Slashdot Mirror


"DVD-Jon" Demands Compensation

orzetto writes "Jon Lech Johansen, known as DVD-Jon, and aquitted in a trial in Norway, after being accused of infringement for making a GUI for DeCSS, is now demanding that Norwegian Oekokrim pay for all the time and money he has lost to the trial, claiming 150,000 NOK (about 17,500 euros)."

21 of 450 comments (clear)

  1. You win, don't pay by swoebser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's common sense that if you're a defendant and found not guilty that you shouldn't have to pay. Frankly, I'm surprised something like this doesn't exist already. Perhaps if the plaintiff had to pay ALL court costs if he/she lost there would be fewer nonsensical lawsuits.

    IANAL, that's just my two cents.

    1. Re:You win, don't pay by |<amikaze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would also prevent the little guy from going up against a large corporation. When a large corporation has 20 lawyers working on a case, they can claim exhorbant amounts of money wasted on the court case, and make the guy who has been wronged pay for the whole thing.

    2. Re:You win, don't pay by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I think it's common sense that if you're a defendant and found not guilty that you shouldn't have to pay. Frankly, I'm surprised something like this doesn't exist already. Perhaps if the plaintiff had to pay ALL court costs if he/she lost there would be fewer nonsensical lawsuits.

      That's a good idea until you think about the poor retired woman living on a fixed income who got screwed over by a large corporation (insert favorite evil corp here: Microsoft or SCO anyone?) and wants to get some justice. If she loses (and don't say you always win in Court if you are right -- most of the time it comes down to who has a better lawyer) she'd wind up getting stuck with the fees to pay for (insert evil corp here)'s legal dream team, would could be anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the dream team and the case.

      It might be an idea for criminal cases -- having the Government pay you if you are cleared of the charges, but then, do we really want our tax dollars going to pay the millions of dollars of legal fees racked up by the likes of OJ Simpson just because he was found not-guility?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:You win, don't pay by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Loser-pays is common in Europe, and there are groups pushing it in the US.

      There is an obvious downside to it: it tends to discourage access to the courts by people who can't afford to lose. Mike Rowe would never have been able to afford Microsoft's court costs, and if he's not 100% convinced he'll win (not just right: win) he'd be in debt forever.

      It's not infeasible; it's so common in England that it's sometimes called the English rule. But it would involve a substantial change to American jurisprudence.

    4. Re:You win, don't pay by Oestergaard · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is an obvious downside to it: it tends to discourage access to the courts by people who can't afford to lose

      While that *sometimes* can be a bad thing, I believe that it will *often* be a good thing.

      SCO vs. IBM
      (we're broke and have no product, so give us some money)

      Smokers vs. Phillip Morris
      (hey, I thought smokes were good for you, I thought they had vitamin-C in 'em and stuff)

      Oh, and then there's the hospitals hiring lawyers and explicitly telling *every* patient when they leave, that if the patient sues and loses, they will counter-sue. They did that to stop what became routine; that most patients did in fact sue after being treated, because there was a good chance of getting some form of compentation and no risk associated with suing.

      Sure, sometimes the wrong guy loses - which is why civilized countries do not have capital punishment.

      But fundamentally, I think that it is a good idea to let people/corporations who sue know, that there is a risk associated, and suing is not something you should do just for fun, or because "heck, it might work". Going to court is not a game, or at least, it ought not to be. In my humble oppinion of course.

    5. Re:You win, don't pay by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It would also prevent the little guy from going up against a large corporation.

      In some cases it would - then again the current system allows the big guy to sue the little guy until he gives up because he runs out of money. So both systems will fail some of the little guys at some point. To evaluate them you'd have to compare how they compare on average. I think the current US system looks very bad there - employing over half of the worlds lawyers just has to be a ridiculous amount of overhead.

  2. Fair is fair... by axis-techno-geek · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Heck he should sue the MPAA for damages too, if they can pressure prosocution they should also foot the blame.

    ...oh sorry that "liberty and justice for all" has been replaced with "liberty and justice for all those who can afford it".

    --
    This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
  3. Re:FYI by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That is about $22,000. I would want my money back, too

    Is that really all it cost him to defend himself or is that just all he's asking for in return? Did he manage to get some lawyers to take the case pro-bono (or partially pro-bono) to get the publicity or are lawyers just cheaper in Norway?

    $22,000 is a nice chunk of change but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what this probably would have cost him in the United States....

    Anyone have any more info on this?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  4. Frivolous Prosecutions by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I hope he prevails. Perhaps it will give other prosecutors pause, to think out their case. If you have a weak case and know you are going to have to pay all cases, you might decide to forego prosecution and use your resources on cases which aren't weak. This benefits the society as a whole.

  5. Good for him by thedillybar · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I like the idea of a counter-suit. News like this should help prevent companies such as DirecTV from indiscriminately suing people because there's a small chance that they're guilty.

    If people continue to fight these lawsuits and counter-sue, rather than just settle, then these companies will be discouraged from these rages in the future because it will end up costing them more in dollars & negative PR than it's worth.

  6. Although I support his position/work on DeCSS by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The Oekokrim trials were clearly about establishing precedent for Norway on an important matter, not about punishing him directly. Living in a litigious society, I can tell you only one group seems to come out the consistent winner when everybody feels the need for compensation when they've been offended in some manner.

    He didn't have to pay lawyer's fees, and from the sounds of it outside of having something like this looming over his head for years it's probably been a boon to him overall (he won't have to worry about finding work, for one thing.) It's probably a better time to count blessings than demand renumeration.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  7. Re:FYI by bluekanoodle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Are the free lawyers actually any good in Norway?" He got off, didn't he?

