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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
News

Sklyarov Indicted 810

Nutcase was the first to write with news from the AP that "Dmitry Sklyarov, 27 and ElComSoft Co. Ltd. of Moscow were charged with five counts of copyright violations for writing a program that lets users of Adobe Systems' eBook Reader get around copyright protections imposed by electronic-book publishers." Here's a link to the AP story at the Washington Post. Here is the story at Salon as well. Update: 08/29 01:57 AM GMT by T : Here's the EFF's release on the indictment, too -- including information about where to go if you'd like to demonstrate your reaction publicly.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sklyarov Indicted

Comments Filter:
  • Too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tin Weasil ( 246885 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @09:50PM (#2228081) Homepage Journal
    Wouldn't it have been nice if ebook technology had been around when Ben Franklin instituted the first Libraries in the U.S.? Franklin could have been indited too!
  • by perlfish ( 305161 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @09:54PM (#2228098) Homepage
    The indictment alleges that the programmer and the company conspired for "commercial advantage and private financial gain."

    We should be hanging everyone who is guilty of these things.
  • Re:Elcomsoft!? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by chrisvdp74656 ( 448900 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @10:02PM (#2228130)
    Easily. Everybody knows that the US Laws are applicable all over the world!

    [/sarcasm]

    Sorry, I needed to get that off my chest. IANAL, but I dont think they can, legally. They can only nab everybody involved eith Elcomsoft as they pass through the US (and that includes international flights). Skylarov had the misfortune to be the first.
  • by jjn1056 ( 85209 ) <jjn1056&yahoo,com> on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @10:02PM (#2228135) Homepage Journal
    Now let's all concentrate on getting the guy home to his wife and kids, and not use him to further our political ends. If someone volunteers to be a test case for the FSF or others, that's fine; he did not, and is a unwitting victim of our police state.

  • by phoenix_orb ( 469019 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @10:12PM (#2228178)
    Why, in this country of supposed freedom, do we allow companies to control not only specific markets, (in the case of Micro$oft monopoly) but also allow them to lobby towards laws that take away freedoms, such as freedom of speech.

    I know that ElComSoft Co. Ltd made mistakes when they started selling a program designed to defeat a specific type of encryption. I feel that this is wrong. Unfortunately, arresting a programer for giving a speech about how he broke the encryption is hogwash as well. (did I really say hogwash...)

    This country (the USA) was founded upon ideals that one man can speak his mind, and express himself in whatever way that he chooses, as so long as it doesn't detriment others. (thus, yelling "fire" in a theater is wrong) I see no reason why showing an encryption to be faulty and how to circumvent it AS A ACADEMIC STUDY wrong. As I said before, I think that the company was at fault, but can the "oh so mighty" hand of the US touch a company in Russia? Nope, we can't, at least legally anyway. So the goverment uses a poorly worded law to push the corporate views on American people. What will be next? Will I be arrested because I point out a security hole in Microsoft's hotmail site? No, but if I start selling a product that will allow it's user's to read other's email, I can and I should be arrested. I don't believe that Sklyarov ownes this company, he is just a programmer.

    This person has been arrested for violation of the DMCA. I don't believe in the DMCA, and unfortunately, I cannot make my congressman or senator understand why. (The breaking of encryption is over their heads, and copyrights and patents lasting forever is very vague to them as well.) They are too pressured my lobbyists throwing bags of money at them to listen to something that would blackball them in the lobbyists eyes. So what happens? More rights are taken away from all Americans, and 85% or more of Americans don't know of don't care.

    It is a sad state.

    Ben Franklin ( I think ) said that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance." But Americans have become to apathetic to even care about there government, much less the actions that the government has been taking. And because of this more and more skewed laws have worked there way in the the US Code. Sadly, today, they could arrest almost anyone with the inordinate amount of laws on the books. They chose here and now to arrest Mr. Sklyarov. I hope that he wins, and I hope that the court system invalidates this very askew law. It would help put more freedom back into the individuals hand, and away from the greedy corporate entity.

  • by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @10:14PM (#2228190)
    The software doesn't "get around copyright protections." Copyright is a legal protection, the software merely allows you to get around copy protections. Does anyone else think the difference is important?
  • Re:well (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lawyamike ( 199551 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @10:19PM (#2228215) Homepage
    I do not buy it.

