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 weren't for Jon Johansen, then I wouldn't have hundreds of DVD rips at home. For shame for making this all possible, Jon. Rot in a cell!
Trolling is a art,
Isch guet jetzt ?
Smile, don't click...
This is really not good for peoples civil liberties at all - it sucks! This will mean lots of people will get sued potenially.
Is it a boat?
"OK, OK, Retry Immediately, Man!"
So, let me get this straight : a guy does something that raises suspicion and gets a trial.
He's found innocent.
So, he's being tried again... and again ?
Why don't they directly send him to the electric chair ?
After all : they won't stop until he's found guilty, will they ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
I'll be curious to see what comes of this case.
To my nigz in tha hood this mornin' be down with the bros and smack tha hoes.
double jeopardy, where the scores are double
If he was then he'll get off.
Since when does Norway have enough economy to need a crime unit for it? I thought all they had were fjords!
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
try, try again.
</PUN CLASS=BAD>
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I didn't know that Hollywood, USA had the legal authority to put Norweigans thru a retrial after an acquittal. What next, will Jon be tried as a terrorist?
Most civilized countries have protection against double-jeopardy. The fact that Norway does not have protection, reflects badly on their legal system.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
By Brian Briggs
Wellington, New Zealand - A recently leaked trailer for The Return of the King has Tolkien fans outraged over the apparent addition of a new character - Jar-Jaromir. The scene depicted in the trailer shows Jar-Jaromir shouting, "Gondora gonna fallsa"; he then trips over a corpse and knocks down a couple of Uruk-hai.
Producers of The Lord of the Rings trilogy confirmed the addition of the half-brother of Boromir and Faramir.
"While The Two Towers is performing better at the box office than The Fellowship of the Ring, we are worried about a demographic that is skewing much older than desired. More mature fans are very good to have, but it's the younger fans who buy the merchandise. That's really what brings in the bucks on a movie like this," said producer Tim Wilcox.
"People complained a lot about Gimli just being there for comic relief," continued Wilcox. "We answer that criticism by directing the humor through Jar-Jaromir in The Return of the King. There's this funny scene where Jar-Jaromir decides it's best to hand the ring over to Sauron, but then he drops it and kicks it into Mount Doom. Hi-larious."
Purists, miffed by the deviations in The Two Towers, were so enraged by Jar-Jaromir as to be rendered speechless. A less pure, calmer fan who was able to form words said, "Tolkien mentioned a lot of different races and creatures, but never a Gungan or even a half-Gungan. I think I'm going to vomit."
One fan tried to rationalize the move. "Maybe the Star Wars universe and Middle-earth intersect. Middle-earth certainly is a long time ago and why couldn't it be in 'a galaxy far, far away?' Nothing said it's our earth." He then broke down and started crying.
Director Peter Jackson explained how the Jar-Jaromir character was added after all the other footage had already been shot. "That's the brilliant thing about digital editing and graphics. We didn't even imagine Jar-Jaromir in the movie until a couple of weeks ago, but now we can just edit him right into the key scenes. I really think it's going to be a hit with the toddlers."
Jackson added, "I just love it when he shouts, 'Yousa steala precious from meesa!'"
Oh, and Gandalf returns, Gollum steals the ring and falls into mount doom, the elves leave Middle Earth. I think that covers everything.
If any of those guys prosecuting Jon have at least one DVD ripped at home.
In the US you cannot be tried for the same crime twice. Why aren't the norwegians at our level of justice?
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)
If it weren't for Jon... someone else would have done it. duh.
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
But even if they dont convict, he probably get brought to trial then on hacking iTunes.
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
Correct me if I am wrong, but from the artical description of the trial as "...faces the retrial of his acquittal..." it sounds to me like he is being tired again for the 'crime' that he was already found inoccent of. Or is this more a case of the OKOKRIM pushing to hard for a 'first impression' ruling that is in their favor?
Tried twice for the same crime, makes me glad to live in the US.
