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.
Let us hope this finally means we have a right to decrypt data media which we own a licence to watch.
Common sense 1, recording industry, nil
DVD Jon has done nothing wrong. Now it's official that he has done nothing illegal either. Fair play to him and his supporters, and sorry it's taken so long.
I think British copyright law, EUCD notwithstanding, explicitly allows what Jon did, but the wording is a bit convoluted and non-obvious and would need testing in court.
Still, it reaffirms the common-sense position that it is not a crime to use goods you own for their intended purpose, even if in the course of so doing you are required by circumstances to invent a tool.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
This is good. Very good news. BUT, this is in Norway, and it does not change much for those of us in the US. Yes it does help, because if he was prosecuted, then the MPAA would have won outright, but because he was not, the rock has been chipped. Now only if the US courts would see it as logically as the Norse courts do, then all would be grand. Then again, nothing here is ever done logically. I can't wait for this to really impact the MPAA.
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
We should be able to copy our own DVD's, especially in countries like Canada, where if you buy a blank DVD*R, you pay a tax on it based on the assumption that you WILL copy. In places like this, if you are allowed to copy, you are getting your money's worth for the tax.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
1. The risk is way too high. In Norway DVD-Jon risked _maximum theoretically_ two years in a nice prison and a fine of a 250000 NOK ($37000). In USA I would think that the stakes are significantly higher; several 5-10(?) years in prison and millions in expenses.
2. The lawyer cost in US would be much higher. The Norwegian state pays all of Mr. Johansens bills. In USA you would have had to sell your kidneys.
3. Judges and a expert jury ruled in this case. In USA the whole case would have been decided by a non-technical jury influenced by media and excellent RIAA/MPAA lawyers. Good luck.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
"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)."
So far I like this system much better than our (American) system. Can the State drown the defendant in prosecuting lawyers whereas the defendant is only entitled to one lawyer, or it is one prosecutor and one defender?
Yes... there are NO democrats in support of the DMCA...
Let's see... the DMCA was proposed by DEMOCRAT Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina. A Democratically controlled Senate passed the law. (Granted, the house was Republican-controlled at that time.)
A DEMOCRAT President (Clinton) signed the DMCA into law...
Those damned Republicans!
---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
Being Norwegian *and* a long time resident of the US, I believe you both are in error when you state that you believe that the Norwegian laws are more friendly to corporations that in the US.
Norway is almost completely free from lobbying and leading politicians being stock market investors. You won't find a _single_ senator in the US that doesn't have a million dollar income as well as substantial connections to one or more industries. In Norway, you won't find a _single_ stortingsmann or judge who has a million dollar income or vested interests in large corporations -- hell, even the prime minister is a clergyman with a sub-$50k income when not being a politician.
It's very difficult to buy yourself a law in Norway, while it's the only way to create or change laws in the US. Norway is governed through legislation, while the US is governed through litigation.
The two cultures are a world apart, and it's simply uncomprehensible to the average Norwegian just how different things are, and how protected the Norwegian citizen really is. Just as it's incomprehensible to the average American, who is unable to differentiate concepts like socialism and communism, or understand how values without a monetary value can pre-empt any economic claims.
True, Norway is still slowly drifting towards American attitudes, but the drift is very slow, and the cultural chasm between the two cultures is so vast that it's hard to compare the two in any meaningful way in any near future.
The word "greed" sums it up pretty well - in Norway, greed is still considered a sin, and not something to be proud of, even if present to a small extent in individuals and a larger extent in corporations. In the US, greed is considered a driving force, and not only normal but necessary, both for individuals and corporations.
Regards,
--
*Art
And nothing has happened since then?
Libertarianism and capitalism as distinct terms didn't exist when the US was founded, but they are now both recognized. Just as socialism, communism (and various derivates like socioliberalism) have developed since the times of Marx and Engels.
Regards,
--
*Art
Do you not suppose those parties had a political agenda? Can you say the word, "propoganda"? The only connection between the Stalinists and Marx was that the former used the latter's Manifesto as a tool to convince the proletariat that they were an actual communist party. It's a classic example of Stalinist doublespeak; and you've fallen for it!
I don't know any as it happens. I've encountered several though.
I fail to see how expressing admiration for Cuban communism is the same as stating that Marxism is the same as Stalinism. Are you going to cite references or not.
When a manufacturer knowingly continues a practice that is harmfull, it will become liable.
McDonalds was aware that at the temperature that they served coffee was dagerous, and that people had burned them selves so bad, it required medical attention, and time in the hospital.
It is reasonable to expect people to spill coffee, as such, you better be sure it's not going to put them in the hospital.
Very few people taste anything thats 185 degree farenhiet, because it will burn your tounge.
The suit is not that coffee was spilt, but that the coffee was dangerous. Do you think if you bought a cup of coffee, spilt it on yourself, it would be reasonalbe to have to go to a burn ward for a week?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Only in the land of the brave.
Other places, coffee is supposed to be brewed at 197-205F (92-96C), and served at no lower temperature than 176-187F (80-86C) for regular coffee and a few degrees lower for espresso.
McDonald's coffee, if it was 185F, was served according to the recommended temperatures. If they were at fault, it would be by serving the coffee in cups not appropriate for drinking hot coffee from.
Never ever should coffee be served at as low a temperature as 130-140F, and definitely not made that way -- you can't possibly get the flavour out of beans that way, and what you end up with will have little to do with coffee.
Regards,
--
*Art
I'm sure I'll be going to Karma Hell for posting this, but I have seen alot of UserID's I respected around here turn complete hippocrits in regards to what this guy is doing. In articles about his iTunes DRM cracking efforts, I see people saying things such as "We finally get something we like and this guy tries to ruin it!" What difference does it make if he's writing software to watch DVD's or writing software to listen to music? Just because you hate the MPAA and love Apple? In articles about DeCSS you hear a great deal of argument based of Freedom of Speech and consumers right to Fair Use, but somehow these rights do not apply to aything we support, such as iTunes.
I like iTunes a great deal. I'd hate to see them make it any more difficult for me to get the same level of service I'm getting now. However, if they changed their policy to circumvent his efforts, I would blame Apple, not this guy for making use of his rights.
I've even heard peple claim, "Apple DRM is easy enough to get around, just burn a CD and a re-rip in whatever format!" I doubt these same people would accept the same excuse from the MPAA "CSS is already easy enough to get around, just burn it to DVD and rip it!" Why in the hell should I have to burn it to CD? That's wasting my money, time, and resources on a completely unecessary step, not to mention that I may not have a CD burner to begin with. I guess I should just be screwed over in that instance, as long as the majority of users are happy.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.