Slashdot Mirror
'DVD Jon' Acquitted On All Counts in DeCSS Case
Here's John Leyden's story at the Register about the ruling.
LarsBT links to this Reuters newsflash and points out that since Johansen's arrest, "Norway has introduced legislation similar to the European Unions directive on copyright [pdf], making it illegal to circumvent any copyright protection - making it highly unlikely that he would be found not guilty under these new rules."
An anonymous reader writes with some background (or do a search on Slashdot for DeCSS ;)): "Read the DVD-Jon lawsuit story here and here" and notes that "'the prosecution decided to charge Johansen with a data break-in, rather than handle the matter as a copyright case.' The court said that DeCSS could be used both legally and illegally and referred to similar cases outside the computing industry. The court said it was difficult to conclude on Johansen's intentions with DeCSS, but there was no conclusive evidence."
Hooray!
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
The judge realized that information wanted to be free!
Fight for freedom - good job. The record companies are too powerful already, and they want more and more power (and have the money to buy politicians). Good to see other countries are not like the US.
Thank God this guys is norwegian and didn't drop by the USA.
I wonder what happened if he was american
Sklyarov anyone?
all in norweigian... http://www.digi.no/dtno.nsf/pub/md20030107114651_q iz_14357518
I could be wrong. I'm always wrong...
Yet, I still wonder if this conclusion can be used against DMCA itself.
The ruling came from the norwegian "Tingrett", which is one of the lower courts. Hence, an appeal will almost certainly be made before the two week deadline is up.
It ain't over till the fat geek burps...
The bastard never wrote DeCSS, he merely wrote a GUI. This is a sad day.
Even though Norway is not part of the EU, I'm sure people over here will pay attention and (hopefully) it will help sink that DMCA-like abomination the EC has been mulling over for a few years now for good.
It's happening. People are starting to pay attention. With most households owning a DVD player, things like "region code" are filtering down to the masses, and people are a lot more receptive when you attempt to explain how CSS, end-to-end encryption and the DMCA affect what they can (and are allowed) to do with digital media they payed for.
And most people do not like it one bit.
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
F*cking Priceless?
Fnord Fnord Fnord
I'm quite certain the phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt".
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
YOU 0wn your own property.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Now HOLYWOOD will be wanting us to "license" DVD's from them for our own use. That way they can maintain ownership of the DVD itself.
MISSING - Sig file. 2 years old black and white and very funny. If found please email me.
The real showdown will be when Norway implements the EUCD directive. Then this verdict could be rather irrelevant as the new laws could make such actions illegal anyway.
"I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy"
Acording to this verdict the intention was never to make a dvd player for linux
(Even though that was his original statement), rather to make a program that was "Easy to use for the 'average Joe'",
The verdict notes this because the GUI he wrote was for Windows.
(Another interesting quote from Jon "God damned linux fanatics, I wish someone would shoot them ; )"
will not happen. The deadline on the directive passed on 22.12.2002, and since only two countries (Greece and Denmark) made the directive into a national law, it is no longer in effect. The register story on this
This simply shows that at least in Norway decrypting a DVD is not data theft. OTOH, since the prosecution did not try to charge him with copyright circumvention we still have no ruling on the matter.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
LarsBT links to this Reuters newsflash and points out that since Johansen's arrest, "Norway has introduced legislation similar to the European Unions directive on copyright [pdf], making it illegal to circumvent any copyright protection - making it highly unlikely that he would be found not guilty under these new rules."
Norway is not part of the EU, but still takes most new EU-laws and directives and implements them into their own law. The irony of them implementing the Infosoc-directive (Euro-DMCA) mentioned above is that they're almost the only ones doing it. So far, only Denmark (*sigh*) and Greece has implemented the directive.
I sincerely hope that he now sues those American robber barons for damages...
Paai
This isn't really a victory. It should have never gone this far in the first place. Calling it a victory is like saying someone who got hit by a car and survived was lucky ... if they were really lucky, they wouldn't have been hit in the first place.
So there's no law in Norway against double jeopardy? In the States, if you're acquitted, there can be no appeals...
Hey better count his lucky stars it wasn't in the u.s.a.Everything is illegal here.Case in point, soon it will become illegal to operate a riding lawn mower without state vehicle registration and inspection, you will also be required to have an operators license due to it being a motor vehicle.
What we really need is to require that the lawmakers and law enforcement, prison guards, cops, etc. be required to take a urinalysis for drugs at least once a week,which they, for some strange reason, are exempt from.With the laws they are passing these days, i'm wondering what kind of drugs they are on (and where i can get some),or,
if they need to have some kind of monthly psychiatric screening.It's kind of scary that there are stoned cops out there with guns.
darnnit.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
Subject line says it all!
Ahem. The case wasn't held in the Norwegian supreme court, it was helt at the Oslo local court. It could be appealed by the MPAA first to the lagmannsrett, a court with a jury. Only after a decision there can the case (or usually only the sentence) be appealed to the supreme court.
Anyone who actually read the Aftenposten article will of course know this already.
Also see the articles on CNN and The Register.
the american government kidnap him and try him on DMCA home soil?
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
This ruling means that it is perfectly legal to bypass protections meant to prevent abuse of copyright (for a legit use, of course), in Norway.
TO DO:
- extend this ruling to the rest of the world
- state that it is legal to bypass copy-protections to make copies allowed under fair use rights
Neither the Labour Party nor any of the parties currently in the "regjering" are socialists nor capitalists. All are social domacrats, including Hoyre (self-claimed rightists), and this is, and have been the political system of Norway for the past decades.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned 2600's legal difficulties resulting from hyperlinkinbg to DECSS. Perhaps they can appeal and even counter sue now?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I was gonna wear a plain grey T-shirt today, but after reading this, on goes the copyleft no-DVD-CCA shirt!
your property owns YOU
F*cking priceless indeed. It's not bad enough Metallica sold out 300,000 of its fans, now the Weegies want to prosecute teenagers for benign crimes. A law that should be disinvented.
It's 90% "An act of intellectual freedom" vs. 10% "An act of theft" right now. Link
Karma. Moderation. Is my
Enjoy it while it lasts, Jon was found innocent because the laws in Norway haven't been updated to be in concert with the EUCD (Europe's DMCA), which Norway will have to be part of. Once the EUCD is implemented across Europe, his actions would be criminal and he would go to jail. FWIW, the American government is pushing hard for it to be implemented there. For more information on the EUCD, check out http://ukcdr.org/issues/eucd. For good examples of how the DMCA sucks, check out the EFF's unintended consequences list.
Peace,
Chuck
And somewhere, echoing through the mountains of Norway, the Hallilujia Chorus is heard...
Score one for the good guys. This counts as a big win for Linux users, as we now have a case to cite. While that might not mean much here in the United States, it is a shininhg example that not all circumvention software is intended for use in pirating.
It also marks a major slap in the face for the MPAA, who needs one at the moment. They've been throwing their weight around too much the last few years, and it's about time they got put in their place. Now, all we need is a similar precident here in the US, and our rights to do what we want (privately, of course) with things that we buy will be ever the slightest bit safer.
I happen to have the DeCSS code (and no, I won't send it along, so don't ask). I haven't compiled it yet. I kept it around in the event that my DVD ROM would go to hell (which it did), so that I could boot into Linux and simply watch my DVDs. I wasn't going to rip them, burn them and ship them off to my friends. I was just going to watch them. Now, I happened upon a DVD player for free, so I really don't need it at the moment. It's just nice to have around, just in case.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
since only two countries (Greece and Denmark) made the directive into a national law, it is no longer in effect.
If you had actually read the Register story you would have noticed that "It's best to see this as a delay -rather than a derailment - of the controversial measures"
The EUCD must still be implemented. Theoretically the member states who have not implemented this could be sued under the EU treaty (by the commission?) but since we are talking about all but two members this is not likely.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Norway is not a member of the EU. The other nordic nations, that is Sweden, Finland and Denmark, are. European Union
Norway is a member of Nato. Nato
Johansen is accused of a criminal offence (otherwise probation and jail sentences would surely not be mentioned in the article, and the public prosecutor would not be involved) and double jeopardy must apply - or are there no such rules in Norway?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
this means that I'm no longer being rebellious by wearing my T-Shirt with the De-CSS code on it, eh?
;-) As far as i can tell from your homepage you live in the United States. Last time I checked Norway was not one of those. Considering recent american policy, this could quickly change though...
There's hope still
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Sure.
Seen from the US every party on the left side of the Progress-party (FrP) is socialist. Even the conservatives. FrP is roughly equivalent to the Democrats and in Norway they represent the far right of the political spectrum.
So he's right. We're mostly a bunch of friggin' socialists who gets to own what we buy.
I don't know the laws in your country, but in Norway you get judged by the laws that are working at the moment you do something. The goverment can not pass any laws later and make you a criminal for what you have done when the law wasnt working.
If Norway laws cet updated acording to the EUCD, and you have broken the EUCD before it was working in Norway, you will of course get judged by former Norwegian laws, not any new laws.
Nope, no, nei, wrong, error!
Norway does not have to implement any EU directives whatsoever. Why? Because they are not a member of the EU
DVD exports to Norway become strangely affected by a 6 months delay; the reason still remains unknown.
Ehhh, laws (normally) doesn't turn action illegal retroiactively. Only things done AFTER a law is introduced is affected by it.
I quite understand you're not sure about exactly what countries are and are not. For future reference:
EU map
Members are in yellow. In violet, the candidates. In dark violet, those about to enter.
Don't count on Turkey entering any time soon - it's an islamic country and recently an islamic party took the government.
As for Cyprus, the greek part was bound to enter, but having a turkish part they're gonna have it quite difficult.
Schweiz/Suisse/Svitzera (Switzerland), Norge (Norway) and Ísland (Iceland) are quite european, regardless not having applied mainly for economical reasons. Their politics and social trends are european. (Swiss banking system is illegal in the EU ; Iceland and Norway may enter some time).
The movies watch YOU!
The article refers to "Norwegian laws that protect what a consumer can do with his or her own property."
We need some laws like this in the United States.
Laws that say "I bought it, I own it, it's MINE."
More and more, corporations are attempting to retain control of their products after consumers have purchased them. This is not only unfair to consumers, it is profoundly contrary to the American tradition of property ownership.
(And, yes, I understand the distinction between "purchasing" and "licensing." I object to the imposition of legal fictions that assumes "licensing" in situations where the commonsense reality is that the transaction is a purchase).
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Only Denmark and one other EU country has. So, under current interpretation, DeCSS is legal in Norway, as long as it is used for legal purposes. Using it for piracy is not.
The ruling in favor of Jon is only valid here in Norway, of course. But if this case opens for fair use copying and use of the keys to watch DVDs on other players than approved, this could make for legal non-DVD CCS players in the US.
The reasoning is simple; laws and rulings allowed in similar countries are assumed to be legal in other countries. I.e. a legally vaild marriage made in Norway is also recoginised as valid in the US. And vice versa.
Unless there are specific rules against the use of this program, it may be assumed legal in the US too, since the Norwegian legal system approves of it. (Well, not completly and not yet.)
This argument gets stronger if the Norwegian court has used the same basic arguments that a US court could have used. We are talking about the right to watch a DVD on any player you like and I'm sure there are rulings in the US that can back this verdict in the district court.
Thankfully there is still some common sense left in the world. Of COURSE one can do what they want with their own property, thats a given. If I pay for the damn DVD its mine to do with what I want. Screw you Hollywood, RIAA, and Microsoft.
Since a lot of posts in this thread are about the European Copyright Directive (EUCD) I would like to give a brief summary:
... it shall submit proposals for amendments to this Directive."
The EUCD has been passed. This means that the member states must implement it in their national legislation. They should have done so by Dec 22 '02 but only Denmark and Greece made it. Status reports here. Norway's not a member of the EU.
The EUCD can be overturned in two ways:
1. In the European Court.
This means that somebody challenges the directive for being invalid under the EU treaty. It could be.
It's hard to get a case before the European Court, so this would probably need backing by one of the member states. This is being looked into, but it's not easy.
2. Through normal legislative process.
The EUCD article 12(1) states that "Not later than 22 December 2004" the Commission shall report on the application of the directive. Regarding article 6 (The bad one) "it shall examine in particular whether that Article confers a sufficient level of protection and whether acts which are permitted by law are being adversely affected by the use of effective technological measures [DRM]. Where necessary, in particular to ensure the functioning of the internal market
We definitely do intend to influence that report and have article 6 amended, but the entertainment industry is doing the same, so this isn't easy either.
