Slashdot Mirror
Jon Johansen To Be Retried On Piracy Charges
cecil36 writes "Yahoo has the scoop on 'DVD Jon's' latest trial regarding DeCSS being used as a piracy tool. The article claims that Hollywood is losing $3 billion a year due to piracy *yawn*, but Johansen's lawyer believes the acquittal from the previous trial may be enough for him to win the case. The case is set to go again on December 2nd this year. What are the prospects of Johansen winning a second time?"
Just set the evil bit for any content decoded by DeCSS.
beating a dead horse. The RIAA and their possie have enormous patience and wallets. If they don't get what they want this year then they'll do it again next year and so on.
I bet they loose a lot more from making bad movies.
internet like monkeys'
DeCSS is a terrorist tool and should be stopped. We cannot allow people to terrorize the MPAA members (who are all poor and starving) like this.
Go get em PATRIOT act, watching Men In Black II without paying for it or ever having intention of paying for it in the first place is a serious crime. (to yourself! ever SEEN that POS?)
That's a great concept! The idea that he can use what he bought in a fair manner.... this is an interesting concept, one that we should try here in the US! Since he's using it in a manner that is fair to him, we should call it the fair use act! Imagine the possibilities!
"kids -- 30 seconds of joy, 30 years of suffering" -- this kid wrote a few pages worth of code years ago when he was 16. And since then his life has been spent enduring lawsuits by huge industry firms from another country. but that won't keep me from trying to create beauty with code.
Why not go after the ones distributing the illegal media, instead of someone who just made a tool inteded for legal use...?? Its like suing knife makers for being the cause of murders!
We possibly shouldn't be surprised that Norway is one of them: underneath the clean and friendly image, Scandinavian states have a history of social control, significant right-wing politics, and social repression of dissident groups. Just like us, in fact.
Norway is a far cry from the USA, but like EU, we're eagerly learning.
Sadly enough, USA have a big karmic responsibility to the world of being a role-model, and is failing horribly.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
I like the idea of double jeopardy. This and other reasons are why I live in the United States. I believe that the idea of government lends itself to the abuse of power and I want every protection from them.
However, there are people and societies that believe removing criminals from the streets is better for the greater good of the community and outweighs the dangers of innocent people being affected by their methods. It's not better or worse, just different. Stop judging them.
Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
How about ex post facto applying for this case. If the ruling body had made the law that they want to try Jon under _after_ DeCSS was written, it stands to reason that the law should not be able to apply to him.
Well, IANAL, (definitely IANANL), but IWLOF (I Watch Law and Order Frequently).
Have a look at the way the Norwegian justice system works before you make this kind of comment. The initial trial was in a lower court, both prosecution and defendants may appeal to a higher court.
You may not like it, but this is the way the Norwegian systems works, and has worked for a long time.
So "DVD Jon" is being charged with creating software which allowed the copying of DVD's. So why aren't the people who created VCR's being charged as they allow copying of films as well. Ok so I will say that yes I'm sure this makes pirating a bit easier but if you've ever looked a DeCSS it just providers a framwork that 99.9% of people couldn't use. It wasn't until people starting writing GUI/CLI DVD rippers that it became possible. Should they go after them?
All in all hes been proven innocent once and will be again
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
One thing to keep in mind is that when one is prosecuting a case, either in criminal terms or as a plaintiff, there are usually multiple angles to take when building one's argument. If the prosecutor chooses a different angle of attack in this new trial, it might bring new points that weren't stressed in the previous trial, which gives the defense more challenge in defending. Granted, in theory the bulk of available information should have been put forth in the previous trial, but information or points that the prosecution might have thought unnecessary could be brought to light. In the United States, the prosecution has to outline and show their case on paper before they can even begin to argue it in court, and the defense has to receive all that information, on witnesses and what they're probably going to say, on evidence, etc. I don't know if this is required in Norway or not. If it isn't, and if there are new bits and pieces of information that weren't used before, this could be a very bumpy road for the defense.
It's a damn shame that there isn't a practical way to force the hand of the prosecution. Between his age at the time he wrote DeCSS, the fact that he's already been acquited once, and the fact that this is a completely nonviolent offense that he has been accused of, I'd imagine that Norway's court would have a lot more important, and more success-likely cases to prosecute. Cases like murder, rape, even theft that are pushed back because of the state appeal of a case they already lost against a minor who simply wanted to use his computer as the new-age equivalent of a VCR, and enable others to do the same.
IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
I don't think that Hollywood and the movie studios care so much about the outcome of the trial as long as the process is scaring the shit out of other potential code writers.
The goal of the process is not "justice" (Whatever that word means in the US of A) but to make an example out of John. "Hey, if you mess with us we will keep you tied up in legal problems for 10 years, guilty or not!"
The whole thing isn't exactly giving a good image of the USA as the "land of the free and brave" but rather something like the "rich and blinded by power".
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
For example, if someone is accused of a "hate" crime at the state level and then acquitted, the government will then find some loosey goosey Federal charge which covers the same ground as the state trial. This allows them to try someone twice for the same crime under a deceptive ruse.
The root of this problem is that the 10th Amendment is not enforced. The 10th Amendment essentially says that all powers not enumerated in the Constitution are the sole realm of the individual states. As we now live, Federal law often duplicates state law, and even where it doesn't it gets its grubby hands on us through bogus use of the "commerce clause" whereby almost any human endeavor can be twisted to be interpreted as "interstate commerce".
What does he expect. If you go sailing around the carribean, stealing gold from the spaniards while waving a cutlass and crying "shiver me timbers", you can expect the authorities to try you on piracy charges. The sooner we send this scourge of the seaways to Davy Jones' locker, the better. Hang him from the yard arm, I say!
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
1) Smith&Wesson, Colt, Heckler&Koch all have products that enable, for example, car-jacking, armed robbery and murder.
2) GM, Ford have products that enable many people to commit actual crimes and subsequently escape into other jurisdictions.
3) Numerous beer, wine and liquor manufacturers have products that cause many deaths, often when combined with items 1 & 2 listed above.
Call it flamebait, or troll if you like, I don't care. No, the above don't relate to the DMCA - so what? They're just as ridiculous as retrying someone who was acquitted, and that's all my examples are intended to show.
Jon was acquitted - what on earth could the MPAA produce as evidence that wasn't produced last time around? Not much, I suspect. If a firearms manufacturer can say "we just produce guns, we don't kill people with them" and get away with it, why can't Jon say "I'm legally watching DVDs I already own" and be safe from this modern Inquisition? I sincerely hope that the Norwegian courts are able to hand off Jon's defence expenses to the MPAA. If not, he should be considering suing the MPAA for libel, slander, defamation of character, loss of earnings, etc.
This post is a comment on the stupidity of the DMCA and the MPAA and has nothing to do the Gulf War or gun control. (In case you're interested, I firmly believe that gun control means hitting your intended target first time, not squeezing off a few rounds and calling whatever you hit the target...)
The problem with hollywood's "we're losing 3 billion annually" numbers is that they are taking an estimated number of copies made each year at a price of FREE and multiplying it by the price they charge for DVDs. If they took an economics course they would realize that the demand for a movie is very elastic, meaning as the price goes up the number of movies purchased goes down. At a price of essentially zero the demand for every movie is HUGE, thus there are hundreds of thousands of downloads. If it actually cost the retail price of the DVD to download the movie then downloads would significantly drop. To find the actual amount that downloading DVDs costs hollywood you have to shift the demand curve along the supply curve until you hit the price of the retail DVDs and then you have the real number of lost DVD sales, which would be significantly less than 3 billion dollars a year because the demand for DVDs is most likely very elastic (help me out here any of you people who actually have an economics degree, what do you think the actual cost to Hollywood is? Is the demand elastic?)
One has to wonder how much of that 3 billion is attributed to lawyer fees.
Social control - yes
Right-wing politics - hell no! Socialist influences more like.
Repression of dissident groups - no again
in GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUin GNUSegmentation fault
It's not a 'new trial', but a 'retrial'. Just as the defendant can appeal to a higher court, so can the prosecutors. Mind you, had the defendant appealed, it would have been more or less automaticly accepted, the prosecution must prove that something was wrong with the forst trial; that the judge used the law wrong, that evidence was overlooked or that there was some technicaly that wasn't right.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
I bet there won't ever be a movie released about "The DVD Jon Trials"... At least not on DVD.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
However, there are people and societies that believe removing criminals from the streets is better for the greater good of the community and outweighs the dangers of innocent people being affected by their methods.
