Author Topic: free Dmitry!!!!!!  (Read 3398 times)

Offline Yoj

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 168
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #45 on: July 25, 2001, 10:15:00 AM »
AKDejaVu it was you who asked about working at a place where quality control was a consideration.  Perhaps I should have said quality instead of safety, but in the airliner business the two are almost always the same thing.  However, if it was not a safty-of-flight issue it would still be easy to get their attention - and even moreso if I did NOT work for Boeing.  

As for smug - smug is where I turn out a product that I think is bulletproof, tell people it is, ask them to shoot at it, and then ignore them when they show me bulletholes.  

Actually there is a very positive side to this for business in general - the whole question of copywrite has to be completely re-thought in light of the electronic world we've moved into.  Laws based on the printed page distributed in physical form don't work in the virtual world, and have to be rebuilt from the ground up.  This is just another bit of evidence that it is true.

As for my Canadian example, regardless of how you look at it, the man WAS arrested and held for violating US law for doing something that was not illegal where he did it.  Obviously, at least someone thought the US WAS involved.  So, in the present case (since you seem to need to split hairs) I will agree that Dmitry deserved to be arrested if it can be shown that he, personally, sold copies of the software in the US.  If not, then your argument does not hold.

- Yoj

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #46 on: July 25, 2001, 10:45:00 AM »
Quote
Crack encryption=Break into safe
Hack=Steal all that is in safe
Crack encryption = sell someone tools that enable them to break into safe. Remember, Dmitry was selling his own program, he didn't sell copyrighted works.
What he sold enabled people to break encryption, which would enable them to pirate the copyrighted material. There is a huge distinction between selling tools that have a legitimate use, but can be used for illegitimate purposes, and actually carrying out illegitimate acts.
Go to http://www.thespystore.com/index.htm  and look at their range of tools designed to break open locked doors, or pick the locks. Even the wording on the page emphasises how quickly and quietly you can for open a door, ie ideal for burgulary. They are based in Spokane, and obviously don't fear prosecution for selling tools that are designed for breaking and entering.
Go to an gun store in America, and they will gladly sell you the equipment to carry out an armed robbery. Again they don't fear prosecution.
The reason is, all these devices have a legitimate purpose. You may want a gun for security, not to commit crimes with. You may want to open locks easily because you are a locksmith. Buying and selling the equipment isn't illegal, using it for criminal purposes is.
It's exactly the same with cd writers, mp3 encoders etc. It's also exactly the same with the software Dmitry sold. It has a legitimate purpose for backup, and for enbaling you to read the book you have bought on the computer or platform of your choice. For example, the Adobe encrypted format only works on PCs and Macs, running IE 4 or 5. You can buy your ebook at a friends house, decrypt it with the software Dmitry sold and read it on your Palm or Linux computer. This is perfectly legal for you to do, but illegal for Dmitry to sell you the software that allows you to do it.
It turns the basic principles of law, that you can sell something that has legitimate purposes freely, even if someone can use it to commit a crime, on it's head. The software is legal to own and use, but illegal to sell.

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #47 on: July 25, 2001, 11:04:00 AM »
"You're allowed to make 1 copy for a personal backup" is much like "An undercover cop has to tell you he's a cop if you ask him."

Urban myth.  I daresay if you went through the end user agreement on an EBook, none of the things you described would be allowed.

Offline Dmitry

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 147
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #48 on: July 25, 2001, 11:09:00 AM »
What Nashman said

Offline Eagler

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17670
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #49 on: July 25, 2001, 11:15:00 AM »
some people will make any excuse as long as it is the excuse they need to excuse their actions...
"Masters of the Air" Scenario - JG27


Intel Core i7-13700KF | GIGABYTE Z790 AORUS Elite AX | 64GB G.Skill DDR5 | EVGA GeForce RTX 3070 Ti FTW3 | Vive Pro | Warthog stick | TM1600 throttle | VKB Mk.V Rudder Pedals

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #50 on: July 25, 2001, 11:37:00 AM »
Eagler, the term is:

Excuses only satisfy those who make them  :)

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2001, 12:19:00 PM »
Quote
"You're allowed to make 1 copy for a personal backup" is much like "An undercover cop has to tell you he's a cop if you ask him."
Urban myth. I daresay if you went through the end user agreement on an EBook, none of the things you described would be allowed.
End user agreements take second place to the law. Just like any contract, if it violates basic rights you hold under law, it is not valid.