But who is to say in the future with the way things are going you maybe you will be tried twice for the same crime in the US or lock away with out a trial.
Wise men speak because they have something to say, Fools because they have to say something!!!!
DeCSS2 will be created just like DeCSS was, but instead of one "Jon Johansen" its creator's name will most likely sound like "d00d" or "DaMan".
Quem a paca cara compra, paca cara pagará.
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
According to the article, when a precedent is being set, it is common for an appeal to succeed, and this is what has happened. Actually (despite hoping Jon will prevail) I think this is a pretty good idea - a second look at something with big ramifications is probably a good thing under any circumstances...
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
"Insightful"!?! bwaaaahaaahaaahaaa.
Beautiful man, absofookinlutely beautiful.
In the US he would have been declared Enemy Combatant and shipped to Cuba without the need for trial?
Yes, let's make stupid assumptions and furthermore live out the "The American Justice System is the Best In The World"-delusion. It's especially rich coming from non-jurisconsults.
Before we all get all tear-eyed with nationalistic ideals etc etc, we should remember where RIAA and MPAA comes from.
(I am not a lawyer, of course, but...)
You certainly CAN be tried for the same crime twice. You cannot, however, be tried on the same charge. Not to mention, you can be tried in criminal court, and then again in civil court, a la OJ Simpson.
No, admittedly, it's not likely that the Justice system - if you call it that - would try you for manslaughter after finding you "not guilty" of murder, but you CAN be found guilty of one infrigement and not of another - for the same crime.
The prosicution cannot appeal any decision, only the defence can in a criminal trial.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Jackson added, "I just love it when he shouts, 'Yousa steala precious from meesa!'"
The current trial is in Lagmannsretten. If Okokrim looses again (or if they win) either party may appeal to Hoyesterett (Norwegian supreme court) - they may or may not take the case.
this is misleading.
according to the complaint filed against him he was charged with vilolating section 145.2 of the Norweigan criminal statute "which outlaws bypassing technological restrictions to access data that one is not entitled to access."
according to the criminal complaint he was charged with accessing the master key, the master key list, as well as the contents of a protected disk.
the question is whether the master key, and the master key list, which are intentionally encrypted, can be considered as data he is not "entitled to access."
to say he is being prosecuted for "accessing his own property" is simply shrill hyperbole.
despite the confidence expressed by his lawyer, his case is not so clear cut.
He's apparently trying to crack imusic http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/34141.html
I was still sitting on legos and eating giant bowls of Sugar Crisp in front of the Smurfs when I was 15.
When will we see the takedown of fair use in this country?
OT Question: Don't the major linux players (IBM, RedHat, um.. Dell ect.) distribute some sort of linux DeCSS DVD player? Why are they not being hunted down and sued by the MPAA?
In sweden you can get tried three times for the same crime, in the local court, the district court and the supreme court. For example, one man suspected of killing the swedish pm in 1986 was found guilty in the local court, aquitted in the district court and the state will go to supreme court to get him if they ever find more evidence; they don't want to 'throw away' their last chance.
"the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) is allowed to bring his case back before an enlarged panel of judges."
The dangers of viagra abuse.
... try him, try him again.
Until he's in shreds, in SHREDS, I say.
... er, I mean - "until justice is served".
yes, we have no bananas
... but the other way around would basically be true as well. If Jon is acquitted "the crime" he committed will be fully LEGAL in Norway.
:)
Sorry for the grammar...
"Civis Europaeus sum!"
...You go to jail.
My Karma is bad. May I take you out for a drink? It's on me...
So it should boil down to whether people are entitled to access data on DVDs for which they paid fair and square. Why do we pay $25/DVD if it isn't for the right to access the data on them?
What, did you think that corporations run the show only in the good ol' US? It's global, man, for goodness sake! And people become more and more tolerant of this way of life every day (path of least resistance). Unless something is done, our kids won't even know what freedom means.
Must-not-watch TV!
