In reading through just now it sounds very much like the final argument synopsis I’m typing up.
Danny’s able to figure it all out from Monday’s testimony with Dmitry 🙂
Here are some of his main points:
The Defence
* … claimed Elcomsoft produced the software to expose weaknesses in e-book products.
* … asserted Elcomsoft deliberately kept the price of software high to reduce the damage to ebook publishers. (The claim here is that $100 was enough to dissuade casual copiers of books, but allowed them to release the software into general use.)
* … said that the software in the case – the Advanced Ebook Processor, is essentially the same as the Advanced PDF password recovery program, which Adobe appears to have no complaint with.
* … and that Elcomsoft (and Sklyarov) intended the software to be used for non-infringing uses: backup copies, blind users, fair use, etc. (The backup provision is the most important here. Under Russian law, any computer user can make one backup copy – something they claim would not be possible with a standard Adobe ebook.)
The Prosecution
* …pointed out that Dmitry didn’t write a program that exclusively produce copies in accordance with fair use (ie allow you to cut and paste just a few pages, output only in braille, etc.)
* …asked why, if they wanted to draw attention to the flaws in Adobe’s ebook, why Dmitry hadn’t released his exploit on Bugtraq. (This is a fascinating attack, given that it seems to imply that it would be *better* for Elcomsoft to release flaws on Bugtraq. Given that many people believe that releasing such circumvention code on Bugtraq is a breach of the DMCA itself, this seems kind of a weird condemnation. The point wasn’t examined in detail by either prosecution or defence. Dmitry said that Elcomsoft didn’t want to damage ebook publishers by publically releasing the exploit.)
* …said that by reverse-engineering Adobe’s ebook reader, Sklyarov had breached Adobe’s download license. Dmitry pointed out that reverse-engeering for compatibility reasons was legal in Russia, so that part of the license didn’t apply.
Here’s the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.oblomovka.com/entries/2002/12/09#1039499520
2002-12-09