)
Case 1: Sklyarov writes a program which demonstrates the lack of security in a programs piece of software. This shows that the developers of the software have to rewrite their code to fix this problem, this also prevents consumers from buying faulty software which could leak important information.
Case 2: Consumer Reports buys a car, test drives the car and tips it over. They publish a report showing that the car is defective. The cars engineers have to redesign the car and this also prevents consumers from buying a defective car and injuring themselves.
So when Consumer Reports announces that a car is defective, how come they don't get arrested and jailed? They are releasing information against the companies interests in order to protect consumers, damaging the companies reputation and sales of the car. I'm sure any company would want to prevent this information from being released. Sylyrov was not arrested for reasons of immoral acts or destructive behavior. Sklyrov was arrested because he released information that was against a companies interest in order to protect consumers, and the company used a new law which applied to this type of information to prevent it.
It is bad national policy. (Score:5, Insightful)
This policy puts all of us who travel abroad for business at risk. Consider that we have people setting up phone networks, running fiber, etc. in countries like Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and a host of third world countries. Can you tell me what is illegal in those countries? Would you like it to be in the US? That is what we are saying. If you violate our laws while in your country, never come here.
Extreme example? The only people who believe the world loves the US have never traveled. While they do not dislike us individually, we are considered arrogant and inexperienced as a country. Most countries have homes older than we have existed. We think we are right most of the time and are more prone to "my way or the highway" mentality, with the view shared by many that we are a bully that needs a good thrashing.
We have now set the precedent that you can arrest an American for violating your laws while in America. This is bad on so many levels.
If the tables were turned... (Score:2, Informative)
...and Skylarov were an American in Russia, being held after taking a trip to a conference in Moscow to present scientific research sponsored by his employer, and was arrested for spying because of that research, the American press would go apesh*t (as Slashdot has previously noted [slashdot.org]). Today on dailynews.yahoo.com:
The individuals in the USAG's office from Ashcroft on down need to be held accountable for every day of the immoral, obscene detention of Dmitri Sklyarov. His release is inevitable, but I fear it won't be soon. For it, I say SHAME!
Russian/US relations (Score:2)
Not to mention that he hasn't had a bail hearing yet or has even been expedited to California. I'm just glad the Cold War is over, or we'd see something far worse happen.
Sklyarov should stand trial (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Because the DMCA is fatally flawed. Its concepts make dangerous and possibly unconstitutional precedent, and criminalize the rights of invention ('freedom to innovate') in ways previously relegated to dark-future fiction.
Will Congress repeal the DMCA? Unlikely. Political pressure from lobbyists is far greater to keep it in place, and that's where the money is.
Will the president do anything about it? This president? Not likely. (Besides, he's going on vacation for a month.)
The courts are the only arena where the DMCA will be chipped away until it falls apart, but that can't happen if we stage 'free hacker-x' demonstrations every time the DMCA is to be put on trial.
This case is perfect. It's highly public, it hits upon the core of the DMCA, and it's one where the victimized party (Adobe) also feels that the defendant should not be prosecuted. If there's another test case that stands a better chance of chinking the DMCA's multi-platinum armor, I don't know what it is.
But none of this can happen if we don't push the trial through. Look at the big picture. Free Sklyarov, and next month there will be another Sklyarov in his place (anyone want to publish a paper on DeCSS?), but break the DMCA in court, and all Sklyarovs will be free.
Re:Sklyarov should stand trial (Score:2)
Given the byzantine nature of the DMCA, violating one or more of its provisions does not seem to be too difficult. If you would really like to see the DMCA put to the test, then put your money where your mouth is and violate it. Flagrantly. And be prepared to suffer the consequences, which will include separation from your friends and family, a "hacker" stigmatization that will reflect upon you and your work for at least the next decade, and, barring some 11th-hour benevolence on behalf of the EFF and prominent defense attornies, a large drain on your financial resources. I might add that you would at least have the luxury of a passing familiarity with the American judicial system, which, unfortunately, is more than can be said for Skylarov. Until you are ready to take that leap, please don't come on Slashdot expounding the abstract benefits of this case while simultaneously completely blinding yourself to the actual human story underlying it all.
