Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Still in DMCA Prison

Posted by michael on Wed Jul 25, 2001 12:00 PM
from the you-can-get-a-good-meal dept.
Let's go over the Sklyarov situation. Sklyarov is still in jail. In fact, he's still in Las Vegas, where he is being held without even a bail hearing, much less bail. The excuse given for not having a bail hearing when he was arrested on July 16 was that he was being immediately transferred to San Jose and would get a hearing there. Anyway, a recap of the protests: San Jose, more San Jose, New York, Seattle, Chicago writeup and Chicago pictures, Moscow writeup and Moscow photo and news coverage: New York Times, Business2.com. Wired has Washington's viewpoint - Representative Coble says "there have been very few complaints from intellectual property holders". Well, duh. Linuxplanet has an opinion piece exploring the Digital Millennium Rape Act. Finally EFF has written a letter to U.S. Attorney Mueller, asking for the U.S. to drop the charges against Sklyarov. It seems pretty doubtful that he will, since he won't want to be seen as soft on crime during his Senate confirmation hearings.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    As one of the protesters this week who showed up at various federal courthouses around the country to plead for his release, I'd first like to say to the EFF - what in god's name were you thinking? Did you honestly believe the government, when faced with an excellent candidate for persecution - unable to adequately defend himself, Russian, and whose crime most people can't even understand... would simply drop it because an activist group and some random corporation agreed to issue a press release asking for his release? We should still be out there informing the public what the DMCA is and what it means, not sitting at home quietly hoping "it'll be all right".

    That aside, my run-ins with the public suggest it is easier to explain to them that a russian who (questionably) committed a crime in another country and who came here only to give a speech about how it was done is in jail here seems easier for people to grasp than copyright issues. I suggest we focus on that instead.

    ~ Signal 11

  • by Anonymous Coward

    We are the geeks. We are the administrators, the scientists, the engineers, the technicians.

    We keep the modern world running. We have the power to make a statement.

    Other workers have work slowdowns, sickouts, and slowdowns. Why don't we?

    We have the power to bring down the internet, stop the email, interupt phone service, turn off power grids, and many other things. and we should do it.

    On August 1st, shut down the US. Give Congress, the President, and the Corporations something to think about.

    Posted anonymously to keep from being arrested in Amerika

  • by Eric Green (627) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @09:51AM (#61707) Homepage
    There is no militant branch. We're all a bunch of lamers who will rant and rave for a few hours on Slashdot, and tomorrow forget about it. *DO* something? Why, that'd require leaving the computer keyboard!

    -E

  • As we know, corporations care only about profit. They will happily pay for legislation circumventing fair use rights, and then they will have people thrown into jail for breaking those laws.

    Who is responsible? If you asked Adobe's CEO, he would say: "I'm just doing what the shareholders want me to do; I have to maximize the return on their investment. DMCA may be ugly, but it sure is good for the profit prospects of us IP companies. My owners tell me to maximize profit, that's what I'm being paid for, and that's what I do."

    And he's right: the ultimate culpability lies with the owners. The buck stops with the shareholders, nowhere else. Ultimately, owners are responsible for what is perpetrated in their names and with their money.

    Do you own Adobe stock? Have you checked the holdings of the funds in your retirement accounts lately? Maybe you yourself are responsible for this mess?

    --

  • so the police should pick and choose laws to enforce?

    They are doing that already. Here in MN, oral sex between consenting (even married) adults is illegal, and the penalty is higher than that for prostitution. Still, the police does not have undercover operations in single bars with offers for oral sex. Plenty of undercover operations with offers for sex for sale though.

    --

  • The whole point of the article was to show the absurd philosophy behind the DMCA, namely that potential guilt = actual guilt (otherwise known as "guilty until proven innocent," which last I checked was unconstitutional) for what it really is.

    I do admit to taking issue with the article's promoting the horrid misconception that only men can commit rape, however; the subjects of the DMRA should have been anyone with a set of genitals, or a mouth or rectum (if you consider forced anal or oral sex to be forms of rape, which most do).
    ----------
  • You can also send a Telegram [westernunion.com].

