Johansen Prosecutors Appeal

kmitnick writes "Jon Johansen will be back in court, tried again in an appeals court, because Hollywood knows better than the Norwegian legal system." Norway's legal system is different than the U.S.; the government can appeal a loss in a criminal case.

Comments

They have no chance.

[Krapangor]

In Europe you can't buy the judge or impress the jury to get the verdict you wanted.
Old but sane legal system.

Re:They have no chance.

[matthewn]

I have a hard time with the notion that a legal system that allows double jeopardy is "sane." How many times does the Norwegian government get to try to fry Jon? As many as it takes? (Can someone who understands Norway's system provide a real answer to this question?)

Re:They have no chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

They are not appealing to "fry" Jon. They are appealing to a higher court to see if the laws were interpreted correctly.
The whole case agains DVD-Jon is not about him being guilty or not for the procecutors, it's about testing the law, and what this verdict means to other somewhat similar cases.

Re:They have no chance.

[peter hoffman]

You must mean some different Europe from the one I know. The one I know is populated by regular people not saints.

Re:They have no chance.

[fobef]

Here is how it works in Sweden, which I suppose has a similar system.

All trials begin at the lowest instance.

After that the second instance can choose to accept an appeal. It is always harder to get an appeal accepted when trying to sentence someone who was declared not guilt in a lower instance.

Then there is the highest instance, which doesn't accept many cases every year, but this case most likely WILL end up there, because it is a new crime, and this is the instance which details how new, untested laws should be interpreted. If they make a clear enough innocent verdict in this case, no further "not guilty" verdicts would make it to second instance next time a person is tried for a similar crime under this law.

And no slashdot post is complete without... IANAL...

Re:They have no chance.

[Luguber123]

They have the time it takes to make the public belive that the legal system is good, just like every other country in the world. To tell the truth about norwegian lawyers, there are none without classic cars. That goes for norwegian politicians as well. The only truth that is worth working for is the only one that will make you rich. Sad but, incredible, true.

Re:They have no chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

(Posting as AC, couldn't remember my l/p...)
-scootages

Here's a simplified explanation of how the courts work:

Jon was tried in "by-retten," equivalent of a county court. For all intents and purposes, the lowest court. Jon won the case, and unlike the US rule of double jeopardy, the government has the same right as the defendant to appeal.
Norway government choose to appeal the decision to "Lagmannsretten." (2nd tier, comparable to Federal Appellate Court). Again, both sides present their case, and the loosing party can choose to appeal to "Høyesteretten." Compare this to the US Supreme Court. This highest of courts only accepts a few cases each year, and then 90% of the time it's for the purpose of setting a precedent, interpret the language of a certain law, or, in unusal cases, if due process has not been followed or there are questions about the due process. If you case is accepted to the high court, you present your case and it's a done deal after that. No more appeals, no more winners or loosers.

Couple of notes: Norway does not have a jury system, but instead relies on a Judge and layman judges who are educated in the field of which the defendant is accused. One of the laymen judged in Jon initial trial was Jon Bing, Norway's frontmost export on this issue.
Secondly, a decision handed down from the high court can *technically* be appealed to King Harald of Norway (yes, Norway is a Kingdom). The Kings meets one a week with "his" cabinet including the Prime Minister, where this appeal would then be discussed. This is a rarity and has only happened a handfull of times throughout history, and then only in cases involving issues like national security etc.

Jon's case will more than likely end up in the high court simply to prove a point and test the laws. While Norwegian laws are not binding outside of Norway, it does indeed set a precedent for similar trials in the rest of Europe.

Hope this helps

Re:They have no chance.

[Guppy06]

" In Europe you can't buy the judge or impress the jury to get the verdict you wanted."

In Norway, judges are appointed by the king. In the US federal government, they're appointed by the president with the consent of the "states." Not much difference between the two, but I think I prefer the system with some sort of official oversight, especially when the one appointing judges is also the one in charge of law enforcement.

In the US federal government, every citizen has the constitutionally guaranteed right to a trial by a jury of their peers, and they get to haggle with the prosecutor to make the fairest jury possible. There are no jury trials in Norway, with everything decided by the judge. I guess it's just a silly English concept, but again I'd rather go with the side that has oversight, going again back to the way the judge and prosecutor are (at least nominally) working for the same person.

In the United States, once acquitted, the person cannot be tried again for the same crime. Protection from double jeopardy is another legal concept foreign to Norway.

"Old but sane legal system."

Just about any way you cut it, the US legal system is older than Norway's. Denmark more or less gave Norway to Sweden in 1814, and only really became an independent country in 1905. The US federal legal system has been in continuous operation since at least 1789.

Re:They have no chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Denmark more or less gave Norway to Sweden in 1814, and only really became an independent country in 1905. The US federal legal system has been in continuous operation since at least 1789.

What are you retarded ?, Sweden won Norway in a war. Go read your history.

Re:They have no chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the main effects of this system is cutting down on case law: Whenever there is a problem interpreting a law, you kick the trial upstairs to a higher court that is more skilled in interpretation, instead of burrowing through centuries of previous cases for previous interpretations and trying to twist the case into fitting those.

And as only the supreme court may set precedents, the prosecution must have to have the opportunity to kick it all the way up, if they feel they need one set.

Re:They have no chance.

[Pofy]

>Here is how it works in Sweden, which I suppose
>has a similar system.

But according to the post below it appears the Norwegian system is almost identical.

The second instance typically always take cases. Both sides in a case can appeal regardless of the verdict. So for example if the prosecutor argued for, say, 5 year in prison and the court went with 2, the prosecutor can appeal wanting a longer sentence. The defendant can also appeal wanting a shorter one or perheaps wanting a "not guilty". So you can appeal not only the guilty part but also the actual penalty.

Note that this is NOT making a new case, it is still the old case, it is just redone again in a higher court. If appealed, the ruling of the lower court will not be considered having taken effect.

The same would apply with the highest court, with the exception as stated that it only take cases of prinipal interest, to set precedence and test new laws. Lower courts can NOT set precedence like in for example USA, so you can't use old cases (except from the supreeme court) in your argumentation.

Still you can NOT be charged with the same crime twice. That is once the case is over (in whatever instance it ended up in) the prosecutor can't start a new one again. The only exception is if there is new evidence and circumstances to go with the old ones can not be used again in such a new case which makes it very hard and rare for such situations.

Re:They have no chance.

[WegianWarrior]

Just about any way you cut it, the US legal system is older than Norway's. Denmark more or less gave Norway to Sweden in 1814, and only really became an independent country in 1905. The US federal legal system has been in continuous operation since at least 1789.

It it sad to see how some people will talk very loudly about stuff they clearly know nothing about.

Yes, Norway was under the jurisdiction of the danish-norwegian king from the early 1400's (the Kalmar-union) to 1814. No, we were not a part of Denmark - we had (from 1644) our own armed forced and (from about the same time) our own laws. And since they were based on the old norse laws (from about 1000, allthought they in turn are based on older, non-written laws), they differed from the laws of Denmark in several important ways.

Yes, due to the fact that Great Britan more or less forced Denmark-Norway into the war on Napolion's side (read up on the 'fleet robbery' in 1807), the winning parties decided that since Sweden (who were on Britans side) had lost Finnland to Russia, they were to get Norway as a compensation. No, we didn't tag along. Instead we declared ourself independent on May 17th 1814, and mobilized for war. And as always when we fight the swedes, we kicked ass... so much ass in fact that when the smoke had cleared, we were still an independent country, with our own armed forces, our own currency, our own laws (based on the older norwegian laws) and juridical system. The only thing we had in common with the swedes were the king and the forgein policy.

So, as you see, the norwegian juridical system is based in part on laws that go back until the time vikings discovered North America, and it is an unbroken tradition too.

Hint of the day; know what you're talking about before you open your mouth.

Re:They have no chance.

[danro]

Sweden won Norway in a war. Go read your history.

True, and later they wanted their independence, the swedish government deemed it to be to much of a hassle to break out the jackbooted thugs and granted it to them.
Probably a very wise choise for both partys, and they've gotten along pretty good ever since...

Re:They have no chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is incorrect. You can _always_ appeal to the second instance, called "hovrätt" ("Kings court" - it's an old tradition that you always have the possibility to appeal to the king, and the name stuck).

The third, and last instance "högsta domstolen" (supreme court), will only accept cases where there is no precedent cases, or if there has been a grave error in the former verdicts. Note: This is how it works in Sweden.

Re:They have no chance.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you can always appeal, but it is not always accepted, so the original poster was correct. They do however, always accept cases where the maximum sentence is six months or more.

Double Jeopardy

[ifreakshow]

This article makes me glad to live in a country where the government can't try you more than once for the same crime(if found not guilty).

Just imagine if special interest groups could put pressure on politicians to keep appealing cases that they lost. Scary.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

if the defendant thinks the court's decision is wrong, he/she can appeal...why shouldn't the prosecutors have the same possibility?
and btw, the maximum number of appeals in norway is 2 before the case reaches the supreme court (and the supreme court won't take most cases)

Re:Double Jeopardy

[hovik]

The prosecutors in Norway are not elected. The prosecutors have nothing to loose by becomming unpopular, so it's not a problem.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[captainfugacity]

My god that would be awful...Ken Starr would never be out of a job and Fox News would never have to talk about actual politics. We'd spend the next fifty years going after Clinton's women and real estate deals, because there 'might' be something there. In the end the investigations would probably cost more than a manned mission to mars.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, that doesn't seem to be the case in Norway. Must be some US thing.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Luguber123]

I'm living in Norway. This news makes Jon as much national hero as Kevin Mitnic (is that with k or c?), in my oppinion. Since Jon were only 15 when he did this crime I really hope for his sake that he doesn't end up in a crazy court systems and get sentences like serial killers (ie. G. Bush & C. Powell, tho they seems imune to such things). I hope that one day Hollywood would realize that nobody would watch their films if it wasn't for all the lobbying of journalists and buying small countries rights for everything -- Starting to become an old man I realize that such hopes belong in a hollywood movie or in a elementary school song.
This might not make any sense to you but then again you are very / :)

Re:Double Jeopardy

[fishbowl]

The situation that made the double jeopardy clause seem so important to the framers of the US Constitution was that oppressive governments can and do repeatedly prosecute people until they reach the verdict they wanted. Because the government has unlimited resources to accomplish this, compared to those of any defendant, the situation is fundamentally unfair. But what's important to know about doctrines against double jeopardy is that they are not written into government documents just because some wise pre-industrial politician thought it would be a good idea, but because they were already absolutely sick and tired of seeing the exact same means of oppression being used against them. It was an issue that people were willing to kill or die over, and not some absract ideal that would be nice to have.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the cops that beat Rodney King?

Acquited the first time, they were convicted the second time around.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[supabeast!]

Because allowing prosecutors to appeal gives the government a way to harass opponents with years of trials and the massive legal fees associated with said trials. Some governments might even keep a defendent imprisoned until appeals are exhausted.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Wyatt Earp]

In many states the Judges are not elected but appointed.

At the Federal level Judges are appointed for life and are only removed by US Senate Impeachment.

State judges may be impeached by State Senates.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

if you knew how the norwegian legal system worked you'd know you won't be affected in the same way at all by "massive legal fees" as in the us, and there won't be years of trials simply because there is one appeal to the "lagmannsrett" (like in this case) and after that there is only the supreme court left, which won't take most cases (only those of principal value)

Re:Double Jeopardy

[davidj0228]

if double jeopardy was in place in america and we had to go through another oj simpson trial, i think many of us would go insane. if the government can't get it right the first time, then why give them another shot?

Re:Double Jeopardy

[steve_bryan]

It helps in this case to have some knowledge of the specific history of the colonies. The government of King George III regularly abused citizens by repeated prosecutions. This influenced the Constitution when independence was achieved.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[plague3106]

Unfortunatly in america, even ONE trial can lead to massive legal debt. Three would be enough to bury just about anyone.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[SN74S181]

An appeal is not a second prosecution. It's an appeal of the lower finding.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Pofy]

Actually you can't here either. What basically happens is that if either side is not happy with the verdict, they can kick the same case upwards to the next higher court. One can't initate a new case of the same crime. So basically this is not a new trial it is the same at a higher instance.

The constitution of the court vaies some too based on level. Not fully sure about Norway but in Sweden in the lowest level, you have a judge who is a lawyer, but also a few lay assessors (is that the name? found it in a dictionary) which are ordinary people, not lawyers (it is NOT a jury, they basically work at the court and have many cases). They are supposed to sort of represent the people, common sense and such. In the intermediate level all the judges (which make the decision) are lawyers.

So basically, either side can appeal (twice at most since that ends up in SUpreme Court but usually only once in most cases). But one can't start a new case on the same crime.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[nickco3]

The situation that made the double jeopardy clause seem so important to the framers of the US Constitution was that oppressive governments can and do repeatedly prosecute people until they reach the verdict they wanted...It was an issue that people were willing to kill or die over, and not some absract ideal that would be nice to have.

Nobody in America ever killed and died over double jeopardy. Pre-1776 the colonists were living under English Common Law, which didn't allow double jeopardy either. Like most of the concepts in the US Constitution it was just adopted more or less directly from English Law.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, in Europe loser pays all legal fees.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

But think about the enourmous cost of just ONE criminal case. A trial and 2 appeals is an extreme burden on all but the most wealthy of defendants. It's kind of scary that they can money-pressure you into jail.

Civil cases are a different story, where the consequences don't result with you being thrown in jail. Prosecutors appealing criminal cases is wrong.

What would you rather have, a guilty man go free, or an innocent man be placed in prison? The US system makes it tough because they want to be sure that the fewest number of innocents go to prison, even if it means letting some guilty people go.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[shimmin]

And had the crown and Parliament respected the common-law rights of Englishmen in their dealings with the colonies, history might have been much different. As it was, beginning in 1763, the British government began passing colonial legislation in stark violation of the 1689 Bill of Rights and several colonial charters.

It is telling that the revolution began in Massachusetts, where Gov. Hutchison had treated his royal appointment as a more or less a license for dictatorial rule, revolving around themes such as seizure of property without due process and imprisonment without trial, both of which are quite unlawful under the common law.

