Say Here Why Sklyarov Should Go Free 647
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.
Re:I would agree, but... (Score:2)
Let's say someone were to write a framework for various pieces of freely available code that circumvent various copy protection schemes. They could call it the Fair Use Codebreaker's Kit, Don't Make Copies Arbitrarily edition. The claimed purpose of the framework would be to facilitate copying of protected data for fair use, such as backups. The real purpose would be to draw a prosecution under the DMCA.
It's likely that a U. S. citizen with a stable job would make bail after a relatively short time in jail. The EFF and others would certainly help out with the legal defense. The volunteer would have to be willing to risk the very real possibility that they could end up with five years in a federal prison at the end of the process. But a favorable outcome is at least as likely.
Any candidates for civil libertarian martyrdom (and everlasting fame) out there? 8)
Due process myth... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Actually (Score:2)
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].
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.
Re:My Reasons (Score:2)
It isn't explaining how to circumvent that is made illegal by the DMCA, it's distributing the "device".
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:2)
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:2)
No, it is definitely NOT illegal to give a talk about flaws in security in products or copyright protecting algorithms.
The DMCA specifically applies to creating and distributing a "circumvention device". Talking about the potential design of a circumvention device and talking about flaws in copy protections are still protected by the first ammendment.
--
Twivel
Re:His talk was protected speech. (Score:2)
But there is more to Adobe's encryption then ROT13. It also uses ROT13, but that's not all it uses.
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
Re:My Reasons (Score:2)
So if I am a woman and show my face, post *pictures* of it on the Internet (avaiable to Afghanistani people), and I go to Afghanistan (where I remember to cover my face), am I then prosecutable under Afghanistani law? Riiiiggghhht....
2. ... You copying it isn't the illegal part. Breaking their protection IS. as much as we all hate it.
If I need to break the protection to copy it, or use it in a manner suitable to *me* (i.e. playing a DVD on Linux, putting a bok through text-to-speech software), how can it be illegal? Fine, put the protection there, I don't like it but it's your prerogative. When I buy the copyrighted material and I obey the copyright to the letter (by not distributing the copyrighted material), breaking the protection should not be an issue.
I won't argue against 3., that is my view but I certainly respect others for theirs.
People don't "hide" behind their civil rights, they defend them. If I have a right to say whatever I want I am *damned* if I let you stop me. And as for copying code at will, that is what copyright law was invented for in the first place!! If the code is copyrighted then NO, you canNOT copy whenever you want to. However, you can WRITE whatever you want to. When someone stops you from doing that, there is a definite problem.
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...
Take me instead (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a bad law. What can you do about a bad law? Since it's an unconstitutional law what we can do is put forth a test case that gets to the high court where it gets thrown out. that requires someone to be arrested, charged and supported all the way to the supreme court. We could also get it repealed by congress, but I don't think that is likely. Congress no longer represents US citizens and and has already showed their distain for the constitution.
Dimitri is a cruel test case. He's a foriegn national. He wrote a program that not only is legal where he lives, but without which the Adobe software is itself illegal in Russia. Most important, this is not his fight - it's ours. Send him home. This behaviour makes many of us ashamed to be Americans. Send him home. Use any excuse you have to to cover your collective asses. Say you are releasing him as a gesture of goodwill to Russia for releaseing that drug dealer they sent back to the US this morning. Just let him go.
You can take me instead. I don't think I've violated the DCMA recently but I'm willing to. Get me a copy of this software and I'll happily sell it to an FBI agent. I'm a US citizen, even when you make me ashamed to be. It *is* my fight, for good or ill. I've got a wife and kids that depend on me, just like Dimitri, but that's the way it shakes out sometimes.
Who's with me? The Ghost of Henry Thoreau is calling.
garyr
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:2, Insightful)
No thats not the point. Just because you disagree (as do I) with spamming does NOT mean that he isn;t entitled to a fair hearing against an injust and down right stupid law.
