Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract? To : comp.programming From : Richard Heathfield Date : Sun Aug 21 2005 05:19 pm Gerry Quinn wrote: > In article , > invalid@address.co.uk.invalid says... >> Gerry Quinn wrote: > >> > [...] 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. It is not a criminal activity, in Russia, to offer Russian software written by Russians in Russia to a worldwide market. No crime took place. You understand this? No crime. THEN Sklyarov went to the USA, the Land of Free Speech For All - and he was arrested, for speaking. Nice. >> > 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. Conspiracy? What conspiracy? What are you talking about? Since when was it a conspiracy to write software and try to sell it to a world market? If that's conspiracy, Microsoft is guilty as hell, but I don't recall Bill Gates being imprisoned at any point. >> > 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. And they cannot legally relate to anything he did in Russia. So what was he charged with? Jaywalking? He didn't have time to do anything else. > DMCA violations are serious charges, allowing for millions > of dollars in fines and up to five years imprisonment. That's not a serious charge. It's a serious punishment all right, but it's not a serious charge. It's a stupid charge, in this case - and the DMCA is widely regarded as an idiotic law anyway, at least by those in the free world (which doesn't seem to include the USA nowadays). And please remember that we're talking about a Russian program developed in Russia by Russians for a Russian company. The USA does not have jurisdiction in Russia. The DMCA does not apply in Russia. The DMCA is a local bye-law, as far as the world is concerned. Dmitri Sklyarov could not break the DMCA in Russia because the DMCA is not part of Russian law. I'm sorry to have to spell this out in Janet and John language, but it really does seem that you won't otherwise understand the concept. "The USA" and "the world" are not isomorphic. USA law doesn't apply in Russia. The USA doesn't have jurisdiction in Russia. The DMCA is not applicable in Russia. I am running out of ways to say this. > 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. Yes, Adobe bought a copy of the Elcomsoft software. But not, apparently, from Dmitri Sklyarov. So what, precisely, did he do wrong? > >> 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. Fine, and it couldn't relate to his activities in Russia, since the DMCA doesn't apply in Russia. So what did he do wrong, and when? > >> > 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. It's brutishly authoritarian to lock someone up for no good reason. > >> 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. Really? I thought they were a Russian company, based in Russia, with Russian employees. Do you have evidence that they sold the product in the USA? The indictment suggests that Adobe bought the product over the Internet, which - as far as I can see - means that whilst it may have been /bought/ in the USA, it was /sold/ in Russia, under Russian law. >> 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? But what if he was selling them in the UK, and a US guy happened to buy one via mail order? That is a more closely parallel case. > >> 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. Quite. Behind that apparently jocular title lies a rather gruesome background - and a nation showing that it is prepared to stand up for its people when they are abused abroad. Rightly so, in my opinion. >> 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. That doesn't appear to be the case. Rather, it seems that the commercial activity took place in Russia. Russian law would apply in that case, not US law. -- Richard Heathfield "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999 http://www.cpax.org.uk mail: rjh at above domain .