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
More blank DVD's I would think.
~S
at least there's one country where corporate fascists cant buy everything. I hope the prosecuters are fired afterwards, wasting tax payer's money to shill for a bunch of scum bags in suits is hardly in the public interests.
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Umm.. wasn't that link posted in the article?
savethedollhouse.com
Does anyone else get a warm feeling when someone who didnt break a law DOESNT get convicted of it? Everyone breathe a sigh of relief now. Maybe we wont all get jailed if someone steals a knife from our home then kills someone else with it. Hurah for Freedom.
Good thing you repeated the URL to the article in the post. If not I am sure I would have missed it.
Hey, do you think they'll give up after only two retrials?
Let me get this straight:
a court of law has ruled against the big media companies and for the little hacker guy who wrote a cool C++ program to let us all watch DVDs that we legally own?
Was Rod Sterling seen anywhere near the court, at all?
'No rational religion claims "supernatural" exists, that's an atheist slander.' - seen on slashdot.
With this decision, perhaps people will be brave enough to go after the bad provisions of the DMCA. While intended to protect copyrighted material the DMCA has been used to stifle research, threaten researchers, prevent disclosure of security bugs and all but make reverse engineering illegal. I believe that the United States needs it's own "DVD-Jon" that will show people that the DMCA is an ill considered poorly written law. So far when the DMCA has been brought into force against teachers, the people pressing charges have backed down. Thus the law stands and there is no clear lightening rod get the publics attention.
The US needs a DVD-Jon - any takers?
AngryPeopleRule
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
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
The new ruling was made by a panel of three professional judges backed up by four lay judges, two of whom had technical expertise relevant to the case.
Why can't trials in the US (especially regarding technology) be overseen by judges with relevant expertise? Doesn't that seem like an obvious component of having a fair, just ruling?
Sono koro, bokura wa, sore ga sekai no shinjitsu da to shinjite ita.
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...
Norway is a den of copyright criminals. Make no mistake; we in Oekokrim and our new best friends from the MPAA won't give up our holy fight to take avay the evil fair use rights from the Norwegian movie fans just because our holy cause suffered a minor setback today.
Indeed, another criminal right up Johansen's alley is already under investigation and will be brought to justice soon. This criminal mastermind is known as VHS-Lars.
There is reason to believe he has has connections to Osama bin Laden, too.
Dude, this is slashdot. You expect people to RTFA or even RTFP ?
....
You must be new here
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!
Does this open the way to reverse-engineering *any* software? Could we, for instance, go to Norway and reverse-engineer Windows?
While it is not particularly well-written software, I'm sure we could learn many things from the source code that we could use in Open Source Software/Free Software/GNU/Linux. I'm thinking specifically the GUI and Windows' tip-top TCP/IP stack.
The point is that DVD John isn't going to prison. Who's cares about what happens in the USA ?
This is good, especially the last paragraph. Apparently, the verdict makes it clear that the film industry is infringing on people's rights, not the other way around. It also makes it clear that any "you owe us your first-born" licenses or restrictions is null and void, and even ought to raise some eyebrows with legislators. It makes it clear that the entertainment industry is trying to take legislator's jobs away from them, by themselves setting all the rules. That ought to make legislators slightly upset, I would assume...
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Well Done DVD-Jon
Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense.
There is a beautiful Gallery of CSS descramblers by Dr. David S. Touretzky (Carnegie Mellon University).
His site is a gallery devoted to representations of a piece of software that has been deemed illegal because it can be used to break through the copy-protection system on DVD movies.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
And? Oh yes, I keep forgetting, the only things beyond the boundaries of the Great US are ghosts and vampires..
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
And I just registered freedvdjon.com ! :(
Who would have thought the courts would rule correctly?
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.
" why would -any- european want to visit the US these days?
Why else but to stock up on cheap Region 1 DVDs to take home and copy!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
The Chewbacca Defense:
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case?
Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense!
Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense. None of this makes sense.
And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation... does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.
If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
---
ps -aux | grep mind
The whole verdict can be found here (norwegian): "http://www.vg.no/pub/vgart.hbs?artid=206926"
"a DVD-record is a fragile media that may be damaged, thus the buyer must be entitled to make a copy, for-instance of a film that he wants to preserve".
Why does the press always uncritically report that DeCSS "cracks DVD copy protection codes"? It is clear that CSS is about preveting changes to region coding and the extraction of media. It doesn't prevent copying of the original DVD in any way, shape or form. As long as the DVD industry can sustain the spin that CSS is about copy protection they are winning the hearts and minds war.
How can we get the press to report these issues in a more intelligent way?
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.
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
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.
a) Marx didn't invent communism he only co-wrote the Manifesto with Engels. So what Marx has to say on the subject isn't the last word.
and
b) The communism Marx was talking about is very different to the Communism you have in mind; the latter being better described as Stalinism.
get your facts straight. I hate it when people reference the McDonalds coffee case and don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
Here are some details:
What the jury didn't realize initially was the severity of her burns. Told during the trial of Mrs. Liebeck's seven days in the hospital and her skin grafts, and shown gruesome photographs, jurors began taking the matter more seriously. Even more eye-opening was the revelation that McDonald's had seen such injuries many times before. Company documents showed that in the past decade McDonald's had received at least 700 reports of coffee burns ranging from mild to third degree, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.
POSTSCRIPT - Following the trial of Ms. Liebeck's case, the judge who presided over it reduced the punitive damages award to $480,000, even though the judge called McDonald's conduct reckless, callous and willful. This reduction is a corrective feature built into our legal system. Furthermore, after that, both parties agreed to a settlement of the claim for a sum reported to be much less than the judge's reduced award. Another corrective feature.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Well, then, thanks for not referring to the events in 1905 as "breaking free from despotic royal rule".
Don't mind you slagging the Danes though. :-)
Stefan Axelsson
I thought I'd point out that I always enjoy coming across a post where the writer identifies himself as being from such and such country (i.e., not from the U.S.). Not only do such posts provide everyone an opportunity to reflect on that country's culture and history, but also such posts often distinguish themselves by being well written. More specifically, they seem to lack the spelling and grammatical errors commonly found in posts made by those whose native language is obviously English.
Bullshit. Go read the Communist Manifesto, where Marx and Engels devoted a whole chapter to denouncing various forms of socialism, some he explicitly connected to reactionary or utopian movements, making it very clear that these forms of communism in Marx' and Engels' eyes were the wrong direction and would not lead to a communist society.
The terms socialism and communism are used in a few different ways in Marx' works depending on whether he is writing about economic, politics or philosophy, but the general difference is that Marxist socialism denote a political and economical system in which you have the dicatorship of the proletariat (where the working classes use the power given by their numbers to oppress the capitalist classes, with the goal of gradually taking away the means of production from the capitalists, forcing them to join the proletariat - or working classes - by virtue of no longer being able to survive by living of the works of others), whereas communism is a society where the nationstate has lost all political power, and "withered away" to become purely an administrative extension of the communes, and thus not exist in the capitalist sense of "state".
In terms of politics, the terms socialism and communism were frequently used by Marx' as expressions of the policies required to bring forth socialist and communist societies.
Socialism was by Marx' seen as a necessary precursor to communism.
I'd love to see how you think you can justify claiming that Marx' used the terms interchangably.
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.
They do definately not want that to happen, but they have very little choice. Since the prosecution can appeal, it will set precedent if they choose not to appeal. Unlike the US, where I understand you must be found guilty all the way up to the supreme court to ever get there, since any aquittal is final. Yes, it does suck for DVD-Jon. But for the rest of us, it means that a precedent will be set at the first possible opportunity, not with some poster child case for the prosecution.