So saying that it was unnecessary to kill or die for these things because Englishment already had these rights is bunk. Just because the law says you have a right doesn't mean any particular instance of government will respect its laws.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Because allowing prosecutors to appeal gives the government a way to harass opponents with years of trials and the massive legal fees associated with said trials.

No, not in Norway (or Sweden), because if the government decides to prosecute you they have to pay your legal costs. Not that you can force any lawyer of your choosing to represent you, there's no forced labour in Sweden, but if he's willing to take your case; you don't pay (or rather you pay a share, according to your income if you lose. If you win, you pay nothing).

That's why you in Sweden routinely see "ordinary" criminals in high profile cases, with high profile laywers (that are interested just because it's a high profile case). It's not as if said criminals could actually afford said lawyers.

Some governments might even keep a defendent imprisoned until appeals are exhausted.

Yepp, and if you win your apeal, you'll be roundly compensated by the state for the time you were held. This happens automatically by the state, without any lawsuits. But you can of course apeal the compensation by a lawsuit if you so desire.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

The situation that made the double jeopardy clause seem so important to the framers of the US Constitution was that oppressive governments can and do repeatedly prosecute people until they reach the verdict they wanted. Because the government has unlimited resources to accomplish this, compared to those of any defendant, the situation is fundamentally unfair.

As have been said previously, it's not really a new prosecution, but rather the continuation of the one that was started by the lower courts. The state cannot start over again at the lower court, once the final verdict has been reached.

There are actually only two posibilities for apeal, and that's it. Combined with the fact that as a citizen you (typically) don't pay your legal costs in a criminal proceedings, and hence can get any lawyer that's interested in your case to represent you, I'd much rather be tried in Sweden, than in the U.S. The words "pro bono" does not exist here, you are not at its mercy.

"Double jeopardy" or not.

P.S. And yes, we're quite familiar with the abuses of kings and tyrants in Norway and Sweden, that's why we had wars and revolutions to strip them of their power. Not that they were ever as bad, we never really had a feudal period.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[guibaby]

What ever your semantics the effect is the same. You are in jeopardy twice (hence the term "Double Jeopardy") of going to jail. I go through one trail. I win. I'm free. (Now pay close attention, this is where that double part comes in.) They appeal I have to go though the process again. I am in jeopardy a second time (there's that nasty double again) of being punished. Just because the don't say "two prosecutions" doesn't mean its not double jeopardy.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

What ever your semantics the effect is the same. You are in jeopardy twice (hence the term "Double Jeopardy") of going to jail. I go through one trail. I win. I'm free. (Now pay close attention, this is where that double part comes in.) They appeal I have to go though the process again. I am in jeopardy a second time (there's that nasty double again) of being punished. Just because the don't say "two prosecutions" doesn't mean its not double jeopardy.

How so?

As stated, just view it as one long(er) trial, with intermediate verdicts that may or may not hold and that's it.

And it's not a whole new trial in higher court (if it's not sent down), it's a review of the facts of the lower court's trial.

So, the case will be heard once, perhaps by as much as three seperate sets of judges, within a set time limit. Once the process is over, the government cannot prosecute a second time for the same crime. No double jeopardy. That you may have to apear for two courts (there are never arguments before the highest court) doesn't really change that.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[guibaby]

The problem with you theory is that the appeal is not automatic. Sometimes you get off the first time and sometime you have to go two or even three times. That uncertainty and the fact the the appeal is based on a prosecutorial whim is what makes it double jeopardy. If the appeal were automatic them you would be aboslutely correct. It would be on long protracted trial, with intermediate decisions.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[guibaby]

If the appeals were automatic, why even have a lower court ruling, why not, in that case just take the case to the highest court for the final decision.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

Well these countries are not fillied with a bunch of wankers or retards, such as USA.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Sometimes you get off the first time and sometime you have to go two or even three times.

No, but like was said before the wait before the judgement is final is 3 weeks. It's not exactly like you're being strung along.

The proceedings end three weeks after the judge hits his gavel (not that he does, or has one in Sweden), not then and there.

Double jeopardy or not I seem to remember a certain Kevin Mitnick who was held for years pending a trial that never came. His entire case, apealed or not could not have taken even a fraction of that time under Swedish/Norwegian law. Single double or tripple jeopardy notwithstanding.

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ridiculous. RTFM!

Re:Double Jeopardy

[Groote Ka]

Just imagine that the public prosecutor made a mistake with the evidence and a psychopath murderer would be acquitted because of just a little mistake.

I am glad to live in a country where 'double jeopardy' is possible.

Fair Use?

[kmac06]

Have these people not heard of the words "fair use"?

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, norwegian law gives pretty good fair use rights, and copying is allowed for private use (just distribution/selling of copied material is illegal)

Re:Fair Use?

[bharlan]

It is exasperating that the article emphasizes "copying" DVD's when Jon needed his decrypting program simply to VIEW his DVDs.

Re:Fair Use?

[Anonymous Coward]

even copying dvd movies would be legal under norwegian law, if for private use only (not clearly defined, but accepted as family and close friends).
distribution (to the "public", ie. any other use than "private") is illegal though.
what this case is about is finding out whether or not the distribution of a device for copying is illegal (even if no copyrighted material is distributed), and that's why the case will most likely end up in the supreme court (can't really imagine it not being appealed again, by whatever side loses this time, or the supreme court not taking the case).
since there is no legal precedence in this field in norway, the supreme court's dicision will be highly important for future interpretation of the law.
(btw, after this trial the supreme court is the final possibility for appeal, if this was unclear)

Re:Fair Use?

[divide overflow]

Have these people not heard of the words "fair use"?

Of course they've heard of fair use...they've been trying to ELIMINATE IT, via technology, for years.

If their case was stored as video on a DVD...

[corebreech]

that would be ironic, wouldn't it?

I mean, after all, an appeal is nothing more than a copy, isn't that right?

Re:If their case was stored as video on a DVD...

[ifreakshow]

Yes but they would no doubt have all the rights to the dvd. And not only that, they would make sure the lawyers never made any money off of it.

phew

[geeber]

Good thing. Hopefully this will show that even powerful European Scoflaws can't hope to get away with trampling on the rights of those poor Hollywood executives.

All is right with the world.

duuuuuupe!

[Anonymous Coward]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/20/18 32259&mode=thread

If they can't win on merit, beat them to death

[Anonymous Coward]

with legal fees.

I'm just glad the guy has support.

*sigh* ... keep trying to convict somebody until their money runs out and they can't pay for lawyers. Try..try .try and try again law some judge has to agree with us ...

Re:If they can't win on merit, beat them to death

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they say if we buy a SUV, we are supporting terrorists.

I say if you buy a CD, you help provide the legal funds to send Jon to jail.

Don't feed the tiger that keeps biting your ass!

Re:If they can't win on merit, beat them to death

[Anonymous Coward]

once again, an american that doesn't understand that legal systems in other countries might work in another (and better) way....

Re:If they can't win on merit, beat them to death

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't have to cover the costs of his lawyer (I think it'd be different if it was a civil case, however). Part of the advantage of having over half of what you make going to taxes I suppose.

Re:If they can't win on merit, beat them to death

[Pofy]

In criminal cases you don't have to pay your own expenses (do you in USA?).

In civil cases (at least in Sweden but in many other European countries too I think), the loser pay both sides costs. In part that is due to preventing pointless cases just because you had more money. It has other drawbacks of course but that is one of the advantages.

Borgarting?

[HorrorIsland]

From the article:

Prosecutors, on behalf of Hollywood studies, lodged an appeal in the Borgarting appeals court in Oslo

From a google search:

When someone bogarts a joint, he or she is holding onto the marijuana cigarette a bit longer than protocol deems polite

That is, being too damn greedy. How appropriate!

Re:Borgarting?

[Luguber123]

Agreed :) I in my poor english understanding thought bogarting were like putting out the joint.. I'm happy to be corrected in such an appropriate way :)

Re:Borgarting?

[Kjella]

Just in case anyone actually wondered, Borgarting has nothing to do with bogarting. First of all it's "Borgar" = name of the site, probably derived from Borg = Castle, and "ting" which means something like meeting or parliament. (Our national parliament is called Storting - grand "ting" if translated directly).

Was a very funny coincidence though :D

Kjella

Re:Borgarting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Roooooooooooll another one
Just like the other one
You've been holding on to it
And I sure would like a hit.

Don't bogart that joint my friend
Pass it over to me

Re:Borgarting?

[Echnin]

Uhm, I'd think it comes from "borgar" as in the nynorsk world for "citizen", thus making the term mean "citizens' court".

When will they realize...

[themaddone]

The Motion Picture Association of America, representing major Hollywood studios like Walt Disney Co., Universal Studios and Warner Bros, filed the complaint against Johansen at Norway's Economic Crime Unit.

The group estimates that piracy costs the U.S. motion picture industry $3.0 billion annually in lost sales.

When are the MPAA and the RIAA going to realize that while they may be losing money, is isn't close to that magnitude?

Even if we couldn't download the movies and music, we wouldn't be buying the CDs or DVDs in those numbers. Out of every 100 albums or movies you download (the general "you"), how many would you have bought if you couldn't download them? 10? 5? 1? If it's only 1, or 1% of the movies you download, then that $3.0 billion figure is only $30 million. Which is pennies in a multi-billion dollar industry.

It's amazing how the game isn't "How much money are we losing," but rather "How much money would we have lost in this incredibly unrealistic circumstance?"

Re:When will they realize...

[b!arg]

And how many of those that you download would you have NOT bought previous to a download...so I believe that too would offset that remaining $30million. The music business is having problems because it's not really in the music business...it's in the selling records business. Most of us buy records because of the music...not just because it's being sold. There's a bit of a disconnect there.

Re:When will they realize...

[chrisseaton]

I'd be pretty pissed if you stole the pennies from my pocket.

Re:When will they realize...

[gnovos]

When are the MPAA and the RIAA going to realize that while they may be losing money, is isn't close to that magnitude? ...

It's amazing how the game isn't "How much money are we losing," but rather "How much money would we have lost in this incredibly unrealistic circumstance?"

Oh, I'm pretty sure that they know that already.. my question is:

When are the MPAA and the RIAA going to figure out that they are "losing" money by not having the governments of the world mandate that thier citizens buy thier product? I'm serious, after all, the logic is the same. By not forcing every American to buy at least 10 albums a year, the RIAA "loses" $50 BILLION a year! And that is America alone. Can you believe that? That is a travesty! By not having every nation on earth mandate that every man woman and child buy at leat three albums a year, they are "losing" $360 BILLION and that's EVERY SINGLE YEAR! Add piracy on top of that and we are at $363 billion. Wow, that is almost as much as the defense budget for the entire US.

Re:When will they realize...

[frohike]

When are the MPAA and the RIAA going to realize that while they may be losing money, is isn't close to that magnitude?

I think they're fully aware of that. It's all a matter of political spin-doctoring, kinda like Sun claiming that Mitnick costed them 3 billion dollars, or whatever they claimed. They just add up the cost of what people would have paid if they'd bought the downloaded files at retail prices, regardless of whether the person subsequently did that (and/or bought even more stuff later on). The big numbers sound more impressive to people who don't dig deeper to see where they came from and how unrealistic they are.

Remember, it's not the truth that matters here -- it's public opinion about the truth you give them!

Re:When will they realize...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't. I hate those worthless fucking things.

Re:When will they realize...

[AnotherBlackHat]

When are the MPAA and the RIAA going to realize that while they may be losing money, is isn't close to that magnitude?

While I believe the claim of $3.0 billion is pure conjecture,
I don't see the claim that it's wrong as anything but pure conjecture either.

The major cost of piracy isn't "lost" sales, but the fact that it forces them to lower their prices in order to compete with the pirate market.
If they could jack up the prices of movies to the same price as CDs, maybe they would make an extra $3.0 billion - who knows?

-- this is not a .sig

Re:When will they realize...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Remember, it's not the truth that matters here -- it's public opinion about the truth you give them!"

What funny here, is in comparative studies one of the things we are taught to do is to quote numbers when we write. They sound more more impressive. One of the theorists of comparative studies (I forget the main one, so sorry I'm not giving credit where credit is due) said that indeed we should misuse figures. Even if we try to use figures accurately, we can't. There will always be seomthing we get wrong. Just like when you quote something, how do you know you are taking it the way they meant. So instead you aren't suppose to concern yourself with weather it is correct, but weather it appears to support your side. Very few people every read the docments in your bibliography. (kinda like a lot of people don't read the /. stories and still post). So the point is, univerties are actually teaching to misuse figures, so get used to it.

My spending has increased by a few hundred a year since I started downloading divx movies. I've quit buying cd's however until things change. I know one person doesn't matter, but hey I do what I can. The one exception is unsigned bands cuz I have friens in a few.

Re:When will they realize...

[kien]

When are the MPAA and the RIAA going to realize that while they may be losing money, is isn't close to that magnitude?

I'm still wondering when they're going to be forced to deal with reality and answer the real question: How much do they stand to GAIN from decentralized digital distribution?

That they're putting up this much of a fight is very interesting. One would think that they would have learned something from the VCR fights in the 80s. It appears that they're (over?)confident that having lawyers and politicians in their pockets will be enough to overcome the desire for fair use among their worldwide customer-base.

--K.

Re:When will they realize...

[Elwood P Dowd]

kinda like Sun claiming that Mitnick costed them 3 billion dollars, or whatever they claimed.

Just to nitpick, Sun didn't necessarily want to claim that Mitnick cost them that astronomical amount. The prosecutors gave all the victims very explicit instructions for calculating the monetary "damages." Not only did they include potential lost sales, but also their entire development cost.

In both cases, the figures are so far removed from reality, that I feel it is a mar on our justice system. People that testify with such abjectly false numbers should be prosecuted for perjury, and lawyers that solicit this sort of perjury should be disbarred. It is out of hand.

Re:When will they realize...

[chrisseaton]

If you're American they may be worth nothing. To the British they're work almost twice as much.

Re:When will they realize...

[stephanruby]

Your response is good, but too long. If you want your answer to spread to the average joe, it needs to be as short as a television soundbite. Our Reply should be something like: "The data loss resulting from not being able to do backups costs consumers around $32.0 billion annually." This response could probably be improved upon, but you get the idea.

