Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Elcomsoft Case Proceeds; U.S. Claims Jurisdiction 252

Posted by michael from the beautiful-day-for-a-walk-outside dept.
An anonymous reader sent in this Reuters article noting that the Elcomsoft case will go forward. Elcomsoft had asserted that the United States didn't have jurisdiction. This is not really ground-breaking news; Elcomsoft did sell its software to people in the United States and it's not surprising that a U.S. court would claim jurisdiction over this. Elcomsoft is also claiming that enforcement of the DMCA violates the Constitutional right to free speech, and that the part of the DMCA which prohibits distributing devices which circumvent protection measures is so vague that enforcement of it violates the Constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. (See EFF's archive for more.) One or both of these claims may have a greater chance of success than the jurisdiction claim.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Elcomsoft Case Proceeds; U.S. Claims Jurisdiction More

Elcomsoft Case Proceeds; U.S. Claims Jurisdiction

Comments Filter:

  • Pattern emerging... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:34PM (#3278695)
    Just in case you thought Dmitry Skylarov was the only one dealing with this sort of thing... [globeandmail.ca]

    Land of the free my ass.

    • Re:Pattern emerging... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by atrowe ( 209484 )
      America is the land of the free in the sense that one is given the right to speak out against perceived injustice and voice their unpopular opinion in a public forum without danger of repercussions. This is a privilege that quite a few of us take for granted.

      In many countries around the world, you would have been put to death for the anti-government sentiment in your above post.

      • Re:Pattern emerging... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ghjm ( 8918 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @07:11PM (#3280361) Homepage
        Bullshit. There are numerous official repercussions to taking a public anti-government position. You can legally be denied a security clearance. You can legally be detained for questioning. You can legally be denied visas, passports, and (if not a citizen) naturalization or work permits.

        And if you want to talk about being put to death, consider this. According to Amnesty International there are 86 countries whose governments regularly put people to death, and 109 that do not. In these 109 countries you can be said to have the inalienable right to life. As a simple matter of fact, not opinion, on which of these lists is the U.S. registered?

        Yes, the U.S. is a free country. It scores a 1 (the top score) on the Freedom House survey. But so do 28 other nations. 45% of the world's population is free. Freedom is in no way uniquely or even especially an American characteristic.

        -Graham

        • Re:Pattern emerging... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ignavus ( 213578 )
          The US has the size, the geographical isolation, and the natural resources to be very powerful. It is able to defend its freedoms, where many smaller countries (eg Denmark next door to Germany in 1939) could not. It has even (thankfully) aided some of those other countries to recover their freedom, after neighboring bullies opppressed them (see WWI and WWII). It was not unique in assisting the liberation of the world at those times, but its sheer size and economic power made its help very advantageous.

          However, that does not mean that US political culture is the most open and morally and politically free in the world. Nor was it the first country to embrace many of the freedoms it does possess (consider the abolition of slavery and female suffrage - both done elsewhere earlier).
          Nor does it mean that the US has always promoted those freedoms in other countries - it has on a number of occasions promoted tyranny *as a replacement to* democracy - and has happily kept its hemisphere secure at the cost of democracy in other nations.

          Overall, the US's freedom has been a very good thing, but we should not make the mistake of thinking that it is the most free, the source of freedom, or the embodiment of freedom. It is simply the most powerful of the relatively free nations.
  • I really hope sometime I get to see the dmca used by a consumer against the record/movie/big software industry. I'm not sure how it would best be done, but there has to be a way to make them hate it just as much :)

  • An AP article? (Score:3, Informative)

    by realgone ( 147744 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:36PM (#3278713)
    Um... It was posted on CNN.com with a Reuters tagline.

    Well, things could be worse; at least the letters "a" and "p" were in that last sentence...

  • Jurisdiction (Score:2, Funny)

    by Fjandr ( 66656 )
    A US court would claim jurisdiction over someone who at one time had breathed air that might possibly have passed over US soil, so that jurisdiction was asserted is not a surprise.

    • Re:Jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fetta ( 141344 )
      " A US court would claim jurisdiction over someone who at one time had breathed air that might possibly have passed over US soil, so that jurisdiction was asserted is not a surprise."

      Have you ever done business internationally? I have, and it is not at all surprising that a court in any country would claim jurisdiction over commerce in that country. You make this sound like some kind of evil power grab, when in fact it's just a rational way to do things. Somebody has to have jurisdiction. When I do business in China, I have to deal with Chinese law. When I do business in Britain, I have to deal with British law. Even if I never step foot in those countries.

      If you sell something directly to our citizens, you should expect to comply with our laws. If you don't want to accept that, then don't do business with the United States (or any other country that has laws you don't like). The Internet complicates things in some interesting ways by making it easier to conduct international business, but it doesn't eliminate all other rules. If you want to do business with U.S. citizens while violating U.S. law, don't:

      • use U.S. banks
      • own U.S. assets
      • operate from a country with reciprocal treaty obligations with the U.S.
      • travel to the U.S.
      • etc.


      Now, don't get me wrong.

      I believe that holding an individual employee of a foreign company criminally libel for his company's allegedly illegal acts is a bad idea. (legally questionable and sets a bad precedent for the treatment of U.S. business people overseas)

      I hope that the DMCA gets overturned on other grounds. I think it's both bad public policy and bad law.

      But the argument that "because you use the Internet no nation's laws apply" doesn't fly.
  • massmail.ru [massmail.ru] is a Elcomsoft site that sells spam software. Thanks guys!
    • Dolt!

      It doesn't matter what they sell!!! It's the law that's the "bad guy" in this situation.