  8. Re:FYI by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Are the free lawyers actually any good in Norway?" He got off, didn't he?

    Yes, and every so often somebody will win a million bucks playing the lottery. That doesn't mean that the lottery is a good investment.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  9. Re:Microsoft by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Insightful
    MPAA could not get the Okokrim into this trouble as the MPAA has no authority over the Norwegian police. It was the Okokrim's decision to pursue this case - geez, it would be a major scandal if it turned out that some foreign organization has a say in what the police does.

    Right, I'm sure this esteemed organization woke up one day and said "You know what is threatening our great nation? DVD decryption."

    Somehow I don't think so. I'm not claiming corruption, but I've a feeling someone gave them the idea that this would be a very good thing to go after.

  10. Re:Compensation for What? by defile · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So really, what you're saying is that "DVD Jon" deserved to be sued for trying to watch a DVD he bought, and deserves to pay for his defense even though a court has sided with him twice?

    This case is not about stealing copyrighted works . It's about who owns the things that you buy.

  11. freedom vs. free$ by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The failed prosecution of DVD Jon demonstrates that Norway, at least, protects the rights of its citizens from corporate/government collusion to persecute. He might be due $20K, a decent return for a Norwegian 20 year old's part-time college job as inexpert witness in his own defense. But Jon's damages from their unmerited actions fall less on his wallet than on his spirit. The real damage was the threats to his liberty, arrest, denigration, disgrace and professional disenfranchisement. These years of undeserved defensive living can not be restored, and have no price.

    In the US, there is a distinction between civil and criminal violations of law, and their remedies. While the vagaries of US history, and lawyerly perversions of principles of "justice" often assign "punitive damages" to perpetrators and award them to victims, criminal penalties are assigned to those who damage intangibles: public trust, individual liberty, principles of Justice itself. In DVD Jon's case, there is a great deal of that kind of damage, to Jon, and to his compatriots, and ripples to us, in other countries.

    The remedy includes holding those behind these prosecutions liable for their actions in wrongfully prosecuting him. Moreover, if this kind of wrongful prosecution is found to be systemic, the judge ought to assign changes in the system. Otherwise the perpetrators will be free to attack Liberty without repercussions, and the rising tide of corporate attacks on human rights will pervade Norway. Combine corporate financial superiority with their liability immunity advantage, and it looks pretty bad for the humans. Unless Norwegians see themselves in DVD Jon's shoes, and get their country back on track.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  12. yes, and... by tuxette · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...also remember that this case was a "prestige" case for Inger Marie Sunde. The self-proclaimed computer crime expert who doesn't know what an algorithm is put a lot on the line for this case, personally and professionally, didn't take her first loss well, and has thankfully realized that she would lose an eventual appeal.

    Her case was based primarily on poor or non-existing evidence and character assasination (among other things, she likened Johansen to gang-bangers). She wasted Johansen's time, the judges' and jury's time, and taxpayer money. So yes, Johansen is in the right to seek compensation from Okokrim.

    --
    People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
  13. Re:Compensation for What? by jdgeorge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So really, what everyone here is saying, is that it's OK to crack proprietary code ("code must be free"), steal copyrighted works ("music must be free") and get away with it.

    No. The Norwegian legal system is saying that that Jon Johansen's actions were legal. If you disagree with their conclusions (and want to do something other than whine about the attitudes of Slashdotters like yourself), you should explain your reasoning to the legislative body of the Norwegian government and the Motion Picture Association of America (which prompted this legal action.)

  14. Re:FYI by WegianWarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, he wasn't. He was charged once, the lower court said he hadn't done any wrong and the Oekokrim (echonomic crime unit) appeled. It may not be the way things work in the US, but it's the way thigns work here - and work pretty damn good I might add. Both the defendant and the plaintiff may appeal if certain conditions are present.

    There is a number of important differencies between the norwegian and the US system of justice. One of the most important ones to recall is that they are different; so don't scream up at the instance you hear something that's different from what you're used too - like the fact that lawyers paid by the state are pretty damn good.

    --
    Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
  15. Re:Compensation for What? by Dominic_Mazzoni · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So really, what everyone here is saying, is that it's OK to crack proprietary code ("code must be free"), steal copyrighted works ("music must be free") and get away with it. Aperently most of you still live at home (like DVD Jon) and don't directly have to pay bills, except for maybe your stash and some Dew now and then.

    No, what we're saying is that it's legal to reverse-engineer hardware and software for the purposes of interoperability and exercising your fair-use rights. In other words, it's perfectly legal to crack the CSS encryption on DVDs so that you can watch the DVDs that you legally purchased on your Linux computer, which after all these years still has no commercial DVD playing software.

    We also recognize that there's a big difference between stealing (depriving someone of a physical product they own) and copyright infringement (making a digital copy of something, which doesn't deprive the owner of their copy nor does it deprive the copyright holder of any revenue if you otherwise wouldn't have purchased it). We also recognize that morally there is a big difference between downloading a few MP3s off the Internet (just for fun, to try out new bands, for albums that are not being produced anymore - which is no more immoral than borrowing a book or a CD from a friend) and wholesale mass-copying (people who burn 'pirated' CDs and sell them in the streets).

  16. Re:FYI by Tassach · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It'd take a Constitutional amendment to change that
    I wish. Lately, our government hasn't even bothered paying lip service to the Constitution except when it serves their own interests to do so. USA-PATRIOT and subsequent laws are so blatantly un-Constitutional as to make me sick. Secret trials? Warrantless secret searches? US Citizens held indefinately without charges and without access to a lawyer? Criminal defendants denied the right to confront their accusors, and not being allowed to call witnesses on their own behalf?

    If the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to overthrow Constitutional government, I'd say that they were pretty damn effective.

    --
    Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?