If anyone of us is ever interviewed, this answer needs to be delivered like a smiling politician doing a broken record. In other words, you'll have to repeat the same answer over and over again using slightly different words no matter what the question is.

Re:When will they realize...

[Anonymous Coward]

So what if the prosecutors did? It's up to Sun to tell THE TRUTH. Prosectors are not judges, they are not the police, and they are not the government.

Re:When will they realize...

[plague3106]

The major cost of piracy isn't "lost" sales, but the fact that it forces them to lower their prices in order to compete with the pirate market.

Not true. Maybe people would buy cds if they were priced lower. People might be willing to pay if they believed the price was reasonable even if there is a free alternative.

Possibly thier attitude towards customers also makes an impact on the decision to buy or download.

Re:When will they realize...

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh, there was a skit show on HBO called "Mr. Show" a couple years ago. Website is here: http:://www.bobanddavid.com/

Anyway, they had one skit where a bunch of hollywood execs get together to discuss why their latest movie isn't doing well at the box office. The movie name is "Coupon: The Movie" and it's all about (you guessed it) a coupon. The execs decide they were duped by the greedy american public into making this money loser, so they sue the entire population, and win. Everyone is required to see the movie and buy some merchandise.

Re:When will they realize...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The major cost of piracy isn't "lost" sales, but the fact that it forces them to lower their prices in order to compete with the pirate market.

Not at all. Pirate merchandise is either easily recognized as such or indistinguishable from the real thing. The second category accounts for most of the problems, and what it does is divert sales to whoever is running the operation. It doesn't compete, because there's no way for a customer to tell the two apart.

Now, kids trading music online - that doesn't even register.

Re:When will they realize...

[Anonymous Coward]

The real red herring is not the 3 billion dollar fiugre, but the assumption that Jon's activities have to the 3 billion dollars. I suspect that most "pirates" continue to use whatever methods of piracy that they used prior to the release of decss. DVD's were being ripped and are still being ripped without decss. Jon also didn't enable people to make "screeners" using video cameras.

Re:When will they realize...

[namespan]

The group estimates that piracy costs the U.S. motion picture industry $3.0 billion annually in lost sales.

Followup calculation:

3 billion

number of people in U.S. about 300 million

Assuming an average cost of $10 per DVD, their calculation seems to assume an average drop of 1 DVD purchase per year per person.

Maybe it gets different when you start considering marketing groups and everything (I know I hardly ever pirate nor purchase any kind of video entertainment, so I'm probably not in the focus group) but I don't see how an average drop of 1 DVD purchase per person has any significance whatsoever, let alone from "piracy".

Finally, I don't see how this factoid (or any facts about piracy) could have any relevancy to Jon's case. Piracy is possibly without what Jon wrote, and the primary purpose of Jon's work was viewing DVDs -- a capability without which I can guarantee anyone that DVD sales will go down.

Shhhhh...Ashcroft will hear you....

[cuberat]

...the government can appeal a loss in a criminal case.

One little piece of idiocy I do NOT want this country to adopt.

Re:Shhhhh...Ashcroft will hear you....

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a perfectly sane thing and works pretty well in the norwegian legal system....it's the US system that's fucked up, and i think you know...

*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

And here I am, trying (unsuccesfully) to get DVDs (that I own) to play back under linux (that is free) on a laptop (that I own).

Hollywood could be helping me to achieve this.

Instead, they are continuing to spend taxpayers money to support their questionable business model, and defend a crappy piece of 'encryption', and completely ignoring customers like *me*.

I won't be buying another DVD until I have playback under linux working. Now if Hollywood want to get any more of my money sooner, perhaps they could help remove the hurdles.

Re:*sigh*

[Luguber123]

Is there any particular reason you have not installed mplayer? I remember having trouble with it on RedHat so I changed to Gentoo and it worked like a charm :)

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

Neither mplayer, ogle or xine seem capable of getting the job done, all failing in libdvdcss.

IIRC, I flashed the drive to RPC-1 about a year ago when it was running W2k. DVD playback worked fine then :p

A lot of people seem to be having the same kind of issue...

Re:*sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

In related news, a priest wearing a hair shirt sighed with discomfort.

Re:*sigh*

[/dev/trash]

I blame the idiots who decided that DVD players should be installed in computers. How many VCRs do you see in computers?

Re:*sigh*

[Rakarra]

Neither mplayer, ogle or xine seem capable of getting the job done, all failing in libdvdcss.

Unfortunately, due to the legal matters surrounding DVD video on Linux, none of the above can distribute players with libdvdcss. I had to download that seperately, and now xine works beautifully.

IIRC, I flashed the drive to RPC-1 about a year ago when it was running W2k. DVD playback worked fine then :p

DVD playback worked under Windows because the DVD player was licensed with the DVDCCA ( I think that's the name of the organization ), who have decided not to allow licenses to any open-source dvd players. So Ogle, Xine, mplayer et all cannot distribute (legally) software capable of playing encrypted DVDs. The blame for all of this mess falls squarely on the DVDCCA.

Double Jeopary in Norway

[NigelJohnstone]

Its not legal in Norway.

------------
1999-05-21 NOR-1999-L-53741
Act (No. 30 of 1999) to strengthen the position of human rights in Norwegian law (Human Rights Act).
Contains six sections whereby the following international human rights instruments are given force of national law to the extent that they are considered as binding on Norway: the European Council's Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, its Protocol of November 1950, its Protocols Nos. 4 (securing certain other rights and freedoms), 6 (abolition of death penalty), and 7 (furthering certain human rights and freedoms);

http://natlex.ilo.org/Scripts/natlexcgi.exe?lang =E &doc=query&ctry=NOR&llx=02

-----------

Protocol 7 from November 1950 is here:

http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/EN/Treaties/ht ml /117.htm

Article 4 - Right not to be tried or punished twice

So they adopted it into Norwegian law as part of human rights legislation.
Needs a lawyer to check it out, but what they're doing isn't just unethical and a breach of human rights. ITS NOT LEGAL EVEN IN NORWAY.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

why are =#%/)#% everyone misunderstanding this?

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.

yeah, that's "...finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."

so...you're not finally acquitted before the prosecutors have had their chance to appeal, in exactly the same way that you are not finally convicted until you have had YOUR chance to appeal.
logical, isn't it?

this law is not meant to stop appealing (from either side), but to stop ppl from being punished twice for the same crime.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[JanneM]

They aren't. This is an appeal to a higher court, not a new trial. If it works as the Swedish court (and the legal systems are pretty close), it will be a reinterpretation of already established facts, with an eye to whether the relevant law was correctly interpreted. It is not "really" whether he is guilty or not, but a trial of whether the lower court did in fact do its job properly.

For those of you still screaming "double jeopardy", don't forget (again, I'm talking about Swedish, not norwegian court practice) that if the defendant appeals, the higher court can not increase the punishment from the lower court. Only if the prosecution appeals as well (which they need a law-technical reason to do) can the appeals court ever increase the punishment.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

An appeal isn't a second trial. It's a legal body reviewing the case and evidence to see if everything was kosher. If not then there's a retrial. Double jeopardy comes in when you're under the case where one court ruled innocent and another rules guilty. Which one takes precedence and under what jurisdictions.

Take the US criminal and civil court system. OJ was found not guilty of murder by the state but found guilty in civil court. He was essentially tried twice for the same event but for different charges...

A ramble on my part but I guess this is how lawyers make money.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[NigelJohnstone]

Here's the current wording of this EU Human Rights Legislation:

"Article 50
Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence

No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law."

I.e. the "and penal procedure of that State" has gone. Not least because every bongo bongo land country used it as a loophole.

So its an abuse of human rights, lobby your EU rep, who now insist on Human Rights as part of all their trade agreements.

Its the best way to counter MPAA lobbying thats basically trying to twist a 'theft' law into a retrospective DMCA.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, and there's where you're misunderstanding...
the law says "finally acquitted"
under norwegian law the decision is not final until both sides have had decided whether they want to appeal or not (if i'm not mistaken i think you have to appeal within 2 weeks, at least a fixed, not very long, period)
if there is an appeal, from any side, the original decision will not be put into effect, and there will be another trial. this does not violate the human rights in any way.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[NigelJohnstone]

"If it works as the Swedish court (and the legal systems are pretty close), "

You raise an interesting point, since Sweden is in the EU and hence European Court is the ultimate court.

Take a look at this clause:
"Article 50
Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence"

The title says it clear as day. The AC higher up picked on the word 'finally' in the detail text and argued that justifies a process that allows 'criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence'.

No matter how you dress up the wording, Jon is being tried twice for the same crime here. He was aquitted the first time, he could be convicted the second time, and the intention of that clause is clear as day:
"Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence"

So if Sweden has the same rules, a test case would be possible and we could see if a country can indeed use the 'finally' to prosecute twice, or not.

Has there been a challenge to the EU court on this already for Sweden?

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[NigelJohnstone]

"...finally.. "

See my comments under the Swedish law comment. You're arguing that a word in the text of the law allows the main thrust of the law to be reversed.

I don't think that would stand. After all what they've agreed to is "Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence".

And however you word it, your arguing that he can be tried twice (even though its called an 'appeal' its a trial by any other name since he can be found guilty for something that he has already been found innocent of).

Since this is a 1999 adoption of human rights laws, it won't have been tested properly in Norway. So we couldn't settle this unless it was tested.

So how about the court of public opinion instead? I believe that if I argue this, it sounds right and fair and I can win in that court.

I testify to the court of public opinion, that this is an abuse of human rights, that it is in effect a "trial or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence" and therefore a breach of human rights legislation that Norway has signed up for.

I think this is a malicious attempt by the MPAA to apply Theft laws as a retrospective DMCA.

Over to you to argue your side.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[antientropic]

No matter how you dress up the wording, Jon is being tried twice for the same crime here.

No. The appeal is considered part of the same trial. I can't comment on the situation in Sweden, but it's probably very similar to here in the Netherlands (which is also covered by the European Human Rights Convention). Both the prosecution and the defendant can appeal, but they have only a limited time to decide to do so (on the order of weeks). So this is consistent with the main argument for the ne bis in idem rule (a.k.a. double jeopardy): to protect against the government abusing their power and resources by continuously starting a new prosecution in the same case.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

seems like you still don't understand...
in norway, sweden (and prolly denmark, and maybe lots of other european countries) you're not formally convicted (or acquitted) before both sides have decided not to appeal (or the appeal has been rejected, or taken to the supreme court).
so while it's seemingly two trials, it really isn't...it's just the same case taken to a higher level because one, or both, of the sides disagree with the decision.
i guess you agree with the defendant's possibility to appeal if he/she believes the decision is wrong, and by the same logic the prosecutors can also appeal if they think the law is being interpreted wrongly by the judge(s) at a low/medium level (remember, there are only 3 levels of court in norway)

but the most important thing here, you are NEVER punished twice for the same crime. if there is an appeal the original verdict is not put into effect before the appeal is considered, and if the appeal is accepted the first verdict is discarded and the appeal court's decision will be the final, and only, one.

and btw, i too think that this is a "malicious attempt by the MPAA to apply Theft laws as a retrospective DMCA" as you stated it. i'm not arguing that this particular appeal is the right thing, but just that the system is perfectly sane and working well.
and i also think that us organizations shouldn't have a damned thing to say to norwegian authorities about who they're gonna prosecute for what...but it just shows how much influence the us capitalism really has....

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[vidarh]

They've agreed to the full text. In most European countries you are not finally aquitted of anything until the appeals process have been exhausted or neither side files an appeal within a certain short timeframe. You can argue all you want, but it's hardly an accident that the paragraph is worded as it is - under your interpretation it would require major restructuring of the legal systems in a large number of the signatory countries, which simply isn't likely.

The "main trust" of the law is that a defendant should only be subjected to a limited prosecution, and once finally aquitted in a case should not face further trials, allowing the government to use continuous harrassment as a way of punishing without a judgement. Whether that is handled by one, two or three courts (or more for that matter) is vitally different from allowing prosecution to go on and on without limit. It's the latter that the paragraph in question is meant to protect against.

Interestingly, the current British government is considering reducing the double jeopardy protection from US levels to something more in line with what's common elsewhere in Europe. Further, the EU is working on "Corpus Juris" a common criminal code for the entire EU, that in it's current draft incarnation specifically allow the prosecution to appeal an aquittal, in line with most national European criminal codes.

Double jeopardy in the UK and US form is in fact quite rare outside countries that derive their legal system from English common law.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[urulokion]

Take the US criminal and civil court system. OJ was found not guilty of murder by the state but found guilty in civil court. He was essentially tried twice for the same event but for different charges...

No that's not exactly the proper why to describe it. For a criminal violation, the criminal trial is for the volation(s) of the criminal law. The victims (Nicole's family members in OJ's) have control over how the personal is tried. The victims of the criminal act are not assumed to be object, as you can well imagine.

So the state assumes the responsbility for trials and punishment. The DAs, judges and jurys are assumed to objective to allow for a fair trial and amount of punishment. That is why crminal court cases are "The people of the State/Commonwealth/... vs John Doe" or "The United States vs ..."

The civil case is the the victims can get their pound of flesh. It's a big help in the civil case if the defendent was found guilty in the criminal trial. But it's not a necessity as the OJ civil case revealed.

Crimial trials have a higher threshold for a finding of guilt: innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. The threshold for a civil case is lower: a proponderence of the evidence.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[urulokion]

The victims (Nicole's family members in OJ's) have control over how the personal is tried...

Opps. That should have been:

The vicitms (Nicole's family members in OJ's) have no control over how the person is tried...

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[david duncan scott]

it's just the same case taken to a higher level because one, or both, of the sides disagree with the decision.

Just out of curiousity, how often do both sides disagree with the decision? "I don't care what the court said -- I'm guilty, damn it!"

On a more serious note, though, I think you're missing something about the American concept of double jeopardy when you say:

i guess you agree with the defendant's possibility to appeal if he/she believes the decision is wrong, and by the same logic the prosecutors can also appeal if they think the law is being interpreted wrongly

The two sides are not symmetrical. The state decides to prosecute, and the defendant is brought to trial. The initiative is entirely with the prosecution. If they haven't prepared a sufficient case, then they should have waited to bring charges until they had a better one. It's their job to, well, do their job.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[Fenresulven]

Just out of curiousity, how often do both sides disagree with the decision? "I don't care what the court said -- I'm guilty, damn it!"