      Not everyone likes porn. Some of us hate it and believe it should be outlawed for all time. Some of us love it too. But we can't have law that would restrict the rights of a few while at the same time guarantee the same to the rest.

      Law is a dangerous tool and you can't weild it against those you hate or those who are unpopular strictly for that reason. Do that and you make yourself a target of an uncontrollable weapon.

  • Turn About Fair Play (Score:3, Funny)

    by ackthpt ( 218170 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:38PM (#3278731) Homepage Journal
    With the U.S. foisting it's values, culture and, worse, laws on other nations, it's only fair that a company from another country come here and shoot down one of ours (and more power to them!)

  • What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Dimensio ( 311070 ) <darkstar@LISPiglou.com minus language> on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:39PM (#3278735)
    What if, after every challenge and appeal, they are found guilty of violating the DMCA. What if after the judgement all employees bog off back to Russia, including Dimitri. How is the US going to enforce a judgement against them?

    • Re:What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Rinikusu ( 28164 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:48PM (#3278830)
      "Reporting live, from Moscow, we've just gotten word that the attack upon the digital terrorist, Elcomsoft by a US gunship, the AC130, was okay by General Ashcroft to curb digital terrorism. Quoting George W. Bush, he said "We shall have NO tolerence for terrorists, digital or otherwise." Behind me is the smoking crater where Elcomsoft existed only minutes ago.

      We're getting word that the headquarters of 2600 magazine were just raided by US special forces in the search for digital terrorist Emmanuel Goldstein. No word on the status of the mission, but let us impress upon the viewer that these are highly dangerous individuals. Special Forces have been trained to fighter router to router, server by server to destroy the menace that is digital terrorism.

      Back to you, John."

    • Seize any funds in a US bank (I assume this means Visa, Mastercard, AmEx, etc.), seize US property/accounts (their web server). Revoke travel visas for members of company.

      Not a *lot* they can do, but they can certainly fuck thems up for them.

    • The US has a treaties to deal with this sorta thing. Cases like this happen all the time. If a Russian comes to the states and murders somebody, he is tried and convicted in the States. He can, under prisoner transfer treaties, decide that he wants to spend the rest of his sentence in Russia instead of in the U.S. (To be closer to family, or because a Russian prison might be better than a U.S. prison, etc.) Under the terms of these treaties, he is transfered back to Russia and serves the remainder of his time there.

      The U.S. has treaties setup with most of the countries in the world that they have normal diplomatic ties to.

      If somebody does commit a crime in the States and then escapes to their home country, these same treties apply and the home country is abliged to capture and detain the accused.

      After all, it is a two way street. If an American were to go to Russia and commit a crime, the Russians would want that individual to get tried in Russia.

      There is a whole division in the U.S. Department of Justice dedicated to dealing with all these prisoner transfers. They negotiate with the local authorities (like individual states or municipalities) in the States and the authorities in the foreign nations to figure out the terms of the transfer.
      • But what if it's not a crime in one country? I'm assuming that the Russian government could demand custody of a person and then free them if they thought that was the right thing to do.

        Kintanon
      • Except he didn't break any laws while in the States. He wrote the DMCA-illegal code in Russia and Elcomsoft sold it in the US. Why aren't they being tried? Why just one of their employees who is no more or less guilty than any other?

        Here's my question. If he gets convicted and sentenced to prison, you say he can opt to go back to Russia. Assuming that's true, and since what he did is not illegal there, wouldn't it be perfectly legal for them to simply release him the minute he gets back home?

    • It would then fall under international law and be dependant on agreements that the US has with Russia in this case.

      You are correct, however, that if the US has no formal agreements with the "offender's" country it would be hard to enforce.

  • This is not ok... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by carm$y$ ( 532675 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:39PM (#3278736) Homepage
    even though the activity transpired over the Internet the United States still has jurisdiction.

    This is definitely not good news. It means basically that you could even get extradited to be tried in the U.S. if they so request. Not particularly good news for a lot of people starting with Amsterdam's pr0n industry to the Norwegian DECSS guy...

    So it looks like Alan Cox was overreacting: you don't have to avoid going to the States, the'll come after you if they really want. Not funny at all.

    • Re:This is not ok... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jrsp ( 513795 )
      No, it sounds like you shouldn't have servers in the US nor receive funds in the US if you are doing something the US does (or may in the near future) consider illegal. The question of whether or not the actions are illegal or should be illegal is totally separate.

      Fire up your offshore servers, folks. Hmm, maybe I should invest in some of those ventures now?

    • Is this a surprise? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:55PM (#3278903) Homepage
      This isn't a surprise.
      The US will do what they please, it is one of the reasons people get pissed off.

      The journalist (Pearl?) in pakistan, they want to extradite the accused to the US.
      The crime was murder in pakistan, why extradite to the US? Because he was an American?

      US citizens and the US government want everyone to follow US laws and courts. They are using their power and influence to make countries comply (Ukraine).

      Is this really a shock to anyone?

      Although this is somewhat poorly worded it isn't intended as a troll, sorry I'm an engineer not an editor.
      • Don't forget that, at least before Musharraf and possibly afterwards, the Pakistani ISI was quite thoroughly allied with the Taliban; and even now, there are numerous sympathizers. There are sufficient pro-Islamist elements in Pakistan, including people still inside the government, to provide another motive for the US government wanting Pearl.
      • US citizens and the US government want everyone to follow US laws and courts.

        Most real US citizens tend towards not bothering the rest of the planet. Wanting everyone to follow US laws (or even US invented laws which may not even apply in the US) is more at attribute of the US government and some of the larger "corporate citizens".
    • But if you notice, most of the countries from which these so-called criminals come from are not at all happy about what the United States is doing. I suspect if it weren't for the fact that this Canadian man were already in custody here in the United States, Canada would NOT go along with plans for extradition. I think that most of the rest of the world disagrees with us enough that the US couldn't force anybody to extradite without causing worse diplomatic problems than they'd be "solving" by trying the case.
    • Ok, I recommend everyone to read this parent, and the rest of this thread.

