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."
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 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?
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.
If any of those guys prosecuting Jon have at least one DVD ripped at home.
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!
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)
Oh no? What about O.J.? Same crime, two different courts (criminal vs. civil). Is this the same kind of situation?
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
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!
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
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.
You cannot appeal an innocent verdict in the U.S. Such an appeal would be considered...
wait for it....
DOUBLE-JEOPARDY
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
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.
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?
"the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) is allowed to bring his case back before an enlarged panel of judges."
The dangers of viagra abuse.
There is no reason to prevent the government from retrying their case once or twice. In Norway the limit is three times. First the Tingretten (lower court), then Lagmannsretten (sort of jury-based, depends .. it may either be a jury, or a combination of judges, some jurors, and some people educated in the field), and finally Hoyesterett (Supreme court). Both the government and the prosecuted may choose to appeal for any reason.
The government may appeal if they lose, or if they don't think the punishment is harsh enough.
Furthermore, if I remember correctly, Hoyesterett may reschedule the case back into Lagmannsretten if it thinks it should be a retrial there, instead of them making a decision. I'm not sure, but I don't think that happens often, unless there is doubt about presented evidence or somesuch. Not sure, really.
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!"
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.
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?
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?
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?
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!
In theory, yes that could happen. In reality, the DA would simply try to nail you on some bullshit charge that can carry a hefty penalty. e.g. Al Capone was nailed on tax evasion after the various agencies were continually unable to prove his involvement in serious crimes.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I'm glad I live in Norway and don't have to defend Guantanamo base.
What do you think we meant by "civilised countries"? No country that values the state above the citizens can be considered civilised.
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..
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"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.
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 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.
wrong
You can appeal any verdict in the US. You need to have a reason to appeal though, such as a potential mis-trial, tampered evidence, new evidence, etc. If there are no anomolies or grounds for retrial, the appeal is denied.
Larry Flint was found innocent and the prosecution appealed to the supreme court, which upheld the decision.
Know the laws before quoting them.
-Ab
Nothing fails quite like prayer.
No, different in every case.
OJ was tried in a crinimal court of law and found not guilty based on the evidence. HE was then pursued in a civil court of law and was found to be responsable for the deaths, regardless of not being guilty of the deaths. There is a difference, someone can be found responsable for something without actually doing it.
The bit that most people leave out here is that OJ appealed the responsable verdict and it was found in his favour, so essentially he came out of the whole ordeal with nothing against him, except now his reputation was in tatters.
In some European legal systems, you have a tier of courts. In the UK this goes from your local magistrate, all the way up to the House of Lords (yes, one part of our government actually takes part in the legal process), and increasingly, the Euorpean Court of Human Rights. Either party can apply to the court above the one that returned the verdict for leave to appeal, which basically means you move up a stage in the courts to a court which has more standing. That court can either grant your application for an appeal, or turn it down. If you get it turned down, you have one more chance to have that decision overturned, if not then the last verdict returned stands.
The Double Jepordy stands if the above process has been exhausted and the defendant is still found not guilty. He cannot be arrested and charged with the same crime for successive times, even if compelling new evidence has been discovered. This is about to change in the UK, as the current government is introducing legislation which will allow a person to be tried for a crime multiple times if compelling new evidence is discovered.
From what I know, the Norwedgen legal system is much like the UKs, with tiers of courts, each having more standing than the one below. A verdict can be appealed to the court above, basically in the hope that that court may have different ideas, or understand the situation better. Indeed, some cases are passed up the chain voluntarily by lesser courts who deem themselves to not have enough legal standing to deal with the situations that arise.
The lack of a decent public defender system in the US makes it more or less essential to spend money on a private defense if at all possible, while you have very good chance of getting a top notch lawyer (from a private law firm) assigned to you as a public defender in Norway and may face much less financial problems as a result.
Combine that with MUCH longer sentences in the US, and things start getting interesting (Norway has a MAXIMUM sentence of 21 years + 10 years of reporting regularly to the police, a sentence that is only rarely handed down, and then usually to multiple murderers, and normally you would be eligible for, and get, parole after serving 2/3rds of the sentence).
No person shall [..] be deprived of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law;
So, what about all those folks in Guantanamo bay?
Alison
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
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...
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
There are a few differences between the legal systems that are important to consider, though: In Norway you don't rack up the enormous expenses in lawyer costs. If you are accused of a crime, the State cover the costs for a lawyer of your choice. In civil suits, the losing party will often have to pay the winner's costs, so frivolous law suits by deep-pocketed corporations looking for a settlement are few and far between. Lawyers are also not allowed no-cure-no-pay fee structures, meaning that you don't get those idiotic class action suits.
That being said, the consensus among people with technical and legal background here in Norway is that Jon will get off, but that the case is being driven upwards in the court system precisely to get a thorough vetting. It should be noted that if Jon should be found guilty, he will face much more lenient sentencing than would be handed out in the States, and the MPAA/RIAA would not even get a hearing with speculations about millions of dollars lost because of DeCSS (and anyway, Jon could easily appeal to the Supreme Court.)
Incidentally, Okokrim has been roundly criticized for even bringing this suit by almost all commentators - and I have a sneaking suspicion they don't even believe in it themselves, and are seeking a precedent judgement so as to know where they can draw the line in the future.
IANAL, but I am not that worried - what we have here is a reasonably thorough process to settle a question of criminality of a legal question that is rather new. It will work itself out, probably with Jon being found innocent, setting a precedent which will be appealed to the Supreme court by Okokrim. And I think the Supreme court will refuse to hear the appeal, thus confirming the precedent.
Espen
He was like 14 or 15 when he released DeCSS and it wasn't even illegal in his country at the time.
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'....
"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.
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
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
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.
This is (unfortunately) true in Civil matters only between two parties (e.g. lawsuit), where the damages are only monetary, not incarceration. Multiple motions and appeals occur in criminal cases if the defendant is found guilty. Once the defendant is acquitted (innocent) of the charges, the appeals etc. cease.
ACHTUNG! Das computermachine ist nicht fuer gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen.
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.
and being pro open source would make him a good guy? we all "know" that *nix is the os of choice for crackers (or any other power user for that matter)...
from what i recall on the news from back then (and yes inm from norway) he got some machines grabbed by the polices and atleast one of them where running linux. as for writeing or not writeing it: he wrote the gui, before that it was just a lib. without a ui a lib is worthless.
as for how it got out, i dont care. the fact is that it happend. and i dont belive he claimed to have cracked the CCS on his own, that was media that claimed (around here they cant tell a irc client from a P2P program anyways)...
allso, he just made a "hammer", its how its used that defines the legality in my book.
hell he isnt even being tried on copyright violations, he is tried on a law that at first was made to handle someone else reading your mail and got expanded to cover satelite encodeing systems (of all things)...
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
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.
OK, then why were the cops who were found not guilty of beating Rodney King retried and sent to prison after the LA riots?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
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.
Sure... towards the end, they Find Nemo. Hope that didn't wreck it for you.
That was technically a different charge of "violating Rodney King's civil rights." It's bullshit--anyone could see they were being retried for the same offense, but since there seemed to be an interest in keeping the teeming underclasses from burning the rest of LA, it stood. I'm sure the same would happen again if someone managed to offend a sufficiently well-connected corporation. There's more than 1 intellectual "property" law, after all.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.