Sklyarov Released On $50,000 Bail 534
Mike Schiraldi was the first to write about Dmitry Sklyarov's release from jail, even before it happened: "According to this live report from the courtroom, Dmitri will probably be out of jail real soon now. Of course, he still won't be allowed to leave Northern California, but it's a start ..." Soon after, inaneboy pointed out this Reuters story on yahoo which says that Sklyarov has been released, on 50,000 dollars bail, raised by his employer, ElcomSoft.
phalse phace wrote to say that the EFF has just posted an announcement as well as some background.
Very indicative of our society today... (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh well, I guess I'm just an eternal cyncic. Still, I'm very glad this happened, and hopefully he'll be able to get on with his life ASAP. Props to his employer for raising the cash. Somehow I doubt Adobe would ever do the right thing and reimburse them. I must say this whole experience has left me with a very bad taste in my mouth regarding Adobe.... I'll make sure never to purchase any of their products, and reccomend the same to any of my employers/employees/anyone.
Congrats to reuters (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, the fact that he's a Russian (read "commie") coder (read "hacker") can, and may, get played against him in the press to no end, so it's nice just to see those little words, "legal in Russia," that should humble the cretins who pushed this misguided law.
"Ah, for the freedoms of Mother Russia..." *sigh*
Party (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:is $50000 bail low? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good. (Score:5, Interesting)
The message our lawmakers are sending to hackers is clear; leave the copy protection alone and instead just beat the f*cking shit out of the copyright holder.
I hope Dimitry flees. There won't be any justice for him here.
Doing your job (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Adobe (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Party (Score:3, Interesting)
Use the DMCA in the most ridiculus way.... (Score:2, Interesting)
what game is the US playing? (Score:2, Interesting)
after reading the full story regarding our jailed american student, i couldn't help but laugh as i read all the 'Free Dmitry' sites! i mean, maybe the US doesn't feel so strongly about the speech and freedom issues like we think they do. perhaps they were just playing a bit of hard ball with the russians to get our american student released...
just my thoughts...
Re:The feds must be really ptroud... (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets not that little fact escape the discussion...
-S
Re:The feds must be really ptroud... (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks like he didn't break a thing.
While he was in the US, he did not (at least, not in the complaint) traffic his software (I'd think they'd have complained about it if he did). After reading that, it looks like the only person they'd have recourse against is RegisterNow, since they can't prosecute Skylarov for his actions while in Russia. Skylarov was just an easy target (and it shows how aggressively and improperly Adobe went after him)
-= rei =-
Re:A couple SF Chronicle articles (Score:2, Interesting)
"Book publishers say they need a tough law like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or they'll never be able to make money selling electronic books. If programmers are allowed to crack eBook encryption, the next Napster-style trading system will be exchanging copies of "Moby Dick" instead of songs by Moby, they warn. "
Someone needs to point out to these jokers that Moby Dick was written in 1851 and is therefore in the public domain! You can read it for yourself here:
http://www.americanliterature.com/MD/MDINDEX.HT
--
Ray
My talk with Dmitry post Release (Score:2, Interesting)
Logical Flaw in Prosecution (Score:3, Interesting)
Premise: As I understand DMCA-AC, what's forbidden is 'creation and trafficking' in anticircumvention tools, with geographic scope limited to the US.
Analysis: While Dmitry created (or created a lot of) Advanced eBook Processor (AEBPR), he created it in Russia, not the US; and he has not personally 'trafficked' in it within the US - there is no DMCA cause of action against Dmitry. It was Elcomsoft that sold AEBR in the US, which -is- actionable under DMCA-AC. Despite employment by Elcomsoft, Dmitry the person is distinct from Elcomsoft the corporation and not criminally liable for the deeds of Elcomsoft.
Conclusion: For the prosecution to be successful, the US Attorney must show either:
a) that Dmitry individually has 'trafficked' in AEBPR, separately from Elcomsoft's sales of AEBR in the US, or
b) that Dmitry as an employee of Elcomsoft has criminal liability for Elcomsoft's actions in 'trafficking' in AEBR.
