ElcomSoft Verdict: Not Guilty 593
truthsearch writes "From News.com: 'A jury on Tuesday found a Russian software company not guilty of criminal copyright charges for producing a program that can crack anti-piracy protections on electronic books.' HUGE legal win against the DMCA. Thank you Lawrence Lessig."
Ok, someone fill me in (Score:4, Interesting)
Huge legal win? I think not. (Score:5, Interesting)
Will Adobe Apologize? (Score:1, Interesting)
I still won't buy any product or contribute to their profit.
Some things just can't be forgiven. In some republics, we would arrest Adobe, for harrassing an innocent programmer just writing code.
Looks like (Score:3, Interesting)
(more Simpsons references)
Re:Ok, someone fill me in (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly, there is NO proof of pirated eBooks out there, even after 2 independant groups were paid to troll the web looking for them. No proof of copyright violation, no DMCA-offense.
It really came down to whether or not there was a reasonable legal use for the tool or not. The jury found that there was, ie, fair use applications. Not guilty, case closed, proceed with appeals.
How can the judge instruct this way? (Score:4, Interesting)
i don't read the word "wilfull" in the DMCA, so i have no idea of how this case could have come out this way.
The DMCA was written to prevent ALL forms of copyright breaking devices (with the well known supposed caveats of research, etc.) This judge's jury instructions seem to fly in the face of the DMCA's whole point... that any device which circumvents copyright protection is illegal.
This judge has effectively rewritten the law from the bench... the law now reads - providing this is what he actually instructed the jury to do..
"Any device which circumvents copyright protections for the use of w4r3z d00dz and pirates (arrgh, me maties) is illegal, but if its not intended to do that and only perform those acts which constitute normal fair use, then it is okay, and you are not criminally liable of any offense."
i'm sorry.. but what the fsck?
(scum sucking hellbound) Lawyers, please help us to understand this...
i'm not arguing with the judge's decision.. i'm questioning his legal position.. please don't get me wrong
Re:so now... (Score:5, Interesting)
Example:
An aguantance of mine ("Tom") is a guidance counselor. Tom would not give a female student a late pass to class, even though she begged because she would get detention. He refused and she stormed off to class. When asked by her teacher why she was late she started crying hysterically. The teacher and her stepped outside and she explained that Tom had made her undress and begged her to have sex with him. He said he wouldn't let her go to class unless she did. (the story is bigger and longer but anyway).
Police are called in, Tom is suspended with pay (go unions) and told to get a lawyer (union said it would cover cost and then backed out).
The girl later confessed to the police that she made the whole thing up and she just didn't want detention and wanted Tom fired.
Get this, her mother said that the whole thing was too shady and that her daughter was too young to decide and she wanted to continue to press charges so that everything could be worked out in court!
Tom has now been asked to please find a job elsewhere (union prevents him from being fired outright), but this has been in the papers, so good luck. He had to sell his house to have money for the lawyer. And when all this is said and done, he will have no way to recover where he once was in life and career.
It makes me very, very ill.
My concerns (Score:4, Interesting)
Could the prosecutors claim the judge was biased and interfered, and demand a retrial?
Regardless of the outcome, a retrial would be a disasterous effect on subsequent juries, since it implies that the original outcome may very well have been faulty. And a lot of people assume may==is.
Re:The biggest problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost certainly, except for one problem - if I'm reading the results right, there is nothing indicating that it is LEGAL now to sell the eBook Processor software, and in fact, if Elcomsoft offered it in the US again, they would obviously "willfully" be distributing the software.
Though the judge's instructions to the jury that mere ABILITY to commit copyright infringement is insufficient for a guilty verdict in this case is nice to see, it still doesn't go so far as to explicitly declare in any way (let alone one that sets a precedent) that substantial non-infringing use therefore makes a software product legal, and THAT'S the precedent we really need to get the DMCA under control...
If ElcomSoft had been convicted... (Score:3, Interesting)
Guns don't kill software, People do (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so now... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are people who make a living suing other people. That's ALL THEY DO. They can file a suit for a pittance. Oftentimes, the defendant just settles. If not then the plaintiff goes to court and complains. Winning about half the time.
Bottom line: Win/Lose for the plaintiff and Lose/Lose for the defendant.
I also hear that in Europe, if the plaintiff in a suit loses, they foot the bill. I think it's high time the US adopted such a plan.
That doesn't make sense...? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, this is law, not logic, so it could well be like this. But I hope not.
Re:so now... (Score:5, Interesting)
ElcomSoft decision (Score:3, Interesting)
Also since the case is over and they are not guilty, can't ElcomSoft put their product back on the market without any legal problems?
Although this isn't anything close to the Supreme Court making a ruling concerning the DMCA's constitutionality, you can bet that this case will be constantly referred to in future DMCA trials.
Re:Ok, someone fill me in (Score:2, Interesting)
Why should a Russian programmer (working in Russia) know anything about US law? The act was perfectly legal in the place where he did it.
What information are you legally required to provide to a pawnbroker in the state of Colorado? What, exactly, are the elements of the crime of "issuing a bad check" under the Uniform Commercial Code? What is the age of consent in the Phillipines? What is the penalty for speeding 25kph over a posted limit on a public street in Buenos Aires, Argentina?
After all, ignorance of the law is not a reason.
