[free-sklyarov] Re: Continuing the fight

Seth Johnson seth.johnson at RealMeasures.dyndns.org
Mon Dec 17 03:44:28 PST 2001

The question, of course, is the political one of what the
facts mean.

Our mission, if we should accept it, is to assure that the
facts of Dmitry's conduct are vindicated as perfectly
acceptable -- and that the DMCA's and the DOJ's "painting
them black," as it were, is resoundingly and resolutely

Seth Johnson

Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 11:12:49PM -0800, Len Sassaman wrote:
> > ... First of all, he has conceded nothing to the other side, other
> > than his testimony of the facts -- testimony that would be identical
> > to that given for the defense. ...
>         This is a point I keep pondering. Is it really so? Another
> good document to read is the *full* text of the agreement, at
> http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/can/press/assets/applets/2001_12_13_sklyarov.pdf
>         Note particularly, this provision (hand-typed, any typos mine):
>  "8. I agree that if I fail to comply with any promises I have made in
>   this Agreement, that the government will be released from its
>   promises, but that my agreement that the facts described above in
>   paragraph two (2) are true and any subsequent statements made by me
>   pursuant to this Agreement may be used by the government against me in
>   any proceeding, and I waive any and all claims under the United States
>   Constitution, Rule 11(e)(6) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
>   Procedure, Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, or any other
>   federal statute or rule, to suppress or restrict the use of my
>   statements, or any leads derived from those statements."
>         That seems fairly legally significant to concede. Again, it's
> not explicitly I-am-guilty, but in context, overall, the agreement
> seems to me much more than just facts everyone, even the defense,
> would agree are true.
>         To go back to the DMCA case strategy topic, it's a small
> victory to have arguably induced a change in the way Adobe and the
> government were using Dmitry. But I think the key aspect is that the
> change was not without benefit for them too. That they did and will
> get aid in putting together the DMCA legal case, which they otherwise
> would not have had. That's the whole idea of a bargain, that each
> sides gets something. Dmitry gets not to be crucified, and Adobe and
> the government get his admissions and assistance (again, no personal
> criticism at all, in any way, shape or form, intended here).
>         But where I fear there's a mistake, is in viewing the outcome
> here as either a hands-off-the-programmers victory, or that Adobe and
> the government really didn't get anything at all.
> --
> Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  sethf at sethf.com  http://sethf.com
> http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html
> BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php
> BESS vs Google: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/google.php
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov

More information about the Free-sklyarov mailing list