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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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.)