[free-sklyarov] On the Case (Please read it and give me a feedback/input)

[Jon Bober]

At 03:11 AM 7/25/01 -0700, you wrote:
>After talking with some friends of mine, and long discussions; here is 
>what I came up with.
>Even, I feel that US has no right arresting Sklyarov; but under DMCA the 
>FBI "did" have the right to arrest Sklyarov.
>So, we pretty much don't have a case against the DoJ and the chances of 
>Sklyarov getting the jail time is high.
>(I don't like this anymore then you guys do; but that is what might happen)

i think that that is quite a questionable statement.
1st, the DMCA says:

`(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) 
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively 
controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition 
contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 
2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

`(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to 
persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class 
of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year 
period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability 
to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this 
title, as determined under subparagraph (C).

the acrobat ebook protection prohibits many noninfringing uses of 
ebooks.  as often said before, someone might want to read the book on a 
laptop in the park.  someone who doesn't have an internet connection (those 
people still exist) might want to but a book on a friend's computer and 
transfer it to their own.  thus, it could easily be found that the 
prohibition of circumvention does not apply in this case.

i think that the section of the DMCA that was unarguably violated here was:

`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or 
otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, 
or part thereof, that--
`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a 
technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected 
under this title;
`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to 
circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a 
work protected under this title; or
`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that 
person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a 
technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected 
under this title.

however, the company, not the employee, is what should be found guilty of 
breaking this law.  adobe had sklyarov arrested because they knew that they 
would have no luck in a civil suit with a russian company.  imagine if 
monopoly laws had been written slightly differently, and bill gates was 
arrested for abuse of monopoly powers.

so, as far is i am concerned, it is not a simple issue of "sklyarov broke 
the law."  if adobe wanted to be truly logical and legal, perhaps they 
should have gone after the company that was distributing the product here, 
in this country, where this country's laws apply.

bober.