    On the positive side, it's just $9.95 (for 1000 characters), is delivered to your recipient's address rather than just showing up in that day's mail, and you can send it over the net. However, telegrams of today are not what they were in the fifties. Apparently, Western Union just prints your message out on telegram stationery and sends it next-day on Airborne Express. And if you're sending it to a congressperson, they may regularly get several telegrams a day anyhow.

    I've never sent or received a telegram -- this is all gleaned from Western Union's site. But that's the thing, although just about everyone knows what a telegram is, they're quite rare in this country these days (even in Washington, D.C. when compared to a generation or two ago). They used to be common before affordable long-distance calling, but now they're a surprising curiosity. Most people in the US under the age of forty or fifty have probably never gotten a telegram in their life. So this looks like a possible way to register your opinion with some impact without ever having to leave your computer.

    Anyone have experience sending or getting telegrams with WU's current system?

  • by GeorgeH (5469) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:41AM (#61714) Homepage Journal
    If you want to know how far the government is willing to go to "protect" us from these cyber-criminals, check out the Kevin Mitnick [kevinmitnick.com] case. He was held in pre-trial detention for four years without a bail hearing.

    I know it's l4m3 to talk about Kevin Mitnick and I'll get modded down for it, but even if you're with the "He stole millions of dollars by copying source code" camp you still have to agree that being held without a bail hearing for four years is a bit fishy.

    Now it's starting to happen to a legitimate software developer. Who's next...
    --
  • I have read the same figures elsewhere. It was in a BBC site sometime last month, I think.

    But what is not clear to me is the relation between the gun-banning law and this number. You see, if you ban guns doesn't possessing a gun become a "gun related-crime"?

    If so, and if gun-possession crimes are included in the mighty 40% increase (making all this wonderfully circular), we are just seeing a FUD campaign, cortesy of our ever present friends, the gun-nuts.
  • Why do you believe that Adobe wants the charges dropped? Just because they say so? What effective actions toward that end have they taken?

    I'm sorry. I feel that the crocodile tears were just that, and no more to be believed. Have they offered to pay for the defense? Have they offered to meet whatever bond is demanded? They set him up, so unless they take effective action to redress their wrong, I won't believe their public speech is anything other than a PR ploy.


    Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
  • Habeas Corpus is Latin for "Produce the body". In legal terms, it means that the government can't imprison someone for more that a couple days without charging him with a crime. I do believe that Sklyarov has already had an arraignment hearing where he was formally charged, then denied bail, so he already had his Habeas Corpus rights fulfilled.
  • Declan's article reads a little like propaganda, but I have no issues with being manipulated by it's message: our elected representatives have issued a challenge to the American people. They want to hear that we're upset about losing our rights to free speech and fair use. Like petulant Gods, they are toying with our lives to see if we will offer sacrifices, request forgiveness, or openly defy them in our evolution as a democracy. Only defiance will get the DMCA to go away. Any other course of action will doom us to greater injustice as they extend the boundaries of their unconstitutional behavior.

    Americans do not think about copyright, Americans would rather not think about people in prison. Americans have a tendency to think circularly: people arrested must be criminals. All laws passed by congress are legitimate. We have an uphill battle convincing them that Dmitry has done nothing wrong, and that the DMCA is unconstitutional.

    Don't accept "the Supreme Court will handle it." Who says they will? Why wait for the justice system? Once a sufficient number of Americans are informed about the existence of the DMCA and the erosion of their rights, we can make congress uphold their oaths and protect the constitiution like they should have done in the beginning.

    The system is being challenged in court. Fine. But that is not justification for twiddling our thumbs in the mean time. Action now makes it easier for the judges to strike down the DMCA. Action now makes it easier for shy, right-thinking congress people to speak out about what a travesty the DMCA is.

    Tell 3 people today about the DMCA. Join a protest next week, and tell 1,000. Make people think, encourage people to reason.

    Free Dmitry.
    Repeal the DMCA.