You have broken ROT13 go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect a fair trial. Hey Kevin
Re:More on Dmitry's spamware: Let him rot in jail (Score:5, Informative)
Re:More on Dmitry's spamware: Let him rot in jail (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't like spam any more than you do, but the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is not a tool to be used only when we agree with the cause. It is a tool to be used when ANYONE'S free speech rights have been suppressed.
Someone has a .sig line around here somewhere that says something like "I may not agree with your opinion, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to express it". Nowhere does it speak more truth than now.
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:Free Dmitry? Spare me. (Score:2)
distribution of circumvention software, thereby guaranteeing the demise of copyright protection as we know it
Think about what that is saying: If there is no copy protection there is no copyright protection.
"Copy protection" is not the same thing as copyright protection. Copy protection is just a draconian way of enforcing copyright at the expense of fair use.
If folks like this author can keep the masses believing that copy protection is necessary to preserve a copyright holder's rights, then there is no sense to be had.
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)
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.
Re:Lets make an analogy here: (Score:2)
Not that any of the above really matters, since Consumer Reports is trying to help consumers, Elcomsoft is trying to make money off pirates (arr, matey). There's really no legitamate reason to use AeBPr (Lost the book? Show the receipt, get a new one. There - no need for backup.) - whereas there are plenty of legal reasons to want to know if your car will blow up. (I dare someone to come up with an illegal one. Just 'cause I think it would be funny.)
Even if you don't agree with the above (I'm not sure even I do) you have to admit that Consumer Reports just discloses problems, while Elcomsoft exploits problems. If you want to prove Adobe has bad encryption, mail 'em. Talk with 'em. But don't sell a product to exploit that.
Re:Lets make an analogy here: (Score:2)
The only reason why they didn't sell any books about it was because it could be said in three words: dodge a moose [audifans.com]
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.
Re:Russian/US relations (Score:2)
IANAL, but it seems to me that the Justice Department's hands are tied here. This is a criminal case, not a civil one. They're just as unable to do anything as if someone had turned his neighbor in to them for murder, complete with a bloody knife in his hand and his fingerprints all over the corpse, and then said, "Oh, I changed my mind, I don't think he did it after all."
Having been provided with evidence that a "crime" (whether you think it's wrong or not, the law is on the books) has taken place, they have to investigate and prosecute unless they can figure out some way out of it. That's their duty under the law. If they shirk from it, they could be in for investigation themselves. They're just as stuck with Skylarov as Skylarov is with them.
And don't think for one moment that Adobe wasn't fully cognizant of this from the very beginning. Now they get what they wanted all along--Skylarov in the can--and get to shrug off most of the negative P.R. by claiming they changed their minds. Why do you think they launched a criminal rather than a civil case against the guy in the first place? As a friend of mine put it, "If I'm the FBI, I'm really hating Adobe about now." Adobe has just handed them a hot potato and then run away sniggering.
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)
Re:Sklyarov should stand trial (Score:2)
Take me instead (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a bad law. What can you do about a bad law? Since it's an unconstitutional law what we can do is put forth a test case that gets to the high
court where it gets thrown out. that requires someone to be arrested, charged and supported all the way to the supreme court. We could also
get it repealed by congress, but I don't think that is likely. Congress no longer represents US citizens and and has already showed their distain
for the constitution.
Dimitri is a cruel test case. He's a foriegn national. He wrote a program that not only is legal where he lives, but without which the Adobe
software is itself illegal in Russia. Most important, this is not his fight - it's ours. Send him home. This behaviour makes many of us ashamed to be Americans. Send him home. Use any excuse you have to to cover your collective asses. Say you are releasing him as a gesture of goodwill to Russia for releaseing that drug dealer they sent back to the US this morning. Just let him go.
You can take me instead. I don't think I've violated the DCMA recently but I'm willing to. Get me a copy of this software and I'll happily sell it to an FBI agent. I'm a US citizen, even when you make me ashamed to be. It *is* my fight, for good or ill. I've got a wife and kids that depend on me, just like Dimitri, but that's the way it shakes out sometimes.
Who's with me? The Ghost of Henry Thoreau is calling.
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?
