Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Sklyarov Case Exposes DMCA Contradictions

Posted by timothy on Mon Aug 13, 2001 08:23 AM
from the doublethink-tripletalk- dept.
aePrime writes: "This article on the New York Times describes how the case against Dmitri Sklyarov is bringing up some contridictions within the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. One is allowed to bypass security measures to backup data, but one is not allowed to write the software to bypass the security. It mentions how this first case to be prosecuted under the law may indeed cause changes to the law." A lot of bad laws have stuck around for longer than the DMCA has yet, but the more this kind of analysis is seen, the sooner sanity can be restored.
+ -
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This discussion has been archived.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 Masem (1171) on Monday August 13 2001, @09:03AM (#2113153)
    Was that it emphasized the fact that the DMCA harms the common man moreso than the one that is technologically adapt. A good case was the guy that had a virus incident that caused his ebooks to become unregistered (he probably had to reinstall his OS). He was left only with the options of either registering the second 'installation' of the e-books on that computer, or save it for a different computer like his laptop. He wasn't technologically adapt enough to figure out how to bypass the measures himself, and thus was harmed by the control measures in the fact that he 'lost' one use of the e-book.

    Once similar cases start growing in number in which the non-computer-geek common man finds their rights limited by copy protection, the case against DMCA will grow as well.

  • This law has been around for three years now, and I don't think it's likely to dissappear in any shorter time than that. The Skylarov case is certainly going to be a landmark one, which means that it will almost certainly see the Federal Appeals Courts, and, if they grant it considerations, the supreme court. Boucher ammendment aside, I know that there are those among us who will continue to argue that outlawing the writing of code is a violation of the first amendment to the U.S. Consitution ("The Congress shall make no law . . . . abridging the freedom of Speech or of the Press . . .").

    At least they finally let him out on bail. My lord he looks tired in that picture.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13 2001, @09:00AM (#2120803)
    The DMCA written on toilet paper!!!
  • The DMCA (Score:4, Informative)

    by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:43AM (#2123595) Homepage Journal
    For those of you who have been elsewhere for the past few months, you can check out the following page [eff.org] on the subject at the EFF [eff.org]. Another page [educause.edu] has a link to the act [gpo.gov], in PDF.
  • well, good (Score:4, Funny)

    by p3bf (459005) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:28AM (#2123624) Homepage

    Okay, bring it on. I can take it. More DMCA.

    Shouldn't we have a Code Red IV, The Voyage Home, where Skylarov travels back in time before the DMCA and can go home? A whale of a good tail.

  • Legal assumptions. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Monday August 13 2001, @09:42AM (#2131010)
    You know, it occured to me over the weekend that the present spate of bad laws are based on the assumption that corporations have an entitlement to make a profit on distributing things digitally. And it's that sense of entitlement that results in laws that violate our constitutional rights.

    Why don't we chuck out the sense of entitlement, and the laws trying to enforce it, and just tell businesses that if they want to be profitable in the cyberage, they need to come up with a business plan that actually works in the cyberage.
  • Alienation.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by FordImperfect (512893) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:44AM (#2131784)
    "Ms. Samole said she ended up downloading a pirated version of "Fight Club," which is how she intends to obtain her movies in the future. "I'm completely alienated," she said. "I'm never going to rent a DVD again." Hmmm... thats what people will start doing.. something akin to civil dis-obedience. Nothing would be more frustrating than not able to watch the DVD you bought.. and only a fool will make the same mistake again... Those morons are going to dig their own grave... meanwhile i am going to shrug the atlas and sit back and watch them die.
  • Muddying the law (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Blue Aardvark House (452974) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:44AM (#2131785)
    From the article:

    The Library of Congress is now considering whether to recommend other exceptions to the law. Many libraries and other educational institutions want an exception that would let individuals circumvent a copy- control technology in order to copy portions of a work for use in parody, scholarship or criticism -- purposes protected under the "fair use" doctrine of traditional copyright law.

