CSS of DVDs Ruled 'Ineffective' by Finnish Courts

An anonymous reader writes "The CSS protection used in DVDs has been ruled "ineffective" by Helsinki District Court. This means that CSS is not covered by the Finnish copyright law amendment of 2005 (based on EU Copyright Directive from 2001), allowing it to be freely circumvented. Quoting the press release: ' The conclusions of the court can be applied all over Europe since the word effective comes directly from the directive ... A protection measure is no longer effective, when there is widely available end-user software implementing a circumvention method. My understanding is that this is not technology-dependent. The decision can therefore be applied to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD as well in the future.'"

Comments

All Over Europe?

[GuldKalle]

The conclusions of the court can be applied all over Europe since the word effective comes directly from the directive.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but afaik the meaning of directive is that each member-country has to make their own law, based on these directives. So they must make their own interpretations if the directive, and therefore court rulings cannot make a direct precedence across borders.

Re:All Over Europe?

[David Off]

I think you are right. In addition, in France at least a district court ruling would not constitute jurisprudence. Only a ruling by the Conseil d'Etat (supreme or high court) would do. The ruling could possibly be used in arguments though.

Nice...

[Kjella]

...but just a note on law. Even though EU passes directives, each country must pass their own laws in parliament. The EU does not make "federal law" like in the US. They may also apply different exceptions and such. So the law is not the same and even if it were, precedents do not legally apply. However, this goes straight to the core of the directive so if other countries read "effective" the same way... The precedent sounds rather strange to me though, it's like saying "if enough people are breaking the law, the law doesn't apply". Somehow I think they meant "to the effect of" meaning "however they do it, as long as it protects a copyrighted work". Not that it matters since the actual law is probably in Finnish anyway.

Re:Catch-22?

[quantaman]

That might have been true in the past. In the age of the Internet, cracks can almost instantly become widespread. I don't know the precise wording of the law but I'm guessing that while it's legal to break already ineffective protection the person who made it ineffective in the first place can still be prosecuted.

In other words you can beat a dead horse, just don't beat the horse to death.

Re:I think extending this to BR and HD is a stretc

[Hatta]

I like this ruling a lot. I notice that the DMCA includes similar language.

Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

        `(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

What are the chances of us getting a similar ruling in the US?

Re:Catch-22?

[icsx]

You are missing the point. The CSS protection is _weak_ and it can be bypassed easily with a free prog from internet. The whole CSS is _said to be strong_ while it is not according to this court (and my personal opinion).