DVD-Jon Completely Clear

A reader writes: "The case against DVD-Jon was finally ended today. DVD-Jon won the first trial on the 6th of January 2003. The Norwegian Okokrim appealed but Jon also won the new trial the 22. December. It was expected that Okokrim would appeal this decission to the Supreme Court, but today Nettavisen is reporting that Okokrim have decided not to pursue the case further. No news in English yet, but they will probably be there soon. I guess the news will be on in English soon." Okokrim is the Norwegian equivalent to the RIAA here in the States - and yes, Virginia, this means DVD back-up is fully legal in Norway. Spelling updates - thanks, Disillusioned.

Comments

I'm sure he has a real name

[Anonymous Coward]

Do we have to call him "DVD-Jon"? Seriously. That ranks up there with always referring to presidential assassins by their full name.

Re:I'm sure he has a real name

[Scrameustache]

Seriously. That ranks up there with always referring to presidential assassins by their full name.

I'm pretty sure that that is done to reduce the stigma associated with having the same name as a presidential assassin.

Imagine: you just sent out your resume for your dream job, you're qualified, your application is filled out perfectly, and the news comes on that a guy with the same first and last name as yours just shot the president...aren't you glad that you included your middle initial and that they're using his full name, with a different middle name?
Heck, it gives you something to talk about at the interview instead of forcing you to legally change your name.

As for DVD-Jon, well, its his nickname. Feel free to call him DeCSS-Jon or "The Amazing Decrypto: Righter of Wrongs" if you like...

Re:I'm sure he has a real name

[k98sven]

Actually.. In Norway and Sweden, criminal suspects are rarely ever mentioned by name in the papers prior to conviction. And most often not even after a guilty sentence either.
(infamous criminals with many previous convictions being the most notable exception.)

Instead, they are usually referred to by age.

For instance, in the murder case of Anna Lindh (swedish foreigh minister) last year, the first suspect arrested was the '35 year-old'. The current suspect (due to go on trial this month) is the '24 year old'.

However in the latter case, the public interest has been so large that one of the major newspapers in Sweded decided to publish the name of the latter suspect.
A rare breach of this rather stringent media ettiquette.

Two Great Anti-DRM Stories!

[LordoftheFrings]

What a great way to start a monday morning, two inspiring stories about the fight against DRM. First, the Big 5 record companies are being tried because of the DRM on CDs, and now DVD-Jon having all charges dropped. A big w00t to that.

Re:Two Great Anti-DRM Stories!

[The One KEA]

But what does this really mean for people who want to exercise their fair use rights?

I have a feeling that this ruling will be cited continuously by people trying to fight restrictive DRM in the US and other parts of Europe as part of their legal arguments. Who knows - this might be a watershed event.

The root of the RIAA problem lie in the 1920ies

[Samuel Duncan]

I still remember who some very smart people warned in the 1920ies that the entertaiment industry would become due to media concentration too powerful and could get laws changed to their favor. Of course, hardly anyone took them seriously. We had only some movie industry in hollywood and the big competitor the German UFA was still alive and kicking. So the advised regulation law got passed. After WW II when it became clear that they were right, all proposals in this direction were stomped by McCarty as "communist agitation" - that why the big ones in the movie industry supported him. And later, well, it was too late. Which leads in the end to such things as the DCMA.

Lesson learned: always act preventativly or it will be all too late.
That's why I think that people should take this MS monopoly stuff more seriously.

norway laws will change because of this

[NynexNinja]

They are backing down from the legal court battle because they will be paying off the bureaucrats (read: lobbying) to create new laws in norway to address this type of activity (i.e. DMCA).

Re:norway laws will change because of this

[MrHanky]

Wrong. The laws would change anyway, because Norway has to implement EUCD, the EU counterpart to DMCA. Not that EU has that much to do with the law, I think WTO decided most of it without any democratic intervention. You have to love the new global economy: After the US Congress or Senate or whatever was bought off, the rest of the world has to follow, since the USA controls the WTO.

Now.

[Raven42rac]

Now if we could only get around U.S. law. You are legally allowed to make an archival backup copy for your own use. However, the DVD manufacturers do not have to make it possible for you to do so, and circumventing their copy-protection is a crime. So they are infringing on your rights, and if you assert them, they have big brother on their side.

English article (from Aftenposten)

[Norwolf]

The Norwegian paper Aftenposten as an english article online: DVD-Jon wins new legal victory.

DVD Backing up a necessity

[dnoyeb]

My son likes to chew on my DVDs. So if I leave one in the player by mistake, and he happens to be around, he will play with the player, but eventually he gets around to putting 1 -2 bite marks on it.

He does not understand that he is hosing the DVDs. Thus, either I keep forking out $20 everytime he does this, or I go back to Video Tapes. I am certain DVDs are more profitable for the industry than tapes.

I have not bought any dvd backup system yet because they are so expensive but I plan to. I certainly hope they see that I need this and am not a thief. Unless they are willing to provide free replacements!?

Re:Good news for Norway.

