Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract? To : comp.programming From : Gerry Quinn Date : Tue Aug 23 2005 12:11 pm In article , invalid@address.co.uk.invalid says... > Gerry Quinn wrote: > > 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. > > Where in the US? Don't know - Washington, I suppose, via the internet. > >> 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. > > Are you claiming that Russian law prohibits the sale of Elcomsoft's > software? Sklyarov wasn't indicted under Russian law. > >> 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. > > So all you have to do is put library fines up to seven million dollars a > day, and suddenly failing to return a library book becomes an arrestable > offence. What a pleasant country you live in. Actually, I don't live in the US - but yes, if library fines were put that high for some reason, I guess there would be no point doing so unless stringent efforts were made to enforce them. > > Particularly > > when the relevant question is whether an indicted party may flee the > > jurisdiction. > > A jurisdiction within which no crime was committed by the indicted party. > His selling activity took place outside the US, in an independent country > called Russia. So what? > But you do have to be in a given country in order to commit a crime in that > country. > > > 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 think he could do precisely that. If the contract was set up in country X > and carried out in country X, then like it or not, it's country X's laws > that apply. If they don't forbid that activity, then that's life. We are supposing that the contract was set up in country X, but carried out (by the hitman) in Russia. In this scenario, Sklyarov could make the same claim that you seem to think automatically exonerates him of all liability, i.e. that while he might have helped cause a crime to happen in Russia, he didn't do anything inside Russia to make it happen. My guess is, though, that while he may be safe if he remains in country X, he will be arrested if he goes to Russia. > > A Federal agent bought one, actually. As I said, the charge seems to > > have been conspiracy to sell them. > > In Russia, where it is not illegal. No, conspiracy to sell them in the US. > >> 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. > > That's nonsense. If the sale was legal in Russia, then no crime was > committed at the Russian end. It is possible that the agent himself > committed a crime by /buying/ the software in the USA, in which case he > should be prosecuted for it. Agents obviously have immunity in such cases. The legal niceties tend to centre around whether they actually provoked the crime - not an issue in the case of goods already offered for sale. Again, see the hitman example. > > But I don't think this was a key issue - the bottom line > > is that the selling crossed national borders. > > Sure. At the selling end, the laws prevalent in the land where the selling > took place apply to the act of selling. At the purchasing end, the laws > prevalent in the land where the buying took place apply to the act of > purchasing. Richard, I am not a lawyer, and neither are you. But the plain fact is that the world does not operate in the fashion you assert. At one time it might have. One consequence of globalisation (and nothing is more global than the internet) is that transnational legal cooperation, willing or unwilling, is a fact of life. Those who think they have a good thing going living between the cracks are likely to be disabused of the notion, unless they have the good fortune to avoid the hostile attention of major players, be they governmental, corporate, NGO or other. If that makes the internet world as presently constituted look more like Deadwood than some idealised community of free thinkers, so be it. There's too much gold there for it to remain outside the bonds of civilisation... - Gerry Quinn .