[DMCA-Activists] Re: [DMCA_Discuss] Student Charged for Breach of DirecTV "DRM"Trade Secret

[Anatoly Volynets]

On Sun, 5 Jan 2003 address@hidden wrote:

> I really don't see this story as much more than a thief getting caught.
> IMO, this is way outside the bounds of fair use, and is just a
> criminal act.
>

I question your opinion in some respects.

It does not make sense today to ask whether this action was
legal or not. People and businesses get prosecuted and punished
under DMCA and other culture strangling laws so we may safely
call them all criminals. Like those who illegally freed slaves
some time ago could be prosecuted and punished for infringing
private property rights. But the question is if those rights
were just. Same story here: I do not have a speck of doubt about
complete wrongness of all IP related laws. Granted, I have never
been thinking particularly about economic espionage. This means
for me: it is necessary to separate cultural aspect from
proprietary one in this particular area in order to understand
how it should be. I cannot judge Mr. Serebryany for what he had
done: maybe he wanted to uncover criminals and found no other
way to do so. Consider all stories related to the Church of
Scientology. It is quite possible that discussed event "was
painted" the same way.

See some more below.

> > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Seth Johnson wrote:
>
> >
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/03/technology/03PIRA.html?ex=1042174800&en=6c78d302b05b60c9&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
> >
> > Student Charged in DirecTV Theft
> > By JENNIFER 8. LEE
> >
> >
...
> >
> > Prosecutors said Mr. Serebryany, a sophomore at the
> > University of Chicago, stole confidential papers about
> > DirecTV's latest generation of satellite television smart
> > cards from the law firm of Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue. Mr.
> > Serebryany, who worked for an outside document preparation
> > company, was imaging papers for a civil lawsuit over
> > DirecTV's card technology.
> >

So what was it? Who can say right away that the law was not used
here to shut up private anti-criminal investigation? I cannot
and you cannot either. So what was your judgment based on? I
understand - on principle. "Thou shalt not steal". But what
about principle? Economic espionage... is this 100% criminal
activity from your point of view? Not from mine. Were is the
exact line drawn between this an reverse engineering? I see only
question not an answer.

...
> >
> > While prosecutors say Mr. Serebryany did not profit
> > personally by releasing the documents, the Economic
> > Espionage Act prohibits the release of information to
> > benefit others. "This is a very serious crime which we will
> > prosecute aggressively," said James W. Spertus, an assistant
> > United States attorney.
> >

So what you called him thief for? Who supposed to benefit here?
Isn't it important to know before you judge? If law says a man
committed crime than he is a criminal. But this is not only one
question we should ask ourselves: what a law says. We ask
ourselves also: if the law is just, what the man wanted, etc. We
must and we do ask these questions even being on jury duty. So
why you were in that big hurry to accuse?

...
> >
> > DirecTV said that the documents, though confidential, did
> > not provide a roadmap for reverse-engineering the new chip.
> > "The card is designed so that even if you know everything
> > about it, you still can't hack it," said Marc Zwillinger,
> > the lead lawyer for DirecTV's anti-piracy efforts.
> >

So it is about a principle, not about an actual damage! Another
example of IP Rage, nothing more. Remember that absolutely
idiotic case when girl-scouts were charged for singing? They got
1$ annually in fines (or royalties? do not remember). So IP
related argument is about principles not about damages and
rewards and we must take it there: in fields of principles. Here
I question you and all other 'pro-copyrightists at al' how can
you mix and judge culture related activities from proprietary
stand point? Are you 100% comfortable while doing this?

...
> > DirecTV has been plagued by piracy. The company has 11
> > million paying subscribers, but industry analysts estimate
> > that an additional million or more households illicitly
> > receive DirecTV signals. To combat the piracy, DirecTV spent
> > $25 million on research and development of Period 4, which
> > it introduced last year. The company is also spending tens
> > of millions of dollars to mail the cards to subscribers.
> >

Dense stupidity like all other acts of IP enraged holders. They
loose no more (in terms of percentage) than casual retail store
does from shop lifters and spend approximately the same amount
to fight it, actually doubling their loses. Plus: nobody can
guarantee that those who get illicit signals would pay for
service if cannot have it for free. Plus: those "pirates"
actually work as promoters, who actually save DirectTV money for
commercials, etc. All the same old stories. And they point out
in the same direction: it is all matter of principles.

Hence: let's come back to principles and try to understand what
they are in Culture.

Anatoly
http://www.total-knowledge.com