US Law vs. The Rest of the World
-
Hi all, I just read a news item regarding Dmitry Sklyarov and his indictment for copyright violations. Not regarding guilt or innocence for the moment, a question arises in my mind. He, as a citizen of a country where it is legal to write the sort of software that he did, has been arrested by the FBI when he entered US territory. How can this be possible, or am I missing something fundamental to this case? Does this mean that if the US (or any other nation for that matter) enacts a law of any type for any reason, that I can be arrested for breaking that law when I enter the US, even if it is completely legal in my own country? This doesnt quite seem right to me.
-
Hi all, I just read a news item regarding Dmitry Sklyarov and his indictment for copyright violations. Not regarding guilt or innocence for the moment, a question arises in my mind. He, as a citizen of a country where it is legal to write the sort of software that he did, has been arrested by the FBI when he entered US territory. How can this be possible, or am I missing something fundamental to this case? Does this mean that if the US (or any other nation for that matter) enacts a law of any type for any reason, that I can be arrested for breaking that law when I enter the US, even if it is completely legal in my own country? This doesnt quite seem right to me.
This is not an US Law, it happens everywhere in the world. If you are indicted by any country because you've infringed it's law and you travel there then you'll surely get arrested. Not even only if you travel there, but they can also ask other countries for extradiction if you go there (like what happened here in Europe with Pinotchet)
-
This is not an US Law, it happens everywhere in the world. If you are indicted by any country because you've infringed it's law and you travel there then you'll surely get arrested. Not even only if you travel there, but they can also ask other countries for extradiction if you go there (like what happened here in Europe with Pinotchet)
I don't know enough to comment with any authoirty on this, but the story on slashdot asked how the US would respond if a US citizen visiting Russia was detained there for breaking a Russian law while they were in the US. No matter who is right, I think that question still bears thinking about. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
-
Hi all, I just read a news item regarding Dmitry Sklyarov and his indictment for copyright violations. Not regarding guilt or innocence for the moment, a question arises in my mind. He, as a citizen of a country where it is legal to write the sort of software that he did, has been arrested by the FBI when he entered US territory. How can this be possible, or am I missing something fundamental to this case? Does this mean that if the US (or any other nation for that matter) enacts a law of any type for any reason, that I can be arrested for breaking that law when I enter the US, even if it is completely legal in my own country? This doesnt quite seem right to me.
My understanding of the situation was that he was arrested because the company he worked for sold the software (which Sklyarov allegedly designed) in the US for approx $70 through a website registered to a US company. It was this action that violated US law.
-
My understanding of the situation was that he was arrested because the company he worked for sold the software (which Sklyarov allegedly designed) in the US for approx $70 through a website registered to a US company. It was this action that violated US law.
When a company breaks the law by doing something like polluting the environment, are the individuals who work at the company fined/prosecuted or is the company prosecuted? The company is, of course. This specific issue is so complex because of all of the different circumstances. It crosses international boundaries (with different laws), Skylarov didn't actually steal an eBook (yes his code would allow people to do so, but it also allows fair use -- something the eBook format does not), his presentation was in the interest of research, Adobe backed down, and so on. I don't think that this is a good case to use as a precedent. It would be far better to create a fair law balanced between allowing companies to make money from intellectual property they have paid to develop, but still allowing consumers the freedom to use that technology. An important thing to keep in mind is that allowing people to copy or share books, music and movies is not proven to be as disastrous as it is made out to be. VCRs have been around forever and people still buy movies, libraries allow people to read books for free. I borrow and lend movies and books from friends -- is this a crime? The difference in the digital world is that a copy is the same (or nearly the same) as the original. But since the cost of production is also much lower it should be sold to the consumer for a lower price. Most people do not want to be theives and if they are given the choice of paying a fair price for something or stealing it, most would pay. There is no point worrying about the rest because they are going to steal it anyway. So why have strict copy protection and brutal laws when a simple reminder that paying for a product pays a real person's wages should suffice? Unless a greedy company sees a way to make a killing by creating and enforcing artificial market conditions such a DVD region encoding. "das leid schlaft in der maschine" -Einstürzende Neubauten
-
I don't know enough to comment with any authoirty on this, but the story on slashdot asked how the US would respond if a US citizen visiting Russia was detained there for breaking a Russian law while they were in the US. No matter who is right, I think that question still bears thinking about. Christian As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet. Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
The gist of the story as I understand it was that he was arrested because he gave a speech on how to do it while he was in America. If he had given the speech in some other country, I doubt anything would have happened to him (the US would still be pissed, though). -- Russell Morris Georgia Institute of Technology "Hello, I'm doctor stupid. I'm going to take out your liver bones!" - Ralph Wiggum
-
When a company breaks the law by doing something like polluting the environment, are the individuals who work at the company fined/prosecuted or is the company prosecuted? The company is, of course. This specific issue is so complex because of all of the different circumstances. It crosses international boundaries (with different laws), Skylarov didn't actually steal an eBook (yes his code would allow people to do so, but it also allows fair use -- something the eBook format does not), his presentation was in the interest of research, Adobe backed down, and so on. I don't think that this is a good case to use as a precedent. It would be far better to create a fair law balanced between allowing companies to make money from intellectual property they have paid to develop, but still allowing consumers the freedom to use that technology. An important thing to keep in mind is that allowing people to copy or share books, music and movies is not proven to be as disastrous as it is made out to be. VCRs have been around forever and people still buy movies, libraries allow people to read books for free. I borrow and lend movies and books from friends -- is this a crime? The difference in the digital world is that a copy is the same (or nearly the same) as the original. But since the cost of production is also much lower it should be sold to the consumer for a lower price. Most people do not want to be theives and if they are given the choice of paying a fair price for something or stealing it, most would pay. There is no point worrying about the rest because they are going to steal it anyway. So why have strict copy protection and brutal laws when a simple reminder that paying for a product pays a real person's wages should suffice? Unless a greedy company sees a way to make a killing by creating and enforcing artificial market conditions such a DVD region encoding. "das leid schlaft in der maschine" -Einstürzende Neubauten
I borrow and lend movies and books from friends -- is this a crime? I'm sure publishing companies would like it to be.