I come not to free Skylerov, but to jail him (Score:2)
Seriously, while I support the actions taken against the DCMA and believe the charges he's jailed under to be illegal under our own constitution, as well as ill founded and unevenly applied, I still think he's a crook who should rot in jail.
It's like the Mafia - so we got him on tax charges, he still belongs there.
But is the DCMA right? Should the feds be able to do this? Should Adobe get off scot free by saying "oh, gee, wish we could help, but after we signed the death warrant it's all out of our hands and we really think he shouldn't die, but we won't do anything about it"?
No.
So, fight the good fight. Win against the forces that oppose you. I support the cause, but not the man.
Meanwhile, Texas continues to execute poor black men for the crime of not being rich enough to afford lawyers, and DNA evidence to prove innocence is still the exception after commital and sentencing, not the rule.
FSPA (Score:2)
DMCA reflects fundamental misunderstanding (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Corporate Stupidity (Score:2)
I moved to the US to get away from things like this. In Northern Ireland in the early 1970's they passed an . This was just like the DMCA in that it was very badly worded and horribly abused; it was meant to stop violence but just created worse problems instead. Internment meant imprisonment without trail for people just suspected of terrorism. In the loyalist thinking of that time, it meant anyone who was catholic and outspoken. [megastories.com]
The DMCA is about laws that protect corporate stupidity. If I was running a company that wrote software as badly as Adobe et al did, I'd shake Dmitri's hand, and go and write software with proper encryption. It's a stupid law passed by stupid politicians, enforced by stupid companies that dictate to showboating law officials what should be done.
This country is really starting to piss me off. A hundred years ago the US was where people came to get away from things like this. Now it's become a country where those who pay the most win.
Government Officals Hate Email & How About Russia? (Score:2)
Moreover, I hope you are printing out this information and sending it via snail mail --- government officials tend to also ignore email.
Finally, I recently read of a U.S. citizen freed in Russia after a conviction for drug possession. The Russian government was pressured by U.S. officials --- who were written to and called upon by constituents in the U.S. Wouldn't it be helpful if
Four words: (Score:2)
The REAL reason (Score:5, Funny)
Please, for the love of God, let him go!
The DMCA is out of balance (Score:2)
Copyrights are a necessity. Authors deserve the right to know that their work will be protected for a short amount of time. However, copyright is not an end unto itself, nor is it absolute. If copyright were absolute, copyright holders could use their copyright to exploit the people. The DMCA tips the balance towards this latter end. The DMCA has protected copyright holders, but at the expense of the masses. The DMCA has become a tool for copyright holders to tyrannize the masses of people who have no interest in denying copyright holders compensation for their works, and it this that makes the DMCA unbalanced.
Dmitry wrote a program to enable the purchasers of e-books to exercise the fair use privileges that Americans are accustomed. Consumers deserve the right to be able to back up materials they have purchased or convert information they have bought to a different format. Copyright law has put a stranglehold on these freedoms.
The DMCA needs to be re-written in such a way that both consumers and publishers are protected. Tools themselves should not be illegal, but the use of those tools for illegal purposes should be. In other words, don't go after software writers and scientists, go after the people who use tools to circumvent the law. People are afraid to talk about subjects that might be covered by someone else's copyright; we cannot allow copyright to inhibit free discussion. Punish the people who would use tools in an illegal way and go after violators rather then the professionals who create these tools for legitimate and necessary purposes.
Free Him (Score:2)
Juristiction part 2: Even though the act of speaking on the research into the cracking was done inside the US, the FBI complaint was sworn to the actual cracking itself. The arrest was illegal to begin with.
Legality: Because of the First Admendment, such research done anywhere on Sol 3 (Earth) and it's resulting report can not generate a legal arrest. The crime of speaking publically about an encription method is not a crime at all. Even ITAR export regulations say that printed source code of PGP is legal to export, while the source on a disk is illegal.
