Slashdot Mirror
Jon Johansen Indicted by Norwegian Authorities
phlawed writes: "This story (norwegian) states that the authorities responsible for investigating economic crime in Norway today (after 2 years of "investigation") charged JLJ for violating a law regarding computer "break-ins", commonly known as the "hacker paragraph". This is for distributing the DeCSS sourcecode. The analysis so far (by media) is that the authorities not necessarily thinks JLJ is guilty, but due to unclear wording in the relevant law they seem to think that the courts should have a look at it... It is worth noting that JLJ has *not* been charged for violating any law regarding IP, piracy or such." I've only found one story in English, which is quite vague. Hopefully the above poster is correct in summarizing the situation.
The norwegian version here is identical to the English one.
The motivation is that Jan has broken the crypto. "When you buy the disc, you buy the rights to play the movie, not to copy it".
They just don't get it. You have to be able to decode the data to play it.
It has NOTHING to do with copying.
Now that we have these super-encompassing, yet vague laws regarding computers, data, and the Internet, the authorities have to go and arrest (you'd figure after 2 years of investigations they would have a good idea if he was guilty or not!) people just to "try out the ideas in court"!
"Hey you, come over here. I've been watching your for 2 hours, and I'm not sure if picking your nose is illegal, but let's see if the courts think that is obscene" (yeah, bad analogy)
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
It might be worth noting that VG Nett has the same story here.
The Mini Repository - more links
.. and even though IANAL, I think the whole thing is pretty weak. He seems to be charged with paragraphs mostly used for cracking computers.
The norwegian article states that the same laws were used to prosecute people cracking TV-coding so that they could watch TV-signals without paying. The norwegian supreme court concluded that those paragraphs could not be used to punish this incident.
The weakest part to me seems to be the prosecutors words on buying a DVD:
"When you buy a DVD, you buy the right to view it, but not to copy it".
This is blatantly false, as people in Norway also have fair use rights to their purchases.
I was actually a bit shocked to see that he was prosecuted. I would understand it under the DMCA, but Norway does not have these kind of laws.
Hopefully the above poster is correct in summarizing the situation.
/.! :)
I love
The Anti-Blog
I've got fifty karma, let's play devil's advocate and see how many people I can get torqued at me.
When you purchase a DVD, you are paying for the ability to play it on players approved by the people who made the disc. As much as everyone hates to admit it, there is nothing illegal about this. You can buy a DVD without owning a player, and if you do you can't sue about not being able to watch it. Likewise, you can't write a program that lets you watch it on something the makers don't want you to watch it on. Because if they knew you were doing that, they wouldn't sell you the movie.
We have no 'rights' to view any movie, really. If we did, theaters couldn't make a profit off of tickets, and DVDs would only be priced high enough to cover costs.
If you want to watch a movie, get a real DVD player. Don't complain because you can't do it on your Linux box. Don't write software that does something illegal. Just like you shouldn't sell de-scrambler kits for cable TV. Same thing, only software.
A quick translation of the law in question: "To break a protection mechanism or otherwise getting unauthorized access to data which is stored or transmitted electronically or by other technical means, and cause damage by gaining or using such unwarranted knowledge." (Copied from story in Aftenposten in Norwegian.)
Aftenposten also has a story in English.
This is the exact same paragraph which is used to convict hackers in Norway.
He might very well get convicted, I'm sad to say. He did break a protection mechanism, or distribute a means to break a protection mechanism. Although that mechanism was severely flawed.
Hey, if the Norwegian authorities determine that it is indeed illegal to distribute the DeCSS source code, does that mean that the Norwegian authorities will call the FBI to have US citizens arrested, detained and then extradited to stand trial in Norway?
:-(
I mean, after all, isn't that what the FBI does now? When a foreign national breaks a US law but is not currently in the country, we have foreign law enforcement authorities extradite them to the US to stand trial. The US government has been doing this for years--imagine if the Norwegian government began to do that same? The country would be devoid of DVD-owning Linux users.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
The 18 year only Jon Lech Johansen has been indicted for breaking the "computer trespasing" paragraph of the norwegian criminal code.
Thursday January 10, 2002 14:02, updated 14:53.
This is confirmed to NTB by attorney Inger Marie Sunde. Johansen has since January 2000 been charged by the norwegian financial crimes unit (Økokrim) after being reported by the american movie- and entertainment organization Movie Picture Association (MPA).