The wording here is misleading. He's not really being tried in the same court...if I had to compare it to something most of us would know, it would be the US Supreme Court. You can start small and work your way up through the system, this is what has happened with his case.
What we have now, that we didn't have much of before was derivative works. Just who is using DeCSS? There are certainly a lot of DVD players for Linux that use the libraries to play encrypted DVDs...But on the other hand, every DVD ripper that uses DeCSS code is going to hurt his case.
...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?
I'm glad I live in Norway and don't have to defend Guantanamo base.
i quite sure this guy is doing this "illegal" stuff ...
...)
to test society if they could coup with fussion
reactor (unlimited energy for home use) and
warp drive (unlimited mobility).
if they put him behind prison i'll always be able
to tell his alien friends that society on this
planet just is not ready for the technology
yet. (considering computers being nothing more
then sandfilter for electrons (of which be have
a abundance in the univers...))
(i just had to help a girl break into her
house today 'cause she forgot to take the keys
with her when she left the house. of course
this is soo stupid it doesn't need to get
mentioned
I have a no-region player at home.
This Toshiba was made and legally sold in Europe before Y2K.
So, if they sue me because of this, they will end up suing themselves as Toshiba is also a member of the DVD joint committe, iirc...
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Here's from a norwegian newspaper:
. jh tml?articleID=682755
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article
If you scroll a little down you'll find:
According to newspaper VG's web site, the
technical nature of the case led to judge Wenche
Skjaeggestad asking the prosecutor to explain the
meaning of the central term 'algorithm' (a
computational procedure applied to solve a
problem), a request eventually satisfied by one
of the expert assessors.
Now, who could expect the prosecutor to actually understand what it is he's beeing charged of? That would just be silly..
They just won't let it go.
Do they do "best of three?"
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because the prosecutor already had great power over the individual by bringing charges against them. The individual, perhaps complete innocent, is at great risk and expense to defend himself. If after being found innocent the charges can just be made again, the individual incurs additional cost and risk (as well as loss of time, ie freedom) even though the courts have already found that he was innocent.
In telling a prosecutor that it's OK to put a person through a trial even if they are not ready to make their case, you open the door to a lot of needless prosecution. There is little disencentive to not charge an individual even when your case isn't strong and complete, since if you loose you can bring charges again, and the individual will actually be in worse shape than before (will have less funds to defend himself, for one thing). A system where you cannot be found innocent and then retried is society's defense against excessive prosecution. And this case is a perfect example of it.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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.]
This was all dealt with way back when
The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
This type of travesty could never happen in the United States. We don't just keep re-trying someone until we can finally prove they are guilty. We just stick 'em in Guantanimo Bay.
fifth sigma, inc.
well this is the partly the basis of the appeal isn't it? the lower court got this wrong. emphatic or not. accessing the contents is one thing, accessing the master key and master key list are something else.
as i said, it's not so clear cut.
He bought the disc. He owns that media and what ever is on it. He does not own the right to distribute what is on it, that's copyright law. He can sell his copy(at least for now) but can not make copies to sell. But the bottomline is he own's what is on his disc. If they put a master key list on the DVD, he should have every right to access it. All he did was post code on the internet, personally i would have loved to see him post DeCSS and/or his Itunes hack encrypted by by some scheme he patented. so if the industry were to go after him they'd be hard-pressed to find proof they could use in court.
Sorry, the murder-manslaughter thing was a a bad example. If I had more time, I'd find a reference for this, but I know for a fact that there is at least one case where there was a robbery/shooting where the attempted murder charge failed, so they charged the guy with larceny (or some other theft charge) and it stuck. Same incident. Two trials. That's really what I was getting at.
The prosecutor in the DVD-Jon case had to get help from an expert judge to explain what an algorithm is. Here (Norwegian only). The newspaper where I first read this (The biggest in Norway) explains that an algorithm is a "mathematical concept". They used this article to demonstrate the the case was very technically complicated...
:)
Sadly, not all news are for nerds...
...since they enlarged.
