[free-sklyarov] New stuff up on EFF

[Ryan Waldron]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:

> Obviously the best case
> for us is for the DMCA to be declared unconstitutional.  Then Dmitry
> goes home, everyone chilled gets unchilled, and the SSSCA probably
> goes away too.  However, even a judgement that Felten's conduct
> doesn't violate the DMCA would severely limit the government and the
> copyright industry's ability to use it as a club.  _Their_ best case
> is to never actually have _any_ case go to a higher court, so they can
> use the mere threat of prosecution to keep people in line without ever
> having to actually defend their actions.

Someone explain to me (and yes, I understand that you are not a
lawyer, whoever gives me an answer here that I can grasp) why this
can't be done.

I *assume* that it can't, because it seems an obvious way to get rid
of stupid, bad laws like this.  But what I don't know is what part of
the legal system prevents it.

The scenario would be thus:

1) "Friendly" company 1 produces copyrighted and "protected" work.

2) Researcher Bob cirvumvents protected copyright effort by company 1.

3) Company A presses charges/sues Researcher Bob for violating the DMCA.

4) Researcher Bob kicks Company A's corporate butt in court, and along
   the way gets the DMCA thrown out.

5) Company A, Researcher Bob, and the rest of the community go have
   their preferred celebratory libations

Is it because Company 1 can only press civil charges on its own, and
that a judgment in a civil case would not suffice to eliminate the
evilDMCA?

Or is it because the two parties in a court case cannot be acting in
collusion to demonstrate the utter unconstitutionality of a law?

I know it should be obvious by now why this can't be done, but if
someone explained it before, I missed it (and apologize).  I do try to
keep up. :)

-- 
Ryan Waldron    |||   http://www.erebor.com    |||    rew at erebor.com

"The web goes ever, ever on, down from the site where it began..."