    Why wait?
  • by Kintanon (65528) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @10:49AM (#61783) Homepage Journal
    Woah! I dunno where you got that idea, but the US Consitution applies to every human being within the US borders. Even illegal aliens are protected by the constitution.

    Kintanon
  • by cananian (73735) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:12AM (#61793) Homepage
    Boston write-up and pictures [freesklyarov.org], Wired article on the protests [wired.com], On-line petition [dibona.com], IDG story [idg.net], CNN copy of the original Reuters story [cnn.com] (better late than never!), ironic page on the AAP website [publishers.org] (the AAP issued a press release defending Adobe and the DMCA).
  • by cybercuzco (100904) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:17AM (#61804) Homepage Journal
    Hey, the russians are already doing capitalism better than we are, who put the first paying customer in space? Maybe now they can do freedom better too ;-)
  • by cybercuzco (100904) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:06AM (#61805) Homepage Journal
    "The Tree of Liberty must, from time to time, be watered with the blood of patriots"

    -Thomas Jefferson

    And ill probably be arrested for quoting him.

  • I'd like to prefix this by saying: IANAL. Just an amateur constitutional scholar. That said, I'd like to try to clarify some of the questions that have been raised in response to this suggestion:

    First, from the U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 9:

    "The Privilege of the writ of habeas ccorpus shall not be suspended, unless, when in cases of reballion or invasion, the public safety may require it."[Emphasis added]

    Notice that it says nothing about applying only to citizens.

    A writ of habeas corpus is a court order demanding that the person of the imprisoned be brought before the court, and that the authority who holds him justify itself, usually by filing charges. Habeas corpus is latin for "give us the body!" The privilege of the writ has only been suspended once in US history, by Abraham Lincoln during the civil war. It doesn't say in the constitution who may suspend it, but legal scholars up until that point had always assumed that it was up to congress, for two reasons:

    1) Under British common law, from which much of US law is taken, only parliament may suspend the privilege of the writ

    2) The above quote is in Article I, which details the congress.

    Hope this helps ease the confusion.

  • by smack.addict (116174) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @09:29AM (#61813)
    maybe it's a good thing (long term) that he's not being released. at least then some people might see just what a ridiculous thing this act is... and some courts might have a chance to blow the DMCA out of the water.

    The problem with this is that it is not Dmitry's battle to fight. He is Russian. It is the responsibility of Americans to fight for the freedom of Americans, not Russians or anyone else.

  • by 348 (124012) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:25AM (#61817) Homepage
    I can understand your point givig that any press is good press. I read through the other posts so far and got to thinking. .. Would I want to be a martyr for this cause?, would I risk the pain of eing seperated from my family? Would I rick my job,resulting in lack of vehicle to support my family, pay the mortgage etc.

    I don't think so. Not in my case.

    I do think that I would go to a high degree of pain for the cause, but in this case there may be better avenues. Eating this much crap to just hopefully get a little press is a little much. I personally would bow out and focus my time and energy on a more controlled campaign.

    That being said, just to add my little opinion to the thread, I think what the authorities are doing here is just plain horrible. They're ignoring the constitution on one hand, while referencing and hiding behind it on the other.

    More race stuff in one place,

  • by fobbman (131816) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @09:25AM (#61820) Homepage

    Microsoft was the true source of the Red Worm virus in an attempt to remind the Whitehouse who REALLY is the world super power.

    Luckily their planned attack went through the same beta testing and forethought as the rest of their software.

  • We lobby Congress, but it has little effect, because money buys legal power, not shouting voices, no matter how Right those voices may be.

    But why are we playing by their rules? If we really want to be heard, we should use our abilities to make ourselves heard. America needs the developers, techies, and computer savvy people who oppose the DMCA to function as a country, to remain economically viable, and to remain internationally competetive.

    Personally, I think we should show the nation just how much power they've inadvertantly given us. We should strike, or perform some equivalant that cripples the software and internet infrastructure that runs this economy. We should make a statement that shows that unless America listens to the very people who have created this Digital World, we're not going to give it to them anymore.

    Sure, we'll get initially labeled as "evil hackers" and social miscreants, but we're educated enough to know that that's the price of freedom. And we're also the only people who can bail the country out of a technical catastrophe. The fact is that America needs us much more than America needs bogus laws that protect the wealthiest of companies. And we're everywhere, in every industry, and influencing every aspect of life.

    Like the Patriots who threw tea overboard in Boston Harbor to protest unjust laws, we shall show that without the foundation technology upon which the Nation depends, no law prohibiting it's advancement and the open table research thereof shall survive or be tolerated.

  • Well, what are services that developers give to corporations that if we withheld them, it wouldn't be illegal?

    Maybe some open-source software that corporations rely on could change their licenses so they only work for open-source purposes. Like apache could include a mod by default that would make it so that commercial browsers wouldn't server the correct pages. Or the various server programs.... make the stuff that is already free "crippleware" if used for certain purposes. That's not illegal, right? They're freely available. Corporations rely on services we give them for free. No reason we can't hold them for ransom, payable in guaranteed rights.

    tune

  • by Emugamer (143719) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:13AM (#61827) Homepage Journal
    Yep and none of that fancy email stuff either....
    Type or handwrite(if you still remember how) to your "friends" on the Hill and express your outrage. Tell them what you think as a voter and as one of the most in demand workers on the planet (its true) on how these laws are not helpful to the US.

    A couple of words of caution for those of you in the thros of rage.
    Do not swear
    Do not threaten to kill them if they do not comply
    Do not include c4 or other explosives "to get your point across"
  • by EschewObfuscation (146674) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:24AM (#61829) Journal
    Although I agree with the people who point out that Adobe probably changed their stance fully knowing that they'd accomplished their goal of intimidation (why should they continue to get bad press when they'd already gotten what they wanted?), I'd also like to point out that Adobe, by this, is not longer the proper target for activists.

    The EFF has moved to targeting the US Attorney [eff.org] on the case. Further action against Adobe, while perhaps deserved, would be fruitless.

    We need to move on to the next step in getting Dmitry released, and in continuing to fight the DMCA. If we do this right, we might be able to get the entire law overturned.

    (email addr is at acm, not mca)
    We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.

  • When Howard Coble says:

    "The law is performing the way we hoped... As far as I know there have been very few complaints from intellectual property holders."

    what he means is

    "My customers are very happy with their purchase."

    TheFrood

  • But in the world of Washington politics, geektivists are woefully outnumbered by the natives who populate and influence confirmation hearings: Corporate, nonprofit and trade association lobbyists.

    'Geektivist's' simply don't have the cash to compete with corporate lobbyist. There is no money in being morally right. Money buys laws.

  • by streetlawyer (169828) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @09:29AM (#61839) Homepage
    So you're saying that the proven fact that gun crime in Britain jumped 40% in one year after enacting laws to ban regular citizens from owning guns is not relevant

    Yes, I'm making the bizarre counterintuitive suggestion that movements in the British crime statistics since 1997 are not relevant to the question of whether it should be illegal to reverse engineer Adobe's ebook document format.

    I may be wrong, but you're going to have to spell this out for me.

  • by streetlawyer (169828) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:26AM (#61840) Homepage
    Congratulations, Michael. You've managed to link to an article which:
    • Analogises the crime of copyright infringement with the crime of rape.
    • Analogises the prosecution of people for copyright infringement with the wholesale massacre of Jews.
    • Wastes half of its length on a boring anti-gun-control rant utterly unrelated to the topic, and
    • Destroys the entire case for freedom of information by claiming that hackers should be seen as analogous to mobs killing each other in Chicago (I am not making this up -- the fool's argument is that if hackers want to break the law they will do no matter what the law, therefore they should be allowed the tools to do so)
    Quotes like "It's impossible to favor gun regulations and oppose computer regulations and remain philosophically consistent. " are calculated to get half the reasonable people in this country thinking that the DMCA must be a good thing after all, and the linked article's author is a prick of the worst kind for trying to hijack a genuine issue of liberty for his own half-assed political program. Even Eric Raymond has always had the common sense not to stoop this low.

