Elcomsoft Case Proceeds; U.S. Claims Jurisdiction 252
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.
Pattern emerging... (Score:4, Informative)
Land of the free my ass.
Re:Pattern emerging... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re:Pattern emerging... (Score:2)
Let me guess: You're wearing a hat made out of tinfoil right now, aren't you?
I'm waiting to see the DMCA used for the consumer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm waiting to see the DMCA used for the_consum (Score:2)
No, but your hand does. =)
An AP article? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, things could be worse; at least the letters "a" and "p" were in that last sentence...
Jurisdiction (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)
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:
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.
But will they still sell us spamware? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But will they still sell us spamware? (Score:2)
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.
Re:But will they still sell us spamware? (Score:2)
First of all, it's somewhat ironic that Russians are sorta defending our constitutional rights on this matter. Second, some people have very strong feelings about the use of P2P software, DeCSS and a number of other popular things. So your very position, when applied to a diffent party, endangers your internet freedoms.
I don't care about internet mining software. I care about the scum who uses it. I'm honestly surprised that we haven't heard cases where spamming was cited as a motive... not that it would stop anyone from spamming... but still.
Turn About Fair Play (Score:3, Funny)
What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Re:What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:2, Flamebait)
Unless they're named Arafat.
Re:What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:2)
Not a *lot* they can do, but they can certainly fuck thems up for them.
Re:What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:2, Informative)
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.
Re:What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:2)
Kintanon
Re:What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:2)
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?
Re:What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:2)
Why would Russia really want a treaty with a country that tries Russians for acts that are legal in Russia commited whilest in Russia? If Dmitri is convicted and forced to remain here, that treaty isn't worth the scrap it's printed on.
I realize I'm preaching to the choir here. But someone needs to take the US government down a peg or two. They evidently aren't listening to their own citizenry or little things like reason or logic; that leaves only the other countries whose citizens are getting screwed by us.
Re:What if ElcomSoft loses? (Score:2)
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)
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)
Fire up your offshore servers, folks. Hmm, maybe I should invest in some of those ventures now?
Re:This is not ok... (Score:2)
Now, I'm not saying that you couldn't be held liable in civil court, it's just that anything you did before the law was passed would be allowed as far as criminal court was concerned.
Provided, of course, you stopped once the law was passed.
Eric Gearman
--
Re:This is not ok... (Score:2)
If it is prohibited, then this is because it is illegal, or, ultimately, unconstitutional.
Since when has THAT stopped the U.S. government?
Re:This is not ok... (Score:2)
All you need is one honest judge.
EFGearman
--
Is this a surprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:2)
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:2)
Re:Is this a surprise? (Score:2)
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".
Sweeping Generalizations (Score:2)
I know many of the people "here" don't fit into these generalizations, and would be offended if I was actually refering to them personally.
Plus, it is my opinion, I can be wrong too, but that is the point of a discussion isn't it?
Re:Umm... (Score:2)
That's weird. It seems that USian Slashdot posters are like the rest of the american John Does - they actually believe that Israel is nice and that all arabs/muslims are terrorists. How come they're the only one with this view? How come there are daily protests in all big cities in Europe against Israeli warfare against Palestinians? How come food-chains in Norway are boycotting Israeli fruit because of this? How come myself - 27 year old white well-educated male with neither jews nor muslims as close friends give money to Palestinian help-organisation and actively in mail and in my Slashdot signature URGE people to actually learn the truth about the most serious conflict in the world themselves?
I don't know - but the last time this was brought up here at slashdot a USian slashdot poster told the moderators to mod myself and another poster down before we "strapped bombs to teenagers" or something as stupid.
Now, what was it you said again?
Remember: Nelson Mandela was marked as a terrorist by the South African leaders, and put in prison. All freedom-fighters have been called terrorists. If you'd care to read up on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict we might have chance to stop the US arms supply to Israel. Rockets against rocks, you know.
Re:This is not ok... (Score:2)
Re:This is not ok... (Score:2)
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?
Re:This is not ok... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:This is not ok... (Score:2)
Also you can't extradite from anywhere in the EU if the accused could face execution. Possibly any punishment outlawed by the human rights directive.
Court testing? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
The 21st century: an upside-down circus!
Jurasdiction. Elcomsoft, Yahoo France, etc etc... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Jurasdiction. Elcomsoft, Yahoo France, etc etc. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Jurasdiction. Elcomsoft, Yahoo France, etc etc. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Jurasdiction. Elcomsoft, Yahoo France, etc etc. (Score:2)
legal question (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:legal question (Score:2)
Re:legal question (Score:2)
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!
Re:legal question (Score:2)
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!
Re:legal question (Score:2)
Re:legal question (Score:2)
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!
Re:legal question (Score:2)
Re:legal question (Score:2)
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!
Re:legal question (Score:2)
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.
Re:legal question (Score:2)
Re:legal question (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:legal question (Score:2)
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)
This is not (necessarily
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.