I wonder where they got their University Diplomas?
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
"If you do the crime, you've gotta do the time."
The owls are not what they seem
Really sad to see that a person can be tried, then retried again and again until the charges stick.
I'm glad I live in the USA where that cant happen.. um errr unless enough evidence is found to reopen the case.. or its for 'national security reasons' or or or...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
He was like 14 or 15 when he released DeCSS and it wasn't even illegal in his country at the time.
DVD's are yet another example of how corporations think they can make more profit by Making Their Product Suck (MTPS). Usually this involves artificially restricting access to said product somehow.
Its quite good, and addresses alot of the FUD here.
this is totally stupid. it seems like anybody who tries to do something really new and cool ends up with litigation against them. I'm trying to make a nice open source MMORPG, but what happens when i release it and it eats business from eversmack, will i get sued?? If i were Johansen i'd have never dreamed of publishing anything i wrote ever again, id be too scared! i admire his bravery in the face of all this unfounded legal BS!!
sometimes, i wonder if i'm the only conservative on teh intarweb. ah well, back to mah hogs and warmongerin'....
I cant find the email (I think it was posted to a debian list) but someone does a good job of putting a lot of dvd jon rumors to rest. Hes not a good guy, hes anti open source, anti linux (he may have changed his tune now that he has undue popularity here) he DIDNT write decss, someone from Germany did. He wasnt going to release it to anyone, his system was hacked, or he put it in a public share (on his windows box he didnt use linux) and it got out that way. Hopefully someone posts the e-mail Im talking about, because Im being so vauge on the details.
"If you ask me, there should be no point in a DVD at which you cannot skip ahead, fast forward, or hit menu to get out of the current section of the disc."
David Lynch setup the DVD version of Mulholland Drive almost exactly like this. You could fastworward it in "seek" mode, but hardly any other mode. It didn't have any chapters to skip to and from.
IIRC, he disapproves of the chaptering system as he wants the audience to see the film as a whole and not be able to skip around... I haven't seen his other movies on DVD format, but I've heard that he did this with many other movies as well.
Control, thats what its about. By making DeCSS a violation of the DMCA they can control what you do with what you own in a way thats profitable to them. Next they put a broadcast flag on commercials, and makes it impossible to fast forward via tivo style. Write a hack? Go to federal prison. Use the hack? Go to federal prison. Discuss the hack? Go to federal prison. It will soon be a crime to act in an unprofitable manner. Control, thats why.
Step 3: Profit!
If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't be able to copy the massive amounts of DVDs that I rent from Netflix and Blockbuster.
We need more people like this guy who aren't afraid to stick their middle fingers up to corporate morons and who aren't afraid to fight stupid-assed laws.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
it enables people to watch their over-priced DVDs in foreign countries. This requires at least some purchase. What's the deal?
Sometimes, a movie is a derivative work of an existing copyrighted work, and the owner of copyright in the underlying work is willing to license it only on different terms in different territories.
Hmmm, those words granting limited power to the federal government and further protecting against state government excesses may be ignored when dealing with non-citizens or U.S. citizens abroad.
...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
So, who was at fault for the US civil war?
h tm
http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.
That would be about a million dead I reakon...
Most Norwegians would consider the American requirement that evidence be aquired legally to be admissable really backwards. The only point in doing something that, by design lets culprits off the hook, is to discourage bad cops from being openly bad.
There is, however, proof that are inadmissible in Norway; those brought forth by provocation. Being lured to do something bad by under cover officers is not an offense, whether the officers were allowed to lure you or not.
To get a fair comparison between Norwegian and US law, you cannot simply point out one feature. Other laws and aspects of the legal system may render it pretty much irrelevant. E.g. the whole weird notion of going bankrupt paying for your own defense is rather foreign over here. Even in civil suits, that's a secondary concern.
Does this REALLY matter anymore? Are they still harping on the original code that Jon released? Did anyone bother to check that there are dozens of freeware applications, and ones that are commercially sold that are able to decrypt, de-macrovision, and de-regionize DVD's in one click?
