Stardate 20010723.2103 (On Screen): With regard to the Sklyarov case, Brian Carnell makes an outstanding point: the alleged crime was committed in Russia where it's not illegal. If the US does in fact proceed with this prosecution, then it means that US is claiming that its laws are applicable everywhere. If so, then everyone else's laws will be applicable here, and US companies and citizens would also be subject to the laws of places like France or Afghanistan for acts performed in the US which are legal here. Bye-bye, Bill of Rights.
"No jurisdiction" is unquestionably the primary defense which should be used, and Brian is quite correct that the case would probably be dismissed on that basis, if indeed it even gets prosecuted. My worry now is that EFF, who is going to be helping to defend Sklyarov, will have a conflict of interest and try to push "First Amendment" instead. That's a tougher case to win, and it's not in Sklyarov's best interests to use that defense unless "no jurisdiction" fails. From EFF's point of view, "no jurisdiction" gets Sklyarov off but doesn't do anything about the constitutionality of the DMCA. A "First Amendment" defense has the possibility of actually knocking the DMCA down, but it would take longer and be less certain. Sklyarov's attorneys absolutely must put his best interests first, no matter who is paying the bills. (discuss)
Update: Adobe has completely backed down; they've issued a joint press release with EFF asking for Sklyarov to be released and the charges dropped. I think it was beginning to dawn on them what an unbelievable blunder they had made. This will help some, but it's still going to leave a sour taste for a long time. I wonder if anyone's head will roll at Adobe for this screwup.