I don't see how either a) or b) can be proven, as there are no signs that Dmitry has personally distributed AEBR in the US, and no signs that Dmitry is an owner or officer of Elcomsoft -- just an ordinary employee. (If I were Dmitry's boss, or an Elcomsoft owner, I wouldn't be hanging around the US, though.)
If the above is factually correct, then the prosecution's only hope is to find relevant US law, precedent, or theories under which an ordinary employee of a corporation can be held to have criminal liability for the actions of the corporation. More specifically, the precedent or theory would have to pertain to the situation in which both the corporation and the employee are foreign nationals.
If there is no such law, precedent, or theory, the case ultimately fails, and therefore the US Attorney would likely decline to indict.
If the DOJ is looking for a way to make this case go away, either to avoid embarrassment or to avoid taking to trial a case with the potential to nullify DMCA-AC, this would do it for them.
In any event, there may not be any DMCA-AC test case here -- the charge may be flawed, and if so it should not have been brought in the first place, and will be dismissed.
Actual lawyers please comment?
Re:My View of the Day (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess that is what has made me so angry about this whole nightmare. One of my earliest programs was a wrapper that trapped floppy I/O to defeat the copy protection on a game I owned (those 5-1/4" drives sure were slow). I had no intention of making copies of the game available to others, I simply wanted to see if I could figure out how to do it and learn something about interrupts and TSRs. What I did was not illegal at the time and the game's license agreement did not specifically prohibit what I did. It is not clear from reading the DMCA that it would be illegal now, but if I were to do something like that again I certainly wouldn't want to share it with anyone. Yep, sad, scary, and downright depressing. The next victim of the DMCA could just as easily be a naive 14 year old who's done nothing more than attempt to understand how his computer works.
Everyone should consider donating their tax refund to either the soon-to-be established defense fund or the EFF. CowboyNeal can go hungry for all I care.
Sklyarov was clearly in violation of US law (Score:2, Interesting)
As I understand it, it was Sklyarov's company, not Sklyarov himself, which marketed and sold the product in the U.S. Now, unless Sklyarov is a member of the board of directors, it is not usual, even in the U.S., to prosecute employees for the actions of their employer.
It is similarly not illegal (even by DCMA standards) to produce, sell, or otherwise distribute copy protection schemes outside the U.S. Hawking his wares in Russia does not make him a criminal in the U.S.
It is my understanding that Sklyarov was arrested not because he discussed the weaknesses of Adobe's copy protection schemes, but because he was selling his product at the trade show where he was arrested. If this is the case then he is clearly in violation of U.S. law and the FBI is well within its jurisdiction to detain, arrest and prosecute him.
Whether the laws are just is a separate issue, one which it is up to the courts, not the FBI, to sort out. The FBI did what it was required to do.
Anyone care to correct my understanding?
Perpetual copyright and "Happy Birthday to You" (Score:5, Interesting)
My favorite example of the absurdity of perpetual copyright is the song "Happy Birthday to You", composed by Kentucky schoolteacher Mildred Hill in 1859. Her sister Patty wrote lyrics and first published it as "Good Morning to All" in "Song Stories of the Kindergarten" in 1893. Mildred died penniless in 1916.
In 1924, Robert H. Coleman republished the song without permission, adding a second "Happy Birthday to You" verse. The surviving Hill sisters sued and the song was finally copyrighted in 1935.
Of course, the sisters aren't collecting royalties any longer. The copyright is now owned by AOL/Time Warner, and still garnerting about $2 million in royalties each year as of about 5 years ago (which is why television programs usually resort to "For He's A Jolly Good Fellow" instead). If Disney continues to get copyright extension bills passed every 20 years, the copyright on this simple 19th century folksong will never expire.
The Constitution originally intended "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". But death plus 95 years? To what end, encouraging Mildred Hill to compose more songs?
>> I knew that she had totally lost it when I suggested that the heirs of William Shakespear might complain and demand royalties for plays written by the great bard. She thought it was a good idea and was trying to decide how we should go about paying those royalties...
Good job getting your mother to think about the logistics of awarding Shakespeare's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-g