The background is that Johansen in 1999 participated in creating a program, DeCSS, that make it possible to play back DVD movie under the Linux operating system, and made it available on the internet. The program can also be used to decrypt the content of DVD-disks and makes it possible to copy the movie.
Johansen is indicted for participating in breaking the protection system Content Scrambling System (CSS), that protects the content of DVD-disks from copying.
Johansen is indicted based on the criminal code paragraph 145, parts two and tree Sunde informs the NTB.
From the inditement:
"- For by breaking a protection scheme, of by similar activities unjustly having gained access to data stored of transmitted by electronic or other technical means and by having caused damage by gaining or using such unjustly obtained knowledge."
The charged offense carries a maximum sentence of 6 months in prison.
Acts@core.mailboks.com Acrux@core.mailboks.com Adam@core.mailboks.com Adar@core.mailboks.com Ada@core.mailboks.com
DeCSS isn't a trade secret any longer, according to this kuro5hin story from November, and also according to the story linked to from the Norwegian site... According to the EFF even the DVD CCA have stopped attempting to limit its distribution.
Also, according to this, the DVD CCA claimed at least once that reverse engineering the CSS code was 'in principal lawful', and that the illegal part of it was from the fact that the reverse engineering was done from a piece of software which required you to click through a contract that said you agreed not to do so.
All of which makes me wonder why the Norwegians have decided to make a fuss about it now. Just when I thought we'd finally heard the last of CSS lawsuits.
Added to which, I have no idea about the Norwegian law but surely the kid was a minor at the time? He's only 18 now! Maybe it's different in Norway but most countries seem to relax laws somewhat for children...?
Better yet, just have everyone's pay check automatically deduct 30% and send it to RIAA/MPAA. Since everyone is a crook including every executive at RIAA/MPAA, we should all just give in.
are they indicting him just to get a judge to make a ruling about the law? Isn't the adgenda of prosecutor to put criminals away and not to try potentially innocent (they're not even sure) with an intrusive court case just to find out a judges interpretation of an ambigious law.
... mookle.
Next thing ye know, they'll have prosecutors setting up people just to see if a new law can be applied, wait for a conviciton, then if the innocent can be bothered with an appeal, add in a statement such as "Oh, it was kinda entrapment, it just didn't seem relevant to tell the court at the trial *shrug*, but at least we know how the law should be interpreted!".
Then again, I might be completely wrong, and if that's the case then
Cheers,
leroy.
I'm not associated with the MPAA, but after some thought on this I came up with the only reasonable explanation for their behavior.
They (of course) don't want to ever lose control of their works. Their ideal world would be one with no public domain at all, no fair use, and every time you sang "Happy Birthday" you made a mircopayment.
So here's what they do. First they need to get total control of their current works, so they create a "copy control scheme"- yes, CSS. But wait, CSS doesn't stop copying- pirates can copy a DVD and the CSS layer (with the right equipment; almost certainly possible with the same used by the studios to make the DVDs to start with, or such with small modifications). So CSS won't effectivly stop copying, just "unauthorized" access.
Step two in this nefarious scheme is to make it illegal to break this protection scheme (vis a vis the DMCA). And now, the perpetrators rest assured that (barring any bumps) they can now gain income on their works forever. Why? Because I can't try to de-CSS (or if you prefer DeCSS) a DVD movie (even one that has passed into public domain) without doing something illegal. So whoever CSS'd the movie in the first place becomes the only legal distributor, even though the content may (technically) be in the public domain.
Yes, even I recognize this as being overtly paranoid, but I challenge you to come up with a better alternative explanation of recent events.
Do you like Japanese imports?
...he is being charged with this here and now?
According to this article he was charged around Jan 2000?
What happened?
Bullshit, he has never claimed to be the author of the entire program.
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
Nowhere on the packaging does it say this. There isn't any indication, prior to the sale, that the usage of the DVD is so unusually restricted.
Just as when I purchase a book, I am not just paying for the ability to read it by the light of some particular manufacturer's lamp.
When you buy something, you're paying for what you expect. Sometimes when you buy something, there is a detailed contract that actually spells it out explicitly. In the case of most "consumer" things, it is not explicitly spelled out, and it's just common sense.