Sometimes the court may find the defendant guilty on one charge but innocent on another, this may cause both sides to appeal.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[NigelJohnstone]

"in norway, sweden (and prolly denmark, and maybe lots of other european countries) you're not formally convicted (or acquitted) before both sides have decided not to appeal "

But the "innocent" verdict would have stood if no action was taken to prolong it. Therefore it was a valid verdict.
Therefore its two trials because he could be found innocent at the first one and guilty at the second.

Using your argument, you could make a law in some third world dictatorship saying that someone isn't innocent until the state decides to stop appealing the case.

But that would be the exact opposite of "right not to be tried twice". It would be the same principle and it would make a complete mockery of Article 50.
Therefore that could never have been the point of Article 50. There Norways "not really innocent until state stops apealing" is not consistent with Article 50.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[NigelJohnstone]

"So this is consistent with the main argument for the ne bis in idem rule (a.k.a. double jeopardy): to protect against the government abusing their power and resources by continuously starting a new prosecution in the same case."

But the rule is only that they have to *decide* to appeal within those two weeks, not that appeal has to be over within two weeks.

Apply the 'dictator' test. If a dictator made a rule that said "I can appeal any innocent verdict within 2 weeks", then he could simply endlessly appeal every innocent verdict until he gets a guilty. Exactly the type of "abusing their power and resources by continuously starting a new prosecution in the same case" you argued it doesn't allow.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[Pofy]

>Using your argument, you could make a law in some
>third world dictatorship saying that someone
>isn't innocent until the state decides to stop
>appealing the case.

That would require you to set up an almost infinite number of levels of courts. The appeal here is for a higher instance to look at the case and see if it was done properly. The judges for example here in Sweden are at the higher instance all lawyers while at the first instance they are not, most are normal people (not a jury but still not lawyers). So it is still the same trial the system just divide the trial up to be done at various stages but with the possibility to end it before it reaches the highest one if both sides agree to it.

You can still not start a new trial again (which always start at the lowest case). Neither can a trial go back down in courts and so on.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[Anonymous Coward]

yep, and for example if the defendant is found guilty he will appeal in hope of being found innocent, and the prosecutors will maybe appeal because they think the punishment is not hard enough.
so it happens, quite often, that both sides disagree.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[NigelJohnstone]

"That would require you to set up an almost infinite number of levels of courts. The appeal here is for a higher instance to look at the case and see if it was done properly"

So you're argument is that its the *number* of times it goes to court that makes it acceptable. Norway being 3 max?

So are we arguing over how many times is OK, if we are, a Human Right that says that "Right not to be tried or punished twice"
Means the limit is 1 clearly.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[NigelJohnstone]

"The "main trust" of the law is that a defendant should only be subjected to a limited prosecution."

Its very explicit in how it defines "limited", it defines it as "NOT TWICE". Thats very clear. Once is OK, twice is not.

" under your interpretation it would require major restructuring of the legal systems in a large number of the signatory countries, which simply isn't likely"

It wouldn't require *any* change, the extra prosecutions simply wouldn't be brought.

For an example of how easy it is to change the laws, look at Surinda Singh (?), prior to that EU Court Case, EU law didn't apply to an EU citizen in their own countries. After that judgement, it applied to EU citizens who had used their rights in another EU country.
One judgement, total change of rights completely across Europe.

"Whether that is handled by one, two or three courts (or more for that matter) is vitally different from allowing prosecution to go on and on without limit. It's the latter that the paragraph in question is meant to protect against. "

The Human Right is very clearly 'once', taking Jon to court again on the same evidence in the same state for the same offence is clearly the sort of abuse you refer to in the last sentence.

You make the distinction between unlimited and limited, but the Human right says "not twice", not 'unlimited and limited'

"Further, the EU is working on "Corpus Juris" a common criminal code for the entire EU"

Its your and my EU too, you are entitled to your say too, the EU is always very helpful and I frequently seek their help as I work and live in different EU countries. If you don't like them trying to remove this human right, then you should let the Commission know.

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

But the rule is only that they have to *decide* to appeal within those two weeks, not that appeal has to be over within two weeks. Apply the 'dictator' test. If a dictator made a rule that said "I can appeal any innocent verdict within 2 weeks", then he could simply endlessly appeal every innocent verdict until he gets a guilty. Exactly the type of "abusing their power and resources by continuously starting a new prosecution in the same case" you argued it doesn't allow.

No, but by the same token the proceedings in a US court doesn't have to be finished by a set date either, do they.

In Sweden, there are only three levels of courts. Both parties can apeal to the next higher level. That level can either revisit the case, send it down to be tried again, or just deny to take the case, in which case the lower courts verdict stands.

Since there are set time limits on the apeals, the process is really to be viewed as one long case, with a definite end. The government cannot (of course) start over again, with the same case, once a verdict has been finally reached.

So your dictator couldn't endlessly apeal, actually he had only two attempts (maximum) and that's it. Each carrying the risk that the higher court will find your disatisfaction with the lower verdict unwarranted, and actually adjust the penalties against your wishes.

P.S. FYI, we don't have juries in Sweden, and hence none of the charade so common in US courts. In the lowest court there is one judge and 6 "laymen", appointed by (and from) the political parties in parliament. The next higher court has three judges. The highest court (which doesn't see many cases, since all cases before it have to have the potential to set a precedent. In 2000 1/2 percent of all apealed criminal cases were heard before the court) have five judges. If a precedent that differs from previous precedents by the highest court is to be set, all 16 judges have to be heard.

Not that precedents can only be set by the highest court, not the lower courts.

That's by and large the entire Swedish legal system. (With the exception of the other chain of courts, in which you apeal government decisions, similar in spritit to the above, but different names).

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[crawling_chaos]

I'm curious if anyone will drag the Norwegian prosecutors before the International Criminal Court for violating EU Human Rights Law. Isn't Norway a signatory to the court treaty?

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[Pofy]

>So you're argument is that its the *number* of
>times it goes to court that makes it acceptable.
>Norway being 3 max?

No, I was just saying that such a system would not be realistically possible at all.

In any case, as mentioned in other posts, the "appeal" is not a new trial, it is still the same one, just the higher court taking a look at it. You can still never start a new trial of the same crime.

I really have not much knowledge of, for example, the american court system in this case, perhaps you are trying to put this system of trials and appeal into your own systems courts and end up with a strange situation. hard to tell.

The courts of the second instance differ some from the initial courts in the composition of the judges for example. Also, as said in other posts, the lower court's verdict (if one appeal) will NOT be valid and take effect since the trial in effect is then not over and will continue (but moved to a higher court).

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[NigelJohnstone]

"So your dictator couldn't endlessly apeal, actually he had only two attempts (maximum) and that's it."

What I'm trying to do by these questions is determine exactly why you believe a system that allows the prosecution to try the case 3 times is somehow compatible with a Human Right that says it can be tried once.

You have made two arguments here:

1. That its not really 3 times, its one 'long' time.

To that, I point out that the first 'innocent' verdict would have stood without a further legal process, therefore it is aquittal and hence it was a trial.

2. That it is OK because its only 3 appeals maximum. (One long trial or 3? You've weakened your own argument by saying this).

To this I would point out that Norway signed up to a human right that says "not twice". i.e. Once is OK, twice is not.

Take a look at what they are doing to Jon, he wrote a program. There is no reason to believe that writing a DVD decoder was or is illegal. Since similar code must be in every DVD player, yet nobody is trying to arrest Sony programmers!

They are trying him on 'theft' charges. Theft is taking someones property with the aim of depriving them of it.

So what the prosecutor is doing here is twisting a law in an attempt to prosecute him. Once might be misguided, but trying to twist this law TWICE?

To me this is no different from a dictatorship trying an innocent person on some trumped up charge. He has been found innocent once, Norway signed up to a Human Right law in 1999 that says it promised not to try someone twice - yet here it is trying someone on a trumped up charge twice.

How is this different from any dictatorship retrying a person that already been declared innocent?

Re:Double Jeopary in Norway

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

To that, I point out that the first 'innocent' verdict would have stood without a further legal process, therefore it is aquittal and hence it was a trial.

Well, how's that different from the US system with grand juries. Whereby if a grand jury fails to see enough evidence to prosecute (i.e. my lower court returning a "not guilty" since the evidence does not sufficiently support a "guilty verdict"), the case can still go to the next step (aka "trial") and a guilty verdict handed down?

If that's not "double yeopardy", why is our system? As I said; the trial cannot be started over, once the final verdict has been handed down.

And what about that twist where you can be tried twice; first by your state, and then by your federal government? That couldn't happen here, but again your system does not violate the human right that says "one trial"?

And while we're at it: What about that wonderful practice where you're in two trials, one a criminal and one civil, where you can be aquitted in the criminal proceeding and convicted in the civil? That's not "double yeopardy"? That likewise couldn't happen here. If you've been aquitted, you've been aquitted! No, two trials.

Our system (that you can liken to one long trial if you will) is that each case is tried in the lowest court, both parties can apeal twice (to the next higher, and then highest) for review of the facts presented (there isn't a new "trial" per se in the higher courts). And that's it. Strict time limits in each step.

No grand juries, no civil/criminal, and no state/federal. I'd say our system constains less double jeopardy than yours. That you claim does not contain any, (I presume from the tone of your post).

So let me turn the question and ask how exactly you think that the US system is compatible with the human right not to be tried twice for the same crime?

We agree fully on facts, of course Jon should be aquitted. But, and that's important in our system, he should be aquitted by the highest court (and that's what everybody expects) since it's a case that could (and IMHO should) set a precedent. And like your system, one trial, one precedent. The lower courts in our system cannot set a precedent.

P.S. If you wish to discuss differences, I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the other ones; no bail, no plea bargaining, no turning states evidence in exchange for immunity against prosecution, and no jury.

Ray of Hope

[anachattak]

Maybe a decision by the high courts of Norway will point the way out of our current copyright monopoly nightmare, though things probably won't improve in the U.S. until Congress stops whoring itself to mass media ("Oh, you need another 100 year extension on that copyright. Just send me a copy of the bill you want (gratuities accepted and appreciated)").

I think I'm....

[GeneralEmergency]

.

...going to be "Hollywood-Free in 2003".

Oh...and Mr. Valenti, you can bite me.

Re:I think I'm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah? We'll see when "Return of The King" comes out in December :)

Re:I think I'm....

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to do my part as a concerned geek and suffer my way through the "Ripped" version of it..

God, video cameras should come with SOME instructions..

Oh yeah BITE ME Valenti!
_ _ _ _ _ _
| BITE ME |
-----------

Re:I think I'm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Dream on!

You know damn well you will be giving them your cash to see T3, Lord of the Rings, Matrix 2 & 3, X-men 2 and a random assortment of japanese cartoons on DVD so just cut the crap ok.

No one believes you, least of all the MPAA.

Re:I think I'm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh that would be a cam or a telesync.

A rip comes directly off a DVD and is usually SVCD and is very high quality.

Re:I think I'm....

[GeneralEmergency]

.

I actually don't own a DVD player AT ALL, specifically because of the MPAA v. 2600.org case.

I AM voting with my dollars.

I do admit that the Matrix Reloaded will likely draw me to a theater, but DAMN IT, IT'LL BE A MATINEE!

Re:I think I'm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's good to see at least somebody around here is willing to take action to support what they believe in.

Re:I think I'm....

[bm_luethke]

I once read that the movie studio's get the same from a ticket sale whether or not it is a mantinee or not (at the time something like 50 cents or a dollar per ticket - it was a few years back).

Since I don't work in the industry I don't know if that was a local thing (suppsoedly not) or if it is still the case (probably is).

So unfortunatly this will only hurt the local theateres who I bet would like less interference from the MPAA.

Re:I think I'm....

[addaon]

Just sneak in. That's what I'll do.

Re:I think I'm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered the Lessig Challenge? The idea is that as much money as you give to the media, software, and telecom monopolies, you should give the same amount to groups fighting them, like the EFF, FSF, etc. So, if you go see Matrix Reloaded, send eight bucks (or whatever) to the EFF.

Re:I think I'm....

[Richard W.M. Jones]

I haven't been to see a "Big Media" film in 6 months. I haven't purchased a DVD or Video in that time (except second hand). If you're still going to the cinema or still buying DVDs and videos, then you are explicitly supporting the companies who are attacking Johansen.

Rich.

Re:I think I'm....

[finkployd]

You DO realize that by boycotting Hollywood, you are going to cause their revenue to drop (albiet very slightly). If enough people boycott them, it will have an real effect on their bottom line, which will then be attributed to filesharing. The end result will be you giving them ammo to support new content and technology restriction laws.

I'm not saying you shouldn't boycott, just that that they will likely benefit either way. Quite an interesting situation they got themselves in.

A more effective ploy would be to just inform as many people as possible about what they are doing and why we all should care. Only when Joe Average catches on and turns against Hollywood will anything change.

Finkployd

Double Jeopardy Possible in US

[Sean Clifford]

Double jeopardy is possible in the United States. If you're accused of a crime and prosecuted under state law in the state you reside, then acquitted, you can be tried again for the same crime by the feds.

e.g. You're prosecute for LS XYZ in Louisiana, then acquitted, you can then be prosecuted under US ABC in federal court. So yeah, you can experience double jeopardy in the good ole US of A.

Re:Double Jeopardy Possible in US

[fishbowl]

"If you're accused of a crime and prosecuted under state law in the state you reside, then acquitted, you can be tried again for the same crime by the feds."

The doctrine at work is Dual Sovreignty. The State cannot try you twice for the same crime, another State cannot try you, but since the State and the Federal government both have sovreignty over you, then you are subject to separate prosecution by both governments. It was an open question but was settled by the Supreme Court in one of the first Federal prosecutions for liquor under prohibition, US v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377 (1922).

So you can thank the War on Some Drugs for it, but it goes back much further than most people seem to realize.

Re:Double Jeopardy Possible in US

[quasi_steller]

I'm not so sure if this is true. Usually a person is tried in State court for state crimes (murder, theft, etc.), and in federal court for federal crimes (treason, etc). I don't know if there are crimes that are both federal and state crimes, but if there are, then I suppose you are correct, because the State and Federal Governments are seperate.

