[free-sklyarov] RE: [nylug-talk] pleeease arrange amondayprotest.

[Michael Kupershtein]

David Honig wrote:

> At 11:34 AM 7/23/01 +0200, Michael Kupershtein wrote:
> >
> >In accordance with the third paragraph of article 10 of the present Law,
> >a person who legally owns
> >a copy of a computer program or a database, has the right, without the
> >consent of the copyright owner
> >and without payment of an extra fee, to carry out the following actions:
> >
> >1. To carry out adaptation of the computer program or a database;
> >
> >2. To make a copy of the computer program or a database provided that
> >this copy of the program is
> >intended only for the archival purposes or (if the original computer
> >program or  database
> >is lost, destroyed or became unsuitable for use) for replacement of
> >legally acquired copy.
> >However the copy of the computer program or a database can not be used
> >for other purposes and
> >should be destroyed in case further use of this computer program or a
> >database ceases to be lawful.
> >
> >You can find the original at
> >http://www.compulenta.ru/addon/2001/7/20/16116/
> >As you can see, it is plainly said that archival copies may be made
> >without the copyright
> >owner's consent.
>
> This is US law too.
>

Yes, but there's a difference. The difference is that any
interpretation of the corresponding US law would also
have to be subject to other laws,

>
> Therefore any software/database distributor that does
> >not provide such a
> >possibility would be in violation of the law, since he'd infringe on the
> >RIGHT to make
> >archival copies.
>
> You don't infringe others freedoms (to make backups) by making it
> hard to try.

As a general statement, that's plainly false. In some
contexts, you'd be right. In others, you wouldn't be.
An intentional attempt to prevent someone from
exercising their rights IS an infringement.

> >It could be said, then, that the existence of
> >Elcomsoft's software is the
> >only thing that keeps eBook Reader legal in Russia.
> >Ironic, isn't it?
>
> That interpretation doesn't follow.
>

IANAL. However, to the best of my understanding,
the analysis that leads to the above interpretation is
as follows:
Since users have the right to make backups, it
would be illegal for the copyright owners to make
an attempt to prevent copying. Any given book
can be taken, in relation to this law, as a `database`.
eBook Reader's copy protection scheme intentionally
prevents archival of that database. As far as I
understand, within the Russian legal framework
(again, IANAL), in this case, the users' rights imply
obligations on Adobe's part.

As an aside, I must mention I believe this point of
view is somewhat extreme. However, that's the way
things are at the moment, and, as already pointed
out by Mike Genin, if a class action suit was brought
against Adobe in Russia (remember, IANAL!),
it'd probably use the existence  of ABEPR (or the
fact the encryption method is "weak enough")
as its main defense argument.

Michael