[sklyarov-chicago] from Adobe

[Peter A. Peterson II]

Quoting Igor Matlin:
> I have to agree with Michael on this one.  Adobe shouldn't be allowed
> to get off the hook that easily.  I'm convinced that the only reason
> they "backed down" is that they consider mission accomplished.  Every
> news outlet had a headline today talking about Adobe's call "for the
> release of the hacker."  They [Adobe] know very well that their call
> is worth next to nothing legally, and they're simply trying to play
> the good guys now.
> 
> I would keep pressure on Adobe until they publicly admit that this
> whole thing was a mistake (not just that "it's no longer productive to
> prosecute"), apologize to Dmitry and his family, and offer legal and
> financial assistance in case USDA office does not drop the charges.

I think you guys are misunderstanding Nate and I -- we're not denying
that Adobe has made a coup here with publicity, and that right-minded
people should stop using their products. For that matter, any Free
Software nut is already boycotting Adobe regardless of their stance on
the DMCA. The point is not what should be done with Adobe -- it's this:

We have a LIMITED amount of protest time. That is a *fact*. Not only do
we all not have the kind of time needed or the venue to take great
lengths of exposition regarding all the interconnected facts. What will
most effectively turn public opinion against the status quo of copyright
law and Dmitry's imprisonment?

I say that it's focusing on the injustice against Dmitry and the sucking
legal wound that is the DMCA. These two things are completely
intertwined and (as Nate said) can be addressed in a streetcorner
minute. 

Exactly why we should boycott Adobe, and what that means to Joe
Chicagoan (who maybe has Acrobat reader on his computer, MAYBE) is not a
good use of our time, of our paper space, or of our breath. If we were
mounting weekly protests for the next year, Adobe might be a worthwhile
target, one that we could properly address in literature etc. But to try
to do Dmitry, the DMCA, Mueller, and Adobe, I think is overkill. We want
people outraged at the imprisonment of an innocent man and at the fact
that the government is stealing their rights to the things they buy. If
we get them doing something about THAT, what Adobe does while their
sandcastle crumbles is not that big of a deal.

Mentioning EULAs and their "contextual legality" on the other hand MAY
be something that we could tie in because of it's similarities to
DMCA-like law perversion.  MAYBE if we put http://www.boycottadobe.com/
on the posters and people asked why we still wanted to do that we could
explain it. But to try and attack all those fronts, to focus on the
Adobe issue, I think is just going to divide our message and confuse our
audience. We're not going to seem like a well-informed, cohesive unit of
Citizens Like Them, we're going to seem like raving, out of touch,
"computer nerds". Adobe played their cards well -- to take precious
minutes and try to expose their broad chicanery is, I think, not the
best use of our time at this point.

But please don't feel like Nate and I feel like Adobe's wearing
snow-white robes just because we don't want to focus on them. We're just
trying to look at this practically.

Finally, this should not be surprising, but other groups around the
country have splintered because of this very thing we're discussing --
whether to attack broadly (including Adobe) or whether to go at it a bit
more focused and reserved. I don't want to see Chicago's group face the
same kind of dissolution.

pedro