Re:Double Jeopardy Possible in US

[ATMAvatar]

This all depends on whether there are both state and federal laws against what they are trying you for. For example, the copyright laws used in the US during IP trials are federal laws. However, I know that my state, KS, has very little in the way of copyright law (Chapter 57). I would imagine many states are similar.

Civil suits are an entirely different matter, though. Chances are, the guy would be in worse shape if he lived in the US - the recording industry would sue him to death. Battling one suit after another, this guy would probably be on welfare for the rest of his life. I hope he fares better in Norway.

Re:Double Jeopardy Possible in US

[Guppy06]

"but since the State and the Federal government both have sovreignty over you, then you are subject to separate prosecution by both governments."

Of course, this can only happen if the feds have jurisdiction over the crime, and federal jurisdiction is seriously curtailed (or at least it was...) by the constitution. For example, the only reason the feds were able to try Ernest Avants for murder after he was acquitted in Mississippi almost 40 years ago is because the murder took place in a national forest.

Measuring Piracy losses?

[ebbomega]

From the article:

The group estimates that piracy costs the U.S. motion picture industry $3.0 billion annually in lost sales

I'd honestly like to just take a statistics University Class and have them look over the methodology of it, and get them to report any breaks in logic. Where in god's name did this team get their figures from? How do you measure something like this...

I know it's not in sales drops, because I know that last year MPAA reports that they've had excellent sales lately...

I've never seen any kind of study that actually reports how much piracy is going on around the internet, so I can only really assume that they're going on estimations. Which is ludicrous... that's like counting the number of people in Russia and estimating the world's population based on those results... It's bloody insane!

The only way I think they can possibly justify this amount of money that's being lost is
a) When the MPAA pays money to hire people to do silly estimations like this.
b) When these companies' stock goes down because they lose some court case in which they were trying to sue some guy who wrote a program for ripping DVDs.... not to mention the lawyer costs behind these lawsuits.... how much do you think they put per year into prosecuting people like this?

Would it kill people to think a little critically when reading blind statistics like this?

Re:Measuring Piracy losses?

[Anonymous Coward]

At University, I learned you can generate any number you want with statistics and probability. To call these fields science is a farce. To call statisticians experts is a farce. One you break from the basic fundamentals of either field you can generate any information you want. Unfortuneately, to generate most statistics which are actually useful and true you have to guesstimate at some point.

Re:Measuring Piracy losses?

[Anonymous Coward]

a) When the MPAA pays money to hire people to do silly estimations like this.

Yehp. And I bet they hire PR people (not statisticians) so they can throw out a number that makes them seem like they're losing a shitload of money without it being too ridiculous sounding.

Also, they lately have bitched that music CD sales are down slightly (totally ignoring the fact that their music has gotten disproportionally much worse and the economy is down so people rather buy food than crappy CDs).

Re:Measuring Piracy losses?

[praksys]

I've never seen any kind of study that actually reports how much piracy is going on around the internet...

Studies have been done from time to time. Sometimes the estimates of the number of pirate copies are implausibly high, but that is not the real problem with the economic loss figures that they come up with. The real problem is that they simply take the estimated number of illegal copies, and multply by the list price. Most of the time they do not even bother to take account of the actual market prices of legal copies (i.e. discount prices, or second hand prices).

What they ought to do is try to estimate how many people would have bought a legal copy if illegal copies had not been available to them. Of course it would be impossible to get precise figures, but it would be possible to get reasonable estimates by surveying. As far as I know, no one has ever bothered to this, so we keep getting these massively inflated figures for economic losses.

Re:Measuring Piracy losses?

[Pofy]

>The group estimates that piracy costs the U.S.
>motion picture industry $3.0 billion annually in
>lost sales

I always wonder about that "cost". Isn't cost something you get when you spend money? What are they spending those 3 billions on? For some reason they equate "loss of possible revenues" with cost (because it sounds "better" for them?).

If you want to calculate that way I would be millionare (and cost them a million) if I copied enough movies and music. The fact that I might not even have close to that money seems irellevant to the cost calculus.

In similar way, if someone convince me of buying a bicylcle instead of a car I would cost the car company money.

It doesn't work out the cost is for the most part money that not even exists so how can it then be a cost? I suppose that if you claim it to be a cost enough times, people believe you :(

With both c and k: Kevin Mitnick

[moonbender]

You're welcome. ;)

Re:With both c and k: Kevin Mitnick

[Luguber123]

Thanks a bunch :)

I've read a whole book about him and I don't remember the name. Does that qualify for alsheimers (or is that also misspelled:)? Ok I admit that my friday endings might not be childs play :)

And to think when I was 15....

[bluprint]

I was building boats that would *never* float, military type bunkers, and skipping school... Either this kid has no life, or I just wasn't motivated enough...

Use the Chewbacca Defense!

[sunbane]

"Norway's legal system is different than the U.S.; the government can appeal a loss in a criminal case."

Correct, in America they'd have to file a civil lawsuit once he was found innocent and takeaway his heisman ... er... the clothes off his back.

Re:Use the Chewbacca Defense!

[evilquaker]

"Norway's legal system is different than the U.S.; the government can appeal a loss in a criminal case."

Correct, in America they'd have to file a civil lawsuit once he was found innocent and takeaway his heisman ... er... the clothes off his back.

... or maybe they could try him for violating Jack Valenti's civil liberties...

Re:Use the Chewbacca Defense!

[Art Tatum]

Why? What does Chewbacca have to do with this? NOTHING!! It doesn't make sense!

Re:Use the Chewbacca Defense!

[Pofy]

>Correct, in America they'd have to file a civil
>lawsuit once he was found innocent and takeaway
>his heisman

But the trial is not over yet, nor has he been found innocent. The trial is still going on, it is just moved from the lower court case into the intermediate one.

The cops who beat Rodney King were tried twice

[Anonymous Coward]

When did that happen? Clinton? Bush I? Reagan?!?!

How about getting a perjury conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like in the real world?

Bill Clinton - convicted felon. Too damn bad he can't sell himself a pardon.

Re:How about getting a perjury conviction?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he isn't. He was aquitted by the Senate, remember?

On the other hand, 29 serving members of the Reagan government were indeed felons. But you don't get to hear about that...

Summary / Clearing things up.

[zokum]

Fair use in Norway:
Basically, you can make private copies of anything as long as you do not distribute them in any way. One might call it backups.

Appeal system:
You can appeal a sentence, but each time this is done the next trial is by a higher instance in the justice system. If a higher instance refuses to take on the case, the old verdict is the one that counts. There are 3 levels + the Human Rights tribunal in Haag or so.
1. Herreds/Byrett (county/city court)
2. Lagmannsretten (laymen's court)
3. Høyesterett (Supreme court)

The supreme court, (translated from http://www.mossbyrett.of.no/info/i_straff.html) cannot retry whether the accused is guilty or not. It is only there for matters og priniciples, and has more or less been abolished as an instance for appeals. So basically, you can be retried for the same crime, but only a very limited amount of times, and by significantly different courts.

Justice... What is?

[anubi]

Just what is meant by "Justice"?

Does it have anything to do with right and wrong? Or is it just a mechanism used by the powerful to penalize the weaker?

Does a farmer have a right to say you have to drink the milk you bought directly from the carton? Can it be made illegal to pour the milk into a glass before drinking it?

Does a producer have a right to say you have to watch their content in a specified player?

Is it wrong to take something legally purchased and bend it to suit your needs? If so, God help us that buy wire!

Is it wrong for design and sell equipment for breaking access codes? For spam filters? For telephone telemarketer blocks?

What I am getting it is just what *is* right or wrong? "Justice" just seems to be selective enforcement so that the forces of society can be directed at the weaker party, not the wronged party.

Is the wielding of money to any different than the wielding of technology?

No-one is going to be able to pay Jon back for all this frustration he has been pestered with, yet the same force of "American Justice" that is used to pester Jon looks the other way when its the stronger ( financially speaking ) party doing the thing that someone else does not like them to do.

This whole sordid affair to me is just a demonstration of just how "unjust" our system has become. My immediate idea is to determine the resources of both parties - If Jon loses, RIAA gets the resources of Jon, if RIAA loses, Jon gets possession of the assets of those who are bringing on all this pesterance. In a Norwegian Court - as he, after all, *is* a Norwegian citizen. Now, that the element of who has the most money is nulled out, see if they still want to pester Jon.

Personally, I am sick of this whole sordid affair - I can't for the life of me see what Jon did wrong. No more than I would see it that someone figured a way to get my computer to dump its video signal onto a big-screen projector.

Re:Justice... What is?

[Anonymous Coward]

The struggle between technologists and copyright holders is just a new form of the classwarfare between property owners and non-owners i.e bourgeois and proletarians.

As long as capitalism is around this will always be happening.

As long as everyone does what is in their own best class interest the proletariat will triumph.

Unfortunatly most people do not vote or act in their own class interest.

For example 20% of American's think they are in the top 1% income category!

So when Bush gives a huge tax cut to anyone making more than $300,000 a year at least 20% of the population will support it even though they won't benefit from it. And then there are the poor optimists that support it because they "might be rich someday". These are usually the poor saps pissing away their money on scratch tickets and lotto.

It's rather depressing but still...

The struggle continues...

Re:Justice... What is?

[asparagus]

Onwards to the next step: recognition of the fact that there are no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong', merely localized expressions of power to back a particular ideology. These are merely terms used to confuse the issues or galvanize support.

Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Greens, Big Business, Academia, etc...all politics is just one group attempting to gain the upper hand so it can knock the others down.

Welcome to the trenches of the culture wars.

There are no winners, only casualties. I hope Jon is not amongst them.

-Brett

Re:Justice... What is?

[kfg]

If you think it looks like that now, just wait until you get divorced.

You ain't seen *nothin'* yet.

KFG

Re:Justice... What is?

[SN74S181]

Yep. Everything is relative. In the context of 1936 Germany, the local people had a RIGHT to persecute jews, and gypsies, and homosexuals, because, you see, there is no right or wrong, only localized expressions of power to back a particular ideology.

We have no right to condemn the people who persecuted the jew, the gypsies, and the homosexuals.

Welcome to the trenches of the Kultur wars, D00d.

Re:Justice... What is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever notice how the "good guys" always win in the end all through out history?

No it's not because some nice god is pulling strings ...

It's because whoever wins is the goodguy.

If the nazis had won WW2 you would be taking about how America and the UK where evil countries that help spread the poison of judaism.

Instead you say the nazis are evil and spread the poison of anti-judaism.

During WW2 the united states fucking NUKED two cities even when they new damn well the enemy was going to surrender. But that wasn't evil that was just defending the homeland and sending those evil commies a message.

Then who says the commies are evil? The workers or the rich people who grow fat of the labor of the workers? who owns the newspapers and the television stations?

Re:Justice... What is?

[SN74S181]

Somehow I knew it was coming.

An actual answer to my post claiming the Nazis and the Japanese fascists and the Allies were morally equivalent.

Wow. They really did a number on you in college.

All those Japanese atrocities in China, and all those sex slave harems for the Japanese soldiers were made up, man.

Re:Justice... What is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya and all the democratic governments the united states overthrew and all the countries they invaded and destroyed are just made up!

Of course it's hard to take the most powerful and violent country in the world to task on its war crimes...

America must be right because well afterall you share it's morals and your morals are of course the right morals everyone should have naturally.

Re:Justice... What is?

[SN74S181]

'One man, one vote, one time' countries like Chile and Nicaragua did not have a democratic government to overthrow. The gears were turning for them to become another Cuban 'democracy.' The Soviet advisors were already there, etc.

'War Crimes' used to mean things like making and deploying nerve gas on civillians and political prisoners. Somehow now chemical and biological warfare are justified if your 'race' is disenfranchised.

This just in from the No Shit Desk

[The Ape With No Name]

Norway's legal system is different than the U.S.

But protection from double jeopardy is still part of Norwegian law. Read the article to see why this occuring. Before any Merikins start pontificating about our venerated and very good, but also deeply flawed legal system, remember that you can be tried twice for the same charge in the States as well. Hung juries, witness tampering, lawyer misconduct etc. cause subsequent trials to occur. I don't know the statistics on how many 2nd and third trials result in acquittal, but a egg rots when left out in the sun. It is best to not face a jury too often.

If you are acquitted of a crime and subsequently admit that "yes" you actually did it, you can be hauled in for perjury if you attested in court that you did not do it (read this: never testify on your own behalf), and believe you me, if an Attorney General can figure a way to hang a Federal charge on you for the same crime or an attendant one, they will. Sure this isn't exactly the same as double jeopardy, but if you piss off the right/wrong prosecutor, they will get you no matter what. And you will be put on the hardest bitch cellblock in whatever state you live in. All prosecutors have to do to people is threaten them with "Brushy Mountain" here in Tennessee and people fold like lawnchairs. The very protocol for picking prosecutors requires that they keep their hearts in jars buried under fencepost on an uncle's farm. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. Criminals need to be pursued and convicted.

Re:This just in from the No Shit Desk

[Alsee]

Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way. Criminals need to be pursued and convicted.

Yep, expecially the innocent ones....

if an Attorney General can figure a way to hang a Federal charge on you for the same crime or an attendant one, they will.

if you piss off the right/wrong prosecutor, they will get you no matter what.

And you will be put on the hardest bitch cellblock in whatever state you live in. All prosecutors have to do to people is threaten them with "Brushy Mountain" here in Tennessee and people fold like lawnchairs.

-

Money they COULD have made

[YetAnotherName]

It's amazingly disappointing to see governments, previously mandated towards protecting the people, instead going out of their way towards protecting potential profits of major corporations.

The losses screamed about under the dark moniker of piracy are merely missed opportunities for revenue. Are profits down? Yes, but they're still profits, not losses. And just because they're down, Hollywood studios and recording companies think they can enlist the powers-that-be to get them back up.

And sadly, they're right.

Re:Money they COULD have made

[swillden]

And just because [profits are] down, Hollywood studios and recording companies think they can enlist the powers-that-be to get them back up.

And sadly, they're right.

Actually, and even more sadly, they're wrong. They can use the government power to do various things, including blindly lashing out at anyone who they think is hurting their profits, but they only way they can actually make more money is by finding a way to convince more consumers to buy their stuff.

That they actually believe that putting this clever young Norwegian in prison will help them just shows how far out of touch they are. At best they'll convince the person who breaks their next attempt to deploy anti-Fair Use technology that (s)he should publish the information anonymously.

This must have been answered before... but...

[Mitreya]

But what are the charges brought against him?

There is no specific legislation in Norway to protect digital content, but Johansen's program has been criminalized in the United States under the Digital Copyright Millennium Act.

He is not being tried in US, he does not live in US, he didn't write the DeCSS (or its GUI rather) in US? And it's not illegal in Norway to do what he did. So what are the prosecution's charges?

Gentoo is too hard to install stuff on

[Anonymous Coward]

But installing it under Gentoo is too hard. There's this huge list of letters you have to type: "emerge mplayer". That's 14 letters not counting the enter key! That's over half the length of the whole fucking alphabet!

Linux is too hard, I'm switching to Windows.

Not so in Norway...

[Kjella]

Here, any level of court is essentially free to set whatever sentence they want in a new trial, also including the Supreme court, though they *mainly* stick to law interpretation. They've changed sentence lengths to set the correct precedent though, if they feel it's too high or too low. In fact, they are also free to set it higher than what the prosecutor asks for (within the laws they're found guilty of) and have done so at times.

In short, it's the assumption that every step up is in a "more competent" (bigger jury, better judges and so on). You might call it double jeopardy - but I'm sure the US have examples of people which would have been found guilty if there had been more competent staff. Getting off because the lowest level of the court system just wasn't up to the task doesn't do much for justice either. You can however not be trialed for the same twice, though the supreme court can send it back down one step for a retrial, but once it's over it's over.

Personally, I have great trust in our Supreme court. They certainly aren't bending in the wind, some went as far as calling them racist based on what they let through under "freedom of speech". Not that I particularly agree with that case (think of hate speech as class-action libel), but they certainly aren't afraid to stand their ground. And I respect that greatly.

Kjella

In the US, govt can appeal Federal crimes

[Anonymous Coward]

re: Norway's legal system is different than the U.S.
If the crime is a Federal crime, USDOJ can appeal the case. USDOJ can also change their charges mid-stream in the case as well. There isn't much the USDOJ can't do in a Federal court.

Re:In the US, govt can appeal Federal crimes

[Anita Coney]

First, the feds cannot appeal a case where a defendant was found not guilty. Once a defendant is found not guilty, he can never be tried on that charge again. Show me one case to support your opinion. Just one.

Second, of course the feds can change charges mid stream. It's called amending the complaint. It's done all the time in both criminal and civil cases. No one knows for certain what will come out in the facts, thus leave to amend is freely given.

Re:Measuring Piracy losses? Facts are CLOSE!

[puto]

Say you have 10 million people who each pirate 10 movies worth 25 dollars a year. That gets you 2.5 billion dollars.

Sources for Piracy
1. Edonkey
2. Gnutella
3. Kazaa
4. Budddies
5. Warez Groups

Then add into the people in other countries who buy the movie reproduce the cover art, and resell it for ten bucks in the street. Or worse, 10 bucks to video stores who then then rent it 100 times for 2 bucks a piece.

I just Kazzaed the word DVD, and got about 30 full titles. And then you can be specific and just abt find anything.

Kazaa has 4 million users online now. if each user pirates one ten dollar movie a day for 30 days. That is 1.2 billion bucks a month.

Or these people who do not feel like ripping their own DVD? If you got the DVD who rips it, takes up space and processor cycles.

I know guys who have complete cd cases of 100-200 movies in Divx they have gotten off the net. And then they SVCD them and pass them around.

Hell when I was in South America I could buy them on the street. My old lady just got back from Turkey with an assload of them.

They would not be all over the net if people were not pirating them.

We need to look at piracy for what it is, not run around saying it does not happen. It is rampant and we can't hide behind the worn out excuse that information should be free.

Puto

Nice rant...

[Cranx]

...can I template it and use it to make posts about other extra-U.S. legal battles? It's highly provocative!

Re:Nice rant...

[anubi]

I am a very strong supporter of open-source...

If you can use it, feel free to do so.

The right way.

[Luguber123]

As an inhabitant of Norway I'd rather see what Hollywood did pay for this 'appeal'. I really don't like crap like this to appear on my next tax-bill. I know that somebody have to pay these lawyers and I'd hate it to be me.

The Great United States... or not.

[User 956]

Double jeopardy is possible in the United States. If you're accused of a crime and prosecuted under state law in the state you reside, then acquitted, you can be tried again for the same crime by the feds.

Or, as happened in the second LAPD Rodney King Beating Trial, they re-try you for the same crime, under a different law.

If you watch the entire George Holliday videotape, you'll see the force they used was entirely justified.

article is so misleading..

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at this BS:

Norwegian Teenager to Face Retrial for Film Piracy

Calling what Jon did "piracy" is a bit of a stretch isn't it? He wrote a program that reads the format of DVDs. Amazing that a news organization would use this expression.

acquitted by an Oslo court in January of charges of theft

No shit! Since there was no "theft", not even Mickey-Mouse Monopoly Money Copyright "theft"!

The group estimates that piracy costs the U.S. motion picture industry $3.0 billion annually in lost sales.

What does this have to do with Jon? How much did Jon lose from this stupid case, which has nothing to do with the MPAA's imaginary loses?

Johansen has become a symbol for hackers worldwide who say making software such as his -- called DeCSS -- is an act of intellectual freedom rather than theft.

Uh, hello, WRITING SOFTWARE is an act of creation, not of theft. Can't these people read the illogical statements they write?

There is no specific legislation in Norway to protect digital content, but Johansen's program has been criminalized in the United States under the Digital Copyright Millennium Act.

What, you mean Norway doesn't have copyright law? Yeah right. Laws like the DMCA don't protect *content* they protect *access methods* which "protect" content. They are "paracopyright" laws like one author has written.

I wish they would write the story and tell the truth: DVD-Jon wrote a program that lets you load DVDs into your computer. THAT'S ALL.

The evolution of Piracy:

1. boarding a ship, killing and/or raping all on board, stealing the cargo
2. selling mass-producing conterfeit records and CDs
3. making and giving copies of a record to your friends
4. violating any aspect of a license agreement
5. doing something that might facilitate the above

What's next on the list I wonder?? Piracy == the crime of not preventing copyright infringement when you see it happening. Or maybe Piracy == not buying the latest Britnee CD.

FUCK I can't wait for this copyright nonesense to sort itself out.

Re:article is so misleading..

[SN74S181]

FUCK I can't wait for this copyright nonesense to sort itself out.

Either can a whole bunch of businessmen. You see, they're looking forward to all that GPL code. It will form the basis of a lot of good, strong commercial products when all this 'copyright nonsense' has been deal with.

Re:article is so misleading..

[SyFryer]

How will it sort itself out though?

Certainly not to anyone who enjoys accessing the things they buy anyway they like's benefit.

It is getting so frustratingly stupid these days, the people who prosecute and persecute don't even know what they are looking at half the time.

Take for instance the recent articles on Openofffice and the world of spectrum being accused of piracy, at the behest of a SCRIPT.

I hope Jon has a good judge, over here in the UK, I would wager a large percentage of judges have no idea what a DVD even is.

Re:article is so misleading..

[Alsee]

Either can a whole bunch of businessmen. You see, they're looking forward to all that GPL code. It will form the basis of a lot of good, strong commercial products when all this 'copyright nonsense' has been deal with.

There are several ways to to get rid of the nonsense in the copyright arena. Almost all of them would have zero effect on the GPL because the GPL is based on sensical copyright law, not on any of the nonsense. Any sensical resolution which DOES kill the GPL would make the GPL irrelevant in a good way. Those who advocate using the GPL would most likely cheer if the GPL died in this manner.

-

Re:article is so misleading..

[Alsee]

I would wager a large percentage of judges have no idea what a DVD even is.

Sometimes I wonder how many of them even know how to spell it :D

P.S. When I said "them" I was reffering to courts world wide, not specificly UK.

-

Re:article is so misleading..

[SN74S181]

Ah, so you'd be happy if you could freely copy precompiled binaries? As long as you can get your warez it doesn't matter if you have the source?

When is Stallman starting up the GNU/disassembler project. He'll need it if copyright law crumbles in a way that, as you say 'makes the GPL irrelevant in a good way.'

Govt's in US can't appeal criminal convictions???

[Ominous Armed Cow]

What are you talking about???

You ever hear the U.S. Supreme court, or a state supreme court, or the federal Circuit Court of *Appeals*, or a state appellate court? These are all appellate courts and there for *both* sides if either side doesn't feel it got a fair shake.

If you're talking about double jeopardy, it only applies if a government actor tries to retry someone for the same criminal act after already going through the entire appeals process. [Like the cops in Rodney King, who were tried for a different offense for the same act (double jeopardy in all but name)]. That's why the prosecutors in the several states and Feds involved in the DC shootings coordinated their indictments, so that each of three jurisdictions will have a crack at them in case the other two fail to convict with a death penalty.

Re:Measuring Piracy losses? Facts are CLOSE!

[Anonymous Coward]

"piracy" is another market participant selling a product for cheaper. that's competition.

why don't the movie studios sell the VCDs on the street? or, another aspect: why do the movie companies still making plenty of money even though you can get DVDs easily (I can just borrow from a friend , without the internet)?

what do you see "piracy" as? some kind of crime?

Re:Govt's in US can't appeal criminal convictions?

[Anita Coney]

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. In the US, if the defendant wins the prosecutor CANNOT appeal its loss. Never. Nada. Zip. Once a defendant is found "not guilty" he is not guilty of that charge forever. The cops in the Rodney King case were found innocent by a jury in California. That was never and could never have been appealed. They were charged under a different jurisdiction, by the feds, which means double jeopardy didn't apply.

Criminal prosecutions invoke important . . .

[D1rtbag]

Constitutional rights, and cause a severe drain on the defendant. Imagine being wrongfully accused, and then sent up and down the legal system to try to vindicate yourself, becoming bankrupt in the process. That really would create a system where justice is what you can afford.

As a prosecutor, I have no problem with the *general* lack of ability to appeal. There are limited circumstances in which we do get another bite, but it requires special circumstances. For me, trials are fun, but for a criminal defendant the uncertainty, the court appearances, and the stigma must be quite unpleasant. I don't think I'd like to be part of a process which just beats a defendant down with government appeals until he's all out of fight, money, or both.

With the resources available to us, we (the State) can usually convict the guilty if we do our jobs right. Sometimes they get away, but that's how our justice system is set up -- the Framers wanted to have a system where we risk a few guilty individuals going free, but we minimize the risk of convicting the innocent.

In France, I believe, there is no Miranda as we know it. The police can question a suspect for 48 hours with no right to counsel. It would make my job easier, but it doesn't make it a system that I want to live under or be a part of. If it works in Norway, that's their business, but we don't need to pick up all of the bad habits of the "Old Country," just because it works for them.

Re:Criminal prosecutions invoke important . . .

[EinarH]

As an norwegian i'm supposed to know a lot about our legal system, so I should try to explain why and how it differs from the US system.

First: Norway, is a small country with far less crime than USA pr. innhabitant. This makes it possible for convicted to appeal their case, and for the prosecutors to apeal the case without creating chaos because of too many cases in the highest court instances. In US, which have a much more crime, the number of appeals, from both sides, would have crippled the system.

I would say that there is a fair number of "checks and balances" in the Norwegian Court System. The prosecutors can't allways appeal, because of limited budget, they can't afford it if _all_ of their cases would go to the next court instance. And, apealing all the cases would in some way reducing their right to apeal as a special power the prosecutors have.
On the other hand: The prosecuted, in this case Jon Johansen, is covered by the state, as *all the cost of having a lawyer is paid by the state*. And in contrast to "some other countries", you don't get only those lawyers which failed to get a better paid job. After what I have heard, the "quality" of the public lawyers in USA ain't that good. You can choose any lawyer you wan't and the goverment pays. The problem is rather that some of the good lawyers are quite busy. So the problem of losing all your money because an appeal isn't that problematic. But of course there is always an uncertainty with an apeal.

Among proffesionals in the Norwegian systems i think most people think that the risk of convicting an innocent person is far smaller than in Norway compared to USA. And the implications from convicting someone falsely is far smaller than US because of not so hard "punishment".
Compared to US, Norways maximum sentence is 21 years behind bars. And most murders get away with 10-15 years, probation after 6-10. Economic crime have maximum 15 years if I remember right. And I can't remember anyone getting more than 8 years (!)(i think is was some kind of organized bankfraud). So I Jon is found guilty, he won't get more than 1 year. Maximum. As for damages or expenses he have to cover or pay back; I doubt he would get more than $10000.

I reckon that there is some US centric views on this topic. But in a hypotetical situation I would have choosen too stand in front on the Norwegian legal system, rather than the US legal system, double jeopardy or not.
[Double jeopardy or not, it aint no good if you are innocently convicted for manslaughter and sentenced to death.(or 300 years behind bars)]

[BTW. In Norway the police can hold you for 24 hours. You have the right to call a lawyer. After 24 hours they have to let you go or "framstille" (hold you in front of a judge) for a judge and have a kind of probable cause or some sort of evidence. Hard to explain in English this stuff.]
My English stinks. Partly because I have been awake for 42 hours. (Stupid boss in a stupid system.) So my apologies to you all.

Re:Criminal prosecutions invoke important . . .

[gujo-odori]

I am an American who lived in Japan for eight years before moving to my current country of residence. In Japan, the police can hold you for up to three *weeks* without access to counsel, and AFAICT there is no Miranda law there, either. Now you know why (in addition to fairly good police work) the Japanese legal system has a near-100% conviction rate.

We expect to return to the U.S. in a couple of years. There are things good and bad everywhere, and there is much that I will miss about Asia, but I will say that I prefer the U.S. legal system to any other under which I have lived.

Re:Criminal prosecutions invoke important . . .

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

We expect to return to the U.S. in a couple of years. There are things good and bad everywhere, and there is much that I will miss about Asia, but I will say that I prefer the U.S. legal system to any other under which I have lived.

I hate to break it to you, but with another 2-6 years of Bush/Ashcroft, the US will no longer have the legal system you admire...

Re:Criminal prosecutions invoke important . . .

[Ibn al-Hazardous]

Living in Sweden, which has the same system as Norway, I think it would be a problem if the prosecution could not appeal. Essentially, our legal system is very much unlike that of the US in many ways. One aspect of it is that AFAIK the help that the defendant is guaranteed is better than that of the US (you don't run the same risk of ruining your economy, and still get a good lawyer).

The government is looked upon as resting on three pillars:
1 The decision making power - the parliament.
2 The executing power - the government, and the courts.
3 The inspecting power - the media.

The courts are not quite is linked to the government as in the US IIRC, but more of an independent meritocracy.

The general impression I get is that, since many trials are done twice (it's pretty usual that both sides appeal in the first court, unless one gets the ruling entirely its way), and since the legal help system is more generous - we have fewer inocently convicted. Also, since we hanve't got the death penalty, we have zero inocently executed.

Double jepardy would NOT have helped...

[Anita Coney]

Some might argue that if Johansen had been tried in the US and won, the prosecution could not have brought an appeal to try him again.

True, however, in the US, with the use of the DMCA, he NEVER would have been found not guilty. Under the DMCA, you cannot argue fair use. It's a strict liability statute. If you break encryption to make a copy you're guilty. It doesn't matter if you were making a copy of your own DVD. You'd be guilty.

The US system might be more fair procedurally, but at least he had a chance to be found not guilty in Norway, which he NEVER had here!

Legal US centrism

[Gorimek]

The US has the worlds by far highest porison population, both in numbers and percentage. I haven't seen any numbers recently, but it's on the order of 10 times as much as an average EU nation.

So the firmly rooted conviction among many Americans that their system gives better protection to the accused, because of the technical implementation of their double jeopardy rule seems very misguided, and more of parroting what hey were told in school than based on actual knowledge of the issues.

The reality is that in the US you are far more likely to be thrown in jail for far longer times than in the rest of the free world, "Land of the Free" rhetoric notwithstanding.

Re:Legal US centrism

[Anonymous Coward]

US has a different culture and a different economic system than EU. Don't narrow things down to one variable.

Re:Legal US centrism

[Arandir]

So the firmly rooted conviction among many Americans that their system gives better protection to the accused ... seems very misguided

The problem isn't the protection not given to the accused, but the fact that we have made the most trivial of unsocial acts into felonies. Take the narcotics offenders, prostitutes, check kiters, etc, out of prison and we'll be on parity with most of Europe. We do have a problem here, but it has to do with the laws and the enforcement of laws, and not the legal system itself.

So why do we have this problem? Just take a look at Slashdot. How many times have you seen a Slashdot poster suggest that justice is corrupted because Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are not in prison? Have you ever secretly wished that? Yet they have not committed any felonies (check the laws, they haven't). There are some here that would wish every officer of every corporation, as well as every proprietary software developer, to be sent to jail. This kind of attitude is dangerous, and it isn't limited to the US.

If I were to hazard a guess as to why this attitude is more of a problem in the US than in Europe, I would say it's because of the US two party "winner takes all" system, which encourages pandering to the whim of the public. Most most European nations have parliamentary systems where the winners must share the "spoils" of power.

Re:Legal US centrism

[praksys]

I haven't seen any numbers recently, but it's on the order of 10 times as much as an average EU nation.

More like a factor of 5 or 6. The US imprisonment rate is around 640 per hundred thousand. EU rates range from around 140 (England, Scotland, Portugal) down to 60 (Denmark, Northern Ireland). At a guess I would say the average is around 100. The US rate has doubled in recent years, so the difference was a factor of 3 not that long ago.

The war on drugs certainly explains a lot of the difference. Minor drug offenders are far more likely to get prison time in the US than almost anywhere else. Crime rates also explain a lot of the difference, and surprisingly GDP also explains a lot of the difference. The US has a lot of crime, but also can afford to spend a lot of money on catching and imprisoning criminals.

So the firmly rooted conviction among many Americans that their system gives better protection to the accused, because of the technical implementation of their double jeopardy rule seems very misguided, and more of parroting what hey were told in school than based on actual knowledge of the issues.

You seem to think that legal protections are supposed to keep the guilty out of prison. While they do sometimes do this, it is not their intended purpose, and generally not their effect. Rules like double jeopardy are designed to keep the innocent out of prison, so it should be no surprise at all that strong civil liberties do not result in a lower prison population. ..."Land of the Free" rhetoric notwithstanding.

None of that rhetoric has ever suggested that crminals should enjoy liberty.

Re:Legal US centrism

[pommiekiwifruit]

Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are not in prison? Have you ever secretly wished that? Yet they have not committed any felonies (check the laws, they haven't).

Compare their aspirations (make people run Windows, immunise african children) with the rich USians of a century ago, the Vanderbilts and Hearsts of the world who personally started wars (Nicaragua, Philippines, etc.) (or gave them a helping hand) to further their ambitions. So we have (so far) got off quite lightly!

Re:Legal US centrism

[Arandir]

you've proven my point...

"Opening other's letters or secret caches..."

[Anonymous Coward]

The law the prosecution applied was one concerning the opening of other people's letters or secret caches. This is an old law, that has been amended to cover unauthorized access to computer systems. Even your own computer systems?! Yes, Økokrim thought that was appropriate.

Realising that the "you don't really own the movie" argument did not sit well, they kept going on about how the implementors of DeCSS did not have a licence to the Xing player they lifted the CSS keys from.

That's nothing!

[PCM2]

Norway's legal system is different than the U.S.; the government can appeal a loss in a criminal case.

That's nothing! In Soviet Russia, you can ... er ... the government ... uh. Whoah, man. I'm confused.

Re:Govt's in US can't appeal criminal convictions?

[Guppy06]

It's time somebody went back to their high school civics course...

"You ever hear the U.S. Supreme court, or a state supreme court, or the federal Circuit Court of *Appeals*, or a state appellate court? These are all appellate courts and there for *both* sides if either side doesn't feel it got a fair shake."

No, they're only there for the defendant. An appeal counts as a new trial. On top of that, the US Supreme Court is only the highest court in federal matters and/or matters explicitly allowed by Article III and not forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment.

"If you're talking about double jeopardy, it only applies if a government actor tries to retry someone for the same criminal act after already going through the entire appeals process."

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

It doesn't matter if the suspect is acquitted in the lowliest state court, the US Constitution explicitly states the way state and/or federal prosecutors can sit on it and rotate.

Law reporting?

[MacAndrew]

Perhaps submitter "kmitnick" is experienced with criminal law, but the sentence "Jon Johansen will be back in court, tried again in an appeals court, because Hollywood knows better than the Norwegian legal system." makes no sense. The Norwegian legal system is the one prosecuting, appealing, and deciding the case. Hollywood "filed the complaint" -- exactly as it is done in the US -- but doesn't the Norwegian legal system take the blame for heeding it?

The article says, "There is no specific legislation in Norway to protect digital content, but Johansen's program has been criminalized in the United States under the Digital Copyright Millennium Act" -- a strange comment, too. Who cares about the DMCA with Johansen in Norwegian court? Another article explained better, "Johansen was accused of violating Norway's computer crime law by helping to create the DeCSS DVD-descrambling utility."

On the double jeopardy angle, I looked around and can't find enough info. I assume that, as in several other countries, the appeals court looks for mistakes of law committed by the judge, not the weight of the evidence. I doubt he would be "tried again in an appeals court," notwithstanding the submitter's implication; it probably goes back to the Norwegian trial court. But who knows. Anyway, American double jeopardy has a surprising number of holes in it, such as the dual sovereignty doctrine that allows reprosecution up to 3 times in state/federal/military courts.

The US has some especially strict criminal rules. Whether Norway's system is a violation of fundamental civil rights is Norway's question, not Hollywood's. To compare Norway's system to, say, the United States, we'd want to weigh all their criminal rules as a batch, plus their discretion and fairness in executing those laws.

Disclaimer, I think this prosecution is a bunch of cr*p, but am totally confused by the reporting as to what's actually happening.

Obviously, IANANL. (Norwegian lawyer.) Be glad to hear from one!

Re:Law reporting?

[praksys]

On the double jeopardy angle, I looked around and can't find enough info. I assume that, as in several other countries, the appeals court looks for mistakes of law committed by the judge, not the weight of the evidence.

One difference between the Norwegian legal system and the US legal system is that the Norwegians do not have jury trials. As a result they do not have the distinction between "aquital" by a jury, and "dismisal" by a judge. In this particular case it looks like the original acquital by a panel of judges had more to do with their legal rulings (i.e. what judges are resonsible for in the US) than with any factual findings (what juries are responsible for in the US). Here in the US "double jeopardy" does prevent any appeal against findings by juries (of innocence at least) but it does not prevent appeals against rulings by judges. So even if we were to imagine how a double jeopardy rule would work in the Norwegian system (I do not know if they have one) it is unlikely that it would prevent an appeal by the prosecution in this case. So long as the issue at stake is a matter of law, both the defence and the prosecution have a right to appeal.

Re:Law reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Norwegian legal system is the one prosecuting, appealing, and deciding the case. Hollywood "filed the complaint" -- exactly as it is done in the US -- but doesn't the Norwegian legal system take the blame for heeding it?

While you're right that it's not actually Hollywood doing the prosecution, who do you think is driving the main impetus to prosecute him? With the "billions" of losses at stake, but the millions more in legal funds, they'll chase him to the ends of the earth.

Re:Law reporting?

[MacAndrew]

The jury aspect is interesting but not relevant -- American law makes no distinction. A defendant can waive the jury right and be tried by the judge; double jeopardy applies the same. In fact, under American law jeopardy attaches not with the verdict but when the trial begins or jury is sworn, often preventing retrial even if the trial ends prematurely. It's not so much the existence of the acquittal as the prior jeopardy that prevents retrial. (There are some excpetions to the acquittal rule, say where the acquittal was obtain by the defendant bribing judge or jury.)

Then there's the mistrial -- the initial jeopardy continues into a retrial.

Re:Law reporting?

[praksys]

The jury aspect is interesting but not relevant...

I think you missed the point of my original post. Under US law the distinction between legal rulings and factual findings is usually very clear because they are carried out by different people. You are right that in some instances they are carried out by the same person (the judge) but even then the US system maintains a clear distinction between these two functions of the judge. Under the Norwegian system the distinction is not as clear. "Aquital" does not imply a factual finding as it does in the US. It may result merely from legal rulings by the judges. In this particular case it looks like the defendants "aquital" was the result of a legal ruling, and as such it would have been subject to appeal in the US (although of course in the US it would not have been called aquital at all).

You are also wrong about double jeopardy not attaching to the verdict. Mistrial, and sometimes dismissal, do not prevent retrial. Typically if a trial ends prematurely, the defendant can be tried again. The main exception to this is when the charges are dismissed because of lack of evidence - and here the presumption is that the trial would have ended in aquital. Although it is hard to find any sharp line that defines double jeopardy, the clearest line is the one drawn by the verdict of a jury.

Re:Law reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

Er, I think you need you reread my post; you misunderstood it. The law is as I described it -- and mostly as you describned it -- though you may be unfamiliar with the terminology, and IAAL. In a mistrial, the initial jeopardy simply continues, it's all essentially one proceeding.

Re:Law reporting?

[Anonymous Coward]

One difference between the Norwegian legal system and the US legal system is that the Norwegians do not have jury trials.

Yes we have! But only at the "lagmannsrett" level, which is exactly where this appeal is going.

Herman Robak,
not a lawyer, but a Norwegian.

Re:Law reporting?

[praksys]

Thanks for the correction Herman. It is hard to find details on the Norwegian legal system in English.

Become proactive

[circusnews]

We /.ers are one of, if not the most connected community on earth. We have, what, 375,000 people who read /. every day and come from just about every nation in the world? Why then do we not take a page from actual grass roots groups and become a proactive in writing to law makers to change this garbage?

For now take a look at this letter writing guide. Over the weekend I will post a new one specific to the /. community. Maybe we can stop just complaining and start trying to fix these laws.

Idiot

[CausticWindow]

Norway is not USA

Yeah

[CausticWindow]

That's really funny. It's almost the same word.

It's just like hundebæsj which almost means off yer tits on lsd

Like..

[CausticWindow]

you have a say on anything that is going on in your country.

One piece of idiotic belief that's far too widespread.

Re:Measuring Piracy losses? Facts are CLOSE!

[SN74S181]

"piracy" is generally a copyright violation of some current work (there are some exceptions when people pass around out of print work). It's like someone stripped all the copyright information out of Linux and redistributed it as 'Commercial UNIX Clone K' without the source code.

Hm..

[CausticWindow]

War on drugs, war on terrorism...

What you losers need, is a 'War on stupidity'.

Seriously.

-- You know it's true

Re:Hm..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? We'd just lose that one too!

Oh yeah..

[CausticWindow]

much more scary than what you're seeing now.

Secret trials?

Cages?

Oh, and btw.; picking up the soap in the shower while being innocently convicted. Haha. That's a sure joke in a Hollywood movie. To sad it's for real in most u.s. prisons. Gay Dungeon Master, indeed.

But I guess, that's just what you deserve when you can't afford a real lawyer.

Indeed

[CausticWindow]

Just imagine if special interest groups could pay politicians to do what they want. Scary.

Too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

the human rights secure your right to breathe.

You might have to consider the fact...

[CausticWindow]

that you are an underachiver.

A typical, under the bridge, Oprah Winfrey/Dr.Phil, piece of trash, u.s. citizen.

You made..

[CausticWindow]

some good points. And maybe somebody cared.

But the jingoist u.s. mf's sure didn't, because their judicial system is the best. Why else would they try imposing it on everybody else?

How dare you..

[CausticWindow]

The u.s. legal system is the best in the world.

Make up your mind. Either you are with us or you're against us.

Mum is the word.

Re:How dare you..

[The Ape With No Name]

Thank you. Hvala lepa. Gracias. Grazie. Danke.

Anyhoow, fascism is the word. Mum is what you gotta be if you don't want to get it in the neck.