    This is the sticking point of the DMCA with me; it strips away whatever bit of fair-use doctrine we once enjoyed. No wonder most people don't like it, no one wants to lose rights they once had.

    This is all fine and good, but people still have to prove they cracked whatever encryption in order to make a parody, etc. It makes for more complications in the long run.

    It seems to be a poor substitute for examining its constitutionality to see if the law should still even exist.
  • No reg link (Score:5, Informative)

    by pgpckt (312866) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:38AM (#2134552) Homepage Journal
    http://archives.nytimes.com/2001/08/13/technology/ ebusiness/13NECO.html?0813inside [nytimes.com]

    Can't article submitters please take the easy step of replacing www with archives? It works every time.
    • by die_rollerblader (469147) on Monday August 13 2001, @09:25AM (#2122370) Homepage
      I hope that link isn't an illegal circumvention device!
    • Well yes it does, but it wouldn't be right now would it? Regardless of whether or not you agree that the NYT should be requiring a registration, if the NYT wants to make sure people register to read their article then linking to the article that requires registration is just the polite thing to do.
  • by James Foster (226728) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:33AM (#2135880)
    What I'm wondering is, what exactly do they want with Sklyarov?
    I mean, he broke *US LAW* whilst IN RUSSIA... and now they're prosecuting him in the US.
    After taking that into account... what do they hope to achieve? Its unlikely that he has much money that anyone can sue him for... so they just want to keep a prisoner, basically?
    What if Russia arrested and held an American for breaking a Russian law whilst in America?!? I bet there'd be a helluva lot of demands going on by the US.
    The US seems to have a lot of double standards in terms of what it expects from other countries contrasted with what it allows other countries.
    The DMCA is only part of the deal.
    • The US seems to have a lot of double standards

      Indeed. I don't know all of the details in the case, but there are some Americans in jail in China right now for violating Chinese law on China's turf... and the US Gov. is protesting it. It had a few headlines while protests were going on in the US over Sklyarov's arrest. I didn't bother reading the articles, mostly because I found the irony - and hipocrisy - so sickening.
    • Blockquoth the poster:
      What I'm wondering is, what exactly do they want with Sklyarov?
      He's the perfect scapegoat:
      • He's a foreigner -- no built-in sympathy and likely a lot of built-in antipathy among American citizens
      • He's Russian ... and we've had nearly fifty years of programming that Russian == Evil
      • He's unlikely to be articulate in English in his own defense -- and even if he is, he'll have an accent (see first point).
      • Many Americans feel that the rights under the Constitution do not apply to non-citizens (although the Supreme Court has repeatedly -- and correctly -- ruled they do).
      • His company is in Russia and does not have the legal infrastructure to mount a defense for him.
      • It can be cast as a fight to defend "the American way of life" from the ruthless Cossack hackers.
      • They can get a ridiculously high bail set, because -- as a foreign national -- he's automatically a major flight risk.
      Of course they picked a non-citizen for the first test case.
        • Nobody seemed interested in explaining just why someone who has had US Intelligence Russian language and interragation training happened to coincidentally win a scholarship to Russia.

          None of that training is particularly unusual. If the military trains you as a linguist, there are really only three jobs you'll end up in as an enlisted schmoe: 98G-Voice Intercept Operator, 98C-Intelligence Analyst, and 97E-Interrogator. I myself was trained as a Russian linguist by the US Army. I initially was going to be an "interrogator", but that job title is quite misleading. A military "interrogator" is actually little more than a translator with some extra training in interviewing people. Interrogation only happens if POWs are captured in wartime. I chose to become an "analyst", which is far more spy-like but still not really noteworthy. Most people in Military Intelligence don't go on to become CIA agents. Most of us decided that the military is a crock and left after our enlistments were up. I don't find it at all surprising that this guy decided to pursue the one interesting/useful thing the military taught him (the Russian language) and earned a scholarship to go to a country where he could expand that knowledge.

