"DVD-Jon" Faces Retrial

An anonymous reader submits: "Norway's special division for white-collar crimes, Økokrim, has decided to appeal the acquittal of 19-year-old Jon Lech Johansen, accused of copyright violation for helping bypass DVD code protection, web site Nettavisen reports."

Comments

You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[sulli]

Weird.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I believe there are ways around this even in the US -- the prosecution can ask to have the original trial declared a mistrial if they can show that the original trial was conducted improperly, or some such. And of course there's always the possibility of trying people for different charges relating to the same crime, as in the Federal civil rights trial of the cops in the Rodney King case after they were acquitted of State assault charges. The Norwegian deal might be something like one of these two -- the article certainly didn't give much detail. Anyone who knows more, please feel free to correct me.

The real lesson here, I think, is that The Forces Of Evil never rest in their attempts to persecute hackers for actions that should not, by any sane measure, be crimes at all. This is apparently no less true in Norway than anywhere else.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Jonathunder]

Yes, in Norway, as in some other European countries, prosecutors can appeal a finding of innocence.

This would not be permitted where there is protection from double jeopardy, such as afforded by the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[dandelion_wine]

Nay! The accused is protected from double jeapardy on any given charge -- Double jeapardy has nothing to do with appeals.

Not sure about the legal system in Norway, but in the U.S. and Canada, appeals must be based on possible mistakes of law or mixed fact/law at the trial level. This can result in a different verdict, or in a trial de novo. The intention, however, is not usually to retry the case. Rulings regarding fact usually remain intact from the trial level, unless there has been some obvious gross error.

Seriously, what's so strange about it? If trial judges can make mistakes of law in favour of the prosecution, they wouldn't occasionally do the same in favour of the accused? And shouldn't the justice system be able to say: hold on! That piece of evidence should have been admitted (or whatever the alleged mistake was)

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Cpt_Kirks]

the prosecution can ask to have the original trial declared a mistrial if they can show that the original trial was conducted improperly

Not after the verdict is in. Then, jeopardy is attached.

Jeez, don't you ever watch "Law and Order"?

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Isle]

Actually this is not the same as in the US, I know because we have the same law in Denmark. Basically any result of a lower court can be appealed to a higher court granted that the higher court wishes to take the case.

We had a case of a man who was first acquited by a city court then found guilty by a national court. But he fled to England and now can't be extradicted, because according to a brittish law, you can't be tried for same crime twice. (in america this is called double jepardy)

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[gengee]

Actually, after the first witness has given testimeony, jeoparady attaches. There are only 2 circumstances where a mistrial without prejudice will be granted, a deadlocked jury and/or jury tampering by the defense.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[mgs1000]

F.Y.I.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL
I'm Indian. In India I think even if you are acquitted the lower court defers the verdict till certain time period within which the prosecution can appeal the judgement to a higher court of law.
Or a very superior court (high/supreme) can reopen the case by itself if it feels that justice has not been done properly.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[sebmol]

The European Court of Justice has rules that double jeopardy violates European Law. The case in point was a German draftee who didn't show up on the assigned date. He was brought to trial for draft evasion and sentenced to prison for a short time (a month or so), after which he was supposed to recommence his military service. After his prison time was up, he again failed to show up on the assigned date and was again convicted of draft evasion. He appealed to the ECJ and won. The ECJ ruled that the second conviction was indeed double jeopardy and thus against European law. The person in Denmark could also appeal to the ECJ because Denmark as a EU member state is under the jurisdiction of the court. In the case of Norway, however, that is not an option as Norway is (still) not a member of the European Union.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[sebmol]

or the laws of the European Union which clearly states that double jeopardy is prohibited.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Halo-]

I believe (speaking from no expertise save high school civics classes in the USA) the "double jeopardy" provision is intended more to prevent the government from harassing citizens.

We tend to perfer (on paper at least) to err on the side of the innocent, since we see it as a greater wrong to imprison the wrong person.

Without double jeopardy, a well funded person with a grudge could just continue to retry a case until they got the result desired (i.e. conviction)

Now, I realize a bunch of people are going to nitpick on the symantics, and it's easy to take cheap shots, but I think I have the original intent correct.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[donpardo]

Cite, please.

A crime involves both action and time. It's not that you can't be tried for violating the same law twice (else we wouldn't have recidivists now, would we?) it's that you can't be tried for the same crime twice. The second offense is a separate crime.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[letxa2000]

And shouldn't the justice system be able to say: hold on! That piece of evidence should have been admitted (or whatever the alleged mistake was)

Logically, yes. Practically, no. I don't think anyone is opposed to someone guilty being found guilty and if new evidence is found or an error in the original trial would have resulted in a guilty verdict, logic says the guilty person should be retried.

In reality, once a person is found innocent then that should be it. That's why we (supposedly) can't be tried for the same crime twice. The risk is that if we aren't protected from being retried, we can be retried and harrased for the rest of our lives for strictly political or other reasons. The threat of that can be used to keep people from speaking up against corrupt officials or against people with more money than they that could pay to keep you pretty much on trial for the rest of your life. We aren't protected from being retried to let the guilty get away, but to keep the innocent from being harrased, or the guilty from being harrased after they've "paid their due to society" or whatever.

Unfortunately, ever since the Rodney King verdict I've come to realize that we aren't really protected. First they charged the officers, they got off (for better or for worse), and then after the riots they were retried on other charges. That was BS. Criminals should be charged with the maximum crime for a given event and that's it. I.e., if beating up Rodney King could result in a charge of Assault, Misuse of Police Authority, or violation of his civil rights, they should pick the "most severe" charge and that's the charge. At the very least, all charges for a given event should be filed before the trial starts. To charge the police, get an innocent verdict and then say, "Oh, we'll go ahead and accuse them of violating his civil rights" was completely BS in my opinion. There may be some legal justification for why they could do that, but the *spirit* of protection from double jeapordy was certainly violated that day.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[rworne]

The real lesson here, I think, is that The Forces Of Evil never rest in their attempts to persecute hackers for actions that should not, by any sane measure, be crimes at all. This is apparently no less true in Norway than anywhere else.

Rather than engaging in discussion on hackers vs. The Establishment, take a step back from the keyboard and think like they do.

Here are a group of law enforcement personnel contacted by a large corporation identifying a case of compter-related theft.

I'm pretty sure the investigators listened to Jon's argument about Linux and use of his legal DVD's. But when a semi or non-literate computer user (a Windows computer user) who can play DVDs on his bundled player in his store-bought Microsoft-equipped PC will probably think to themselves that a legal, sanctioned solution to the problem exists, and if it doesn't work for Jon, then he should have be using an approved method such as Windows.

It's not necessarily evil intentions, it could just be a simple case of plain ignorance as well.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Lionel Hutts]

Actually, it's even earlier: the swearing of a witness, or the swearing in of a jury if there is one.

There are several other kinds of "manifest necessity" that will lead to mistrials with retrial possible; the biggest category is those that come on defense motion.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[DroppedPacket]

nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb

The key to the above, here in the U.S. is the same offense part. There are so many laws to cover the same actions, that if you aren't convicted on one, there can be other charges brought to bear (or at least trumped up.)

For instance, if the gov't doesn't like something you do, they will hold either conspiracy or civil rights charges back so they can keep you in jail while they look for a more sympathetic jury.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[frp001]

The head of Økokrim's computer crimes division said that the reasons for the appeal would be in their offices Monday afternoon.

Could this mean that they are appealing just for the sake of it? Like in : "We do not know for what we are doing this but we shall let you know as soon as we find out!!!"

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Lionel Hutts]

No, no, no. A criminal defendant cannot be retried for the same crime by the same sovereign no matter how wrong the original trial was.

ONE recent case (in the Seventh Circuit) allowed a retrial where the acquital was a result of bribery (!!!) (on the grounds that the tainted trial was no "trial" at all), but the court didn't reach the merits of the issue, and the better rule is to prohibit retrial even in this situation.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[MasterofVoid]

Norway is not a member of the European Union, hence those laws are of no relevance..

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Lionel Hutts]

Look, son, I'll tell you what a wise man once told me: There's no shame in not knowing the law, but you still don't need to proclaim it to the world, see?

In the U.S., Double jeopardy absolutely bars prosecution appeals. Totally and completely. That's why you never hear about them, or see them in movies: they don't exist.

That's right. Even if the judge totally screws up. Whether it's law or fact. (And, for that matter, defendants are free to appeal decisions of fact; they just face a higher burden of persuasion.)

Now, why don't you wait until we're discussing something you know something about for your next post, huh?

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[lawyamike]

You mean "Then, jeopardy has terminated."

There are two significant events for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause: first, jeopardy attaches in most cases when the fact-finder (the jury, for example) begins to receive evidence; second, jeopardy terminates with the determination that the State has or has not proved the merits of the case against the accused.

The whole point of "double jeopardy" is that once a person has endured this process, he or she may not be put the stress and expense of going through it again for the same offense.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[lawyamike]

Not always. There is a complicated analysis -- the Blockburger test -- that governs whether the conduct of an accused may qualify as more than one offense for purposes of double jeopardy.

The conspiracy and civil rights charges often count as different offenses because they contain elements that are not present in garden-variety crimes. The civil rights charge, however, may be leveled only against persons acting under color of state law, and it probably does not apply to the criminal acts of the average Slashdot reader.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[DDX_2002]

In the U.S., Double jeopardy absolutely bars prosecution appeals. Totally and completely. That's why you never hear about them, or see them in movies: they don't exist. That's right. Even if the judge totally screws up. Whether it's law or fact. (And, for that matter, defendants are free to appeal decisions of fact; they just face a higher burden of persuasion.)

I like our (Canadian) system better - if the judge screws up, and it makes a difference, you do it over again, no matter who benefitted. Here, while I suppose you're technically able to appeal a question of fact, what you're really doing is alleging an error of law - the judge having made a finding of fact with no evidence whatsoever to support it. That's the standard, and it's obviously not easily met.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Alsee]

Jeez, don't you ever watch "Law and Order"?

I think you meant to say "Law and Ørder".

-

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[jlar]

>The person in Denmark could also appeal to the ECJ because Denmark as a EU member state is under the jurisdiction of the court.

Are you sure of this? After rejecting the Maastricht Treaty the Danes got 4 exemptions from the Treaty. One of these were certain aspects of the legal cooperation.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Nicolas MONNET]

I don't know about Norway specifically, but Turkey has chosen to be under the ECJ jurisdiction by signing some treaty, while it's not currently part of the EU.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perfer?

from dictionary.com:

For better results, try our search tips.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[dandelion_wine]

Argh. *You* are correct with regard to the U.S. That's what I get for typing faster than I can think. I was responding to the point about double jeapardy protecting only against constitutional cases, and that's why I had both countries in mind. My comments (aside from that one -- double jeapardy does cover any charge, if I'm not mistaken) only apply to the Great White North (no racial reference implied).

To the previous poster: I can certainly understand the concern that prosecution appeals could permit abuse if unrestricted -- but why should a defendant be able to try and retry until they get a favorable judge and then say: "Ok! Hold it! No more cards, I'm staying at 20!" Is there a constitutional guarantee to a lucky trial?

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[z_gringo]

And, lets not forget the most famous case of double jeopardy. Even though it ended in a Civil retrail instead of criminal.

O.J. (for better or for worse) was acquitted. Yet through the loophole of Civil vs. criminal trials, he was tried again for civil damages and found guilty. This was a sham. This loophole should be closed. A not guilty verdict should mean just that. (again, this is not a testimony to his guilt or innocence, but rather an on topic comment that Not Guilty should mean Not Guilty!) Even in the case of DVD Jon.

And BTW, if he is convicted, wont we all sleep better at night knowing that he is off the streets!?!

WTF?

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[letxa2000]

I agree. If I remember correctly that's the same loophold (the civil rights thing) that was used to retry the police officers in the Rodney King trial. Like you, I'm not suggesting that the police officers shouldn't have been found guilty. But if they were found innocent, that's it, end of story. Retrying them for the same event should be illegal.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[oolon]

Well "Fortunately" our goverment here in the UK wants to change the rules about double jepardy, so a politican gets the final say on allowing a retrial... Nice to see our legal system which has been tried and tested flushed and replaced with quick fixes.

James

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[swillden]

but why should a defendant be able to try and retry until they get a favorable judge and then say: "Ok! Hold it! No more cards, I'm staying at 20!"

Actually, they can't. There is a limit to the number of appeals that naturally derives from the fact that you must always appeal to a higher court (well, unless the appellate court remands the case back to the lower court, but one assumes they'd get tired of this after a while). Since the hierarchy of courts is finite, so are the appeals. Plus, the judges tend to get progressively smarter and harder to fool.

As I understand it...

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[instarx]

By this logic anyone convicted of murder in the EU has a license to kill anyone else after he is released from his first prison term? What about speeding tickets?

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[n9hmg]

Of course. Most European countries have governments that have evolved, rather than being built from scratch. They don't have specific provisions in their constitutions to prevent (or at least make logically unconstitutional) the most unfair advantages of the state over the individual.
Without protection against n(where n>1)-tuple jeopardy, the bully (state) with (comparitively) infinite resources, gets to keep calling "do-overs" whenever they lose, exhausting the victim's resources. Sure, you can win once, but if you keep having to go back and fight the same fight every time you win, without resting, until you eventually lose, you will eventually reach that end condition.
Can a Norweigian fill in some details here? Is there any provision against "ex post facto" laws? If not, the state can simply adjust the rules until they win.
Sorry for the rant, but even here, we get crap like somebody getting acquitted of a crime, then re-tried for "conspiracy to commit" the crime they were acquitted of, essentially saying "well, maybe he didn't do it, but he wanted to, so let's punish him anyway". I do find intent to be infinitely more significant than the actual offense (Why does a murderer avoid capital punishment because he's incompetent?), and feel that attempted murder(and all other violent crimes - rape, assault) should be a capital offense, once someone is acquitted for an incident, that should be the end.
Anyway, what happenned to the "enlightened" europeans?

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[n9hmg]

Wow! That's pretty cool. All I've got to do is get blatantly framed for murder, win the case, then, any subsequent murder is not prosecutable. I think I've found the solution to my financial problems. I'll be the most prolific assassin in the history of Earth. "Hello, your honor. Yeah, I shot him, standing right next to this find officer of the law. If you will check ECJ 2003-DK-164, you will see that I was acquitted of murder. Yes, nice to see you again too, sir. I've got 3 more jobs this week. Can you issue some sort of restraining order against the Gens d'armes, to stop this harassment? It's quite an inconvenience having to come in here and explain the law every time I do my job."
Well, OK, I admit, I just can't stand the idea of killing people who don't deserve it. I think I'll just beat a speeding ticket and become the world's fastest pizza deliveryman.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[n9hmg]

own select-fire weapons there
Same over here "US". I'm not saying that our government honors the second ammendment as well as it does the 1st, 4th, and 5th (though it treats it better than it does the 10th), in that we have to register and buy a special license, but I have friends with AC556s (M-16 done right) and similar tools.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[n9hmg]

While I agree that a wrong trial (bribery, absolute stupidity, OJ, etc.) would be better redone, we then run into the question of who decides it should be redone. If I get to force redos on every contest I have, I will until I win, just as the state will (See my rant higher up the page about "Do-overs".).

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not norweigan but swedish and we have the same law system.

First, make no mistake: We are not the barbars you think any longer... =)
But our justice system is OLD - we invented this under the viking age. So our justice system has a long tradition.

Second - our courts are NOT run by jurys. We don't use jurys. The only case a nordic court uses a jury is in cases agins the press. In my opinion this makes our court better than the angloxacian system. That we don't use a jury don't mean that the people don't have a voice since we use a different system - we have selected officials that sits in. These guys are selected by the local politicians. The benifit is that they are actually willing to serve.

In the swedish lowest court there is one judge and (if I remember this correct) three officials. A judge has two votes. Anyway, the point is that the judge can be voted over - the majority of the court rules. In the second court the judges have more votes since they are two and has two votes each. In the supreme court there is only judges.

Third - our prosecutor are not political selected. This mean that the state in a nordic country have a proffesinal workforce that don't have a political mind. We think this is very important since we don't want political motivated trials.

Forth - a prosecutor has to try a case when you break a criminal law.

Fifth - a prosecutor has to be sure to win a case to try it (we don't want unmotivated trials). This means that a case that the prosecutor don't think have enough evidence will not be tried at all.

Sixth - you can apeal any rulings of the first court. All parties can apeal. However, a prosecutor are not supposed to appeal if he don't have more evidence or if the court was divided in their decision (they usually appeal if the judge don't agree with the rest of the court).

Seventh - all apeals have to be made in a limited time.

Eigth - you can ONLY apeal to higher courts.
This means that any party can only appeal once since the supreme court don't have to take the case (they only take case that are important as a guide for the lower courts). As you se this mean that the state can't continue to apeal you until you die.

Ninth - the state pays your legal fees if you are facing criminal charges. In civil cases the losing party pays.

Tenth - the supreme court can rule that your trial have to be remade in the second court if new evidence has emerged that would make you free.

All this sums up to this:
If you win in the first court you will most probaly win in the second court. You can only be tried once for each crime.

