Slashdot Mirror
"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."
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?
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.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
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...
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
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
make world, not war
If I get modded down for going off topic, so be it...
/., or if I did see it it was thoroughly occluded by either context or opinion.
I've been pondering something lately that, strangely, I don't ever recall seeing discussed on
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!
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.