Re:Govt's in US can't appeal criminal convictions?

[Happy go Lucky]

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post. In the US, if the defendant wins the prosecutor CANNOT appeal its loss. Never. Nada. Zip. Once a defendant is found "not guilty" he is not guilty of that charge forever.

Close, but not quite. If the judge declares a mistrial, then the whole thing can be done over. That takes serious attorney or juror misconduct, and AIUI has to be declared before the jury's verdict is actually read.

The cops in the Rodney King case were found innocent by a jury in California. That was never and could never have been appealed. They were charged under a different jurisdiction, by the feds, which means double jeopardy didn't apply.

Yes and no.

The US Supreme Court still needs to clarify this. However, the legal justification for the second trial was that the cases were not only brought by different jurisdictions, but for violation of substantively different criminal statutes. The CA state charge, I believe, was assault or something like. The Federal charge was "violation of civil rights under color of state authority, resulting in bodily injury."

There have been cases where similar situations in other states have had the Federal case dismissed on Double Jeopardy grounds.

Leaving aside the actual facts of that case. The Federal trial was a political show trial. It would probably have been tossed as DJ, were it not for the riots and the resulting desire to throw a few people in jail to appease a hungry mob.

Re:Measuring Piracy losses? Facts are CLOSE!

[ebbomega]

A lot more people, though, are willing to download videos for free than are willing to pay $20 for a DVD, or $14 for a movie ticket.

But that doesn't mean that the MPAA is losing money because people are now seeing movies they weren't going to buy anyways... And they say it's money they _lost_.... You can't account for every single person on a p2p system to believe that they don't already own the movie, or that they're going to keep said movie for a long time.

I know a good number of people who will download a movie, watch it, and if they like it go and buy said DVD.

(Flogs Dead Horse)(Again)(And Again)

[Nemus]

Right now I'm downloading a screener, or please, god, let it be a screener copy, of the Two Towers off of Kazaa.

Now, I've already seen this movie twice in the theaters. So, according to the MPAA, after this, even with the DVD release, they will see no more $ from me, right?

Well, oddly enough, I downloaded a screener of Fellowship of the Ring as well, and right here beside my computer, is not only the original wide screen release of LOTR: Fellowship of the Rings, but ALSO the deluxe extended edition. Doh! =)

As such, I also plan on going and buying both editions of the DVD again when they release it. Why, you ask, oh callow MPAA? BECAUSE I DON'T MIND GIVING SUPPORT OT MOVIES THAT DON'T SUCK FLAMING DONKEY BALLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *achem*

Anyway, its Kazaa, so as far as I know I may be currently downloading a copy of The Piano*shudder*, but, you rolls dem dice.....

OT: AVI Preview

[NaDrew]

Anyway, its Kazaa, so as far as I know I may be currently downloading a copy of The Piano*shudder*, but, you rolls dem dice.....

You need AVI Preview, a nifty piece of software that lets you, well, preview AVIs as they're downloading. As soon as you have a couple megs or so of the file, load up AVI Preview and see what it is. That way if it's the "How to lose a guy in 10 days" trailer looped thirty-seven times instead of TTT, you don't have to download the whole thing.

BUT WE'RE BETTER ALREADY!!

[waspleg]

Pfft that means there has to be trial first, and ashcroft/bush's reich have already dealt with that little problem, now that anyone can be a terrorist and as we all know terrorists have no rights and get no trials; burn the witch!!

hell they block off roads and search through peoples cars at will in some states (although this was fought and deemed unconstitutional in indiana, thanks to the aclu, i hear of it happening elsewhere) (what no seatbelt? that's a paddl'n)

who the fuck told these people that we need them to be our parents?

Must read!

[Anonymous Coward]

Some common unknown truth about DeCSS

So, you heard about Jon Johansen, the Creator of DeCSS? A brave soul, which only intent was to help the linux community playing DVDs? And
you know, that the sole reason why he released only a windows version of DeCSS was that Linux didn't supported DVD (or UDF) at that time?

If you believe this (like most people unfortunately), you are wrong.
Jon Johansen is not the hero for open source software as he likes to describe himself lately.
The truth is, he is a liar, a defender of closed source software, ignorant to the GPL and a guy who simply wanted to copy DVDs.

His lies lead most of us to believe that he is a good guy and got him even free a legal team paid by EFF. So you should not wonder that this
guy won't tell you the truth, so i have to.
Some words about me: I was familiar with the development of DVD playback under linux very much from the beginning. I got all the events live, i wrote source for nearly every DVD-related linux
project (including LiVid and the dxr2 driver). I simply know what i'm talking about, because i was involved. But because i'm afraid of flames i won't tell you my name. But i will cite emails
supporting my claims.

In the beginning of DVD on linux we had nothing. CSS involves two steps. First you need to authenticate yourself to the drive, and the drive needs to authenticate to you. Unless you do this, you won't even get the encrypted data from the disc. And then you have to decode the data using the key. Derek Fawcus finally released source for the authentication issue. We were able to read the -encrypted- data from the disc. This wasn't
really helpful, but a first step. Derek released his code under the GPL.

This code was running under linux, we were actually able to read data from DVDs. So much for the lie about the missing linux support for DVDs
at that time. UDF support was already there, but you even won't need UDF for reading DVDs, as DVDs contain a ISO9660 compatible filesystem as well.
Later DoD released their DVD speedripper, a full CSS decoder running under windows.

Shortly after DeCSS was published. Jon Johansen himself announced
DeCSS on the LiVid-Mailinglist:
From: "Jon Johansen"
Subject: [Livid-dev] DeCSS 1.1b has been released
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 06:45:39 +0200
DeCSS is a css decryptor which works with 'the Matrix', something DoD's speed ripper doesn't.

Derek got his hands on the source, and announced this interesting information:
From: Derek Fawcus
Subject: Re: [Livid-dev] DeCSS 1.1b has been released
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 19:49:25 +0100
I've just read through the source to DeCSS, compare CSSauth.cpp to css-auth.c in my authentication package.
The authors have taken it almost verbatim - all they did was remove my copyright header, one block comment, and rename the functions.
I don't mind them using the code - it's out there, but they could have left my name on it.
Interesting this - I only released that file under GPL!

So, DeCSS was a clear break of GPL! So much for a guy who got his legal defense paid by the EFF because he wanted to support Linux...

This incident got the linux dvd people of course upset on Jon Johansen. He was emailed and informed that under the GPL he is obligated to release the source code too. He simply refused that in his response and stated
that linux was a bad os and he wishes it would had never been released(!). So much for a guy who pretends to be a linux supporter.

Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:36:03 +0200
From: "Jon Johansen"
Subject: Re: [Livid-dev] DeCSS 1.1b has been released
> And: The Open Source model does not work on a "give me that and i
> will give you this" model. You should maybe first find out, what
> the meaning of GPL and the open source idea is, before talking to
> me in such a rude way. If Linus Torvalds has speaked in a way like
> you, Linux wouldn't even exist today.
And about linux and Linus Torvald, I wish that would have happened. FreeBSD is a far superior OS compared to linux.

Jon Johansen later tried to play down this mail:
From: "Jon Johansen"
Subject: [Livid-dev] I am sorry...
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 02:33:57 +0200
And I might have overdone it a bit when I said I didn't care if linux would not have been invented. It's a great OS, but of course not in all ways, but that's how it is with all operating systems.
PS: If I could just get some hollywood plus drivers for linux, I would probably be setting up my own linux machine in the living room :P

So this great supporter of linux, who told you that he didn't released for linux sole for technical reasons (which were proven untrue above)
didn't even had a machine running linux!

Jon Johansen sent some other mails to the LiVid-Mailinglist showing his true attitude toward free software and the GPL:
From: "Jon Johansen"
Subject: Re: [Livid-dev] DeCSS 1.1b has been released
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 20:21:53 +0200
In case you didn't know, WE had already sent the css decryption source to our connection in the linux community. So why don't you just shut up?
That means we have shared with the once who shared with us. You didn't get anything; shouldn't be too hard to figure out why....

So Jon redeclared the GPL. You aren't obligated to publish your modification in the public, you just give them to the original author.
And if you are not nice to him (and give him something), you get nothing.
Nice try.

From: "Jon Johansen"
Subject: Re: [Livid-dev] DeCSS 1.1b has been released
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 23:36:03 +0200
We would never release the source to everyone. It has been released to Derek who knows how to handle it, and when to release which parts of it.
I trust him, and I am sure he will release what's needed, at the most convenient point. If you have trouble with that, then go reverse engineer
css yourself.

Oh, this guy really wanted to help the linux community? How? Releasing binary only module for CSS decoding? Or how should the linux community
use his CSS hack without the source?
That we finally got the DeCSS source despite his plans to not release it, was the result of Jons own mistakes. He left a copy of the source
code public available on his webserver.

From: Ted Milker
Subject: [Livid-dev] DeCSS source
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 18:35:44 -0500
The DeCSS source code is available on the DeCSS homepage at:
http://mmadb.no/hwplus/____MMSystem_275____/D ecss. zip

After this posting Jon fast removed the source code, but i have downloaded it from there (Ted informed me in IRC before he posted this), it was
there. And it contained the GPL code claimed above, with the copyright removed.

So DeCSS was a clear violation of GPL.
Finally the DeCSS source was released after this, because there were no other options left (the source had already leaked, and the GPL required
it).

I hope after reading this summary of authentic emails and my firsthand observations you rethink what you thought about Jon Johansen. He is
not the good guy he likes to describe himself (which helped get free legal advise etc.).
He didn't wanted to support the Linux community, he has used GPL code and broke the GPL himself and after all he has a very bad attitude.

I repeat: I don't think all the legal hassle to Jon regarding DeCSS is good, but he is definitely not the matyr he was made by the public.

cryptus - 2000/11/27

Do you realize

[Anonymous Coward]

That everything you write on Slashdot is either moderated troll or offtopic?

I don't think that's fair.

Unfortunately, the moderation doesn't allow for "completely unfunny" or "boring". Because that would be more accurate.

As to most of your rants...would it disturb you to find out that I know for a fact that your mother is a fine lay? Or that the hair on her back is thicker than the hair in her nose?

You are stupid and moronic

[Anonymous Coward]

You know so much and you know nothing.

A "not guilty" verdict cannot be appealed.

You're so dumb your mother is smacking her own head saying "I shouldn't have smoked so much pot when I was pregnant with him"

Re:Pardon me, Mr. Fucktar

[SN74S181]

It's interesting that one becomes a 'fucktar' for pointing out the truth. Further, one's virility, or whatever, comes into question.

You can suffer a second prosecution in the United States in some circumstances. This case isn't a second prosecution. This is a second trial.

legal fees?

[Alkonaut]

Lots of discussion on legal fees here. Why are Americans so convinced that a poor norwegian guy will probably be drenched in legal fees?

Perhaps Norway has one of those sane legal systems where the fact that a case is tried again does not affect the economy of the defendant, nor does the quality of the defence necessarily depend on the defendants economy...

Does this all sound crazy?

Apples and oranges

[danro]

One little piece of idiocy I do NOT want this country to adopt.

I agree that giving the procecution a general right to appeal in the current US system would be disasterous.
But in the Norvegian system it's actually not as bad as it sounds.
The entire system is very different from the US. (For example: in a criminal case, like this, the defendant don't pay lawyer fees, so Jon won't be ruined.)
The reason for the appeal is probably (besides trying to save the prosecutions face) that they have to push the case all the way to the supreme court to set a precendent either way. This is a "new" type of crime remember.
So, you can expect another appeal. And since it is a new crime the supreme court will probably accept it. (Otherwise rare.)

Sucks to be Jon, but probably not as much as it would have done if the same thing would have happended in the US, chances are he is getting off the hook, and even if he isn't it won't completely ruin his life.

It will, however be a setback for OSS development in Europe.

The whole case is rediculous if you ask me.
And the real idiocy here is that the kid was even arrested at all.

"Simply to prove a point"

[dark-nl]

What will be the effect on Jon? Presumably this process will take a few years. Will he have to live with the possibility of a criminal sentence for all of that time?

Norway in EU?

[Groote Ka]

Article:
Norway is currently evaluating the implementation of the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD) regulating distribution of films over the Internet.

AFAIK, Norway is not a member of the EU. Why would the implement this directive?

Re:Norway in EU?

[Ashtead]

Norway is not a member of the EU, however, it is a member of the EEA (Europeian Economic Area) and thus required to implement a number of EU regulations. The EUCD is just one of these, and AFAIK it has only been implemented by Denmark and Greece.

I wish people would stop complaining about this...

[orichter]

So many people think OJ never should have been tried in a civil court because he had already been aquitted. The fact of the matter is the government had a chance to make a criminal case, and they failed. They didn't get a second chance. The Goldmans and Browns had a chance to make a civil case against OJ, and they made thier case. I for one am glad that we live in a country where it is harder to make a criminal case than a civil case, and contrary to popular opinion, the government doesn't get a second chance to convict.

Re:Pardon me, Mr. Fucktar

[fishbowl]

>Oh, so if I'm found not guilty, and the
>government appeals, I'm free to go?

The same government cannot appeal. The Federal and State governments are considered separate, and can both try you if the crime was committed in both State and Federal jurisdictions. That may or may not be reasonable in your opinion, but it is an expression of the general will of the people, and it is a policy that could be changed if there were significant interest in changing it. (Never mind that the "will of the people" is expressed via apathy, instead of action).

>You have a fucked up legal system. Be man enough
>to admit it.

Every legal, political, social, and economic system in the world has issues, and no system is even close to perfect. There is a matter of observer bias when evaluating the US system.
More reports of problems, together with the enormous size of the systems (a huge Federal government, 50 State governments of various sizes and structures, and uncounted municipalities with their own legal systems), and a widespread prejudice which assumes the system is broken, all add up to "a fucked up legal system." This ignores the fact that, in general, the system works. There are certain enormous problems of course, and certain failings of the system are so outrageous as to be difficult to understand. But when the system works, which it does most of the time, it isn't newsworthy.

Nobody shouts from the rooftops about all the lawsuits that DIDN'T bankrupt the defendant, or about all the murders on death row that DID kill somebody.

Now, show me the country whose judicial system really works 100% of the time. Please choose only a country with a population of at least 100 million.