It's almost as simple as a lawmaker 8^} (Score:2, Insightful)
It's basically pretty simple; just not as simple as your average lawmaker. When I drive in a car, operate a microwave, or do almost anything potentially dangerous in the year 2001, I want to know that the product I'm trusting my life with is safe. I want to know that, while I personally didn't have time to reverse engineer the Automatic Braking System (ABS) Software, somebody probably did, and I could if I was so inclined without the threat of Jail. I want to know that if I do so, and I discover that millions of people are in danger becasue of a flaw in that software, I don't have to choose between Jail and saving lives.
What does all this mean? It means that the DMCA could not have possibly been passed by a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people', and that also means that the DMCA is not a valid US law. It doesn't take a lawyer or judge - indeed it seems it may take the lack thereof. Henry David Thoreau must be rolling in his grave to see how peacably we US citizens hand over all of our rights with a smile to an oligarchy calling itself a democracy! 8^{
Should Dmitry go free? YES (Score:2)
The best case for proving the DMCA is someone ready to break the law, accept the consequences, and is willing to take the case to court. Are you ready to go to jail for your beliefs and see the DMCA gets overturned? Then go violate the law and be prepared for what happens.
Release him because you are bound to (Score:2)
Leading and working in government is not a right, it is not even a right if you do your job and play by all the rules, it is not a right even if you are backed by majority vote. The preamble of the consitiution makes it very clear that government is justified only to the extent of its ability to uphold certain basic inaliable rights.
With this programmer, the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness has clearly been denied - and there seems to be little intent of restoring it. By doing this, it will obligate civil people to deny those in government any authority over them - even at the cost of personal safety and life.
America has been thru nearly 2 centuries of people dying to uphold these basic rights, esp the freedom of speech, people will simply not let be done what is trying to be done. As me a free citizen, and you (government) a public servent - I demand that you release him because you are bound to.
First Amendment (Score:2, Informative)
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]
Employees punishable under DMCA? (Score:2, Interesting)
If I understand correctly, Sklyarov is an
If he can be jailed for writing an E-book format reader, can programmers at Corel, Sun, etc be jailed for writing an MSWord reader? (If modified rot13 can be called encryption, one would certainly imagine that a binary format like msWord would fall under the "encryption" category - how is "encryption" defined in the DMCA?)
This could set some scary precendents.
Who gives a damn about the DMCA? (Score:2)
FBI: Pick on someone your own size (Score:2)
Jon asks "why [Dmitry] should go free" and not why the DMCA is bad law, so I will restrict my comments to this limited question, and target them towards the US policymakers who have the power NOW to change the government's course.
Dmitry was arrested under the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). It has been argued that Dmitry did not violate this law - but I will not make that argument; assume instead that he did. It has also been argued that the DMCA (or part of it) is bad law - but I will not make that argument either. Instead, I will argue that even granted these points, Dmitry should go free.
To make this argument I assert, first, that the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA - those that Dmitry is accused of violating - are controversial law. Specifically, these provisions of the law may be unconstitutional. As evidence I offer up, first, Constitutional Law Professor Lawrence Lessig's Op-Ed piece [slashdot.org] in the New York Times; and second, the Electronic Frontier Foundation's essay [eff.org] on their web site. Note that one does not have to agree with all or even most of these arguments to accept that the law is controversial - one merely has to accept that some of these arguments are reasonable.
Second, I assert that the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, and particularly their criminal remedies, are currently untested law. This point is almost self-evident, as nearly every media story about the case has referred to its ground-breaking nature. It suffices merely to point out that in addition (1) the two other cases brought under the DMCA, DeCSS (2600 magazine) and SDMI (Prof. Edward Felten) are civil actions; and (2) Neither of those cases are yet resolved in the courts.
Finally, I assert that it is not in the US government's interest to make Dmitry Sklyarov the test case for these controversial, untested provisions of the DMCA. There are several reasons for this. First, Dmitry is a working graduate student and not clearly either criminally responsible for the software or wealthy because of it; therefore he is a sympathetic defendant for judge or jury. Second, the chief complainant in the case, Adobe, has recommended dropping the charges [slashdot.org]. Third, he is a foreign national who is accused of breaking this controversial, untested American law while in his home country, which adds needless complexity (and diplomatic ramifications) to the case, and threatens to deprive the US of the expertise of foreign programmers (c.f. Alan Cox [slashdot.org]).