On the other hand the directive was forged with very little public attention to article 6, so nearly all attention on the case would be in our favour.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
If a thief breaks into your home and steals your CD/DVD collection should it be the MPAA/RIAA that files the report with the police. After all it's the MPAA/RIAA property that you are just licensing. Should it not then be their responsibility to replace your media since you still license it.
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Perhaps you were confused becouse "lose" is related to "loss" and "lost", each which has one 'o' and "loose" (as in your mother) rhymes with "caboose", "moose", and "goose". The only exception to this excellent rule of thumb is "choose". It isn't spelled with one 'o', is that "chose" is already a word.
Perhaps you should run your own spell checker before submitting a criticism of another. It's a good practice, because if you don't you may look a little foolish.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
The article refers to "Norwegian laws that protect what a consumer can do with his or her own property."
We need some laws like this in the United States.
Actually they do exist, hence the need for DMCA to turn them back. About a decade ago, a publishing executive told me they had never prosecuted people who photocopy books because lawyers had adviced them that property rights in the US likely allowed you to do so, and even to sell those copies so long as you didn't profit. "the last thing we need is a legal ruling making it official and unambiguously legal".
He also mentioned that in most other countries this would not be the case, but that "the US has one of the strongest personal property laws out there".
Now Norway.
Is Massachusetts next? This is scary.
Timeo idiotikOS et dona ferentes
here
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
as every dvd player ever sold "decrypts" the dvd in order to show the images, how can anyone be accused of doing exactly what is supposed to happen?
if some people are so stupid as to miss use the keys they were allocated, leaving the data open for anybody who bothers to look for it, that's their problem, not some kid across the world's.
Norway does not have to implement any EU directives whatsoever. Why? Because they are not a member of the EU
...
No - but it is a member of the European Economic Zone, or whatever its name- EØS - which forces us to comply with most of the EU directives. Sad but true - we chose to stay out of the EU, getting no rights, but signed an agreement giving us most of the duties. Stupid
Thursday.
They may have gotten it past the Tingrett, but it'll never get past the Pentavorette, the Colonel with his wee beady eyes . . . ooh, you'll eat my chicken!
Wouldn't you like to be a pepper, too?
Regarding option 2:
Even after amending the directive, the national may not change "back" to "good" laws. They may be forced to, depending on the amendments, but in any case, some lobbying on the national level would be necessary. The result could be very uneven laws across the EU.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
AFAIK Norway is not a part of the EU, so they do not have to adjust their laws an accordance of the EU.
They might implement it (in this case, I don't see why they should), but they certainly don't have to by any treaty.
Genius doesn't work on an assembly line basis. You can't simply say, "Today I will be brilliant."
That's true in America as well. The Constitution specifically forbids ex post facto laws, meaning that you can't pass a law and then convict people of breaking it before it was enacted.
Even if Norway were in the EU, Jon couldn't go to jail -- EU law is purely civil, not criminal. So the most he'd be faced with is a whopping fine.
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
How come this one gets corrected, yet all these perfectly FALSE troll-stories end up on the front page?
Just wondering...
I heard the verdict live on norwegian radio today. I havent read the statement yet, so the quotes might not be 100 percent accurate.
First two comments.
* The verdict can be appealed to "Lagmannsretten" (one step below Supreme Court) within two weeks. No statements yet in Norwegian media whether they will do that, but at least one legal expert "guessed" that they will not. The prosecutor (ØkoKrim - "Economical Chrime") will decide if they shall appeal, not MPAA!
* Norway have not yet implemented the European Unions directive on copyright, but they will probably do it soon.
Here is what I found interesting and amusing:
The law they used is mainly about "breaking in" og "gaining access" to "stuff" that is not yours and that is protected. The original law is very old, but was changed (about 20 years ago?) to include digital information.
Tha court mainly states that you cannot be convicted for breaking into something that is yours. (If you choose to break into your own car that is your prioblem, not the courts).
It also states that the methods used for breaking into something (it specifically addresses "reverse engineering"-techics") isnt unlawful in themselves. They are just unlawful if you are not entitled to the information the protection is protecting.
The next issue was that the keys themselves could be looked at as the information that was protected (not the content of the DVD). This is slightly more tricky, but firstly the judge said that the first key was not protected at all (this is clearly not breaking into anythin). Then she said that since the "real data" here is the movie, and that since he has the right to look at the movie, gaining access to the keys that protected this infomation could be not be regarding as unlawful.
The last point was whether the reason wasnt looking at the DVD, but to illegally copy DVDs. Several examples for "real life" was used here. It seems clear that you cannot the held accountable (in Norwegian law) if you sell/distribute goods with an legal appliance, even if it is used illegally. (If you sell an axe, you are not responsible if someone uses the axe for murder). There is however legal precedence stating if you know that the intent is clearly illegal, you can be hold accountable, even if the goods in themself is lega. The judge used an example from Supreme Court where a person was convicted for selling equipment for destilling alcohol. He was clearly aware that it was used for illegal purposed, but claimed that each part for legal to sell.
This means that if Johansen distributed/sold/developed deCSS when he knew that the main reason for this was to illegally copy DVDs, he could be convicted for that. Johansen claimed that his main reason was developing a Linux DVD player.
The judge referred several IRC-logs, where Johansen made statements like "Linux sucks", "I wish that all Linux fanatics would be shot" and "FreeBSD rulez" (and an e-mail where he states that Linux is a very good OS, but FreeBSD is better). (Several in the courtroom started to laugh at this time, and the judge had to tell them to be silent). She also mentioned that he didnt have Linux installed at at the time, and that the only thing he developed was a GUI for Windows. However, the court did not find it proved - beyond reasonable doubt - the Johansens main reason was to develop programs that could be used illegally. He terefore falls in the same category as thos selling/distributing goods that can both be used legally and illegally.
And as you all know: not guilty.
How many productive years of this poor kid's life have been wasted fighting these morons? I feel bad for all the crap he has had to go through, when he seems to be capable of producing good things in terms of software...
The article said he was 16 when the whole thing started (and of course i remembered), but what is his age now?
This means nothing to the law abiding US citizen. All it means is that the Norwegian courts are out of their minds. Don't even think the lawyers here will give up because they will not. Everyone knows that his little program was specifically written to rip DVD content so that it could be copied elsewhere. And don't give us that standard line of horseshit about doing what you want with your stuff either. If he wanted to watch his little DVD, he could use a set-top box like 99% of the public or use Windows, like 99% of the public. It's not as though there isn't an easy method of viewing DVDs.
Get over your bullshit attitude about stealing every piece of electronic media. Just because it's electronic or digital does not mean it's yours for the taking. Remember - in the real world, we pay for the things we own because that is how things work. We also don't give a shit that we legally cannot make 25 copies of Spider-man to give out to our friends. We just pay the nice man at the register $15 and walk out. Just WAIT until all you little college kiddies get out of school...wait until you have to pay back the $50,000 it cost. Wait! Here's a suggestion: because obviously everything you learned in college isn't useful, just tell the bank you will only pay them for the parts you found useful. Then college will only cost $1000...fuck them! Go ahead, try it!!! I bet it would work...why not...it always works in the slashdot/linux world.
Linux is dead in less than 3 years - an afterthought on a page of history.
The second is whether reverse-enginering is considered breaking copy-protection. The court ruled that translating source code into binary form did not in itself count as protecting it, because there are other good reasons for distributing binaries (although I'm sure some OSS advocates think differently ;-) besides protecting the source code. Thus reverse engineering the source code from the object code could not be considered breaking any protection.
The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
...it won't be long before Hollywood comes out with "DVD Jon: the Movie".
...closely following those in Norwegian here with my comments as well. Of course as most have noted, this is only the first legal trial and can be appealed, and I wouldn't be surprised if the prosecution appeals directly to the Supreme court. This is because it's very much about the legal interpretations of the laws, as the facts are very much clear. Given the same definitions as presented here, I'm sure another test of the case itself would lead to the same conclusion
"Access to the movie:
The court finds that the one who buys a DVD movie that is produced in a legal manner, has authorized access to watch the movie. The case would be different if the DVD movie has been produced in violation of copyright law. The owner of a pirate copy is thus not legally entitled to see the movie."
Pretty basic, but establishes that I have a *right* to see the movie, which is far more than simply not being illegal. That goes a long way, because in order to have that right, the DVD must be decoded.
"As previously mentioned (yadda yadda about various laws, things like fair use and personal copies). There will be different opinions about how beneficial (being able to DeCSS a movie) is to society, but that this is legal must from this be clear. The court therefore finds that DeCSS has legal as well as illegal uses."
The core of the case. They state that there exist legal uses secured in law. Also it establishes a rather nice cause and effect that I like. Since those rights are secured by law, I can. Could be grounds for a battle after EUCD is introduced into law, if these paragraphs are still around, do they take precedence over any DMCAish paragraphs? Film at 11.
Essencially it goes downhill from the prosecution from here. As the only illegal use would be to decrypt an already illegal copy (that is, 1:1 pirate copies like found in Asia), they have no proof of any such activity.
This paragraph is a gem though:
"...the court finds it not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Johansen's intent with the development and publishing of the program was to contribute to illegal copying and distribution of DVD movies.
The court is after this arrived at the conclusion that Johansen can not be sentenced for accessory to (obtain unauthorized access) to the movies. This is true even if Johansen was aware that the program could be misused. This will be equally valid for everyone trading in goods that can be used legally as well as illegally.
That one is very important. If I create a decryption algorithm for anything else, even with the best of intentions, I'll know that it can be misused. But that's not illegal, at least not just yet.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
And for a teenager with little or no money, a "whopping fine" would be equal to a looong sentence indeed.
So breaching the EUCD in a country that has implemented it CAN result in jailtime.
I can't buy A set-top box, I'd have to buy SEVEN. I travel a lot.
You're a goddamn dummy.
Actually they do exist, hence the need for DMCA to turn them back. About a decade ago, a publishing executive told me they had never prosecuted people who photocopy books because lawyers had adviced them that property rights in the US likely allowed you to do so, and even to sell those copies so long as you didn't profit.
Not very likely. Although whether one is profiting from copying does have some bearing on whether copying falls into the "fair use" exception to copyright, it is not the only thing considered. Copying entire books and selling them is almost certainly not fair use and thus illegal (if the book is copyrighted and you do not have permission of the copyright owner) even if you do not profit from it.
There could be a number of other reasons why the publisher doesn't sue--most likely, because someone making and selling a handful of copies doesn't dent the publisher's profits enough to make it worth the cost of sending lawyers after the person doing the copying. If some organization were making and selling thousands of unauthorized copies--even if they were doing it without profit--you can bet the legitimate publisher would go after them, and the publisher would win, too.
Also, keep in mind that unlike trademarks, copyrights can be selectively enforced without diluting the copyright--if they choose not to prosecute some copyright violations, it does not affect their copyright.
IANAIPLBIDWWTOARB. (I am not an intellectual property lawyer but I do work with them on a regular basis.)
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
The EUCD has been passed. This means that the member states must implement it in their national legislation. They should have done so by Dec 22 '02 but only Denmark and Greece made it. Status reports here. [wiki.ael.be] Norway's not a member of the EU.
:(
We in Norway are not part of EU, but unless we veto it (about 0.0000% chance of happening) we must incorporate it into law as well due to the EEC (European Economic Cooperation)-agreement. Most likely it'll be in place sometime during 2003 last I read
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Call me weird, but I'll take the publisher's executive word over you comments, in the abscence of any evidence to the contrary....
You assume that the EUCD will become law... Although effected by business most European governments are democracies (unlike the US where only the super rich and big business run the country) and the same pressures do not work. I accept that Blair is too busy bending over for Bush to consider not doing as asked but Europe is much bigger than one country.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Not knowing Norwegian law, I'm shooting in the dark a bit. However, as Jon was charged with hacking a machine which he owned, it seems kind of like being charged with burgling your own house.
In democracies there are checks and balances that are supposed to derail farcical cases like this before they get to a proper court. It's quite scary that they didn't operate in this case.
I don't know the situation in Norway; in Britain we have the ability to stick the prosecution with all the defence costs when something like this happens. I really, really hope it happened to them.
Also it might be argued that it was a malicious prosecution, brought for the purposes of harassment rather than because there was a realistic chance of a conviction. This can lead to damages too. Occasionally the damages are punitive, and very large, if for example the malicious prosecution resulted from the misuse of a public office.
Well, I certainly can't blame you for that, especially considering that I'm just some anonymous poster who claims he knows something about copyright law.
But if you're planning on actually copying books and selling them, I'd recommend you take neither my word nor that of the publishing executive, and check with a laywer first.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Yes, yup, ja, right, correct!
Sorry that I have to tell you this, but Norway's deal with EU through the EEC deal force Norway to implement a lot of EU directives - including the EUCD.