Also, keep in mind that when DIVX was still around, people who promoted DVDs said that one of the advantages of DVD over DIVX was that DVD was a real standard. Calling something a standard has huge implications about what you can do with it. Now that DIVX is dead, they're trying to take back what they said? Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want the larger marketshare and competitive advantages that come with adhering to a standard, then you accept that your product will be used in a manner where it interoperates with other parties that you have no relationship with. You can't have standards and monopolies at the same time. It is too late for MPAA or DVDCCA or whoever it is, to redefine what the customer's expectations are. That would be fraud.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I shall take that as a compliment. Thank you for your kind words.
Robotiq.com is heavily tested on animals
One: is there a fund for Jon that we can contribute to?
Two: I wonder if the MPAA or movie studios could be sued for false advertising? If you notice, all advertisements for DVDs like "Shrek" or whatever scream "own this DVD NOW!" Yet, the studios emphatically deny that customers actually own the DVD or the right to do anything with it other than play it on an officially sanctioned player. If you "own" the DVD doesn't that imply the right to play it in any way you want, or can do with it as you will? Obviously, you don't own the rights to the content, so re-distribution is out -- but I'd think ownership should require the right to decode the content for personal use.
Class action suit, anyone?
I suspect someone's going to have a field day talking about the word "authorized" in that law.
Obviously access is authorized, otherwise no one could play the movie on *anything*.
And who gets to "authorize" the access? Does Norway permit companies to write their own little bits of legislation defining "authorization"? And to "authorize" helping themselves to more money by creating more middleware (pay for the disc with the movie, pay for the decoder, pay for the displayer, pay for a chair to park your ass in while you watch it)? Is building your own furniture now illegal, too?
Alternatively, are those who write versions of "login" equally culpable under this misbegotten law? After all, it permits access to systems and data, and might conceivably be misused to gain "unauthorized" access.
Hopefully Afterposten will continue with English translations on this story...
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-2000-01/lw -01-dvd-interview.html
He's a wonderfully plain-spoken person. My other favorite Jon Johansen quote is from when he was responding to reporter Declan McCullagh, and Declan was arrogantly giving Jon a hard time for not immediate returning Declan's request for comment:
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)Yeah, we europeans are all alike. All europeans where Nazis during WWII, and you americans kicked all of our collective asses. Alone. The american way.
The swedish minister of commerce referred to Norway as 'The last soviet state' last year. This was obviously not true, and a really stupid thing to say, but the point is that there is a large gap between the politics of different european countries.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
But what about the ", and cause damage by gaining or using such unwarrented knowledge" bit? It's not illegal to break in, it's illegal to break in and cause damage.
Not only that, but unwarranted knowledge is the kicker - it says that you can't break in to something you don't have the rights to
Since you've already purchased the DVD, you have the rights to view it.
The previous posts about this being applied to TV descramblers makes sense - you don't have the right to view the scambled signal, because you haven't subscribed.. but since you can already legally view (you have "warranted knowledge") the disc, the whole thing goes out the window.
Some website vandals and system crackers lack of moral backbone has little bearing on Law Enforcement toying with people's lives. "Two years, to investigate existing evidence and you don't really know whether a suspect broke the law, which you don't actually even understand, so charge him and let the courts figure it out?" (The jist of the story) Sorry, but that is irresponsible bullshit. It's like charging someone with murder without a victim.
Slashdot is not encouraging illegal behavior, The US Federal Gov't is making illegal laws.
The simple fact of the matter is, that the Fed lacks the authority to further several corporation's interests at the expense of inalienable rights of its citizens. The DMCA violates the Free Expression, First Sale Doctrine, and Fair Use rights of the American people. None of those are rights granted by the law, they are simply given legal recognition.
If the First Amendment was repealed tomorrow, Americans wouldn't lose their right to free expression, their right to free expression would simply lose legal recognition. The Right to Free Speech was never given by the Federal Government, and isn't the Federal Government's to take away.
All that making DeCSS illegal does is make it so you can't legally watch a DVD on any software or hardware that the creator of didn't pay a $100,000 minimum license fee to the MPAA.
To **COPY** and **PIRATE** a DVD, you just duplicate it bit-by-bit. You **DO NOT** use DeCSS to decrypt it first, or it will not even work on many DVD players.
Now, would you please explain what evil behavior the Slashdot community is tolerating here? If I go into DVD-World and buy six movies where does the MPAA get the right to tell me what I can watch them on?