    Nearly all legal systems dating back to the Code of Justinian recognize the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se. The former refers to conduct that is criminal by diktat; the latter refers to to conduct that is criminal by its very nature.

    In other words, were Sklyarov murdering people or depriving people of property, there might be a better case for not treating him with any leniency, particularly where his case has significant constitutional implications.

  • by Cerlyn ( 202990 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @10:24PM (#2228240)

    I have never seen anything to date that said Sklyarov himself was involved with the Ebook decoder project. Just being with a company that did illegal things is not illegal in itself; otherwise we would arrest all their janitors and secretaries.

    Even if he did work on the Ebook project, he could claim that he did not knowingly do anything wrong since (1) it was not illegal work in Russia and (2) it work done solely for a Russian company. While claiming ignorance of the law is no excuse, I don't see how a jury could convict him directly given these facts.

    That being said, shouldn't the United States be going after the company's officers (CEO, etc.), and not Sklyarov?

  • Perfect Target (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Maul ( 83993 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @10:39PM (#2228300) Journal
    Unfortunately for Dmitry, he is a perfect target to be criminally prosecuted under the DMCA. I'm sure that the feds had many potential cases against domestic violators, but I think they chose Dmitry for a few reasons.


    First off, he isn't a US citizen. He is a visitor from a foreign country. This leaves him with fewer resources, fewer rights, and little understanding of the rights he does have.
    IANAL, and I don't know exactly what rights an accused foreigner has in the USA, but I'm sure that the feds are less inclined to play by the rules they have to when dealing with a citizen.


    Secondly, he isn't just any foreigner, he's Russian. If the general public is going to take notice of the DMCA, the feds want a good impression. Lots of people (sadly and surprisingly) still view the Russians as "the enemy" and will view Dmitry as an "evil communist." Thus they might see the DMCA as something that fights the evil commies.


    This also might strike fear into citizens of other nations, and convey the message that no country is as powerful as the US, which will FIND a way to subject everyone world wide to its laws.


    As a Citizen of the US, I am very angry about this. Dmitry should be freed and sent home immediately, and then the White House should send an apology to the Russians for this behavior.
    I know that they'd demand the same for one of our citizens cought up in a BS situation like this in another country.

  • Re:well (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @10:41PM (#2228312)
    just because its not murder-1-calibre offence doesn't mean he can walk - speeding is an arbitrary malum prohibitum if I understand the terminology correctly, yet if he were speeding down an American interstate (even as a representative of Elmsoft, and even if going 90 is legal in Russia ), theres obviously grounds for enforcement. You could argue constitutional implications in just about any case, particularly with noncitizens, but I'm guessing the Justice dept has the heads up on this one.

    Elmsoft supporters are in a tougher position than Napster supporters - at least Napster wasn't in the direct business of circumventing encryption schemes explicitly put in place by the authors. Even if Elmsoft's product was primarily for decrypting text for interoperability with blind reader software (the most dubious claim I've heard in a _long_ while), the fact is that the right to use the bits in this manor was unauthorized by the license and this is a pretty simple decision in favor of prosecution for anyone not looking at it through FreeInformation-t[a]inted glasses.

  • please (Score:2, Insightful)

    by vena ( 318873 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @10:51PM (#2228346)
    spend the time you'd be writing the same things you said last time news on dmitry was posted here writing to your congressman or attending/organizing rallies.

    less talk, more action.
  • Fair use is dead (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Colin Simmonds ( 4017 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @11:07PM (#2228408) Journal

    Well, it seems to be official. Fair use in the U.S. is dead. Look at what the indictment boils down to:

    When an ebook purchased for viewing in the Adobe eBook Reader format was sold by the publisher or distributor, the publisher or the distributor of the ebook could authorize or
    limit the purchaser's ability to copy, distribute, print, or have the text read audibly by the computer [emphasis mine]. Adobe designed the Ebook Reader to permit the management of such digital rights so that in the ordinary course of its operation, the eBook Reader effectively permitted the publisher or distributor of the ebook to restrict or limit the exercise of certain copyright rights of an owner of the copyright for an ebook distributed in the eBook Reader format.
    On a date prior to June 20, 2001, defendant Dmitry Sklyarov and others wrote a program called the Advanced eBook Processor ("AEBPR") the primary purpose of which was to remove any and all limitations on an ebook purchaser's ability to copy, distribute, print, have the text read audibly by the computer, or any other limitations imposed by the publisher or distributor of an ebook in the eBook Reader format, as well as certain other ebook formats.