The Norwegian Department of Culture is expected to release a law proposal in february. If you want to do something about it, join Electronic Frontier Norway.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
> Arithmetic according to C: float x = 3.14159; float y = 1/2 * x; Value of y? zero.
... perhaps you are one of those Java advocates still pissed that C runs circles around it performance wise and this is your "clever" attempt at sabotage.
Your sig is dubious and shows that you do not understand the type promotion rules of C-style languages. Maybe you should try:
float y = 0.5 * x
or if doing that division in your head is too difficult and you are insistent on incurring the cost of a floating point division:
float y = 1./2. * x
Apparently you would have all intermediate integer operations computed using floating point. Of course, this would kill C's performance
was a karma hit for being a customer at McD's.
A womens best friend is a mans imagination.
Informed people want to be free.
It is, however, unpleasant that Norway has introduced a version of the DMCA. Perhaps Jon can work to keep it from being passed.
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Does someone have a queue of protocols/formats suited for reverse engineering?
[Jon] never wrote DeCSS, he merely wrote a GUI.
Actually, the fact that he did write a GUI is highly relevant, at least to the MPAA v. 2600 ruling. The DMCA's "circumvention device" provisions (17 USC 1201(a)(2) and (b)) are entirely about how the device is packaged and marketed. The tool was supposed to be a proof of concept for one component of an independent software DVD player on the Linux platform, but because the Linux UDF support wasn't finished, he wrote the GUI on Windows rather than Linux, and the most obvious use for DeCSS on windows was to decrypt VOB files for copying rather than for playback. He should have waited until Linux had working UDF and some other components of a player such as an MPEG-2 decoder, an AC-3 decoder, and a menu bytecode interpreter before releasing the DeCSS component for that player; such a delay would have rendered 2600's "reverse engineering for interoperability" defense stronger.
Will I retire or break 10K?
A page tell us about the status of EUCD in europe
http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/EUCD-Status
and has some information about Norway
Norway is not an EU member state.
It is however a member of the EEC and thus has to implement the EUCD.
* Status : Draft legislation expected in february 2003. Implementation expected to happen during summer 2003. Draft legislation will be available here
"The court ruled there was "no evidence" that either Johansen or others had used the decryption code (called DeCSS) for illegal purposes. Johansen therefore couldn't be convicted on such grounds, nor for acting as an accessory to other alleged illegal activity, wrote judge Irene Sogn in the court's ruling."
The prosecution must have really sucked. People routinely use DeCSS to decrypt dvd's, convert the content to lower quality video, and burn onto a cd-rom or share on p2p networks. Probably difficult to actually find someone doing this given the anonymous nature of the internet however. Impossible to get an ISP to give up the name of a violator.
Vote for Pedro
About the coffee warmers, you're close enough. I've usually heard it as 'hotplates,' but it probably varies between regions.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
IANAIPLBIDWWTOARB. (I am not an intellectual property lawyer but I do work with them on a regular basis.)
:)
ITTYAMTPOUA (I think that you are missing the point of using acronyms)
And somewhere, echoing through the mountains of Norway, the [Hallelujah] Chorus is heard...
Either that, or Yes! We have no bananas!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Right now copyright holders are battling consumers over the issue of what they can or cannot do with corporate products, but the pendulum swings both ways and currently corporations, such as the MPAA have the upper hand, but fortunately, for those of us who THINK, well-intentioned, intelligent, organizations such as Electronic Frontier Foundation (which is currently successfully fighting Hollywood about the silly "stealing tv" argument by timeshifting out commercials) are out to make sure that everything is balanced and not skewed so that corporations can simply say "my way or the highway." As far as the MPAA is concerned, you have no "fair use" rights at all, but as the digital age becomes more prevalent, all of these issues will solidify-in a way that balances the needs of corporations as well as the consumers who buy those products. If you hadn't said "Linux is dead in less than 3 years..." and try to pass that as a critique with no basis in facts, but instead that comment simply shows you are a uninformed, uneducated troll and nothing more.
"Jon Johansen, the author of DeCSS, ..."
He wasn't really the author, he just programmed the GUI. The reason why he's charged, is because he's the only one who stood forward and admitted that he had something to do with the reverse-engineering. He wrote the front end to DeCSS in Visual Basic.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not jealous or anything, but I believe the real credits belong to the guys who really did the great work.
-$|{
Verdict: Jon Lech Johansen, born November 18, 1983, lives in Agmond Boltsvei 62. He is unmarried and has no children. He works as software developer and earns NOK 35 000 gross per month. He has no fortune. By charges presented by the Norwegian economic crime unit's state attorney member the 10th of May 2002, changed under the main negotiations, is he placed under charges at Oslo district court for violation of The criminal law 145 second by third and fourth phrase For by unrightfully having broken a protection or by similar means having unrightfully acquired access to data that is stored or transferred electronically or by other technical means and by having caused damage by acquiring or using such unrightful knowledge or by having aided this. The basis is the following chain of events or cooperation in this In the period September 1999 to 24th of January 2000, via Internet from residence in Lardal, Jon Lech Johansen participated in the breaking of the technical protection system Content Scrambling System ("CSS"), licensed by DVD Copy Control Association Inc, to protect DVD-movies produced by Motion Pictures Association against copying. A DVD-movie is a movie that is stored electronically on a DVD-disc. Based on knowledge about a secret algorithm and player keys incorporated into CSS, did Jon Lech Johansen make the Windows program DeCSS. By using DeCSS an unencrypted copy of the DVD-film is produced. Jon Lech Johansen used DeCSS on his own DVD-movies, and he spread DeCSS several times in different versions via Internet in the said period. By the described circumstances Jon Lech Johansen acquired unrightful access to the secret key repository in CSS. Further did Jon Lech Johansen break the copy protection on the DVD-movies and acquired himself and others access to the DVD-discs in an unprotected condition. The access was unrightful because the DVD-movies were sold with the condition that the user would utilize authorized playback equipment and respect the copy protection. The acquiring of the movies in unprotect condition has caused damage because the right holders no longer has protection against unrightful spreading of the movies. The main negotiations were held in Oslo Tinghus 9th to 16th of December 2002. The defendant met accompanied by his defender. The defendant testified and pleaded not guilty in accordance to the charges. The court received testimonies from five witnesses, and there were held documentation as shown in the court book. Further were the program DeCSS demonstrated. Prosecutor made the following claim: Jon Lech Johansen, b 181183, is in correspondence with the charges sentenced to jail in 90 (ninety) days, which is made conditional with a parole of 2 (two) years, in accordance to the criminal law 52 following Jon Lech Johansen, b 181183, is sentenced to handle the withdrawal of one PC-cabinet Pentium III 500 MHz (withdrawal A-2), in accordance to the criminal law 35 second phrase. 8 CD-ROMS containing miscellaneous unlicensed software (withdrawal A-4-7), in accordance to the criminal law 35 second phrase. Jon Lech Johansen, b 181183, is sentenced to carry the costs of this trial with 10 000 (ten thousand) NOK. Defender made the following claim: Jon Lech Johansen is found innocent. The court's commentaries The case's background While taking under consideration the strong needs for evidence in the criminal court, including that any reasonable doubt should come to the defendant's advantage, the court finds the following actual background for the case proved: 4th of January 2000 Motion Pictures Association, hereafter called MPA, and DVD Copy Control Association Inc, hereafter called DVD CCA, reported Jon Lech Johansen to the Norwegian economic crime unit for violating the criminal law 145 second phrase. The background for the report is that Jon Lech Johansen had participated in the development of the computer program DeCSS. MPA collects several of the large movie companies in USA. The organization was one of those who took the initiative to the work that lead to the foundation of the DVD CCA. DVD CCA was founded to prevent pirate copying of DVD movies. The DVD technology is described in the expert report delivered by Stige Frode Mjolsnes and Hakon Styri 18th of September 2000 after assignment from the Norwegian economic crime unit. From page 6 in the report the following is quoted: "DVD is a technological extension of the compact disc (CD), and has the same external dimensions as this. The storage capacity for a DVD is significantly larger than for the compact disc. DVD is used as a digital storage medium both in the entertainment industry (music, video, games) and in the computer industry (software, databases etc)." From page 7 in the report the following is quoted: "DVD-video is an 'application' of DVD-ROM which among other things conditions that the information on the disc is structured in a specific way." President John Hoy in DVD CCA testified during the main negotiations that because a DVD-video has a technology that stores information digitally, and not in analog, will this lead to the possibility of it being copied without loss of quality. The movie companies were obviously worried that the development of the DVD technology would lead to significant copying and distribution of movies without the producers of the movie receiving payment. He has further testified that the companies the stood behind the development of the DVD technology wished to tie themselves to the movie industry to have something to sell. A compromise between the movie producers and the DVD producers were the development of the Content Scrambling System, hereafter called CSS. On a question from the prosecutor did Hoy confirm that CSS came as a consequence of a demand from the movie industry. From page 13 in Mjolsnes' and Styri's report the following is quoted: "CSS is a technological measure that utilizes cryptographical methods to protect digital information stored on a DVD disc in accordance to the DVD video standard." The court bases its decision on this explanation of what CSS is. From page 15 and 16 in Mjolsnes' and Styri's report the following is quoted: "The fundamental problem a right holder and a publisher of intellectual works is presented with is how to practice control with his copyrights at the same time as copies of the works is to be distributed. (Emphasis) By distributing a work in an encrypted condition the distributor will limit the distribution of the work to those who know the decryption key. (Emphasis end) We could try to make a technical obstruction such that the receiver cannot distribute the decryption key to others. This copy protection of decryption keys is a central point in CSS. Anyway will this not be sufficient. The receiver of course has the rightful claim to use (watch and listen to) the contents. Therefore it is also necessary to prevent technical copying of the contents while it is being decrypted and is presented in 'plain text'. A normal solution concept consists of making the user dependent on a decoder or playback device do watch and listen to the digital content. A precondition that has to be satisfied is that there must not be any way to 'tap' the playback device for the contents that it presents in plain text for the user, otherwise this can be copied and distributed. Further does this solution condition that the decoder/playback device itself is secured against copying. This can be done by encapsulating the decryption key in a tampering safe way, such that the secret key can neither be read nor modified nor circumvented by any physical or logical means. This will imply that the playback unit is secured against copying, essentially because the decryption key (and possible secreted algorithms) cannot be read out. A CSS implementation that utilizes tampering safe hardware decoder and playback devices will be able to satisfy the above mentioned requirements. A CSS implementation that utilizes software-only decoder and playback devices would not likely satisfy any of these requirements. The protection is at least a lot weaker than what could have been done in electronical chipsets." In conclusion does CSS make it neccesary for the buyer of a DVD-disc to have a special equipment that can decrypt DVD movies. The equipment can either consist of a DVD player in the shape of a so-called "brownware box", hardware, that is connected to a TV-apparatus for playback of the movie or a computer program, software, that is installed in a PC so that the DVD disc can be played back on PC. In a PC the DVD disc is placed in a DVD drive that communicates via a data bus with a DVD player in the form of a computer program. A DVD disc with CSS encrypted material contains a disc key encrypted with a selection of approximately 400 so-called player keys. A DVD player must contain at least one of these player keys if a DVD movie is to be playable in unencrypted form. Producers of DVD players must therefore know at least one of the player keys in order to be able to produce a DVD player that is supposed to play encrypted DVD movies. CSS consists of several forms of protection in form of codes or keys that is layered on top of each other. The title keys are used to encrypt the actual movie. Thereafter the title key is encrypted with a disc key. The disc key is encrypted with a selection of the approximately 400 player keys. A DVD player that knows at least one of the player keys can decrypt the disc key and with this key the title key can be decrypted so that the disc's contents can be watched/listened to in unencrypted form. All those who wants to produce such a DVD player can apply for a license for this and thus get access to one or more player keys. The license is controlled by DVD CCA. The precondition for getting a license is that the license taker keeps secrecy about the player keys and that they are protected in the DVD player so that the buyer of a DVD player shall not get access to the player keys. We refer to Hoy's testimony during the main negotiations. Not all producers of software accepts such conditions, for instance an amount of producers of programs under the operating system Linux. The background is that many programs that are made under Linux has open source code, meaning that everybody should be able to see how the program is built. The motive for this is that anyone who wants to modify computer software under Linux should have full access to this. By this reason there was no DVD player under the operating system Linux fall 1999. We refer to Johansens own explanation and that no evidence is presented that contradicts this explanation on this point. In addition the the encryption CSS consists of an authentication that is supposed to prevent DVD movies with CSS protection from being played back on the DVD players that are not produced under license from DVD CCA. The authentication implies that the DVD drive with the DVD disc and the player accepts each other and that the DVD player gets access to the DVD disc's contents. Further does the CSS contain a regional playback control. The world is divided into different zones where for instance USA is region 1 and Europe and parts of Asia is region 2. A DVD disc contains information about which region it's bought in and shall only be possible to play back on a DVD player bought in the same region. The development of DeCSS Johansen has explained that he during the fall 1999 wished to be able to play back DVD movies under the operating system Linux. Through several chatting channels on the Internet Johansen made contact with other people having the same interests as him. The conversations on the chatting channels are either performed "openly" with all those who are logged on or "in private" between two persons. One of the most important chatting channel services for our case is IRC (Internet Relay Chat). Johansen was during the fall 1999 operator on the chatting channels PCDVD. Johansen's