Civil liberties aren't priviledges that are granted and taken away from bad little boys and bad little girls a the whim of big brother. They are your beating heart in your chest, ripped, still beating, from it by murderous tyrants.
People showed up in the court when Skylarov was charged.
Should the norwegians able to do so show up (say, with large banners with the DeCSS source code and the proper buttons and slogans) when the case is tried? Would it be a wise thing to do? And anyone with me?
It also looks like (from NettAvisen) that the authorities are mostly after trying out the hacker paragraph and not necisarrily get him convicted...
Lastly, I don't think it's been mentioned yet that MPAA is responsible for this...they hired the lawyer that convinced the authorities into charging him (according to www.itavisen.no).
- Dag Sverre, Bø i Telemark
Insanity x Insanity = Insanity. This proves that insanity is the identity element.
Having got that out the way, let's look at that quote from the lawyer a bit closer. "You buy the rights to watch the movie, not to copy it."
Pardon me for not being able to directly teleport the digital signal off the DVD, descramble it in my brain, and view it without the aid of any mechanical device. For, surely, should you require a mechanical device to view the DVD, then you must have two copies at the time of viewing. One on the DVD, and one generated by the device used for viewing.
Conclusion: To have the right to view a DVD IS to have a limited right to copy the DVD, as many times as you like, so long as the copies are transient, and exist only for the duration of viewing the DVD. (If you want to be absolutely merciless, you could argue that they can only exist for the duration of viewing a frame. But the duration WILL be non-zero, no matter how short you require it to be.)
So long as DeCSS does not, in and of itself, produce permanent or semi-permanent copies, but rather produces a stream of transient images, then it is not a copying device. It is a viewing device. To produce a copy, you must produce a means of creating a more permanent rendering.
This reminds me of a "hacking" case in England, back in the 1980's. Someone broke into Prince Philip's private e-mail account. He was accused of counterfeiting the "key", as I recall, as there was no law specifically against computer cracking at the time. The prosecution argued that typing in a password constituted posessing and using a pick-lock, which was illegal.
The defence argued that the password never actually resided on the alleged system cracker's computer, and therefore posession never occured. (Yes, they accepted, the password was -temporarily- there, but that an instantaneous existance did not qualify as residing.) If there was no posession, then the alleged cracker could not be guilty of the exact crime as charged. They then argued that the courts were there to judge the offence, as stated, not to decide the morality of the defendent.
Again, as I recall, the defence won, and a whole slew of new laws were rapidly drawin up, in an attempt to fix the mess. (The "Computer Misuse Act" dates from around this time, along with the "Data Protection Act".)
The same logic would seem to apply to Jon Johansen's case. The courts aren't there to decide if DeCSS is moral or immoral. They are there to decide if it constitutes, in this case, unauthorized access to, or unauthorized use of a computer, through the process of unauthorized duplication.
The parallels seem clear to me. DeCSS doesn't posess any copies, for the same reason. Each block of data exists instantaneously, and therefore actual posession does not occur. If no copy exists, in a legal sense, then no duplication has occured. If there is no duplication, then there is no unauthorized use - at least, in terms of what is charged. It is irrelevent, for any legal purposes, whether the use was authorized or not for anything other than what is charged. The charge is the sole concern. (At least in theory.)
Once you go down this path, you can see that the case almost has to collapse, if Jon can get a decent lawyer. Whatever your personal belief, with regards to DeCSS, whether you believe it is right, wrong or indifferent, your beliefs really are irrelevent to what the courts decide. The judge has one decision to make, and one alone: Does the law fit the facts? Yes or no. No twisting, no modifying, no reading between the lines, no adding stuff. If the answer is no, and I can't see how it could be anything else, then Jon Johannsen is innocent of the charge.
(Personally, I think he's innocent, without qualifiers, that DeCSS is a perfectly legitamate piece of software, and that lobby groups in the US are abusing their power to manipulate overseas authorities. I also think that those lobby groups should be brought to justice for such abuses of power. However, that's another matter altogether, as that's not the matter before the Norwegian courts. Although, I suspect that if such abuses were mentioned and proved by the defence, the judge would be unlikely to be sympathetic to the plaintif. Judges don't usually like being pawns. Especially in public.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Does it hell! Will someone please explain to these reporters that encryption has no effect on copying whatsoever?
