Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract? To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Mon Aug 22 2005 12:38 pm In article , invalid@address.co.uk.invalid says... > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > 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. No matter how many times you say that, it still remains false. Sklyarov's indictment had nothing to do with any speech he made. Elcomsoft's products may or may not have been legal in Russia [all the opinions I have seen seem to involve interpretations of automated translations of Russian by anti-copyright pressure groups]. In any case Russian copyright law is hardly to be considered useful or effective. The issue is that Elcomsoft sold their software in the US. This was checked by a Federal agent who bought a copy that was offered for sale there. If selling it was a crime, then a crime took place. You don't have to be at the most obvious scene of a crime to be guilty of it. > >> 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? It is not in general - it will clearly depend on whether the software may legally be sold. > > The charges did not, AFAIK, relate to anything he did at the > > convention. > > And they cannot legally relate to anything he did in Russia. Why can't they? > > 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. A charge with a serious punishment is a serious charge. Particularly when the relevant question is whether an indicted party may flee the jurisdiction. > 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. Like I said, you don't have to be present at the most obvious crime scene to commit a crime. If Sklyarov went to some country where there was no law against contract killing, and hired somebody to kill a Russian business rival, do you think he could walk around free in Moscow (perhaps he could, but that would be more due to poor enforcement than lack of grounds to arrest him). > 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. Perhaps when you discuss these issues, it's time you moved up from Janet and John language. You will note that lawyers tend not to engage in it except when they resort to rhetorical pleas to the jury knowing their clients cases under law are dubious. > > 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? A Federal agent bought one, actually. As I said, the charge seems to have been conspiracy to sell them. > 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? It did relate to his activities while in Russia, on the basis that via certain agencies he caused illegal events to transpire in the US. Cf. hitman example. > > 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. In point of fact, they employed a US company to carry out the transaction. But I don't think this was a key issue - the bottom line is that the selling crossed national borders. > > 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. Yes. We should also stipulate that they were designed to be sold in the US, and that new laws have been introduced to quell a rapidly increasing spate of car drive-side related lawlessness. > >> 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. The agent who bought the software did so without leaving the US. The transaction was, in essence, international. - Gerry Quinn .