nick name on the chatting channels was "MultiAGP". On page 326 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout from an IRC log that shows a conversation held 11th of September 1999 between Johansen and a person calling himself "mdx". It's clear from the printout that Johansen and "mdx" discussed how one could find the decryption algorithm in CSS by finding a DVD player that does not have or has low protection of player keys. On page 328 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout of a conversation held 22th of September 1999 on IRC between Johansen and "mdx". It's clear from the printout that a person calling himself "the nomad" has program code for the decryption algorithm in CSS. It's further clear from the printout that "mdx" sent this program code to Johansen. This is also confirmed by Johansen's explanation during the main negotiations. Johansen has further explained that "the nomad" found the decryption algorithm in CSS by reverse engineering of a DVD player of the brand Xing. This is also clear from the conversation between Johansen and "the nomad" on IRC 24th of September 1999 quoted on page 393 in the actual excerpt. Johansen has further explained that program code for the authentication algorithm in CSS was publicized on the news group Livid on the Internet. Livid is a news group for persons interested in development of software under the operating system Linux. Johansen could under the main negotiations not remember how he got program code to the authentication algorithm. There is however not presented any evidence that Johansen participated in the development of this program code and the court therefore bases its decision on that Johansen fetched or received this after the work after it was completed. Johansen has explained that he later came to know that a person by the name Derek Fawcus had ascertained program code for the authentication algorithm in CSS. The court consider proven that DeCSS makes a unencrypted copy of an encrypted movie and puts this on the computer's harddisc. We refer to earlier special investigator in Okokrim Svein Yngvar Willassen's explanation, as well as the demonstation of the program that was performed during the main negotiations. This corresponds to Johansen's explanation. On page 393 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout from an IRC log with a conversation from the 24th of September 1999 between Johansen and "the nomad". It is clear from the printout that Johansen had made a CSS decryption program by using "the nomad"'s program code for the decryption algorithm and that he had made a GUI (Graphical User Interface), that is a user interface that makes the program easier to use. It is further clear from the same page of the printout that Johansen asked "the nomad" to test the program. Johanse further asked "the nomad" if he could publish the program, something "the nomad" accepted. Johansen has explaind that DeCSS was tested in the period before the program was realeased on the Internet. Johansen has further explained that there was made several versions of DeCSS. Willassen has explained that there was found several versions of DeCSS during the search in Johansen's home. The court therefore bases its decision on that several versions of DeCSS were made. Johansen is however not sure which version was distributed on the Internet. The court does not find this decisive for the case. Johansen has explained that he the 6th of October 1999 either put out a link or put DeCSS directly on his home page on the Internet. The same day he sent a message to Livid that is quoted on page 20 in the actual excerpt. In the message Johansen explained that DeCSS is a CSS decryptor that works with the movie "The Matrix", something a similar program, "DoDs speedripper", doesn't. Johansen further explained that the program works under the operating systems Win98 and Win2k. Thereafter he explained where the program could be fetched on the Internet. On page 450 in the actual excerpth there is a quote from a printout from an IRC log with a conversation from the 6th of October 1999 between Johansen and "the nomad". It is clear that Johansen made a mistake "uploaded the source". The court bases its decision on that they were talking about the source code for DeCSS that was made available on the Internet. The court further bases its decision on that this was an error from Johansens side, and refers to that he wrote to "the nomad" that he would try to get those who had downloaded it to erase it. Johansen has explained that he removed the source code from the Internet. The cause was that the didn't want DVD CCA to pull back Xing-keys so that DeCSS would stop working. The court bases its decision on that Johansen withdrew the sourcecode from Internet a short time after it was distributed. The 25th of October 1999 the source code for DeCSS was made available on Livid. The poster of the source code was anonymous. On page 501 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from an IRC log showing a conversation between "the nomad" and Johansen the 25th of October 1999. It's clear from the printout that Johansen is annoyed by the fact that somemone posted the source for DeCSS. Johansen has explained that it was unfortunate that the source code was made available, because the source code contained player keys from the Xing player. DVD CCA could thus have reacted by withdrawing player keys. The court bases its decision on that it wasn't Johansen who publicized the source code for DeCSS at this time. Johansen has however explained that he made the source code for DeCSS available on the Internet at a later time because the source code was then already available. Johansen has explained that before the development of DeCSS, there existed programs for decryption of DVD movies. On of these programs are the abovementioned "Speedripper". The program was developed by a group who called themselves "Drink or Die" (DoD). According to Johansen this program didn't work on some movies, among others "The Matrix". Disclosure of player keys On page 537 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from an e-mail of 7th of October 1999 from a person by the name Brian Demsky to Johansen. It's clear from the e-mail that Demsky downloaded DeCSS and that he has made a program to find the approximately 400 player keys. The purpose was to avoid that DeCSS would stop working if DVD CCA should revoke some of the player keys. This is confirmed by Johansen during the main negotiations. On page 538 in the actual excerpt there is a quote of the reply from Johansen to Demsky the same day. Johansen wrote that this was good news and thet there is interst for this. In the program code for the decryptino algorithm that Johansen received from "the nomad" there's at least one player key. On page 459 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout of an IRC log that shows a conversation between Johansen and "the nomad" the 8th of October 1999, ie. after DeCSS was made publicly available on the Internet. It's clear from that log that Johansen first at this stage realised how the player keys work. It's further clear from the log that Johansen sent player keys that he had got from Demsky to "the nomad". It's further clear that "the nomad" tested several of the player keys and that Johansen were to forward the test results to Demsky. Johansen has explained during the main negotiations that he cannot remember whether he participated in the actual testing himself, but that he forwardet player keys and test results between Demsky and "the nomad". From the log it cannot be drawn any safe conclusins with regard to whether Johansen himself participated in the testing of player keys. The court does however not find this decisive for the case because it is clear that Johansen was the contact between Demsky and "the nomad". On page 553 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout of an e-mail from 9th of October 199 from Demsky to Johansen. It's clear from the e-mail that Demsky had found approximately 400 player keys and that he sent them to Johansen. After a while it was known in the media that CSS was broken. On page 674 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from an article on the Internet in November 1999 where Johansen is presented as spokesperson of the group MoRE (Masters of Reverse Engineering), the group who broke CSS. Johansen has explained that his father was conatected by attorney Erik Tondel who on behalf of MPA asked that Johansen removed DeCSS from the Internet. Johansen followed the adviced from attorney Tondel and removed DeCSS from the Internet. Johansen has further explained that he uploaded DeCSS to the Internet again the following weekend, and that it was available until the 24th of January 2000. Altering the charges during the main negotiations The way the charges sounded during the start of the main negotiations was Johansen charged with having unrighfully gained access to the datas on the DVD discs. The way the charges was articulated data could both be understood as the actual movies, but also other data that is stored on a DVD disc. During the main negotiations the prosecutor changed the sentence with "did Jon Lech Johansen gain access to the secret key repository in CSS". The defender mentioned that this is another case than the one the charges originally was about and that the case is deprecated in accordance to the criminal law 67 first phrase. The court finds that this is not another case than what the charges originally was about if the exact words of the charges are considered. The court has a certain sympathy for the defender's arguments against the fact that the prosecutor was a bit vague during the main negotiations with regard to what the charges actually are about, but either way finds that the exact words of the charges should be the basis of the court's decision. The question of guild The criminal law 145 first and second phrase sounds thus: "He who unrightfully breaks letters or other closed writings or in similar ways unrightfully gains access to the contents, or acquires access to someone else's locked hidings is punished with fines or jail up to 6 months. The same applies to he who by breaking a protection or by similar means unrightfully gains access to data or program equipment that is stored or transferred by electronical or other technical means." If Johansen is to be convicted for violating the criminal law 145 second phrase he must therefore either himself, or by having contributed to that someone has broken a protection of by other similar means thereby acquired unrightful access to data or program equipment. Originally the criminal law 145 applied to he who "unrightfully breaks letter or other closed writings acquires access to someone else's locked hidings or aiding this". The decisions was changed by law the 16th of February 1979. Then another sentence was added in the first point, that sounded thus: "The same applies to he who unrightfully acquires access to the contents of a closed message or writing when this regularily only is available by using special equipment for connection, playback, lighting through, reading or similar." It's clear from NOU 1985:31 Computer crime on page 14 that the decision applied to inspection of computer stored information. On page 29 and 30 the council of crime law explains about the the need for changes in the crime law 145. From page 30 the following is quoted: "The articulation in the decision ("closed message or writing") does not immediately lead the thought to information stored on computers, and there is reason to believe that the decision is little known among computer people. The council of crime law have therefore, without aiming for a change of meaning, given the decision a new articulation (as 145 second phrase)." The council of crime law's suggestion for change of 145 second phrase is the decision the way it now sounds. Because the council of crime law didn't aim to change the meaning will law sources connected to the decision the way it sounded earlier still be relevant. In Ot prp no 35 (1986-87) on page 20 and following, the department of justice explains the preconditions for punishment in 145 second phrase. On page 20 the deparment discusses the expression "breaking a protection or by similar means". From page 20 the following is quoted: "By the fact that 'similar beans' is added, the interpretation of the precondition about breaking a protection becomes less important. The point is that 145 only shall apply to cases where the act of gaining access to data must be characterized as qualified unrightful. To break a protection is a such qualifying factor, but one can also imagine similar situations where the act of breaking into data will be so grave that 145 should be applied. Furthermore will the decision rely on a understanding where other factors of the act and the acting situation is pulled in." It is hence the expression "unrightful" that is the central condition in the decision. The council of criminal law states one page 15 and following about the expression unrightful: "In principle it depends on laws and agreements what data one has the right to get to know" (NOU 1985:31 Computer crime) On the same page the council states: "The expression 'unrightful' ties itself to the particular information and not the computer facility as such." It is clear from the articulation, and also by articulations in the proposal, that the question about unrightful must be tied to whether a person is allowed to get access to computer stored information, not how the person gets the access. The court therefore bases its decision on that the decision does not apply to he who in another way than the producer has required, acquires access to data he otherwise has access to. This must apply even if this happens by breaking a protection or by similar means. Access to the movie The court finds that he who buys a DVD movie that is produced in a legal way, has rightful access to watch the movie. Something else would apply if the DVD movie was produced by copying in violation with the copyright law, so-called pirate copying. The owner of a pirate copy will therefore not have a rightful demand to watch the movie. As earlier mentioned the court does find it proven that DeCSS makes an unencrypted copy of an encrypted DVD movie that is put on the computers harddisc. The court therefore bases its decision that the use of DeCSS gives the user access to the movie in an unencrypted condition. The fact that such a copy is made is not decisive because the act of making a copy is not covered by the crime law 145. The question for the courte is hence whether Johansen has used DeCSS on DVD movies that are produced in an illegal manner and therefore did not have the right to access. On page 299 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout of a chatting channel with a conversation the 9th of October 1999 between Johansen and another person calling himself "Robshot". It is clear from the printout that the Johansen has pirated copies of computer software. It is further clear from page 474 in the actual excerpt which is a printout of an IRC log from a conversation the 14th of October 1999 between Johansen and "the nomad" that Johansen has an illegal copy of the computer program Scenarist 2.0. Johansen has however explained that he has not had illegally produced DVD movies in his posession. He has explained that he has used DeCSS on the movies "The Matrix" and "The fifth element" and that he has bought both of the films in a legal manner in stores in Oslo and Larvik, respectively. No evidence is presented that shows that Johansen has used DeCSS on illegally acquired DVD movies. The court has therefore reached the verdict that Johansen cannot be convicted for violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase in relation to his own use of DeCSS. The next question the court has to decide upon is whether Johansen can be convicted for abetting violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase by the fact that other has gained unrightful access to DVD movies. In accordance to the criminal law 145 fourth phrase is abetting also punishable. From page 200 in Erling Johansen Husabo's bok "The periphery of criminal responsibility - Abetting, attempting, preparing" (1999) the following is quoted: "The statement (in the preparation of the criminal law) shows that even if the abettor has done his part, one shall not punish the abettor for anything more than attempt as long as the main man hasn't completed the violation." No evidence is presented that shows that anybody have used DeCSS on illegally acquired DVD movies. The court refers to special investigator Willassens testimony during the main negotiations where he said he didn't know of any specific cases where DeCSS have been used on illegally acquired DVD movies. Johansen can therefore not be convicted for completed abetting. The court furthermore has to to decide upon whether Johansen can be convicted for attempt to abet. The problem posed is whether Johansen can be convicted for abetting by having produced and distributed a tool which makes it possible for other people to gain unrightful access to DVD movies. Our case has many