The EU have approved our court system. Norway isn't a EU country but follows EU rules since they have an agreement with EU.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[the shoez]

Maybe I haven't got my troll filter switched on today, but.. umm... you can't be tried for the *same* crime twice, not a disparate crime. If you kill a different person, then I'm guessing you'll be brought up on said charges. However, it is possible to bring other charges against the person for the same crime, as this doesn't violate double jeopardy. I don't know if people get the idea of this rule, but say you're acquitted of a murder, and the Police/CPS/US legal system want to prosecute the case again. Your fundamental right under the Human Rights Act is to be innocent until proven guilty. You would be hauled back into court because the Police are absolutely *sure* you did it. As this court ruling is already public, it's going to be pretty much assumed you're guilty as hell.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[mikerich]

Actually this is not the same as in the US, I know because we have the same law in Denmark. Basically any result of a lower court can be appealed to a higher court granted that the higher court wishes to take the case.

Very similar here in the UK, although the lower court can refuse the plaintiffs right to appeal to a higher court. This is unusual and only done when the evidence against the plaintiffs is overwhelming.

We had a case of a man who was first acquited by a city court then found guilty by a national court. But he fled to England and now can't be extradicted, because according to a brittish law, you can't be tried for same crime twice. (in america this is called double jepardy)

It's being scrapped in the UK. The government is planning to allow retrials if sufficient new evidence can be gathered, although it seems open to abuse.

It's quite easy to foresee people being dragged back in front of the courts every time the police or press decide to renew a case that had been previously acquitted. I can't see how it could work in a jury system - if you know someone has been tried once and now they're back, the jury is naturally going to be thinking that there is something in the case.

I know juries are told to disregard anything that isn't presented in the case, but they are only human. How do you ignore screaming headlines?

Still the announcement was popular with the 'The Sun' and 'The Daily Mail' and we know that's all that matters to the government.

Civil liberties can go to hell just as long as no one writes anything nasty about My Little Tony.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[DDX_2002]

Winning is beside the point - redo it until you get a fair trial with no major procedural errors. So long as you can't say the trial was fair and there were no major errors from the bench, no one really "won" and it deserves to be thrown out. If it was a fair trial and there were no errors, feel free to appeal your loss, but you'll lose on appeal and that'll be it.

Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck slashdot, I'm done.
How the fuck is mentioning something that has directly to do with the subject matter of the article off topic? How??

Fucking retards.

BTW, this is regarding the parent in case you simple minded fucks didn't figure that out yet.

19-year-old Jon Lech

[automag_6]

come on, with a name like that, you simply must steal software. I mean, maybe his name isn't Joe Sofware Pirate, but pretty damn close.

Re:19-year-old Jon Lech

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahaha... that's some funny stuff there.

You know what the lawyers say...

[Anonymous Coward]

...if at first you don't succeed: trial, trial again.

Is that even legal?

[Bicoid]

I don't know a whole hell of a lot about Norwegian law, but in the US, wouldn't that be considered Double Jeopardy?

Re:Is that even legal?

[jeffy124]

no, it wouldnt.

In the US, prosecution would have to find new evidence. Also, in the US, someone could get acquitted at the state level, but re-prosecuted at the federal level. For example, the cops who beat up Rodney King were re-tried at the federal courts (and found guilty), after being let loose in CA state courts.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Dr.Zong]

It is not considered Double Jeopardy, it is only an appeal...

1) You cannot be tried for the *same* crime twice, however, prosecutors can amend or change the crimes in which you are being tried for ie: you are no longer tried for the murder of Joe, just maybe a nice inditement of manslaughter.

2)Double Jeopardy doesn't count on appeal. Normally the losing side can appeal if there was a trial error or they want to fight a ruling the judge made on a point in the trial (including evidence that shouldn't have been, allowing a surprise witness - a procedural error).

3) Unlike the Movie - you CAN'T be tried and convicted for killing someone (for instance) and then actually kill them. Those are actually TWO separate crimes. Makes for a good movie, but the law isn't paid attention to. That's where you just have to sue the state for negligence, or whatever fancy scheme you can get your lawyer to concoct.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Abcd1234]

Actually, didn't they charge the cops with a different crime in the second case? My understanding of US law was that if you are acquitted of a criminal offense at any level, the prosecution cannot appeal to a higher court to overturn that ruling.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

Makes for a good movie, but the law isn't paid attention to.

Hmmmm- that was a good movie? Judging by your movie taste, something tells me you were probably in line for the "Kangaroo Jack" premier this weekend...

Re:Is that even legal?

[God! Awful 2]

3) Unlike the Movie - you CAN'T be tried and convicted for killing someone (for instance) and then actually kill them. Those are actually TWO separate crimes. Makes for a good movie, but the law isn't paid attention to.

Uhh... did you watch the movie?

-a

Re:Is that even legal?

[Laglorden]

I live in Sweden, but I guess Norweigian justice-system is about the same as here. You have something called "Tingsrätt" who is a local court (about 80 of thoose in Sweden). Both sides can appeal the judgement to a higher court called "Hovrätt" (about 4) and finally you can appeal to "Högsta Domstolen" (like the supreme court in US I guess) but they only try certain cases.

So no Double Jeopardy.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Lionel Hutts]

You are completely, totally incorrect. No matter how much new evidence is found -- even if you confess on the way out of court -- once you are acquitted, you can NEVER be retried by the same sovereign.

As you say, a second sovereign -- e.g., the federal government, after a state trial -- can try you separately, whether or not you are acquited in the first trial, without violating double jeopardy, but many states' laws still would prevent them from being the second trial. In copyright cases, though, this is irrelevant, since states can't enforce copyright laws (as defined in federal law).

Yes, IAAL.

Re:Is that even legal?

[MattW]

The Supreme Court ruled that it does not violate the double jeopardy clause of the 5th Amendment to try someone at both the state and federal level. It's hard to imagine how they managed to interpret it that way. You can read some about it here. I don't agree with the logic. The Supreme Court seems to be focused on the violation of 'laws', whereas the language in the Bill of Rights is 'for the same offense'. I'd take that to mean that you do one bad thing, you can only be put in jeopardy for it once. If you shoot two people, you've committed two crimes. But in another violation of the 5th amendment, you'll be charged with two counts of murder, possession of an unlicensed firearm, possession of a firearm with intent to cause harm, assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful discharge of a firearm, conspiracy to commit murder, and so on. In fact, the Supreme Court specifically contramands such separate charges unless Congress uses "language which is clear and definite", which to me implies the creation of a judicial mandate to decide the applicability of the 5th amendment.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Lionel Hutts]

Well, you're batting .333. I guess that's good enough for "informative."

1) You cannot be tried for the *same* crime twice, however, prosecutors can amend or change the crimes in which you are being tried for ie: you are no longer tried for the murder of Joe, just maybe a nice inditement of manslaughter.

Wrong. Since the facts needed to prove murder are sufficient to prove manslaughter, this prosecution would indeed violate double jeopardy. The second charge needn't be identical to the first.

2)Double Jeopardy doesn't count on appeal. Normally the losing side can appeal if there was a trial error or they want to fight a ruling the judge made on a point in the trial (including evidence that shouldn't have been, allowing a surprise witness - a procedural error).

Wrong again. Once jeopardy has "attached" -- the swearing of the jury, or of the first witness in a bench trial -- the prosecution cannot appeal. Again, it makes no difference how profound the alleged errors are. In a well-known case, the judge dismissed the charges because he wrongly believed the prosecution had done something unethical, which the judge didn't even have jurisdiction to do; but a retrial was barred nevertheless.

OT, but "allowing a surprise witness" would not typically be reversible error in any case.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) You cannot be tried for the *same* crime twice, however, prosecutors can amend or change the crimes in which you are being tried for ie: you are no longer tried for the murder of Joe, just maybe a nice inditement of manslaughter.

Incorrect. You can only be tried once for killing Joe. The prosecutor can give the jury a variety of charges to choose from - 1st degree murder, 2nd degree, and voluntary manslaughter are the usual ones - but these have to be declared up front. If the prosecutor just gives the jury 1st degree murder, and the jury decides that your killing of Joe doesn't meet that criteria, but would have met the criteria for 2nd degree murder - tough luck for the prosecutor, they have to acquit and there's nothing he can do about it.

2)Double Jeopardy doesn't count on appeal. Normally the losing side can appeal if there was a trial error or they want to fight a ruling the judge made on a point in the trial (including evidence that shouldn't have been, allowing a surprise witness - a procedural error).

Yes it does. Prosecution can't appeal. The court system is intended to err in favor of the defense. (Note: That's for criminal trials only. Civil trials are different).

Point 3 is almost certainly correct, although I have no idea what movie you're talking about.

Re:Is that even legal?

[sirket]

1) You cannot be tried for the *same* crime twice, however, prosecutors can amend or change the crimes in which you are being tried for ie: you are no longer tried for the murder of Joe, just maybe a nice inditement of manslaughter.

What are you talking about? Once a person has been aquitted for murder, you can not then charge them with manslaughter. That is a "lesser included crime" and can not be tried seperately.


2)Double Jeopardy doesn't count on appeal. Normally the losing side can appeal if there was a trial error or they want to fight a ruling the judge made on a point in the trial (including evidence that shouldn't have been, allowing a surprise witness - a procedural error).

What legal system are you talking about? Double Jeopardy _ONLY_ applies to an appeal. Otherwise what the hell would the double jeopardy be? Once a person has been aquitted of a crime, there is (almost) no way to retry them for the same crime. The only thing you could do is: if a person is aquitted of murder, you could then try them for something like embezzlement, assuming it was not related to the murder. Not to mention, this does not happen in the US 99.99999% of the time because it would undermind the legal system.

The only way to actually retry a person for the exact same crime, is if for example:
the person on trial paid someone to lie during the trial. The only reason this would fail is because you can not "profit from a crime" and the profit would be freedom and the crime would be purjury or bribery. This is almost never used as an excuse to try to get a retrial.

3) Unlike the Movie - you CAN'T be tried and convicted for killing someone (for instance) and then actually kill them. Those are actually TWO separate crimes. Makes for a good movie, but the law isn't paid attention to. That's where you just have to sue the state for negligence, or whatever fancy scheme you can get your lawyer to concoct.

This does not make any sense. It was a movie. Please return to reality.

-sirket

Re:Is that even legal?

[mgs1000]

I believe the first case was for assault or something similiar. The second case was for "violating a person's civil rights".

Re:Is that even legal?

[jeffy124]

(firstly, your name is supposed to be Lionel Hutz)

yes, I checked it out, and you're correct. I found somehting at findlaw that said so. I was certain that if new evidence were found that charges could be re-filed and the person re-tried.

Re:Is that even legal?

[paule9984673]

Many European countries have a different legal system than this.

There's a hirarchy of courts going from local or county courts to state courts to federal courts. Both sides in a criminal trial can appeal to the courts decision within a certain time claiming either that facts haven't been considered, or, that the consideration of the facts was faulty.

Because of this the court's ruling includes a statement that the ruling only becomes final, if no appeals are made within the specified time.

This actually helps many people to get their case out of the often biased local courts into the often less biased and better qualified higher courts.

Re:Is that even legal?

[carlos_benj]

It is a 'different' offense if it breaks a different law even though it may be the same deed. If you are an offender, what you have offended is the law (or more appropriately, some point thereof).

Re:Is that even legal?

[SilLumTao]

Jack Valenti (in his best Darth Sidious voice): "I'll make it legal".

Re:Is that even legal?

[the_2nd_coming]

it is hard to imagine how the federal government had jurisdiction over those cops since they did not cross state lines and did not beat him up on federal property.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Eccles]

The only way to actually retry a person for the exact same crime, is if for example:
the person on trial paid someone to lie during the trial.

Even in that case the criminal could not be retried on the original offense. The perjury charge would be for a separate offense.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, but not in most of the rest of the world.
The prosecution may not retry a case once a certain set of appeal opportunities have been used up. In Norway, that means appealing within a set time frame, typically 14 days from the verdict, to a higher court.

Re:Is that even legal?

[ca1v1n]

In the U.S., the key to double jeopardy is that they cannot try you for the same crime, but they can try you again for the same act. Crimes have elements. If the elements of one crime make a subset of the elements of a second crime, that first crime is a lesser included offense of the second. You cannot be tried again on a lesser included offense because you were implicitly tried for it already in the first trial. If the government wants to try you for another crime that has at least one element that was not in the elements for the crime you were acquitted of, they are allowed to do that.

Usually, the relevant state and federal laws are worded sufficiently differently that the elements of the crime are not a perfect match, so they can try you again for essentially the same act.

Anyone know what Norwegian law has to say about double jeopardy?

Re:Is that even legal?

[u38cg]

No. This case was prosecuted under Norway's civil law, not her criminal law. This means either side can appeal, in Norway *or* America.

Re:Is that even legal?

[Hellkitten]

No. This case was prosecuted under Norway's civil law, not her criminal law.

No it was tried under criminal law, under the norwegian legal system the case can still be appealed by the prosecution. It seems a few of the US people on slashdot have a problem grasping that this isn't nessesarily a bad thing, for instance we avoid the situation where the defendant is tried again for a "variation" of the crim

Oh for crying out loud

[Neophytus]

He wanted to play some movies and distrobuted the software. Whats so wrong with that?
disclaimer: may be over simplified as i dont know the full situation

Memo to �kokrim:

[Anonymous Coward]

Let it go.

Thanks.

Re:Memo to �kokrim:

[Iguanaphobic]

And in related news, the MPAA has mysteriously misplaced 18 million dollars. It was last seen in a briefcase at the International Departure counter at LAX. Police remain mystefied.

Bizarre

[ShatteredDream]

Was this not tried before their analog of the US Supreme Court? Say what you will about the American legal system, but when you're acquitted or found innocent the state can't appeal it to a higher court.

Re:Bizarre

[C R Johnson]

Unless you beat up Rodney King, of course.

Re:Bizarre

[Abcd1234]

No... he was previously tried in one of Norway's regional courts.

Re:Bizarre

[EinarH]

Also known as Oslo Tingrett. It's the "lowest" of three court systems.

Re:Bizarre

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, in the USA he would have been sentenced to life without parole by the lower court...

Errr. Dup?

[LePrince]

If Jon reads Slashdot, he'll get the feeling that he's actually living a duplicate. I know, this story isn't, but his passing in court will certainly feel like it ;-)

US laws.

[n0rm]

you might complain about the US copyright laws, but at least you can't have a criminal aquittal appealed.

Re:US laws.

[MrLint]

This is the kind thing that the double jeopardy protections are for. The govt cant continue to fish over and over trying to shop around for the venue that is favorable to them if they lose. The accused however can appeal the decision because at that point its up to them to put themselves into further legal jeopardy ( or get out of it)

Re:US laws.

[Anonymous Coward]

US is fairly unique in how strict your double jeopardy laws are. In most other countries, double jeopardy refer to retrying the case, not appealing it to a higher court, as the number of higher courts you can appeal to is usually fairly small (typically two including the supreme court in Norway)

Where is the guilt?

[BlueMonk]

He (the defense) says it was intended simply to allow playing of DVDs under Linux. Seems quite reasonable. How can he be faulted for this? Perhaps they would have preferred that he also build in the same security mechanisms as other DVD players, but these, of course, would be easily defeated, assuming the code is open source. I guess I don't see a lot of details in the article, or I'm missing some of it. Would the prosecution suggest that any open source DVD player is illegal?

Re:Where is the guilt?

[rmohr02]

And he didn't do the actual decryption anyway.

Re:Where is the guilt?

[God! Awful 2]

Perhaps they would have preferred that he also build in the same security mechanisms as other DVD players, but these, of course, would be easily defeated, assuming the code is open source. I guess I don't see a lot of details in the article, or I'm missing some of it. Would the prosecution suggest that any open source DVD player is illegal?

Quite possibly, yes. OSS creates a legal problem because there is often no one specific to sue and no one website to shut down. As we see on /., this is often used as justification for skirting the law.

I think that the whatever DVD player trade association there is out there would allow an OSS project to join (for the usual fee), but they would only allow selected portions of the code to be released as open source.

-a

Re:Where is the guilt?

[Anonymous Coward]

He (the defense) says it was intended simply to allow playing of DVDs under Linux.

Making a Windows GUI for DeCSS (Johansen's "achievement" and "crime") seems to be a strage way to go aboout such a task...

�h shit!

[Chocolate Teapot]

As usual, big-money corporations will continue to wield their influence until they get the justice they want. They will not let this rest until they have made an example of Jon Johansen. Money will talk.

Re:�h shit!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bite. Where is this "proof." Almost everything I've seen points to corporate corruption. Although, I wouldn't quite call it a full fledged conspiracy.

doo doo doo doo doo doo doooooo..

[XaXXon]

And now our categories in Double Jepardy:

• The Norwegian judicial process
  
• "DVD" player. Note that "DVD" is in quotes
  
• Famous Jons in history
  
• Content Monopolies of the 21st century
  
• Not so fair use
  
• and finally, CowboyNeal's favorite movies
  

Good luck contestants...

