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."
...if at first you don't succeed: trial, trial again.
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
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?
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.
Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise. - William Shakespeare
Good luck contestants...
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...
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.
Look a monkey!
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?
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.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
No... he was previously tried in one of Norway's regional courts.
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.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
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 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.
Party?!? What kind of party is this? Where's the damn keg?
Virtus Junxit Mors Non Separabit
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.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
"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
It seems like Norwegian authorities are trying to make Johansen a cybercrime posterboy as the US did to Mitnick.
Trolling is a art,
They didn't. They were invaded by the German army.
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.
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.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
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"
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
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.
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?
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.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
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.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
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)
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"?
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.
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
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.
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?
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)
In the US the double stuff ONLY applies to Capitol offenses!
Not true at all; double jeopardy applies to all criminal charges.
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.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
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.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
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?
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.
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.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
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.
- James
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?"
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...).
(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.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
Boastful killer shows the court who's stupid
Norway is not a member of the European Union, hence those laws are of no relevance..
*You are not allowed to read this*
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
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
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?
I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm, LLP does not necessarily endorse the contents of this message.
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!
..It's like "taking the fifth" and not being an American .. or not even being in the US, you can't do it!
.. 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.
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"
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.
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.
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?
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.)
______________
OTTERS RULE.