similarities with transfer of property discussed by Husabo. From page 100 in his book the following is quoted: "Nearly every product can become new as a means to a law violation. Certain kinds of products even likely will lead to being used to such. But it is either way there's an agreement that the legal responsibility is excluded both for producer and salesman. (Emphasis) What intentions the producer or salesman had, is then basically irrelevant. (Emphasis end) As long as the products also serves legal purposes the problem is not as much to give reason to freedom from punishment, but to give reason when sale to others anyway can lead to abetting responsibility. The basis is thus that the sale of products that have a legal purpose cannot be punished as abetting. The same must be true for distribution of products. Decisive for the question is whether DeCSS has a legal purpose. As mentioned earlier the court finds that it will not be in violation with the criminal law 145 second phrase to utilize DeCSS to watch DVD movies acquired legally. Furthermore will it not be in violation with the criminal law 145 second phrase to produce copies of legally acquired DVD movies for private use, in accordance to the copyright law 12. DeCSS can thus be used both to take a copy of a DVD movie and to play back a DVD movie if one doesn't have licensed playback equipment. How useful this is to society there could be different opinions about, but that this is legal have to seem clear after this. The court therefore finds that DeCSS can be used in a legal or illegal manner. The supreme court has convicted for punishable abetting of sale of products that otherwise are legal, jf Rt 1996 page 965. The supreme court laid decisive stress on that the organization of the business obviously showed that the person's intension with the sale was to sell products that were to be used exclusively for illegal production of hard liquors. The defendant's intention with the distribution of a product is thus an important factor in the evaluation of the outer circumstances in the case, in accordance to Husabo page 117. In our case the court finds it difficult to draw any safe conclusions with regard to Johansen's intention with the development of DeCSS and the publicizing of the program on the Internet. Johansen has testified that the intention was to contribute to the development of a DVD player for the operating system Linux. On page 885 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from an e-mail of 23th of September 1999 from "the nomad" to Derek Fawcus. It's clear from the e-mail that "the named" sent program code for the decryption algorithm in CSS to Fawcus. "The nomad" further wrote in the e-mail that he hoped this would be of help for the development of a DVD player for Linux. Johansen has on his side expressed himself negatively about the operating system Linux and the development community tied to this system. On page 45 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from an e-mail of 6th of October 1999 on Livid from a person by the name Michael Holzt. Holzt writes that Johansen allegedly have said that he hates Linux and that he would have been glad if the system was never invented because FreeBSD is much better. On page 47 in the actual excerpt is there a quote from the answer from Johansen where he wrote that he never have said that he hates Linux, but that it doesn't matter if Linux never had been invented because FreeBSD is much better. On page 51 there is a quote from an e-mail of 8th of October 1999 to Livid where Johanse apologizes his attitued in earlier e-mails and writes that he means Linux is a very good operating system, but that FreeBSD is better. On page 458 and 459 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout of an IRC log with a conversation the 8th of October 1999 between Johansen and "the nomad" where Johansen writes that he has sent an apology to Livid, but that it was just to satisfy another person who the court assumes is Derek Fawcus. Johanse writes further: "God damned linux fanatics, I wish someone would shoot them ; )" Given the context and the explanation Johansen has given during the main negotiations the court bases its decision on that the background for this statement is a conflict between Michael Holzt and Johansen about whether the source code should be publicized, as well as the situation around the transferral of the source code to Fawcus. The court finds that Johansen's statements regarding Linux thus cannot be taken literally and that they don't give any solid grounds for Johansen's relationship to Linux in general. The court therefore means that this correspondence is not sufficient evidence for what intention Johansen had with the development of DeCSS. It does however speak against that Johansen's intention was to make a DVD player for Linux that he showed so little interest for this operating system at the time DeCSS was made. It's clear from what is mentioned above that Johansen meant that FreeBSD was a better operating system than Linux. It's further clear from a conversation between Johansen and "the nomad" on IRC quoted on page 506 in the actual excerpt that Johansen as late as 26th of October 1999 did not have Linux installed on any of his computers. It further speaks agains that Johansen's intention was the development of a DVD player for Linux that he made DeCSS a Windows program. Johansen has however testified that he did not have enough knowledge about Linux and that there was no support for UDF (the file system on a DVD dict) under this operating system. Johansen made DeCSS available on the Internet and was occupied with making the program easy to use by "the average joe", in accordance to page 428 in the actual excerpt which is a printout from an IRC log with a conversation between Johansen and "the nomad" the 5th of October 1999. Johansen has explained that it was neccesary to publicize DeCSS on the Internet so that the program could be tested and errors discovered so that the program could be developed further. The court can however not see that any of the improvements that were made after the 6th of October 1999 further contributed to the development of a DVD player for Linux. On page 291 in the actual excerpt there is a quote of a printout of a log from a chatting channel from two conversations the 12th of September 1999 between Johansen and "Robshot". It's clear from the printout that a person calling himself "Wag" means that the chatting channel Johansen is operator in, PCDVD, is solely occupied with pirate copying. In the conversation there is a quote of another conversation between Johansen and "Wag" where Johansen wrote the following to "Wag": "and I've got only one thing to say to you, keep out of # PCDVD, we are criminals in there, you don't want to mingle with us." On page 366 in the actual excerpt there is a quote of a printout from a log from a chatting channel with a conversation from 25th of September 1999 between Johansen and a person calling himself "Terryben". It's clear from the printout that Johansen wrote the following to "Terryben": "so, hehe, we'll be copying dvds i notime when dvd burners drop in $" The court finds it difficult to put too much stress on the printouts from the chatting channels with regard to Johansen's intention with the development of DeCSS. The conversations can contain exaggregations, humour and irony, and what is said is not likely well thought through at all times. The court can therefore not base its decision on that the conversations give a correct image of the participators subjective judgements. In spite of this the logs show that the competition with other development communities was a strong driving force behind the development and DeCSS. This is especially shown in page 395, 396, 410, 435, 462, 464, 468 and 521 in the actual excerpt which are printouts from conversation between Johansen and "the nomad" where he repeatedly referred to DoDs development of a decryption program. On this background the court does not find it reasonably proved that without any reasonable doubt Johansen's intention with the development and publicizing of the program was to contribute to illegal copying and distribution of DVD movies. The court has on this background reached the verdict that Johansen cannot be convicted for having attempted to abet violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase with regard to access to the keys. This holds true even if Johansen was aware that the program could be misused. This will hold true for all who distribute products that can be used legally or illegally. Access to the player keys The next question the court has to decide upon is whether Johansen can be convicted for violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase in relation to the player keys in CSS. If Johansen is to be convicted for violation the criminal law 145 second phrase in relation to the player keys there must also in this relation be present a break of a protection or other similar mean that has given unrightful access to these. In Ot prp no 35 the condition to "break a protection or by other similar means" is discussed. From page 20 the following is quoted: "The department basically agrees with the council of criminal law in that the decision should be articulated so that it only can be applied when the rightholder himself has done something to protect the information against illegal access." It is thus required that both the information is actually protected against access and that the purpose of the protection is to prevent illegal access. The court bases its decision on that it doesn't matter how strong the protection is. It must be sufficient that the rightholder has done something to protect the information. The court does on the other size base its decision on that factors that makes the access more difficult cannot be counted as protection in relation to the criminal law 145 second phrase if the intention haven't been to protect against illegal access. Johansen has testified and the court bases its decision on that "the nomad" wrote program code for the decryption algorithm in CSS after he had performed reverse engineering of a Xing-player. The questions thuse becomes whether such reverse engineering implied a violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase. Johansen has testified that he with reverse engineering means the analyze a computer program to find out how it works. According to Johansen "the nomad" has understood the decryption algorithm in CSS and written program code for this in a high level language. This code "the nomad" sent to Johansen. Reverse engineering is not mentioned in the preparations for the criminal law 145. By the evaluation of the span of the criminal law 145 the legality principle's particular stress on the criminal law's reach must be taken into regard, in accordance to the constitution 96. The supreme court has in two decisions interpreted the criminal law 145 second phrase very narrowly compared to the actual wording, in accordance to Rt 1994 page 1610 and Rt 1995 page 35. Even though the decisions specificaly are about the expression "data", they can be read as a general expression that the criminal law 145 shall be interpreted narrowly. Bjorn Bjerke gives in his book "Reverse engineering" of computer programes (1994) on page 23 the following definition of reverse engineering: "Reverse engineering is thereby a process in which one gets an understanding about the datas and processes in an existing computer system. The goal is to pull out contents, structure and data flow from existing computer programs and represent this information in a shape well-suited for further analysis and documentation" On page 24 and following Bjerke explains the different methods of reverse engineering. Firstly you can read about the program in available manuals and litterature. Secondly you can observe the program at run time. The court finds it obvious that the two first methods does not imply a violation of the criminal law 145. Bjerke describes on page 5 and following the approach used in the third method he calls the dissection method: "The dissection method requires that we can read and understand computer programs and thereby pulling out information about the individual machine instructions, their function in shape of a description at a higher level of abstraction, as well as this functions place in the algorithm which describes what the program does. The computer program in its distributed for is in binary code, a long stream of one's and zero's, which contains a lot of "filling information" in addition to the original program. Even by use of alphanumerical symbols will the resulting code not give particular meaning, unless one can read machine instructions and data. You can in other words not avoid disassembling the program." Bjerke further writes that disassembling means that the object code is transformed into assembly code. Disassembling can be done with a disassmbling program, but one would in addition have to do some testing. The assembler language is very difficult for humans to interpret and decompilation is thus neccesary. Decompilation is the transforming of the assembly code to a high level programming language. Based on the description Bjerke has given of reverse engineering, as well as the testimony Johansen has given about how "the nomad" wrote program code for the decryption algorithm in CSS, the court finds it difficult to call this breaking of a protecting or other similar means. The court finds it not proven that a computer program distributed in object code is caused by the producer of the program wanting to protect the source code. The cause could equally well be that the program in object code can be used directly in the computer. The court has therefore decided that the reverse engineering that "the nomad" performed is not in violation with the criminal law 145 second phrase. The court finds it proven that the program code Johansen got from "the nomad" contained at least one of the player keys in CSS. The question for the court is thus whether this/these were protected in relation to the criminal law 145 second phrase. President in DVD CCA, John Hoy, has explained that keeping the player keys secret was a condition to get license to produce DVD players that could play encrypted movies. This is however not sufficient evidence that all producers actually fulfilled this condition. Johansen has explained that the Xing-player did not have any protection of the player keys. This corresponds to what "the nomad" said to Johansen in the conversation on IRC the 24th of September 1999 quoted on page 394 in the actual excerpt. No evidence is presented showing that keys were protected within the Xing player. The court has therefore based its decision on that there was no break of protection or other similar means in relation to player keys in the Xing player. As regards to the rest of the player keys it's clear from page 537 in the actual excerpt that Brian Demsky the 7th of October 1999 made contact with Johansen and explained that he was in the process of finding all of the player keys in CSS with basis in the program code for the decryption algorithm in CSS that Johansen had made available on the Internet the day before. Demsky further wrote: "I'm currently at a key rate of 2.5 million keys/sec/450 mhz". This indicates that he had developed a computer program that made the computer able to guess possible player keys. The basis for the program is the decryption algorithm in DeCSS where Xing keys were present. The court finds that even though this approach does implies breaking a protection or at least is covered by the expression "or by similar means", the break does not give unrightful access to data. The criminal law 145 second phrase does not apply to breaking the protection itself if the protection breaking itself does not lead to the person getting unrightful access to data. As mentioned earlier the court has found that the use of DeCSS on movies that are neither illegally produced or acquired does not imply a violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase. As regards to the question about abetting we show to the abovementioned in relation to access to the movie. Also in relation to other's possible use of the player keys to gain unrightful access to information on DVD discs does the court find that Johansen cannot be convicted for attempted abetting. The court thus finds that Johansen neither can be convicted for abetting to violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase in relation to the player keys. Johansen is therefore acquitted. Withdrawal Prosecutor claimed the withdrawal of one PC cabinet Pentium III 500 MHz and 8 [CDs with] miscellanous unlicensed software in accordance to the criminal law 35 second phrase. The court does not find that these objects have been used to har was meant used to perform an illegal act. The claim of withdrawal is therefore not followed. Case expenses Prosecutor claimed that Johansen should be compelled to pay the case's expenses. Johansen is acquitted and can thus not be compelled to pay the case's expenses, in accordance to the criminal law 436 first phrase. All judges agreed on the verdict.