An encrypted block of data is exactly as easy to copy as the plaintext it was made from. All the CSS encryption system does is force those wanting to play a DVD to agree to a license from the DVD CCA (the licensing outfit controlling the encryption keys). Ultimately, I think this is what the MPAA and co want: control. Bit by bit, they build up their control; Macrovision, no skipping the FBI warning, region coding - maybe next you won't be able to skip the trailers, either? Then some sort of pay-per-view version (DiVX tried, but was too early - then. Will it return in another guise?)
Here goes my attempt at a translation, might not be very accurate mind you...:
Economic Police has decided to seek indictment against Jon Johansen for breaking the Computer/Data Crime Law. Johansen has been indicted for breaking the copy protection on DVD-discs. The indictment is no surprise, says Jon Bing.
For two years, the Economic Police has investigated the case gainst the young man[?]. Johansen is a member of a computer group which developed the computer program DeCSS. The program can be used to copy the contents of DVD-discs.
American picture associations cite that Johansen has been part of a breach of copyright law. Economic Police has sought indictment against the 18 year old man[?] for breach against the Crime Law's[?] paragraph 145.2. jfr3.ledd. [?]
Circumventing protection
- We have indicted Johansen for having circumvented the copy protection on DVD-discs. He has willfully cracked the protective measures. When you buy a DVD-disc, you buy the right to play it, not copy it, attorney Inger Marie Sunde said.
In January, two years ago, the police took action and searched the room of Johansen. Among other things they seized large portions of his computer equipment and the 18-year old's mobile telephone.
The computer community has displayed creat concern that the, then, 16-year old became the target of the Economic Police. This lead to lots of collections of funds for a possible litigation on behalf of the boy. Attorney Cato Schiotz became involved as Johansens defender, but the case was taken over by Terje Svendsen with Schiotz law firm.
- We would like to have gotten the investigation to end sooner, but it has taken lots of time now. There has been lots of data that needs analyzing and we have used that time with consideration to our resources, says Sunde.
Natural to try the DVD case
- It isn't a surprise that there is an indictment against Johansen under the Crime Law[?] paragraph 145. We thought we had a clear case with that law, but the High Court has created doubts. Thus it isn't strange that Economic Police wants to try the matter. It is not said that they want a conviction of Johansen, says a Law Professor, Jon Bing.
- So Johansen is used as a legal precedent?
- No, not like that. But it is an unclear situation and we want to be sure to get a resolution to it. The DVD case is a good case to try like that. It is not clear if what he has done is against the law, but I think it is proper to indict, says Bing to Nettavisen.
Economic Police has not sought indictment against John Johansen for breaching the Descructive[??] Law and it was expected from several parties, said Bing, unsurprisedly.
- No, I understand that well. If you open the door to a book store, you haven't distributed the books, said the law professor.
In the Law text which laid ground for the idnictment it says "He who knows to break a protective device or by similar means knowingly obtains access to data or program equipment, stored or electronically transferred, or by other technical means. Causes damage by authoring[?] or use of similar knowledge, or breach by personal gains, can be imprisoned for up to 2 years. Accomplices are punished by similar means."
Long wait
Svendsen has previously said that the investigation has been a burden for the young man who was barely 16 years old when he became the suspect for the Economic Police.
District Attorney Inger marie Sunde has for the past two years spoken to the press that the matter will soon reach conclusion. But no sooner than Thursday, Jan 10, almost two years to the day after Johansen was arrested, the Economic Police made public that they will seek indictment against him.
The Criminal Law that Johansen is indicted under, has previously been tried twice in the Norwegian Justice System. That time it was about descrambling TV-channels from cable TV. The High Court concluded that time that the law could not be used to punish unlawful access to TV and radio signals.
Economic Police says that because of the fact that one can't tell different types of data apart and this is because the law can be used to convict Johansen.
- Data is data, Sunde said.
The District Attorney says to Nettavisen that the indictment now is ready to be submitted to the court. That means the case against Jon Johansen probably will be tried during this year.
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
In the published article by NetAvisen it is stated that this law has previously been tried by the Norwegian Suprem Court on descrambling Cable signals.
The court found that this law could not be used for punishing that act, so I think that the court will find in favor of Johanneson and give us a clear victory.
I can see little difference between scrabled TVsignals and encrypted Video, both used for same purpose. The encryption is not for any Privacy issue only for restricting useage.
Help fight continental drift.
(Damn, this troll pushes just the right buttons.) Fighting usage restrictions (CSS, eBook protection, etc) is not in the same moral domain as pirating stuff with Gnutella/Napster/etc!