I guess Double Jepordy exist in Norway

[Sergeant Beavis]

I was very surprised to see that they are actually going to appeal and aquittal for this kid. You don't see this in the US since such an appeal is not allowed under the Constitution. In the US, sometimes prosecutors try charging the person with another crime that was related to the original one but that doesn't work very often. For instance, after the LA cops were aquitted of beating Rodney King, the US District Attorney's office stepped up and charged the cops with violating King's civil rights. I don't remember if they were convicted or if they settled, but the cops did do jail time. But that's just an example of how things are done here.

Re:I guess Double Jepordy exist in Norway

[coyote-san]

I believe a second trial for a different crime based on the same facts in the same jurisdiction would still be considered double jeopardy. Otherwise it's trivial to sidestep the double jeopardy law - just keep retrying the person for lesser included crimes. It's actually a bit more general than that, since double jeopardy also prevents retrial when new facts are discovered, e.g., a defendant confessing to the crime to clear his conscience. (It's not double jeopardy to try him for perjury during the first trial if he never testified that he didn't commit the crime, instead remaining silent.)

What happened in LA and elsewhere is that the defendants were charged with a crime in two different jurisdictions. In the US, the state and federal governments are sovereign and each has a fair crack at any defendant. The federal government has not historically performed general police duties outside of military bases and the like (although this is starting to change, a troubling prospect to many people), but it has passed some limited laws to cover those cases where local authorities appear indifferent to Constitutional rights. That's why there were federal laws passed to protect civil rights workers in the 50s, and those same laws were used in the recent cases after, and only after, the defendants were acquitted in state courts.

Re:I guess Double Jepordy exist in Norway

[enjo13]

Your result is correct, but your cause isn't.

It is not a matter of Jurisdiction, but different laws. The constitution states(held up by the first supreme court) that Federal law is primary over all laws passed by the states. The fundamental result of this is that you can have one and only one law governing an action (I forget the fancy latin principle for this).

In practice this means that you can not be tried for the same crime at different levels of jurisdiction, because only one jurisdiction has the guiding law in the first place. What generally happens is that you are tried for DIFFERENT crimes on the two levels.

The Rodney King incident is a great example of this. The first charge against the police officers involved was done at the state level, in a state court. I beleive it was some kind of assault charge, but I really don't remember. When they where aquitted of those charges, the feds got involved and brought SEPERATE charges for DIFFERENT crimes (even though they occured during the same incident). At the federal level, I beleive that it was some kind of civil rights charge.

The point being, you can't be charged in two jurisdictions for the same crime, you either violated one and only one law for that particular crime. Anytime you see someone charged by both the state and the federal levels it is always because different charges are being brought on each level.

Its important to note that the state can do the same thing. They can try you for one crime, and failing that bring up new charges related to the same action (although a lot of legal rules apply to that, and it is pretty rarely done).

Re:I guess Double Jepordy exist in Norway

[Theatetus]

#include <obIANAL.h>

I think this is why crimes like murder and assault are not federal crimes at all. You are violating no US Federal law if you kill someone, except for certain homicides made illegal by Congress (federal employees doing their duties, murder on a military installation, etc.).

The fact of an assault or murder is not the key issue of a civil rights violation charge; what is "illegal" is denying, under color of state law, a person his or her rights as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Re:I guess Double Jepordy exist in Norway

[BrainInAJar]

I don't know if this applies, is interesting, or whatever. It's possible I'm just offering a stupid piece of trivia but here goes:

Here in canada, we have ho "5th". Instead of having the right to refuse to testify, in a canadian court anything that a witness says can NOT be used as evidence against them. So if someone's on trial for murder, someone could take the stand and say "he didn't kill mr jones, because I did". accused gets off (he's innocent.), the witness can't then be charged on that evidence (though the police can take their investigation in another direction... namely towards the witness, they can't use his testimony for his own trial)

Re:I guess Double Jepordy exist in Norway

[Crazy Viking]

I was very surprised to see that they are actually going to appeal and aquittal for this kid. You don't see this in the US since such an appeal is not allowed under the Constitution.

This is not a retrial. It is an appeal. The prosecution believes that the verdict is flawed either by process or by application of the law. Thus they have submitted an appeal to a higher court where they will argue their position. The higher court can dismiss the appeal if the merits of the appeal are too weak or they can hear the arguments in court. Either way they will not revisit the entire case but only consider whether the original verdict is correct according to the law.

Although I am not an expert on the US legal process I believe that in this respect it is similar to the Norwegian process. After all, the Norwegian Constitution of 1814 is inspired by the American Constitution.

Re:I guess Double Jepordy exist in Norway

[A Gremlin In Kremlin]

This is not a double jeopardy.
Next person who say it is, will be given a one way ticket to Siberia!

Defendant's rights?

[Mantrid]

How does it work in legal systems in general? Usually it seems to me that the defendant does the appealing if they are found guilty etc. It seems unfair that the government can just keep attempting to prosecute the same person over and over. What about the effect on their lives? And couldn't the defendant point to the old trial - I mean if a judge already found you not guilty is that enough to create a reasonable doubt? It's kind of scary, guess I just never thought of it before - say for example, you beat Microsoft, defending yourself in some sort of trial - if MS remains PO'd with you could they not just keep appealing forcing you to return to court again and again? Until finally you are completely broke and your life is ruined and whatever you were defending against is completely irrelevant.

It may be completely different in his country anyways...

Re:Defendant's rights?

[stray]

well, e.g. in switzerland the prosecution and the defendant are just parties in a trial, both can appeal if they don't accept the outcome, to a higher court - until they run out of higher courts that is..

Re:Defendant's rights?

[james_pb]

The general idea in the United States is that you can appeal the judges decision on the law and procedure but not the facts. For the majority of criminal cases, it's irrelevant - the law is straightforward and the judge applies it in standard ways. Where you get appeals is when new laws need to be interpreted. For example, in the last few days the California Court of Appeals has ruled on several cases involving interpretation of the "three strikes rule" (basically, additional punishment for repeat offenders, but the law's a complete mess as to when it should be applied), a case where the judge asked the prosecution questions about what evidence was linked with which charges, and then clarified what happened with the jury, and a case about a change in wording on the "lying in wait" clause of the Penal Code.

Also, most people think that it's common for the defense to appeal and win. It's not - in California, at least, it's a percent or two of cases at most.

Re:Defendant's rights?

[Isle]

There are only three levels of courts. City court, national court and supreme court.

So at most a case can only be appealed twice, and you can only have your case tried in supreme court if it somehow touches a subject not tried before in courts.

And yes, if you were acquited in the first, you have a preatty good case in the next, the prosecution has to come up with some reasons for the appeal, and then new evidence, claims of injustice or just new "angles" on the case.

Re:Defendant's rights?

[Lionel Hutts]

No, no, no.

Once acquited, acquited for good. No appeals by the prosecution as to any issue, law or fact. The cases you refer to are all appeals by defendants, not prosecutors.

Re:Defendant's rights?

[terminal.dk]

In Denmark (Neighbor country and owner of Norway until 18xx) the legal system is quite likely more or less the same.

Here we have city courts, 2 country courts (east + west) and the high court. Any pary can appeal. But it usually requires something special about the case before it can be appealed to the high court. And of course you can always take it to the European Union human rights court (Not in Norway since they are not a member).

Just today in Denmark, the prosecutor appealed a case where 5 workers who supposedly raped a girl at a party was found not guilty in rape.

ANother major difference between Europe and the USA is that in the USA the facts are second to the persons rights. In Europe the truth comes before the individual. So if the police gets some evidence in ways not legal, it is still evidence - But the police will be prosecuted for breaking the law in an independent case. I think this is way better than the US way of releasing guilty people because the evidence was discovered based on something not legal.

Re:Defendant's rights?

[Zone5]

Agreed. The truth ultimately must come first, and issues cannot be lumped together indiscriminately. When evidence is found, it should be used, and the investigators, not the evidence, should bear the brunt of any punishment over the methods used to gather it.

I must say, I quite like that approach.

Re:Defendant's rights?

[james_pb]

My error - I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Re:Defendant's rights?

[Scarblac]

How does it work in legal systems in general?

Nonsensical question. That's like asking what 'house' translates to, in languages in general. There is no standard legal system.

A bit surprised

[halftrack]

As a Norwegian I'm a bit surprised that Økokrim appealed the sentence. It's normal for prosecution to appeal, but in this case it was a pretty clear acquittal. However the background for the appeal is (as the article states) not ready yet.

However my concerne now is that if the appeal goes through (I believe that - in Norway - most appeals at this level do) it will be tried in front of a jury, which means this case can be on hold for ever. In the previous instance they had trouble finding only 2 laymen who could understand the technicalities of the case.

Re:A bit surprised

[Sergeant Beavis]

So halftrack, since you're Norwegian, why don't you explain this process to us Americans. Appealing aquittals is just not done in the US because of the Double Jepordy clause in the Constitution. Can Norwegian prosecutors simply hound this kid until they get their way?

Re:A bit surprised

[0111 1110]

It's normal for prosecution to appeal So I guess they can keep appealing until they win. How much do you think the industry will pay the jurors for their guilty verdict?

Re:A bit surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's the answer:

The NorWEEgian Liberation Front

Re:A bit surprised

[KjetilK]

I agree. The verdict of the lower court was very well reasoned. Also, since the law will change anyway (for the worse) in less than a year, it is very, very hard to understand why they do this.

There's only one thing in the verdict that was not completely clear, and that would be the conclusion if the prosecutors had tried to prove that DeCSS had been used for unauthorized copying. They didn't try to prove that, and that was noted in the verdict. That might be one thing they will try to work on I guess.

Right now, there is no news, really, other than "yeah, we'll appeal". They have to come up with the documents by tomorrow, that is when the interesting things happen.

Another thing I can't understand that there are somebody who would want to put their career on the line for this case. The reaction after the acquittal was pretty clear among computer professionals and the press, it was a win for consumers and a big loss for Økokrim.

On one hand, I really hope they get another big loss, OTOH, it is hardly something to cheer for that we do not have a working computer crime unit. If somebody breaks into my box, I want them spanked, but I really can't report any such breakin to a police unit as corrupt as ours, as that would lend their objectionable political agenda some legitimity. I think many if not most of Norway's computer professionals feel the same.

Re:A bit surprised

[halftrack]

IANANL, but this is how I believe it is.

The norwegian system is built up by three stages: Tingretten, Lagmansretten and Høyesterett (the supreme court.) In that order. The first instance - where Johansen was acquited - consisted of one professional judge and two laymen. The second instance consists of a jury with where a person must be found guilty by at least half the members (or maybe it was 2/3.) The supreme court is much like the american with 7 (I think) professional judges.

There is no such thing as double jeopardy in Norway, but you don't automatically get a re-trial based on an appeal. Between the first two stages (where the case is now) I believe it's possible to appeal simply because you disagree. This means that if you can argue your appeal well, introduce new evidence or something like that you get a re-trial. However you can only appeal to the supreme court based on wrong utilisation of the law, interpertation of the law or technical errors in which they can either order a re-trial, adjust the sentence or dismiss the case.

Now I've probably missed a great deal of points and said things that aren't correct, but this should enlighten you're view on the Norwegian courts. (Which believe it or not differ from the American.)

Re:A bit surprised

[snabelmann]

Most informative post so far :-)

The second instance consists of a jury with where a person must be found guilty by at least half the members (or maybe it was 2/3.)

It's more like 3/2 - or more accurately: 7 out of the 10 jury members need to find him guilty.

However you can only appeal to the supreme court based on wrong utilisation of the law, interpertation of the law or technical errors in which they can either order a re-trial, adjust the sentence or dismiss the case.

That's correct. The Supreme Court's Committee on Appeals review all appeals to the Supreme Court. They throw out most of the appeals they receive. I can not possibly conceive that this case will go any further than the regional courts, and I still believe Dvd-Jon will be acquitted.

Re:A bit surprised

[carlos_benj]

It's more like 3/2 - or more accurately: 7 out of the 10 jury members need to find him guilty.

Wouldn't that be 15 out of 10 jurors....?

Re:A bit surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

As an American I'm a bit surprised that the letter "Ø" rendered properly on my computer!

Re:A bit surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Re-trial and appeal are two different things. Re-trial refer to restarting the case at the same level in the court system. Doing that is extremely hard in Norway, and require new evidence. Appealing from Tingretten to Lagmannsretten is an automatic right, as is appealing to Høyesterett, however Høyesterett (the supreme court) chooses itself which cases it wish to hear.

Re:A bit surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they can't, because there are only three levels in the Norwegian court system, and the highest level (the supreme court) take very few cases.

Re:A bit surprised

[snabelmann]

Agh... I need more coffee!

Re:A bit surprised

[Jeppe Salvesen]

I know this is off topic, but Birgitte Teng's cousin was acquitted in a criminal court, but judged to pay reparations to the family in a civil court. Isn't that double jeapordy?

Re:A bit surprised

[teg]

***
I know this is off topic, but Birgitte Teng's cousin was acquitted in a criminal court, but judged to pay reparations to the family in a civil court. Isn't that double jeapordy?
***

That's an entirely different matter - the equivalent in the US would be the Simpson trials, where he was found not guilty to the law but had to pay damages to the family.

Enough is enough!

[nemaispuke]

So the MPAA didn't win the first round, so let's try to nail him for "computer crime". So I wonder what crime he committed, and I also find it curious that the specifics of the the Norweigan Computer Crime Division will be "in their offices Monday afternoon". Does that mean they have to "manufacture" something to justify the appeal?

Re:Enough is enough!

[morgan1]

From what /. norwegians say, Norway doesn't have a Computer Crime Division.

what about...

[destiney]

What about double jeopardy? Guess there is no such law there.

Sven, we cood be famoos, yah?

[hoggoth]

Lars: Sven, we hate thees job, yah?
Sven: Yah.
Lars: Always giving trooble to the dirty accountants and such, yah?
Sven: Yah. Lars, eets very boring.
Lars: So Sven, lets go after thees kid, Jon Lech Johansen. He ees famous, does theengs with compooters.
Sven: Yah. We cood be on T.V.
Lars: Yah. Famoos.

Re:Sven, we cood be famoos, yah?

[dbc]

I hate to be pedantic, but as a life-long Norsky-watcher I feel I must correct your misaprehension of Norsky -- a Norsky would not say "thees", he'd say "tis" with a very hard "t" and short "i" -- a Minnesota native from Daloot or da range would more likely say "dis".

And if you don't believe me, I'll introduce you to my mother-in-law, for whom "Ja" is a four sylable word with a two octave range, and who did not understand any of the dialect jokes in "Fargo", because that *is* the way she talks.

Where's the � key?

[johnny_4_president]

Økokrim?!? Where's my keyboard's "Ø" key? Norwegians are far out. The tragedy is that Norwegian taxpayers are footing the bill for this seemingly endless lawsuit. A bright kid gets skewered by the courts, at the behest of greedy multinationals, and taxpayers pay for it. "the world only makes sense when you force it to" - Batman, as he's kicking Superman's ass.

Legitimate use

[fafalone]

This case perfectly highlights a legimate use for breaking copy protection, to play your own DVDs on an OS that the copy protection doesn't like. As for distributing, I'm sure other people wish to do it as well. Time to stop outlawing things with legit use just because of the potential for illegal use. What's next, outlawing baseball bats because I can beat people to death with one? I hope this case gets more attention in the US so people can see this.

Re:Legitimate use

[surprise_audit]

Pretty soon the list of things with legitimate uses outlawed because of potential illegal uses will include:

1) Guns - armed robbery, murder, etc
2) Cars - often used to leave the scene of a crime.
3) Telephones - wire fraud, scams, illegal wiretaps.
4) Clothes - commonly used by thieves, murderers, policitians, etc. Oh, sorry, strike out policitians - they're supposed to make outrageous election promises that nobody expects them to keep...

Re:Legitimate use

[aborchers]

If I get modded down for going off topic, so be it...

I've been pondering something lately that, strangely, I don't ever recall seeing discussed on /., or if I did see it it was thoroughly occluded by either context or opinion.

Neglecting the ridiculous DMCA, what exactly is the law (US and otherwise) on making copies of legally purchased products for personal consumption, i.e. "private home viewing" on devices other than those sanctioned by the copyopoly? All my videos and DVDs have statements on them forbidding duplication. Most make vague references to "US and International Law" forbidding copying. There is no fine print about fair use. I know US law set out parameters for some of these things in the "betamax case" and "Audio Home Recording Act of 1992", but is the warning in the leader of these media a statement backed by clear law, or is it equivalent to a EULA, a term of purchase agreement which to my knowledge has so far not been proven legally binding (at least I hear people saying over and over they're waiting for a case to challenge them)?

I know there are pending bills in the US Congress to explicitly deliniate fair use rights, but where do we currently stand? DMCA covers defeat of copy control measures, but in the absence of these, is there anything in the law that says creating a mix CD or duplicating an unprotected VHS (why, I can't imagine, given the quality degradation) is llegal when done for one's personal use?

IAALs please chime in!

Re:Legitimate use

[prizog]

In the US, time- and space-shifting are allowed by 17 USC 107 (as interpreted by Sony v. Universal and Diamond v. RIAA, respectively). Some commentators claim that if 17 USC 107 didn't exist, the courts would have to invent it for First Amendment reasons.

The warnings on tapes have no legal force whatsoever.

Re:Legitimate use

[aborchers]

Thank you! So the current initiative to define a consumer "Bill of Rights" for media products is to make Federal law out of what is currently judicial precedent.