Re:Sklyarov should stand trial (Score:2)
Thomas Jefferson on "The Law" (Score:5, Informative)
Intro:
I feel the need with all the horrible rights violations going recently to highlight Thomas Jefferson's views on copyright. In the writing to ensue, there will be much opinion and conjecture surrounded by a more valued and respected sets of opinions by none other than Thomas Jefferson. Without a doubt, Thomas Jefferson has already covered most of what gets rehashed, particularly when it comes to fair use and the DMCA.
I feel it is important to this case, especially from the American prospective, to point out that one of the most ingenious, prolific and outspoken forefathers of the USA, where the DMCA and other vile laws live, believe firmly that the bill of rights should have included and explicit reference to freedom from burdensome and unfair copyrights and legislation thereof.
Thomas Jefferson was concerned about you and me. The people that read periodicals. He was concerned with everyone as a singular entity. You yourself may not know what's best for you if you belong to something bigger. Our [United States] laws are supposed to protect the little people.
While I'm not suggesting an armed standoff against federal agents necessary in this case, something must be done. We are railroading an expatriate to whom our laws do not bind. Furthermore, our own forefathers, particularly Jefferson, BELIEVE me he is YOUR friend (not the big monopolies like Energy/Petroleum Companies, Microsoft, etc.)
I'm going to excerpt his beliefs below. Realize that even 200 years ago, the pitfalls of burdensome copyright and the legislation that ensues would erode our freedoms.
...
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), in his correspondence with James Madison (1751-1836) was initially hostile to the provision for copyright and patent law in the United States Constitution. On Dec. 20, 1787, Jefferson wrote to Madison from France concerning the recently-drafted Constitution:
"I do not like... the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land..."
Note, here IMHO, Thomas Jefferson wants to, along with our other inalienable rights, establish a freedom from Monopoly. These rights, not excluding freedom from monopoly, were to him as core as the rest of our bill of rights. He repeated this view in his letter to Madison dated July 31, 1788:
"I sincerely rejoice at the acceptance of our new constitution by nine states. It is a good canvas, on which some strokes only want re-touching. What these are, I think are sufficiently manifested by the general voice from North to South, which calls for a bill of rights. It seems pretty generally understood that this should go to juries, habeas corpus, standing armies, printing, religion and monopolies. I conceive there may be difficulty in finding general modification of these suited to the habits of all the states. But if such cannot be found then it is better to establish trials by jury, the right of Habeas corpus, freedom of the press and freedom of religion in all cases, and to abolish standing armies in time of peace, and monopolies, in all cases, than not to do it in any... The saying there shall be no monopolies lessens the incitements to ingenuity, which is spurred on by the hope of a monopoly for a limited time, as of 14 years; but the benefit even of limited monopolies is too doubtful to be opposed to that of their general suppression."
Madison, in a letter dated October 17, 1788, responded,
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government. But is it clear that as encouragements to literary works and ingenious discoveries, they are not too valuable to be wholly renounced? Would it not suffice to reserve in all cases a right to the public to abolish the privilege at a price to be specified in the grant of it? Is there not also infinitely less danger of this abuse in our governments than in most others? Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions. Where the power, as with us, is in the many not in the few, the danger can not be very great that the few will be thus favored. It is much more to be dreaded that the few will be unnecessarily sacrificed to the many.
I hold the recent copyright extension as an example of what Madison thought there was little danger of. There it was said, even by Madison, the proponent of the said directives, that there would likely be no "a sacrifice of the many to the "partialities and corruptions" of a powerful few."
I firmly believe the DMCA is both a corruption and a partiality. Anyone with Macrovision stock will try and convince you otherwise.
Jefferson probably saw that there is some purpose in having intellectual property be protected in some fashion or more likely, IMHO, probably decided that he would rather be a part of creating the ground rules for this countries operations and decided to cut bait at this point. He subsequently said to Madison in a letter on August 28, 1789:
"I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."
The blank was to be filled in at some future date, obviously. The law is written with the sense that this right would be the right of the people to protect themselves against intellectual fraudulence by companies, e.g., the theft of the 'little man's' ideas. In addition to which, there is always the stance that the people of the fledgling USA would be safeguarded in the Bill of Rights against unduly long copyrights.
Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward, in a letter of September 6, 1789. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on actuarial calculations:
"The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another seems never to have been started on this [i.e., the European side -- Jefferson was writing from France] or our [American] side of the water... that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof. -- I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it... A generation coming in and going out entire... would have a right on the first year of their self-dominion to contract a debt for 33 years, in the 10th for 24, in the 20th for 14, in the 30th for 4, whereas generations, changing daily by daily deaths and births, have one constant term, beginning at the date of their contract, and ending when a majority of those of full age at that date shall be dead. The length of that term may be estimated from the tables of mortality. Take, for instance, the tables of M. de Buffon... [according to which] half of those of 21 years [of age] and upwards living at any one instant of time will be dead in 18 years 8 months, or say 19 years as the nearest integral number. Then 19 years is the term beyond which neither the representatives of a nation, nor even the whole nation itself assembled, can validly extend a debt... This principle that the earth belongs to the living, and not to the dead, is of very extensive application... Turn this subject in your mind, my dear Sir... Your station in the councils of our country gives you an opportunity for producing it to public consideration... Establish the principle... in the new law to be passed for protecting copyrights and new inventions, by securing the exclusive right for 19 instead of 14 years."
A Jeffersonian computation using life tables from 1992 gives a Jeffersonian copyright term of 30-35 years. (Vital Statistics of the United States 1992, Volume II--Mortality, Part A, Public Health Service, Hyattsville, 1996, Section 6, Table 6-1.) Note, however, that at least one edition of Jefferson's works has a much abridged version of this letter, in which the 19-year computation and the proposal for the term of copyright do not occur.
One of Jefferson's most famous statements on patent law was in his often-quoted letter of August 13, 1813 to Isaac McPherson, in which he wrote that, since there is no natural right to property in land, how much less is there a natural right to a property in ideas. I think Jefferson's words apply equally well to copyrights as to patents; to "expression" as well as to "ideas": "he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
A random set of impressions of these laws with which I agree:
"The scary thing about the DMCA is that it affects everyone, but only a subset of the country realizes it exists, of which a subset understands what it means, of which a subset understands why its so wrong. " quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
"Is there a "voice" amongst this subset that has any power to inflict any change here? Kind of spooky. It makes you wonder where things are headed." quote, kstumpf (ken@stumpf.com).
As someone pointed out in a discussion, be sure to realize that copyright is referred to at this point as monopoly in Jefferson's letters.
Its fairly clear that Jefferson uses Monopoly in reference to copyright, which is what it is, you can monopolize on your intellectual property for a set period of time. He was willing to give IP of the day 19 years, but he was very much verbal about fair use, and that public fair use was of the utmost importance.
Even cursory inspection of Jefferson's views shows his distrust of allowing monopolies run rampant.
Even Madison has said:
"With regard to monopolies they are justly classed among the greatest nuisances in government."
They both realized that in order for Monopolies of any sort to be protected by the government, that undue amounts of arbitration would be necessary.
Jefferson also affords a Monopoly to the Individual, not a corporate entity:
"Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose."
Surely he isn't suggesting that one person could create a monopoly on, lets say, corn. He was referring to copyright. He certainly isn't suggesting that corn could only be sold by one person for 19 years.
Another thing, imagine if the copyrights were in fact awarded to the people who invented them, not the companies who subsidized them. It would be interesting to see a world where companies like DuPont and Merck (and every other chemical and drug exploitation companies, because that's what they are, the money is in the treatments, not the cure) are made to treat their patent holding scientists with the utmost respect and regard, even more so than the greedy shareholders, because if they left for another company, so leaves their patents!
The most important of all the Jefferson arguments is this: If IP is so unique, so wonderful and so great, why does it need protection? I don't believe I had quoted this particular argument above, I will work to find it, but the statement is true. If something is obvious, then it really isn't IP. Would you like Bob Metcalfe, the Linux is a piece of crap Windows 2000 rules moron who founded 3COM to hold the patent on 'ethernet'?
Link: http://iwsun4.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/99/06
Don't you think its nice that other companies compete with 3COM for the ethernet space, such as Intel, CISCO, et al? Doesn't the standard referred to as "ethernet" get better and better because these companies compete for your business in the same segment?
"He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."
Thomas Jefferson, in Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. 6, H.A. Washington, Ed.,1854, pp. 180-181. Link: http://www.lib.virginia.edu/copyright/
The message in this passage is clear: an idea is not matter but energy; it cannot be owned, and it isn't diminished by being shared. In any discussion of copyright, it is useful to begin by reminding ourselves that ideas can't be copyrighted and can't be owned--only expression can. Furthermore, even when expression is copyrighted, academics ought to bear in mind their right to Fair Use, a crucial exception to copyright that exists in order to enable teaching, research, and news reporting.