Rather than pursue the risky brute-force prosecution of Dmitry Sklyarov, then, US policymakers should tell the FBI to pick on someone their own size - that is, a US citizen who has clearly broken these provisions of the law while on American soil.
Free Dmitry Sklyarov! [freesklyarov.org]
-Renard
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.
The Economist supports Dmitry (Score:2)
I think that citing support from The Economist would be beneficial.
Essay on a Historical Perspective on the DMCA (Score:2)
The Digital Millenium Copyright Act is hardly the first attempt to use obfuscation of writings as an attempt to control how the masses access works. The reasons why the supposed new right of access authorization must be facially rejected have not changed in the 600 years since its original use. In a nutshell, legal enforcement of access controls violates the "right to read", a principle that literally lead to the foundation of our country.
History records that in the year 1377, John Wycliffe was brought before the Roman Catholic Church to answer for his beliefs that the common man had the right to read the bible, which he had translated from the Church's sanctioned latin into English. The position of the Church on common vernacular translation was known from the time of the Spanish inquisition. Spanish bible translators were often beaten, tortured, and burned alive during the spanish inquisition by the Catholic Church that sponsored it. Spanish clergyman Alfonso de Castro gave the opinion of Church in these words: "the translation of the scriptures into the vernacular tongues, with the reading of them by the vulgar, is the true fountain of all heresies." The hypocracy in his statement is profound: the fountain of all heresy is, in fact, the attempt to restrict or limit the public's access to ideas.
Wycliffe was lucky to merely be arrested and excommunicated. His work survies, although the church did eventually dig him up from the grave and burn his bones. Because of John Wycliffe, the English Bible now exists.
In 2001, cryptography and computer code have replaced latin, while encrypted content like eBooks and DVD's are the container of choice for influential works of art and science. The "Copyright Industry" and their special interest driven politics have replaced the pre-reform Catholic Church as the organization that uses secret languages to maintain their self-maintaining control. Make no mistake, the DMCA is about thought control in its most base form: the copyright industry would like to control how you experience the works they sell, just as the medieval Church wanted to control how you experienced religeon.
After John Wycliffe asserted the right of the people to read, this principle became a central tenent of all church reformers. As people were able to have unfettered access to the information in the Bible, they came to understand that it was not the information itself, but the metering of its access that was the source of their oppression. It cannot be denied that direct access to the Bible and the correspond right to read was a cornerstone belief in the protestant groups that fled Europe seeking a new life in what eventually became the United States of America.
Copyright exists precisely to enhance this "right to read". Copyright inherently must increase public access to works. The abandonment of such control by authors is the quid-pro-quo of accepting reward in the marketplace, and it is completely irrational to believe that the public would empower Congress to grant commercial monopolies to authors without demanding as compensation that they forego all forms of use control on their products.
Today, as in medieval times, the right of the people to access the raw text of documents that affect the public psyche, without regard to "technological protection measures", such as latin, object code, cryptography, or obfuscation, is inherent in the First Amendment and the fundamental human rights which transcend government. It is also a simple property right, when copies of the work are purchased in the free market. To think and to examine and to decipher and to ponder the meaning, however cryptic, of raw data is the essence of the free mind and of liberty.
Conversely, the supposed right to control access to copyrighted works against circumvention, asserted by the DMCA is a false right and it must be facially rejected because it conflicts inescapably with the right to read. This "right" is completely distinct from the one it was supposedly created to protect, which is the right of authors to authorize the first sale of their works.
Citations for Bible Translation History:
http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/johnwyc
http://www.whidbey.net/~dcloud/articles/spanish
a Dutchman speaks... (Score:2)
Nobody expected the american inquisition.
//rdj
Play by the rules. (Score:2)
Too bad he isn't a corporation. (Score:2)
Go the other route. Ask for the death penalty. (Score:2)
The trick is to ask for punishment so draconian, so outrageous and so indefensible that it can't possibly get accepted. It can't even be considered.
If I was Putin, I'd've put in a call or two to Bush asking for the kid. He's only in jail on technicalities that aren't worth bothering about..
But he's only in jail on technicalities that aren't worth bothering about. For all we know, he may get off with time served and get a ticket home on the next Aeroflot.
But threaten to have him sit in the "big chair" (a fitting punishment involving electrons, don't cha think?
That might also cause a BIG chill in overseas software sales. Nobody wants to buy American since M$ will reverse-engineer everything. bundle it into Windows and then haul your ass from Nor-fuckin'-way and throw it in jail under threat of death if you try the same thing.
That would get Linux adpoted everywhere that Windows isn't and where programmers are.
Re:What about... (Score:2, Interesting)
Tell that to the blind kids who couldn't read/hear Adobe's books.
Nice troll.
Re:What about... (Score:2)
Oh, give me a break. What, all two of them?
Are we going to bitch now that they can't drive either? Since when is the audible reading of a e-book some sort of fundamental right?
Nice troll, yourself.
Re:What about... (Score:2)
Napster was popular for the sole reason that it allowed people to steal. DeCSS is a somewhat more gray area, but it still basically allowed people to steal. Sklyarov did nothing beneficial for society, he merely found yet another way to steal and publicized it.
People stealing on Napster, eh? Wow, we've got a lot of thieves out there (probably in the millions!). If so much stealing was going on (millions were doing it), then why did the industry they were stealing from actually have increased profits during such a reviled time of evil and thievery?
So it is now illegal for me to copy something for my own personal use (backups) which I have already purchased? That's what fair use clauses in American copyright law are all about, but you're telling me that just because a newer law invalidated a previous law, that the new law is more fair? Read through the Bill of Rights and you'll realize that laws are made because someone gets screwed and wants to protect themselves from the same screwing in the future. I would think that new laws that go against time tested ones are usually an attempt at an end-run around not being able to re-screw someone over. That's what the DMCA looks like to me.
Don't believe me? When was the last time someone actually practiced what they preached and downloaded some songs by the independent artists on MP3.com? Those few who have actually done it know that independent artists generally produce crap, and go back to trying to find their Eminem and Metallica mp3s.
Just because a distribution method sucks, doesn't mean the ideas behind it are not good. MP3.com sucked, but mp3's are a great way to listen to more than one currently popular song from a band. And yes, after downloading songs from Napster, I have then gone out and purchased several CD's because I liked what I heard. And not crap from no name bad artists on MP3.com; I'm talking about mainstream techno artists like The Chemical Brothers, Moby, Fatboy Slim, etc. (Yes, I'm a techno freak).
To sum it all up:
I think Dmitri Skylarov should be released because he has done nothing wrong. According to the DMCA, *maybe*, but only in his own country, and only in an effort to provide people purchasing eBook Adobe software a way to back up their ALREADY purchased literature. The beauty of technology should be to make our lives easier. If I drop a paper book in the pool, well, I'd better go out and buy a new one. That sucks. But if I accidentally drop my eBook in the pool, sure, I may have lost my eBook Reader, but with Dmitri's software, I was able to store all of the actual literature to a backup computer inside my house. Therefore, my life has been made easier. Certainly this tool could be used for illegally distributing copies of an eBook, but we shouldn't penalize people using the tool correctly for other's misuse of the tool (Yes, I know it's been said already in above posts, but it needs to be reiterated). Besides, it's primarily people in other parts of the world (NOT the USA) where software is being illegally copied and resold for profit (like in China). Let's address the 'piracy' of software where it's at its worst, first. Do not penalize the law-abiding US citizen because Microsoft, Adobe, and other MULTI-BILLION dollar companies are losing money to cheap skates in China. Companies do not *NEED* to profit off of my misfortune. Unfortunately, that's what lawyers are for...
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: (Score:2)
Troll (Score:2)
You're a troll. Adobe doesn't have your money. The RIAA doesn't have your money. The artists who create the music you download don't have your money. The companies who create the software you download from warez sites don't have your money. The comparison is absurd.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Troll (Score:2)
Circumvention activities are not, and never have been, for use when copyright protection devices fail. You know it, I know it, and everyone here knows it. That's the party line, but let's be honest: The sole purpose of copyright circumvention is the acquisition of free content. Anything else is a perk that can be used to rationalize illegal activity.
