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."
Thank God this guys is norwegian and didn't drop by the USA.
I wonder what happened if he was american
Sklyarov anyone?
absolutely.
:-)
this could make me to believe in justice again
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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
It's 90% "An act of intellectual freedom" vs. 10% "An act of theft" right now. Link
Karma. Moderation. Is my
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 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.
I'm a UK citizen, and one of the "John Doe"s on the California deCSS case (#13, lucky for some) (cited for redistributing deCSS.) Congratulations to Jon, let's hope that this is the start of the Law waking up to, and acknowledging, fair use and common sense. My mirror's still up despite various nastygrams from the ISP prompted by bullying tactics by the MPAA (presumably, the complainant was anonymous but who else could it have been?) and the EUCD directive which is currently on hold for a month or two. Is it too much to hope for to wonder whether this case could lead to a rethink of the whole DMCA-like tenor that European law has been heading in of late?
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
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".
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.