The Norwegian economic crime unit is getting major egg-on-face factor out of this. They've spent 4 years prosecuting a single teen individual with two straight losses in court. This is like an advanced task force that's supposed to deal with organized crime, fraud, embezzlement, stock scams, anti-cometitive behavior, corruption, money laundering and so on. Yes, "computer crimes" is also defined as one of their specialities, but I think everyone but themselves think that going after DVD-Jon is shooting sparrows with a cannon. Which makes it all the more embarassing when they fail.
I think they will try to appeal - simply because they have nothing to lose. If nothing else, just to delay this becoming a final precedent until after the EUCD has been implemented, making the ruling primarily of historical interest. Though I'm sure it will be interesting to see the same argunents about what legal rights you have compared to the legal limitations of the EUCD. Either way, congratulations to DVD-Jon. That this ruling was made already now (wasn't expected until mid-January) is a clear sign, that the prosecution's arguments were quite sternly rejected.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
What kind of idiot would appeal his own not guilty verdict? The point of an appeal is to ask a higher court to change the decision of a lower court. If he wanted to be convicted he would have plead guilty.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
See for yourselves. Say what you want, but it appears that, after Tony Blair, the BBC has also become a laquay of American propaganda. How long before UK is annexed by the Land of the Non-Free?
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
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.
This is a textbook example of a poster not knowing the full story.
McDonald's was repeatedly warned that it was serving its coffee hotter than it should -- close to boiling. They were told to serve their coffee at a more normal temperature. When the woman received third degree burns to her thighs because McDonald's repeatedly refused to. All she did was remove the lid to add her cream and sugar and received third degree burns. Think about that.
"She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."
So, McDonald's knew they were serving their coffee too hot, they'd been sued before, and now a woman who removed the lid to add cream and sugar had to had skin grafts as a result.
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.)
Unlike the US, if you are aquitted in Norway, the prosecutor can appeal the aquittal up to two more times. Jon did not appeal at all. IIRC, the prosecutor still has one chance at appealing to Norway's highest court. So he may not be out of the woods quite yet.
I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
This is good. Very good news. BUT, this is in Norway, and it does not change much for those of us in the US.
...but it does mean that I can put up DeCSS tools on any Norwegian homepage, and not have it pulled because it is a legal, reverse-engineered tool. If the US invents some new draconian CSS2+ ultra super with sugar and cream, you can buy one of those, take it back to Norway and hack the hell out of it. Look at that QTfairuse program for iTunes, ever noticed that there is no iTMS in Norway yet?
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.
Quite frankly, between this and the recent KaZaA ruling in the Netherlands, the RIAA/MPAA have pretty much completely failed to outlaw the tools which may enable piracy. Look out for an US invasion of Europe to stop the intellectual terrorism (previously known as piracy) soon... Along with the recent DMCA subpoena ruling, their failure is near complete. And on the technological side, the average connection speed and cost/gb is steadily improving.
In addition, a lot of work is being put into developing better P2P nets, both when it comes to performance (multi-source downloads, uploads of finished blocks), encryption (RSA, AES strong asymmetric and symmetric crypto), file integrity (MD5, SHA hashes), file validiity ("web of trust"), anonymity (Freenet and WinNY + that ant-type program here on slashdot) and so on. The RIAA is not winning, they're losing on pretty much all fronts. The thing that keeps them running is that people want to support the artist. Nothing more, nothing less.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Shall we now have a version of Godwin's Law, where every time the McDonald's coffee case is brought up, the thread is automatically over? It seems that on /., *every* time this case is brought up, it devolves into a "her fault!" vs "not her fault!" flamewar. Every time.
PS (even though it defeats what I said above): Nice selective quoting. The reason why the judge lowered the punitives is because she was found partly at fault in this case.
The stunned cow put the soft foam cup between her legs and drove off. Guess what happened when she hit a bump?