The original DeCSS code that this bullshit is about isn't even a factor anymore. A better mousetrap has been built. Why bother this kid anymore? All this points out is that the Norwegian court system is owned by corporate interests, and the fools running it follow their whims like sheep.
-R
Most countries that don't have double jeopardy laws do have other safeguards to prevent abuse. Letting the prosecution pay all legal costs of the defendant for one.
They will not bring cases to trial wich are not ready because of that furhtermore judges do not take kindly to this sort of behaviour as it is deemed (rightly so) as an abuse of power.
A prosecutor who did this would not be a prosecutor or even a lawyer for very long. There are better safeguards against abuse than letting real criminals walk after one mistake by prosecutors.
What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
..."So shit like the O.J. Simpson trial can't happen here"
one solid saving grace. You can't be tried multiple times for the same offense. Everything else, particularly in the area of torts, is totally dicked.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
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.
Inger Marie Sunde, the good aturney,
had a bit of a problem in court today when she didnt know what a algorithm was.
the mos central word in this case,m an she dont know what it mean.
We are realy loving her in norway.
here is a part of the propersition for punischment
"a pentium3 500MHz pc-case" ok she only want the case not the parts within
At least here, once acquitted of charges, those same charges CAN NEVER be brought again...
Only the defendant can appeal if convicted.
Corporatism != Free Market
... but while we're at it - they eventually Find Nemo.
That point extends well beyond movies, of course. It's something that is going to have to be worked out, sooner or later.
We in the US hate the RIAA and MPAA just as much as anyone else. They're only here because we didn't have the sense to oust them.
Most Norwegians consider that a Good Thing, too.
What it seems to come down to is that Norwegians (and probably Europeans in general) seem to think it is possible to develop a system that can be based on absolute competence of the government. Americans hold no such belief, and prefer to err on the side of the individual.
(Caveat lector: what follows is generalisations about mr. Average Norwegian, which does not really exist)
Norwegians, like many Europeans, think that there are matters that must be dealt with by some authority recognised by the citizens. If peace and justice are to be had, we have to pass authority to somebody that every citizen submits himself to. In the end you have to trust somebody, and peaceful coexistence gets a lot easier when we implicitly agree on a trusted arbiter.
If we are to really trust the arbiter ("the law"), said arbiter must be backed by power. The citizens must trust that whatever the arbiter decides, goes. The citizens must also realise, and accept, that the arbiter is not omnipotent. There will be cases where the arbiter's rule is not followed, and enforcement fails. Wise citizens realise that anything near "total compliance" will require draconian measures, which are undesirable.
Norwegians realised, reluctantly, that relinquishing authority and power to some authorities in some nearby city could do good things for them. A few hundred years ago the murder rate in Norwegian cities (puny in size back then) was astounding, by current American standards. The abolition of side arms and a change in attitude towards settling disputes in court rather in physical fights changed that. During the 20th century the murder rate was about 1 per 100 000 per year.
To Americans touting greater freedom as something more important than a low murder rate, Europe can respond "been there, done that". We've struck our own balance. It's different.
You may ask what murder rates has to do with copyright infringement. Well, murder is the ultimate (ab)use of power. You simply off your opponent, once and for all. If the World was a less civilized place, the MPAA could have offed Jon Johansen. But it is not customary anymore in the US or Europe to settle economical matters that way. At least not officially.
Would it be OK to close the eyes and cover the ears? How about going out of the room for a pitstop or to fetch a glass of water?
Your answer is found here.
This is not my sig.