Having read 17 USC 107 but not the decisions cited above, I assume (and accept all potential consequences) that what the courts found was that people would not be guilty of infringement for copying material for time- and space-shifting and that they did not discuss encryption issues.

Do I understand correctly, then, that it would be legal (at least under established precedent) for me to make an exact duplicate of a DVD (as in a byte per byte data image) to a second piece of media or to transmit it over my home network for "performance" on another device than the one in which it is loaded, but not to decrypt the DVD for storage or transmission in a different data format because that violates DMCA? The publishers make a thing, hide it in the dark, and then sell you the flashlight. A complicit Congress makes it illegal to manufacture an alternative flashlight.

I thought I was disgusted by this subject before, but the more I understand it, the more nauseous I feel.

Re:Legitimate use

[Crazy Viking]

Neglecting the ridiculous DMCA, what exactly is the law (US and otherwise) on making copies of legally purchased products for personal consumption, i.e. "private home viewing" on devices other than those sanctioned by the copyopoly? All my videos and DVDs have statements on them forbidding duplication. Most make vague references to "US and International Law" forbidding copying.

I do not know much about US law in detail, but I know something of Norwegian law. In Norway the consumer has explicit legal rights to fair use of products that has been legally obtained. Freely interpreted this means that if I buy a DVD I can do whatever I please without interference from MPAA or anybody else.

I can watch it, break its copy protection, alter the video or use the DVD for a coaster as long as I do not redistribute a cracked or altered version of the original DVD.

The verdict of the Norwegian court is that DVD Jon has only developed a means to exercise his rights and shared the means with others. The prosecution has failed to prove that he has illegally distributed or aided in illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

In Norway it is impossible to sidestep the fair use rights of the consumers by claiming that the product is only licensed or by posting statements that any particular type of use is illegal. We can only hope that European directives will not end up thwarting our rights and that other countries will implement similar consumer rights to those in Norwegian law.

Re:Legitimate use

[Pofy]

In Sweden the copyright laws limits the right of the copyright holder in that someone might still make copies for "private use" (not sure if this is the best translation though, perhaps calling it fair use is better).

More precisely what this "private use" means has been established both before the law was written but more importantly in various court cases afterwards. Basically you can make copies (in limited ammounts, that is, a few copies) for yourself, your family or close friends. So it is perfectly legal to copy a music CD and give to a close friend for example.

The exception to the above is for computer programs which may not be copied even for private use.

Re:Legitimate use

[prizog]

I would be careful with the DVD example -- even reading a DVD requires unloocking the player.

Of course, IANAL.

server melting.... melting....

[JeanBaptiste]

"DVD-Jon" faces retrial Norway's special division for white-collar crimes, Økokrim, has decided to appeal the acquittal of 19-year-old Jon Lech Johansen, accused of copyright violation for helping bypass DVD code protection, web site Nettavisen reports. Johansen was acquitted on all counts of piracy and distribution of the code-breaking program. Johansen has argued that his programming work was designed to play DVDs, which he purchased, on a computer with the Linux operating system, something the copy protection would not allow. The head of Økokrim's computer crimes division said that the reasons for the appeal would be in their offices Monday afternoon. Johansen's counsel, Halvor Manshaus, said he was not surprised by Økokrim's decision. "There were signals from Økokrim quite early, that they would appeal and that they see this case as dealign with an important principle. We believe that the first verdict was extremely thorough, but that doesn't prevent them from appealing," Manshaus told Nettavisen. Aftenposten English Web Desk

Posterboy

[grub]

It seems like Norwegian authorities are trying to make Johansen a cybercrime posterboy as the US did to Mitnick.

Re:Posterboy

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean in a few years he'll be writing books on DVD protection, setting up a business specialising in DRM and being inverviewed by /. ?

Re:Posterboy

[Error27]

That's funny, we already made him a poster boy for the good guys.

A mild mannered child genius who defeated the multi-nation corporation's encryption so he could watch dvds under Linux.

You can't invent a better story than that.

Re:NAZIs

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't. They were invaded by the German army.

Is this justified?

[omicron15]

Although a knee jerk reaction is to express distaste for this decision, perhaps we should consider it in more depth. Like it or not, 'DVD Jon' and his work, DeCSS, do aid pirates.

Yes, that's not it was created and there are legit uses, but many people do use it to break the encryption scheme so they can rip and distribute movies. Is this necessarily what we want? If movie companies don't get paid for there work they'll stop making movies, blahda blahda.

Additionally, while this is not a popular idea around here, isn't it the companies right to decide that they only want their disks to play on windows systems? I don't see anyone saying that people should be allowed to hack popular windows only games to run on liniux, so why should movies be different?

Re:Is this justified?

[nagora]

Like it or not, 'DVD Jon' and his work, DeCSS, do aid

No. Bitwise copying is for piracy; DeCSS is really, really, really, REALLY crap for piracy. It's for playback.

No matter how many times "the man" says DeCSS is for piracy, it just isn't true. DeCCS is to copying what roller skates are to theft: it is possible that you could find someone trying it but it's a useless way to go about it.

Plus, in most countries CSS itself is actually an illegal proce-fixing mechanism backed by an equally illegal cartel.

TWW

Re:Is this justified?

[Anonymous Coward]

CD-RW/DVDxRW technology aids pirates as well, but you don't see the RIAA/MPAA going after Sony, Philips, Lite-on, and everyone else who manufacturers such hardware for aiding and abetting piracy...

Re:Is this justified?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any movies that I have seen that were obvious pirates were on the original medium that they were released in. I've seen pirated DVD's sold openly, and guess what. You don't need to break the encryption to make a bit for bit copy of a DVD.

I didn't mention the people that transcode the VOB's to divx or some other more lossy format, but the people that do this could also do the same thing through windows.

Legally, no, it is not their right to decide what can and cannot happen unless I sign a specific contract stating to that effect. I don't sign that 'invisible' contract when I buy a DVD because simply buying a product gives a few specific rights to both parties, but those rights are typically for the consumer.

There are hacks that allow windows only games to run on linux. That hack is called "WINE" and "WINEX".

To recap.
1) You don't need DeCSS to pirate.
2) If you wanted to transcode movies, you can do it in Windows also.
3) There are no implied contracts when I purchase a DVD that the DVD itself can only be played on specific OS's / Players
4) go to http://www.codeweavers.com to read about wine, etc.

Re:Is this justified?

[tx_mgm]

I don't see anyone saying that people should be allowed to hack popular windows only games to run on liniux, so why should movies be different?

uhhhhh, havent you heard of wine before? there are most certainly people trying to get windows games to linux. oh, and you dont hack the games, you write software to properly use them...which is exactly what decss does for linux....jeez man, wine is all over slashdot. go read up!

Re:Is this justified?

[Pii]

Point-by-point:

Although a knee jerk reaction is to express distaste for this decision, perhaps we should consider it in more depth. Like it or not, 'DVD Jon' and his work, DeCSS, do aid pirates.

That a product, program, or any tool for that matter, can be used to circumvent the law or do ill, does that mean that the tool is evil? Hardly. A tool is neither good nor bad, so long as it performs the task it was designed for in an adequate manner. Those kind of value judgements must be reserved for the person that employs that tool...

Is a gun inherently evil? Sure, there are many that use it for malicious purposes, but what about when the gun is in the lands of a legitimate authority? What about when it is in the hands of a potential rape victim?

Yes, that's not it was created and there are legit uses, but many people do use it to break the encryption scheme so they can rip and distribute movies. Is this necessarily what we want? If movie companies don't get paid for there work they'll stop making movies, blahda blahda.

Prosecute the Pirates. Prosecute the thieves. Don't buy materials from questionable sources. I'm not one of those people that thinks the "Industry" has no right to make a dollar. Still, the tool is not the problem. It is the people that choose to misuse it.

Additionally, while this is not a popular idea around here, isn't it the companies right to decide that they only want their disks to play on windows systems? I don't see anyone saying that people should be allowed to hack popular windows only games to run on liniux, so why should movies be different?

I don't think it is the company's right to determine how I use their product. If I have paid the same $22.00 for a DVD as my Windows using counterpart, how am I causing harm to Hollywood by viewing the movie on my own Linux running system? Have I hurt their revenue? Did I steal their intellectual property? Does my use of Linux automatically mean that I will decrypt their DVD, and spread it across the Internet free of charge?

What is the difference?

If anything, the movie industry should be going out of their way to put as many DVD players out there in the world as possible. They should have authored their own Linux DVD software, because it is beneficial to them to do so. The more players in existance, the more movies they are likely to sell. This seems evident to anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics.

Short of producing such a software player themselves, they certainly shouldn't mind that someone else has saved them the trouble.

The piracy issue is a strawman arguement. DeCSS doesn't make a DVD any more "pirateable." You needn't break the encryption in order to take a single DVD, and duplicate it. You can produce duplicates without even attempting to decrypt the software, simply by making a bit-for-bit copy.

What DeCSS does allow for is the conversion from one format to another... It allows you to take a DVD, and from it, procude VCDs, etc. That's hardly a threat though. They are lower density, and lower resolution. Nobody would rather have a VCD than the corresponding DVD. In any event, VCD production poses the most minor of threats to the revenue streams of the movie industry.

In any event, this is definately a new reason not to move to Norway. I had no idea that "Double Jeopardy" protection wasn't commonplace in most of the "Free" world.

Re:Is this justified?

[M.C. Hampster]

CD-RW/DVDxRW technology aids pirates as well, but you don't see the RIAA/MPAA going after Sony, Philips, Lite-on, and everyone else who manufacturers such hardware for aiding and abetting piracy...

Maybe not yet, but your point sure makes this story about the RIAA going after ISP's all the more interesting.

Re:Is this justified?

[andrewscraig]

In the exact same way that all the gun manufacturers do aid murderers, armed robberies, etc, Jon's code aids movie pirates. However, you don't see many Americans harping off about banning guns, do you? It's really the same thing. It's not what you have, it's what you can do with it that's important. Why waste the resources chasing after someone who simply wanted to watch his films that he paid for with hardware that he paid for, when those same resources could much better be used on those selling the shoddy films down at the local market!

Re:Is this justified?

[sanguinemoon]

Additionally, while this is not a popular idea around here, isn't it the companies right to decide that they only want their disks to play on windows systems? If I pay money to buy a disc, in my mind it's not the company's disck anymore. It's mine do with as I please.

Re:Is this justified?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. There are so many items used in crime: cars, (kitchen) knives, screwdrivers, etc. Do you intend to ban them all?

2. If the public (as a whole) decides they no longer want to pay for movies then that is their right. Movie companies have no right whatsoever to guaranteed revenues. If the public decides not to pay anymore, there are no revenues, and therefore no movies. Since this is ultimately a democratic decision (taken by the marketplace), it is not a problem.

3. Finally, people want to play Windows games on Linux, and do so, and *say* so regularly here in the hallowed pages of slashdot.

Three strikes - guess you're out...

Re:Is this justified?

[jgerman]

Like it or not, 'DVD Jon' and his work, DeCSS, do aid pirates.

Like it or not, that doesn't matter. At least in the U.S., I'm not familiar with Norwegian law but regardless, it's bullshit. Cars are used to getaway from crimes, guns (the obvious analogy) are used in crimes, paper and pens are used to plan crimes. Guess we should start going after manufacturers of these products.

Re:Is this justified?

[Jeremi]

Like it or not, 'DVD Jon' and his work, DeCSS, do aid pirates.

So do web sites, FTP, and email. Shall we make it illegal to write web browsers too?

many people do use it to break the encryption scheme so they can rip and distribute movies. Is this necessarily what we want? If movie companies don't get paid for there work they'll stop making movies, blahda blahda

I'd much rather live in a world with fewer movies than in a world where Hollywood is allowed to dictate what programs I can write or use on my own computer.

Additionally, while this is not a popular idea around here, isn't it the companies right to decide that they only want their disks to play on windows systems?

Companies have every right to decide what is done with their property. However, once they sell a disk to me, it becomes my property, and at that point it should be up to me (and only me) how I use it.

I don't see anyone saying that people should be allowed to hack popular windows only games to run on liniux, so why should movies be different?

There is no argument about that because everybody agrees that it should be allowed. Products such as WineX and VMWare allow you to play windows-only games under Linux.

Re:Is this justified?

[surprise_audit]

As many people have pointed out before, the big-time pirates are generally believed to have DVD-copying machines that make bit-perfect copies without actually breaking CSS. This is because they don't give a rat's ass about watching the DVD, just copying it many, many times for profit.

CSS protects the DVD content from being played on an unauthorised machine - which means one without the appropriate license keys. In practise, that means using either an actual DVD player, or PC-software from a CSS-licensed provider. Never mind that the exact same hardware can run Linux or Windows, if you don't have an officially licensed CSS implementation for Linux, it's illegal...

As for hacking PC games to work with Linux, that's a much bigger deal than making it possible to view movies. Trying to restrict movies to real DVD players or to WinXX PCs is exactly like trying to make any other media only playable on proper players or WinXX PCs. I have a bunch of vinyl albums that I'd like to listen to while at work - I can't because I'm not going to drag my hifi to the office every day. One day I'll be bothered enough about it to make MP3s of those albums. Until then, my only option is to re-buy content I've already bought, at stupid prices. What's more, some of those albums are not, and probably never will be available on CD, or even cassette... Note: I'm not planning on trying to download these albums, I just want to be able to continue to enjoy the vinyl records I already have, in places where an actual turntable record player is impractical.

Just try thinking about it in terms of some other industry: a gun maker turning out a rifle for use only on a target range, or a shotgun for shooting anything except ducks; a car maker turning out a Moms-Only SUV, or a highway-only car; furniture for used only by married people; etc... Sounds stupid, doesn't it?

Re:Is this justified?

[kuroth]

Although a knee jerk reaction is to express distaste for this decision, perhaps we should consider it in more depth. Like it or not, 'Acme Axe Manufacturers' and its work, the Acme Super Chopper, does aid axe murders.

Yes, that's not why they were created and there are legit uses, but many axe murders do use them to split the skulls of busty coeds on holidays at remote cabins. Is this necessarily what we want? If axe murders are using the Acme Super Chopper to commit crimes, isn't everyone who owns an axe just as guilty, blahda blahda?

Additionally, while this is not a popular idea around here, isn't it the companies right to decide that they only want their axes to be used on wood? I don't see anyone saying that people should be allowed to chop metal, plastic, or bales of hay into smaller pieces, so why should wood be different?

Re:Is this justified?

[Anonymous Coward]

... except all he did was write the GUI.

I guess if that's a crime, Microsoft's gonna get sued to hell and back. After all... their OSes allow one to run the GUI that makes piracy easier...

Re:Is this justified?

[cdn-programmer]

I'll probably get modded down for this but so what. The biggest pirate in the world is the telecommunications industry because they grab and duplicate copyrighted material from all over the world for delievery to their customers (the surfing public) and not only do they not pay a dime to the vast majority of the people who created this content - if the owners of the content were to ask even who the consumers were then they are told that would be a breach of privacy.

Not only this, the industry has so much influence that they were able to get "safe harbour" laws passed that makes it legal for them to do this.

But - not _all_ of the people who create this content are ripped off. Some - if they happen to be corporately attractive enough were able to do a "convergance" and these people do make money...

They say they make money from the "distribution" of the content - but then this is what the recording industry does too. The difference between creating web content for instance and musical content is that at least in the case of musical content the artists own the rights until they sign them away. In the case of web content the creators lose their right to distribution the moment it is put on the net. This right is taken from them with zero compensation.

------------------

It has been said before that it is trivial to copy a dvd and play it back from say a tape or hard drive WITHOUT resorting to cracking the encryption. All that is required is the development of a VIRTUAL DVD device driver. If the windows player thinks it has a DVD out their in hardware land it will decrypt the bits even if they are actually comming from a file.

Does anyone dispute this? Do we have to create a virtual DVD driver before people will believe this? Perhaps we should - and sent it to Jon's defense team.

-------------

The only way you can prevent the unauthorised copying of digital material in a computer is to prevent programmers from being able to access _any_ part of the data stream that is playing the material. This means programmers must be prevented from writing device drivers and memory probes etcetera. This is REALLY what paladium and DRM is all about. Microsoft is very much in favour of this because it will shut down independant programmers. The short of it is that if the programmer has access to ring 0 - then he can do anything he wants. He can even write his own DLL wrappers and trap the parameters going back and forth.

In order to prevent this, it is necessary to restrict end user from running the software. Thus the software must be certified and this will be both expensive (another microsoft tax) and restrictive.

This is a restraint of trade move of unprecedented porportions.

Re:Is this justified?

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't it the companies right to decide that they only want their axes to be used on wood?

That hurts just thinking about it. When I get wood, I don't want anyone taking an axe to it.

Re:Is this justified?

[Apotsy]

No matter how many times "the man" says DeCSS is for piracy, it just isn't true.

HAHAHA! Okay, whatever.

The primary use of DeCSS was, is, and will continue to be -- to gain access to the video and audio data so people can make and share DivX ;-) rips. It most certainly is for piracy, and everybody knows it.

Re:Is this justified?