      Now go and read the previous Katz article.

      Right, now hands up anyone who doesn't understand why some people around the world do not like or even fear the US?

  • Court testing? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mjh ( 57755 ) <mark@ho[ ]lan.com ['rnc' in gap]> on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:39PM (#3278739) Homepage Journal
    One or both of these claims may have a greater chance of success than the jurisdiction claim.

    We can certainly hope. The claim that the US doesn't have jurisdiction doesn't discuss the constitutionality of the DMCA at all. Whereas the other claims directly challenge the DMCA, and if those claims are upheld set the stage for overturning that stupid law.

  • Cold War Prognosticators (Score:5, Funny)

    by Beautyon ( 214567 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:40PM (#3278740) Homepage
    thirty years ago would never have predicted or even dreamed that a Russian software company would be defending the rights of Americans and going to court in a bid to uphold the American Constitution.

    The 21st century: an upside-down circus!

  • Jurasdiction. Elcomsoft, Yahoo France, etc etc... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RedCard ( 302122 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:44PM (#3278788)

    Jurasdiction has lately been a problem for the courts of the world.

    Elcomsoft: a Russian company that sold product over the internet, and some (ok, most) of it's buyers were in the states.Yahoo France: an American company that peddled its wares to the French people of the world (mostly in France).

    If the US can claim jurasdiction over elcomsoft, does it not follow that france can claim jurasdiction over Yahoo France? And if this is the case, do the American people not forfeit their right to cause an uproar when an American company is subject to non-American rules?

    Food for thought.
    • But the way I understand it Elcomsoft actually had (has?) an office with real employees in Chicago. So the US is within its right to claim jurisdiction in the case.

      In the case of Yahoo France, The server that serves up Yahoo France is still in the US and thus France does not have jurisdiction.

      • The server that serves up Yahoo France is still in the US

        I did a traceroute to yahoo.fr and I'm pretty certain there's a trans-Atlantic hop in there. The trace crosses into ebone.net, which is physically based in Europe.

        I think the simplest way to solve this whole thing would be for France to snatch the first Yahoo! employee to come along and demand consistency from the US government. If Dmitri isn't released, then France's 'hostage' goes to trial for selling Nazi paraphernalia. It'd be certain to get attention.

    • I thought France already successfully did this, and prevented Yahoo from Nazi item auctions?

  • legal question (Score:2, Interesting)

    by dan501 ( 223225 )
    I'd like elcomsoft to win and the dmca to be smitten as much as the next guy, but...

    On what grounds does elcomsoft qualify for consitutional rights? I mean, it's not a US citizen or a US corporation.

    Now, I guess it's weird to think about trying a foreign entity under US laws in the first place. And even weirder to try someone under US laws without US contitutional rights applying, but I thought the constitutional rights that are granted are granted to US citizens (and now corporations), not to the world at large.

    • Re:legal question (Score:4, Insightful)

      by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @04:00PM (#3278934) Homepage
      You can't have it both ways at once, and I think that's the defense plan.

      If jurisdiction in this case is denied, then the case is won. If jurisdiction is allowed, then they have the right to claim constitutional rights in the U.S. since the courts operate under constitutional law.
    • IANAL, but only that part of the business that was actually in the US or conducted in the US should be liable under US law. The sales that occur outside the US would be liable under those jurisdictions (ie., completely legal in Russia).

    • This whole freaking argument has has me really really pissy! (Sorry, I don't mean to dog you, you're just in the wrong place at the right time...)

      Why the hell shouldn't we treat non US citizens and companies the same as US citizens and companies.

      Herr Ashcroft and all the other Bush Stooge Appointees TM seem to think that since you're not a US citizen, and you're evil, that we should give you different terms that everyone else. Oh, you're not a US citizen, oh, then you don't need dur process...or the right to face your accusers, or the right to a trial by jury, or a innocent unless proven to beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

      This whole mindset is bloody scary. We hold up our justice system, and loudly proclaim that it's the best in the world. That it's really fair, and has the best balance of fairness and justice. Then, when it pleases us, we claim that those who aren't citizens deserve a less (much less IMHO) perfect system. SHEESH!

      I'll only say this once. If we have the perfect system, and want others to follow our lead, we have no business using some "less perfect" system to adjudcate legal cases here in the US. US citizen/company or not, I'm perfectly happy to follow the SAME rules for all. If we can't do this, perhaps we should just create special rules for all those classes of people out there.

      One for EVIL TERRORISTS.
      Another for EVIL RELIGEONS (Like Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Budhists, Jews, LDS, JW
      How about one for Poor Deadbeat Black and Colored Men/Women/Children - upscale ones are better - and all whites are OK right?
      Now, we need another standard for those deviants Gays and Lesbians, surely you don't expect us to protect them the same as our White, Straight, Rich, Male, Protestants do you?!

      This whole thing of one standard for some, and a different standard for others is the most scary slippery slope I've ever seen.

      Herr Ashcroft and the Bush Stoogies, along with George "Rolling-Blackout" Herbert Walker Bush have set the stage for a colossal shift in the rights of Americans. We've already taken the step of classifying some as different, and then dramatically taking away their rights. Now, all that remains, is for you or me to be suddenly moved to a "different" class. Today it's citizens vs. non, but tomorrow, who knows.

      Cheers!
      • Well, slashdot wiped out my pseudo html tags.

