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."
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.
It seems like Norwegian authorities are trying to make Johansen a cybercrime posterboy as the US did to Mitnick.
Trolling is a art,
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?
--- have you healed your church website?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
"Light is faster than sound." - "Is that why people tend to look bright until you hear them speak?"
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.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
Boastful killer shows the court who's stupid
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.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
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?
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
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!)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.