[thehunger]

I n any event, this is definately a new reason not to move to Norway. I had no idea that "Double Jeopardy" protection wasn't commonplace in most of the "Free" world

You want reasons for NOT moving to Norway?

How about

• 24% VAT
• 35-50% income tax
• cold long winters
• world's most expensive taxi rides
• world's most expensive capital city
• one of the highest gasoline prices in the world
• not member of the EU

and by the way Norwegians are too conformist to use anything but Microsoft software. But I guess that last one isn't unique...:-)

Oh well at least they don't dub imported movies like they do in France and Germany...

Re:Is this justified?

[Darren Winsper]

Prove it. After all, I use DeCSS all the time, but never to rip a DVD. There are a large number of people who can say the same.

Re:Is this justified?

[Apotsy]

DVD rips are all over the net, and DeCSS is the only software that could have been used to create them.

Proven.

Re:Is this justified?

[swillden]

Umm, you're not being precise.

Assuming that your statement that all of the DivX versions of movies available on DVD were created with DeCSS is true (it's not, but I'll let that pass), you've only "proven" that DeCSS can be and is used for piracy, which is still a far cry from proving that DeCSS is only used for piracy, or that it's intended to be used for piracy or even that it's primarily used for piracy.

As a counterexample, I use a descendent of DeCSS on a regular basis, but I've never pirated DVD movies (I have made infringing copies of VHS tapes, however -- better ban VCRs). So does everyone who watches DVDs using a non-DVDCCA-approved DVD player, such as xine. I also use a descendent of DeCSS to rip my DVDs and convert them to SVCD format so that my kids can watch (and destroy) the cheap copies rather than the relatively expensive originals. Such backup purpose should fall under Fair Use. I could also use DeCSS to extract snippets of a movie to include them in a commentary video, which definitely would be Fair Use.

There are many legitimate uses for DeCSS. As for what the *primary* use is, I couldn't guess. I know a lot of the movies available for download couldn't have been ripped from DVD since they're up for download before the film is even released on DVD (or at times before it's even released in the theatres!)

Re:Is this justified?

[nagora]

I know a lot of the movies available for download couldn't have been ripped from DVD since they're up for download before the film is even released on DVD (or at times before it's even released in the theatres!)

Oh, don't go confusing him with facts! That'll just ruin the entire tone of the debate...

TWW

Re:Is this justified?

[TheLink]

Movie "pirates" don't need Jon's code. Come to my country and go ask a few.

They just stamp out exact copies of originals. Why bother wasting CPU decrypting, when you can just stamp out copies pit for pit?

They could also play the original on a standard player and make copies of the stream.

DeCSS aids Linux/*BSD users MORE than it aids pirates. There weren't DVD players for Linux.

If something has greater legitimate use than illegitimate use it's wrong to ban it, especially when the illegitimate use doesn't cause harm to life or limb. Heck it's just copying which the MPAA don't like.

And that sort of copying in fact is allowed in some countries.

Re:Is this justified?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It has been said before that it is trivial to copy a dvd and play it back from say a tape or hard drive WITHOUT resorting to cracking the encryption. All that is required is the development of a VIRTUAL DVD device driver. If the windows player thinks it has a DVD out their in hardware land it will decrypt the bits even if they are actually comming from a file.

Does anyone dispute this? Do we have to create a virtual DVD driver before people will believe this? Perhaps we should - and sent it to Jon's defense team."

Already done. Check out http://daemonshome.cjb.net/

Re:Is this justified?

[Pii]

Well there you go... 8 reasons not to move to Norway.

So as not to alienate our Norwegian friends, here's a couple of items for the plus column:

• Good performers at the Winter Games (They rock at the Cross-country skiing events, particularly the biathalon!)
• Vikings!

Re:Is this justified?

[Apotsy]

You've never heard of a "screener", have you?

Re:Is this justified?

[Apotsy]

Are you actually convinced there are more people engaging in Fair Use than there are kiddiez downloading unauthorized rips? Wow, welcome to the land of make believe!

Re:Is this justified?

[swillden]

Are you actually convinced there are more people engaging in Fair Use than there are kiddiez downloading unauthorized rips?

First, you're still being imprecise. You should be comparing the number of people engaging in Fair Use with the number of people *making* unauthorized rips for illegal distribution, not with the number of people downloading them. Otherwise you're comparing one group of people who are using a DeCSS descendant with a bunch of other people who are not using it, and how is that meaningful?

Second, do you have any evidence that there aren't more legitimate users than infringers? I'm not "convinced" one way or the other, since I have no data. Do you?

Keep in mind that *every* person who watches DVDs on a Linux, *BSD, BeOS, etc. box and even some people who watch them on Windows, MacOS and OSX use a DeCSS relative to do it. Obviously, the first set are minority platforms, but it only takes a few illegal rippers to populate the file-sharing systems (particularly since not all of the available movies were ripped), so you're comparing the sizes of two small groups.

Regardless, even if it is true that the majority of usage is infringing, that doesn't eliminate the fact that a substantial amount is not. And it also doesn't address the fact that watching DVDs on Linux was, in fact, Jon Johansen's original goal with creating it.

Finally, you didn't explain why DeCSS is bad but VCRs are okay.

Until you can rationally address all of these points, you're just spouting thoughtless, irrelevant drivel.

Re:Is this justified?

[Apotsy]

People who download rips count, too. There would be no rips if it weren't for DeCSS.

And since you're making silly demands about things like VCR analogies (one notch below car analogies on the all-time stupidest computer argument fallacies list), how about you prove there is even one person who uses Linux to watch DVDs.

Re:Is this justified?

[Darren Winsper]

Talk about clutching at straws. I could post a screenshot of my desktop with a DVD playing, but it's not worth the effort. After all, you've yet to prove your point.

Re:Is this justified?

[swillden]

People who download rips count, too. There would be no rips if it weren't for DeCSS.

I already disproved that erroneous assumption. Care to try again?

how about you prove there is even one person who uses Linux to watch DVDs.

I do. Judging from the number of software DVD players for Linux, there must be another person or two out there as well.

If you're going to hold up your trollish end of this conversation, you need some new fallacies.

Re:Is this justified?

[Apotsy]

I already disproved that erroneous assumption.

You think your pathetic handwaving counts as "proof"? Wow, you're even more delusional than I thought. Well, you just keep on telling yourself that DeCSS isn't primarily used for stealing shit. You might as well still believe in Santa Claus.

Re:Is this justified?

[swillden]

You think your pathetic handwaving counts as "proof"?

What handwaving? You claimed that all the illegal stuff on P2P was all placed there by DeCSS users. I pointed out that movies hit the P2P networks before they're even in theaters, much less available on DVD for ripping.

That, my fuzzy-headed friend, is known as disproof by counter-example.

Well, you just keep on telling yourself that DeCSS isn't primarily used for stealing shit.

Your thinking is getting fuzzier by the day. I never said it wasn't primarily used for infringement (not stealing, but I'll assume you meant infringement). What I said was: (a) there are legitimate uses and legitimate users, (b) the original intent was to facilitate legitimate use, (c) I have no data on whether or not DeCSS and its children are, in fact, used more often for infringement or for Fair Use and (d) neither do you.

You might as well still believe in Santa Claus.

Can't come up with any arguments, huh?

xenaphobe wants to know ...

[HealYourChurchWebSit]

I know this is a bit xenaphobic, but what does this ruling mean to those of us in the U.S.? If it's overturned, or if the ruling stands, will it have any impact on those of us under the DMCA and the RIAA?

Re:xenaphobe wants to know ...

[stratjakt]

Nothing whatsoever!

Nothing that happens in the politically correct pseudo-communist utopia of Norway has any affect on the US at all.

A higher California court already ruled it's legal to transfer DeCSS over the 'net and to use it for legal purposes.

Re:xenaphobe wants to know ...

[klang]

Norway might be a "pseudo-communist utopia".. but you are actually allowed to SAY that...

"are you now or have you ever been a member of the communist party of any kind?" :-)

Re:xenaphobe wants to know ...

[Anonymous Coward]

How the fuck is this flamebait? Are we afraid the Norway anti-defamation league is going to flood slashdot with protest comments about how they're not a communist utopia? Flamebait != might be insulting to someone. Fucking moderators.

Re:xenaphobe wants to know ...

[Xenophobe]

I know this is a bit xenaphobic ...

You're afraid of warrior princesses?

Seriously, though, it means nothing in the US, as a couple people have pointed out. However, the more places they can get this criminalized, the easier it will be to get other countries to go along. That's what I worry about.

Re:xenaphobe wants to know ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree this is not flamebait. Did the moderator even READ what is written?

Re:xenaphobe wants to know ...

[cyberformer]

You're not xenophobic, just parochial, but that's reasonable. While there are no direct affects, cases like this do matter to the rights of Americans and other non-Norwegians.
Politicians in all countries use "international harmonization" as an excuse to deny people rights (see, for example, the recent court ruling in Eldred v. Ashcroft, which argued that copyright extensions just bring America into line with Europe), so it's better for all of us if they don't have that excuse.

Then there is the relatively borderless nature of the Internet: If it's legal to post DeCSS in Norway, there's no practical way for the authorities to stop people in other countries from accessing it. Sure, the MPAA will ask for every cable and satellite link to Norway and other less repressive countries to be severed, but that's (so far) beyond even their lobbyists' power.

Re:xenaphobe wants to know ...

[stratjakt]

If I reposted and switched 'US' and 'Norway' around in the text, it'd be +5 insightful. /. groupthink. America bad, everyone else good. Bleh

Re:STUPID!

[Anonymous Coward]

Even though this guy got modded down for "flamebait" he's/she's right.

If it weren't for the Bushs' lust/greed for oil we wouldn't have been attacked. Why else would we be "friends" with Israel if not for the want of oil? Because we "like" them?

Yes, it would be...

[TWX_the_Linux_Zealot]

In the United States, if one is acquitted of a crime and there aren't any additional charges that can be filed by the state, that's all folks, no more immediate legal repercussions. However, the state can always attempt to find something else to bring against someone, like additional crimes committed on the scene.

This isn't the first time that I've heard of an acquittal being appealed, I think that there was something in Italy in the last couple of years that made news for such.

RTFA

[VFVTHUNTER]

from the article:

The head of Økokrim's computer crimes division said that the reasons for the appeal would be in their offices Monday afternoon.

I guess they had a meeting with the MPAA today?

Re:RTFA

[tryfan]

Although the above post was moderated as "Funny", I think it might as well be true.

Normally, the descision in the lower court would have been considered as so clear as to be meaningless to appeal.
But I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it being overturned in the next instance. There are two main reasons for this:

1) There is a European law on the way which would probably have made DeCSS illegal to start with.
2) There are very powerful interests involved in this. Like Hollywood. And who says they can't influence Norwegian prosecutors?

Double Jeopardy?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US the double stuff ONLY applies to Capitol offenses!
Norway's special division for white-collar crimes, Økokrim, has decided to appeal the acquittal of 19-year-old Jon Lech Johansen, accused of copyright violation for helping bypass DVD code protection, web site Nettavisen reports."

See, they have niggers in every country!

Re:Double Jeopardy?

[sribe]

In the US the double stuff ONLY applies to Capitol offenses!

Not true at all; double jeopardy applies to all criminal charges.

Re:Double Jeopardy?

[n9hmg]

"Capitol offenses"? Would that be graffiti in the Rotunda, perhaps?
Anyway, you're wrong. All criminal offenses are covered... essentially, anything that can deprive someone of all or part of their life... "jeopardy of life or limb;". We're not primitive savages who chop off hands and such, like some *cougharabcough* "cultures" I could name, and never have been, so the "limb" part never made much sense to me, except as part of an expression "life or limb", interpreted as I do above.
Of course, I feel for the poor fool who gets in some big company's crosshairs and gets sued and wins over an over until he can't afford a lawyer any more an loses.

And dynamite helps mad bombers too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Although a knee jerk reaction is to express distaste for this decision, perhaps we should consider it in more depth. Like it or not, 'DVD Jon' and his work, DeCSS, do aid pirates.

And Nobel's invention... dynamite helps terrorists... and, well, demolitioninsts, miners, and countless other good things too.
Guns can be used to hunt deer... or kill people. The point is the technology isn't the problem, it is someone's use of the technology which is in error.

Not quite true..

[CausticWindow]

I quote http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d075.htm:

"the courts have decided that since the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns and therefore successive prosecutions based on the same underlying conduct do not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if the prosecutions are brought by separate sovereigns. See, e.g., U.S. v. Koon, 34 F.3d 1416, 1438 (9th Cir.'94)"

Which is essentially what has happened here. The case is tried at a local level and being appealed to a regional court.

Suck it Trebek! Hahahahaha

[disc-chord]

Sean Connery: "It looks like this is my lucky day. I'll take The Rapists for $200."
Alex: "That's Therapists... not The Rapists"

Sorry, I know I know... But it had to be said.

Sigh

[Sycraft-fu]

This is in Norway. US law, US morals, US judgements do not apply here. If they feel it is fair, legal, whatever, that is their system, their law, their right. Try and rememebr that the whole world does not subscribe to American morals nor do they see them as the most superior in the world.

Re:Sigh

[Cpt_Kirks]

IMHO, your loss. In general, you are better off in a criminal trial in the US than in most of the world, and *WAY* worse off in the US in a civil trial. We are the most litigitous(sp) society in history, after all.

Of course, YMMV.

Re:Sigh

[update()]

Well, in his defense, Slashdot posters have been insisting for years that Jon Johansen is being tried for violations of US law. Maybe this will at least put that bit of confusion to rest.

Two other points, as long as I'm writing:

1) Even under US law, double jeopardy only applies to criminal charges, not civic suits. Of course, trying to make that distinction is even tougher than explaing that Johansen isn't being charged with a DMCA violation.

2) If they feel it is fair, legal, whatever, that is their system, their law, their right. -- I'd agree with that more if the Europeans spent less time whining about the death penalty in the US (which their own citizens support with majorities or large minorities, but that's another issue...).

Re:Sigh

[Sycraft-fu]

My loss? I'm an American, born and raised here. I am simply trying to point out that the whole world doesn't do thing our way and that we don't automatically have the best way of doing things. Personally, I think it's crap that prosecutors can appeal an aquital, but that is the law in Norway, and our law doesn't apply.

Re:Sigh

[avdp]

I don't think Europeans whine about the death penalty in the US. They just choose not to extradict people to the US that might be subject to the death penalty (i.e. already convincted, or will be tried on a death penalty case).

Re:Sigh

[Blue Stone]

It's swings and roundabouts, though, isn't it? I mean in the US you have elected judges... I mean wow how good an idea is that[/sarcasm] but here in the Uk, the government is doing away with the right to a jury trial, and the double-jeopardy rule!!!! ... but we don't have elected judges.
There's always a mix of good and bad.

Re:Sigh

[jbolden]

I don't think so. Given the poor quality of public defense an arrest is essentially a large summary fine impossed by the DA. The quality of the jury pool is often quite poor in the US. Finally the sentances are incredibly harsh; so harsh in fact that it often pays to plead to a crime and get the reduced sentance regardless of your guilt status.

Re:Sigh

[Scarblac]

IMHO, your loss. In general, you are better off in a criminal trial in the US than in most of the world,

I don't think so. Settlements of trials are too common. Say, you're not guilty. AG offers you to confess and you'll get only three years. You deny, since you're not guilty. Now, you are considered a nuisance, may be found guilty after all, and then your refusal is often actually taken into account when considering your punishment. Trial settlements are just blackmail in the US.

doesn't help pirates

[nattt]

DeCSS doesn't help pirates - there were bootleg DVDs available before DeCSS was. CSS is there to stop you, the user, from doing things with your DVD that the MPAA don't want you to. Pirates just duplicate the disc, CSS and all at the pressing plant, or if they're low-tech, rip and re-encode via analogue.

How appeals work, in general

[djembe2k]

Your description of the appeal process is off.

I know nothing about non-U.S. legal systems, and hopefully somebody who knows about Norwegian jurisprudence will answer, but the general principle behind appeals in legal systems is this:

The first court that tries you is the finder of fact. Unless that whole trial is thrown out (and you get a new one), the facts determined in that trial are beyond question in the process. However, the court has to apply rules to the process of the trial and to the facts that come out, in order to get an outcome. Those rules can be both formal laws and legal procedures. (In real life, the line between facts and rules gets blurred, which both sides try to use to their advantage, but that's a different topic.)

Appeals apply to these rules, not the facts. So an appeal isn't just a second chance to start over and get a different trial outcome. It is a challenge that the process in the previous trial was in violation of those rules in some very specific way. (Or, many specific ways, since most appeals are a laundry list of possible violations, hoping the appeals court will find at least one they like.)

This is true already in the U.S. when those found guilty appeal their convictions, or when either party in a civil trial appeals the outcome. This is why appeals often force the original trial to be thrown out: they clarify the application of a rule as it applies to this case, then you have to start over and apply that rule correctly this time.

There's no reason in principle that this couldn't be applied to appealing acquitals as well. In principle, if somebody is acquitted because a judge made a mistake in applying a rule about admissibility of evidence or jury instructions, it might be reasonable to say that the acquital was flawed, and is contrary to justice, and shouldn't be honored.