        This whole block...
        One for EVIL TERRORISTS.
        Another for EVIL RELIGEONS (Like Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, Budhists, Jews, LDS, JW
        How about one for Poor Deadbeat Black and Colored Men/Women/Children - upscale ones are better - and all whites are OK right?
        Now, we need another standard for those deviants Gays and Lesbians, surely you don't expect us to protect them the same as our White, Straight, Rich, Male, Protestants do you?!

        ...was supposed to have a [HeavySarcasm] [/HeavySarcasm] tagset around it. Since I didn't preview, oh well.

        Just let it be clear, that I am being as sarcastic as I possibly could be!
      • You do realize, don't you, that once you resort to ad hominem attacks, you've lost the argument?
        • I don't think I attacked anyone except the Bush Admin. I don't think any comparisons are out of line. Perhaps you disagree, but I see the betrayal of our trust in them, for power and politcal longevity, are quite evil in themselves.

          Herr Ashcroft, is the item I assume you refer to. I really don't think that we're headed down a road that much different than the Nazis. Sure, it doesn't look too bad now, but wait a while. Unless there is some serious turns away from the positions we've set in the last 12 months, we're headed for some very rough times ahead.

          So, no, I don't view my attacks as "ad hominem". In fact, they don't fit the "ad hominem" model. I'm attacking the loss of the very rights that "Herr" envisions or invokes. So, calling Ashcroft "Herr" isn't ad hominem at all. If I said he was an "Ugly Wife Beater" (which doesn't have any bearing on the argument) than that would be an ad hominem attack.

          The fact that I view the administrations actions as Nazi'ish is key to the core of the argument. Same goes for Stooge.

          Cheers!
          • What, like the confiscation of firearms so that people can't defend themselves against tyranny? Oh, wait -- wrong party. Or supporting racially-focused policies awarding extra privileges to some versus others? Oh, wait -- wrong party. Or, the attitude that one should always look to the State as the provider? Oh wait...
            • Note, that I don't particularly care for the Dems any more...

              BUT at least, they only screwed you subtley. Sure, Ashcroft thinks you should be able to have any firearm you want, but, well, tap and traces should be authorized by the district attorney? SHEESH!

              One more point...thne tyranny of this age is monetary, not force. Actually it does come down to force, but the iron fist behind force is that of financial power. Neither the dems or the reps want you (ave joe) to have lots of power. They want to concentrate it in few hands, so they can stroke and control that power base. Having to satisfy lots of "common" folk isn't too easy, and makes the control of power lots harder.

              It you believe that either of the parties is concerned about you, you're either filthy rich, or deluded.

              Cheers!
      • Herr Ashcroft and the Bush Stoogies, along with George "Rolling-Blackout" Herbert Walker Bush have set the stage for a colossal shift in the rights of Americans. We've already taken the step of classifying some as different, and then dramatically taking away their rights.

        There is an irony that Bush was declared the winner using an interpretation of the 14th ammendment. The piece of the US constitution most under attack here.
    • On what grounds does elcomsoft qualify for constitutional rights?
      They don't have to. Constitutional rights are not granted to citizens by the government - the Bill of Rights is an explicit denial of the power of Congress to take away those rights. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech"

    • Re:legal question (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Sir Tristam ( 139543 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @05:44PM (#3279707)
      ...the constitutional rights that are granted are granted to US citizens...
      All right, TIME OUT! It makes me want to scream every time I hear somebody talk about their rights that are granted by the Constitution (or Bill of Rights). This is a very important point when talking about your rights: No rights are granted to US citizens by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Zero. Zip. Not a one. Nada.

      If you haul out a copy of the Bill of Rights (or search on Google if you don't have a paper copy handy), read them very carefully. Look a the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Does it say, "the people shall have the right to peaceably assemble"? No, it says that Congress can't make a law abridging that right, implicitly assuming that the people have that right. Or the rights catch-all amendment, the Ninth: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      The framers of the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence believed that rights were granted by a higher power than man or government, and as such could never be granted or taken away by man or government. The Bill of Rights was written, not to grant rights to citizens, but to put boundaries on the powers the government would try to excercise. When you talk about "rights granted by the Constitution", you are actually belittling your rights, as you are saying that they were granted to you by man and thus could be taken from you by man. They can't be; they can only be given away, but that's the road you're starting down when you don't properly recoginze the origin of your rights.

      So, properly recognizing the source of rights as above man or government, is it particually surprising that a foreign entity could offer a First and Fifth Amendment argument in a case? It's not to me. I would view a refusal to allow such an argument as a major threat to the rights of all US citizens, as it would be an implicit assertion that the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are granted (and thus can be taken away) at the US government level.

      We now return you to your normal, light, funny Slashdot, already in progress. Time in.

      Chris Beckenbach

    • On what grounds does elcomsoft qualify for consitutional rights? I mean, it's not a US citizen or a US corporation.

      Because the US constitution dosn't grant rights. It restrains the US government from stomping on people's rights. Unless it explicatally states that something only applies to US citizens then it applies to anyone in US territory. (There is ample case law that this includes even illegal aliens and people illegally detained by the US.)

  • Don't forget Adobe... (Score:3, Informative)

    by carm$y$ ( 532675 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:50PM (#3278849) Homepage
    He was arrested in July after presenting his program at the DefCon hacker conference in Las Vegas [...]

    This is not (necessarily :) a flame, but don't forget that all of this was started by Adobe. They stepped out quietly and were quickly forgotten -- way too quickly if you ask me.

    I'm not saying "boycott Adobe", I'm saying "vote with your wallet", and if your job/position is appropriate, vote with the company's wallet also.
    • "vote with your wallet" is useless in scenarios where the 20% of the 'heavy user' consumer base for a product (usually about 80% of the profits any company makes) are not 'voting with their wallets'. And for them to vote, they have to care.