It is only through a hideously twisted set of values (and laws), that wanting to play/read/quotefrom a DVD or eBook, is somehow akin to empathizing with criminals. You're right that we're producing criminals, but the way we're producing criminals is that we're passing legislation that makes morally upstanding acts become illegal.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
(Norwegian, IANAL) This law is intended to be used against a third party that manages to get information he should not - by breaking encryption, by trojans, by social engineering or any other means. But in this case the data is legally purchased when buying the DVD, with no licence restrictions. It does not provide access to any other data than those you already have access to by playing the disc normally, as you would have to be in possession of the DVD disk to use it. That these data are now without a copyright protection scheme is irrelevant, as we have no DMCA, only actual copyright infringement is illegal. I think it'll be shot down in flames.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Its all about how DeCSS is being used. There ARE many legitamate people using it for legit reasons. For instance, I own a copy of both the VHS and DVD versions of The Matrix. Why do I not have a right to have a copy of my PC?
YES, I understand it is not legal, but that is not the issue. What is law and what is moral is always in a struggle.
In another article at dagbladet.no there's a quote from "Økokrim" (which is handling the prosecution).
which may indicate what someone else hinted; that they want a clearification of the law. To quote the indictment (if i got that one right.
I'd think to get an conviction in this case, they'll have to prove the fact that he produced (as he said it himself) the GUI for the program - and that this in fact has caused a loss for the movie-industry.
There's a also a quote in the same article from "Jon Bing", which is one of the better known sci-fi writers (well, we really dont have that many) and computer-philosophers in Norway, where he's wondering if they really have anything to convict Jon by. We'll see.
As others also has pointed out, the norwegian "Økokrim" has had several examples of bad judgement the last week, especially the part of making anonymous email illegal, since they discovered that childpr0nrings has been using this as an method. [irony] I'd also suggest making photographic film illegal, since this is what makes it possible. In addition i'd render all sorts of digital cameras unlawful
Hopefully they'll come to common sense and "discover" that he's not guilty. At least not according to the law he's being charged with.
mats
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
"Repeat after me: Europe is not one country.
Of course, the EU will probably create it's own EU-wide DMCA soon bought to you by the usual suspects, but that's neither here nor there."
Europe is not one country yet. Europe does not have its own continent-wide DMCA yet. The point I was trying to make is that if Europeans do not start paying some more attention to the awful shit their own leaders do, you are all eventually going to end up living in states that are just as corporatized as the US has become, and many of you don't have nearly as many constitutionally guaranteed rights to things like freedom of religion, speech, and assembly that the US does.
I am warning the Europeans: letting Johansen be indicted like this is a very, very bad thing. It starts in Norway, it will spread out across Europe and eventually your human rights will be given away to protect the profits of multinational corporations, all in the name of protecting IP rights of corporations that cooperate to scam artists out of the rights to content they created in the first place.
I say all this because over and over again I see Europeans on the internet complaining about American companies being behind all of this, and commenting about the US government as some far reaching arm of corporate power. But I rarely see Europeans complaining about their own leaders being coerced into working against them for these corporations, most of which operate in far too many countries to really be considered American (And many of the companies involved, like Sony or Virgin were never American in the first place.). Right now you all have a very good chance make some noise and get your leaders in line. Don't blow it.
When someone in Norway is indicted he probably is named Jon Johansen...
Yes, of course you may do with the DVD what you wish, short of violating copyright, under pre-DMCA law.
However, the DMCA forbids trafficing in a tool to circumvent access control mechanisms used to protect copyright. Thus, it is difficult, if not illegal, to obtain the tool to let you excersize your fair use and explicit interoperability rights.
The problem is clearly that the tool necessary to excercize your rights is the same tool that can be used to violate the copyright holder's rights (even as this can be done without the tool), and because of this "danger" access to the tool is restricted.
Consider the following analogy (which may not hold in some parts of the world, particularly the U.S.): you have a right to defend yourself, but there is a prohibition against posession of firearms (gotta love that second amemdment). There may be circumstances where shooting someone is the only available self-defense option. Yet, firearms are restricted, even as they have legitimate, and legal uses: the dangers supposedly outweigh the benefits.
Of course, I think such laws are insane, and I have intentionally used code like libdvdcss.so to enable me to watch DVDs that I purchased under GNU/Linux. The firearm case is more controversial, of course, because it deals with life and not just money (though you'd think that Valenti, Rosen, et. al. have those priorities reversed).