There is clearly a lot that is not pretty about the U.S. justice system, e.g. pleabargaining, Bush's suspension of Habeas Corpus in Guantanamo (although I doubt the Supreme Court will stand for it), sometimes incompetent public defenders, racist juries,... I could go on and on. However, the protection against double jeopardy is one of the good things. People keep including the sentence from the 5th amendment and doing their own legal interpretations of it. Just so everyone is on the same page, in the opinion of the Supreme Court: '[T]he Double Jeopardy Clause protects against three distinct abuses: [1] a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; [2] a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and [3] multiple punishments for the same offense.' U.S. v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 440 (1989). There was a case recently in Thailand where a Dutchman was aquitted of a drug offense, then kept in prison for 5 years and then given a life sentence on appeal. That strikes me a manifestly unjust. It flabbergasts me that this is acceptable practice anywhere.
Absolutely positively fucked, especially when the prosecutor shows the courtroom what he's been up to in the meantime (the iTunes ripper).
Norway's one of those international countries though, so I sincerely doubt a Norwegian prison could be anything like the horrors of an American Federal or State prison... Whoopteedo.
[o]_O
Your being watched now mister!
Quack, quack.
This would be an accurate description of the state of affairs a few years ago. The 10 years of reporting to the police, or in some cases being held back in an institution or a prison, was called "sikring"; securing.
Now, the "sikring" concept is being replaced with "forvaring"; containment, which is unlimited. The legislators realised that it was impossible to determine how dangerous a person would be in 20 years, and that some people remained dangerous forever. Thus a "forvaring" sentence only specifies a minimum. After that, the inmate ("forvaring" is not considered a punishment; it's intention is not punitive) will be re-evaluated regularily. If the inmate is no longer considered dangerous, he can go. If not, he stays.
The definition of "dangerous" is, as far as I know, quite liberal. Think "potentially dangerous"
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. (...) You're admitting that most of the legal decisions in your country are being made by judges who are periodically (nay, regularly) in error.
In the American system, it's possible to be found guilty by no less than two different courts before some third set of judges decides to acquit you. (...) 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.
If you have found a legal system where the judges are not regularly in doubt, please inform the world. In many cases, it's word against word, circumstancial evidence, malice or accident, coincidence or cover-up, legal definitions, legal gray areas, conflicting laws and so on.
The question is simply, what kind of standards do you need to convict a man? In Norway, you must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers in the highest court your case was trialed in. In the USA, you must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury of your peers in every court up to and including the highest court your case was trialed in.
You can not pick which trial "counts", so you can't "retest it again and again until you get the result you want." Both sides may appeal, so if every loss was appealed, everything would end up at the highest court level (less the Supreme court that doesn't deal with questions of guilt, only constiutionality and penalty levels), where it would be final.
Any case that does not reach that level is in fact a sign that both sides found the judgement acceptable. And if you do reach the highest level, you get your fair and impartial trial there, with seasoned judges, a full jury and all that. How much more do you really expect?
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Speak for yourself.
But I understand your point. It's a problem when, for example, an EFF rep such as Cory Doctrow is also a big shill for Disney, hawking pretty much every eye-candy schlockfest they produce.
Here on /., every fifth article swoons over some new MPAA-backed product, or is filled with links to Amazon.com, all while we're told of the evils of DRM, software patents, and other forms of control.
Yes, I know, a foolish consistency, etc.; but when do you take a stand? When it's easy and convenient?
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
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.
Anybody who has been engaged in a long drawn out legal case with many hearings knows that it is one of the worst things that can happen to anybody, and even if one is eventually successful it may take years to recover. What is happening in Guantanamo Bay is deplorable, but surely what is happening in this case is deplorable on a smaller scale. To me, both cases are like prosecuting a small scale cannabis seller because the guy running the big operation selling crack is too powerful and the police badly need a drugs bust for the statistics.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Dude, Nemo's mother dies??? Thanks for the preview..... would you mind summarizing the rest of the movie????
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
To me, that is unacceptable, I BOUGHT the bloody thing, I should have control over it, not be forced to sit through studio pap that I don't want to watch.
Watching porn on my PS2. heh, heh, heh
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
I seen to much SPAM I guess.
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
I think we should settle this in a manner similar to that shown in the excellent Kirk Douglas movie; The Vikings. . .
Pin Hillary Rosen to a wall, with her long braids spread out.