          In short, don't assume that just because someone was once in the military that they are forever a slavish toady of the US intelligence machine bent on spying for their country to thwart the "red menace".
  • by dpilot (134227) on Monday August 13 2001, @10:51AM (#2137430) Homepage Journal
    It seems to me that in this whole debate, we need to make clear the difference between COPYright and ACCESSright. That's the real rub about the DMCA, it legally transforms copyright into accessright, and gives the copyright holder new controls not previously granted.

    It is supposedly about preventing unauthorized copying. But in reality does little to prevent it and puts the publishing industries in the driver's seat in a new way.

    The REAL fear here is if we get to the point where all 'media player devices' (not necessarily related to Microsoft media player) play only DMCA-encumbered media - where you can't even play non-access-controlled media if you wanted to. Then free speech and discourse necessary for democracy are in deep trouble.
  • ./configure (Score:4, Funny)

    by abe ferlman (205607) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .oirtgb.> on Monday August 13 2001, @08:52AM (#2138591) Homepage Journal
    A lot of bad laws have stuck around for longer than the DMCA has yet, but the more this kind of analysis is seen, the sooner sanity can be restored.

    tar -xvzf dmca.tar.gz
    cd dmca
    ./configure
    creating cache ./config.cache
    checking for extra includes... no
    checking for extra libs... no
    checking for a BSD compatible install... /usr/bin/install -c
    checking whether legal environment is sane... no
    *Exit with error code 1

  • by byoungvt (225652) on Monday August 13 2001, @09:10AM (#2139229) Homepage
    as usual I will have pictures and info up from tonights rally ASAP. Also Dmitry is the topic of a KQED radio program at 9AM Featuring the EFF vs. AAP. I will put the streaming link up for the broadcast on my site! http://sjrally.n3.net> BJY [n3.net]
  • by rao (118784) on Monday August 13 2001, @10:46AM (#2141430)
    I sometimes think that we don't dare stand up against the DMCA. After all its, the entertainment industry that keeps us entertained. Oh what do we do to kill the idle hour? What did we ever do before game consoles, CDs and DVDs.

    I frequently read about the DMCA on Slashdot. I've yet to see a Slashdot poll that musters support against it. When all the complaining is done, we all go home to our games, movies and music. The editors here make grandiose statements about "evil corporation X" and then post a review about "X's cool new gizmo". We condemn Sony's role in the SDMI initiative and then go on to say "Oh I can't wait till PS/2 hits the US markets".

    Here's a link to a letter I wrote to Malda and Rusty. Nothing came out of it.

    http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2001/7/31/20314/1 524/20#20

    Why isn't there a collective, organized protest against DMCA and its lobbyists? Don't we think that its possible to live without the offerings of corporations? Its time to consider this thing seriously, and chip away at it, each day, relentlessly. Keep journals. My journal entry would read, "Today, I would have done X, but for the DMCA. I can't wait until the day that we'll be rid of it".

    If we're so weak that we can't resist cool toys, then perhaps we deserve the DMCA.

    -rao
  • Good to be arrested? (Score:5, Informative)

    by DiveX (322721) <slashdotcontact@oasisofficepark.com> on Monday August 13 2001, @08:48AM (#2141691) Homepage
    While sitting in your warm bedroom or at your cool office saying how great it was that he was arrested so that the law can be challenged in court, Dmitri is most likely sitting in a one room cell with little but a cot, metal toilet, and TV down the hall. His family is most likely sick with worry since they realize that there is little to nothing that they can do. Any time an American (born or recent addition) is imprisoned for a crime in some foreign, there is often a public (US) outcry. In the Spring of 1994, an 18-year-old Michael Fay, was caned in Singapore for spray painting cars. Many in the United States expressed outrage at the primitive brutality of the punishment. Even President Clinton expressed his dismay and criticized the punishment as cruel and close to barbarism and torture. I really doubt Dmitri is glad to play a small part at the legal challenge of the DMCA. If you were in that position, your lawyer would most likely suggest (and you would accept) that if you can be quietly get let off with time served and a small fine that you accept it. If my lawyer were to suggest, 'we're going to fight this until your bitter end', then I'll be asking for new representation. Poor Dmitri is being used as a pawn by both sides. Corporate America is using him to scare the programming community into submission (i.e. you're next) and the community is using him to strike down a law.
  • by T1girl (213375) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:30AM (#2142350) Homepage
    Would someone please just let this poor guy go home to his wife and kids and sort this all out later?
        • Re:Let my people go (Score:5, Interesting)

