Danish DRM Breaker Turns Himself In To Test Backup Law

coaxial writes "In Denmark, it's legal to make copies of commercial videos for backup or other private purposes. It's also illegal to break the DRM that restricts copying of DVDs. Deciding to find out which law mattered, Henrik Anderson reported himself for 100 violations of the DRM-breaking law (he ripped his DVD collection to his computer) and demanded that the Danish anti-piracy Antipiratgruppen do something about it. They promised him a response, then didn't respond. So now he's reporting himself to the police. He wants a trial, so that the legality of the DRM-breaking law can be tested in court."

Comments

this is brave

[mrvan]

This is really brave. Not just rant about how stupid a law is, or how unenforceable, and then just break it. But break it, deliberately turn yourself in, and show how stupid/unenforceable the law is.

From an egoistic short-term perspective this is probably seen as just stupid, but this is the way to actually enact some changes.

Bravo!

Re:this is brave

[MightyMartian]

I'd wager my left toe that absolutely nothing comes of it. The police aren't going to want to deal with it, and media companies and their government whores don't want that kind of a test case.

Re:this is brave

[Jherico]

Except that as worded in the summary, the laws don't actually conflict. A law that gives you the right to make backups of a medium for private use doesn't necessarily guarantee you that right. A law that prohibits breaking of DRM would still apply. The only thing the other law does is ensure that he can't be prosecuted on two counts (breaking DRM AND duplicating copyrighted materials) instead of one.

Re:this is brave

[dintlu]

Is selective enforcement of a law an effective defense against that law's application against an individual, in Denmark?

Re:this is brave

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Having the right to do something and being forbidden from doing the actions most commonly followed to accomplish this thing are in direct conflict. changing the DRM law to require some further infraction to be applicable would do a lot to resolve this conflict.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

A law that gives you the right to make backups of a medium for private use doesn't necessarily guarantee you that right. A law that prohibits breaking of DRM would still apply.

Or a law that prohibits breaking DRM doesn't apply if you have the right to make a backup.

Why the fuck are you making sweeping assumptions when you are clearly ignorant of the details?

Re:this is brave

[godrik]

I agree it's brave. It's a bit like calling the FDA to make sure your restaurant is clean enough.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you not make an ISO of a DVD without decrypting it?

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Not usually, no, because that requires the ripping program to actually decode the data to transfer it.

Re:this is brave

[OzPeter]

Taking this sort of totally off-topic thats one argument I'd love to use in the USA against speeding tickets. If you are on a freeway in Virginia then the cops won't pull you over unless you are doing more than about 15 mph over the limit (ie 80 in a 65 zone) , but they ticket you for the speed above the posted limit. I'd love to argue that the effective speed limit is at the point where they consider it worthwhile to come after you and not the posted limit. Thus you should be ticketed for the speed above the effective limit.

However I am too chicken to put this to a test :D

Re:this is brave

[pauljlucas]

It's a bit like calling the FDA to make sure your restaurant is clean enough.

The FDA has nothing to do with restaurant inspections. That's handled by county-level health departments.

Re:this is brave

[Atlantis-Rising]

Can you argue that you shouldn't pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a speeding ticket?

Law enforcement has the discretion not to arrest and charge and prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute.

Re:this is brave

[zippthorne]

Recordable disks aren't writable in the part of the disk where the key is stored, so if you don't decrypt it when you make the backup, you won't be able to play the backup in your player.

Re:this is brave

[SleazyRidr]

This guy deserves some serious cred. Of course, it could turn out that he just hasn't thought it through, but it seems like he's pretty serious.

Re:this is brave

[MBGMorden]

Not necessarily. It's already pretty well accepted that you can only exercise a right so long as it doesn't conflict with other laws. Combinations of actions can preclude one right. For example in the US I have the right to bare arms. I have the right to enter a post office as well. However, I cannot bare arms while entering a post office.

Similarly, you might have the right to make a backup copy for archival purposes, but only so long as no other law is broken. If you have to crack DRM to make it then you're breaking another law and hence there's an issue.

Re:this is brave

[jandrese]

In the US this case would be easy, he would just be charged $20,000,000 per DVD as per corporate wishes.

