Slashdot Log In
ElcomSoft Files For Dismissal Of E-Book Case
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Jan 29, 2002 02:53 PM
from the standard-procedure dept.
from the standard-procedure dept.
EconomyGuy writes: "ElcomSoft, the Russian software company accused of such evils as producing software to enable the blind to read legally obtained e-books, has filed for a dismissal of the charge that they violated the DMCA. Their main arguments seem to be what we anyone would expect: the DMCA is too vague, copyright holders have too much power, infringement of 1st amendment rights. CNN has all the details, as well as news.com. Interesting to note that there is no mention of the 'we didn't violate Russian law' argument." The efforts to get the case dismissed will no doubt continue.
This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
Background Info (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Background Info (Score:2, Funny)
Good! (Score:5, Interesting)
Incidentally, though, this "blind people used e-book reader" argument seems a bit thin on the ground, for two reasons:
1) I've never seen any report of any case where a blind person actually used the software, and
2) I seem to recall they only sold about 50 copies before it got yanked.
Anybody got any information on whether it was used by blind people? (Not that that should be necessary for the sofware's legality, but it might help people understand the case better...)
Re:Good! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Good! (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, it makes the copyright holders out to be really bad people if they aren't letting blind people have access to books. Villianizes them. I guess it is a fallacy of argument (They should get a better example... perhaps several more actually that they can play from multiple angles).
It is not just that blind person argument, I think they need to emphasize the fundamental impact on freedom that is occuring because of the DMCA.
They also need to bring it to the American people, because while right now it is a bunch of online geeks fighting it (Read: A small minority). That is if the American public even knows/cares about the DMCA and this case altogether.
It shouldn't wait until it gets worse before popular support makes it get better.
Re:Good! (Score:3, Interesting)
Though it is about sympathy too. "You don't hate blind people... Do you?"
Fighting Fire with Fire (Score:3, Interesting)
I think that "blind people being about to read eBooks" is just a plea to sympathy.
It is also an attempt to level the PR playing field.
The supporters of the DMCA such as the RIAA and the MPAA have done an excellent job portraying the users of such things as MP3s and DeCSS as hackers, criminals and pirates. They have gone as far as to call then terrorists.
The non-geek population is bombarded with the message "hacker = evil" followed up with "DMCA protects from hackers".
The DeCSS case has been hurt big time by this.
ElcomSoft is trying to play the RIAA/MPAA game to their advantage. This isn't a hacker tool, no, no, no. It is an empowerment tool for the blind!
Maybe it will work. Maybe it will just cancel out the hacker = evil propaganda and we'll have a trial on the merits of the case. Maybe it will get drowned out by the PR machines of the DMCA supporters.
Maybe it is even true.
In any case, you can't fault them for trying. I hope it works.
Steve M
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, the two reasons you listed are probably linked. After all, if only a handful of people have use the software, it's not terribly surprising that you haven't heard many stories about how useful it is. The "satisfied customers" test is only useful if there has been a genuine chance for their to be some customers to be satisfied.
More importantly, I think that the idea of making E-books useful to blind readers remains a good example, whether or not any specific blind person has used it for that yet. It's an example of a legitimate, non-copyright-infringing use for the product that has been forclosed by the combination of Adobe's restrictive policies and the DMCA. Adobe didn't stop to think about the possibility that blind people wouldn't be able to use their product, and the law says that nobody else can correct their mistake with an add-on. That's idiotic, and it's good to point out how stupid it is.
Parent
Good strategy (Score:2, Insightful)
Russian Law (Score:4, Informative)
I don't see that as interesting because it couldn't possibly be construed as a legal argument, or logical in the slightest for that matter. If you are in the US, you obey US laws. If you sell a product in the US, your product conforms to US laws. Saying "we didn't violate Russian law" would be like opening a windows shopping brothel in Time Square and saying "we didn't violate the law in Amsterdam!" Ridiculous!
Scott
Re:Russian Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the U.S. can enact such a law that says that people who serve prostitutes to Americans abroad are in violation of American law, and if they ever come to the U.S. they can be arrested. Helms-Burton is an example of such a law, only is penalizes companies that deal in nationalized Cuban property. The U.S. can make any law it wants. They could even say it's illegal to be Afghani. It's their country. If you violate the laws and then go to their soil, then they can put you in jail, because they have the authority on their land.
