Slashdot Mirror
Jon Johansen DVD Trial Date Set
mpawlo writes: "As reported by Greplaw, the Norweigan 'Byrett' (district court) will try the Jon Johansen DVD case on December 9, 2002. The trial was supposed to take place this summer, but the court decided to postpone the trial to find a technology savvy judge. The case will be tried
by one judge and a panel of two lay assessors. Jon Johansen is being prosecuted by the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit
(OKOKRIM) under Norwegian Criminal Code 145(2). Johansen created DeCSS
software that can enable DVD playback on Linux. It is argued that the DeCSS software is a piracy tool." Here is the Greplaw story with more links.
EEF information on the Jon Johansen case.
Read the indictment. in Norwegian.
Linux World interview with Johansen.
Swedish coverage of the case.
EEF campaign to free Johansen.
Old slashdot article about original indictment.
Taken from the Greplaw link, copy pasted and formatted. Originally by "Seth Finkelstein".
... and the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member. There seems to be a bit of confusion about that part.
...
As Jon Johansen put it himself in an old interview:
Jon Johansen: I'm 16 now, I was 15 when it happened
LinuxWorld: The other two people that you had worked with to make the player are remaining anonymous -- is that right?
Jon Johansen: Yes, that is correct.
LinuxWorld: Do you know why they want to remain anonymous?
Jon Johansen: They are both a lot older than me, and they are employed. So I guess they just didn't want the publicity, and they were perhaps afraid of getting fired.
No, the point is not whether he violated the DMCA, since the DMCA is an American law, and Jon Johansen is tried in Norway. Your American laws don't count in a Norwegian court.
*sigh* DeCSS is /only/ to deencrypt the movie. DeCSS has nothing to do with regions. You can need DeCSS to watch a region "0" movie. You don't need DeCSS to watch an unencrypted region 2 movie.
He's a victim of this war.
He's already served his purpose. He took the rap. The mpaa was looking for a scapegoat anyways......
In the interesting parts of the indictement, it sates.. (translation at the bottom)
Ved det beskrevne forhold brøt Jon Lech Johansen kopibeskyttelsen på DVD-filmene og skaffet seg og andre adgang til dataene på DVD-platene i ubeskyttet form. Adgangen var
uberettiget fordi DVD-filmene var solgt med forutsetning om at brukeren skulle
bruke autorisert avspillingsutstyr og respektere kopibeskyttelsen. Tilegnelsen av
filmene i ubeskyttet form har voldt skade fordi rettighetshaverne ikke lenger har vern
mot uberettiget spredning av filmene.
Roughly translated:
Jon Lech Johansen cracked the copy protection on the [his own] DVD-movies and got by this access to the data on the DVD-discs in an unprotected form. The access was illegal because the DVD-movies were sold with the resctrictment that the user used only autorised playback equipment and respected the copyright. The access of the movies in its unprotected form has done damage because the keepers of the copyright no longer has protection against unauthorised distribution of the movies.
I know the english is kind of scetchy right there, but it's not easy to translate norwegian law language on-the-fly..
It seems they're suing him because the DVDs were sold with one clause - that only authorised playback equipment were to be used during playback of the movies. In other words, you cannot access the data on your OWN DISCS by your own means.
If it's supposed to limit distribution, it's a remarkably ineffective way to go about it.
First, aren't there a relatively small number of regions? (8?) That doesn't make for very fine-grained control, plus, once the regions are set, you're stuck with them, so it can't be used to say "This release goes to countries A, B, and C, but this one goes to A and C and perhaps D but not B." Unless the industry knew exactly what regions would be needed for all time, this will not be a suitable solution.
Second, the region control ties it not to a specific country (could we have that technology-- perhaps, by putting a GPS in every player), but a specific set of players. If you're desperate enough to watch a Region X disc in Region Y, what stops you from importing a Region X player (and, if necessary, a compatible TV?) I believe this has been done occasionally to bridge the TV standard barrier with video tape.
Third, I may be mistaken, but isn't the region code not honoured by all players? I'm thinking some older players didn't handle it.
I feel like these people are trying to say "We locked the bank vault" when they applied duct tape and a shrinkwrap licence to the door.
It's just like a fascist dictatorship, without the punctual rail service!
and I'll try to answer some of your questions.
Jon Johansen is tried (translation:) "for having broken a protection or in a similar fashion gotten access to data that are stored or are transferred by electronical or other technical means and for having caused damage by appropriation or use of such knowledge, or complicity to this." (Yes, this translation sucks. I'm tired.)
The case is in two parts: he breaks a protection, which gives him access to a work that he has bought the right to access. I think the judges will understand this, but Økokrim seems to think otherwise: "The access is unauthorised because the DVDs were sold under the condition that the users should use authorised playback equipment and respect the copy protection." Personally, I know of no such condition.
The other part is whether he caused any damage by spreading information on CSS and the DeCSS program itself. (This part has been added in the new incitement.) Obviously, DeCSS has made DVD piracy a lot easier, but, as you say, so has CD-recorders. If Jon Johansen in considered to be an "accomplice to piracy", so should Plextor and all good ISPs.
Oh well. I need some sleep now.
The norwegian system does have the advantage that where an issue is extremely technical the court appoints experts (not the prosecution or defence) who explain the issues to the judge and assist in assessing the case.
The key part of the indictment is this:
Adgangen var
uberettiget fordi DVD-filmene var solgt med forutsetning om at brukeren skulle
bruke autorisert avspillingsutstyr og respektere kopibeskyttelsen.
Access was illegal because DVD films were sold with the understanding that the user should use authorised playback equipment and respect the copy protection.
The prosecution has to prove that that was the case. On the few DVD's I have there is no statement to the effect that I may only use authorised playback equipment. Then again, I don't have any Norwegian ones.
Tilegnelsen av
filmene i ubeskyttet form har voldt skade fordi rettighetshaverne ikke lenger har vern
mot uberettiget spredning av filmene.
Availability of the film in unprotected form has serious damage because the copyright owner no longert has power over the illegal distribution of the film.
Actually, illegal man be better translated as 'unauthorised'.
IANANL (I am not a norwegian lawyer) but it would seem that 1. DeCSS does not protect a DVD from copying (and it can then be played back on any authorised equipment)
and 2. If the DVD's accessed do not state that only authorised equipment many be used to access them then both planks of the case fall down.
[ or ] but once sold, the person can resell it or use it anywhere in the world that they like. When I buy a paperback book in europe, and fly home with it, customs doesn't wrestle me to the ground for distribution infringment
Er - no, incorrect. USA First Sale rights only apply in the USA, unfortunately.
Levi recently took the major UK supermarket to court in the UK to prevent them buying jeans legitimately in the USA and importing them, on copyright grounds. Levi won.
The reason individuals are not prosecuted, let alone wrestled to the ground, is simply that it is uneconomic. Sad but true.
This case may well end up illuminating Norwegian law only. The access was illegal because the DVD-movies were sold with the resctrictment that the user used only autorised playback equipment. The terms visible to a consumer at the time of purchase on my region 2 copy of Lord of the Rings does not contain such a clause, even in the bit you need a magnifying glass to read.
At least the publicity should move along the process of getting Hollywood back in their pram.
"Congress - the best democracy money can buy"