Re:this is brave

[thisnamestoolong]

You shouldn't not pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a ticket, but if there were a law on the books that granted you the right to speed (hey, we are talking hypotheticals here), it would be worth putting the law to the test, as the two laws are mutually exclusive.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

your argument is flawed. you have the privilege to enter the post office. when you attempt to enter the post office with a fire arm you privilege is revoked.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry fellow A/C, he's right. You can certainly make a copy of a DVD without decrypting it. The DVD companies generally turn the compression down on their content "for quality purposes" so that the resultant files are larger than a standard DVD-R. But they can be copied (at a fraction of that speed) to a DVD-R-DL without issue. I've backed up several formerly expensive videos with that method so the kids can destroy the backups. It works fine.

Where the decryption for duplication is required is for making the unencrypted copies of the file content so they can be recompressed with a higher compression ratio and fit onto a DVD-R. This is both cheaper, and despite the massive CPU overhead, faster due to the higher write speeds on the DVD-Rs.

Re:this is brave

[h4rm0ny]

I know this is hard, but sometimes you have to read the article. ;) Apparently, Danish law gives the individual the right to make a non-commercial backup for personal use. That isn't a law saying you may do something, it's saying you have a right to do so. In which case DRM infringes on that right.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you argue that you shouldn't pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a speeding ticket?

You can. If you're being deliberately targeted. If you're simply the unlucky one who got caught that defense is harder to sell.

In the case of a speeding ticket it might be that it's impractical to strictly enforce the limit for everyone, and in that case it's reasonable to pick the worst offender, or a random offender, for the target of enforcement efforts. But if the cops picked you every day for a week even though there were many other people with the same violation during that period, you'd have a pretty decent defense.

Re:this is brave

[SDF-7]

No, I'm fairly certain no one will care if you take your jacket off and have short sleeves in the post office.

Baring much else will get you in trouble, of course.

And before anyone else asks -- no, you shouldn't arm bears in the post office either.

Re:this is brave

[mhajicek]

While in principle it SHOULD work, in reality they just laugh at you and hand you your ticket. Take it to trial and only one thing matters. "Sir, were you speeding?" "Yes, but..." "You can pay your fine to the clerk on your way out. Next!"

Re:this is brave

[mcgrew]

It's called civil disobediance and it's been arround at least since Henry David Thoreau wrote Resistance to Civil Government in 1849.

Re:this is brave

[OzPeter]

Can you argue that you shouldn't pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a speeding ticket?

Law enforcement has the discretion not to arrest and charge and prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute.

I would posit that there is a difference between law enforcement attempting (but failing) to enforce a law because they do not have enough man power, and choosing not to enforce a law because of some random personal preference.

That cops in the US don't bother to ticket all speeders (and in Virginia the law is written that there is no justification for exceeding the speed limit) is puzzling. But every now and again they have a zero tolerance crack down and the following week people are speeding again. Why should those people traveling during the crackdown be held to stricter compliance than any other time during the year?

Imagine the outcry if the cops decided to selectively enforce theft, assault or rape cases

Re:this is brave

[mhajicek]

It's like having the right to defend yourself, but not being allowed to carry a weapon. If you have the right to defend yourself you have the right to be armed. Not that it holds up in court though...

Re:this is brave

[somersault]

But the thing is, that he *can* surely copy the disc without breaking the DRM? Making a copy to another DVD for backup purposes, and ripping onto your computer (I'm thinking especially if you change the format and don't just rip an iso) - while similar - are different things.

Plus, I doubt he is just keeping the files on his computer for "backup", he is probably actually watching the files on his computer. Not that I disagree with that.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

This man's balls are made of brass. Maybe silicon due to our modern times, but the statement still stands.

Re:this is brave

[meerling]

Often there is an unspecified leeway to account for unavoidable imprecision because we are all just human, and even our machines aren't 100% accurate.

Don't forget that traffic isn't a steady state situation, it's a dynamic one.

My uncle got pulled over for being 10mph over the limit when he thought he was going the correct speed. The cop didn't ticket him, but pointed out that his obviously new tires weren't the same diameter as the factory ones. Then told him to get his odometer recalibrated for the new tires. Seems your speedometer and odometer are directly linked to the number of rotations of tires of a specific diameter, change that and they read the wrong values. That's just one example where violations occur because of stuff you don't know about. It happens to cops too.

Of course, cops have another reason to not bother with tiny infractions. It wastes too much of their time in court arguing with joe blow that 4mph over the limit is still a violation. Even cops don't like standing in court all day dealing with stupid s###.

Re:this is brave

[silanea]

Law enforcement has the discretion not to arrest and charge and prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute.