There are several logical extensions to this statement, which explain why the American legal system is (theoretically) so protective of the defendant.
First of all, the desire to see justice done often leads people to treat the law as an agent of retribution rather than of justice. Whenever a suspected murderer is acquitted, the news story includes an obligatory statement from the family saying how disappointed they are. In some cases the defendant really is quite innocent, or prosecutorial abuse of the legal system was far out of bounds.
This means that when popular attention fixes on one suspect any concept of legal "fairness" goes out the window. The need for someone to blame and punish leads to lynching by jury. Typically the poor (and/or minorities, uneducated, etc.) get hit hardest by this. They're the easiest to pick on, and the easiest to abuse in court or interrogation. By the way, 38 black residents of Tulia, TX were just freed on the basis that the entire case against them was almost certainly fabricated.
Some people would take this to extremes and seriously argue that the application of the death penalty to innocents is worth having it as a deterrent. (I'm not joking - a National Review columnist once said this, and I've heard it elsewhere.)
You have to understand that the enemy isn't necessarily the government - it's the people. Read up on the history of lynching in the South. I think the problems we're seeing with crime enforcement in general and the death penalty in particular stem from similar factors - not necessarily racism per se, but scapegoating and the violent expression of popular anger. No one cares if some poor, retarded man fries, and doesn't even bother to think about his innocence, because they're convinced (reasonably so) that it'll never happen to them.
America's system clearly isn't perfect; the legal protections defendants enjoy have not prevented many people being railroaded into long prison sentences or execution. I'd argue that we should abolish the death penalty entirely, for that matter. However, I have no respect for any legal system that places defendants at the mercy of overzealous prosecutors driven by either corporate cartels or popular sentiment. I have no opinion on Norway's society or government in general, but I can still say their legal rules suck fat cock.
Does your respect for the diversity of legal systems extend to the sharia court in Nigeria that's planning to stone a woman for adultery?
Of course, IANAL. Everything I needed to know about the US Justice System, I learned from Judge Judy.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
I wonder if hollywood will try to sue PigDog for using the trademark'd name "DeCSS". I mean, they are suing for it, why not take advantage of it? Go get em guys!
Speaking at Defcon 12 - Credit Card Networks Revisted: Pen
'Prosecutors in January lodged an appeal, objecting to the application of the law and the presentation of evidence. '
If they object to the law, shouldn't that be debated by government reps? I don't think a judge has the authority to ignore the law.
Objection of evidence presentation should have been done at the time the evidence was introduced, shouldn't it? Just because your legal team didn't think of a 'snappy comeback' at the appropriate time isn't a reason for a 'do-over' (IMHO).
The GEEK shall inherit the earth...
It's not double jeopardy because double jeopardy is getting re-prosecuted for the same crime after being prosecuted/convicted.
If you watched the movie Double Jeopardy, you would know that the heroine (played by Ashley Judd) could not be retried and convicted for the murder of her husband (who was actually still alive) because she was already convicted (wrongly) and did the time for it. This allowed her to go after him, with lethal force and without fear of repercussions, in the movie. This is (amazingly) an accurate portayal of this concept.
However, in the US your 'definition' applies as well, as far as I can tell. (I doubt it is officially called double jeopardy, however.) Only the defense is allowed to appeal a conviction; I believe if overturned on appeal, it may be able to appealed by the prosecution at that point only. I'm going off my poor memory of a law class I took last semester.
The line from the Constitution reads,Interpretation is left up to lawyers, judges, and lots of other laws, I'm sure. Sorry, but I don't feel like doing any more research on this.
The space unintentionally left unblank.
"What stops analog copying?"
...the region codes supposedly stop that from happening, given that most of the large scale piracy actually occurs in China, and no one would ever think to bring a Region 1 or a region-free DVD player into China, and none of those DVD's could ever make it back to the U.S., right?
In theory, your DVD player adds MacroVision(tm) to the signal.
But MPAA really do not care about analog redistribution, per se, because it's not an issue for them: it doesn't scale to 10,000 copies very easily, like dumping a DeCSS'ed data stream onto Internet II.
What they are more worried about is digital duplication of perfect copies over communications networks, both todays, and those just over the horizon.
At some point, the DVD-R/DVD-RW technology will get to where it can make a verbatim copy of a still-protected DVD, and the game will be up for them, since people will just copy verbatim images of the CSS'ed DVD's themselves.
In fact, you could just send the raw DVD data over a network to a remote site *now*, and burn a copy, and to heck with the idea of CSS anyway: a bit-for-bit copy is identical: let your DVD player DeCSS the contents for you with legal chips.
Then
-- Terry
As I've pointed out elsewhere, I'll bring out again that Norway does have something similar to US double jeopardy protection, however the protection is against retrial, not appeal. This is what is normal in legal systems not based on English common law. Appeals in Norway always happen to a higher court, and there are only three levels in the court system. The Supreme Court refuses most request for appeals, and the next level down usually only hear complaints about procedure or application of law and usually put substantial weight on the evidence and findings of the lower court.
As such, the burden of an appeals case is significantly lower than it would have been in a retrial. It's certainly not non-existant, but it's still lower.
Generally, though, looking at prison population in percentage of population compared to reported crime, it would seem that the Norwegian legal system is far less likely to convict you of anything. Add to that that Norwegian law imposes a maximum sentence of 21 years in prison followed by up to 10 years of regular check ins with the police, a sentence which is usually only used for multiple homicide cases or similar extensive violent crimes. And most crimes have legal maximum sentences that are much, much lower.
What you're left with is a legal system that I'd argue places lower burdens on a defendant overall: You may find that an aquittal get appealed, but you risk less (a significantly lower sentence, and significantly better conditions in prison), and it will likely take more to get a conviction even in the lower court.
Our right wing parties always complain about this, and want our legal system to become more like the US legal system in order to put more people behind bars... In Norway wanting to be "tough on crime" translates directly into wanting to copy the US.
Your point about Nigeria is good, but I'd like to point out there that the Sharia courts point to significant ethnic problems in Nigeria, which is divided pretty evenly between christians and muslims. Sharia courts in the muslim north only apply to muslims. Even so, the federal legal system has made it clear that it considers much of Sharia law to violate federal law, and the federal government has made it clear that anyone sentenced under Sharia law to a punishment not supported by the federal legal system can appeal and expect their sentences to be overturned more or less automatically in the higher court.
The problem faced by Obasanjo (the Nigerian president), though, is that Nigeria is just a few years away from it last period of military dictatorship, ethnic problems have caused significant clashes in the north (between christians and muslims), and ethnic unrest in the south west has placed a large part of Nigeria's oil production in jeopardy, while corruption is still widespread. In a situation like that, he hardly have the power base to address the problem of the Sharia courts - in the last election, the muslim north was an important area for him (despite being christian himself).
Obviously none of that diminish the problem of the sharia courts, but it should give some insight in why they're tolerated - the federal government is still way to weak to take the chance of another uprising or military coup.
First, even IF he gets convicted, the case will have absolutely no bearing on any federal or state law in the United States. No court in this country will recognize Norwegian law.
Second, though I know little about the Norwegian court system, an appeal usually focuses primarily on whether or not the law was correctly applied in the previous case. If that's how things work over there, there's a good chance the ruling will uphold the judgment of the lower court.
Third, if my experiences in US Courts are any guide, foreign companies/corporations/groups tend not to fare so well against a local defendant.
I might be totally wrong about those last two points, but I hope everyone in the US doesn't freak out too much. It's not going to have any bearing on what happens here. And beside the point, the genie (DeCSS) is already out of the bottle. They're just trying to frighten people out of using it.
IAAL
Add to that that considerable weight will be given by the court to the judgement from the lower court, and the party who lost in the lower court starts at a significant disadvantage in the appeal court.
Except, in this case, the MPAA could pay for 50 trials in a row and never miss the money. I don't know the specifics of Jon's finances, but I doubt he could pay for even one or two trials before bankruptcy.
"The losing party pays the costs" sounds like a good idea, but in the days when lawsuits are often between Joe Blow and some megagajillion dollar corporation, it skews everything.
live(free) || die;
However, I have no respect for any legal system that places defendants at the mercy of overzealous prosecutors driven by either corporate cartels or popular sentiment. I have no opinion on Norway's society or government in general, but I can still say their legal rules suck fat cock.