Re:Don't forget Adobe... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 $$'s.
Plus, in my experience, when 'wallet voting' hits a company's bottom line, they tend to assume it's due to shortcomings in the product or in the marketing of the product, not in their ethics.
Re:Don't forget Adobe... (Score:3, Insightful)
Plus, in my experience, when 'wallet voting' hits a company's bottom line, they tend to assume it's due to shortcomings in the product or in the marketing of the product, not in their ethics.
Unless of course it's a record company (*), in which case they characterize the "wallet voting" as theft of the product, which is, ironically enough, the very "shortcoming in their ethics" that we were "voting" against in the first place.
(*) or, to keep on-topic, any "content industry" company with similar atitudes, probably including the publishers for whom the e-book "security" was originally designed.
Boycott is not the answer. (Score:3, Interesting)
The worst part is, Adobe has my money, so if I don't buy their next product all they'll think is "the upgrade isn't enticing enough."
I have the same issue with Blizzard. I don't like what they did with BnetD, but not buying Warcraft 3 (assuming it's really good) hurts the game industry. The only way the game industry can survive is if lots of AAA titles are produced. That, to me, outweighs abuse of the DMCA.
The best thing the Slashdot community can do is bombard them with complaints. It would cost Adobe or Blizzard or whoever else you hate a lot more to police their emails than it would to lose a few $$$ 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)
Re:Software is still available (Score:2)
Be careful: they might sue:)
In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
... 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.
Not Funny... (Score:2)
No big surprise or disappointment (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:No big surprise or disappointment (Score:2)
Re:No big surprise or disappointment (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:No big surprise or disappointment (Score:2)
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*
Re:No big surprise or disappointment (Score:2)
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)
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.
Adobe files aren't really copy protected (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Circumventing Access Controls (Score:2)
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:
andThis 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.
Jurisdiction v. constitutionality of DCMA (Score:2, Insightful)
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!
jurisdiction (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:jurisdiction (Score:2)
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...
Re:jurisdiction (Score:2)
One very important thing is that where problems are due to the actions of people the one thing you must not do is take sides. The US did this in Somalia, the result was a disaster. The US also did this in Afganistan, only time will tell if this was a good thing or not.
There's also a great deal which isn't so hot, such as commercialism, but which may be rejected. The bad-neighbor part comes when we try to enforce our will/values on other people when we know full well we wouldn't stand for such treatment in reverse.
Sometimes not even US values, consider the US trying to bully the Ukraine.
European law and US law ? (Score:2, Insightful)
An Immodest Proposal... (Score:5, Funny)
*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.isCorporat
Re:An Immodest Proposal... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:An Immodest Proposal... (Score:2)
Ahh - this we can deal with.
Interesting logic in Elcom argument (Score:2)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
The case itself is BS, but jurisdiction... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
The 5th amendment argument, good argument (Score:2)
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, take a look (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,6
US has no jurisdiction over entities in Russia (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:the violation in question was IN the U.S. (Score:2)
When was the first ammendment rewritten to add "... except when said laws are applied only to non US citizens".
This case is a waste of my tax dollars (Score:2)
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.
test case (Score:2)
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?
Re:Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
Now as for DMCA, don't get me started...
Re:Bah (Score:2, Insightful)
Physical removal of that server stops the flow of such information, unless of course, mirrors were set up elsewhere.
So it's clearly not a case of pure Internet jurisdiction, since the storage of the alleged infringing information was in the U.S. Think of the server as a lockbox.
Thus the judge was not infringing on some internet right.
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Payments were directed to, and received by, an entity in the United States.
While I don't agree with the underlying legal assertions of the case, the decision on jurisdiction strikes me as reasonably sound.
Re:Bah (Score:2)
I don't even think an amendment to the consitution could help that one.... For the U.S. to have jurisdiction over the internet we would somehow have to convince the rest of the world that we own the internet and that it is ours to control....
With the stupid laws that the U.S. has been putting into place, and the general distaste for the U.S. from alot of the world, I for one don't see that happening...
But then again... If your on U.S. soil (wether or not you commited your crime here), and you get tried in a U.S. court... You're ppbly gonna have to hope to God that you have a really good U.S. lawyer to get you off... (or a whole lot of policital reasons for your case to get dropped...)
-ryanRe:Bah (Score:2)
And, more importantly, the people.
Re:Bah (Score:2)
Re:Hypocritical (Score:4, Informative)
In other words, your laws shouldn't apply to us...but if they do, then *all* of your laws must apply and by those laws the charges are unconstitutional.
Re:Hypocritical (Score:2)
Err... whats your point?
You seem to be implying that not only has the US stepped over international borders to subject a foreign company to the US legal system... they're also not allowed to use the US legal system to defend themselves?
The *very* large problem with the US at the moment is the inability to engage in a bit of role reversal and see things from the other side of the fence.
Re:Hypocritical (Score:2)