There's a question of rights, which is a big one. There's also a questions of "That's not how we do it in the U.S.!!!!", which, if it isn't backed up with something else, isn't much of an argument. But I'm just speaking to the principle of appeals in general terms.

IANAL, yadda.

Re:How appeals work, in general

[Forseti]

There IS a reason in principle that stops appeals from going on against a defendant in the US: The double-jeopardy rule.

In criminal justice, it essentially stops the prosecutors from "getting a second bite at the apple". The only way an acquital could be overturned by appeal is if due process was so overlooked that the people can prove that the defendant was never in jeopardy in the first place, such as proving that the trial was fixed.

Re:How appeals work, in general

[Alsee]

no reason in principle that this couldn't be applied to appealing acquitals as well.

In the US it's called double jeopardy and is explicitly forbidden by the constitution. If the judge screws up the process and you are aquitted it is final. The government does not get the chance to try try again.

I *think* there is an exeption if you are later convicted of jury tampering, bribing the judge or something similar. I believe in that case they declare that you didn't really get a trial the first time therefor double jeopardy does not apply.

I think another exception is that seperate governments can try you for the same crime - New York State and the the US Federal court for example. But every other state must abide by the New York State verdict (based on the "full faith and credit" clause of the constitution). So California can't try you.

An while we are on the topic of double jeopardy I'd like to vent one of my pet peeves. The movie "Double Jeopardy" was bullshit. If Ashley Judd killed her husband at the end of the movie she would have been tried and convicted - again. It would NOT have been double jeopardy. Breaking the same law on a different date is a completely seperate instance of a crime. If you rob a bank in Janyary and you rob the same bank in June you can be convicted of both robberies - two seperate crimes.

But of course all of this only applies to the United States, and naturally I am not a laywer.

-

While you can appeal to emotion?

[doorbot.com]

The real lesson here, I think, is that The Forces Of Evil never rest in their attempts to persecute hackers for actions that should not, by any sane measure, be crimes at all.

Yep, that's exactly it. We live in movie land where everything is black and white, hackers vs. Evil Corporation X, and computer operating systems look like virtual reality.

If you want to support your case, may I suggest you tone down the rhetoric a bit? "Forces of Evil" and "any sane measure" are appeals to emotion... but we want this to be objective, right? Right?

Re:While you can appeal to emotion?

[n9hmg]

Yeah, the rhetoric is a bit overblown, but it is, in fact, in this case, correct. John is right, and the corporations and their property (the state) are wrong.

STEALING!

[Cpt_Kirks]

He was *STEALING*. You know, *STEALING*. We're not real sure what he stole (since he bought the DVDs), or what he hurt, but he was *STEALING*. You don't approve of *STEALING*, do you?

Stealing is bad, u-kay?

Re:STEALING!

[Anonymous Coward]

For the last time: copyright violation IS NOT THEFT.

He was not stealing. He did not take away anyones property, which is theft.

And he did not violate copyrights either! He *bought* (you know, with *money*) the DVD's that he decrypted.

So go troll somewhere else.

Re:STEALING!

[Cpt_Kirks]

Sarcasm is lost on the young. Why aren't you in scho...wait, it's MLK day! No wonder /. is so slow.

Re:STEALING!

[Mark Pitman]

You know, just because there aren't tags around his post doesn't mean he wasn't being sarcastic.

Re:STEALING!

[Karamchand]

And all of this harms our CHILDREN! The POOR CHILDREN of hillary rosen, and the POOR CHILDREN of other hollywood start! Oh my god, save those CHILDREN from the evil communists!

Re:STEALING!

[Cpt_Kirks]

They aren't communists in Norway, they are just plain EEE-VIL! And SATANISTS! And they "laak to eat bibies"! And they're mean to puppies!

Hell, I bet they don't even put "Gnu" before "Linux".

Re:STEALING!

[Hellkitten]

They aren't communists in Norway,

Nope we're facist

they are just plain EEE-VIL!

Nope not PLAIN evil

And SATANISTS!

Nope. Believing in satan implies believing in God which implies believing in Jesus. And Jesus said something like "All those who believe in me shall not be lost but have eternal life". That means all satanists goes to heaven and we don't want that. We believe in Odin and Thor instead

And they "laak to eat bibies"!

Nope, the flavor isn't right, better to wait until about age 5

And they're mean to puppies!

Hell yeah, if we wait until they're grown they'll be able to bite back, don't want that

Hell, I bet they don't even put "Gnu" before "Linux".

What's linux? I use GNU/Stallmanix

Martin Luther King jr, minster dead at 58

[Anonymous Coward]

I just heard the sad news on the radio, beloved civil rights activist Martin Luther King jr. was found dead at his grave in Atlanta this afternoon. Authorities say that he was an apparent victim of a gunshot.

Dr. King was piviotal in the civil rights movement of the 50's & 60's.

I sure everyone in the United States will miss him, even if you didn't enjoy desegregation, there's no denying his contributions to human rights.

Truly an American hero.

Hopefully,

[Anonymous Coward]

the Palestinians will deal with you and your Jewish friends.

Re:Hopefully,

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-semetic Natzi.

Remember OJ Simpson?

[Malc]

A year after his criminal trial, he a href="http://www.crimelibrary.com/classics4/oj/16. htm">faced a civil trial. It had a different result. This wasn't considered double jeopardy. I don't know if there is any resemblance with this Norwegian situation though.

Re:Remember OJ Simpson?

[gengee]

Yes, the key word being civil. Note that the Jeopardy clause says no person shall be "twice put in jeopardy of life of limb." Being made to pay 30-million dollars + your life's earning doesn't double jeopardy make.

Re:Remember OJ Simpson?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd avoid taking the phrase "life or limb" in the Fifth Amendment too literally, lest the Administration decide it means that unless they intend to execute or dismember you, they can try you indefinitely until they get a conviction or guilty plea.

For example, how many times should someone be subject to civil trials for the same offense because the plaintiff didn't feel he got a big enough award?

(Nevermind that the case in the story is subject to law of Norway, not of the US, regardless of whose financial interest is pressing the matter. "Mmm... pressed matter.")

Re:Remember OJ Simpson?

[Hellkitten]

No this has nothing to do with the Norwegian situation, he is beeing tried for the same crime not a "variation"

The Norwegian legal system has three levels and you can always appeal to the higher court, but the higher court might not accept the case. Usually the supreme court doesn't take a case onless it has an impact on legal principles (eg how an old law applies to a new situation not tried before, or how a new law should be interpreted)

The dvd-jon case may well end up in the supreme court since it contains a mix of new technological issues and old copyright law, otoh the case might be rejected on the grounds that making a tool to play back dvds on linux falls under the norwegian equivalent of "fair use" and that there's nothing new

I bought it, I should be able to play it in Linux.

[Maul]

Additionally, while this is not a popular idea around here, isn't it the companies right to decide that they only want their disks to play on windows systems?

No, it isn't. Once I buy a DVD, the disc is MINE. I should have the right to play it on any player that I can get it to work on. It isn't necessarily the responsibility of the company to facilitate it, but if I should be able to play my DVD on my Linux box if I want to figure out how to do it. DeCSS has been very useful to me, as I can play my DVDs, all of which are legit, on my Laptop, which runs Linux.

I don't see anyone saying that people should be allowed to hack popular windows only games to run on liniux, so why should movies be different?

Except that people DO use WINE to to get their "Windows Only" games to run on Linux. People use it to play EverQuest, Starcraft, and many other games that the programmers didn't intend to run in Linux. Again, there is nothing wrong with it if the people doing it have legitimately purchased the software.

Hollywood and RIAA is behind it..

[Anonymous Coward]

..the probably offered free satellite pr0n to
Norway if they were to take a stand against
the demoralizing activity of hacking software. ..however..
Lech would most likely be offered the same
deal if he were to conceed to filming
the movie "Hack-Naked"
or
"I Hacked the Emperor's Clothes"

Pronounce that.

[LiftOp]

I mean come on.

Not to poke fun, but if I understand it correctly, we'd all have a little fun prØning the bushes, and drinking prØn juice.

Re:Pronounce that.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Ø" is pronounced approx like the "i" in "girl."

Re:Pronounce that.

[BrainInAJar]

eww.. pr0n juice

Liberal Scandinavians?

[Anonymous Coward]

If anything this goes to show just how commited and driven the the various studios, labels and their entourage of lobbyists and lawyers are.

Traditionaly the Scandinavian countries have been liberal with their attitudes. I think this perfectly illustrates the clout you can wield with a few million dollars of lobbying in the right place.

So whose worse the Danes with their p2p screenshots or the norwegians for trying to make an example of some poor kid?

It's all a bit insidious isn't it?

I wonder ...

[thedbp]

I wonder who lined the pockets of Økokrim to get them to put Jon in retrial. I mean the facts in the case haven't changed, he was found not guilty, and he's too freaking young to be facing these kinds of penalties for doing what he thought (and in my opinion is) a community service.

Let's burn down the Økokrim office buildings.

Re:I wonder ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Too young to be facing these kinds of penalties"? Now, while I agree that he shouldn't be convicted, the penalties requested by Økokrim weren't exactly very stiff: Confiscation of his computer equipment (which the policy already confiscated for evidence, and which is worthless by now), a puny fine and a 60 day suspendeded sentence.

Re:I wonder ...

[TheLink]

Now this is flamebait +1. ;).

ditto Sigh

[Mantrid]

I am not from the US.

Re:Okay, screw the European critics

[Anonymous Coward]

Norway in not a member of the EU

5) Air

[Mantrid]

Exactly! But don't forget Air! I mean the criminals must be using air right? Especially if they make their escape on foot - without air they could run.

You hit the nail on the head though. In Canada there's a tariff on CD-R's just because they *might* be used to copy music. Not sure about DVD-R tariffs though...it's all so stupid!

Re:5) Air

[surprise_audit]

Ah yes, air. Sorry, forgot that one... :)

As for DVD-Rs, theoretically they ought to be immune from tariffs because the CSS key portion is already written over with junk. Bet the MPAA/RIAA still find a way to levy a tax on them, though. They'll probably claim that the DVD-R can still store DVD-ripped-to-AVI's, not to mention a ferocious quantity of MP3s. Speaking of which, any bets on how long it takes them to get the same tax levied on hard disks, for the same reason??

Re:5) Air

[squeegee_boy]

The tariff is on "recordable media," not any particular type of it (at least, not a fixed list of types). The CPCC website describes it as a framework more than a tax, that can be applied to a (periodically reviewed) list of media.

More info: http://www.cpcc.ca/english/tariffInContext.htm

Re:STUPID!

[Anonymous Coward]

This wasn't intended to be flamebait, but a statement of the truth that most Americans are too 'proud' to accept.

What the terrorists did to the US is inexcusable.

However, very few people here seem to even be interested in why a group of people could hate us so much that they would do such a thing.

How about our government leaving them high and dry. What about when we supported them with weapons and money to continue their gorilla attacks against Soviet Russia. When it was all over they were left with no support and no protection.

Does this excuse what they did? Absolutely not! But I don't blame them at all for their hate.

America needs to wake up and get themselves off of that ego stroking pacifier called the television. Find out all the things our Government and it's "controlling corporations" are doing wrong and make an effort to stop it.

Think your vote means something? Heh, take a good look at campaign finance and you'll find out who is really in control.

Re:1st CmdrTaco/Rob Malda molests little boys post

[Anonymous Coward]

What's that coming out of your ass? Could it be a big stinky log of FAILURE? I THINK SO!

Re:Firstenposten!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you investigated, you would probably find that "burly nigger lifers" are pretty rare in Norwegian prisons.

fark linked article says otherwise

[SpiceWare]

Found at fark last Friday

Boastful killer shows the court who's stupid

A man who wrote a prosecutor a letter boasting about killing a 16-year-old girl - thinking a court ruling prevented him from getting the death penalty - has been convicted of capital murder.

A jury on Wednesday found Paul Powell, 24, guilty of attempted rape and murder in the 1999 stabbing death of Stacie Reed.

Powell had been convicted in 2000, but the Virginia Supreme Court overturned the verdict, ruling he could not be executed because prosecutors lacked evidence that Powell tried to rape or rob the girl.

Re:fark linked article says otherwise

[MillionthMonkey]

I am shocked... SHOCKED... to hear that Hollywood movies are not presenting sound legal advice in matters of criminal law! I have a mental image of this guy protesting on his way back to death row. "But... Tommy Lee Jones said I'd be OK!"

The original 2000 conviction and death sentence were overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court when the justices ruled that the older girl's murder and her sister's rape were not parts of the same crime. Under Virginia law, that is a necessary element for capital punishment. The murder has to be "aggravated" by some other crime, like a rape or a robbery, in order to become a capital murder.

According to the authorities, his motive was the fact that the murder victim had been dating a black guy. (To get a feel for the type of genius we're talking about.) In the letter, he explained how he stabbed and killed the older girl after she resisted his attempts to rape her. Then he drank an iced tea, sat down on the couch, and smoked a cigarette, while he waited for her younger sister to come home from school so he could rape her.

In the earlier trial there had apparently been no physical evidence of any attempted rape of the older girl, and she was dead and not talking. So the capital murder conviction was predicated on the younger girl's rape being part of the same crime. By declaring them as being two separate crimes, the court had decoupled them, rendering the capital murder conviction invalid. But the letter blew this logic out of the water, by establishing that there had been an attempted rape of the older girl (a crime for which the defendant had not been tried) and by providing continuity between the crimes inflicted on each of the two sisters. Since there had never been an acquittal, only an overturned conviction, the prosecution was free to try the case again in light of the new evidence.

What's interesting is the intense personal relationship that seems to have developed on both sides between this guy and the prosecutor. This is what apparently incited the stupid letter in the first place.

"Since ... the Va. Supreme Court said that I can't be charged with capital murder again, I figured I would tell you the rest of what happened on Jan. 29, 1999 to show you how stupid all of y'all ... are. ....I can't believe that y'all thought I told you everything. Well it's too late now, nothing you can do about it now ... Do you just hate yourself for being so stupid and for [messing] up and saving me?"

What a dumbass!

DMCA doesn't apply in Norway.

[klang]

RIAA has no hold over Norway.

See there are theese little things called borders in the real world, so no matter what happens in this case, it only applies in Norway.

BUT, it still means that you should hold on to your copy of DeCSS, because you woun't get it from a site in Norway any time soon.

Re:DMCA doesn't apply in Norway.

[Amazing Quantum Man]

See there are theese little things called borders in the real world,

Tell that to the French (Yahoo! case), the Aussies (Libel case), the US (Sklyarov), and the MPAA and RIAA (anything that would have them think up a new business model for the 21st century).

Actually no

[wass]

He was *STEALING*.

No, he's guilty of creating a tool that could possibly be used for stealing, but doesn't necessarily have to be used for stealing.

It's more like he's being prosecuted for having invented the crowbar. Suppose all shipments within a country or countries come in boxes that require you to purchase an ACME-brand "crate opener" for you to retrieve your shipped items. However, ACME doesn't provide their brand-named crate-opener in your neck of the woods. You decide that since you bought the crate yourself, you are entitled to the contents. So you invent the crowbar and pry the crate open to reap the sweet sweet goods inside.

But now you've bypassed the purpose of ACME-brand crate-openers, so ACME prosecutes you. They claim that since you can now use your crowbar to open crates that you didn't buy, you are thus guilty of theft.

The whole question really boils down to whether you are entitled to open the crate that you have purchased. And is having possession a tool that MIGHT be used for stealing illegal?

Crowbars can be used to smash windows, pry open doors and crates not belonging to you, and all other sorts of nasty stuff. But they do have legitimate and legal purpose. So, is it illegal for me to possess a crowbar since it can make stealing much easer? Would it have been illegal for me to invent the crowbar (mostly a trivial invention, but still)?

This case is not just a simple black/white issue of stealing.

Re:Actually no

[Hrothgar The Great]

SARCASM. Look it up. Christ, no one around here can take a joke at all!

Re:Actually no

[wass]

no one around here can take a joke at all!

well, jokes are usually funny, and sarcasm usually has some hint of humor or cleverness to it.

as to why i bothered replying, well there probably just might be a few slashdotters who actually believe the MPAA's arguments, etc. So whatever, if 5 minutes of my time can possibly help someone see a different viewpoint, then I'm all for it. If I wasted 5 minutes of my time, then so be it.

Re:Actually no

[BrainInAJar]

What about lockpicks? you can't own them unless you're a locksmith (or a cop). They're a tool. If I lock myself out of my car, because it's new I can't unbend a coathanger to open it, and I'm not allowed to have lockpicks (ignore the argument that if i have my lockpicks i likely have my keys, rather than the lot of 'em being "safely" inside the car)

Re:Actually no

[lactose99]

That's because lockpicks are specifically designed to open locks you don't have a key to. DeCSS is different. Jon created it so he could watch DVDs on his Linux box (a DVD which he had purchased legally). It so happens that an unpleasant (or pleasant, depending on how you look at it) side-effect of his creation is that you can use it to copy a DVD.

DeCSS's specific purpose is not to copy DVDs, but to allow one who has legally purchased a DVD to watch it on the equiptment of his choice. Quite different than a lockpick's intended purpose.

Re:Actually no

[eaolson]

No, he's guilty of creating a tool that could possibly be used for stealing, but doesn't necessarily have to be used for stealing.

