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)."

27 of 450 comments (clear)

  1. FYI by Omega1045 · · Score: 5, Informative

    That is about $22,000. I would want my money back, too.

    --

    Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

    1. 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.
    2. Re:FYI by dabadab · · Score: 4, Informative

      As this was a criminal case, he got a free defender from the Norvegian state.

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    3. Re:FYI by bluekanoodle · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    4. 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.
    5. Re:FYI by dabadab · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, the Norwegian system is different: basically all lawyers are "public defenders", so you can have a pretty well-known lawyer as your defender for free (as in paid indirectly by your taxes :-) )

      --
      Real life is overrated.
    6. Re:FYI by vidarh · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yes, usually they are good. Norway doesn't have a system of public defenders employed by the government, but a system where lawyers are remunerated on an hourly basis (with some limits) and where most lawyers will accept cases as public defenders. There are occasionally cases where lawyers are unwilling to accept cases at the government rates, but it's rare.

      If you are uncomfortable with the lawyer allocated for your defense you are always legally entitled to choose your own lawyer, and in most such cases the lawyer you choose can then be paid by the government at the fixed hourly rate.

      This system also cover civil lawsuits if your salary and savings are below certain levels. In many cases you can get the government to cover your lawyers fees as a plaintiff in civil cases as well, provided the case meets certain criteria and your salary and savings are below the threshold.

      Personally, I once got a publicly allocated defender as I was being drafted (Norway has compulsory military service) and refused to accept their denial of my application to be exempted.

      The case never went to trial (I got it thrown out of court :)), but the lawyer I was allocated was actually one of the most prominent lawyers in Norway, with 30 years experience in similar cases. He took time to read all the documents, talked to me on the phone, had a very relaxed meeting with me in his office, not worrying about how much time we spent. I'm sure not everyone has as pleasant experience with their publicly allocated defenders as I had, but in general I think the system works fairly well.

      (ObDisclaimer: IANAL)

    7. 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"?
  2. Microsoft by BenBenBen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe they'll follow Seattle's example and pay him off with a free DVD and a masterclass on DVD authoring.

    I hope the okokrim sues the MPAA for getting them into his mess in the first place...

    --
    The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
  3. further more... by nubbie · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... DVD-Jon also requests a copy of LORD:ROTH special edition DVD! ;)

    --
    'Go for the eyes, Boo, go for the eyes, aaarrrrrrrr!' -- Minsc
    1. Re:further more... by cK-Gunslinger · · Score: 5, Funny


      LORD:ROTH ??

      Lord of Real Dirigibles: Return of the Helium ?
      Lord of Research & Development: Return of the Hemoglobin ?
      Lord of Racing Day: Return of the Hemi ?
      Lord of Rubarb Dessert: Return of the Heartburn ?

  4. Give it a shot.. by dave1212 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Fair enough, the bills are quite expensive, does he get a piece of the DeCSS shirts on ThinkGeek? (only half joking)

    If nothing else, he might raise more public interest and get donations that way.

  5. 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 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.

  6. Payment from MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Jon, we will compensate you in remaindered copies of 'Little Nicky', 'Crossroads', and 'Ishtar' in DVD."

    1. Re:Payment from MPAA by jtosburn · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Jon, we will compensate you in remaindered copies of 'Little Nicky', 'Crossroads', and 'Ishtar' in DVD."

      ...sorry they're all Region 1, but we figured you'd be ok with that...

  7. 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.

  8. 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.




  9. In Norway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...hackers sue the prosecutors!

  10. Me too! by headqtrs · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was forced to read all those damn articles about DVD-Jon. I want to be compensated for this.

  11. Re:He deserves it by dont_think_twice · · Score: 5, Funny

    He deserves it. They wasted enough of his time and money.

    If that logic held, Slashdot would owe me millions of dollars by now.

    hmmmmmm - anyone out there looking to start a class action lawsuit?

  12. 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.

  13. 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

  14. 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.)