[free-sklyarov] What did he do IN THE US that was 'wrong'?

[Seth David Schoen]

Matt Brubeck writes:

> There's a lot of misinformation and guessing in this thread. Please, study
> the US DOJ complaint carefully before posting incorrect information:
> 
>  http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Sklyarov/20010707_complaint.html
> 
> In summary:
> 
> * The charges have nothing to do with the Defcon presentation.
>   Dmitry was not arrested for giving a speech.
> 
> * The charges have nothing to do with software distributed at Defcon.
> 
> * He is not charged with the creation of AEBPR, which occurred in Russia.
> 
> * The charges are "trafficking in a device" that violates the DMCA.
>   An American company handled US sales of AEBPR for Elcomsoft. Thus
>   both the buying and selling took place on US soil.

Yes, all of this is correct, and important for people to realize.

> * According to the DOJ, Dmitry was arrested as an individual because he is
>   named as the author in the AEBPR copyright notice. As the copyright
>   holder, he has control over all distribution and licensing of the
>   program; thus he is held responsible for the distribution in the US.

I think this is questionable for various reasons, but it's probably
what the DOJ was thinking.

> Please, please educate yourselves about the details of this case before
> speaking or writing about it in a public forum. Familiarize yourself with
> the DOJ's case, so that we can discuss it factually and intelligently.

Indeed!

> As the US Attorney's office pointed out, the courts will have no problem
> with questions of jurisdiction in this case.

Here I disagree.  I think jurisdiction is one of many relevant angles
for the defense.  For example, the defense could assert that Dmitry
Sklyarov himself had no business contacts with the U.S., although his
employer did.  I'm not very familiar with the relevant law, but I don't
see that the jurisdiction argument is irrelevant here.

I've been telling people that Dmitry Sklyarov "was not charged with
having done anything illegal while physically in the U.S." and that he
"was in Russia when [...] and his actions were certainly legal there".
Those familiar with law will recognize that a U.S. court _may_ assert
jurisdiction anyway, but these points emphasize the general unfairness
of the case in an intuitive way.

They may also raise the question for some people -- from a philosophical
or moral point of view -- of "when _is_ jurisdiction appropriate?",
distinct from the answers so far in particular countries' jurisprudence.
Although I don't think that the Sklyarov case raises any particularly
new international jurisdiction questions, there are certainly very hot
issues in this area at the moment, like _Yahoo v. LICRA_.

-- 
Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org>  | Lending, printing, copying, giving
Temp.  http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/  | and text-to-speech are permissions
down:  http://www.loyalty.org/   (CAF)  | enabled by the publisher.  -- Adobe