To really nitpick, he's guilty of creating a tool that could possibly be used for copyright infringement, not theft. To my knowledge, and rhetoric aside, no one claims that piracy is stealing (in the legal sense), but rather a violation of the copyright.

It's more like he's being prosecuted for having invented the crowbar.

A better (but still flawed) analogy would be to suggest he's being prosecuted for having invented the Xerox machine.

Re:Actually no

[GreyPoopon]

well, jokes are usually funny

Try reading it out loud, verbally emphasizing the words that are in caps. It starts to sound like the Month Python "spam" skit.

whatever, if 5 minutes of my time can possibly help someone see a different viewpoint, then I'm all for it.

Not a problem. I, for one, appreciated your response.

Re:Actually no

[Frobnicator]

The crowbar example is badly flawed. I can think of no similar analogy.

The whole issue bothers me. You don't need a program like DeCSS to copy a DVD, you need a program like Nero Burning Rom, which makes copies of DVD's quite easily, and is not surrounded by any contraversy.

I believe that a DVD needs the CSS entact for use -- all the pirated DVD's are (or should be) bit-for-bit copies of the originals. You can run DeCSS to extract the video mpeg streams, which could then be viewed on an mpeg viewer, but if you run DeCSS, unless your DVD player also plays raw mpegs, it won't work.

Just like the ElcomSoft case, I believe that a through search of pirated DVD's will yield no or nearly no instances of piracy using that tool. That's mainly because the tool is impractical as a piracy device.

frob.

Re:Actually no

[wass]

Try reading it out loud,

Yeah, I understand the original parent's intent in posting, my response wasn't to him/her per se, just a general "blowing off steam" about MPAA claiming it's stealing when in fact it's not at all.

I dunno, the parent post seemed like a good place to do it...

Re:Actually no

[swillden]

I believe that a DVD needs the CSS entact for use -- all the pirated DVD's are (or should be) bit-for-bit copies of the originals.

They don't need CSS to work. You can rip, unencrypt and then write the unencrypted stream back onto a DVD and it will play just fine. That is important, because otherwise the average person couldn't put their home movies on a DVD and expect them to work.

However, it seems unlikely that the major pirates bother decrypting the stream; much easier to just copy it.

Re:Actually no

[Eivind]

Actually, he was not even creating a tool that could be used for unauthorised copying.

He created a Visual Basic frontend that made an *existing* tool for decrypting DVD-movies easier for novice Windows-users to use.

Re:Actually no

[Tassach]

Actually there are only a very few places where possession of lockpicks is itself a crime.

Re:STUPID!

[surprise_audit]

Think your vote means something? Heh, take a good look at campaign finance and you'll find out who is really in control.

If I were allowed to vote in the USA, I would, if only to be able to claim I voted for "the other guy". As I'm not a citizen, I have no vote, but I'm expected to pay taxes...

No, I'm not bitching, just stating a fact. I may very well apply for citizenship once my period of taxation-without-representation ends in about 4 years. That's assuming our glorious world leaders don't talk themselves into nuking each other any time soon... :)

GREAT news!

[swordgeek]

OK, the government has no case, and they're appealing? GREAT! Take it all the way to the highest court in the land. Get a ruling that's binding for the entire EU! Make it clear with as much authority as legally possible that JON IS INNOCENT!

That's why I'm in favour of this latest development.

Re:GREAT news!

[Rumagent]

Get a ruling that's binding for the entire EU!

That would be quite an achievement - considering the fact, that Norway isn't a member of the EU.

Rumagent

Re:GREAT news!

[Anonymous Coward]

....but Norway is not a member of EU I'm afraid

Great plan otherwise.. ;)

Re:GREAT news!

[swordgeek]

Gah! I knew that, and then I forgot to point it out! Too many things in my head this morning, I guess.

I was thinking that after it goes through all of the Norwegian courts, charges could be pressed from neighboring countries. Maybe Australia or the US will eventually get in the game, and try to bring Jon to injustice. If enough courts around the world keep fighting this utterly clear-cut case, then eventually most of the world will end up forcing themselves into rational legislation, at least on one issue.

As an aside,I was under the belief that Norway was likely to petition to be admitted to the EU in the next year or so. Is this correct?

Re:GREAT news!

[Anonymous Coward]

Courts don't fight cases. Courts judge on cases brought before them. No court will unilaterally step up and offer a judgement. Particularly not as this case has very clear cut jurisdiction: He was in Norway when he carried out the acts he has been charged for.

And regarding Norway petitioning to join the EU, not bloody likely. Norway voted down EU membership in '72, and again in '94, and while EU membership is more popular than it was, things change quickly once people start preparing for a referendum.

Re:Where's the � key?

[Anonymous Coward]

;-)

Re:STEALING! (Uh... I don't think so)

[farmkid]

As has been rehashed here many times, his software does nothing to enable copying CDs (which _would_ be stealing). It merely allows those who have legitimately paid for a CD to play it on devices (such as a Linux box) which has not been blessed by the music industry powers that be. Those who want to copy/steal can do so handily without the program.

No, it doesn't

[Lionel Hutts]

I am familiar with this case. He was not acquited: he was convicted, and his conviction was thrown out, as the article says. Retrials in that situation are routine.

See the difference?

Haven't I seen this before?

[AyeRoxor!]

"Norway's special division for white-collar crimes, Økokrim, has decided to appeal the acquittal of 19-year-old Jon Lech Johansen, accused of copyright violation for helping bypass DVD code protection, web site Nettavisen reports."

Sources say the legal team was threatened by the MPAA with a movie about them that totally skews the actual facts and makes them look like idiots. When asked if they meant it, the MPAA said, "One word: Takedown." The appeal was filed within the hour...

Re:Again..the only reason for the hype

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, I don't have a windows partition
and yes, I get work done just fine. Forte4J/netbeans, kdbg, valgrind, eclipse, openoffice...

I do appreciate Ogle with DeCSS support since otherwise I'd be unable to play any DVDs.

And as far as I'm concerned, image quality on my 23inch monitor far exceeds that of a TV dvd player.

Civil != Criminal

[PatientZero]

O.J. was tried in criminal and then civil court. That does not constitue double-jeopardy as that only applies to the criminal courts. As well, criminal cases require "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" while civil cases require less, only "a preponderance of the evidence" (meaning better than 50% likelihood that they are guilty).

Thus, O.J. was found innocent in the criminal case and guilty in the civil one.

Next time you Americans think of bashing the USA

[alecto]

. . . remember that in America, even O.J. Simpson couldn't be retried criminally once acquitted.

Double Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US Double Jeopardy applies ONLY to crimes which can cost you your life, we call them capital crimes. As opposed to lesser offenses that can get you thrown in the slammer.

Good time for him...

[WetCat]

... to leave that country... if he still can do it. ...sigh...

Re:NAZIs

[Anonymous Coward]

If I remember correctly, the Norwegian resistance was integral in the sabotage of heavy water collection which was needed for the Nazi nuclear arms development.

Re:Next time you Americans think of bashing the US

[Anonymous Coward]

OJ just "alledgedly" killed some people. He didn't fuck with the MPAA. If he had, I'm sure they would have found a way...

Re:STEALING! (Uh... I don't think so)

[Samus]

Technically copying the DVD wouldn't be stealing under fair use copyright laws. You are allowed to make a back up afterall. It was only after the heavy handed DMCA was put in place that it became a crime to circumvent digital copy protection.

Neither "Law & Order" or "Jeopardy" runs in No

[klang]

..It's like "taking the fifth" and not being an American .. or not even being in the US, you can't do it!
Different country, differet rules, it's that simple

Oh, by the way, don't try demanding a Spanish, German, French or Italian police person to read your "Miranda rights" .. you don't have them in those countries.. you have other rights, but people generally doesn't know them .. they know the Miranda bit though .. in any of the above languages because of oversatuation and translation of american movies.

Why is it OK to bitch about this one but not...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK - Lets once again test/expose /. hypocracy:

It's perfectly OK and good for karma to rail against the Norway prosecutors for appealing a decision that is good for the defendent DVD-Jon

BUT when state prosecutors try to appeal a decision that is good for Microsoft suddenly this is double jeopardy (which it's not for a multitude of reasons but one of the more obvious ones is that lawyers who KNOW the law and deal with it every day aren't about to just go "whoops I forgot I just screwed myself" and try something hoping no one notices? That should be clue enough not to embaress yourself by screaming double jeopardy) and the MPAA is involved and whine whine whine?

Look - it's perfectly normal for one party to appeal the result of a trial. Happens all the, by either party.

What bothered me is that here we have a court that came to a decision. The losing party decided to file an appeal. Huge outrage - but where is the outrage when the court finds the settlement terms for MS acceptable but the prosecutors appeal. Or... is this just typical anti-MS hipocrasy again? Never mind - I know already.

Re:Why is it OK to bitch about this one but not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Double jeopardy is a violation of human rights. Shame there's no oil in Norway, or we might have gone to war over it.

~~~

Once. Not over and over.

[Gorimek]

Both sides can appeal to the higher court, and in rare precedence setting cases after that to the Supreme Court.

But once the case has gone through that process, you can not be retried for the same crime. So it is still not possible for the gevernment to harass people by retrying them again and again in perpetuity, which was the abuse of power the US constitution "double jeopardy" rule was designed to avoid.

Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

The MPAA's check finally cleared.

Re:Neither "Law & Order" or "Jeopardy" runs in

[sebmol]

Actually, you don't have to be an American for the provisions in the 5th amendment to apply. You just have to be under the jurisdiction of the American court system. In general, the provisions of the constitution apply to all people (persons) under the jurisdiction of the United States, whether they be citizens or not.

Re:STEALING! (Uh... I don't think so)

[farmkid]

Right you are, and I neglected to mention this important point. However, I was concerned with refuting the claim that Jon's software was a theft tool, and when I mentioned copying, it was in the sense of making copies for distribution to others.

All your CSS codes...

[axis-techno-geek]

...are belonging to us!

Re:All your CSS codes...

[LittleBigLui]

that would be

All your CSS code are belong to us!!

i know this is slashdot but come on, at least TRY to write proper engrish, will you?

Re:Okay, screw the European critics

[milktoastman]

It occurred to me, but the point is that I hate how everyone takes the moral high ground about criticizing the US as though they are perfect. It's hypocritical. This is the way I hear you: "The US is a bunch of overbearing, hateful people who feel they are in a position to criticize the world. Of course, we ARE in a morally superior position from which we can critize, so we can overbearingly hate them. And that's just fine because we have less money...the burden is on the 'racist, cowboy hooligans' to prove their righteousness, not on us to prove ours!" But anyway, I did read above that the EU now interprets Double Jeopardy as illegal. Good. As for Microsoft, they were found guilty, that was appealed (in the defense's favor) but they still were found guilty of some things. What the states "don't accept" is the settlement. Whether they are guilty is not being questioned, but rather how much they should suffer.

Re:Where's the � key?

[yggdrazil]

Økokrim?!? Where's my keyboard's "Ø" key?

To the right of the "L" key. Assuming you have a Norwegian or Danish keyboard.

If you don't, you can use Ö instead. It's basically the same letter, the way it's written in Sweden or Germany.

The "Ø" sound is the same as the "U" in the English word "run".

No

[CausticWindow]

It is not bizarre and it was not previously tried before their analog of the US supreme court.

One thing that is bizzare, is how so many americans firmly believe that their way is the only way. When you don't really know anything about their system and many of you evidently don't know much about your own system either, why do you automaticly assume that your system is superior in every way?

I guess it's just the American way.

Re:No

[JWW]

But, in this case our system is actually superior.

Now of course if he were tried here he might have been found guilty the first time, which would have been bad.

Anyway I think this shows that protection from double jeapordy _is_ important.

The framers were geniuses. The constitution may not be perfect, but its still a mighty good document.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

How those this show that the US system is superior? The Norwegian system still have significant safeguards in place to protect the accused (only three tries - one in each level of the court, the supreme courts decision is final, stricter rules for conviction for each appeal), while at the same time it makes it harder for criminals to go free over technicalities or errors.

Re:No

[z_gringo]

How those this show?????

The Norwegian system still have??????

First, and obviously, its a lot easier to convice someone the second and third time around. Thats why the double jeopardy law exists in the first place. It is unfair to the innocent, and it is much more likely that more innocents will be convicted if such laws didnt exist.

Second, Most Norwegians I know speak better english than I do. They can certainly conjegate present tense verbs with no problem. Whats your story?

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

They can certainly conjegate present tense verbs with no problem.

And you are from...?

States rights

[mmol_6453]

It's the old issue of states' rights. See nullification.

I used to be massively in favor of a strong federal gov't over states, (what you'd expect from Republican public school teachers covering the (American) Civil War) until I got involved with this crowd.

Now I find myself standing on the battlefield between the two. Quite uncomfortable.

Re:States rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh yes... indoctrination of kiddies political views. What else is school for? God bless America. Bleh.

Re:States rights

[srelan]

Republican??!! Most Republican's I know are avowed Federalists promoting limited Federal government.

A m��se once bit my sister!

[Ranger]

This very prescient of Monty Python to include this subliminally in the credits for Monty Python and the Holy Grail.A note on interpretation. Moose is the Norwegian codeword for the MPAA:

A moose once bit my sister...

No reali! She was karving her initials on the moose with the sharpened end of an interspace toothbrush given her by Svenge -- her brother-in-law -- an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian movies: "The Hgt Hands of an Oslo Dentist," "Fillings of Passion," "The huge Molars of Horst Nordfink"....

Mind you, moose bites kan be pretti nasti...

...so can the bite of a Jack Valenti scorned.

Re:Firstenposten!

[Anonymous Coward]

True, compared to the USA or an African country.

However, compared to the rest of the Norwegian society, there's a shitload of niggers, Arabs, f. Yugoslavs and various other human waste in prison.

Wow.. This is a major Plus for the US Legal Syste

[lordmage]

Double Jeopardy is a foundation of our consitution. It includes "What could be lesser included charges" because it is based on the OFFENSE (time frame being within a set bounds) not on the laws you are to be tried with.

The case where the guy and his ex-gf kills his wife. They find him not guilty and then they find pictures of the actual crime being committed. Sure hes guilty, but he never went to jail on the murder (They did get him on perjury charges).

For all the crap about the DMCA and the laws and such in the US, I am so glad we have Double Jeopardy and the right to be tried by our peers. We can get off by jury nullifaction and say "SCREW YOU GOVERNEMENT, the COUNTRY wanted it this way" while in other countries, you can be tried until the government gets you.

And this is good how...?

[Gorimek]

So how exactly is it wonderful that a double murderer could walk free, mostly by beeing rich? Do you expect this example to make the rest of the world see the folly of their judical systems and adopt the US way wholesale?

The "criminally" part is telling, since OJ actually was retried for the exact same crime, and found guilty. Only in a civil court.

Re:And this is good how...?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is that he, though obviously guilty, was tried and acquitted, and that was the end of it, criminally. Civil liability in no way put him in jeopardy of life or limb. While his particular case was a miscarriage of justice, the principle that no person can be tried criminally twice for the same offense, which we take for granted, does not exist in less developed countries like Norway.

~~~

Re:And this is good how...?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know we're picking nits here, but he was found liable, not guilty. There is no guilty/not guilty in civil court.

Re:And this is good how...?

[Anonymous Coward]

> the principle that no person can be tried criminally twice for the same offense, which we take for granted, does not exist in less developed countries ...

So, in developed country like USA justise is for sale? Highest bid wins?

Not Surprised at All

[Royster]

I think it was pretty inevitable that this acquittal was appealed. The judge had to make rulings of how the law applies to this kind of charge. Those type of rulings (ie.e what the prosecution has to prove to sustain a guilty verdict) are exactly the kinds of things that get appealed.

It's inportant to distinguish finding of fact from findings of law. Remember the Jackson findings in the Microsoft case? He seperated his findings of fact from his findings of how the law applied to the case. It is his legal findings which were overruled, not his findings of fact.

Had this case gone the other way, Jon's lawyers would be appealing the legal rulings the same way the prosecution is today.

As regards double jeopardy, if the appeals court finds that the judge made errors in the application of the law, then that trial was flawed and it's result is null. A retrial typically results if an appeal does not uphold the ruling of a trial court.

Re:Where's the � key?

[funkdancer]

In Windows, you can simply type ALT + 0216 on the keypad for the capital Ø. Lower case is ALT + 0248. Other nice to have Norwegian characters: 0229=å, 0230=æ.

Being that my name is Jørgen and I live in Australia, that's one feature I really like in Windows. And yes, I describe it as the "u" in _surf_ here. :)

Cheers.

OT: Movie Double Jeopardy

[Amazing Quantum Man]

I think the theory was that since she was trid and [don't know verdict] of murdering him, and since you can only be murdered once, there was no way she could be tried for the second "murder", since it's impossible to murder a dead man... or is it?

Re:OT: Movie Double Jeopardy

[Alsee]

since she was trid and [don't know verdict] of murdering him

Tried and convicted of murdering her husband,

there was no way she could be tried for the second "murder", since it's impossible to murder a dead man... or is it?

She can murder a "dead man" because he wasn't really dead.. And since it is a seperate instance of a crime she can be conviced of murdering him again. Of course, she would be able to get the first conviction expunged from he record based on the new evidence chuckle.