          by ichimunki (194887) on Monday August 13 2001, @09:46AM (#2144800)
          Dmitry must have had some clue he was in something of a grey area when he decided to come to America to present his work at a hacker convention (I mean, it's Def Con, not the O'Reilly Open Source convention, after all). If he was so completely unaware of the potential for his situation to go this way, then I'd have to ask who invited him here without giving him some background and pointing out some potential risks. He's Russian, he should have an understanding of what it means to go against the political will of the local secret police (in our case, the FBI). That the Russian secret police don't give a damn about copyrights (in part because their laws are different) doesn't mitigate the fact that the secret police in the USA do-- and are not known for how they treat Russian computer experts.

          But he is a hero either way, because the definition of "hero" does not always require the subject to have high-minded, lofty goals at the outset. He is quite possibly going to be central in overturning this law, or he will be one of the most obvious victims of it-- in a way that Eric Corley can never be. I fully expect "Free Dmitry" to replace Mitnick references... at least the new rallying cry will have a more ethical foundation.
          • If we don't fight, the "O'Reilly Open Source" will have in the future the same negative connotation that DefCon does now. Microsoft, that "upstanding shining star of American innovation and productivity" *cough*, has demonized Open Source, saying it "destroys intellectual property", and hence innovation.

            The battle for mindshare as begun. We are being made out to be the bad guys. We react to laws and are always on the "law-breaking" side. Not from our perspective (freedom), but from THEIR perspective (they have the courts/police/gov't/guns on their side).

            We need to act, not just react. We need to use the political process and get publicity where WE are taking an initiative, and aren't just fighting the ystem.

          • "If he was so completely unaware of the potential for his situation to go this way, then I'd have to ask who invited him here without giving him some background and pointing out some potential risks."

            Yeah, I mean, who really abides by international law, or their own constitution these days?...
      • by sphealey (2855) on Monday August 13 2001, @10:49AM (#2144969)
        "Adobe no longer wants Sklyarov prosecuted. And I'm sure, neither does the MPAA or RIAA"

        This is more than a bit naive, I am afraid. Adobe is trying for the best of both worlds here: intimidating anyone who seeks to reverse-engineer their code, AND endear themselves to the anti-DMCA crowd as being "reasonable" and "open to negotiation". An iron bar wrapped in a happy-face marshmallow.

        Same with RIAA: if charges are dropped now, intimidation is successful without taking the risk of the law they purchased being overthrown.

        sPh
  • I know that this seems far fetched because ebooks have not become popular. But, if in the future they did become the only way publishers released books libraries would not be able to lend them.

    The DMCA seems to criminalize the library that might someday exist.
    • But, if in the future they did become the only way publishers released books libraries would not be able to lend them.

      It doesn't seem to have occurred to these people that they might not have a business plan doing that. I have attempted to make this point before to the "but copying is piracy and piracy is stealing from me!" type guys -- it may be that digital information simply does not have monetary value. One of the long-standing rules of the marketplace is that the value of a thing is what that thing will bring. If no one will pay for it, you can't make money selling it. It's like the dorks who want to privatize the water supply -- this shit falls out of the air, people.

      Digital bits are trivially easy to copy. No encryption scheme can hold when you've got physical access to both the encoder and decoder. People are by and large unwilling to give up their rights of property (to own that which they've purchased, to view it at the time and in the manner of their choosing) in order to ensure digital profitability. Maybe it's simply time to step back from this "glorious revolution" and re-evaluate what we think we're doing, as a society.