The lawyers from the RIAA and Jon take turns throwing axes at her. If the RIAA hits Hillary's face, they were wrong. If Jon is able to sever her braids, without hitting her face, he not only wins the appeal, but gets to keep her as a serving wench.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Here's a question for you:
Do Norwegian courts have the right to acquit, even in cases where it's clear that the accused has broken the "letter of the law" ?
In some countries I believe courts can do this, when they think the law is a bad one, unconstitutional, etc.
My life is an open book ... up to a point.
Sure, he can appeal to the supreeme court. It migth turn down the apepal, but if it is a case of principal interest, and to set precedence, they might take it on. Still, it is not a "best in three" since it doesn't matter if both the lower courts went the same way.
He is off course neutral as a judge but at least he knows something about computers, crypto, Open Source/Free Software and Linux (probably a lot).
If you ask me; anyone that want their future decided by twelve/fourteen, possible 100% clueless, civil jury members rather than seven judges in a case like this is plain stupid.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Clearly the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) are in the pocket of the US Motion Picture Association. No doubt looking forward to your Hollywood junkets, you corrupt bastards. Shouldn't you be solving real crime, rather than going after someone who has been acquitted and on good grounds. Hope your fellow Norweigians string you all up for treason. Traitors. Scum. Lets send them to a renamed suburb of Baghdad: "Hollywood", Iraq.
First, apparently in the US there are laws about giving legal advice; just to be on the safe side, I am not a lawyer, and the following is hardly sound legal advice!
Its important to seperate the appeals process from the concept of a retrial. Lets make sure we both understand eachother before we go around making brash claims about double jeopardy and UN Human Rights things. The appeals process is built to handle the very problems you've cited with juries and evidence. Very rarely are trials reheld, but its frequent that parts of the original trial are made invalid as part of the appeals process.
I'm not sure what you mean by needing to be proven guilty in every court trial up to the highest court. For starters, prosecution and defense can appeal the trial. An appeal is not a retrial. An appeal is a request for review of the process that led to judgement. Appeals can be denied if the higher court decides that the appeal is baseless. Secondly, you don't retry cases, at least in America, in a higher court. It goes straight back to the same level it started in.
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
Thats not the email I was talking about, but man +5 informative :)
"It's better that 100 guilty men go free that one innocent man be wrongly convicted".
Double jepordy is just one of many things made to stack the odds in the favour of the defandant. Our beliefs generally hold (or at least held when the nation was founded) that it is a greater travesty to wrong innocent people than to not punish guilty people, and we have lots of laws to that effect.
It's also to stop harassment by the government. If they charge you with something, great, but once it's over it's OVER. They can't keep hounding you and dragging you back to court. They get better evidence later? Too bad, should have waited.
It's along the same lines as search warrants. If the police obtain evidence without a proper warrant, where one is required, that evidence will be excluded. This is true even if the evidence is proof positive of a henous crime. Well why? I mean if the evidence proves you did a crime, shouldn't you be punished? Well again, it's to stop harrassment and abuse of power. Means cops can't kick down door on fishing expidetions or just bust in to houses of people they don't like under the auspices of looking for evidence.
It's certianly not a perfect system, but I really like it. Though I hate it when a guilty man walks because of a technicality or a crafty defense lawyer, I'd rather see that than innocents going to jail all the time becuase the government jept trying shady tactics till it worked.
Absolutely, and that's the basis for much of the English legal system. We recognize that the courts are often wrong, and we choose to place our burden of protection on the individual-- in an attempt to insure that innocent people aren't wrongly convicted. It could be argued that it makes more sense to protect society-- as Norway does-- perhaps locking a few innocent people up in order to keep dangerous criminals off the street.
That's neither here nor there. My beef is not so much with your legal system, but rather with the naive and demonstrably false argument you chose to defend it. Specifically, your claim that the Norwegian appeals system can be justified by its attempt to provide a "better", "more competent" decision. Hell, you even went so far as to claim that the Norwegian system was more accurate than the English system. Therefore, am I wrong to point out that the judges in your "accurate" system often disagree with one another?