The way I see it, under present law (ObWarning: I am not a lawyer), is that you may view that DVD any damn way you wish, but it might be illegal for others to provide you with the means to do so if you can't do it yourself. This is absurd.
You could've hired me.
Also, look how guns are being used:o vember/111298.htm o n_news/STORY.ea7fa58a63.b0.af.0.a4.33ca3.html 0 4.html 4 .shtml
http://www.police.nashville.org/news/media/1998/n
http://www.co.ramsey.mn.us/attorney/pr_thao.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/metro/arlington/arlingt
http://woub.org/news/Stories/2001/January/010109-
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/43950_murder2
<sarcasm>Looks like it's time to go after those gun manufacturers. After all, their products are clearly being used to break the law with disastrous results for society.</sarcasm>
In our society, people are supposed to be held responsible for their *own* misdeeds, NOT the potential misdeeds of others. That was the heart of the Betamax decision, and it seems like the same standard should be applied here. DeCSS is not required for copying, and can be used for significant non-infringing purposes. PERIOD!
I find this remark very curious:
"When you buy the disc, you buy the rights to play the movie, not to copy it"
Curious because its technically correct, I'm not paying them a dime for the right to copy it, its already a right that I have. Its called "Fair Use".
Still, the "having unjustly gained access to data" clause will probably save him--it seems a stretch to argue that cryptanalysis of a legally purchased medium whose decrypted contents are also available constitutes "unjustly gaining access".
As one who has made a public decision to use whatever tools I can so I can listen to, watch, archive, and distribute (within my own home, for my own purposes) audio and video in the form of CDs and DVDs for which I have paid dearly, even as I may be breaking some inane law in the process, I applaud you.
I do not believe what I am doing is wrong, and therefore do it openly and publicly. While I probably wouldn't redistribute a turnkey system that would significanly ease others' attempts to violate copyright law, I'd have no qualms in eventually describing what I did and how to anyone who wants to reproduce my efforts for their personal convenience.
In my case, the stakes are rather higher than for most: I am a Canadian in the U.S. legally on an H1-B visa, with a green-card petition pending. I can be deported for breaking the law. I am supposed to be a law-abiding person. And, against the ultimate law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, I believe that I am. In fact, it is my respect and admiration for the principles in that document and the Bill of Rights that compel me to object to what I perceive as unconstitutional laws, and to disobey them in a civil manner. I believe H. Thoreau had a lot to say about that.
I've seen what happened when Canadians took their rights for granted, and didn't defend them: we have a "notwithstanding" clause in our constitution, added c. 1982 that effectively lets the government trump the courts. This has been used to prevent public communication and commerce in languages other than French in Quebec (ironic, since it was a separatist Quebec government that used that law to their benefit), among other things.
Americans are in grave danger of losing the liberties they value above life itself (if Patrick Henry is to be taken as an example of a patriot) to a combination of rapacious fictional corporate citizens and corrupt government. It would be a sad day indeed, if the principle of liberty set forth by such a great nation was to be snuffed out by it's own hand.
You could've hired me.
securityfocus has another english-language story on this, which can be found at http://www.securityfocus.com/news/306.
jon
-- http://www.cerastes.org
You may be interested in today's Dagbladet Story:
9 1. html
G
http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2002/01/10/3054
Helps in translating words & phrases are at:
http://www.freedict.com/onldict/nor.html
http://dictionaries.travlang.com/
http://home.online.no/~otjoerge/files/word.htm#
What's past is NOT ALWAYS prologue for the future!
I know this is superficial and sensationalist in comparison to your , but let's consider gun laws for a second (I love to find inconsistencies).
A gun in itself is by American standards not a bad thing at all - unless the person posessing it is a bad person. Even then, he will have to commit a crime before any reaction occurs.
DeCSS can be used to view DVDs on linux - a perfectly resonable use. Even if we are only allowed to view the movie, but that is in the contract we effectively signed when we bought the damn disk. So, DeCSS can be used in a legal way.
How, then can you hold Jon Johansen responsible for the misuse of his (and the anonymous ppl behind him) work? The gun manufacturers are not put to prison when someone is shot. No weapons engineer working for the government is held responsible unless the weapons are faulty and kilsl the wrong ppl. Then they get fired.
