"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)."

Comments

You win, don't pay

[swoebser]

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.

Re:You win, don't pay

[|<amikaze]

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.

Re:You win, don't pay

[Shakrai]

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?

Re:You win, don't pay

[jfengel]

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.

Re:You win, don't pay

[Asic Eng]

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.

Re:FYI

[Shakrai]

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?

Good for him

[thedillybar]

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.

Although I support his position/work on DeCSS

[Sheetrock]

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.

Re:FYI

[bluekanoodle]

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

Re:FYI

[Shakrai]

"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.

Re:Compensation for What?

[defile]

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.

freedom vs. free$

[Doc Ruby]

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.

Re:Compensation for What?

[jdgeorge]

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.)

Re:FYI

[Tassach]

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.