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!
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
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.
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"
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...
Anyone who actually read the Aftenposten article will of course know this already.
Also see the articles on CNN and The Register.
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!
Yes, they could, but diplomatically speaking that is an absolute no-no.
No sovereign nation would accept that sort of behaviour from another, especially not an ally. So whilst yes, the US government could have him kidnapped, it would be an astoundingly foolish thing to do, and almost certainly against international law.
True, the US is far more powerful than Norway, but assumning that Norway is a member of the EU (I confess to forgetting exactly what countries are and are not), the EU would probably be bound to assist them. Trade relations between the EU and the US aren't exactly wonderful at the moment, and the EU is big enough that the US couldn't simply ignore it.
As you are aware, the US government is currently very keen to keep other countries at least tolerant of their stance against Iraq; the last thing it would want to do is turn its allies against itself. Politics, like most things, is all about give and take - "I'll support you in this, if you support me in that". Kidnapping Jon would not help their cause in other, more immediately important areas.
Bottom line - yes, they could, but no, they won't.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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
In theory, he published code which affects American nationals (i.e. the movie companies, corporations being considered "persons" under law), and thus could be extradited. Norway won't hand him over, but he should be very careful about not catching any international flights which stop in US-controlled airports.
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.
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
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 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.
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".
As for that quote, it was something Jon uttered after having been seriously flamed for having stolen Fawkus code, which Fawkus later said he had not.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
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.
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.
Not quite. Our head of state is King Harald and AFAIK he has never been ordained.
You may be thinking of our Prime Minister, Kjell Magne Bondevik, who is indeed a priest (Lutheran Minister).
And remember kids: Never trust a computer you can actually lift.
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.
...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.
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
Not sure if you're trolling or just dismally stupid (or both!), but:
You don't need to decrypt a DVD to copy it. What decryption allows you to do is 1) play DVD's on hardware not licensed by the DVD-CCA, and 2) circumvent region restrictions. In other words, to play DVD's which you have purchased on hardware which you own.
As for the second paragraph of your post, it's irrelevant, rambling nonsense.
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.
I may be misremembering, but isn't the English monarch also *technically* the head of the Church of England??
Besides, who cares, so long as they do their secular job correctly!! Some will, some won't. Just like non-priests.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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!
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.
President George W. has suddenly announced a shift of his priorities towards the axis of evil.
[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?
"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
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.
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.
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.
Asshole.