US Code as of: 01/23/00

Sec. 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an
essential step in the utilization of the computer program in
conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other
manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes
only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that
continued possession of the computer program should cease to be
rightful.  http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html

The owner of a software program is entitled to make an archival copy to obviate the risks of mechanical or electronic failure. See Atari, Inc. v. JS & A Group, Inc., 747 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  
An owner is entitled to make archival copies to protect against all types of risks, including human error and physical mishap as well.  See Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 267 (5th Cir. 1988).  www.eff.org

"the making of an audiogram by a consumer for use in his or her home, car, or portable tape player, or for a family member, is protected"
Senate report on the Audio Home recordings Act.

"No longer will consumers be branded copyright pirates for making a tape for their car or for their children."
REP Hughes, AHRA

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2001, 12:25:00 PM »
I must admit I am suprised that Americans, who are supposed to value their rights and freedoms so highly, don't seem to care that rights that have been granted to them can be taken away by the back door.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2001, 12:30:00 PM »
Nashwan, what we see is a guy cracking a code, selling it (for profit, personal gain)so that others can use the tool as an illegal weapon (as your post compares)...the guy IMO is infringing on the rights of another...I say hang him, capital punishment should be used in this case.

Offline Nashwan

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1864
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #54 on: July 25, 2001, 12:40:00 PM »
Ripsnort, can't you see you can apply exactly the same analogy to a gun, or a cd writer, or a video recorder?
In fact, people have in the past tried the tactic. Gun makers have been sued for encouraging crime, and the MPAA tried to ban video recorders. Such cases have always been thrown out before, based on the fact that people had a legal right to own and use videos and guns, therefore stopping their sales would infringe those rights.
The DMCA sets a precedent, and you can be sure that in the future people will try to make use of that.

Offline Fatty

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3885
      • http://www.fatdrunkbastards.com
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #55 on: July 25, 2001, 12:43:00 PM »
Sec. 501. Infringement of copyright

(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 121 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term ''anyone'' includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright.


Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

(b) Additional Violations. - (1) 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 protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.
(2) As used in this subsection -
(A) to ''circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure'' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and
(B) a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #56 on: July 25, 2001, 12:48:00 PM »
Agree with Fatty, Nashwan, rebuttal?

Offline Boroda

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5755
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #57 on: July 25, 2001, 01:42:00 PM »
I buy a book.

Does it mean that I can't give it to a friend who wants to read it too?

Do libraries buy "multiuser licenses" for books?

Can author or publisher prohibit library usage of his book?

Offline AKDejaVu

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5049
      • http://www.dbstaines.com
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #58 on: July 25, 2001, 02:06:00 PM »
Quote
I buy a book.
Does it mean that I can't give it to a friend who wants to read it too?

Yes you can give it to him.  What you cannot do is photocopy the book and give that to him.  A book can only be in one place at one time.  A copied program can occupy infinite computers at any time.  Big difference.

 
Quote
Do libraries buy "multiuser licenses" for books?

To an extent.. yes.

 
Quote
Can author or publisher prohibit library usage of his book?

Libraries can be contractually limited to the number of books carried.  The release date of a library book also differs from the retail release date.

Basically, the library does not carry as many copies of a book as they want.  They can't release the book whenever they want.

AKDejaVu

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
free Dmitry!!!!!!
« Reply #59 on: July 25, 2001, 02:27:00 PM »
I do not think this operation qualifies as entrapment. Entrapment is causing/provoking someone to commit a crime and catching/punishing for it.
 If the guy was just tricked to come to the country and arrested for his previous acts, that is not entrapment.

 Selling general-use lockpicks and guns may be quite legal.
 Copying a key to a person's house without his permission and selling copies is not. There is quite a difference.
 If Dimitry's tools were not general code breakers but specific adobe code breakers (even if adobe's code is based on some general algotithm), then he is as gulty.

 You can sell people hammers that can be used to smash doors, but if you personally smash someone else's door and let thiefs in for a small charge, you will be found guilty even if you do not steal anything.

 miko