[free-sklyarov] Protest on Monday, another place?

[Mark K. Bilbo]

On Friday 27 July 2001 19:43, Klepht wrote:
> >>>>> "MKB" == Mark K Bilbo <mark at blorch.org> writes:
>
>     MKB> If the DoJ believes the law has been broken, they really have
>     MKB> the obligation and duty to prosecute even if half the country
>     MKB> is chanting outside their windows.
>
> This is, happily, completely untrue. If prosecutors feel that they
> don't have enough evidence to press a case, or that the "crime"
> committed is not in The People's interest to pursue, they can choose
> to drop the case. This happens all the time.

Completely? I can't agree. They have an obligation to uphold the law. Even if 
it makes lots of people mad.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think this case is purely political and motivated 
largely by the money belching machines of the corporate lobbiests. I've read 
the complaint over and over and can't find how they get from "there's this 
website over there" to "so he's trafficking!"

(Long aside: my roommate actually downloaded the entire DMCA text and has 
commented that so far as he can wade through the legaleese, there *does 
appear to be a provision of "offering to the public" that could be 
interpreted *awfully broadly and even to the point of violating the 1st 
Amendment in spades... the thing that bothers me is that its one of those 
cases that could end up being fought all the way to SCOTUS before it's 
overturned and, oh man, that's a long road for Dmitry... the upshot of his 
reading of the atrocity of a law is that--get this--the law says we have 
"fair use" rights but outlaws any and all tools we could use to actually *act 
on those rights... the DoJ could wind through the courts for forever claiming 
"this doesn't infringe on their rights, look, it SAYS they have rights in 
this text right here!" and wiggle their way around the fact that having a 
right you have no right to excersize is... not having a right at all)

<deep breath>

Anyway, I'm just speaking off the top of my head. In *theory, I wouldn't want 
a DoJ that is too easily swayed by the "passions of the moment." Law 
enforcement would be uneven and spastic. The law could be overturned by some 
noisy protests.

But I do agree they have a badly flawed case and should be responsible enough 
to give up now and NOT persue it.

IAC, the post I was responding to was questioning protesting Feinstein. I 
just think that protesting our representatives is as valid as protesting the 
DoJ. Maybe even shade more so? They *are* supposed to be (the previous 
supposed is heavy with sarcasm of course) our representatives in the USG who 
can go to the DoJ and smack them. AND it is Congress who created this 
monstrosity of a law.

> I don't have numbers, but I believe the majority of criminal cases do
> not actually go all the way to sentencing. (Someone correct me if I'm
> wrong.)

I'm pretty sure you're dead on with this one.

> Unless the US Attorney's Office in Northern California is very blind,
> they should see by now that this case is weak at best, especially
> without the support of the original complainant, Adobe.

I hope they're seeing it. It's a bad case and would waste time, money, and 
good will to persue.

> Right now, our focus is to convince them to hurry up and drop the
> case. Quit dragging their heels, quit making political hay out of
> having "taken down" a "cybercriminal," and let Dmitry out of jail.

I agree. But I was just rattling on about whether it made sense to protest 
the Senator. I think barking at Feinstein is also valid. She helped make this 
mess, she oughtta help clean it up.

Mark