Also, I might add, that the heartless way in which people suggest that Sklyarov should rot in jail for the "crime" of teaching or aiding in the fight against copyright perversion affects me at an emotional level. Before condemning someone to jail, serve some time yourself!
Sklyarov was not "teaching or aiding in the fight against copyright perversion", he was making cracking software so people didn't have to pay for content.
Adobe (and any other company) has an absolute right to do whatever they want with their products. If you buy an eBook from them and then "lose" your client software, tough crap for you. Don't buy from Adobe again. If they choose not to offer your desired level of customer service, don't buy from them.
It is my personal belief that anyone involved in law creation and enforcement should be required to attend a federal prison for 2 weeks every year. Perhaps armed with the understanding of what prosecution and incarceration truly represent, they will be better suited to arrive at just conclusions in the courtroom, in congress, and in uniform.
Well that's a very cute personal belief. The real world doesn't work like that, though.
Yeah? What about it? (Score:2)
Then the cheaply-made cutting board breaks. Or you move. Suddenly your knife doesn't work, and you have to buy all-new cutlery so you can do your basic cooking tasks. Not so good any more, is it? Thing is, if you had $200 invested in a good set of knives, wouldn't it be worth $99 to get a gadget that would let you use the knives as you want to? Aren't the people really bent on mayhem (or theft) going to find a way to do their dirty work no matter how many silly legal obstacles you put in their way?
I know you're playing Devil's Advocate, but I'd take issue with this. I subscribe to Sturgeon's Law, with Spamalamadingdong's corollary: Sturgeon was an optimist (an hour listening to Top 40 radio will confirm this to any open-minded person). I don't see that the work of Mozart, or Beethoven, or Debussie, or Ellington was impaired in the slightest by the lack of the DMCA, and I don't think we need such absurd hoarding of authority by publishers today any more than we did then.Re:Like it or not, DMCA is law (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What rights? (Score:2)
The majority of my objection to this is that it should be a civil matter and not a criminal one.
Re:What rights? (Score:2, Insightful)
Those rights apply to EVERYONE while in the US. Otherwise it would be perfectly legal to have private citizens hang out along the US/Mexico border and shoot everyone who comes across illegally. Illegal aliens, criminals, tourists, business people, diplomats etc. Once in the US the constitution protects them equally, regardless of their citizenship.
Re:Which fair use does DMCA interfere with? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:First Amendment? (Score:2)
While in the US, Skylarov was entitled to First Amendment protections for his speech. However, he is almost certainly not going to be prosecuted for anything he said here or in Russia. Rather, his distribution of this circumvention tool in the US is the crime that will be prosecuted. And the government will point to the fact that he had an American payment agent set up and that he only (AFAIK) accepted payment in US dollars as proof that he/Elcomsoft intended to distribute it in the US. And so they find one copy of it in the US to establish the act, and make the case for his intent to commit the act, and they've got him dead to rights. I don't see that his lawyers will have any choice but to attack the law itself, because if the law stands, he's toast...
Re:Simply put: Freedom (Score:2)
But that's not what they're going to prosecute him for. That case - prosecuting him for his speech - is a total piece of shit that nobody in DOJ is fool enough to touch with a ten-foot pole. Rather, what they'll prosecute him for is distributing this circumvention device in the US, which is - like it or not - currently a crime in the US. And as long as the law stands, I'm sorry to say that it appears they've got him dead to rights.
Re:It is a matter of free speech (Score:2)
I keep hearing people say that, but it is wrong. If I write a virus that deletes the victim's harddrive and distribute it, taking out hundreds of thousands of vital business and government computers, can I claim "Free Speech"? No.
As many have said before, whether or not the DMCA is a fair law is debatable, but it is a law, and therefore must be enforced. The correct course of action is not to complain to other slashdot readers, but to the people who made and have the power to unmake the law.