Within certain constraints. Here in Germany afaik failure to act on a report about a crime (as opposed to misdemeanours) can be a criminal offence in itself, for both the police and the prosecution.

Re:this is brave

[scubamage]

To an extent. The discretion not to arrest/prosecute is solely dependent on whether or not the case has a complainant usually, and how much they're willing to complain. IE: You can smoke pot in your apartment alone and if no neighbors care, then you're fine. If they call the cops, they've officially filed a complaint against you and the officers have to do something, even if its just showing up and shrugging. Same thing here: he's officially filed a complaint against himself so if their commonlaw system is anything like ours (should be, based off the same one) they have to act. I think anyways, IANAL, I am just a prelaw student so I could be way off.

Re:this is brave

[mhajicek]

The problem arises when all DVDs have DRM. That would be like saying you have the right to bear arms, but can't be in the country while doing it.

Re:this is brave

[MoonBuggy]

But the thing is, that he *can* surely copy the disc without breaking the DRM?

As I understand it, that's exactly what CSS is designed to prevent. From the Wikipedia article:

The purpose of CSS is twofold. First and foremost, it prevents byte-for-byte copies of an MPEG stream from being playable since such copies will not include the keys that are hidden on the lead-in area of the restricted DVD disk.

Re:this is brave

[gbarules2999]

He can back it up on his computer, but if he tries to use the backups when a DVD gets damaged, he'll have to break the DRM to make a new disc copy. He probably just broke the DRM before he needed to, knowing that it would have to happen eventually.

Of course someone will argue that he could just buy a DVD program that lets him watch the unaltered DVD iso on this hand drive (because VLC Player and its family are also de-DRM-ing the DVD iso without premission) but that still won't let him watch it on his DVD player.

Re:this is brave

[amplt1337]

Imagine the outcry if the cops decided to selectively enforce theft, assault or rape cases

There certainly is a large degree of selective investigation of these kinds of crimes. Try reporting a stolen bike in NYC sometime, for instance; you'll get laughed out of the station. (Oh sure, they'll take your report and have you fill out paperwork, but that goes straight in the Round File as soon as the door's closed.)
I believe (but don't have studies to hand) that assaults are investigated at much lower rates in neighborhoods of lower socio-economic standing. Sexual assault cases are also investigated far less diligently in acquaintance-rape situations than in "stranger in the bushes" situations, though they're both the same crime.

Re:this is brave

[OzPeter]

I'm not arguing that I would not be speeding, just that the points lost and the fine to be paid should be determined between the effective speed limit and the ticketed speed. In VA the fine is calculated as a $$amount for every mph over the speed limit.

As further examples, on I-64 you can drive about 72-75 mph in a 65 zone without being pulled over. But on I-95 leaving DC if you are not doing 80-85 mph then you are hazard to the other traffic, but at those speeds you don't get pulled over either

Re:this is brave

[amplt1337]

Bravo!... ...unless he loses.

Re:this is brave

[geminidomino]

My uncle got pulled over for being 10mph over the limit when he thought he was going the correct speed. The cop didn't ticket him, but pointed out that his obviously new tires weren't the same diameter as the factory ones. Then told him to get his odometer recalibrated for the new tires. Seems your speedometer and odometer are directly linked to the number of rotations of tires of a specific diameter, change that and they read the wrong values. That's just one example where violations occur because of stuff you don't know about. It happens to cops too.

Where the hell did this happen? Around here, that sort of knowledge would result in the cops making deals with the auto shops to sell people bigger tires!

Re:this is brave

[suso]

This is a per state thing. I can't remember what it is called exactly, but I remember reading in the driver's ed text when I was 16 that in several states (maybe half of them), it is at the officers discretion whether you are breaking the law when violating the posted speed limit (also based on road conditions) and in the other states, it is more strict. So this could be one explanation why you won't get a ticket in some states until you are going 5-10 over.

I remember when I was younger, my mom was given a ticket in Arizona for going 56 in a 55, which seemed ridiculous, but maybe Arizona is one of those states without the officer's discretion. I live in Indiana and I think its at the officer's discretion here. Officers can give you a ticket for going too fast based on road conditions too, but that might be everywhere.

Re:this is brave

[Talderas]

You didn't know that? That's why cops don't usually pull you over if you're less than 10 mph under the speed limit. That's within the margin of error of a potentially wrong tire size and errors with the speed gun.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like having the right to defend yourself, but not being allowed to carry a weapon. If you have the right to defend yourself you have the right to have arms . Not that it holds up in court though...