      What do you think the chances are of the average professional (ie, paid customer) Photoshop graphic monkey caring about Elcomm's case?

      Sure, I agree, stop supporting them if you are personally offended by their involvement with this case, but that'll do nothing more than help you sleep at night. Adobe will keep on chuggin' without your $$'s.

      Plus, in my experience, when 'wallet voting' hits a company's bottom line, they tend to assume it's due to shortcomings in the product or in the marketing of the product, not in their ethics.

      • Plus, in my experience, when 'wallet voting' hits a company's bottom line, they tend to assume it's due to shortcomings in the product or in the marketing of the product, not in their ethics.

        Unless of course it's a record company (*), in which case they characterize the "wallet voting" as theft of the product, which is, ironically enough, the very "shortcoming in their ethics" that we were "voting" against in the first place.

        (*) or, to keep on-topic, any "content industry" company with similar atitudes, probably including the publishers for whom the e-book "security" was originally designed.
      • I'm too dependent on Adobe to 'vote with my wallet'. I'm an avid Photoshop and After Effects user, and they're all paid for. At this point, I could pay a low price to upgrade to a newer version of the Adobe version of a product, or I can shell out quite a bit more and hop to a new platform that may or may not do what I need it to.

        The worst part is, Adobe has my money, so if I don't buy their next product all they'll think is "the upgrade isn't enticing enough."

        I have the same issue with Blizzard. I don't like what they did with BnetD, but not buying Warcraft 3 (assuming it's really good) hurts the game industry. The only way the game industry can survive is if lots of AAA titles are produced. That, to me, outweighs abuse of the DMCA.

        The best thing the Slashdot community can do is bombard them with complaints. It would cost Adobe or Blizzard or whoever else you hate a lot more to police their emails than it would to lose a few $$$ to people who didn't buy the products.

        The sheer number of people on Slashdot emailing their complaints could totally disrupt any of these companies and MAKE them pay attention. That's definitely a more direct approach than not buying a product you may or may not buy either way. Plus, those of us who have already bought the products we need get our voices heard too.

        Slashdot should set up a section dedicated to presenting cases like Blizzard Vs. BnetD with email addresses to both sides of the conflict. Let the users decide who they believe is in the wrong and let them voice it directly to them.

  • Software is still available (Score:5, Informative)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:50PM (#3278852)
    The eBook software is still available [cmu.edu]. Obviously you shouldn't click on the links or you might accidentally download it.

  • In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jhines0042 ( 184217 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @03:58PM (#3278922) Journal
    Movie studios and record labels argue that the law is necessary to keep people from indiscriminate and unauthorized copying of films and music over the Internet, where digital material is so easily digested and transferred.

    ... Congress passes the new Super Special Saftey Congestion Act that would make it illegal to own, operate, or traffic in any vehicle which did not contain government approved GPS tracking systems. Representatives of the lawmakers stated that any car can be used as a getaway vehicle from a bank robbery or as a lethal weapon in a hit-and-run situation and that this law is necessary to keep people from indiscriminate and unauthorized driving of cars on the road.

    • This is closer to reality than you think. It started with the radar guns and cameras at stoplights in Arizona. In the not too distant future, it will be illegal to drive a car without a functional GPS installed, and the Feds will be able to track your driving habits without a warrant, and or sell them to mass marketers...

  • No big surprise or disappointment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mikethegeek ( 257172 ) <blair@@@NOwcmifm...comSPAM> on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @04:10PM (#3279012) Homepage
    When did you EVER hear of a US federal judge ever ruling that he didn't have jurisdiction?

    Rarely (if ever) happens. I do think the Constitutionality question is their best defense. "Fair use" is derived from the Constitution's own copyright provisions.

    Also, the main intended use of Elcomsoft's product (access to e-books for the disabled) would seem to fall under the DMCA's own interoperability clause. Not to mention, the lack of such features may make E-books illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act (but I'm unsure of this)

    However, the "interoperability" provision of the DMCA was TOTALLY blown off by his Imperial Highness, "judge" Kaplan in the DeCSS case, when such a clause would seem to make it legal to circumvent CSS for the purpose of making a Linux DVD player (which is why DeCSS was written).

    One of the worst problems with the DMCA and the DeCSS case is not just that it's a bad law (it's worse), but that the courts have let the IP cartels pick and cboose WHAT parts to enforce and what parts to ignore. They are getting the most favorable interpretation of the DMCA possible, while ignoring the parts that temper this and make at least a token attempt at "fair use".

    IMO, this may eventually make it easier to strike the whole thing down. The more extreme and umprecedented the DMCA is interpreted, the more likely it is to be an obvious clash with the Constitution.
    • To clarify one point in my post above... "judge" Kaplan not only failed to apply the required Constitutionality test to the DMCA (which his oath of office requires), but he allowed the MPAA to rewrite it in his court to little resemble even what was passed by Congress.
    • When did you EVER hear of a US federal judge ever ruling that he didn't have jurisdiction?

      Last month? A US Federal judge ruled he had no jurisdiction over the Taliban and Al Queda prisoners held at the US Naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba.

      That said, it is prudent for a defendant to raise every conceivable objection prior to trial. This is common and they are usually dismissed, but they do provide opportunities for appeal. Courts of Appeal (and even the Supreme Court) are more likely to listen to these arguments than a DIstrict Court.
    • HAHAHAHA...

      but that the courts have let the IP cartels pick and cboose WHAT parts to enforce and what parts to ignore.