Absolutely nothing, because she wasn't driving; the car was stopped when it spilled.
"After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.)"
The McD coffee is sold at 185F (IIRC?) where it tastes better and stays warm longer.
And is also undrinkable. Coffee made at home is 130-140 degrees. Coffee at 185 degrees will cause third degree burns in 2 to 7 seconds.
I'm not promoting either end of the case, really, just an accurate representation of the facts. Check out this link..
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
So.. 700 "cases".. out of how many cups served from 1982-1992? Billions, I'd gather. You are statistically more likely to get hit by lightening, run over by an Amtrak, or contract some sort of VD. So, you're saying that McDonald's should *change* something that obviously millions of other customers had no problem with on a daily basis just to satisfy the 700 fucking morons who don't understand "boiling water is hot"?
Let's also look at the situation:
Woman pours (accidentally) scalding water/coffee into her lap while traveling in a car pool (a moving car is not conducive for keeping liquids in a stable state). She removed the top to add her cream and sugar, rather than waiting for the car to stop, thus increasing the potential for spillage. She was wearing fleece tights, which absorbed the material and held the liquid close to her skin. When asked if she needed to stop and remove her tights or try to dry them out, she refused and allowed the car pool to continue, meanwhile the still hot liquid COOKS her skin. So, her failure to ACT after her accident also contributed to the problem and her subsequent injury.
700 people out of billions served got "burned". Think about that.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Area. In English, it's called the European Economic Area (I know it's confusing at times; it's called "space" (Ruimte) in Dutch as well). And Norway had every freedom not to join -- it's just that at the time Norway was expecting that it WOULD shortly be joining the EU. That is, after all, what the Area was all about: a stepping-stone to full EU (then EC) membership.
The original EEA, which was a deal between EU and EFTA, was a rather good agreement between two both fairly large European organizations, e.g. in the joint court there'd be 2:3 EFTA:EU judges. It wasn't directly designed as some kind of "trial EU membership", not in that sense, but of course it laid the groundwork for even tighter integration and most people looked at it as a stepping stone.
However, the whole balance of power shifted in 1994, when most of the other countries joined the EU. You can almost say they merged. Only Norway, Iceland and a couple others you need a magnifying glass to see on a map were left "outside", in EFTA. We turned it down with about 53% no, so was a close call. They got a lot bigger, we got a lot smaller. And with EU expanding, it is shifting even more.
Ever since that time, it's become more and more like a leash. Where is was once thought that in case of a disagreement, both sides would hold reasonable power to dispute it, we're now getting directives slapped at us with a "take it or leave it", with the joint force of EU behind it and only a slumbering veto power paragraph if we disagree.
Some of our politicians tout our independence (as independent as being a speck of dust instead of a rock in a storm) and have in general a very inflated view of Norway's role on the international scene. No, being so small, insignificant and without commercial interests that we make good neutral peacemakers is NOT a sign of power!
I think Norway should either get in EU, or get out of EEA. Preferably in EU. But what we have today, is pretty much the worst of both worlds, stuck in a limbo, that yes, we didn't expect to be in. At least within EU we'd be a voice in the choir, right now our situation reminds me of a Calvin&Hobbes strip. Calvin is out looking at the stars, gazing out in the great depths. Then he yells "I mean something". And then in the final scene "...roared the speck of dust". Translated it back from Norwegian to English, so not sure if I got it literally correct. You get the picture.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Becuase in Norway, "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again" ;)
All your base are belong to us!
What a bastion of individual freedom you've got over there.
Wasn't DeCSS actually written in Perl?
Since you asked. This is in no way exhustive. You legal system is more complex than you tax codes, but here is the basics:
./ers bitching about the legal system, it is usually the civil system they are talking about. Due to it's lower burdens and ease of filing suits, it has been getting abused lately, particularly by big corperations. The criminal system is much more akin to yours in that only the government may bring a criminal charge and they have much tougher rules to follow.
