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.

51 of 457 comments (clear)

  1. At last - now lets hope we can all move on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on by KjetilK · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    2. Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you misunderstand what the case was all about. The ruling means that Jon did nothing wrong by creating software that cracked the DRM, not that anyone else has the right to use it. This is the same as trying to prosecute Merck or its chemists for creating Oxycontin. What people do with technology is not the responsibility of its creator.

    3. Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on by NickFitz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe it does, if you live in Norway...

      From what I read here at /. those of you living in the USA shouldn't hold your breath as long as you have the motion picture and music industries controlling your legislature :-(

      --
      Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
    4. Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on by IdleTime · · Score: 5, Informative

      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!
    5. Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on by arth1 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Let us hope this finally means we have a right to decrypt data media which we own a licence to watch.

      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
    6. Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on by julesh · · Score: 4, Informative

      But it may only last untill EUCD is implemented...

      The UK EUCD implementation grants specific requirements that mean you must be allowed access to an unencrypted copy of the data if you have a legitimate reason for needing it... unforuntately the procedure for enforcement of this is ridiculously complicated (you must complain to the home secretary, IIRC).

      I'm not sure how it'll work in norway, but I'd hope there would be some similar provision.

    7. Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're right! We better just invade Norway and stop this unamerican cyberterrorist crap right now.

    8. Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on by BenTels0 · · Score: 5, Informative
      But it may only last untill EUCD is implemented...

      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.

    9. Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on by Pofy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually the EUCD may, or may not apply, depending a bit on how each country implement the directive.

      Here we are dealing with accessing the DVD, there is nothing in it that prevents making a copy of the DVD (it will end up as an encrypted copy as well of course), but the "protection" does not prevent copying in any way, only access.

      The EUCD deals with circumvention of protection that deals with copyright issues. For example copying which is a right the copyright holder has. Accessing a work is NOT something exlusive to the copyright holder and hence not an issue of copyrights.

      If you look at the Swedish implementation (or suggestion for it at least), they make exactly this reasoning and the implementation only deal with protection that deals with copyright rights. Encrypting something for example, is not such a thing (nor is for example region coding, which is also specifically mentioned). Hence you can circumvent or do whatever you want in that regard.

      Some EU countries might implement it differently and also include access protection but that is NOT a necessity under the EUCD.

  2. Re:DVD Jon by Soporific · · Score: 5, Funny

    More blank DVD's I would think.

    ~S

  3. excellent news by Indy1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!
    1. Re:excellent news by StupidGoose · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:excellent news by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

  4. Re:Aftenposten article by bluedream · · Score: 4, Informative

    Umm.. wasn't that link posted in the article?

    --
    savethedollhouse.com
  5. Warm Fuzzys by 0mni · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. not fair -- best of out 5!! by jdesbonnet · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, do you think they'll give up after only two retrials?

    1. Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 5, Informative
      Hey, do you think they'll give up after only two retrials?

      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
    2. Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! by StormReaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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?

    3. Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative
      No bail? To lock you up all the state has to do is accuse you, or am I misunderstanding?

      They can lock you up for up to 48 hours before they need a court order for an arrest. Unless there's specific reasons for keeping the alleged perp interned, like destruction of evidence or risk of fleeing the country, the suspect is almost always released without bail (which doesn't exist) while awaiting trial.
      And fleeing is simply unthinkable for the average Norwegian -- not only is the culture different, but there's no state borders to hide behind to avoid prosecution, like in the US. You'll have to go to a different country, where you won't have papers, and thus it is almost certainly easier to just face the court system in Norway. I'd think that the average Norwegian would rather be a prisoner in Norway than a fugitive anywhere else in the world.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    4. Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 5, Informative
      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?

      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
  7. Odd... by IngramJames · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  8. reverse engineering legal in Norway again by cluge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again by EinarH · · Score: 4, Insightful
      The US needs a DVD-Jon - any takers?
      I can't think of why any sane person would want to take on such a case in US.

      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.

    2. Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again by tommck · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Between the MPAA, RIAA, and Ashcroft and the republican regime

      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.
  9. It's not a retrial by KjetilK · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's not really a retrial. IANAL (but I am Norwegian), but I think retrials happen when the Supreme Court finds that a lower court has messed up badly. This was an ordinary appeal process. In Norwegian courts, both parties can appeal, and the police appealed the previous acquittal, so it was sent to a higher court, which rejected the appeal.

    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
    1. Re:It's not a retrial by bwz · · Score: 5, Informative

      In US (I think this is from the UK legal tradition that they inherited) aquittal by Jury means no appeal for prosecution while in the "rest of the world" (where there are usually no juries) both prosecution and defense have more similar possibilities of appeal.