Re:Russian Law (Score:3, Insightful)
They could even say it's illegal to be Afghani
Well they could, but only after getting the Constitution completely out of the picture. Currently, such a law is illegal
Re:Russian Law (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Russian Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't it be more like opening a brothel in Amsterdam, possibly serving clients from the U.S. on vacation there (and possibly not), and then saying "We didn't violate any Amsterdam laws".
No it wouldn't, it would be more like opening a brothel in Amsterdam and selling prostitutes to U.S. citizens on vacation to sneak into the U.S.. You left out a key point in the analogy.
Re:Russian Law (Score:2, Informative)
The product (to the best of my knowledge) was only sold in Russia.
This is equivalant to someone from the country Mary Jane where the wacky tobaccy is legal. When they enter the US - not carrying the product, mind you - to talk about the benefits of marijuana (or however you spell it) at a medical convention, the DEA shows up at the convention and takes them to jail.
Same story, only the difference is that it was about ebooks, not drugs.
And anybody's who's going to split hairs, it's a damn anology, so shut the fuck up unless you have a good counter argument.
Re:Russian Law (Score:3, Informative)
To determine jurisdiction, the courts will have to decide exactly how much of a connection there was between any alleged US buyer and Elcomsoft. The technicalities are beyond me, but that's the basic gist.
More info here. [eff.org].
Re:Russian Law (Score:2)
Simmilar defenses have been used in drug trafficing cases (I didnt sell them drugs, I sold them the key to the locker in the bus station where the drugs were stored) and they got convictions anyway.
Simmilarly, I didn't kill anyone, I just hired someone else to kill them.
If the product is illegal in the US, then selling access to the product from the US is also illegal.
ridiculous? (Score:5, Interesting)
More examples: In some countries certain religious books are illegal. Lets hope no executive from Barnes and Noble plans on making a vacation to Beijing. Also, those who provide anonymizers such as (now defunct) safeweb -- even for free -- could easily be arrested on a tourist trip to any number of exotic destinations. According to your logic, by providing a service to a foreigner, they are bound by his laws.
This is not meant as a flame, but really I think that these arguments apply (predominantly) in one direction -- when a foreign entity violates a US law. So we can kidnap foreign heads of state and try them for violating US drug laws. Or freeze the assets of foreign agencies by executive order and without legal recourse. Just try reversing the situation and watch what a legal uproar would erupt. All of suddenly you'll hear about sovereignty and how international norms trump local laws in certain cases.
Suddenly, the objection wont seem so ridiculous.
Parent
This is... (Score:4, Insightful)
There will come a day when nobody but eccentrics and bibliophiles will read normal books. Everything will be digital. If this case were to succeed, the US government would condem the blind people of the world to illiteracy. (Note to lawyers : feel free to use my comment in your closing arguments
Re:This is... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, I think you're terribly wrong about this. For one, I think books will be around forever. There are still some serious issues to deal with, that I don't think will all be resolved within our lifetime (I am a college student ;)
And as for your comment about blind people being condemned to illiteracy, that is just so hysterical it's not even funny. How do you think blind people use computers today?? The reason that ebook readers (hardware, not computer software) haven't been made for blind people is because the overall demand for ebooks is so tiny that the blind market would be so miniscule as to matter not at all. There are a lot of other issues to resolve with ebooks before worrying about special cases like this.
Scott
Re:This is... (Score:2)
Books will be around forever - people still carve messages into stone, too. But ebooks are feasible today - I've read several books off my computer. I don't see why the few remaining materials technology problems aren't going to be solved, and something cheaper and more searchable should overtake a lot of the non-decorative uses for paper books.
And as for your comment about blind people being condemned to illiteracy, that is just so hysterical it's not even funny.
Why? It's a logical result of what happens if the blind are prevented from reading.
How do you think blind people use computers today??
Are you implying that the blind can't use computers? One of the college system administrators is blind. If you have a GUI, you override the standard GUI display function to send it to a text to speech converter. If you use console, you just send the screen to a text to speech converter as appropriate.
the overall demand for ebooks is so tiny that the blind market would be so miniscule as to matter not at all. There are a lot of other issues to resolve with ebooks before worrying about special cases like this.
Good engineering demands that you don't put stuff like this off until the end when all you can provide is a hack. Design it right the first time, so the blind and the Chinese and the Hindi and all the other "special cases" can be handled cleanly.
Re:Restricting fair use (Score:2)
In the cd compliation/copy in car senario, you have access to the music, perhaps just not as conviniently as you may wish. Additionally, the action that you take to achieve this fair use (copying) is the exact same action as pirates use.