In a criminal trial the prosecution is represented by government lawyers. Generally, there are two of them one primary and one backup. They are not police officers but are officers of the court, which means they are sworn to find the truth. Like in Norway, they must present exculpatory evidence if they have it. Doesn't meant they always do, but that's what the law says they have to. The defense is represented by whatever team of lawyers they like. If they can't afford one, the government will give them one, but not one of their choice. A defendant can also represent themselves, if they wish.
The right to trial by jury is gaurenteed and a defendant will always be allowed to have a jury trial if they wish. In a jury trial the judge is the judge of law and the jury is the judge of fact. That means the judge decides what is admissable as evindence, keeps things in order, and instructs the jury as to the relivant law. It is then the discression of the jury as to if the evidence in fact supports a conviction. In all jursidictions I am aware of, a defendant may request a bench trial, meaning no jury, the judge becomes both the judge of law and of fact.
We have a multi-level appeals system, however only the defense may appeal. If at any time any level finds the defendant innocent, it's over. They can never be charged for that crime again, period. Also, the standard for proof is fairly high in a criminal trial. The defense needs to prove nothing, only try and dismantle the prosecution's proof. The prosecution must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty. Generally speaking, a criminal trial is only to decide punishment and fines under the law, not for a victim.
Now civil trials are quite different. The government doesn't have to be involved in bringing a civil suit. The victims can directly sue their victimizer. Both sides can hire whatever lawyers they wish. The burden of proof is much lighter as well, it is to what is called a perponderance of the evidence. More or less it means that your evidence was a little more convincing than the other guy's. The jury then decides if any money is owed and how much. Also different with civil trials is appeals, either side can appeal the verdict on a number of grounds. In fact, it is not uncommon to see BOTH sides appeal the same decision.
Civil trials can happen independant of criminal trials, or in additon to them. The outcome can also be different. OJ Simpson was prosecuted in a criminal trail for murder. The state failed to prove its case and he was aquitted. However the families of the victims then sued him for wrongful death, and won a large amount of his assets.
When you hear US
The temp at which coffee is made surely must be hotter than which it is served. Maybe people are mixing "made" and "served" in this thread because they're in a hurry.
Sure, my wife makes my coffee with boiling water in the French press. If she ever served me boiling coffee, I'd have a few choice words for her. :)
Also, 180F really is way too dangerous to use for normal household use, nevermind the waste of heating power to maintain it. I set my water heater to 140F and I think I'm pushing it. 120F seems to be the accepted standard, and with good reason, I think. But you do have the right to use your water heater as you see fit, and GE should not be held responsible if you scald yourself using your 180F water from one of their water heaters.
But still... 180F?!?
Method of processing duck feet
I'm not taking sides in the argument, but if McDs had settled with other comlpainants for more money (as another poster claimed) why did they not settle for $20,000 in this case? Just curious if anyone knows.
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
"a panel of three professional judges backed up by four lay judges, two of whom had technical expertise relevant to the case."
In the USA, cases like this end up before our Supreme Court -- 7 judges, none of whom has any technical expertise whatsoever, and who are appointed for life by whichever political regime is in power when one of them dies.
No wonder our tech laws favor owners at the expense of innovators.
No, the verdict was expected TODAY at 1 p.m. This was stated by chief judge Wenche Skjaeggestad (for some reason Slashdot seems to insist on replacing the correct letter with "ae") on the very last day of the trial. She also stated that she was somewhat surprised to have read in the papers that the verdict was expected in mid-January. Why the Norwegian press has stuck to this erroneous report I have no idea.
Foreign press seems to have gotten it right.
Some examples:
DVD Jon appeal ends: verdict before Xmas [11 Dec 2003]
Verdict in 'DVD Jon' appeal expected Dec. 22 [12 Dec 2003]
Not true! We all know that the paper clip was invented by an american software-comany and first included in Office 97.
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.