      I know this is unrelated, but that has been my argument against Christianity all my life!! They routinely select parts of their Bible to ignore. Gay churches? Christians who eat bacon on their cheeseburgers? Hahaha... ignoring the stuff we don't like is a habit of U.S. Americans. Hey, I was born here... I see it every day.

      By the way, I hate brussel sprouts, so if they are on my plate, I'll ignore them... too bad my mother's law superceded the U.S. federal courts... *sigh*
      • but that the courts have let the IP cartels pick and cboose WHAT parts to enforce and what parts to ignore.

        I know this is unrelated, but that has been my argument against Christianity all my life!! They routinely select parts of their Bible to ignore. Gay churches? Christians who eat bacon on their cheeseburgers? Hahaha... ignoring the stuff we don't like is a habit of U.S. Americans. Hey, I was born here... I see it every day.

        You know, oddly enough, I can rebut and stay on-topic...

        Dealing with the bible--it's a history book that contains the rules, not a rulebook. It's logically impossible to follow every command given therein. But, if you really want to know why Christians don't follow the Kosher laws, look at the Book of Acts.

        (St. Peter was shown a vision of non-kosher food animals and told to eat. He didn't want to, but God essentially said "it's all right, do it.". Hence, Gentiles and Bacon Cheeseburgers became part of the religion.)

        Getting back to the law. There are always parts that are enforced and parts that aren't. It's part of the balance between the right of the government to enforce the law, and the right of the individual to privacy / political speech / etc. Just like Blue Laws (laws proscribing "good" sex and prohibiting other kinds) are very rarey used, and just like speeding tickets and Conspiracy charges aren't enforced every time that the stated crime happens.

        The fact that the RIAA prompted parts of the DMCA to be enforced and others overlooked says more about the rather split voice against them rather than any sinister ability of them. Were the positions reversed, the FSS would be leaning on the courts to ignore EULAs...

  • ...in other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @04:19PM (#3279072) Homepage
    All the drivers in the U.K. are to be cited for reckless driving for not adhering to U.S. traffic standards. It has been reported that operators of motor vehicles in the U.K. have been defying U.S. law which states that traffic is to keep to the right side of the road.

    One U.S. official said under condition of anonymity, "...those bastards have no respect for the law! Defiantly driving on the wrong side of the road like that! You'd think they owned their own country or something! They're Revolutionary Rebelious Terrorist!!"

    Clearly since U.S. law states that all drive on the right side of the road, all the rest of the world should comply with our safety standards -- after all, it is for their own good. We have roads and they have roads. They are connected by sea-lanes and air traffic. There is enough of a connection between our countries that our law should apply to them.
  • This should be an interesting case that, hopefully, gets the law off the books due to being unconstitutional.

    I don't really understand how the DMCA can apply here. Adobe's PDF files are in no way protected from copying by their "protection." You can easily copy the entire file just as you would copy any other file. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that it only prevents you from printing the file. So, does AEBPR circumvent copy protection or just re-enable needed functionality?

    • I don't really understand how the DMCA can apply here. Adobe's PDF files are in no way protected from copying by their "protection."

      When people talk about DMCA outlawing "copy protection", they are translating the legalese into layman's terms. What DMCA actually outlaws is "circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access". And then it also outlaws trafficking in things that "primarily designed" to do that.

      That covers more than just copy protection. You can "circumvent access" in ways other than cracking copy protection.

      Some other items of interest: DMCA then goes on to define some of the terms:

      to ''circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure'' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure
      and
      a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.

      This has basically been interpreted as meaning that if you make a tool that lets the user do anything that they otherwise weren't able to conveniently do, and this in some way involves a copyrighted work, then you're in trouble.

  • "The conduct which underlies the indictment includes ElcomSoft's offering its AEBPR program for sale over the Internet, from a computer server physically located in the United States," the judge wrote. "Purchasers obtained copies of the program in the United States ... Payments were directed to, and received by, an entity in the United States."

    Seems that the jurisdiction argument is pretty weak. Just a smokescreen?

    Elcomsoft is also claiming that enforcement of the DMCA violates the Constitutional right to free speech, and that the part of the DMCA which prohibits distributing devices which circumvent protection measures is so vague that enforcement of it violates the Constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment.

    Amen and hallelujah! There's a big difference between the manufacturer of a tool that can be used to break into cars and the person who uses that tool.

    Die, DMCA! Die! Die!

  • Elcomsoft did sell its software to people in the United States and it's not surprising that a U.S. court would claim jurisdiction over this.


    surprising? no. Correct? Well, what about Yahoo! vs. France? And does that mean that next time I buy something at Amazon, I can sue them in a german court according to german consumer protection laws if I feel like it? I bet Jeff Bozos will not like that news.

    of course, americans being what they are (single-languaged, specifically) they don't understand what "quid pro quo" means and are perfectly happy to apply the argument only single-sided. (i.e. US jurisdiction everywhere, but not vice versa)

    • Re:jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Planesdragon ( 210349 )
      surprising? no. Correct? Well, what about Yahoo! vs. France? And does that mean that next time I buy something at Amazon, I can sue them in a german court according to german consumer protection laws if I feel like it?

      Only if you're a German Conusmer. If you live in Germany / German lands (like an embassy) or if Amazon ships to you from Germany (or ships to you in germany), then the laws might apply.

      of course, americans being what they are (single-languaged, specifically) they don't understand what "quid pro quo" means and are perfectly happy to apply the argument only single-sided. (i.e. US jurisdiction everywhere, but not vice versa)

      You're horribly misinformed. The basic principle of international jurisdiction is affect--Elcomsoft did something that affects America in a clear and direct fashion (selling us stuff.) We can bring them to trial for it.

