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."
If it wasn't for Jon, I wouldn't have 60+ DVDs at home and the movie industry wouldn't have 900 of my hard earned cash.
I don't have a DVD player, I dont run windows. If it wasn't for Jon and the fine guys at Ogle, Mplayer, Xine, etc I wouldn't buy DVDs.
The movie industry needs locking up in a cell with a 7 foot guy called Buba wearing a dress. Pricks!
Before we all get all tear-eyed with nationalistic ideals etc etc, we should remember where RIAA and MPAA comes from.
"Why should it be that a prosecutor could not appeal?"
Because there have been numerous cases in history of people being harassed by governments until they went bankrupt or were finally found guilty on a bogus charge. If the government doesn't have the evidence to convict, then it shouldn't be bringing a case... and if that evidence doesn't convict the jury, then they have no grounds for trying a second time.
That you can even consider this a good thing for one second is a clear example of why Europe and the Anglo nations (all of which, I believe, ban such retrials) will never get along. We've never trusted our governments, and for good reason.
No, OJ dis not face criminal prosecution twice for the same crime. The key is the governments ability to restrict or revoke an individual's liberties.
Both trials were a farce. The criminal trial demonstrated how flawed the legal system is. A jury of your peers has turned into a jury of the uneducated and unemployed who understand neither the legal system nor the law, much less the simple physics of everyday life. The civil trial demostrated the inequity of the legal system. If OJ had been a penniless street kid he wouldn't have gotten sued. He had money, and the family decided to punish him financially via the courts. OF course, as a penniless street kid, he would have hanged after his court appointed attorney slept through most of the trial.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
...for fighting the good fight.
He's a bright kid (in the computer sense), and yet - apparently - stupid enough to pick on a 600 pound gorilla (RIAA/MPAA). I suppose the only thing to say is, "Thank you." Even US corporations with fat legal warchests aren't willing to take such a chance. Every revolution must start somewhere, and most truly successful ones start at the bottom.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Yeah - be happy!; in the US only 10% of the cases gets to a trial at all; the other 90% is blackmailed and never sees a judge. In Norwich on the other hand all suspects get a chance to be judged by the judge and after that both parties get a second chance to be judged by a higher judge. Now which of those systems do you prefer?
0x or or snor perron?!
Nothing like companies/industries not wanting their products to be sold.
It makes absolutely no sense why the RIAA would give a damn about DeCSS - it enables people to watch their over-priced DVDs in foreign countries. This requires at least some purchase. What's the deal?
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
"There is no reason to prevent the government from retrying their case once or twice."
There are very good reasons: for example, historically juries in civilised nations have routinely refused to convict people for breaking unpopular laws, effectively providing direct democracy in the jury box. Since the prosecutor can't get a retrial, that person is now free.
This is why Prohibition was finally ended in America: it simply became too difficult for the cops to get anyone convicted. In Europe, they would have been tried by judges, found guilty by the government, and the law would still stand.
"In theory, due to your double jeopardy laws, if the accused is guilty and aquitted - he may walk out of the courtroom and then tell the press "They released me, but really - I did do it! Ha! Ha!""
Indeed they could. Which is far better than an innocent person being persecuted by the government with repeated retrials... particularly if that "guilty" person was breaking some bogus law that 90% of the population oppose.
See, this is the difference between the civlised, "innocent until proven guilty" nations and the authoritarian "guilty until proven innocent" nations. As bad as some abuses have been in Britain and America, we've never started World Wars or slaughtered millions of our own people: there are good reasons for that, and our long-standing fear of giving people uncontrolled power is the largest one.
"Oh my $DEITY..... they're trying to make fast-forwarding past advertisements illegal?!? "
It is already illegal in the U.S. The ads autoplay, and you cannot stop them. Unless, of course, you reverse engineer a DVD player that lets you control whatever you like -- which is illegal under the DMCA. It is illegal to attempt to bypass an encrypted system, however they care to define it. it Even ROT13 qualifies as encryption, so the vendors don't even have to try very hard.
The point you miss is that if you win, the costs of your lawyers, plus damages are paid by government too. They're wasting their own money, not yours. If you don't have the funds to hire a lawyer, government will provide you with funds.
The big difference with the US is that it is a huge financial risk to have to fight a trial in the US.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
He was like 14 or 15 when he released DeCSS and it wasn't even illegal in his country at the time.
I would argue that you're assuming you're INNOCENT. The rule-of-thumb: 1) if you're innocent, trial by judge 2) if you're guilty, trial by jury.
Obviously, a guilty man has much to benefit from a panel of easily-swayed sheep. (cough cough OJ cough cough)
What'dya mean there's no BLINK tag!?
...I got locked out of my house and was arrested for breaking into my own home.
Until DMCA and it's counterparts elsewhere go away, we are all at the mercy of the **AA overlords and lackeys.
--
Free beer is nice, but I can speak more freely if I buy the beer.
Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. Jon Krakauer
Basically because in Norway, an appeal will not set youy back several millions. In fact, if you can't pay, you can still hire a top notch lawyer and the bill will be footed by the state.
It's only in USA (where I currently live) that you have to be extremly rich in order to endure a long judical process. Btw, USA have politically elected judges and DA's, that makes me sick to my stomach to think about. A political justice system is on the same line as the old Soviet Union. Poltics before justice!
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
It is not a re-trial
Norway is a free country in most if not all of the definitions you could think of.
That is why in Norway, as most other European countries, they have this crazy thing of fair and transparent elections to keep their goverments in check.
Canada has the same appeals structure as Norway, but they are maybe not Anglo enough for you. By the way, England and the rest of the UK are all very European countries.
Give one example. And don't mention the abuses of Hitler as an example of people trusting their goverment. Hitler was a dictator who did a coupe d'etate in a Germany in ruins after WWI.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Yes, I would. See Voltaire.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
If the product were extremely critical-- say, a life and death sort of thing like a pacemaker-- I would reject it if it failed even one test. And that would be good practice. You propose to retest it again and again until you get the result you want. Try explaining your rationale to the family of the the person who dies because you were trying to be "reasonable" in your testing, rather than stringent.
A higher court, with more/better educated judges
In the Norwegian system, it's possible to be acquitted by no less than two different courts before some third set of judges decides to jail you. If you believe that the third set is somehow "better" than the lower courts, then you're implicitly casting the other two sets of judges as wrong or even incompetent in those cases (perhaps because they're under-educated?) You're admitting that most of the legal decisions in your country are being made by judges who are periodically (nay, regularly) in error. That's a legal system I'd love to be subject to.
And that did a whole lot of justice in the case of people like O.J. Simpson.
I wouldn't knock the Norweigan system just because its not like ours. Our country isn't exactly a pinnacle of legal fairness, you know.
Its a Micky Mouse court under layered by freedom restricting laws that serve only corporate interests. If the MPAA stopped making films today for example it would not matter there would be people who would make better films for less, just as if Microsoft stopped what they were doing, (well,people already make better software for less). What public interest do laws like the DMCA serve? I've never seen a real criminal busted by the DMCA, in fact "arrested under DMCA" would probably boost my trust for someone (if i were an employer i would hire them on the spot)
Then theres the inability for the court members to fully understand the situation. All they see is "this law says you cant do this because it violates this companies IP security, this kid has broken the law" which is the same thing the politicians see. What the people in charge don't see or understand is the free speech issue and all they listen to are well trained, well articulated expensive company lawyers who know exactly how to sell the case just like the salesperson at that electronics store knows exactly how to sell your parents the wrong thing. Law and politics shouldn't be like that, otherwise the whole system is useless.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.