    I always wondered whether there was a site out there with worse journalistic standards than Slashdot. Michael's found it, and he's linked to it [linuxplanet.com]. Congratulations.

  • by Fat Rat Bastard (170520) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:13AM (#61842) Homepage
    I knew as soon as the EFF announced that Adobe were backing off that it was more Adobe hype and PR than an actual attempt to free Sklyarov. I have a feeling they knew that once the justice system took over they had little say in what continued to happen. Its a win-win for them. They (and the whole pro-DMCA cartel) now have an "example" to spook would-be "encryption crackers" (make that tool, go to jail) and they're now trying to put a nice, shiny spin on it: "Oh, we didn't think THIS would happen. Wow, this is bad. The FBI should release Sklyarov." Call me cynical, but I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe had some assurances from the JD that this case would be prosicuted before they decided that Sklyarov should be freed.

    If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.

  • by swm (171547) <swmcd@world.std.com> on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:06AM (#61844) Homepage
    Sklyarov...is being held without even a bail hearing, much less bail.

    Perhaps someone should file a Habeus Corpus petiton?

  • by Prior Restraint (179698) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:32AM (#61851)

    I was planning on writing to my Congressman this past weekend. Since he's a Republican, I thought I'd point out how Adobe's customers for this product are mostly corporations, and show how much their profits are being hurt by paying $3000/doc for lame encryption (tailor your message to the audience, and all that). I figured I'd end with a write-up explaining just how lame Adobe's encryption was, complete with simple examples even a non-geek could understand. Then I realized that by doing so, I could find the FBI knocking on my door.

    I don't have my copy of "1984" handy, but I seem to recall a statement along the lines of:

    People might be able to say, "Big Brother is ungood", but they won't have the ability to back it up.

    This is the real problem with the DMCA; no one can meaningfully protest it without running afoul of it.

  • by GemFire (192853) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:52AM (#61856) Homepage
    You've provided a lot of links - tell me, are the dead tree news outlets saying the same? What about Television - where has the DMCA and the Sklyarov arrest been mentioned? CNN? NBC Nightly News? Or has it been mentioned anywhere other than the internet? Techies and Geeks and people like me get their news online, most of the rest of the world uses newspapers, news magazines, television and radio.
  • by rpeppe (198035) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:03AM (#61863)
    maybe it's a good thing (long term) that he's not being released. at least then some people might see just what a ridiculous thing this act is... and some courts might have a chance to blow the DMCA out of the water.
  • For those of you who are webmastering (and who isn't, at least on the side), think about placing EFF's blue ribbon [eff.org] on the front page of your site. Besides being really cool, it helps get out the message that the DMCA is curtailing OUR freedom of speech and keeping an innocent man in jail.

    Steve Magruder

  • by westfirst (222247) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:10AM (#61870)
    I use Adobe's PDF format and its Acrobat software to publish texts. If I can't get independent review of the software from noted scholars, then I'm going to be trusting my "very valuable" intellectual property to potentially bad software. That sounds bad for writers and artists everywhere. I also hate the copy protection mechanisms because they gum up the works in my office.
  • by Firedog (230345) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:38AM (#61872)
    On a similar note, I just did a search on abcnews.com [abcnews.com] to see what they had to say regarding this issue. I came up with exactly one article, this one [go.com].

    Here's an excerpt:

    Hackers -- and Cops -- Converge in Las Vegas

    At the ninth annual Def Con convention in Las Vegas, thousands of computer hackers and code-breakers gathered to compare notes and tricks on breaking into computer systems. And that caught the attention of some legal authorities.

    Dmitry Sklyarov, a 26-year old Russian programmer and one of the convention speakers, was arrested by the FBI at the show. The programmer was accused of creating and selling a software program that lets users copy electronic books. If convicted of violating the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Sklyarov could face five years in prison and a $500,000 fine.