A few more quotes to muse upon:
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their choice, if the laws are so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they... undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow "
-- James Madison
And finally:
"The people are the only censors of their governors: and even their errors will tend to keep these to the true principles of their institution. To punish these errors too severely would be to suppress the only safeguard of the public liberty. The way to prevent these irregular interpositions of the people is to give them full information of their affairs thro' the channel of the public papers, & to contrive that those papers should penetrate the whole mass of the people. The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers & be capable of reading them. I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate. This is a true picture of Europe. Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. "
Thomas Jefferson To Edward Carrington
Paris, Jan. 16, 1787
- B. Howes, 2001, California "Amerika"
Re:Thomas Jefferson on "The Law" (Score:2)
I do not represent the wolf. Life liberty and property, property in that case being tangible assets, e.g., guns, real estate, houses, possessions. He never said life, liberty and monopoly. In fact, life liberty and property was rephrased as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In my ethos I strive to achieve a more star-trek like existence, where you can serve yourself (with notoriety, money, etc) and mankind at the same time. There is no need to "milk" technologies - look what happened to TUCKER in Detroit. Fucked out of businesses by the monopolists. I want to protect against that. Milking is what petrol and car companies do, prevent fuel cells, ceramic engines, higher fuel efficiencies in motors, etc. We won't see next generation technology in cars for some time because the current has to be milked.
I am upset with you. I never said ban. Copyright. I said freedom from burdensome copyright, not freedom from all copyright.. You don't know how to read and understand this is moderate position.
Elcomsoft had stopped charging for the Ebook software before he entered the company. He had done so at Adobe's request. He is an employee of Elcomsoft and cannot be charged for what that business entity had done. We have similar laws here where companies are formed to financially and legally shield people from faults.
Of government. Your attention to picayune details is annoying. You misinterpret his words, in my opinion. Are you referring to all the monopolistic and tax payer wasting exclusive government contracts?
As far as monopoly and sacrifice. Yes, monopolies are a sacrifice. I don't shun copyright or patent, I just want them used more carefully and for fair use to be protected. You can still make a product, if it so damn good then you don't even need to patent it. People need to focus on being a better company and product and not thinking about sitting on and licensing your IP for all eternity, e.g., RAMBUS. Again, you misread, malign and come up with shoddy arguments.
I'm going to stop responding to you because you have been a troll, this is clearly someone who sits and reads and has his heart set on disagreeing with me for no apparent reason other than the sake of argument. There is always one of you in a discussion thread, so I guess you can say "YHBTYHLHAND." If you weren't trolling me, then you are very un-American in your thinking - I can't think of anyone, conservative or not, that thinks any of Jefferson's reasoning wasn't intelligent and well thought out.
- Z
Question growing from your philosophy (Score:2)
At what point, if ever, does society have a right to say that the author/inventor has received enough and no longer has the right to use the police and courts to extract monopoly rents from the rest of society?
Re:Question growing from your philosophy (Score:2)
I'd also like you to say what the incentive would be to make new inventions, when one could live off the old ones in perpetuity. Whither progress?
Jurisdiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)
Not exactly. They'll draw a much finer line than that. They'll prosecute him for distributing his tool in the US, which is a crime under the DMCA. Following your analogy, it's the same as if a Dutch citizen arranged for a hundred pounds of hash to be shipped to the US - even if he never leaves his house to do it, it's still a crime under US law the instant that stuff touches US soil, and therefore falls under US jurisdiction.
The REAL reason (Score:5, Funny)
Please, for the love of God, let him go!
The Wrong Reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
The question of whether there was probable cause that Sklyarov was personally responsible for distribution of an alleged circumvention device at the time of his arrest is certainly beyond my legal expertise and I suspect that most people who are stating an opinion on the subject are equally clueless.
That being said, the main reason this man should be released is that the supposed injured party and original source of the complaint, Adobe, has withdrawn its complaint and expressed its desire that Sklyarov be released. Yes, yes, someone will say, you don't need to take the "victim's" desires/feelings into account for there to be a crime. But it helps. We have enough serious criminals that need to be in jail without filling cells with people like Sklyarov.
The real story here is why Sklyarov is sitting in jail still at all, not being indicted, not having a bail hearing. I suspect the simple answer is the FBI is trying to figure out what to do with him that will not A)further embarrass them in the middle of their most shameful year in recent memory or B)wind up getting the DMCA thrown out of the law books on appeal. Headline: Russian Hacker Brings Down Landmark Intellectual Property Law. Nice one, Feds.