The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.
Verdict:
Jon Lech Johansen, born November 18, 1983, lives in Agmond Boltsvei 62. He is unmarried and has no children. He works as software developer and earns NOK 35 000 gross per month. He has no fortune.
By charges presented by the Norwegian economic crime unit's state attorney member the 10th of May 2002, changed under the main negotiations, is he placed under charges at Oslo district court for violation of
The criminal law 145 second by third and fourth phrase
For by unrightfully having broken a protection or by similar means having unrightfully acquired access to data that is stored or transferred electronically or by other technical means and by having caused damage by acquiring or using such unrightful knowledge or by having aided this.
The basis is the following chain of events or cooperation in this
In the period September 1999 to 24th of January 2000, via Internet from residence in Lardal, Jon Lech Johansen participated in the breaking of the technical protection system Content Scrambling System ("CSS"), licensed by DVD Copy Control Association Inc, to protect DVD-movies produced by Motion Pictures Association against copying. A DVD-movie is a movie that is stored electronically on a DVD-disc. Based on knowledge about a secret algorithm and player keys incorporated into CSS, did Jon Lech Johansen make the Windows program DeCSS. By using DeCSS an unencrypted copy of the DVD-film is produced. Jon Lech Johansen used DeCSS on his own DVD-movies, and he spread DeCSS several times in different versions via Internet in the said period. By the described circumstances Jon Lech Johansen acquired unrightful access to the secret key repository in CSS. Further did Jon Lech Johansen break the copy protection on the DVD-movies and acquired himself and others access to the DVD-discs in an unprotected condition. The access was unrightful because the DVD-movies were sold with the condition that the user would utilize authorized playback equipment and respect the copy protection. The acquiring of the movies in unprotect condition has caused damage because the right holders no longer has protection against unrightful spreading of the movies.
The main negotiations were held in Oslo Tinghus 9th to 16th of December 2002. The defendant met accompanied by his defender. The defendant testified and pleaded not guilty in accordance to the charges.
The court received testimonies from five witnesses, and there were held documentation as shown in the court book. Further were the program DeCSS demonstrated.
Prosecutor made the following claim:
Jon Lech Johansen, b 181183, is in correspondence with the charges sentenced to jail in 90 (ninety) days, which is made conditional with a parole of 2 (two) years, in accordance to the criminal law 52 following
Jon Lech Johansen, b 181183, is sentenced to handle the withdrawal of
one PC-cabinet Pentium III 500 MHz (withdrawal A-2), in accordance to the criminal law 35 second phrase.
8 CD-ROMS containing miscellaneous unlicensed software (withdrawal A-4-7), in accordance to the criminal law 35 second phrase.
Jon Lech Johansen, b 181183, is sentenced to carry the costs of this trial with 10 000 (ten thousand) NOK.
Defender made the following claim:
Jon Lech Johansen is found innocent.
The court's commentaries
The case's background
While taking under consideration the strong needs for evidence in the criminal court, including that any reasonable doubt should come to the defendant's advantage, the court finds the following actual background for the case proved:
4th of January 2000 Motion Pictures Association, hereafter called MPA, and DVD Copy Control Association Inc, hereafter called DVD CCA, reported Jon Lech Johansen to the Norwegian economic crime unit for violating the criminal law 145 second phrase. The background for the report is that Jon Lech Johansen had participated in the development of the computer program DeCSS.
MPA collects several of the large movie companies in USA. The organization was one of those who took the initiative to the work that lead to the foundation of the DVD CCA. DVD CCA was founded to prevent pirate copying of DVD movies. The DVD technology is described in the expert report delivered by Stige Frode Mjolsnes and Hakon Styri 18th of September 2000 after assignment from the Norwegian economic crime unit. From page 6 in the report the following is quoted:
"DVD is a technological extension of the compact disc (CD), and has the same external dimensions as this. The storage capacity for a DVD is significantly larger than for the compact disc. DVD is used as a digital storage medium both in the entertainment industry (music, video, games) and in the computer industry (software, databases etc)."
From page 7 in the report the following is quoted:
"DVD-video is an 'application' of DVD-ROM which among other things conditions that the information on the disc is structured in a specific way."
President John Hoy in DVD CCA testified during the main negotiations that because a DVD-video has a technology that stores information digitally, and not in analog, will this lead to the possibility of it being copied without loss of quality. The movie companies were obviously worried that the development of the DVD technology would lead to significant copying and distribution of movies without the producers of the movie receiving payment. He has further testified that the companies the stood behind the development of the DVD technology wished to tie themselves to the movie industry to have something to sell. A compromise between the movie producers and the DVD producers were the development of the Content Scrambling System, hereafter called CSS. On a question from the prosecutor did Hoy confirm that CSS came as a consequence of a demand from the movie industry.
From page 13 in Mjolsnes' and Styri's report the following is quoted:
"CSS is a technological measure that utilizes cryptographical methods to protect digital information stored on a DVD disc in accordance to the DVD video standard."
The court bases its decision on this explanation of what CSS is.
From page 15 and 16 in Mjolsnes' and Styri's report the following is quoted:
"The fundamental problem a right holder and a publisher of intellectual works is presented with is how to practice control with his copyrights at the same time as copies of the works is to be distributed.
(Emphasis) By distributing a work in an encrypted condition the distributor will limit the distribution of the work to those who know the decryption key. (Emphasis end)
We could try to make a technical obstruction such that the receiver cannot distribute the decryption key to others. This copy protection of decryption keys is a central point in CSS. Anyway will this not be sufficient. The receiver of course has the rightful claim to use (watch and listen to) the contents. Therefore it is also necessary to prevent technical copying of the contents while it is being decrypted and is presented in 'plain text'.
A normal solution concept consists of making the user dependent on a decoder or playback device do watch and listen to the digital content. A precondition that has to be satisfied is that there must not be any way to 'tap' the playback device for the contents that it presents in plain text for the user, otherwise this can be copied and distributed.
Further does this solution condition that the decoder/playback device itself is secured against copying. This can be done by encapsulating the decryption key in a tampering safe way, such that the secret key can neither be read nor modified nor circumvented by any physical or logical means. This will imply that the playback unit is secured against copying, essentially because the decryption key (and possible secreted algorithms) cannot be read out.
A CSS implementation that utilizes tampering safe hardware decoder and playback devices will be able to satisfy the above mentioned requirements. A CSS implementation that utilizes software-only decoder and playback devices would not likely satisfy any of these requirements. The protection is at least a lot weaker than what could have been done in electronical chipsets."
In conclusion does CSS make it neccesary for the buyer of a DVD-disc to have a special equipment that can decrypt DVD movies. The equipment can either consist of a DVD player in the shape of a so-called "brownware box", hardware, that is connected to a TV-apparatus for playback of the movie or a computer program, software, that is installed in a PC so that the DVD disc can be played back on PC. In a PC the DVD disc is placed in a DVD drive that communicates via a data bus with a DVD player in the form of a computer program.
A DVD disc with CSS encrypted material contains a disc key encrypted with a selection of approximately 400 so-called player keys. A DVD player must contain at least one of these player keys if a DVD movie is to be playable in unencrypted form. Producers of DVD players must therefore know at least one of the player keys in order to be able to produce a DVD player that is supposed to play encrypted DVD movies.
CSS consists of several forms of protection in form of codes or keys that is layered on top of each other. The title keys are used to encrypt the actual movie. Thereafter the title key is encrypted with a disc key. The disc key is encrypted with a selection of the approximately 400 player keys. A DVD player that knows at least one of the player keys can decrypt the disc key and with this key the title key can be decrypted so that the disc's contents can be watched/listened to in unencrypted form.
All those who wants to produce such a DVD player can apply for a license for this and thus get access to one or more player keys. The license is controlled by DVD CCA. The precondition for getting a license is that the license taker keeps secrecy about the player keys and that they are protected in the DVD player so that the buyer of a DVD player shall not get access to the player keys. We refer to Hoy's testimony during the main negotiations.
Not all producers of software accepts such conditions, for instance an amount of producers of programs under the operating system Linux. The background is that many programs that are made under Linux has open source code, meaning that everybody should be able to see how the program is built. The motive for this is that anyone who wants to modify computer software under Linux should have full access to this. By this reason there was no DVD player under the operating system Linux fall 1999. We refer to Johansens own explanation and that no evidence is presented that contradicts this explanation on this point.
In addition the the encryption CSS consists of an authentication that is supposed to prevent DVD movies with CSS protection from being played back on the DVD players that are not produced under license from DVD CCA. The authentication implies that the DVD drive with the DVD disc and the player accepts each other and that the DVD player gets access to the DVD disc's contents.
Further does the CSS contain a regional playback control. The world is divided into different zones where for instance USA is region 1 and Europe and parts of Asia is region 2. A DVD disc contains information about which region it's bought in and shall only be possible to play back on a DVD player bought in the same region.
The development of DeCSS
Johansen has explained that he during the fall 1999 wished to be able to play back DVD movies under the operating system Linux.
Through several chatting channels on the Internet Johansen made contact with other people having the same interests as him. The conversations on the chatting channels are either performed "openly" with all those who are logged on or "in private" between two persons. One of the most important chatting channel services for our case is IRC (Internet Relay Chat). Johansen was during the fall 1999 operator on the chatting channels PCDVD. Johansen's nick name on the chatting channels was "MultiAGP".
On page 326 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout from an IRC log that shows a conversation held 11th of September 1999 between Johansen and a person calling himself "mdx". It's clear from the printout that Johansen and "mdx" discussed how one could find the decryption algorithm in CSS by finding a DVD player that does not have or has low protection of player keys. On page 328 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout of a conversation held 22th of September 1999 on IRC between Johansen and "mdx". It's clear from the printout that a person calling himself "the nomad" has program code for the decryption algorithm in CSS. It's further clear from the printout that "mdx" sent this program code to Johansen. This is also confirmed by Johansen's explanation during the main negotiations. Johansen has further explained that "the nomad" found the decryption algorithm in CSS by reverse engineering of a DVD player of the brand Xing. This is also clear from the conversation between Johansen and "the nomad" on IRC 24th of September 1999 quoted on page 393 in the actual excerpt.
Johansen has further explained that program code for the authentication algorithm in CSS was publicized on the news group Livid on the Internet. Livid is a news group for persons interested in development of software under the operating system Linux. Johansen could under the main negotiations not remember how he got program code to the authentication algorithm. There is however not presented any evidence that Johansen participated in the development of this program code and the court therefore bases its decision on that Johansen fetched or received this after the work after it was completed. Johansen has explained that he later came to know that a person by the name Derek Fawcus had ascertained program code for the authentication algorithm in CSS.
The court consider proven that DeCSS makes a unencrypted copy of an encrypted movie and puts this on the computer's harddisc. We refer to earlier special investigator in Okokrim Svein Yngvar Willassen's explanation, as well as the demonstation of the program that was performed during the main negotiations. This corresponds to Johansen's explanation.
On page 393 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout from an IRC log with a conversation from the 24th of September 1999 between Johansen and "the nomad". It is clear from the printout that Johansen had made a CSS decryption program by using "the nomad"'s program code for the decryption algorithm and that he had made a GUI (Graphical User Interface), that is a user interface that makes the program easier to use. It is further clear from the same page of the printout that Johansen asked "the nomad" to test the program. Johanse further asked "the nomad" if he could publish the program, something "the nomad" accepted.
Johansen has explaind that DeCSS was tested in the period before the program was realeased on the Internet. Johansen has further explained that there was made several versions of DeCSS. Willassen has explained that there was found several versions of DeCSS during the search in Johansen's home. The court therefore bases its decision on that several versions of DeCSS were made. Johansen is however not sure which version was distributed on the Internet. The court does not find this decisive for the case.
Johansen has explained that he the 6th of October 1999 either put out a link or put DeCSS directly on his home page on the Internet. The same day he sent a message to Livid that is quoted on page 20 in the actual excerpt. In the message Johansen explained that DeCSS is a CSS decryptor that works with the movie "The Matrix", something a similar program, "DoDs speedripper", doesn't. Johansen further explained that the program works under the operating systems Win98 and Win2k. Thereafter he explained where the program could be fetched on the Internet.