In the case of the books, they may or may not be copying the data in question. But it would certainly be possible to write an alternate reader, that did not copy the data, but just presented it differently. This is much more clearly in the lines of fair use than copying.
A musical analogy : the music remains encrypted until it hits your speakers, which decrypt, and you hack in your own custom speakers to get more bass.
Wise move... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is a very wise move on their part. While the basis for a US court having jurisdiction is somewhat questionable (IANAL), if that's a cornerstone of their defense, they end up in a very precarious position.
Should a judge decide that in fact he/she *DOES* have jurisdiction, a major portion of the case is lost, and that momentum loss would be very difficult to recover from. Rather than challenge jurisdiction, they're challenging the overly ambiguous and inevenly applied law itself. I say good for them.
Re:Wise move... (Score:2)
On the other hand, fighting this case on the basis that DMCA is too broad, too stupid and unconstitutional, can actually rally grass root movement behind them, not just people in Russia. And it's not the case of "US-Russian vs Them-American". It's a case of "We-normal-good-people vs Them-Evil-Corporation-backed-by-stupid-law". Even if they eventually loose the case, it still makes them look good, and generates a lot of good publicicty. Do you think you would hear of that company if not for that case? I didn't, but all I know now is that the company seems to be really cool.
The DMCA is bad....but don't forget UCITA (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually Useful (Score:5, Interesting)
I commend ElcomSoft for... (Score:2, Insightful)
Irony (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
This is precisely the the same thought that i first had. I find it amusing yet somewhat sad that this is the sase however...Though it IS quite amazing if you think that 20, 15, or perhaps as reciently as 10 years ago one would have been regarded as insane had they predicted that in 2002 a Russian company be in such a position. It is sad that we (as Americans) had to resort to an external entity to help protect what liberties we have remaining. As a society we have aparently become as fat and lazy as the rest of the world quietly quips behind our backs. Even this new found "Patriotism" that seems to be sweeping the nation doesn't have the same ring to it that existed post WWII, ask any old vet. I'm sure they'll agree...provided they are able to see objectively past the patriotism of their youth. Todays patriotisn (much like the commercolympics) is more about slapping a Flag (tm) on the back of your truck (tm) and watching 15 thousand "we support the USA buy our product" commercials than actually uniting as a country. Hell, scientists barely share information with each other any more for fear that someone else might be first to market with the new and improved cheese spread (tm). And not to be hypocritical, i'm as guilty as everyone else.
only problem is that the bigger and more successful america becomes, the bigger and unmanageable the problem gets.
call it the paradox of national success. perhaps that is what they will read about in 150 years.
provided that something more than roaches are around.
virtros
(i could go on for hours about this...)
Re:Irony (Score:2)
Re:Irony (Score:3, Interesting)
Between that and the U.S. Constitution, these supposedly "natural" and "unalienable" rights are specified. These are rights that the people ordered the government to grant to the people. These are the rights the government was created to protect for the people.
The only things preventing the government from taking these rights away are a few pieces of paper, the morals of the people in government, and an armed populace. (Though I strongly doubt the ability of the armed populace to successfully prevent the government from doing anything, considering how much better the military is armed.)
In other words, the only things special about those rights are that we have a document stating that they are special rights. The government is doing a very good job at severely limiting many of these rights, one tiny step at a time, and most of the people don't seem to notice or care.
There are other rights I think should be a special as these, but because they are not listed in a couple of ancient documents, they will never be held to be as special.
Re:Irony (Score:3, Funny)
yes and (Score:3, Interesting)
Is not a good argument. He was in the US when he was showing it which is what they are talking about. The reality is that the DCMA does have to much power. Copywright was supposed to be so that credit is given to he who deserves it not for the music companies to screw every by.
The whole idea of a copywright is so that if someone write a report or something then they can copywright it and if you use their ideas you are supposed to reference them. Copywright was made for documents like books and publications. We've since taken it to a bad place.
Re:yes and (Score:2)
Absolutely not. Copyright has nothing to do with crediting people's ideas; ideas themselves are left unprotected by copyright. While it's true that you can sometimes quote the particular expression, credit has little to do with whether a use is fair or not. The idea behind copyright is to facilitate the creation of works by providing a property incentive. (Not that it's the best or only way to do this.)
spelling (Score:3, Funny)
Please note, the correct misspelling of "copyright" is "copywrite", not "copywright".
Dismissal means nothing for the DMCA? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they get a dismissal, then that means the DMCA will go unchallenged right?
The decision won't have precedent over any subsequent case?