Fix the core problem, not the symptom (Score:5, Insightful)
Without strong protections, enshrined in contracts like the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, and in the everyday behavior and norms expected by a well-educated, informed, and active citizenry, things will naturally become more and more authoritarian. We've seen it in the US with DMCA, CALEA, and other new laws, as well as administrative actions taken by government agencies. We've seen it in the UK, with abominations like the RIP Act. We've seen it in the EU, which passes laws which ostensibly protect individual privacy but in fact create new bureaucracy. And Asia and Australia are even worse in a lot of ways.
Absent a major change in public perception (which I think is highly unlikely), the only path to individual liberty is technical. Perhaps it is now the case that security researchers, mathematicians, and pro-liberty activists must go underground, communicating using anonymous remailers, pseudonyms, and strong cryptography. Certainly groups have been forced underground in the past, but given certain conditions, it is impossible for them to be totally silenced. There are plenty of places in the world where people can live in freedom, due to a policy (intentional or unintentional) of tolerance -- Holland, Costa Rica, islands in the Caribbean, the Pacific -- for those who can't live underground in their own lands. Hopefully, HavenCo [havenco.com] and Sealand [sealandgov.org] can play some role in safeguarding liberty for those who live in other nations, by hosting servers for sensitive projects, remailers, and other infrastructure, as well as serving as an example of rational security policy for other nations. However, systems like Mojonation, Gnutella, Napster, ZKS Freedom, Mixmaster remailers, OpenPGP, and BitTorrent are perhaps more important for enabling this kind of research to be conducted, if not openly, at least securely.
If you're going to campaign for political change, don't just campaign for Dmitry to be released, or the DMCA to be overturned -- the core issue here is the continued erosion of individual liberty, at the hands of government, "well-intentioned do-gooders", and corporations.
I look forward to seeing people at HAL 2001 [hal2001.org], which thankfully is being held in a fairly free country.
Ryan Lackey
http://www.venona.com/rdl/ [venona.com]
http://www.havenco.com/ [havenco.com]
An ebook publisher on why Dmitry should go free (Score:4, Informative)
An ebook publisher on why Dmitry should go free [templetons.com]
I've added a recent list of points about what turns out to be the main technical point even if you believe in the DMCA. The DMCA crime alleged here is trafficking in the software in the USA. He didn't do this, his employer/publisher did. There is a big difference. If there are to be info-crimes, should employees be put in jail if their employers use their (legal where they did it) work in illegal ways in other lands?
Of course, as chairman of the EFF [eff.org] I may have some bias here.
Re:How can you think Napster is not stealing? (Score:2)
Money that you spend on your computer does not count as "royalties". The record companies and artists are not in any way a party to the transaction between you and the computer vendor. A lot of people have the misconception that buying a computer and getting online entitles them to get everything for free. That's not the way it works, at least not until PC vendors become more creative with their bundling arrangements (shudder)
Not to mention the CD's that I've subsequently purchased because of this.
Again, it's not the same thing -- you paid for the CDs, but you didn't pay for the online music.
Re:How can you think Napster is not stealing? (Score:2)
You said something to the effect that buying a computer was similar to paying royalties. Clearly, it is not. You also claimed that buying CDs legitimises otherwise illegitimate behaviour. It does not. And now you resort to silly insults.
I'm not claiming I'm entitled to mp3's. I'm claiming that mp3's increase the overall sales of artists records
That's very good news then, because if it's true, then record companies will realise that it's in their best interests to give away MP3s. The ones that don't will go out of business.
TV was developed, movie companies cried that they would go bankrupt because no one would go to the movies anymore.
Again, one word: royalties. If the online music distributors such as napster pay royalties, I'd say your analogy would have some merit.
but because they're so paranoid and retarded
Have you ever run a succesful business before ? It pays to be paranoid. The reason that the more sucessful companies are paranoid is because the ones that weren't paranoid are all dead.
The first record company that finally embraces mp3's and returns to giving them out for free and promoting free mp3 giveaways, will be the first to make a breakthrough in their profits.
Good. But you should realise that these business decisions are for the record companies to make. You may believe that it's in their best interests to give stuff away, but that doesn't justify taking what they aren't prepared to give.
Re:Like it or not, DMCA is law (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Which fair use does DMCA interfere with? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent