Slashdot Mirror
DeCSS: Jon Johansen Retrial Begins
JPMH writes "Jon Johansen is back on trial for DeCSS. Despite the acquittal back in January, the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) is allowed to bring his case back before an enlarged panel of judges. The retrial begins today."
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
In other words, nobody is hurt, financially, by me using Linux and DeCSS instead of Windows and WinDVD. I've paid all my licenses, including my Microsoft tax (actually, I got a free license from a site-license, but somebody paid it, which is really all that matters).
I'm thinking you were trolling, but I wanted to bring this up anyway.
Losely, it's "Oko" for 'eco' (economical) and "krim" for 'crime'.
I think. I'm not Norsk.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Norway has a two-phase court system.
If either party disagree with the verdict at the lower court they can appeal and get a new trial with more judges (and depending on the type of crime, either a jury or a panel of judges)
With the risk of spoiling a joke:
OKOKRIM sound to me like a abbreviation of "Okonomisk Kriminalitet" (the first letter should be an "Oslash") which lead me to suspect that it is the prosecutor for economic criminality.
Not to feed the troll, but according to this, Norway has a per capita GDP of $31,800, a Gini index of .26, and $68 billion in exports vs. $37 billion in imports. Not too shabby for a bunch of fjord-huggers -- and they're Gini index sure kicks the US's ass (we're at something like .43)
All's true that is mistrusted
Retrial is if e.g. the trial is decleared a "mistrial", or in the case of Norway, normally only if the Supreme Court finds that the lower court were waaay off (normally, they'd correct a sentence themselves, a retrial is basicly only if it'd take up too much of the court's time to do it all over again).
:p
Also, for the people I see making fun of the name, it's really Økokrim, Øko = eco- of economics, and krim of crime... It's just not fucking possible to get slashdot to show HTML character codes
Anyway, I hope they appeal it all the way to the top and fail with flying colors... too bad, that by then the EUCD will probably already be in effect, making the precedent outdated...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Appeals are still double-jeopardy. In the U.S., the prosecution cannot appeal an innocent verdict, while the defense can appeal a guilty verdict as long as they can show sufficient grounds. This is to protect citizens against the possibility of being harassed until they go bankrupt or are found guilty.
This appeal is a perfect reason why "no double-jeopardy" laws exist.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Actually most civilized countries, regardless of your definition, does NOT have protection against appeals to a higher court, only against retrial. You have the concept of double jeopardy in Norway as well, but applied to retrials not appeals, as it is throughout most of Europe, and in fact in most countries with a legal system not originating in from English common law.
to say he is being prosecuted for "accessing his own property" is simply shrill hyperbole
Shrill hyperbole empathically supported by the previous court, in that case, if you read the deliberation on the aquittal.
sudo ergo sum
These court cases should illustrate to Mr. Johansen and rest of us:
If you're going to crack open the schemes of the corporate overlords, do so anonymously.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Since the Norwegian legal system only has three levels, and appeals will only rarely be heard by the supreme court (the third level) and then normally only regarding matters of law, the burden isn't that great.
Add to that that Norway has a public defender system where private practising attorneys take on cases at the governments cost if you can't afford an attorney (as opposed to having dedicated, underpaid public defenders), AND that it is fairly easy to get awarded damages if you are aquitted and the court finds that the government prosecuted you without good reason, and you have a reasonable compromise.
As an example regarding the public defender system, I was refusing military service (which is mandatory in Norway) years ago. The first step then is for them to get the police to take a statement and ask you to confirm whether or not you will accept the decision from the Department of Justice regarding whether or not to transfer you to civil service. I refused.
The next step then is to ask the court to confirm the decision of the Department of Justice. In that case, I was given a partner in one of Norways most well known and prestigious law firms, with 30 years experience in defending people refusing military service, as my public defender, cost free. (I didn't really need him though - I got the court to throw the case out on a formality on my own accord, but he was a cool guy to talk to anyway :) )
Yes, the prosecution can appeal a decision in the Norwegian court system. Note that this isn't a new trial, it's an appeals process. But I think we and the USA has a completely different understanding of how the justice system should work, and why double jeopardy should/shouldn't exist. I'll try to explain:
In the American system, it's all about finding the one trial that'll get them acquitted, be it that the jury that is so biased, incompetent, stupid, subjective, easily influenced, prejudicial, scared of sending innocents to jail or otherwise inept that they can't manage to find a man guilty even when the evidence should have been sufficient. Or through lack of experience on part of the judge and the prosecution, making the legal proceedings be of an inadequate quality.
I guess the reasoning is that if one jury is able to see reasonable doubt, there is reasonable doubt. In theory, it sounds like sound legal thinking. However, I can think of so many other reasons why one specific jury may find reasonable doubt where there is none. In the US, that seems to be acceptable, but I think most other places it'd be seen as a flaw, if the evidence was in fact sufficient (another matter altogether if the evidence is insufficient, both of us use "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt").
In Norway, and I might add in quite a few other countries, we instead realize that trials are not perfect, and that judgements may be too excessive. This can go both in favor as well as disfavor of the defendant, and in extremes leading to aquitting those that by the evidence should have been guilty, and also in some cases sentencing the innocent. In particular, I'm thinking about sentences that get overturned in a higher court, though technically you're not sentenced until the judgement is final.
Instead, we base our legal system on competence. A higher court, with more/better educated judges, a full jury, is considered to be more competent, and so a more accurate instrument of justice than a lower one. That is, that a higher court will make less incorrect decisions, putting more guilty in jail, and freeing more innocents.
Now ask yourself this: If you were checking if a product was inside a specification, would you use one fairly accurate measurement, or many less accurate ones and reject it if one is outside the acceptable limits? I think the Norwegian system works great, it's just that some laws are completely nutty and sentences are overall too low. But that's a completely different discussion...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I have that DVD- it does not disable the ability to "go to" a specific time - so if you're free to jump to "10:00:00" in the movie, or anywhere else that you please.
So while he disagrees with the idea of "chaptering" a movie (and so the movie is not chaptered on the DVD, which would consitute an endorsement of that approach), the DVD also does NOT interfere with the user's standard ability to navigate wherever they please.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me - if the user wants chaptering there's just a bit more work involved to simulate the effect.