  • I love this part (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pgpckt (312866) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:47AM (#2143924) Homepage Journal
    Marybeth Peters, the chief of the United States Copyright Office, said that the exception was still meaningful, even without a market for anti- circumvention devices, because it allowed individuals to figure out for themselves how to go around a technological control measure.

    "Many of the people I know can come up with a program to do it themselves, without being in the business of doing it," Ms. Peters said.


    She has GOT to be kidding if she thinks the average consumer has the ability to design tools that will allow them to access there fair use rights. This is idiotic. Most /.ers couldn't even handle this.

    What she is suggesting would be like if wrenches were illegal, but you could make your own to fix your faucet that is leaking. "We believe the average consumer will find a way to make the wrenches they need." Sorry, but most people do not have the knowledge, expertise, or equipment to make wrenches. If you think most people can write code that will crack encryption, you shouldn't buy that new Lexus you have been looking at. Why not build you own car?
    • "Many of the people I know can come up with a program to do it themselves, without being in the business of doing it," Ms. Peters said.

      Hmmm... Sounds like she just exposed herself as being part of some sort of hacker ring. Better watch out for the Feds, Ms. Peters; it's their job to put away people like you.
    • The DMCA tells you that if your vehicle is broken, its illegal for you to make or own a wrench to fix it or to hire a mechanic.

      Furthermore, its illegal for you to look under the hood.

      That would be a brilliant defense. Cuts through the technobabble BS in a couple of sentences.

      BTW: People who spend real money, like a couple of mil for a package, get all the tools, all the source code. There is no DMCA.

      The DMCA is only being pressed on by penny-ante people over penny-ante ephemera. Its basically against the consumer.

      The (RI & MP)AAs members pollute the environment and beg you to buy the record or come to the theatre now but six months later, its in the deep discount bin as a last gasp halt on its way to the landfill. Where it belonged in the first place.
  • a common skill? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by l2718 (514756) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:48AM (#2144084)
    From the times article:

    Marybeth Peters, the chief of the United States Copyright Office, said that the exception was still meaningful, even without a market for anti- circumvention devices, because it allowed individuals to figure out for themselves how to go around a technological control measure. "Many of the people I know can come up with a program to do it themselves, without being in the business of doing it," Ms. Peters said.

    So, according to the US copyright office, hacking e-books is a common skill? In fact, a neccessary skill to excersize our rights?
  • by Flower (31351) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:49AM (#2144086) Homepage
    Allan Adler, vice president for legal and governmental affairs at the Association of American Publishers, has an explanation. "There is no device that can distinguish between a fair use and a non-fair use,"

    I beg to differ. I have the perfect device to distinguish fair use. It's called a brain. I have greater faith in its capability than in any access control scheme Big Media may come up with.

  • by Jacco de Leeuw (4646) on Monday August 13 2001, @09:38AM (#2144644) Homepage
    Crypto expert Niels Ferguson [xs4all.nl] was at the HAL2001 [hal2001.org] festival yesterday, speaking about AES/Rijndael vulnerabilities. At the end of his presentation, he wanted to add a personal note.

    He said that he had done some research on some topic (unfortunately I could not hear what it was about). He said he would go to the US next week for a conference and he feared being arrested if he would publish. Since he had mouths to feed and rent to pay, he said he could not afford to take the risk. So he decided to not publish his research. He urged everyone to protest against the DMCA which affects him as a non-US citizen. He did realise that at the HAL he was preaching to the choir...

  • by ben_tarval (512334) on Monday August 13 2001, @10:01AM (#2144668)
    Here are some little known facts about this case - at least ones which I haven't seen covered in the media, or on the Free-Dmitry mailing lists.