Please do some more reading: In all criminal cases in Norway, the government has to pick up the defendant's legal costs, irrespective of which lawyer he chooses to represent himself.
This means that even in an obviously lopsided case like this (really the MPAA vs Jon J), the stronger party cannot add cripling economic burdens on top of the onus of being forced to show up in court.
Terje
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
Accept the sprawling bureaucracy of social programs and the accepted social order: OK, fine.
Reject it, or fall through the cracks of it: Who needs you? Get lost.
What's more, here's a country that threw Christian "Varg" Vikernes in jail for just 21 years (a so-called "life sentence") for stabbing another guy to death -- first-degree murder, in U.S. parlance. On the other hand, this Jon guy goes to trial twice for -- what? Writing software? Go figure those priorities! "Right-wing politics -- hell no" indeed!
Breakfast served all day!
Whilst I'm aware of a few programs that use DeCSS for copying DVDs to formats such as DivX, removing the CSS, what if DeCSS was used legitimitely in a piece of software such as a DVD player that contained a binary form of the decoder and was not capable of pirating DVDs? I pose this question because I am currently developing a small Linux distro and there are some really good pieces of software around that allow the playback of DVD. I would like to include such software, but not at the expense of a court battle.
What deems DeCSS illegal (in terms of the MPAA)? If I were to (for example) compile Xine , Mplayer or Ogle with DeCSS support compiled into the programs by means of a static version of the library, the program will still play DVDs as normal, but the DeCSS code could not be used for anything else on the system because the library does not have to exist on the computer, besides inside the player itself. In doing this, am I breaking the law, or at risk of having the MPAA onto me?
I think you are missing some things. Teh MPAA is not going after him again, the prosecution is. In Norway, like the US, a company doesn't prosecute anything, the government does. From what I have been told, in Norway if either the defense or presecution does not accept the ruling they can appeal it to a higher court. It then gets retried. That court is then the final word on things.
so its not a matter of the MPAA wanting to present new evidence, it's a matter of the prosecution ebing mad they lost, and wanting to take it to a higher court.
Again, US law doesn't apply here, they do things differently in other countries.
So if a gun is "just a tool", what is its primary function, by design? An SUV's primary purpose by design is to transport a person or people from one place to another. The primary purpose of a knife is to cut, usually an inanimate object or something which is already dead. Under some circumstances, a knife may be used to kill, making it an offensive weapon. Now, the primary purpose of a gun is to fire a bullet into an object, usually with the intent to damage, or if the object is alive, to kill or incapitate that object. By design, a gun is designed to damage
Unless you can prove that the majority of gun owners are E.g. using their firearms to effectivly bore holes for the purposes of wood working, a gun is designed to destroy or damage. Which is the whole point, which is why a gun is different to an SUV or a knife, and which you know full well but will go blue in the face attempting to deny, in order to cling on to an outdated, un-needed and useless section of the constitution.
The Norwegian legal system is quite different from the american. Suing for malicious use of the court system has to be very, very well founded in the charges brought agains Jon. In this case the prosecutor (Økokrim) has a duty to intercept and investigate. After all,Jon HAS done something that comes quite close to breaking the law. So the Økokrim is in their right.
As for retriution, he can sue for money lost due to the case and a small ammount of money for damages. As a rule, in the courts of Norway, penal money retributions does not exist.
Disclaimer: IAANLS (I am a Norwegian law student)
OK.Jon Johansen made the GUI + some subsystem to break the CSS DVD encryption. Mind you, he got these codes from a German fellow, he did not get the codes himself.
In current Norwegian copyright law, you are entitled to make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use (Åndsverkloven 12, 1st section. This does not apply to computer programs or databases.). Jons program does not facilitate the copying of the DVD, just the reading the contents. He also argued that DeCSS could be used for making backups of the DVD.
Jon argues that he made DeCSS to view the contents of the DVD on this Linux computer. The prosecution argues that he mocks Linux and was a BSD-guy at the time of DeCSS. Anyway, the DeCSS program first appeared on Windows.
The prosecution wanted to nail Jon on the paragraph 145 of the Norwegian penal code. It says that (summary) "anyone gaining illegal access to locked data, also computer data can be punished with jail for a maximum of six months". Note the "illegal" part here. The judge ruled that Jon had only gained access with DeCSS to data HE had bought. It was his copy of the work in question so he had a right to access it. He did not distribute any illegal copies, and he did not gain unlawful access to the DVD although his program might be used for that.
Disclaimer: IAANLS (I am a Norwegian law student)
The Supreme Court refuses most request for appeals, and the next level down usually only hear complaints about procedure or application of law and usually put substantial weight on the evidence and findings of the lower court.
...
In this particular case the proceedings of the lower court (the Tingrett) were audiotaped - I don't know whether the video feed into the press room was also taped.
The verdict (in Norwegian) says quite
clearly that Johansen had done almost exactly what the prosecution claimed he had - but that this was not a crime according to Norwegian law.
I have big problems seeing how the appeals court (lagmannsretten) could twist the law to make it a crime. On the other hand, it's a jury court, and if the prosecution experts can manage to brainwash the lay people on the bench
1) The MPAA does not pay for this trial, except for a lawyer sitting on the audience bench watchin the trial and reporting to the MPAA.
2) Repeat after me: THERE IS NO RETRIAL POSSIBILITY IN NORWAY. You CAN'T be trialed twice or more for the same crime + charges. Yes, the people can appeal but so can the defendant.
3) Laywer expenses in a Norwegian penal case IS PAID BY THE STATE. That means that you can get the most l33t lawyer in all of Norway working for you. Usually, these lawyers only take the high-profile cases so you end up with a decent lawyer. Second-rate lawyers end up in companies and minesteries here.
4) Here, you can lose the trial, but the trial expeneses are usually paid by the state because the extra expenses are often viewed as an additional punishment. Wich is illegal.
While I am of two minds on the gun-control debate, this snippet of text caught my eye. It's important to realize that our founders considered this one of the MOST BASIC rights that must be guaranteed.
Specifically, they wanted to ensure that the public had the means necessary to overthrow the government established by the Constitution, in the event that it didn't work out as they had hoped. If, for instance, the democratic process was subverted in some way, We The People were expected to take up our arms and restore proper government.
The fact that such a provision is essentially meaningless in an era of billion dollar war machines is a topic for another debate. If only Ben Franklin were still around to help us out with thorny issues like this... *sigh*
25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
I don't have a standalone DVD player, but I have a CD-ROM drive that can read DVDs. So yesterday I decided that I should get it to work so that I could watch the few DVD's I would come across.
So I installed the DVD player software that came with the drive. I had 2 DVD movies that came bundled with different stuff, not movies I wanted to watch but good enough for testing.
First problem, they were different regions so I had to search the internet for a Firmware to the drive that wouldn't increment the region change counter. It works I think, but the DVD player program still counts down.
Next problem, the DVD player program won't let me play the movie because it is copy protected and I have TV-OUT enabled. WTF, Now I do not have it enabled but my plan was to use it and watch the DVDs on my TV. So I am forced to watch them on the PC or buy some software on the internet that can bypass this.
After spending a couple of hours, I decided that DVD's were not worth the hassle for me anyway, I don't need a standalone player for the one movie I want to see every month and playing it on the PC is too much of a problem.
I am left with the feeling that they really don't want me to play their DVD's and their copyprotection attemps only works on those, like me, who are not really into it, and don't care enough about it to spend days to gain knowledge on the subject. But putting these roadblocks in the way to cripple the technology has just killed my interest in the media.
my sig
Some people would take this to extremes and seriously argue that the application of the death penalty to innocents is worth having it as a deterrent.
Actually, you can have a surprisingly interesting discussion about this...
"The death penalty as a deterrent" (not to be confused, as it so often is, with "the death penalty as retribution") is demonstrably not effective when applied to crimes such as murder, because murders are generally committed for reasons that seem, at the time, so compelling that the very notion of 'punishment' seems irrelevant.
On the other hand, if you applied the death penalty to minor traffic offenses, there's an excellent chance that you could make the roads a great deal safer at a stroke. Motives for speeding or illegal parking are generally so trivial that they could be easily deterred if the punishment weren't also trivial.
The real issue seems to be control over the choice of viewing platform.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Basicly, this appeals court is reviewig his case based on the law as-is, i.e. the question of guilt. With the same interpretation of the law as last time, he should undoubtably win.
However, I'm certain the prosecution will appeal to the Supreme Court, because of the principal nature of the case. This court is deciding what the correct interpretation of the law is, which is ultimately what is in question here.
Personally, I think it works out pretty good. In the US the prosecution could make ten DMCA charges, and even if they'd get thrown out in the first court, but you'd still tie them up in court and there'd be no precedent set. Not appealing in a Norwegian court would basicly be admitting to having no case. And if they do appeal, they risk getting a precedent against them. Personally I think that's fine. The first meritful case goes up to the Supreme Court, not some posterchild case for either side.
I hope for the Supreme Court to reject the prosecutions appeal (on the ruling in this trial, which I assume DVD-Jon will win). That's about as much egg-on-face factor as you can get. And they deserve it. It's coming from the same group of geniuses that wanted to ban anonymous email.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Otherwise, since piracy = terrorism, the evil regime in Oslo would be supporting terrorism, and we'll soon have triggerhappy american soldiers on our doorstep coming to "liberate" us.
"What are the prospects of Johansen winning a second time?"
I'd say it's almost certain. The previous aquittal was crystal clear. I think they're appealing mainly to build some strong case law.
sudo ergo sum
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't know about anyone else, but when I read stories about retrials after acquittals, it makes me REALLY glad the U.S. Constitution prohibits Double Jeopardy (and not the round in the television show either).
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
I wonder how much Hollywood is losing by alienating their customers with their strong arm tactics and the loads of crap which they put out every year. They spend how much trying to ram the latest Adam Sandler or Rob Schnider (Derp-de-do!) movie down our throats? I'm so sick of their shit that I'm just passing on everything they put out. I've got better things I can do with my money and time.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The US is not really free of "double jeopardy", in a loose sense - although someone can't be tried for the _exact_ same crime more than once, the US has so many nitpicking laws on the books, that in many cases a very determined prosecutor can usually find half-a-dozen or so laws that are tangentially related to the case (but are technically "different" crimes), or laws that even a law-abiding citizen has probably violated, just to keep someone they consider "bad" in jail.
Selective enforcement of too many conflicting laws is a classic way of controlling undesirables.
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)]
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Reading articles like this really saddens me. Johansen is (or should be) a hero to all users of open source. Every time I put a Cowboy Bebop dvd in the drive I must say a silent thank you prayer to Johansen because what he gave us was NOT without cost.
This poor kid is being hassled, harrassed, and treated like a criminal for wanting to watch dvds he owned on a computer he owned. By writing a few lines of code (which should be protected as free speech) he brought the wrath of the entire film industry down on his head. Poor guy. Hopefully this trial is quick and painless.
Trial, Trial, Trial again.
My father in law expressed this argument to me. "Guns are protected by the constitution so that we can defend ourselves from the government should it become tyrannical"
.306 wouldn't do diddly squat to a lazer guided 2000lb chunk of steel and high explosives and that his entire gun collection would be scattered across a four state area before he managed to take out more than four of whatever government force was bothering to invade his rural county home.
He went on to say that this was why he opposed firearms registration, bullet fingerprinting, and the like. Namely that he didn't want the government to know what he had in his basement if it ever came to that.
I told him that when the UN storm troopers started going door to door rounding up the disenters they'd just call in surgical airstrikes on whatever locations offered resistance. Told him his
This is what I don't understand. Yes, -=maybe=- in 1784 or whatever firearm ownership by the populace was sufficient to overthrow the government. A bunch of people tried this around 1862 however, and it didn't go so well. You might remember it, we call it the American Civil War.
So at least since 1862 I think we've had a pretty clear demonstration that guns are used primarily for killing other citizens, not for overthrowing the government. More to the point, anyone who tries to use them to overthrow the government, or even resist the government tends to find themselves facing progressively larger guns until the government wins.
The US government spends close to 100 Billion dollars a year on guns (and gun related supplies, such as soliders, battleships, and hydrogen bombs). What can you spend? Do the math.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.