[free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty

[Richard M. Smith]

I think we got the best possible outcoming in this trial.  Overturning
the DMCA will have to wait for another day.  

There might be the possibility of a civil lawsuit against Adobe.  I've
already asked Adobe if they plan to apologize to Dmitry and his family
for his time in jail.  It's never too late for Adobe to do the right
thing here.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: free-sklyarov-admin at zork.net [mailto:free-sklyarov-admin at zork.net]
On Behalf Of Kenneth Burger
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 2:04 PM
To: free-sklyarov at zork.net
Subject: Re: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty


I don't know whether to be overjoyed or disappointed.  This means that
the
case cannot go further up the chain and the law cannot be overturned.
On
the other hand, it's good to see that for once, in the US, justice was
done,
even if it was slowly, and cost a foreign programmer his freedom for
some
time.  I think the feds should be forced to pay him reparations for
wrongful
imprisonment, but that's one way our justice system sucks I guess.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms at computerbytesman.com>
To: <free-sklyarov at zork.net>
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 1:47 PM
Subject: [free-sklyarov] ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty


> ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty
> By Lisa M. Bowman
> Staff Writer, CNET News.com
> December 17, 2002, 10:22 AM PT
>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1023-978176.html
>
> SAN JOSE, Calif.--A jury on Tuesday found a Russian software company
not
> guilty of criminal copyright charges for producing a program that can
> crack antipiracy protections on electronic books.
>
> The case against ElcomSoft is considered a crucial test of the
criminal
> provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a
> controversial law designed to extend copyright protections into the
> digital age.
>
> The company faced four charges related to directly designing and
> marketing software that could be used to crack eBook copyright
> protections, plus an additional charge related to conspiring to do so.
>
> The case was launched in July 2001, when ElcomSoft employee Dmitry
> Sklyarov was arrested during the Las Vegas Defcon hackers conference
> after giving a speech about his company's software, which is designed
to
> crack protections on Adobe Systems' eBooks. Prosecutors, working with
> Adobe, said ElcomSoft's Advanced eBook Processor violated the DMCA.
>
> But after protests from programmers, Adobe backed away from its
support
> of the case against Sklyarov, and prosecutors set aside charges
against
> Sklyarov in exchange for his testimony in the case against his
> employers.
>
> During the trial, which lasted two weeks, the government said
ElcomSoft
> created a tool for burglars and characterized the company as an
> affiliate of hacker networks that was determined to sell the Advanced
> eBook Processor despite its questionable legality. U.S. Assistant
> Attorney Scott Frewing charged that company representatives knew all
> along that they were violating the DMCA by designing and offering the
> software to the public.
>
> The defense, in turn, argued that ElcomSoft acted responsibly,
removing
> the software from the Web just days after learning of Adobe's
concerns.
> Both Sklyarov and ElcomSoft president Alexander Katalov testified that
> they did not think their software was illicit and did not intend for
it
> to be used on books that had not been legally purchased. Under cross-
> examination by the defense, an Adobe engineer acknowledged that his
> company did not find any illegal eBooks even after hiring two firms to
> search the Web for unauthorized copies.
>
> Because both the defense and prosecution agreed that ElcomSoft sold
> software designed to crack copyright protections, the case essentially
> turned on ElcomSoft's state of mind during the period it was offering
> the software.
>
> After much wrangling among attorneys over the definition of the word
> "willful," the judge told jurors that in order to find the company
> guilty, they must agree that company representatives knew their
actions
> were illegal and intended to violate the law. Merely offering a
product
> that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction,
> the jury instructions said.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> free-sklyarov mailing list
> free-sklyarov at zork.net
> http://zork.net/mailman/listinfo/free-sklyarov
>


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