    Dmitry's company made an extremely smart move in hiring Joe Burton for their lawyer here. He's the same one who represented Kelly Goen and Phil Zimmerman when they were being investigated by the Grand Jury for PGP.

    Joe Burton is arguably the best lawyer in the world for this case. Not only is he experienced in this area, he's an ex-Fed prosecutor (IIRC) and knows all the people involved on the Government side of things. He also believed strongly in the rights of people to use strong cryptography, and represented Kelly and Phil for free.

    IMHO he's a rare bird; and I wish we had more like him.

    Here's another extremely little known fact about the PGP case. Joe wouldn't touch handling suing the Feds involved with a ten-foot pole for violating Phil and Kelly's constitutional rights on Freedom of Speech with PGP. Apparantly he's still a little too close to some of the Feds to do this.

    But I still think he's the best person for handling the criminal case. I would personally choose another for handling the civil-rights violation countersuit against Adobe and the Feds though. It will be interesting to see who's the best lawyer for this one.

  • Jury trial... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sdo1 (213835) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:32AM (#2145219) Journal
    As much as I'd like to see the charges tossed out now (I doubt that DS wants to be a pawn in this... he probably just wants to go back to Russia), going to trial could be quite helpful. Unlike the 2600 trial, this one could easily be painted in a better light.

    One of the things his software is capable of doing is to allow blind people to read these e-books. Imagine THAT testimony in front of a jury!

    And what would Adobe's representatives say when they take the stand? (and you can be sure that they will) They backed off once. Will they say "No, this hasn't hurt us." Or will they backtrack once again and call for him to be put in jail. Surely their calls to have him released will enter into the testimony?

    No jury of "average" Americans will be able to wrap their heads around the technical issues of the DMCA. It's going to be the simple things like "this software allows blind people to read e-books" that will sway them one way or the other.

    -S
    • Only questions of fact get to a jury (and mixed law and fact). This case will soley be a question of law. Juries do not get to decide if a law if legal.

      • by Kotetsu (135021) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:47AM (#2143923) Homepage
        Juries do not get to decide if a law if legal.

        Apparently you've never heard of jury nullification [2ndlawlib.org]. You most certainly *do* have the right to decide if a law is legal when you are on a jury.
        • You most certainly *do* have the right to decide if a law is legal when you are on a jury.

          Actually, you don't. If a jury votes "not guilty" in a case, the law is still on the books, and still enforceable. All the jury decides, in a criminal case, is guilty or not guilty. Wether or not the law is constitutional is decided in the appellate courts.

                    • Just like you have "fair use" rights but that doesn't obligate the copyright holder to make it easy for you to excercise them.

                      True, but they shouldn't be able to make it illegal either.

                      You CAN be tossed in jail (for a long time) for perjury if during Voix Dire the judge asked if you would accept him as the final authority on matters of law and you said "yes".

                      So, basically, the judge can force you to give up your right as a jurist to decide on both the facts and the law of the case as a condition of being allowed to serve on the jury. Doesn't that pretty much destroy the right in the first place? Should it be legal for them to dismiss you from duty for that reason?

  • Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)

    by briggsb (217215) on Monday August 13 2001, @08:33AM (#2153931)
    Congress has already passed legislation [bbspot.com] to remedy the situation.
  • A small voice asks... what happens when Microsoft encrypt their email protocols, network file sharing protocols, office document formats, and then start prosecuting programmers who try to hack these protocols, say... to allow Linux to interoperate with Windows.

    What if the whole affair about copyright and fair-use a red herring designed to distract attention from the real game: making it illegal to write software that competes in any way whatsoever with Microsoft's own work.

      • by gilroy (155262) on Monday August 13 2001, @11:33AM (#2115940) Homepage Journal
        Blockquoth the poster:
        The DMCA is about writing software which defeats protection of *copyrighted information*.
        Under current copyright law, a work is copyrighted automatically upon creation. Thus, every piece of email you write and send is copyrighted. Say Alice writes a memo and send it using an MS email client that automatically encrypts it. Bob intercepts this email (illegitimately) and uses his Linus email client to decrypt it. He has used a device to defeat access restrictions on a copyrighted work. Bang! DMCA applies.