Re:so now... (Score:2, Interesting)
Giving you a warning usually means they used the probable cause of one minor offense (speeding) to excercise thier arrest powers (detain and verify ID) to look for a bigger crime (warrant for murder, trading MP3s, cracking encryption, you know, capital crimes.)
What it really means in this case is that the prosecuting attorney AND the Grand Jury both decided there was probably cause, but the verdict didn't agree. The legal term for the defendant's situation at that point is "Shit Out Of Luck".
Re:Huge legal win? I think not. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not a tort issue (Score:2, Interesting)
Even after an accusation turns out to be false some people have trouble coming to grips with that and continue to believe the original accusation. There was a similar case where even after the girl admitted she made the story up people continued to spit on the man in public.
Re:That doesn't make sense...? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ok, someone fill me in (Score:2, Interesting)
Juries decide issues of fact. Judges rule on issues of law. Legal precedent is all about issues of law, not fact.
What *does* happen, however, is if prosecutors see juries unwilling to convict, they may be reluctant to waste their time with cases they feel they won't win.
interesting statement from the judge (Score:3, Interesting)
This quote is taken from the article linked to by the author of the thread. It is from the Judge in the case and refers to an instruction the jury was given regarding conviction. Does this statement seem like it would set precedent for things like maybe...p2p networks? If you apply this statement to napster or kazaa, all of a sudden things seem to change, don't they...
Re:Huge legal win? I think not. (Score:4, Interesting)
I am certain that glasses of champagne are being raised all over the US by manufacturers of DVD and CD-recorders, portable media devices such as IPod and Rio, personal computers, digital video recorders such as Tivo, and any other device that "might" be used to violate someone's copyright. The cartels' position that any slight chance of copyright violation makes these devices criminal under the DMCA has been used to strongarm these companies into accepting intrusive, restrictive DRM schemes that will be highly unpopular with their own customers. Although the tech companies (rightly) suspected that this was only the first step in the cartels' campaign to make the internet and other digital tools so unpalatable for consumers that they would gladly return to the forcefed industry gruel, they had to step to the RIAA/Disney beat or risk a high profile, expensive DMCA trial. Now that the threat of DMCA prosecution for products with an intended legal use has been greatly lessened (if not removed) by the judge's decision, these companies may feel they can shrug off the pressure from the cartels and give their customers the freedom and flexibility they want.
Re:so now... (Score:3, Interesting)
Slander/libel are civil torts, not criminal ones. Winning such a suit would therefore not "get her convicted of a felony." At best it would result in an award for damages being granted to the guidance counselor.
Furthermore I'm fairly sure others claiming that all he has to do is prevail in a lawsuit to be set for life are way off the mark. Chances are good that the girl's parents aren't loaded, so it isn't likely that he'll get much more than a six figure settlement, and even that is probably pushing it.
Despite what others are arguing, the true problem in this instance lies with the media, rather than the judicial system. This guy's problem is that he was unfairly tried and found guilty in the court of public opinion, and that is nothing that legal reform would prevent.
While the parents' willingness to litigate is obviously a factor, the media's eagerness to jump on exciting, scandalous news is a bigger part of the problem. They are quite good about tarring potential offenders with the broadest brush they can find, and considerably less ready to come forward and loudly retract and apologize.
But the media only provides content; it is the consumers of such content that are truly to blame for these unfortunate excesses. It is everyone with a small enough mind and mean enough heart that they would judge this man and condemn him, armed only with two minutes' worth of information on the matter.
Re:so now... (Score:2, Interesting)
This Was Not a Good Test Case (Score:3, Interesting)
I never understood why anyone thought that this was a good test case for challeging the constitutionality of the DMCA. With Elmsoft being a Russian company, it wasn't entirely clear that the law would even apply to them. Plus, they could reasonably claim that they did not know about the law.
A good legal test case would be one where the defendent was a US citizen living in the United States, who knowingly violated the DMCA by reverse engineering, with no other factors to distract the judge/jury/lawyers/etc. Then it would be a clean challenge, and more likely to be eventually heard by the Supreme Court.
Re:Fair use restored, dancing in the streets repor (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, like playing them?! Bare in mind that the objective of CSS on DVDs is to prevent use of a player that hasn't paid the cartel's fee; copying a DVD neither needs nor in practice uses DeCSS, it uses bit-for-bit copying machines and programs.
Just like region encoding, CSS was developed for the price-fixing activities of the MPAA cartel, not for fighting piracy, against which is of no value whatsoever.
TWW
Re:A disaster (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:so now... (Score:2, Interesting)
Currently these people want to appeal the appeal, but can't afford to. http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s748537.htm http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s748537.htm
Arghhhhhhhh! (Score:3, Interesting)
What did have to do with the DMCA were defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds of unconstitutionality, due process, and the first amendment before trial. Elcomsoft lost; I don't believe they appealed. That ended the issue for the purposes of this trial. Next trial, same deal.
This is very very bad news for the DMCA for practical reasons. The big test case prosecution failed. The gov't will not be eager to bring the next, and its negotiating leverage is undermined. Elcomsoft looked like a pretty easy conviction, so unless they fix the law they're not going to try the more difficult ones, a waste of time and money. I'm assuming the jury here was not totally aberrant; it sounds like they did not nullify and were more or less reasonable. However, it is dangerous to rely on press accounts.
Many more laws have been struck down for political reasons than constitutional.