      In at least Sweden (where I am from) aquittal by the jury means no appeal for the prosecutor, but jury trial is only used in "freedom of press" cases such as libel.

      Further, It is not the police that prosecutes a case, but rather the "publics prosecutor" (I suppose like a district attourney in the US) or in this case a special "public prosecutor" tasked with a specific type of crimes.

      These prosecutors work closely with the police though, and directs much of their work.

      Erik

      --

      Has it ever occurred to you that God might be a committee?
      --- Jubal Harshaw
  10. Good things about Norway by Nakanai_de · · Score: 5, Interesting
    ...or, more specifically, its judicial system:

    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.

    1. Re:Good things about Norway by EinarH · · Score: 4, Informative
      Actually, one of the judge-experts was a guy from Linpro, a Norwegian consulting firm and the leading Linux company in Norway.

      In a case like this I would rather stand in front of a judge with a jury consisting of experts rater that "clueless" non-technical fellow citizens.

      --

      Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.

  11. No surprise here... by tuxette · · Score: 5, Informative
    The prosecution didn't come up with anything new in this appeal, at least not anything that could contribute significantly to the case. It was a "no-brainer" for the judge and jury.

    A few points that are in an article in Norwegian and not the English article (translated directly, I'm not responsible for journalists' errors):

    • 40-bit crypto is too weak (export maximum); you need a minimum of 64-bit; CSS is 16-bit
    • Johansen was not required to used "authorized" equipment to play the DVD.
    • You have the right to take a copy of the DVD for private use.
    • It is not illegal to break the copy-protection code.

    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...
  12. Next lawsuit already in planning.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    Immediately after the trial, Oekokrim prosecutor Inger Marie Sunde commented:

    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.

  13. Justice At Last by ajs318 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
  14. Some nice things from the verdict by KjetilK · · Score: 4, Informative
    I haven't yet read the verdict, but some details seems to come out now. From the largish norwegian paper VG, I'm trying a translation:
    DVD-films are stored on a medium which is prone become damaged. For that reason, it is very different to copy a movie from a book or a periodical, it says in the verdict.

    The court also makes clear that a prohibition against copying as printed on the film cover will limit consumer's legitimate rights as granted by section 12 of the copyright code.

    "This practice can be compared to private legislation, and can disturb the balance between interests that the law builds upon," said the judge.

    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
  15. Well Done DVD-Jon .... by leoaugust · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    "It never occurred to me that someone would actually try to prevent people from publishing code that they wrote," he said. "The idea just struck me as so deeply offensive that I felt I had to do something about it."

    To make his point about free speech, he offered several exhibits from his gallery, including a description of the DeCSS code in plain English and a T-shirt on which the code was printed -- both of which could be considered illegal under the copyright act.

    --
    To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies ...
  16. Re:So what? by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 4, Funny

    And? Oh yes, I keep forgetting, the only things beyond the boundaries of the Great US are ghosts and vampires..

  17. Good, but... by akiaki007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  18. Oh for the love of... by Locky · · Score: 5, Funny

    And I just registered freedvdjon.com !
    Who would have thought the courts would rule correctly? :(

  19. Should be able to copy our own DVD's by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  20. Why visit the U.S.? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 5, Funny

    " 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.
  21. Backups allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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".

  22. When will the press learn? by threeturn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Good news, but the quoted article annoys me.

    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?

  23. Some additional info from the court by pkaral · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was in court for the defence procedure, and here is some additional info:

    DVD Jon was charged with breaking a rule in the Norwegian penal code that makes it illegal to "break a protection ... 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.

    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.

  24. Re:Socialism and communism are the same by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    According to Marx, they are the same. He used both terms interchangably.

    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
  25. Wrong, by 60% by Orne · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  26. Re:Socialism and communism are the same by Gumshoe · · Score: 4, Informative
    Socialism and communism are the same. According to Marx, they are the same. He used both terms interchangably.


    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.
  27. The beauty of the Norwegian system... by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  28. BBC's treatment of this is disgusting! by Quietti · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  29. Bunner case by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 5, Informative
    This result bears on the Andrew Bunner trade-secret case in California. That court found that since the trade secret was (supposedly) illegally obtained, Andrew Bunner and several hundred "John Does" had acted improperly in posting it.

    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.)

  30. Re:sigh... by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually it was found that while the McD coffee was hot, it was at a lower temperature than a typical cafe's coffee.

    I'm having a hard time believing this statement. I worked for McDonald's around 1991-1992, and the coffee we served there was incredibly hot. As in, let it cool for 30 minutes with the lid off, and it might not blister your tongue. I'd be interested to know the actual conditions and research data for the comparison you describe, it sounds to me like doctored evidence.

  31. McDonald's Law? by Black+Pete · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  32. Why the EEA agreement sucks by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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