Many of same people running after the DeCSS crowd with torches and handcuffs are the ones defending liberal gun laws. What does that make those people? Oh. Yeah. "Hipocrites".
Sad part is, they've got the law on their side.
So, "justice for all"?
Oh - and I know Jon Johansen is Norwegian. I am too. He's being charged by the same paragraph the suits used to try to stop illegal satelite descramblers. That didn't work. This probably won't work, either. Most Norwegian legal experts seem to agree that the Government case is extremely weak.
Makes you wonder who pressured them into pursuing a case they are doomed to lose.
Stop the brainwash
I've taken a DVD from the drawer. It's "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within", 2 DVDs. Original copy, of course.
:)
I am looking at the cover, and I can not see ANY mention of what I am allowed to do with the disc, or what I am not allowed to do with it, except notion that it can not be "reproduced, distributed or exibited".
What the hell are all these people talking about, when they say "you purchase right to view, blah, blah..."!? I don't see ANYWHERE mention of anything even remotely related to that.
btw: "Reproduction" would mean creating identical copy of a disc (medium). Why then decoding DVD content to hard disk is considered as 'reproduction'?
"That includes earlier charges that he contributed towards making a program, DeCSS, that made it possible to play DVD films under the operating system Linux."
Hmmm... So playing DVD's on Linux must be illegal? (It must be, because if you COULD buy commercial software, it would still be possible to write filters into the OS or Kernel that would enable you to write the stream to disk.)
In essence, one could look at ANY DVD playing software for an open source platform as a potential circumvention device. Especially if it is running on ANY open source layers including XFree86 or even the Linux kernel.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
How many Canadians have heard of Jérôme Choquette? On the other hand, how many Canadians have heard of the FLQ crisis? If you're going to talk about the FLQ crisis, you should at least be up front and honest about it.
As for your claim that martial law was invoked simply to scare political opponents, anyone with the intellectual prowess of a severely brain-damaged sloth can tell you that there were a lot more reasons than that. For a basic chronology of the FLQ crisis you can go to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos /october.htm or you can do your own search in google.
. --- If you're looking for free e-mail you won't find it here! http://www.noemailhere.com
Nope, can't have that. It would infringe a Metallica copyright.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Interestingly enough, these situations are exactly what that song is all about.
Read the lyrics here. It can certainly be said more eloquently, but the point is clear from the very beginning: "Halls of Justice Painted Green / Money Talking..."
Breaking stupid laws that restrict your rights and are created by evil corporate pigs' bribery is OK, just don't, what ever you do, give them your name, or go to america :)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I can install any software or operating system I want.
Really? Try to get a "legal" copy of Windows 95.
Nope, no sig
Right we already pay taxes on it as the previous threads mentioned. I don't mind 2-3% tax as long as the actual CD isn't freaking encrypted, preventing me from ripping it and putting it on my file server:)
Is that really the case? Do you have anything to back up this claim?
As someone pointed out, LinuxWorld had an interview in February 2000 (I believe), where Jon was quoted as saying:
"the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member"
Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten also reports that:
"In hacker circles Johansen has come under criticism for taking the credit for the codebreaking, but Johansen himself says he has been misquoted by the media."
I personally find it easy to believe that the media would misquote him, as they misquote everyone else. When they can write big headlines, they don't worry about twisting facts, and a Norwegian kid doing something like this - now that was something they couldn't resist!
I personally will refrain from judging anyone (heh). If you can give me conclusive evidence that Jon did in fact have the nerve to take all the credit himself, I'll be happy to concede defeat.
Clever signature text goes here.
Did you read what Lars was saying? He only wanted his rights. He didn't want his property taken away and controlled by people who are not him.
Isn't that what we want, too?
Just because Lars was bad at conveying it and became a poster boy for the RIAA, who had totally different motives, doesn't necessarily mean that he was wrong.
Everybody assumed that he was against downloadable music, but that was not the case. He just wanted to have the freedom to choose what is done with his property. There's nothing wrong with giving away the music, as long as it's the musician making the decision.
Of course, I say this as a musician who has allowed music to be downloaded through p2p. It's my choice, not yours. Also, I am in no way a Metallica fan.
I emailed BBC Online, and got them to change the story title from "DVD 'pirate' faces charges", and corrected the bit where they said that Jon Johanssen wrote the software. Now they mention that he is a member of MoRE, who wrote the software.