Narrow opinion vs. wide opinion (Score:2, Insightful)
If they get a dismissal, then that means the DMCA will go unchallenged right?
Depends on whether the judge issues a narrow opinion or a wide opinion. A narrow opinion affects only one case; a wide opinion defines the scope of the DMCA and gives the copyright national-socialists [google.com] more or less power.
Adobe must PAY! (Score:2)
I applaud ElcomSoft for filing for dismissal of the E-Book case.
Seeing how they are a Russian company, and they did not violate Russian law, I believe that this entire case is a moot point anyway. Furthermore, I believe that Adobe made a very bad decision, and they should pay for it, by providing full legal defence for ElcomSoft, and for lobbying heavily to have the DMCA recalled.
Until Adobe shifts their entire focus to recalling the DMCA, I won't purchase any of their products.
Online Rights: A Liberal Fantasy (Score:3, Funny)
We've heard a lot of talk lately about freedom of speech and expression, and how it relates to the Internet. Some say you should be able to say whatever you want on the Internet, without the U.S. government's permission. Although this is an interesting idea, it's not going to happen--and I'll tell you why: You have no rights online!
That's right, kids. No matter how much you would like to shout "virus" in a crowded chat room, there is nothing that gives you the right to do it! Examine, if you will, the two most important law documents in the world: The U.S. Constitutuion and the Bible. Neither of these documents even _mention_ the Internet. Some might argue that these texts were written long before anyone even knew of the Internet. True, but they were written by God Almighty, Who, of course, knew in advance that the Internet and other forms of electronic devilry would come to corrupt mankind.
The concept that your rights to free speech, press and religion, apply online is an outrageous liberal myth, perpetuated by communist groups like the EFF and ACLU, which are funded by underground criminal hacker groups. By stealing billions of dollars in movies, music and software, all the while hiding behind the fantasy that they are supported by the Constitution, these pirates deprive media and software executives of the five or six Cadillacs they rightly deserve.
I propose that we lobby Congress to shut down the Internet altogether. Most of what takes place online is illegal, anyway (software/media piracy and pornography). Then tracking down criminals would be a simple matter of following telephone and cable lines, and the concept of "online rights" would be exposed as what it really is: a laughable fantasy.
Thank you.
Keep it in perspective. (Score:2, Insightful)
Whenever lawyers go to court, inevitably their first motion is to dismiss the case. It's pretty much par for the course. They present their reasons (which might be swaying to us, as sympathetic readers), but the other side will have the opposite opinion and the judge usually doesn't support the motion.
I think it's very unlikely that any judge will rule that the DMCA is too vague without even having a trial.
This won't actually do anything.
I wonder... (Score:3, Funny)
"Come over here so we can arrest you!" ???
I wish Common Sense was still in common practice in the judicial system.
A recent interview with Sklyarov... (Score:3, Informative)
What? (Score:2)
Interesting in what way? They didn't break Russian law, but they did break US law when they sold it here. Whether you agree with the DMCA or not, it is (currently) a law, which Elcomsoft broke.
The "didn't violate Russian law" thing works fine for Dmitri; his company broke the law by selling the product here, not him.
-Legion
A Basic Misunderstanding (Score:3, Informative)
These briefs raise issues in the alternative: If ElcomSoft loses on one, it preserves the right to argue the other, but it hasn't given up the right to pursue any viable legal theory.
Dangerous Ground (Score:5, Interesting)
Write your Congressman (Score:2)
More We-Didn't-Violate-Russian-Law : Cyberspace (Score:3, Informative)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Right, Russia and the DMCA (Score:3, Interesting)
I just spent the last month in Moscow where one can purchase the Russian edition of Windows XP for the modest price of 70 Rubles (~30 Rubles = 1 USD). I'm sure that every penny went to Bill Gates. Just like the 80 Ruble copies of Shrek in DivX format and 60 Ruble copies of The Sims plus every expansion pack are surely on the up and up.
-Peter
On a related note... (Score:4, Informative)
Can't say I disagree with him one bit...
Re:Headed Down the Same Road? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a major difference between the Felten case and this one.
In Felten, the judge never addressed the merits of the DMCA argument, finding instead that there was no case or controversy, because the threats were either withdrawn or misunderstood. Here, Elcomsoft specifically has been charged with violating the DMCA, so the threshhold jurisdiction question which the Judge found in Felten will not be an issue at all here. Unless the charges are dropped in this case or there is a plea, the Court cannot avoid addressing the constitutionality of the DMCA.
-J, one of the Felten team lawyers