Let's get this straight--I do oppose the DMCA.
I mentioned the DMCA only because that seems to be the galvanizing force in this particular case. But I feel this is a different case altogether than the DeCSS case. No, OSS programmers are not above the law, but what this programmer was doing was slightly different than what the DeCSS programmer was doing.
I guess all I am saying is that if the DeCSS kid wrote DeCSS and then sold it, I think his case would be entirely different. Likewise, if this guy was just speaking on poor security and how it could be circumvented and had not written a utiltity and then sought to build a business model on it, I think his case would be different as well.
The fact that he has built a company on defrauding Adobe (whether we think their business model is valid or not is another issue) is the sticking point for me. I think this will make his case much harder.
It's the difference between a researcher publishing cryptographic analysis and a corporation designing a product so you can skip paying for it. And America is all about protecting business. A researcher might be looked upon favorably by the courts because of free speech; someone who is profiting by "stealing" (Adobe's view) from another company would not be looked upon so favorably.
No whether or not this programmer really is a profiteer doesn't matter--that is how he will be perceived. And it won't help him.
And BTW, I'm self-employed, so I'm all for making money. I just think this guy didn't think his business plan through ;-)
Veritas otium parit. --Terence
[ Parent ]