Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract? To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Sun Aug 21 2005 02:45 pm In article , invalid@address.co.uk.invalid says... > Gerry Quinn wrote: > >> > I trust that you have never been inconvenienced by users of other fine > >> > Elcomsoft products such as 'Advanced Email Extractor", "Advanced Direct > >> > Remailer", and "Advanced NT Security Explorer". > > > >> Are these more examples of Russian software being produced in Russia by > >> Russian nationals under Russian law? > > > > I assume so, but they only came to my attention when English-language > > versions were offered for sale worldwide. > > Then I don't see what you're complaining about. If a foreign company > produces software that cannot be used legally in the UK, it's *my* moral > responsibility not to buy it. It is not, in my view, the moral > responsibility of the originating company not to offer it for sale > worldwide, just because some countries have laws against the use of that > software. People may define their moral responsibility in different ways. However, if they intend at any time to visit a foreign country, they would be well advised not to engage in criminal activities there beforehand via the internet. > > The program, on the face of it, violates the DMCA - there was certainly > > a case to answer. The crime he was accused of specifically related to > > copies sold in the US. > > I can find no evidence that he was personally responsible for selling /any/ > copies in the US. Do you have such evidence? I can't find the indictment, but I think that as the author and copyright holder, and an officer of the company, he was indicted on conspiracy charges. > > I imagine that when a foreign national on a visit is arrested on a > > serious charge, > > Whoa, tough crowd! Murder is a serious charge. Rape is a serious charge. > Armed robbery is a serious charge. Flogging a few copies of a > legally-produced program (if indeed he did, for I can find no evidence > thereof) at a programming convention is hardly in the same league. The charges did not, AFAIK, relate to anything he did at the convention. DMCA violations are serious charges, allowing for millions of dollars in fines and up to five years imprisonment. Aside from that, the point about "selling a few copies" is irrelevant - most cases relating to isues of this kind are decided on the basis of sample charges. > Having read the DoJ press release and the Criminal Complaint against > Sklyarov very carefully, I can find no evidence that he sold a single copy. > All he did was talk at a convention. Is talking illegal in the USA? If so, > then I suggest everybody clears out of there PDQ. No - clearly you didn't read it with any attention. The indictment did not relate to Sklyarov's activities at the convention. > > the possibility of him fleeing the jurisdiction is > > considered a live one by police forces everywhere. > > It is entirely sensible to flee an unjust jurisdiction - if you can. Well, again we are onto morals. If it is sensible to flee, it is clearly sensible to imprison pending setting of bail terms. > The > activity for which Skylarov was being charged - the "manufacture" of the > AEBPR program - took place outside the USA's jurisdiction. Elcomsoft sold the product in the USA. > The idea that > the USA has jurisdiction over the activities of Russian programmers working > in Russia for a Russian software house is simply absurd. Here is an > approximately parallel case: a UK car designer travels to the USA to speak > at a car design convention about a car he designed in the UK under UK law; > these cars are designed to be driven on the left side of the road, and he > admits this freely. Since driving on the left side of the road is illegal > in the USA, the car designer is arrested and thrown into prison on what you > have called a "serious charge". If he had been selling these cars in the US, and depending on his relationship with the company making them, he might well have a case to answer. Why not? > In my view, the USA got off pretty lightly. This was an international > incident. Wars have been started over less. Well, there was the War of Jenkins Ear, I suppose. > Freedom of speech is fundamental. So is the concept of national sovereignty. > The Sklyarov incident shows that the US Government is prepared to ride > rough-shod over both. Neither issue is remotely relevant to the Sklyarov case. Sklyarov was indicted in the US in relation to commercial activity previously conducted in the US, selling goods apparently illegal under US law. - Gerry Quinn .