    Note that the indictment clearly indicates that AEBPR is only useful to purchasers of ebooks in Adobe's format, so there can be no allegation of it being used for widespread piracy. Instead, Sklyarov's apparent crime is to allow people to actually use the ebooks they've bought and paid for. Of the items enumerated as being restrictable by the publisher or distributor, only distribution is forbidden by copyright law prior to the DMCA, and then only when the fair use exemptions don't apply. It seems rather overreaching to me that the DMCA criminalizes being able to do such ordinary actions with an ebook such as having the computer read it aloud or print it, let alone making copies for backup or use on another machine.

    Note also that the indictment makes no mention of the AEBPR being used to violate copyright law. No evidence is offered that any of the handful of its purchasers used the program for any illegal purpose. The mere fact that it allows the purchaser full use of a bought ebook and the theoretical possibility of commiting an act (unpermitted distribution) which is already illegal under century old copyright law, is reason enough to send a man to jail for 25 years. Scary.

    And publishers wonder in vain why ebooks aren't selling very well? Gee, if you don't let the purchaser do anything with them, making ebooks far more restricted and less useful than print books, and totally upset the balance between public and private interests enshrined in copyright law, you should expect this. Indeed, I'm frightened that ebooks have sold as well as they have. The freedoms and rights associated with reading seem to no longer apply in the digital world if the interests that bought the DMCA have their way.

  • Re:Not exactly (Score:2, Insightful)

    by S. Allen ( 5756 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @11:11PM (#2228423)
    The moral of the story is that with enough money, you can craft your own law. The moral of the story is also that our lawmakers neither "get it" nor do they care. Until their polls tell them they're on the wrong side of the issue, expect more corporate-sponsored shackles on our hard-won freedoms (hard won by our ancestors, that is).

    Laws CAN be wrong. It's happened before (segregation, voting rights, prohibition, etc) and it'll happen again. We sit by idly at our own peril.
  • by Sloppy ( 14984 ) on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @11:36PM (#2228510) Homepage Journal

    too bad not enough voters gave a damn to find out in '98

    Lewinsky scandal. DMCA isn't the only shady thing that got through during that period.

    The lesson here is that the media is easily distracted, and the Bad Guys know how to use it.

    I wonder what kinds of things have been happening in Washington over the summer while the spotlight has been focused on Condit, giving the other cockroaches a convenient cloak of darkness. I guess we'll find out next year.

  • by NMerriam ( 15122 ) <NMerriam@artboy.org> on Tuesday August 28, 2001 @11:47PM (#2228546) Homepage
    I questioned early on whether the ACLU would risk their hollywood gravy train by coming out in support of Sklyarov

    That's okay, they ignore the whole second amendment, too. They're slowly paring down the amount of the bill of rights to expend energy defending, apparently...
  • by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @12:53AM (#2228719)
    [Ignoring the fact that you're just trooling...]

    I'm curious why you call me "criminal". Is it because I disagree with something the government is doing? Is it because I disagree with you?

    It certainly isn't because I'm a drug user, because I'm not, and never have been, and wouldn't become one if they legalized it tomorrow.

    However, the fact that I'm not a droogie doesn't mean I don't live in fear that the FBI will read my post on Slashdot, take Rob to court and make him give them my meatspace name, kick my door down, throw a baggie on my couch, and haul me off to prison for 30 years. I wouldn't stand the slightest chance of proving my innocence.

    The Soviet Union had its gulags; the USA has its drug war.

  • by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @02:04AM (#2228896)
    > Would Adobe even have grounds for a civil lawsuit against Dmitry? The software facilitated infringing the rights of the copyright holder of the book(s), not the rights of Adobe.