And if she was convicted a second time, Dr. Frankenstein can still come along 5 years later and revive him, and she could be convicted of killing him a third time. She could probably then get the second murder conviction reduced to attempted murder, hehe.

-

NO! Stealing is a property crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealing is a property crime. It is when one person takes an item of property which another person has title to. First of all, DVD-Jon is not accused of unauthorized copying of any DVDs. However, even if he were, it still wouldn't be stealing, because no property is involved! Movies are not property! They are intellectual creations, free for everyone to use, copy and distribute... with one exception: For a limited period of time, the creator of the work is granted a monopoly on making copies of the work. That's it. That is not like property in any way. Once someone has title to some kind of property, that title lasts forever and is absolutely exclusive. No one can come to a house that I own and say, "I need to use your bathroom, this is fair use, so you have to let me." No one can say to me, "You've owned this house for 30 years, so now your title to it has expired, and I get to live here if I want to." That's ridiculous! And that's how copyright works: I can take bits of other people's work and use it without their permission, and after their term of monopoly expires, I can copy the whole thing, make derivative works, anything I want to! So, obviously, unauthorized copying is nothing at all like stealing because intellectual creations are not at all a form of property.

Re:Legitimate use - Ski Masks

[Anonymous Coward]

Cop: Come out with your hands up!
"Robber": What did I do? What did I do?
Cop: I saw you ski mask in there, don't deny it!
"Robber": But I like to go skiing, how am I supposed to keep my face warm?
Cop: No excuses now, we have proof. 90% of robbers use ski masks while committing crimes. Now, you'll have to come with me.
"Robber": But, but...

better things to do.

[jez_f]

Gee I would love to live in Norway, a place where the corts and goverment procicuters have nothing better to do than to victimise teanagers who piss of the american recording industry. What a lovely crime free place it must be
Over here in the real world there are many crimes being commited and criminals getting away with it. I think I saw in the scum (sun newspaper UK) that 90% of crimes go unpunnished.
Calling in a specilist white collar crime unit to prosicute someone for something they did when they were 15 is ridiculas. Well I suppose school uniforms do have white collars, but that is not the point.
what a pathetic waste of time and resources this retial is, I hope the fool who took the bribe to make it go ahead realises what a stupid use of the court system this is.

Well, yes, but

[Anonymous Coward]

If you come upon a bunch of savages, you may not try to change them, but you can make fun of them, because they are ignorant savages.

Thats why god made ignorant savages, so we can make fun of them.

Like in this case. We're making fun of the norwegians because legally speaking, they are a bunch of ignorant savages.

We're not trying to change their system, but we can laugh at them being a bunch of utter, gravysucking, studid knumbskulls.

And I mean that in the technical definition, not the slang definition.

This really pisses me off

[asscroft]

Now I don't give a rats ass about Iraq, but if we were to champion a war for our rights, I'd be suited up and standing at attention.

Hang in there John.

F-YOU RIAA/MPAA. MAY YOU ALL BURN IN HELL!!!!

Multiple trials

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how non-Americans badmouth the U.S. so much accusing them of being backward in terms of human rights and whatnot and yet, if I'm not mistaken, this kind of prosecution is not possible under the terms of the U.S. constitution. This is something that I think the rest of us should catch up on. I've seen other instances of this kind of power being abused. It's pathetic.

Re:Multiple trials

[hhknighter]

function big_corp($money, $connection){
$target = to_blame($money);
if(!$target) $target = to_set_example($money);
$weap = get_lawyers();
do{
$result =sue($money, $connection, $target, $weap);
if ($result == "undesirable")
$target = appeal($money, $target, $connection);
}while ($money != 0 && $target = "bendover");
}

call when needed

It is not a retrial

[Anonymous Coward]

Taco has an alter ego as a Norwegian judge. It's a dupe trial.

Norwegian Law

[Shadowfoot]

Can Norwegian courts change the laws? I believe that the US courts can change US laws but that the Westminster system cannot do so. If a law change can occur, does the appeal to a higher court prevent the law change?

Re:Norwegian Law

[toriver]

Can Norwegian courts change the laws?

No, but they are the ones interpreting them, like in most systems which separate the powers into those who give, enforce and judge according to, laws. That's why lawyers are (somewhat) important, because they're supposed to be aware of precedence, or how previous judgements have interpreted laws.

For instance the age of consent in Norway is 16, but a 17-year old is unlikely to be convicted if he has consensual sex with a 14-year old.

In the "DVD-Jon" case, the judgement points out that the prosecution failed to come up with actual cases of DeCSS having been used to copy illegally aquired movies, and that the possibility to use it for crimes is irrelevant (according to precedence) as long as it cannot be shown to have been so used.

Re:Norwegian Law

[radish]

What's more, in the UK system, courts cannot write or alter laws explicitly, but of course their decisions and interpretations become part of the body of historical precedent. This will be used to guide judges in future similar cases.

Correction

[paul.dunne]

s/has decided to/has been told to/

Now, I wonder by whom?

And You Guys Dog on Bush/Ashcroft?

[tjstork]

I just think its funny that Europeans don't have double jeopardy. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in my life. You guys don't have any civil rights at all.

Wow.

Re:And You Guys Dog on Bush/Ashcroft?

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't read one such lame flamebait for long..

We have a very nice system that works. You say we don't have any right but I don't think you understand how the courts work.
We like our system, it works and it is very fair.
And we don't kill our citizen so even if we would make mistakes we can correct them!

Re:And You Guys Dog on Bush/Ashcroft?

[Crazy Viking]

I just think its funny that Europeans don't have double jeopardy. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read in my life. You guys don't have any civil rights at all.

I think you are demonstrating seriously poor judgement here. The "double jeopardy" term is a US legal implementation that is designed to protect US citizens from being harassed by the government. It is how the US has chosen to solve this problem.

European legal systems also have mechanisms to protect the individual from being harassed. Each country will have a different legal process and thus they will need different mechanisms to protect their citizens from harassment. The Norwegian system has such protection but it is not the same as double jeopardy in the US.

Just because something is different does not mean that it is less or more.

Bush is holding US and non-US citizens imprisoned without trial and conviction. In most countries that we like to compare ourselves with this is considered a breach of their human rights. That many people are critical of this practice is only fair and right.

Re:And You Guys Dog on Bush/Ashcroft?

[tjstork]

Oh, now you've done it. I was just joking around on the last board where I hoped I could just joke around and not got embroiled in the same old controversies.

If the US lived up to its constitution, double jeorpardy is the perfect solution to capricious governments picking on a people. However, we are now a nation where the constitution is a document whose pieces are defended by only particular parties, and no party defends them all. Democrats are big into the 1st amendment, while Republicans are into the 2nd. And, both parties forget that the Bill of Rights was NEVER intended to be an enumeration of the only rights we have.

Sigh.

I have no idea what we should do with the Taliban POWs at Guantomino. I guess at some point they should be repatriated by the Afghan government.

My healthy distrust of any centralized power makes it impossible for me to condone the holding of American citizens or American nationals without trial. If they did something wrong, try them. If not, let them go. Just because a president of my own political party got elected does make his abuses of federal power any more right than when democrats do it.

If anything, Bush is a walking, talking argument for the power of the federal government needing to be checked. He has become everything that right wingers accused the liberals of plotting to do. I think I'm the only assault rifle toting right wing lunatic that things that Bush is a total prick.

Oh well. Maybe it's too much C++ on native Win32.

Innocence Project results

[Eric Green]

The results of the Innocence Project show that the American criminal justice system is a travesty. Only a few people wealthy enough to finance their own defense get a fair trial. The rest basically get railroaded into jail. Granted, most of them are scumbags who actually DID do the crime of which they were convicted... but that does not change the fact that "fair trial" is an oxymoron to most who encounter the criminal justice system. According to their statistics, police misconduct occurs in more than half of convictions of innocent people. Another big contributor is bad defense lawyering, which occurs in close to 1/3rd of convictions of innocent people. Furthermore, the Illinois death penalty statistics suggest that at least half of the people convicted of death-penalty-worthy crimes should not have been convicted (more people were exonerated and released than executed).

What this basically suggests is that the United States is not the bastion of freedom that is often held up to the world. If you piss off a policeman, he can drop a baggy in your car and say "Oh look, what's this?" and bust you for drug possession even if you've never done anything stronger than aspirin. The only difference between the United States and, say, Mexico, is that our cops generally do believe they work for the people rather than for, say, drug traffickers, so they tend to use their mojo on scumbags who, in their opinion, need to be in jail. But that doesn't make the system any fairer if a cop just doesn't like the way you look (e.g., you're a black man driving alone in a ritzy white neighborhood and thus guilty of driving while black) and concocts some lie to justify stopping you ("he was weaving in and out of traffic and slowing suspiciously in front of houses as if scoping them out for a robbery").

Can own lockpicks in my state

[Eric Green]

They are legal to own in Arizona, though you better have a good reason for possessing them if a cop finds them on you. The classification of lockpicks as "burglar tools" happens only if the State can prove intent to use them in a burglary, and typically only happens as an additional charge thrown at you if they're discovered on your person if caught during or after the commission of a burglary. See Arizona Revised Statute 13-1505 A. Possession of burglary tools; classification, which states, in part, "...intending to use or permit the use of such an item in the commission of a burglary."

No use in a burglary = no crime, under the Arizona burglary tools law. Check your own state laws for what's legal or not in your own state.

So under the "burglary tools" theory, we'd have to show that Jon intended to use DeCSS to commit burglary (steal DVD content), or intended to allow others to use DeCSS to commit burglary (steal DVD content). Just as it is legal for you to unlock your own car with lockpicks, under the "lockpick" theory it would be legal for you to unlock your own DVD (but nobody else's) with lockpicks. That is why it is so important that the Norwegian prosecutor forgot to find anybody who'd used DeCSS to steal DVD content. Proving intent was half the case, and the prosecution blew it, though apparently Norway allows an appeal where the prosecution will be able to introduce facts regarding intent.

-E

Same factories, most likely...

[Eric Green]

The factories that make DVD's tend to be in less developed countries like Malaysia. It's more than likely that there's been more pressings done "after hour" than are accounted for in the "offical" totals. It wouldn't surprise me if the biggest DVD pirates were the actual disk pressing plants that make the "official" disks during the day. Spread enough money around, and it's easy to corrupt people who are making $5 a day.

Which of course shows the idiocy of going for the lowest wage -- nobody is going to risk a $50,000/yr job to pirate DVD's, but risking a $5 a day job to pirate DVD's when someone is about to pay you $50,000 is a different tale. It's the same reason why Mexican cops are corrupt and American cops (usually) aren't -- Mexican cops aren't paid a living wage, thus most are in the pay of the drug cartels. Low wages will always mean corruption, and the MPAA members, by siting their DVD-pressing facilities in low-wage nations, have insured that they will have a massive piracy problem.

-E

Appeal?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was aquitted so an appeal is expected. The poor MPAA claim to be absolutely broke so they have to set an example. The thing is that they should prosecute on intent. Jon wanted to play his dvd disk under linux. This was personal use as far as I see it. The biggest problem I see with buying a DVD disk is that it does not specifically say anywhere on the packaging that it can only be played using a hardware DVD player or that you have to have Windows or Mac or any other "MPAA certified" commercial OS in order to use this product. How does their copyright mechanism (CSS) affect the consumers right to make their own personal backup? Surely this is still a consumer right as even DVD disks can be damaged. You can be sure the MPAA will not issue you a new disk if yours is cracked (Even if you pay for postage etc...)

Re:NAZIs

[zambotsu]

What is it whit this s**t?

Can't you people do at least your basic history homework before claiming somebody sided with the Nazis. Besides, that was freaking 50 years ago. LET IT GO!

Jon is not the nice innocent victim...

[juggy]

...that he is so often portrayed to be. Just recently, I picked up this in a news forum. Read for yourself, but basically Jon bashed Linux and hence most certainly did NOT want to watch DVDs on his Linux box

Now while I was not able to verify whether or not these accusations hold true, he would not really deserve much pity and support if it was.

But of course - the basic idea behind this trial (circumvention, CSS, MPAA's politics and monopoly, ...) still sort of demands attention...

Appeals

[Jarlsberg]

You can appeal to a higher court two times. Put simply, at first you are tried before a lower court (lagmannsrett). If the sentence is appealed, you are tried before a higher court (tingrett) (a "middle court", so to speak). If the sentence is appealed, you are tried before the High court (Høyesterett). Now, it's not uncommon that an appeal will be accepted the first time, but very few appeals to the High court is accepted.

Norwegian Law

[eggestad]

Since I'm Norwegian, I'll give a brief description of the courts andf practices.

DISCLAMER: I'm an engineer damn it, not a lawyer!

In the lower court, that aquitted Jon, there is no jury. In civil, and criminal cases with a maximum prison sentence of six years, as this was, there is only one judge.

The judges writes a written argument, the judgement, where the judge argues the evidence, the law, and come to a conclusion (the judgement).

However, the court may appount co-judges when there are complex issues involved. The co-judges are not from the legal profession, but from the profession the case deal with. In this case there were two co-judges, one engineer, and a university lecturere.

Since there is a legal argument, the argument can be argued, which is be definition an appeal.

I'm not sure on the practices on appeals, but it seem that appeals are pretty automatic.

In the second court, there is a jury that decides guilty/not guilty, but I belive that is only in th e case if there is a maximum sentence of 6 years. Else there is a panel of three judges.

The jury, with is 10, not 12 peers, do not have to be unanimous, a majority of 6 is sufficient.

Jury judgements are just yes/no as in the US, and the supreme court don't overrule jurys on the ground that they don't know the jurys reasoning.

In Jon's case there seem to be a panel of 3 with whatever co-judges they assign.

It should be noted that Norway, along with many many other countires do not hace the brittish/US consept of common law. Under common law, court rulings become law, and if there is an earlier ruling in a identical/similar case, a the court must rule the same. Thats why US lawyers study past cases to the extreme, and quotes them al the time.

Under norwegian law, if there is an identical case, the court may rule whatever way it desides. THe lawyers may argue prior rulings, but they are just arguments, not law as in the US.

Death penalty has no public support in Europe

[santeri]

I'd agree with that more if the Europeans spent less time whining about the death penalty in the US (which their own citizens support with majorities or large minorities, but that's another issue...).

Here, sir, you are terribly wrong. Death penalty has had no real support for over a half century in the majority of European countries (i.e. any of the EU members and alike). Otherwise any of the populist governments elected during that time had brought it back ages ago. Death penalty is generally deemed passe. Vulgar. Barbarian. Just as uncivilised and backward as the mutilating of petty thieves in Arab countries.

(And how telling is it that only two "Western" nations, both with a very spotty human rights record, have it implemented anymore.)

some countries

[olman]

At least you can do it in Finland. Sometimes lowest court level cases have unfair / semi-illegal resolutions. Mid-level court decisions are very rarely so. If you're suing the county, the county court might be a little bit biased. Ditto if the county sues you!

Problem with the system is that just about everyone appeals to a higher court. Prosecution is unhappy with too easy sentences, defense with too harsh ones. Defendants are unhappy if they don't get not guilty with legal fees covered. And so on.

In Norway, both sides may appeal...

[Kjella]

It's that simple. A higher court (there are only three levels including the Supreme court) can overrule any lower court. Not very unlike how you can be prosecuted at state and federal level in the US, I'd say.

Personally, I'm rather surprised they didn't appeal directly to the Supreme court over the legal interpretation. Based on the same legal interpretation as the current court, I don't see how an appeal could give any other result.

Kjella

Hacking S/W To Run on Linux Perfectly Legal in EU

[PhilDin]

Actually, in the EU, the E-Commerice directive specifically allows reverse engineering for the purpose of achieving interoperability with systems or for bug fixing.

Re:STUPID!

[ThaReetLad]

Actually I think the USA likes Israel because the American politicians are terrified of being branded anti-semitic by the jewish lobby, thus causing them to loose their seats in the senate or whatever. America still suffers from this national guilt complex for not stepping in against Hitler sooner to prevent the haulocaust. All Israel has to do to get whatever assistance it requires is indulge in a little emotional/political blackmail. Why do you think no US administration has been able to effectively slap down on Israel for using F16's, Apaches etc against unarmed women and children?

Re:Neither "Law & Order" or "Jeopardy" runs in

[BobGregg]

>>In general, the provisions of the constitution apply to all people
>>(persons) under the jurisdiction of the United States, whether they
>>be citizens or not.

Except of course for "enemy combatants". Which seems to be pretty much whoever the hell the Bush administration decides is one. Don't that just make you feel all warm and squooshy?

60 years ago actually

[Anonymous Coward]

If they'd sided that is.

Were to find copyright laws

[Pofy]

Here you can find translations of most countrie's copyright laws:

http://www.unesco.org/culture/copy/

Lone Gunman?

[serutan]

Norway isn't a huge country, but surely there must be more than one person in it who has messed with DVD security. Poor Jon seems like a scapegoat for misplaced bureaucratic zeal. It would be interesting if the underground press in Norway could find others who hack DVDs, and sample their state of mind right now. I wonder if there are hundreds (or at least dozens) of Jons biting their fingernails over this.