    Convention attendees say they are there to share concerns about computer security issues, and that most of them are not criminals. "There's a lot of intellectual people, a lot of very bright kids who are here," said one attendee who requested not to be identified.

    But why do hackers break into corporate or government computers? "The control you have when you get through on a system," said one attendee who identified himself as Netranger. "It's the most exhilarating thing that you can probably get."

    To the average mainstream American, what does this look like? A bunch of hacker kids, out to disrupt orderly society, who get off on the adrenaline rush of hacking into systems. Not exactly apt to inspire sympathy in the Heartland(TM).

    It's also interesting to note that abcnews.com's top story this morning is a piece on resume padding, by the way.

    - Firedog

  • The FBI's job is to enforce the law. Not to enforce only good law that makes sense.

    I say, enforce the bad law, expose it for what it is, and get it ruled as unconstitutional. Or, get congress to change the law, in light of the bad ways it is required to be enforced.

    It's just sad that some poor sod has to sit in jail while this process goes on.

    Just keep in mind, the folks who made the law are to blame, not the folks mandated to enforce it.
  • by cyberformer (257332) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @09:50AM (#61887)
    The gun crime (and overall crime) rate in Britain, and every other rich country that has gun control, is still way below that in the US. Of course, this doesn't mean that the US should just ban guns outright, for the simple reason that every criminal who wants one already has one.

    Back to Sklyarov: The DMCA obviously violates the first ammendment, but there may be arguments that it violates the second, fourth ("the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers") and eighth ("excessive fines") too.

    Regardless of the DMCA, Sklyarov's imprisonment definitely violates the sixth ("an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed", ie. Russia) and the eleventh ("the Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to...Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.")

  • by cavemanf16 (303184) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @10:17AM (#61895) Homepage Journal
    Hey moron, I was an A+ student in my history classes, so I should have some idea about past ideas that failed. Hitler stifled freedom of speech big time, and made it popular for people to rat out their neighbors for unfounded 'evils' that they were performing by sicking his secret police on those who didn't tow the Nazi party line. He also was against private gun ownership as he knew bands of citizens with guns could oppose his secret police effectively. I think the freedom to have effective tools (like guns and the encryption breaking software Dmitri wrote) and freedom of speech go hand in hand. That's why the Constitution of the USA says we have the freedom (with responsibility) to both bear arms, and freedom (with responsibility) to have free speech. It's you who has no concept of history.
  • by cavemanf16 (303184) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:53AM (#61896) Homepage Journal
    * Wastes half of its length on a boring anti-gun-control rant utterly unrelated to the topic, and

    So you're saying that the proven fact that gun crime in Britain jumped 40% in one year after enacting laws to ban regular citizens from owning guns is not relevant? The fact that enforcing a law that is fundamentally foolish and flawed (DMCA kills fair use copyright law already in place) is therefore a good thing, just because it is now law? That's ridiculous! The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. The British didn't remember that, and today they've got a 40% increase in gun crime (not just crime overall, specifically crimes involving guns). I find that quite relavant considering the DMCA flies in the face of our own Constitutionally granted freedoms.

  • no he hasn't


    You can't be charged with a Federal Felony without a grand jury determination that :

    a) a crime has been committed

    b) you are the person that likely committed that crime.

    This little thing called the US Constitution requres this.

    If you want to know more of the rules do a findlaw search on federal criminal procedure.
  • I've actually been hearing this statement made over and over again, but I have to disagree. Is it really fair to want to keep a citizen from another country in lock-up just to prove that the DMCA is bogus? Sklyarov didn't volunteer for this. He has a family and a home, that I'm rather certain he wants to go back to.

    If we try and take away Sklyarov's freedom to make a point, how are we better than Adobe and the Feds? Isn't that what they did?

    Don't make an unwilling martyr out of Sklyarov. Let him go home!

    The U.S. needs to take care of their own problems.

    'crow

  • by srvivn21 (410280) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:29AM (#61914)
    I think that you are right that we are outnumbered, but wrong on how. Aren't "geeks" some of the most highly paid (and best educated) people on the planet? I really don't think it's a lack of money, but a lack of conviction. I personally find it far easier and convenient to sit on my butt and bitch to the online forums about how the "world is going to hell in a hand basket", then it would be to fly down to D.C. and talk to the Senate in person. Until things become inconvenient enough that it dramatically effects our lifestyles, I really think that little change is going to happen.

    Don't get me wrong. I think that the DMCA sucks. I have made monetary contributions to the EFF. I don't like MS. But it is far too easy to take the path of least resistance. 50% voter turnout in presidential elections means that the "dedicated" minorities get their way. Geeks just don't seem to be dedicated enough to the real world.

  • by KilljoyAZ (412438) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:14AM (#61920) Homepage
    I'm sure his wife and kids would disagree. I've never read that he wants to be a martyr for the anti-DMCA cause, and until I do I'm all for getting him out of prison ASAP.
  • by idonotexist (450877) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:28AM (#61933)
    CNN recently posted an interview [cnn.com] with U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft who states "[t]he idea you can get away with it ["cybercrime [tuxedo.org]" (this is an undefined term)] here is an idea we must curtail ... There are no free passes in cyberspace [tuxedo.org]." Ashcroft comments he plans to create "Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIP) units staffed by 77 personnel, including 48 lawyers" modeled after the existing unit in California, currently prosecuting Dmitry Sklyarov, created by FBI Director nominee Robert Mueller "whose nomination is expected to receive little opposition in Congress."

    The CHIPs plan to hold illegal sites and post "a warning that the site has been seized by law enforcement" and present a "clear message that cybercrime carries real penalties for offenders."

    The article further states that current EFF Executive Director, Shari Steele, addressed a letter to Ashcroft requesting the release of Sklyarov. Ashcroft had no comment regarding his ageny's charges against Sklyarov.

    It looks DMCA will soon accrue an army or firm of brand new federal government attorneys under the Bush administration.
  • Ok, and you would not mind to be Dmitry and sit in prison during the duration of such a judgment? I doubt it. This man is not even a U.S. citizen, this is our problem --- this is America's problem that must be settled within our borders and subjecting a non-American to the worse attributes (prison) of such a test is a disgust. Yes, DMCA should be tested. But, not with this case. Dmitry needs to return to Russia to his family.

    Let DMCA be tested by Americans. This nation we live in is responsible for this damn law; we should be the ones who deal with it; who correct the wrong.
  • by tsarina (456482) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:12AM (#61935) Homepage Journal
    How will people see what a ridiculous thing the DMCA is if they never hear about this? Few people other than slashdotters and people who have witnessed the protests actually have heard of the DMCA, let alone Sklyarov! In fact, I went to a political gathering last evening, where there were numerous citizens and several politicians, both local and otherwise. Only one of them had heard of the DMCA, and none knew about the Sklyarov issue. The major newspaper here hasn't run a single story on the issue. The media was what was pushing for this dumb act! It's in their best interest to maintain it, to keep the public in ignorance... Anyway, unless this is taken to the Supreme Court, it seems unlikely the courts could find the jurisdiction to squash the DMCA.
  • by rawkphish (465690) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:32AM (#61945)

    I find it ironic that the current chairman and former CEO of Adobe [adobe.com] was quoted as saying that one of the worst parts of being kidnapped [mercurycenter.com] is the forced separation from ones family. Isn't that what he has ( in part ) done to Sklyarov ?

  • by javahacker (469605) on Wednesday July 25 2001, @08:19AM (#61948)

    Unfortunately, instead of an American patriot, we arrested a foreign national, a man with a family, who is paying the price for the Law purchased by big business in our country.

    Sadly, the people responsible for this law will probably never suffer for their abrogation of duties, and they obviously don't qualify as patriots, at least from my perspective.

    I know we don't have the votes to really hurt the politicians who voted this law into effect, but we should generate as much attention as we can, and remind people that the Chinese government isn't the only one that detains foreign nationals without due process, as this case shows!