-
Hi all, I just read a news item regarding Dmitry Sklyarov and his indictment for copyright violations. Not regarding guilt or innocence for the moment, a question arises in my mind. He, as a citizen of a country where it is legal to write the sort of software that he did, has been arrested by the FBI when he entered US territory. How can this be possible, or am I missing something fundamental to this case? Does this mean that if the US (or any other nation for that matter) enacts a law of any type for any reason, that I can be arrested for breaking that law when I enter the US, even if it is completely legal in my own country? This doesnt quite seem right to me.
I think it is pretty right. This is a pretty extreme example but it illustrates a point: Say you arrange for the terrorist bombing of a monument in America. All goes to plan and your minions do the work, some getting arrested and others managing to evade the cops till they get to Mexico. The FBI then interrogates one of the captured minions, finds out about you and declares that you are responsible for the crime against America. Now for some odd reason (hey its an example) the country you live, lets say Libia, says terrorism is ok as long as it is not on their soil. So in your country you are free as a bird but you still flipping well blew up some monument and killed thousands in America, you are still a criminal. As soon as you enter America you are under their laws and they should have every right to arrest you. Naturally America and Libia would have to negotiate and ensure that everything is in accordance with their inter-country-agreements. Point is if you have some rogue state (hey I used Libia for a reason!) where they are half-assed about crime and the rest of the world cannot enforce their laws on criminals entering their country then criminals would use these countries as a staging ground for everything they do. Things would go down the toilet pretty quickly. regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
-
I think it is pretty right. This is a pretty extreme example but it illustrates a point: Say you arrange for the terrorist bombing of a monument in America. All goes to plan and your minions do the work, some getting arrested and others managing to evade the cops till they get to Mexico. The FBI then interrogates one of the captured minions, finds out about you and declares that you are responsible for the crime against America. Now for some odd reason (hey its an example) the country you live, lets say Libia, says terrorism is ok as long as it is not on their soil. So in your country you are free as a bird but you still flipping well blew up some monument and killed thousands in America, you are still a criminal. As soon as you enter America you are under their laws and they should have every right to arrest you. Naturally America and Libia would have to negotiate and ensure that everything is in accordance with their inter-country-agreements. Point is if you have some rogue state (hey I used Libia for a reason!) where they are half-assed about crime and the rest of the world cannot enforce their laws on criminals entering their country then criminals would use these countries as a staging ground for everything they do. Things would go down the toilet pretty quickly. regards, Paul Watson Cape Town, South Africa e: paulmwatson@email.com w: vergen.org
Well, the problem with your example is this: the individual who arranged the terrorist attack did so in a country where such an activity (the planning) is legal. The planned attack is carried out in a country where both the planning and the actual terrorist action is illegal. So you're saying it's OK to prosecute this individual when he enters the US, although his actions (the planning) was carried out in a place where it's perfectly legal. The hard part here is that since your individual did not participate personally in the terrorist act, he hasn't directly been involved in an illegal activity on US soil. But he did have a strong hand in making it happen. So did he break US law on US soil or not? Another example is this: In some states in the US it was once illegal to have oral sex (I don't know if it's still the case, I'm not US). Should this mean that if you had oral sex back home in Libya then it would be OK for the US authorities to arrest you when you enter US? I think the big question in the OP was whether the Russion guy had broken US law while he was in the US - such as giving a speak explaining how to circumvent the security. Selling the program via the net should in my opinion not in itself be illegal, as the trading was done in a country where it's legal. The customer in US ordering the software in Russia is actually the importer of the product (even though he's only importing it to himself), and thus the customer is breaking US law, not the programmer. Just my $0.02. Hope I didn't get it all wrong. Cheers Steen. "To claim that computer games influence children is rediculous. If Pacman had influenced children born in the 80'ies we would see a lot of youngsters running around in dark rooms eating pills while listening to monotonous music"