    Which points out the real "crime" in this scenario. The "crime" wasn't theft; it was pointing out that Adobe's crapware doesn't prevent theft. And since Adobe's crapware doesn't prevent theft (as advertised), they can't sell it. And since they can't sell it, they take a hit on their bottom line. And since they take a hit on their bottom line, their share prices aren't what they could be.

    And that is the one unforgivable sin in the U$A.
  • Re:shutup (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mpe ( 36238 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @02:40AM (#2228943)
    Like, yeah drugs are bad and I don't ever plan to use them but you gotta think, if you're killing all the drug users, what's the whole point of making the stuff illegal?

    Guess the best way to make any drug dangerous, prohibition. If you want something to be safe you don't hand over the entire production and distribution to criminals.

    Isn't it to keep harmful substances from killing people?

    If that were the case you'd think they'd be coming down hard on paracetamol...
  • by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @03:05AM (#2228984) Homepage Journal
    Okay, we've got protests getting organized left and right. I've received fundraising requests in my email. I see people up in arms and outraged with righteous indignation.

    Good for you.

    But where the hell were you guys for all the other crap going on in this country and all the rest? From the looks of things, you all act as if this were the first injustice ever perpetrated in history.

    In California our prisons are overflowing with those who got arrested, indicted, convicted and sentenced for nothing more than ingesting chemical substances. Unwittingly violating the DMCA is just one of hundreds of nonviolent acts that can land you in jail. Why do we only care about one of them?

    Let's free Sklyarov, but at the same time lets get all the other people convicted of nonviolent activities freed as well.
  • by VB ( 82433 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @05:43AM (#2229182) Homepage
    It'd be cool if this tirade actually focused enough media attention on this situation to effect a repeal of this law. It's possible. The law is wrong and there are many in the /. community who are vocal; sometimes get noticed; and, don't have a hobby besides technology.

    You might be off doing art, but you'll probably continue geeking out your machines to those graphic ends regardless.

    The "minions" you appear to refer to on /. are your silent friend while you're off painting.

    Acknowledge that and don't alienate those who'll rabidly be defending your interests while you're painting your ideas.

    If you can help them, you should. If you're part geek/part artist, you shouldn't criticize those who are just geek. They might be helpful to you when you're more focused on your art.

    Artists tend not be judgemental. I am one. I'm also a geek, but respect the diverse opinions this forum depicts and don't make judgements. I couldn't since I'm an artist.

  • by mj6798 ( 514047 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @06:22AM (#2229241)
    You know that this is going to be settled: prosecutors know that going through with the trial is risky, but they can sure intimidate Sklyarov with 25 years in jail (he wouldn't survive it, so it might as well be the death penalty) and a $2.5M fine (try paying that back in rubles).

    But, hey, why stop there? If we have such unbounded trust in our legal officials, why do we bother with laws at all? Why not give police complete freedom to pick up people that are engaged in unsavory activities according to their judgement, give prosecutors complete freedom to craft punishments, and give judges complete freedom to impose whatever they see fit for whatever action they see as illegal or detrimental to society? Given the penalties currently on the books, we might as well.

    What this comes down to is that the US is increasingly not a country of laws but a country run by the law enforcement and justice system. The distinction is profound and it is very important to keep it in mind. In fact, we have a name for the latter situation: it's called a "police state".

  • by Otis_INF ( 130595 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @06:39AM (#2229264) Homepage
    But he's arrested because the USA government says he committed a crime based on USA laws, but USA laws are not valid in Russia. So technically, he's not a criminal, but because some government abroad cooked up some laws (DMCA) suddenly he is. Odd. That's like arresting all Americans who are owner of a handgun, when they visit a western european country, allthough they don't carry the gun with them.

    Also, he's not charged with the crime 'selling illegal software'.
  • Bad analogy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Legion303 ( 97901 ) on Wednesday August 29, 2001 @10:37AM (#2229794) Homepage
    He didn't "run the store," he didn't sell the software and it certainly isn't his company. He's just a lowly programmer.

    If you were to be arrested in, say, Afghanistan, because the company you work for is run by a woman (and is trying to do business there), would you meekly accept whatever punishment they meted out? After all, you tried to "push" your illegal woman-owned company there, right?

    -Legion

It's a naive, domestic operating system without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption.

Working...