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!"
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.
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)
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
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.
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?
"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.
"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?
...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?
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
"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.]
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 :) )
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.