On page 450 in the actual excerpth there is a quote from a printout from an IRC log with a conversation from the 6th of October 1999 between Johansen and "the nomad". It is clear that Johansen made a mistake "uploaded the source". The court bases its decision on that they were talking about the source code for DeCSS that was made available on the Internet. The court further bases its decision on that this was an error from Johansens side, and refers to that he wrote to "the nomad" that he would try to get those who had downloaded it to erase it. Johansen has explained that he removed the source code from the Internet. The cause was that the didn't want DVD CCA to pull back Xing-keys so that DeCSS would stop working. The court bases its decision on that Johansen withdrew the sourcecode from Internet a short time after it was distributed.
The 25th of October 1999 the source code for DeCSS was made available on Livid. The poster of the source code was anonymous. On page 501 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from an IRC log showing a conversation between "the nomad" and Johansen the 25th of October 1999. It's clear from the printout that Johansen is annoyed by the fact that somemone posted the source for DeCSS. Johansen has explained that it was unfortunate that the source code was made available, because the source code contained player keys from the Xing player. DVD CCA could thus have reacted by withdrawing player keys. The court bases its decision on that it wasn't Johansen who publicized the source code for DeCSS at this time.
Johansen has however explained that he made the source code for DeCSS available on the Internet at a later time because the source code was then already available.
Johansen has explained that before the development of DeCSS, there existed programs for decryption of DVD movies. On of these programs are the abovementioned "Speedripper". The program was developed by a group who called themselves "Drink or Die" (DoD). According to Johansen this program didn't work on some movies, among others "The Matrix".
Disclosure of player keys
On page 537 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from an e-mail of 7th of October 1999 from a person by the name Brian Demsky to Johansen. It's clear from the e-mail that Demsky downloaded DeCSS and that he has made a program to find the approximately 400 player keys. The purpose was to avoid that DeCSS would stop working if DVD CCA should revoke some of the player keys. This is confirmed by Johansen during the main negotiations.
On page 538 in the actual excerpt there is a quote of the reply from Johansen to Demsky the same day. Johansen wrote that this was good news and thet there is interst for this.
In the program code for the decryptino algorithm that Johansen received from "the nomad" there's at least one player key. On page 459 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout of an IRC log that shows a conversation between Johansen and "the nomad" the 8th of October 1999, ie. after DeCSS was made publicly available on the Internet. It's clear from that log that Johansen first at this stage realised how the player keys work. It's further clear from the log that Johansen sent player keys that he had got from Demsky to "the nomad". It's further clear that "the nomad" tested several of the player keys and that Johansen were to forward the test results to Demsky. Johansen has explained during the main negotiations that he cannot remember whether he participated in the actual testing himself, but that he forwardet player keys and test results between Demsky and "the nomad". From the log it cannot be drawn any safe conclusins with regard to whether Johansen himself participated in the testing of player keys. The court does however not find this decisive for the case because it is clear that Johansen was the contact between Demsky and "the nomad".
On page 553 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout of an e-mail from 9th of October 199 from Demsky to Johansen. It's clear from the e-mail that Demsky had found approximately 400 player keys and that he sent them to Johansen.
After a while it was known in the media that CSS was broken. On page 674 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from an article on the Internet in November 1999 where Johansen is presented as spokesperson of the group MoRE (Masters of Reverse Engineering), the group who broke CSS. Johansen has explained that his father was conatected by attorney Erik Tondel who on behalf of MPA asked that Johansen removed DeCSS from the Internet. Johansen followed the adviced from attorney Tondel and removed DeCSS from the Internet. Johansen has further explained that he uploaded DeCSS to the Internet again the following weekend, and that it was available until the 24th of January 2000.
Altering the charges during the main negotiations
The way the charges sounded during the start of the main negotiations was Johansen charged with having unrighfully gained access to the datas on the DVD discs. The way the charges was articulated data could both be understood as the actual movies, but also other data that is stored on a DVD disc. During the main negotiations the prosecutor changed the sentence with "did Jon Lech Johansen gain access to the secret key repository in CSS".
The defender mentioned that this is another case than the one the charges originally was about and that the case is deprecated in accordance to the criminal law 67 first phrase. The court finds that this is not another case than what the charges originally was about if the exact words of the charges are considered. The court has a certain sympathy for the defender's arguments against the fact that the prosecutor was a bit vague during the main negotiations with regard to what the charges actually are about, but either way finds that the exact words of the charges should be the basis of the court's decision.
The question of guild
The criminal law 145 first and second phrase sounds thus:
"He who unrightfully breaks letters or other closed writings or in similar ways unrightfully gains access to the contents, or acquires access to someone else's locked hidings is punished with fines or jail up to 6 months.
The same applies to he who by breaking a protection or by similar means unrightfully gains access to data or program equipment that is stored or transferred by electronical or other technical means."
If Johansen is to be convicted for violating the criminal law 145 second phrase he must therefore either himself, or by having contributed to that someone has broken a protection of by other similar means thereby acquired unrightful access to data or program equipment. Originally the criminal law 145 applied to he who "unrightfully breaks letter or other closed writings acquires access to someone else's locked hidings or aiding this". The decisions was changed by law the 16th of February 1979. Then another sentence was added in the first point, that sounded thus:
"The same applies to he who unrightfully acquires access to the contents of a closed message or writing when this regularily only is available by using special equipment for connection, playback, lighting through, reading or similar."
It's clear from NOU 1985:31 Computer crime on page 14 that the decision applied to inspection of computer stored information. On page 29 and 30 the council of crime law explains about the the need for changes in the crime law 145. From page 30 the following is quoted:
"The articulation in the decision ("closed message or writing") does not immediately lead the thought to information stored on computers, and there is reason to believe that the decision is little known among computer people. The council of crime law have therefore, without aiming for a change of meaning, given the decision a new articulation (as 145 second phrase)."
The council of crime law's suggestion for change of 145 second phrase is the decision the way it now sounds. Because the council of crime law didn't aim to change the meaning will law sources connected to the decision the way it sounded earlier still be relevant.
In Ot prp no 35 (1986-87) on page 20 and following, the department of justice explains the preconditions for punishment in 145 second phrase. On page 20 the deparment discusses the expression "breaking a protection or by similar means". From page 20 the following is quoted:
"By the fact that 'similar beans' is added, the interpretation of the precondition about breaking a protection becomes less important. The point is that 145 only shall apply to cases where the act of gaining access to data must be characterized as qualified unrightful. To break a protection is a such qualifying factor, but one can also imagine similar situations where the act of breaking into data will be so grave that 145 should be applied. Furthermore will the decision rely on a understanding where other factors of the act and the acting situation is pulled in."
It is hence the expression "unrightful" that is the central condition in the decision. The council of criminal law states one page 15 and following about the expression unrightful:
"In principle it depends on laws and agreements what data one has the right to get to know" (NOU 1985:31 Computer crime)
On the same page the council states:
"The expression 'unrightful' ties itself to the particular information and not the computer facility as such."
It is clear from the articulation, and also by articulations in the proposal, that the question about unrightful must be tied to whether a person is allowed to get access to computer stored information, not how the person gets the access.
The court therefore bases its decision on that the decision does not apply to he who in another way than the producer has required, acquires access to data he otherwise has access to. This must apply even if this happens by breaking a protection or by similar means.
Access to the movie
The court finds that he who buys a DVD movie that is produced in a legal way, has rightful access to watch the movie. Something else would apply if the DVD movie was produced by copying in violation with the copyright law, so-called pirate copying. The owner of a pirate copy will therefore not have a rightful demand to watch the movie.
As earlier mentioned the court does find it proven that DeCSS makes an unencrypted copy of an encrypted DVD movie that is put on the computers harddisc. The court therefore bases its decision that the use of DeCSS gives the user access to the movie in an unencrypted condition. The fact that such a copy is made is not decisive because the act of making a copy is not covered by the crime law 145.
The question for the courte is hence whether Johansen has used DeCSS on DVD movies that are produced in an illegal manner and therefore did not have the right to access.
On page 299 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout of a chatting channel with a conversation the 9th of October 1999 between Johansen and another person calling himself "Robshot". It is clear from the printout that the Johansen has pirated copies of computer software. It is further clear from page 474 in the actual excerpt which is a printout of an IRC log from a conversation the 14th of October 1999 between Johansen and "the nomad" that Johansen has an illegal copy of the computer program Scenarist 2.0. Johansen has however explained that he has not had illegally produced DVD movies in his posession. He has explained that he has used DeCSS on the movies "The Matrix" and "The fifth element" and that he has bought both of the films in a legal manner in stores in Oslo and Larvik, respectively. No evidence is presented that shows that Johansen has used DeCSS on illegally acquired DVD movies. The court has therefore reached the verdict that Johansen cannot be convicted for violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase in relation to his own use of DeCSS.
The next question the court has to decide upon is whether Johansen can be convicted for abetting violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase by the fact that other has gained unrightful access to DVD movies. In accordance to the criminal law 145 fourth phrase is abetting also punishable.
From page 200 in Erling Johansen Husabo's bok "The periphery of criminal responsibility - Abetting, attempting, preparing" (1999) the following is quoted:
"The statement (in the preparation of the criminal law) shows that even if the abettor has done his part, one shall not punish the abettor for anything more than attempt as long as the main man hasn't completed the violation."
No evidence is presented that shows that anybody have used DeCSS on illegally acquired DVD movies. The court refers to special investigator Willassens testimony during the main negotiations where he said he didn't know of any specific cases where DeCSS have been used on illegally acquired DVD movies. Johansen can therefore not be convicted for completed abetting.
The court furthermore has to to decide upon whether Johansen can be convicted for attempt to abet. The problem posed is whether Johansen can be convicted for abetting by having produced and distributed a tool which makes it possible for other people to gain unrightful access to DVD movies.
Our case has many similarities with transfer of property discussed by Husabo. From page 100 in his book the following is quoted:
"Nearly every product can become new as a means to a law violation. Certain kinds of products even likely will lead to being used to such. But it is either way there's an agreement that the legal responsibility is excluded both for producer and salesman. (Emphasis) What intentions the producer or salesman had, is then basically irrelevant. (Emphasis end)
As long as the products also serves legal purposes the problem is not as much to give reason to freedom from punishment, but to give reason when sale to others anyway can lead to abetting responsibility.
The basis is thus that the sale of products that have a legal purpose cannot be punished as abetting. The same must be true for distribution of products. Decisive for the question is whether DeCSS has a legal purpose.
As mentioned earlier the court finds that it will not be in violation with the criminal law 145 second phrase to utilize DeCSS to watch DVD movies acquired legally. Furthermore will it not be in violation with the criminal law 145 second phrase to produce copies of legally acquired DVD movies for private use, in accordance to the copyright law 12. DeCSS can thus be used both to take a copy of a DVD movie and to play back a DVD movie if one doesn't have licensed playback equipment. How useful this is to society there could be different opinions about, but that this is legal have to seem clear after this. The court therefore finds that DeCSS can be used in a legal or illegal manner.
The supreme court has convicted for punishable abetting of sale of products that otherwise are legal, jf Rt 1996 page 965. The supreme court laid decisive stress on that the organization of the business obviously showed that the person's intension with the sale was to sell products that were to be used exclusively for illegal production of hard liquors. The defendant's intention with the distribution of a product is thus an important factor in the evaluation of the outer circumstances in the case, in accordance to Husabo page 117.
In our case the court finds it difficult to draw any safe conclusions with regard to Johansen's intention with the development of DeCSS and the publicizing of the program on the Internet. Johansen has testified that the intention was to contribute to the development of a DVD player for the operating system Linux. On page 885 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from an e-mail of 23th of September 1999 from "the nomad" to Derek Fawcus. It's clear from the e-mail that "the named" sent program code for the decryption algorithm in CSS to Fawcus. "The nomad" further wrote in the e-mail that he hoped this would be of help for the development of a DVD player for Linux.
Johansen has on his side expressed himself negatively about the operating system Linux and the development community tied to this system. On page 45 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from an e-mail of 6th of October 1999 on Livid from a person by the name Michael Holzt. Holzt writes that Johansen allegedly have said that he hates Linux and that he would have been glad if the system was never invented because FreeBSD is much better. On page 47 in the actual excerpt is there a quote from the answer from Johansen where he wrote that he never have said that he hates Linux, but that it doesn't matter if Linux never had been invented because FreeBSD is much better. On page 51 there is a quote from an e-mail of 8th of October 1999 to Livid where Johanse apologizes his attitued in earlier e-mails and writes that he means Linux is a very good operating system, but that FreeBSD is better. On page 458 and 459 in the actual excerpt there is a quote from a printout of an IRC log with a conversation the 8th of October 1999 between Johansen and "the nomad" where Johansen writes that he has sent an apology to Livid, but that it was just to satisfy another person who the court assumes is Derek Fawcus. Johanse writes further:
"God damned linux fanatics, I wish someone would shoot them ; )"
Given the context and the explanation Johansen has given during the main negotiations the court bases its decision on that the background for this statement is a conflict between Michael Holzt and Johansen about whether the source code should be publicized, as well as the situation around the transferral of the source code to Fawcus. The court finds that Johansen's statements regarding Linux thus cannot be taken literally and that they don't give any solid grounds for Johansen's relationship to Linux in general. The court therefore means that this correspondence is not sufficient evidence for what intention Johansen had with the development of DeCSS.