      If they don't like it, they can just stay away from the US, completely. I think there's a little island somewhere that would also like to stay completely away from the US.

      And for the record--yes, the US gives quid pro quo to other nations. Remember the kid who got canned? The US military person who's in a Jappanese jail for rape? There are bunches and bunches of exchanges--both ways--that happen every day. We just don't hear about it because they're so boring.
    • of course, americans being what they are (single-languaged, specifically) they don't understand what "quid pro quo" means and are perfectly happy to apply the argument only single-sided. (i.e. US jurisdiction everywhere, but not vice versa)

      Which is a big part of the reason the US isn't too popular in many parts of the world right now.
      Though it's not so much "Americans" as the US government and large US corporations. The vast bulk of the US population are more isolationist than imperialist and tend to assume that the US government is too...
  • So The french gov can't take yahoo to respect Anti racism local law. But DMCA has to be respected by outside company on a pure US law. Since the US law has precedent and can judge crime done on Internet in its own country, then I do not see why (beside applicability) french law can't apply for a crime done in France. Beware Yahoo.com, and other company, the US govt may just have set a nice precedent for tons of lawsuit.

  • An Immodest Proposal... (Score:5, Funny)

    by RalphTWaP ( 447267 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @04:55PM (#3279354)

    *grinning*

    Imagine for a moment that this isn't /.

    Well, damn, to start, I guess that you'd say this particular modest proposal comes on the heels of a thrilling class for a new TPS report system [tpssoftware.com]. Somewhere between that, and reading more, new, and improved evidence of my country's collective insanity, I think it might just be time to propose something.

    Now, don't get me wrong, I don't really think that the proposal included herein could ever be adopted, in fact, I think that among other things, it would guarantee that the U.S. government become even more ineffectual.

    Of course, I'm not sure there's anything much wrong with that.

    With much more adieu [mountaindew.com]:

    A Modest Proposal; Congress's own Sandbox

    Whereas the Congress of the United States in recent years has at times errantly passed bills (which, were of course enacted into law by the largely disinterested executive branch) which patently subvert, abuse, and remove Constitutionally granted rights; and whereas the enforcement of those selfsame laws does embarass and continually deflate the image of America itself in the global arena, I find it necessary to propose that the Judicial branch of the United States government be empowered (in a proper use of the verb "to empower" I mean, both given the responsibility for, and the authority to....) to create for Congress a special organization with the intended purpose and justification as outlined below.

    1. To act as a "legal sandbox" for bills submitted.

    Much akin to my beloved bounds-checker Purify ( *snickers are heard off text* . . . *a quote plays* "What do you fu^H^H !@#$!@%^*(& mean there's a memory leak . . . . Oh, it's in a Win9X system DLL? . . . . um, sure, why not"), the purpose of this "legal sandbox" would be to allow Congresscritters [caloccia.net] to "test" the legalese (and even the content) of the bill against the Constitution.

    Unfortunately, of course, the much shortened interface "const bool isConstitutional(struct Bill* pb);" didnt make it into the interface of the latest MS grammar checker. This implies that real, breathing, perhaps even thinking people (or at least hypertrophied Perl scripts) will have to comb through the bills submitted and actually (wait for it)

    Think.

    I know this is a terrible price to pay, but the US Supreme court seems like it might (at times) be up to the task, or at least up to picking the right scripts (a little Perl, a little Sed, mix, stir with PHP and bam, "Court-In-A-Box").

    2. To act as a source of informed Amicus Curare *smirks* information to all parties in future action

    Hardly a difficult sort of solution (albeit somewhat final), the information gleaned from close legal study of the bills submitted would be made available to all, and directed to courts considering cases under the bills in question.

    Presumably, of course, these two chartering planks would be sufficient statement of course; however, I am sure that providing a summary of the probable constitutionality and research into the related issues to the Judicial Branch would be required. In addition, I suspect that a large number of concerned citizens would request access to this information.

    Of course . . . now we just have to figure out how to raise an exception in Congress, perhaps something like "std::assert(!congresscritter_instance.isCorporate Stooge());" would do the trick, though I'm pretty sure the results would be largely similar to "std::assert(false);", so, if I were scratching in some dirty test code for the "Universe 1.1a" revision, I'd pro'lly just write the second, afterall, it saves an invocation.

    • Re:An Immodest Proposal... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Scooby Snacks ( 516469 ) on Thursday April 04, 2002 @06:01AM (#3283169)
      ...remove Constitutionally granted rights...
      Just a note. It's a subtle distinction, but a very important one.

      Rights are not granted by the Constitution; they are enumerated by it.

      Think about it for a moment. The Founding Fathers went into it with the attitude that [people] are granted certain inalienable rights by their Creator . This means that there are certain rights which are never to be infringed upon by governments, and that all people have these rights merely by drawing breath. This presumption is embodied in the 9th amendment.

      Just felt like I needed to say that.

      • This means that there are certain rights which are never to be infringed upon by governments, and that all people have these rights merely by drawing breath.

        Ahh - this we can deal with.
  • The rejected jurisdiction argument [eff.org] makes for, ahem, interesting reading:
    The Internet belongs to no country alone, but to all countries collectively. It is in a jurisdictional sense like the oceans or the air and space. Because it is an omnipresent shared resource, it is, and must be, by nature extraterritorrial. While transactions occurring solely on the Internet may have an impact on nations and/or their citizens, this fact does not and should not automatically imbue the effected country with jurisdiction over the actions of persons transacting on the Internet. Whether jurisdiction over the actions of persons operating exclusively on the Internet can be asserted is, like all questions regarding the application of extraterritorial jurisdiction, a matter of law and policy.
    No comment.

    Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]

  • The case itself is BS, but jurisdiction... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tuxlove ( 316502 ) on Wednesday April 03, 2002 @05:22PM (#3279528)
    I believe the US courts have the right to hear the case, based on the amount and nature of the US activity of Elcomsoft. That's pretty clear and straightforward. I also believe that Russia and perhaps other countries would also have the right to take legal action as well, if any of their laws were broken.

    It's pretty simple. Elcomsoft's e-commerce was taking place in the US, using US servers and US companies to do the transactions. Should the US not have jurisdiction over operations taking place in the US just because the company in question is headquartered in another country? What if Enron or the like moved their headquarters to Bermuda - should they then not be liable in the US for ripping off people in their US operations? There are countless cases where foreign companies with operations in the US have been taken to court in the US, so this is nothing new. Who would want it any other way, aside from those who would benefit from skirting the US legal system?

    This is all aside from the legitimacy of the case itself. I think the DMCA is a steaming pile of bits and needs to be obliterated, and that the case against Elcomsoft is garbage. To determine the truth of that belief, the case has to be heard in the first place. And it needs to be heard in the country where the alleged lawbreaking actually transpired.

  • No due process, no need for judges. Self preservation will kick in. What judge would take away his/her own power like that. What got 30 states attention in the MSFT monoply case? Setting a precident taking away their right to proceed over interstate commerce.

    The DMCA is really is a big fat due process violation, a play for the courts power if you will. If you want to shut down a website you should have to visit a judge, get a warrant, and have the cops serve it. Just like homicide investigations have to do for every mass-murderer.

    But of course ebooks anywhere anytime are worse than mass-murder.... and the constituion is dated and unshiny... so they might have a case...

  • A nice article in Observer "Limit copying and we may end up copying the USSR":
    http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,67 2840,00.html [observer.co.uk]
  • Please, this is bull-fucking-shit.

    The company is based in Russia. The US has no jurisdiction over an entity in Russia, and trying to claim so is violating the sovereignty of the Russian people.

    Trying to "fine" this Russia-based company is absolutely outside of US jurisdiction. Presumably, their funds are in Russia. That being so, the US cannot fine them. A US judge could not enforce a fine against a Russia-based company, because no US entity has any jurisdiction in Russia.

    Now, if the court wants to require that Elcomsoft close down their US servers, or perhaps take actions specifically against parts of Elcomsoft within the US, that, they have jurisdiction to do. For example, they'd have jurisdiction to shut down Elcomsoft branches in the US, to shut down Elcomsoft servers in the US, etc.

    Whether or not such is constitutional, is another question alltogether.

    Preventing them from distributing that software IS a violation of THEIR free speech rights; not to mention a violation of consumer's rights to fair use. I feel strongly that eventually the DMCA will be ruled unconstitutional, if not by this judge, then down the line by the Supreme Court. The DMCA is destined to fall before the Supreme Court. When it does, if the USSC has any worth and deserves any respect at all, the DMCA will be declared unconstitutional.

    But constitutional issues aside, the current issue is a very troubling issue of sovereignty. What I fear is that this fuckwit of a judge is going to try to fine the company in Russia, which is beyond any US court's jurisdiction (because the company's funds/money are in Russia, no US court has the jurisdiction to demand anything be done with those funds).

    If the ruling this fuck of a judge made is left untouched, it creates huge problems for us. It would, in effect, mean that if I made a website criticizing the Chinese government, China could bring charges against ME -- a US Citizen -- for violating China's laws. That's what this is really about. The US is trying to enforce ITS laws on foreign entities/citizens.

    What fucking bullshit.
  • His company sold a product that broke e-books encryption, his defense site says.

    His program was used to help blind people read

    Bullshit, the blind have so many alternatives to e-books it's silly to claim that.

    Ever hear of the Americans with disabilities act? If a blind person couldn't read a book because it was ONLY published in e-book format, they could have sued the publisher for not giving them fair access.

    The greatest books in the world are available in pure ASCII text format. You don't need an e-book for them, just a simple text reader like "more" or cat *.txt | more. It's absurd for his defense to even try and take the bleeding heart approach to this case.

    I think Sklyarov did something bad, I'm sorry if people disagree with me. It wasn't up to him to mess with adobe's IP. If e-books were really that bad then the marketplace would have decided to NOT BUY THEM. Thus e-books would have become yet another page in the book of really shitty idea's by really stupid marketing people.

    On the publisher side of the coin, it was a bad decision to publish their books in a format that could not cater to all potential customers.

    Let me ask slashdotters this question, have you ever in you job been asked to do something you felt was morally wrong, or on the
    gray side of the law? Did you do it? Once I was asked by a CEO to scan his concubines e-mail to see if she was dating some other exec at the company. Did I do it? No because I felt that was wrong, had nothing to do with the work I did.

    Citing another example, a few months back I was asked by a friends father to help him streamline his spamming operations. Did I do it for the money like a good little whore? No because I knew my actions would have further reaching
    implications than the money would have ever lasted.

    So fuck you and your sissybaby case Sklyarov. Before you sat down and did anything, you should have asked yourself "Is helping people pirate copyrighted
    material right?" You shit your own nest, now sleep in it motherfucker! Maybe you'll think next time instead of blindly whoring yourself out for your boss.
  • so what we need is a couple of good test cases, right? Presumably someone at EFF can make a list of a couple of key props that are currently holding up the DMCA and Hollings' new bill (whatever it's called this week) and then we can systematically kick them out so the whole table collapses.

    I volunteer to do some kicking. I'm tired of waiting for an elected representative to represent me. I'm willing to go to jail over a principle.

    come on, who wants to be a martyr?

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close