[kfg]

Were it not for the DMCA the same would be entirely true of American law as well. As it stands now you are still the owner of the DVD in America but your legal rights as to what you can do with it have been restricted.

It's important to note however that even under the DMCA there is no license involved and you will find no EULA like small print on your DVD or its packaging.

You own it.

So one of the many horrors the DMCA has foisted upon us is the legal precedent that you may be restricted in the use to which you put your own property by the seller.

In the case of analog recordings the DMCA does not apply and so tape and vinyl records still follow the old rules.

KFG

Re:Good news for Norway.

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the government and the accused have the right to appeal any verdict two times.

Nitpick: The prosecution, not the government. The prosecution ultimately answers to the government, but the government keeps its hands off the daily operations of the police.

If a minister interferes with a pending court case, that is a severe breach of etiquette! The minister of justice back in the year 2000, Hanne Harlem, did comment the case. And she got some flack for it.

--
Herman Robak

Nordic countries [OT]

[Kidbro]

and everything works!!!

Amen to that, brother.

Now, I'm biased, of course, as I'm Swedish, but what strikes me as odd whenever I leave the Nordic countries, and in particular when I decided to live in the UK for half a year or so is how everything elsewhere tend not to work properly. Something is always broken. Once a week there's no hot water, once a month there's no water at all. The wind blows right through gaps between windows and frames, trains are regularly late, the elevator seems to always be broken, and you'll have to take the stairs... the list is endless...

Oh well... that's probably one of the main reasons I moved back. Heck, it's even warmer here in the winter than in the UK. Why? Because once you're inside, the house actually keeps a different temperature than outside ;)

Oh, well... congrats, J. You deserved to win.

Re:news is getting around...

[balloonpup]

I believe that what is meant here is...

"The software is legal to use to view a film if you own the film."

In other words, you can't use the software to violate copyright, that's all.

It is now legal...?

[adrianbaugh]

As far as I understand it all this means is Jon is free. The case wasn't taken to the Norwegian Supreme Court, so no legal precedent was made (presumably the reason why it didn't go to the SC). I may have misunderstood things (in the best /. tradition IANANL) but I don't think so.

DVD-Jon to the USA

[Nyh]

I am wondering. Would it be save for DVD-Jon to go to the USA? Will the RIAA respect the Norwegian verdict or will it seize the opportunity to lynch trail him the american way?

Nyh

Re:Okokrim is NOT the equivalent of the RIAA!

[the_mad_poster]

I got in a tiff a few days back with a couple of people for "suggesting" that maybe the spam problem could be solved via vigilante means since the law isn't interested in helping and technology hasn't worked to date. That set me thinking about the mass hysteria that grips people, especially the law, when technology is involved in a crime. I thought about how stupid it is that "breaking into a computer across state lines" is a felony. There is no real equivalent to this in the "real world", since you can't physically break into a building across state lines. Given the odds of someone getting hurt when a hacker breaks into a computer system vs. the odds of someone getting hurt when theives break into a building, why the enthusiastic approach to prosecution when a computer and phone line is involved? You'd probably be better off breaking into a building and actually picking up and walking off with a database server that physically houses millions of credit card numbers than if you broke in and copied the database electronically. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd rather have a guy with a trojan break into my computer than a guy with a gun in my house.

I suspect that the computer crimes investigators in the U.S. are just using an old managment trick: mask incompetence and cluelessness with enthusiasm so it looks like you're chasing a bunch of big bad scary hackers around when, really, you're chasing your own tail because you haven't got a clue. When they catch some punk kid like that teen that modified SoBig (or whatever - I can't remember which of the 10 trillion Windows viruses it was) a while back, they held him up as an example. Example of what? A script kid? Big whoop. They get caught anyway, that's why they're script kiddies. Who caught Mitnick, again? Was it the FBI? Local law enforcement? No, another hacker he made the mistake of pushing. Then, when a catch is made, you get that idiot Ashcroft up there spouting BS as if he had anything to do with it. I'd be willing to bet he has his assistant turn his computer on for him, why's he talking about computer crimes?

The frothing, mad dog approach to computer criminals is really getting old. I'd be happy if they just showed a little competence and treated computer crime just like the original counterparts instead of blasting the occasional catch to pieces as an "example" to others...

Andrew Bunner case in California

[Euphonious Coward]

Worth noting again... 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 DeCSS, and ordered them not to post it. That order applied to states in the 2nd Circuit, including several western states, but also would have carried weight as precedent in other areas.

At the hearing the question came up whether in fact the reverse engineering involved was legal under Norwegian law. The judge called for opinions from Norwegian lawyers. The plaintiff trotted out a tame Norwegian lawyer who asserted (without support of any kind) 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. That meant that the MPAA still had a valid trade secret in CSS.

Now that it's established that in fact the reverse engineering was legal, Bunner et al. should be able to have the decision vacated. (Shame on that judge for his bias.) This should mean that the DVD-CCA's trade secret protection on CSS cannot any longer be enforced.

Is there any word on whether the EFF will act on this?