Slashdot Mirror
DeCSS: Jon Johansen Acquitted In Retrial
EssJay writes "DVD-Jon is acquitted in the retrial. The verdict was expected in January, but was announced today in the papers." We had posted about the retrial beginning - it's a good holiday present to get this early.
It's not quite over yet, the police can appeal to the Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear it. The ultimate humiliation for the police would be if it was appealed but the Supreme Court decided not to hear it. But given the amount of beating the police has had in this case, they would be pretty fanatical to even think about appealing.
But yeah, it didn't take them too long, the case was apparently quite easy for the judges.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
A few points that are in an article in Norwegian and not the English article (translated directly, I'm not responsible for journalists' errors):
Unfortunately, despite a second humiliation, I have a feeling they're going to appeal this to the Supreme Court. And waste more taxpayer's money.
I wonder if Inger Marie Sunde is going to take another "sabbatical" now, like last time hehe...
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
IANALBIAAN.
(I am not a lawyer, but I am a Norwegian.)
Actually, I think the norwegian justice system is more corporation-friendly than the american one.
For example the MS anti-trust trial - it would never happen here. Inside trading, etc., is often ignored as well.
I've not read the verdict, but according the news reports, that is exactly what the court thinks. If it is yours, any obstacle towards using it is illegitimate and may be circumvented. It sounds quite good. But it may only last untill EUCD is implemented...
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
They have to. The next higher court (the "highest court") is the last stop. No case can go further. If the high court decides to hear it (as they probably should) then it becomes a precedent.
P.S. And they aren't retrials per se. The Norwegian, and Swedish, legal systems allow for a maximum of three trials in succedingly higher courts. And only the highest court can set a precedent.
Also, no plea bargains, no jury (only laypersons that sit for a longer term), no bail, and the state pays for your lawyer of choice who can claim according to a set (fairly generous) standard (there are no criminal attorneys that operate outside of that system).
Stefan Axelsson
The court also said that the limitations printed on each DVD was not legal and that they looked more like a private law addendum that severly limited your legal rights according to Norwegian Copyright laws. It also said there is a huge difference between copying a relatively brittle media like a CD compared to a more durable media like a book. The law gives you a clear and unstoppable right to make private backup copies and an encryption or copy protection schema is directly hindering you in executing your legal rights, hence Jon was aquitted.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
It appears to mean just that in Norway, at least.
While Norway isn't a member of the European Union (EU), they are -- like Switzerland -- a member of the European Economic Cooperative (EEC), and laws are quite often synchronized across EU+EEC. This might have influence on, if not directly affecting, how EU laws will be interpreted.
EEC seems to be one of the three remaining venues of appeal for the MPAA and its lackeys in this case -- it's hard to imagine how this ruling could be anti-competitive in nature or otherwise impart European trade rules, but it's a possibility.
The case might also be escalated to the Norwegian supreme court, for a principal ruling. However, I am not sure that the MPAA would want that to happen, as that would be a definitive ruling affecting all similar cases in the future, and with the firm rulings of the two lower courts, it's highly unlikely that the Norwegian supreme court would rule differently.
The third venue of continued legal action would be to charge Mr Johansen according to US laws in the US, because the GUI for DeCSS that he published was made available on the US market. Let's hope that Mr Johansen has learned from the Skylarov case, and won't be stupid enough to visit the US in the near future.
Regards,
--
*Art
I was in court for the defence procedure, and here is some additional info:
... and thereby gain illegitimate access to data" (145,2). This is a different part of Norwegian law than that which deals with protection of Intellectual Property. The defence argued that this rule was a continuation of the old one that protected the secrecy of letters and other forms of communication, and that a movie therefore is not "data" according to this law. As far as I understand, the court did not concede this.
DVD Jon was charged with breaking a rule in the Norwegian penal code that makes it illegal to "break a protection
However, the crux of the case ended up being the term "illegitimate access". The court decided that there is nothing illegitimate about breaking a protection to gain access to something you have bought. An important part of this is that in Norway, the labels that distributors stick on DVDs, CDs and software are not binding for consumers (more explicit consent is required for binding agreements). If the labels were binding, the access would have been illegitimate. Luckily for Jon (and for freedom of information), this is not the case.
CNN did a study earlier this year, to check the personal finances of American Senators. The reason behind this is, due to new campaign finance laws, if you decide to privately fund your campaign, you are not held to the free speach restrictions telling you when you may broadcast your commercials... but I digress.
At the time (Jun 13), only 40 out of 100 were millionaires, with 22 of those Republican and 18 of those Democrat. Of the same group of 40, 6 were Women and 34 were Men. The top 3 wealthiest are all Democrat.
From a blurb at the bottom, there are at least a few "common" people in the Senate... "at least 10 senators reported net worths of less than $100,000." Still a substantial salary in my opinion.
Not surprisingly, the founding fathers had a more "ogliarch" view of government. Benjamin Franklin believed that if the Senators were not given a salary, then only the wealthy could afford to spend their free time governing the nation. He was voted down, and congress instituted a salary of $6 per day.
Well, I don't know the specifics about Norway, but in Sweden it is one prosecutor. However, he is also formally the head of the police investigation team, so he has some help there also. As such he has a sworn duty to try and find the truth, and hence if he uncovers anything that would tend to exhonorate the defendant he has to take that into account in trial as well (i.e. has to make it known to the court), so at least in theory he's (to some small extent) working for you in court as well, though in practice it may not be perfect.
Note though that the prosecutor is a civil servant, i.e. not elected, so you won't see "show trials" just for the publicity. Prosecutors are fairly anonymous people here.
Also, there's often another lawyer on the prosecutors "team", that's there to represent the interests of the victim, not the state, in cases where damages to the victim may be awarded (we don't typically do a separate civil suit for that, though there's nothing stoping it in theory). Thus the verdict can come down as "three years in prison, a fine and damages paid to the victims). I don't know if that's done in the US?
It's not a perfect system. But on balance it's not a bad system either.
Stefan Axelsson
That doesn't seem particulalry likely. The central reason that Johansen was never found guilty was that he didn't write or distribute this software with the purpose of violating copyrights (as in making copies and redistributing) but for enabling premissible use (i.e. making the damn things readble under Linux after you spent good money on them). That use remains permissible and Artible 6, sub 4 of that same Directive states that both governments and industry must see to it that it remains possible to take such permissible actions and that circumventing copyright protections for such purposes can never be a violation.
At the trial the question came up whether in fact the reverse engineering involved was legal under Norwegian law. They called for opinions from Norwegian lawyers. The plaintiff trotted out a tame lawyer who asserted (without any support) that it was not legal. The defendant's lawyer said nothing in Norwegian law or case law supported any opinion one way or the other. The judge took that to mean that in fact it wasn't legal.
Now that it's established that in fact it was legal, Bunner et al. should be able to have the decision vacated. (Shame on that judge.)