Re: [dvd-discuss] Skylarov indicted for trafficing and conspiracy.

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

True.Those are the facts of the case but Adobe also claims that they KNEW 
that there was criminal activity and on the basis of that the State has 
incarcerated an individual and is now using the court system. now Adobe 
claims that there may be no criminal activity.... I don't buy the argument 
that "well I believed it was the case at that time because I ignored 
everything to the contrary but then when  I looked at it more I saw I was 
wrong so you can't do anything about it". If you are not certain, you 
don't persue their course. Adobe is responsible for swearing out a warrent 
that they later repudiate, then Adobe PAYS for it both to Skylarov and the 
Government. If Adobe is not punished for false accusation then swearing 
falsly becomes just another weapon for corporations and people to use. Yes 
it is the Salem Witch trials...it's the same sort of approach.  As you 
point out, that's exactly what made the Salem Witch Trials go. The girls 
could say anything do anything and then victims had to deal with the 
punishments(I loved how a neighboring town let the girls writh in the 
street for a couple of hours ignoring their antics until they miraculously 
became unpossessed and left town.)





Steve Stearns <sterno@bigbrother.net>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
08/29/01 09:18 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] Skylarov indicted for trafficing and conspiracy.


On Wed, 29 Aug 2001 Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:

> IANAL but if found innocent and Adobe withdrawing support, Adobe may 
have 
> its own legal problems.....swearing out a false statement that caused 
> incarceration and prosecution.

Ah but was it false?  It is true that he worked for Elcom, and it is true
that he had a hand in writing the software.  There may be some debate as
to how much of a hand and how directly he can be held accountable for the
actions of Elcom, but that he had some part in writing the software is not
really in question.  For Adobe to get into trouble they'd have to
KNOWINGLY make a false statement.  Very hard to proove even if it was
true.

This is one of the big problems I see with how the DMCA is written when it
comes to identifying and dealing with copyright violations on-line.  If
the MPAA thinks you have something that vioaltes their copyright, then
they send a letter to your ISP telling them to remove it.  In that letter
they legally affirm that they believe your violation to be true.  But how
do they get called on this?  If they falsely accuse you, unless you can
proove that they knowingly lied, you can't do anything to them can
you?  There needs to be some consequence for a false accusation to keep
them in check and right now there seems to be no such provision.

The salem witch trials come to mind for some odd reason :)

---Steve