In your post above, you claim that the goal of your appeals system is to decide a case with the highest level of competence possible-- I disagree. If competence were the only reason different courts disagreed, the answer would be simple: get rid of the incompetent judges who disagreed with their more competent counterparts. In reality, the reason different courts disagree often has nothing to do with competence, it has to do with subjective decisions made by judges. There's absolutely no guarantee that a higher court will be more competent, though it sure does make us feel better to imagine that's the case.
By casting your appeals system as a search for competence (and nothing more), you exhibit an extremely naive and demonstrably false understanding of the judicial system. In many cases, your system simply allows one set of judges to impose their prejudices on any defendant in the country. The real difference between our systems is that the English system distributes part of the decision-making process, insuring that no one court has absolute power in all respects, or can ever abuse its power to imprison people.
If you people actually read the original articles and reviews on this software, you will find that it does not crack or break the DRM at all.
You CANNOT listen to songs that you have not purchased/authorized.
So if your friend buys a song from iTunes and sends it to you, you CANNOT listen to it using this software.
All Jon's software does is dump the raw AAC data to disk AFTER it has been authorized for playback. So you can only remove the DRM from songs you have already purchased.
Also note, the produced raw AAC file is not packaged properly with the correct headers/frames etc, so 99% of players will probably choke on it.
You could already hijack the audio stream as it is being played using software, just not in AAC format until now. You could also burn the song and re-rip and encode, but that would lose quality.
Apple will most likely patch this hole or design flaw in QuickTime (that's where the problem is) in the next update anyway, breaking this hole or making it harder to expoit.
It's not a big deal at all.
What I find most galling about this case is that a European government (not in the EU, I know) is prosecuting one of its own citizens on behalf of US corporations. The Norwegian government (as well as the EU) should flatly refuse to bend its laws for American business interests. (Software patents, Euro-DMCA etc. ad nauseam)
Norwegian courts and the administration of justice
I'm just curious because it sounds a bit strange. For one, I've never heard about that.
Clever signature text goes here.
And boy do they burn money on the appeal. It's scheduled to take 12 days, and at the prosecution's current pace, it's going to take longer.
They are flying in witnesses from the USA this time. Phone conferencing didn't work out well enough last time, I gather, so now they get to see Norway at the Norwegian taxpayers' expense. Yay!
I sat through the second day of the trial, and it was utter boredom. Reading IRC logs and e-mails aloud, basically repeating the indisputable facts.The judge panel of 7, seven, looked bored most of the time. (three professional judges, two "expert" assistant judges and two "lay" judges)
And the prosecution has not brought forth anything new so far. Sigh
Yes, when Livid released a "final" player, Open Media System, the playback would go directly to the screen, Jon Johansen told. But it had no zone restriction. And since everybody could change the source code, it would be trivial to get it to save the content to disk.
"It's hard to keep secrets in the Linux community, then?" the prosecutor remarked. "But you had encrypted the content on your machine, hadn't you?" (Jon says yes) "and you think that is all OK?"
Found innocent of 'double murder' at the criminal trial....
Found guilty of two counts of 'wrongful death' at the civil trial....
Looks like a case of 'double jeopardy' thanks to 'legal hairsplitting' over the charges in both trials: murder == wrongful death
(same thing--different spellings).
Europeans never saw (alcohol) Prohibition because they didn't have the unique social environment of the American 191Xs. The 18th Amendment in 1919, Prohibition was the first flexing of feminist muscle here. Feminists were supported by other nannystaters for their own purposes, like the mafia, but the actual legislation was their product. Despite its repeal (21st Amendment, 1933, anniversary yesterday, hic), feminists were on a roll, securing women the right to vote in 1921 with the 20th Amendment. This drama wasn't played out in Europe, as the US served its traditional role as battleground and test market for freedom.
--
make install -not war