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

[Peter]

Do we know for sure that Dmitry is not also the Co-owner of the company?
If not then he developed
the software in the name of the company and can not held responsible for
what the company is doing. Ergo the FBI doesn't have the right to arrest
him in the first place.
Peter


Free Dmitry Sklyarov
Stop the DMCA
----------------------------------------
http://www.freesklyarov.org
http://www.boycottadobe.org


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.


_______________________________________________
free-sklyarov mailing list
free-sklyarov at zork.net
http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov