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.
Yet, I still wonder if this conclusion can be used against DMCA itself.
No, the judge realized the rules of evidence.
Okay, I have no idea exactly how or if the Norweigan courts rule on evidence, but in the U.S. courts, in criminal trials, it's "beyond a shadow of doubt". If there wasn't enough evidence to rule in favour of guilt, then by law, he is innocent.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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
I'm quite certain the phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt".
Pathman, Free (as in GPL) 3D Pac Man
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.
".. in the U.S. courts, in criminal trials, it's "beyond a shadow of doubt". If there wasn't enough evidence to rule in favour of guilt, then by law, he is innocent."
The judges (according the the Aftenpost article) went one step further than that and said there was "no evidence" to convict. This implies (to my untrained legal eye, which nonetheless is legally bound under pain of imprisonment to obey every single law in the land, every E.U. directive, and every libel law in Australia, because ignorance of the law is no excuse) that none of the evidence provided by the prosecution would lead the judges to convict Jon.
One small step forward for justice. That feels like such a hollow thing to say when thousands have disappeared from US streets to be held secretly (and legally) in internment camps.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
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.
Elcomsoft eventually was acquitted. Nothing has been done to compensate Dmitry Sklyarov for the time he spent behind bars. Adobe's gross assets, plus 10% would be a good start.
How ya like dat?
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
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!
Not in a criminal case. I guess they can still sue, but thats probably pointless. In countries like Sweden and Norway, you cant sue McDonnalds for 100M$ for spilling hot coffee on yourself :)
:)
You have to break an Norwegean law to risk being put in jail. US laws has no effect outside the US
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.
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.
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!
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
No, but, having made a treaty of economic cooperation with the EU, Norway is obligated to implement most EU laws, including EUCD.
I know of at least one case where your gov has done that and I live on the other side of the world. Open your eyes silly american sheepboy
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.
Norway is not a member of the EU, but we are a member of the European common market through the EEA agreement. The EEA agreement commits Norway to implement all applicable EU law into its own without delay. Norway implements EU law into its own faster than any of the other 18 EU and EEA countries.
But we have no influence on EU law, and can't vote for representaties which may influence the process. It's stupid, but that's what you get with a EU-ignorant population and a referendum.
Read-only laws, we have no write permission. Activists which are EU citizens will have to try to change the EUCD for us, through their elected representatives.
And for a teenager with little or no money, a "whopping fine" would be equal to a looong sentence indeed.
Anarchofascist wrote:
> One small step forward for justice. That feels
> like such a hollow thing to say when thousands
> have disappeared from US streets to be held
> secretly (and legally) in internment camps.
It's not hollow. Not to the young man who had three years of his life stolen from him because he wanted to play a DVD. Now, barring an appeal by the prosecution, he has that life back again.
Today is a victory for justice. Rejoice, and don't feel guilty about rejoicing. Without the celebration of victories, how can we possibly find the heart to continue to fight all these injustices? We would give up hope, and that would help no one.
Fight on, and don't give up hope. The great victory of Justice, Liberty, and Peace may be closer than you think.
"Lightning shines on wavey beach, and all clouds are made right:
Happiness Appears!"
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961).
Well, presumably the court felt that 20 degrees hotter than everyone else was too hot. They made it hotter to save themselves from having to dispose of it more often. It was a cost saving measure. They put their customer at risk to save themselves money.
The example of the oven - Surely the oven is the same temperature as all the other ovens. If they had poorer insulation on the outside than other manufacturers, then I would expect to have a case.
Planes are dangerous, but I don't expect them to make them more dangerous to save fuel.
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.
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.
>Do you really think that the media wouldn't be ALL OVER an instance where the government has taken a legitimate citizen?
Have you heard this one?
"Five months later, the alleged proprietor of a small-time document mill is at the center of what appears to be the only criminal case of its kind in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks -- one in which secret evidence has been presented against the defendant. Atriss remains in jail, now on $500,000 bond -- an amount consistent with a murder charge -- but prosecutors will not say why he poses such a serious risk or give him a chance to respond."
This is going too far. Our government is pissing all over the constitution. We are *not* at war until congress makes a declaration of war, and even then, US citizens have the right to see the evidence that is being used against them. I hope every one of you dumbasses who voted for the dumbass currently in charge is happy with the dictatorship that's forming right before your eyes.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The constitution forbids all kinds of things that are going on at the moment. Don't rely on it.
Do you really think that the media wouldn't be ALL OVER an instance where the government has taken a legitimate citizen?
I dont, actually. The past year and a bit has seen a rise of over 1400% in anti-Arab hate crimes, 4000 dead afghani civilians, numerous ties drawn between Bush and the bin Laden family (and exemptions given to them, such as leaving the country on Sept. 12 & 13, 2001), many thousands of arrests of arab males with families (all the hijackers and other known terrorists had none here), and so on.
Few have recieved anything more than a passing mention in the little scroll bar at the bottom of your TV.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.