        Of course most people would not be using the Linux client to crack unauthorized emails but to access ones addressed to them. And of course the Linux client is not really the crucial part here, since Bob could conceivably have used the MS program -- it was the interception that was wrong. But the RIAA, MPAA, and other evil acroynyms have been arguing that a single infringing use -- even one entirely hypothetical -- is enough to open the developer to charges or suit under the DMCA.

        The DMCA is a bad law because of its creeping featurism. In the 21st century, copyright law will become one of the major areas of law at all.

          • Blockquoth the poster:
            In order to have a copyright on it, you must put "(C) Copyright 2001, by [your name here]" somewhere on the document. This gives you the copyright on it. Posting something (or emailing) without a Copyright notice on it, effectivly makes it Public Domain.
            This is a common and dangerous misconception. Whereas it used to be that to have copyright you had to use the (c) and register it, this is no longer true, and hasn't been since (I believe) 1989. See, for further info, "10 Big Myths about Copyright Explained" (http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html [templetons.com]).
    • I only hope that Sklyarov (not to mention his family and friends) shares your sentiments.

      This probably is the only way to get the DMCA amended, but it's not really fair that it involves a foreign national.

      Cheers,

      Tim
    • I think it is a good thing Sklyarov was arrested.

      I sort of agree, but perhaps it would have been better if an American were arrested. I would think it would be pretty awful to be arrested in another country just because the lawmakers there were stupid enough to pass such a lame law. I asked this once before. How would you feel if you went to Russia and were arrested for something as simple as speaking at a convention. I think you might be frightened. (Note, this is not to imply that Russia does or does not have such a stupid law).

      • ...arrested for something as simple as speaking at a convention.

        If you're going to argue the case, at least get the facts straight - there was a criminal complaint against him before he came to the US (it's dated July 10th), and he was only arrested once the FBI found out that he was in Las Vegas (on July 17th).

        He was arrested specifically because the copyright to the Advanced eBook Processor was assigned to him - leading the FBI to believe that he is the one responsible for it. He was also arrested because the software could be purchased in the United States and was purchased in the United States. This doesn't make the DMCA any more fair, but at least realize that he wasn't arrested for speech, but for trafficking in an illegal copyright-circumvention device.

        • How to help (Score:3, Informative)

          Here [eff.org]'s the pertinent FAQ over at EFF. It gives you links to a Paypal account set up for Dmitri as well as links to various mailing lists, web sites, et cetera.
        • Re:A good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by sphealey (2855) on Monday August 13 2001, @11:10AM (#2145313)
          "I wonder if there's a way to write to Sklyarov and to donate money for his defense? Even if the charges are dropped, which I certainly hope for, I'd consider that money well spent (a small compensation for mental pain and suffering)."

          Since the Internet started to become widely popular (say around 1994-1995) I have watched a number of on-line political hoo-haa's. The furor over the Communications Decency Act I & II comes to mind.

          In all of these cases I have noticed a common thread: lots of people are willing to hit the "R" key in the e-mail program and contribute a fresh rant to the discussion. Very, very few people are willing to actually DO anything that might make a difference.

          OK guys, this one's important. This is pretty much a key battleground in the future of on-line rights.

          In that vein, here's a suggestion: (a) get out your _manual_ typewriter and write a letter to your three members of Congress explaining your views on this situation (b) contribute $100 each to DS's legal defense fund and a fund for his family's well-being (c) write out 3 checks for $50 each to your congresspeople's re-election fund.

          Now, if in 6 weeks or so I see $10 million in DS's defense fund and 150,000 letters received on Capitol Hill, then I will think that on-line activitism means something.

          My prediction: $10,000, a couple of hundred letters (remember - typewritten, hand-signed, stamped, and mailed). Net effect: ZERO.

          sPh