It does however speak against that Johansen's intention was to make a DVD player for Linux that he showed so little interest for this operating system at the time DeCSS was made. It's clear from what is mentioned above that Johansen meant that FreeBSD was a better operating system than Linux. It's further clear from a conversation between Johansen and "the nomad" on IRC quoted on page 506 in the actual excerpt that Johansen as late as 26th of October 1999 did not have Linux installed on any of his computers.
It further speaks agains that Johansen's intention was the development of a DVD player for Linux that he made DeCSS a Windows program. Johansen has however testified that he did not have enough knowledge about Linux and that there was no support for UDF (the file system on a DVD dict) under this operating system.
Johansen made DeCSS available on the Internet and was occupied with making the program easy to use by "the average joe", in accordance to page 428 in the actual excerpt which is a printout from an IRC log with a conversation between Johansen and "the nomad" the 5th of October 1999. Johansen has explained that it was neccesary to publicize DeCSS on the Internet so that the program could be tested and errors discovered so that the program could be developed further. The court can however not see that any of the improvements that were made after the 6th of October 1999 further contributed to the development of a DVD player for Linux.
On page 291 in the actual excerpt there is a quote of a printout of a log from a chatting channel from two conversations the 12th of September 1999 between Johansen and "Robshot". It's clear from the printout that a person calling himself "Wag" means that the chatting channel Johansen is operator in, PCDVD, is solely occupied with pirate copying. In the conversation there is a quote of another conversation between Johansen and "Wag" where Johansen wrote the following to "Wag":
"and I've got only one thing to say to you, keep out of # PCDVD, we are criminals in there, you don't want to mingle with us."
On page 366 in the actual excerpt there is a quote of a printout from a log from a chatting channel with a conversation from 25th of September 1999 between Johansen and a person calling himself "Terryben". It's clear from the printout that Johansen wrote the following to "Terryben":
"so, hehe, we'll be copying dvds i notime when dvd burners drop in $"
The court finds it difficult to put too much stress on the printouts from the chatting channels with regard to Johansen's intention with the development of DeCSS. The conversations can contain exaggregations, humour and irony, and what is said is not likely well thought through at all times. The court can therefore not base its decision on that the conversations give a correct image of the participators subjective judgements. In spite of this the logs show that the competition with other development communities was a strong driving force behind the development and DeCSS. This is especially shown in page 395, 396, 410, 435, 462, 464, 468 and 521 in the actual excerpt which are printouts from conversation between Johansen and "the nomad" where he repeatedly referred to DoDs development of a decryption program.
On this background the court does not find it reasonably proved that without any reasonable doubt Johansen's intention with the development and publicizing of the program was to contribute to illegal copying and distribution of DVD movies.
The court has on this background reached the verdict that Johansen cannot be convicted for having attempted to abet violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase with regard to access to the keys. This holds true even if Johansen was aware that the program could be misused. This will hold true for all who distribute products that can be used legally or illegally.
Access to the player keys
The next question the court has to decide upon is whether Johansen can be convicted for violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase in relation to the player keys in CSS. If Johansen is to be convicted for violation the criminal law 145 second phrase in relation to the player keys there must also in this relation be present a break of a protection or other similar mean that has given unrightful access to these.
In Ot prp no 35 the condition to "break a protection or by other similar means" is discussed. From page 20 the following is quoted:
"The department basically agrees with the council of criminal law in that the decision should be articulated so that it only can be applied when the rightholder himself has done something to protect the information against illegal access."
It is thus required that both the information is actually protected against access and that the purpose of the protection is to prevent illegal access. The court bases its decision on that it doesn't matter how strong the protection is. It must be sufficient that the rightholder has done something to protect the information. The court does on the other size base its decision on that factors that makes the access more difficult cannot be counted as protection in relation to the criminal law 145 second phrase if the intention haven't been to protect against illegal access.
Johansen has testified and the court bases its decision on that "the nomad" wrote program code for the decryption algorithm in CSS after he had performed reverse engineering of a Xing-player. The questions thuse becomes whether such reverse engineering implied a violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase. Johansen has testified that he with reverse engineering means the analyze a computer program to find out how it works. According to Johansen "the nomad" has understood the decryption algorithm in CSS and written program code for this in a high level language. This code "the nomad" sent to Johansen.
Reverse engineering is not mentioned in the preparations for the criminal law 145. By the evaluation of the span of the criminal law 145 the legality principle's particular stress on the criminal law's reach must be taken into regard, in accordance to the constitution 96. The supreme court has in two decisions interpreted the criminal law 145 second phrase very narrowly compared to the actual wording, in accordance to Rt 1994 page 1610 and Rt 1995 page 35. Even though the decisions specificaly are about the expression "data", they can be read as a general expression that the criminal law 145 shall be interpreted narrowly.
Bjorn Bjerke gives in his book "Reverse engineering" of computer programes (1994) on page 23 the following definition of reverse engineering:
"Reverse engineering is thereby a process in which one gets an understanding about the datas and processes in an existing computer system. The goal is to pull out contents, structure and data flow from existing computer programs and represent this information in a shape well-suited for further analysis and documentation"
On page 24 and following Bjerke explains the different methods of reverse engineering. Firstly you can read about the program in available manuals and litterature. Secondly you can observe the program at run time. The court finds it obvious that the two first methods does not imply a violation of the criminal law 145. Bjerke describes on page 5 and following the approach used in the third method he calls the dissection method:
"The dissection method requires that we can read and understand computer programs and thereby pulling out information about the individual machine instructions, their function in shape of a description at a higher level of abstraction, as well as this functions place in the algorithm which describes what the program does. The computer program in its distributed for is in binary code, a long stream of one's and zero's, which contains a lot of "filling information" in addition to the original program.
Even by use of alphanumerical symbols will the resulting code not give particular meaning, unless one can read machine instructions and data. You can in other words not avoid disassembling the program."
Bjerke further writes that disassembling means that the object code is transformed into assembly code. Disassembling can be done with a disassmbling program, but one would in addition have to do some testing. The assembler language is very difficult for humans to interpret and decompilation is thus neccesary. Decompilation is the transforming of the assembly code to a high level programming language.
Based on the description Bjerke has given of reverse engineering, as well as the testimony Johansen has given about how "the nomad" wrote program code for the decryption algorithm in CSS, the court finds it difficult to call this breaking of a protecting or other similar means. The court finds it not proven that a computer program distributed in object code is caused by the producer of the program wanting to protect the source code. The cause could equally well be that the program in object code can be used directly in the computer. The court has therefore decided that the reverse engineering that "the nomad" performed is not in violation with the criminal law 145 second phrase.
The court finds it proven that the program code Johansen got from "the nomad" contained at least one of the player keys in CSS. The question for the court is thus whether this/these were protected in relation to the criminal law 145 second phrase.
President in DVD CCA, John Hoy, has explained that keeping the player keys secret was a condition to get license to produce DVD players that could play encrypted movies. This is however not sufficient evidence that all producers actually fulfilled this condition. Johansen has explained that the Xing-player did not have any protection of the player keys. This corresponds to what "the nomad" said to Johansen in the conversation on IRC the 24th of September 1999 quoted on page 394 in the actual excerpt. No evidence is presented showing that keys were protected within the Xing player. The court has therefore based its decision on that there was no break of protection or other similar means in relation to player keys in the Xing player.
As regards to the rest of the player keys it's clear from page 537 in the actual excerpt that Brian Demsky the 7th of October 1999 made contact with Johansen and explained that he was in the process of finding all of the player keys in CSS with basis in the program code for the decryption algorithm in CSS that Johansen had made available on the Internet the day before. Demsky further wrote: "I'm currently at a key rate of 2.5 million keys/sec/450 mhz". This indicates that he had developed a computer program that made the computer able to guess possible player keys. The basis for the program is the decryption algorithm in DeCSS where Xing keys were present. The court finds that even though this approach does implies breaking a protection or at least is covered by the expression "or by similar means", the break does not give unrightful access to data. The criminal law 145 second phrase does not apply to breaking the protection itself if the protection breaking itself does not lead to the person getting unrightful access to data. As mentioned earlier the court has found that the use of DeCSS on movies that are neither illegally produced or acquired does not imply a violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase.
As regards to the question about abetting we show to the abovementioned in relation to access to the movie. Also in relation to other's possible use of the player keys to gain unrightful access to information on DVD discs does the court find that Johansen cannot be convicted for attempted abetting. The court thus finds that Johansen neither can be convicted for abetting to violation of the criminal law 145 second phrase in relation to the player keys.
Johansen is therefore acquitted.
Withdrawal
Prosecutor claimed the withdrawal of one PC cabinet Pentium III 500 MHz and 8 [CDs with] miscellanous unlicensed software in accordance to the criminal law 35 second phrase. The court does not find that these objects have been used to har was meant used to perform an illegal act. The claim of withdrawal is therefore not followed.
Case expenses
Prosecutor claimed that Johansen should be compelled to pay the case's expenses. Johansen is acquitted and can thus not be compelled to pay the case's expenses, in accordance to the criminal law 436 first phrase.
All judges agreed on the verdict.
The world will end in 5 minutes. Please log out.
The constitution forbids all kinds of things that are going on at the moment. Don't rely on it.
In the Aftenposten article, the following quote near the end caught my interest:
"...citing Norwegian laws that protect what a consumer can do with his or her own property..."
Could this mean that copy protected 'CDs' could become illegal in Norway? I.e., the inability to make a copy of a 'CD' (per Phillip's definition it wouldn't be one) I just bought to use it in my car where it could easily be scratched (and they scratch way easily these days!) would clearly restrict my use of a product that is now my property?
A few good things could come out of this ruling.
ISO certified == THX certified
Order of operations dictates that the 1/2 is resolved before the * x is resolved. 1/2 is 0 in C because 1 and 2 are integer types by default (and you can of course convert them to floats, or use 0.5 instead). So first the code divides (int) 1 by (int) 2, and gets 0. Then, 0 * 3.14159 is still 0. Change it to float y = x * 1/2; and it'll work.
If you did know this, and were just being silly, then nevermind. :)
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
In Sweden, and I'm sure also Norway, either side can appeal a verdict to a higher court. And then appeal that to the supreme court, but they only take special ly significant cases.
But there is no double jeopardy in the sense that they can't start a new trial from scratch once you've been acquitted.
yeah.
Gratulerer means congratulations in Norwegian, so I suggest that we wish Jon a hearty "Gratulerer".
--Joey
Thanks. I do know why it is zero, according to C evaluation rules. My point is that the result is mathematically counterintuitive and hence potentially bug inducing.
Norway has a special arrangement with the EU, along with a few other countries, which gives us access to the EU inner market. In Norway it's called EØS. Part of this agreement forces us to implement certain (all?) EU-directives which we haven't even been voting on :-(
Not a happy situation, hundreds of directives have been pushed on us. Some are uvery unpopular, like the "food make-up directive", which forces us to allow certain unnecessary (potentially carcinogenic) additives to foodstuffs.
The debate is about whether the solution is to enter the union to get a vote, or leave the EØS. The EU may force the issue sooner or later, because all but two or three of the countries that were part of the original agreement have already entered the union.
(pardon my poor research, EØS stands for european economic agreement or something like that. But I don't know what they call it in the EU)
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
Wrong.
A short while after the Norwegian people said no to joining EU in 1994, our dorky politicans joined EØS (Europeisk Økonomisk Samarbeid (or something); European Economic Cooperation) - which basically is just like being a member of EU, without the ability to vote.
We have thousands of EU laws.
Fuck parliamentalism:P
So will he now be able to host all the dvd decss plug in's for all the Linux dvd players?
I don't actually exist.
Your sig is dubious and shows that you do not understand the type promotion rules of C-style languages.
On the contrary, I understand them perfectly that is why I know the value of y is zero.
Now, if you think that this result is in any way intuitive, then I'll give you 1/2 million dollars, no questions asked.
Just went to library and looked through some Scottish law books (Note:Scottish and English Laws are different), I roughly understood it as If you own it then you can do whatever you want to it and distribute it to your family only.......
Do you mean "Fucking priceless?". If you do, write so. If not, sorry for the inconvenience.