There, fixed.

Re:this is brave

[geminidomino]

Actually, they're not. You've got to break the CSS to even do a DVD-to-DVD copy (unless of course your actually trying for a DVD-to-Coaster copy). I ran into it a lot way back in the day when I was trying to suss out doing it on linux when all we had were mencoder, transcode, and a crappy broken version of dvdauthor. :)

The ripping to computer just changes the last step from "Burn to blank DVD" to "rencode using $CODEC_OF_CHOICE".

Re:this is brave

[Atlantis-Rising]

You said it yourself- they have to do something, but that something could be showing up, shrugging, and leaving again. They don't have to arrest anyone or charge them with any crime.

Re:this is brave

[commodore64_love]

Good point.

It's like that in the UK. You have a right to remain silent and not self-incriminate yourself, but if you refuse to give the Key to decrypt your computer's drive so the police can examine it, then you committed a crime and can spend upto 2 years in jail. So you still have the right to remain silent; you'll just be doing it from a jail cell.

Likewise you have the right to backup your copy of Star Wars from DVD, but because you cracked DRM to do it, you will be watching your backup while sitting in jail.

Re:this is brave

[Atlantis-Rising]

The police selectively enforce all laws, and the prosecutors selectively prosecute them. Discretion is what makes the enforcement of laws possible. Where discretion crosses the line into malicious prosecution, it is generally unlawful. But it's not malicious for the cops to repeatedly enforce the law against you (as opposed to anyone else) if you are, in fact, breaking the law.

Re:this is brave

[Atlantis-Rising]

Why would you have a decent defense? You were violating the law. You are not being prosecuted for something you didn't do.

Re:this is brave

[Maxo-Texas]

They do.

Cops came out to my house, saw fingerprints on the window from the person pulling it out of the frame. Didn't even bother to take them.

Had a bit of a tempest recently when the cops stayed writing tickets while not responding to a shooting taking place nearby. They never quite came out and said they had to make a quota but it was smelly.

Re:this is brave

[SoCalChris]

Montana code 61-8-303(2) allows you to speed up to 10mph over the limit on two lane highways to safely pass another vehicle.

"A vehicle subject to the speed limits imposed in subsection (1) traveling on a two-lane road may exceed the speed limits imposed in subsection (1) by 10 miles an hour in order to overtake and pass a vehicle and return safely to the right-hand lane."

Re:this is brave

[mhajicek]

Mod parent up!

Re:this is brave

[scubamage]

But as the complainant he has the option of calling again, and again, and again, ad nauseum. They can't cite him for anything. If he chooses to go to the media with it, it could undermine all DRM cases that occur in the nation because of selective enforcement.

Re:this is brave

[Chees0rz]

I just got my license in CA (previously in Maine) and the little California DMV review thing I read online basically said: Driving over the posted speed limit is a violation. Driving under the speed limit can also be a violation, depending on the current condition (at the officer's discretion).

This gives them a little leeway... as a condition could obviously be weather. Maybe it could also be traffic... Maybe it could be a lack of doughnut.

Re:this is brave

[Jherico]

You're still missing the point. The right to make backups is actually no such thing. Its actually the right not to be prosecuted for violating copyright for making backups. It doesn't confer any other kind of immunity, even if it seems nonsensical. The law isn't required to be rational.

Consider, what if the only way to make a copy of a DVD was to shoot someone. The right to not be prosecuted for copyright violation doesn't mean you're not going to get prosecuted for assault, manslaughter, what have you.

The law in question protecting creation of copies is almost certainly a simple exemption in copyright law. Unless someone can show me the law says something along the lines of 'you cannot be prosecuted for any action taken in the course of making a duplicate for personal purposes' then the laws are not in conflict no matter how much you would like them to be.

Re:this is brave

[elrous0]

In the U.S., most prosecutors would simply issue something like a "decline to prosecute" letter (i.e. "We think you did something, but we are declining to prosecute"), which wouldn't set any precedent or really help anyone else.

Re:this is brave

[OzPeter]

So if the cops know they have an uncertainty, why is the fine calculated as

$$Amount x (Ticketed Speed - Posted Speed)

That is the discrepancy I am arguing about

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

But the thing is, that he *can* surely copy the disc without breaking the DRM?

Wow, you both state and highlight "can" as if you alone have some magical DVD-R media unlike everyone else on the planet... Yet end with a question mark?

If you rip the DVD and don't decode the CSS, then that is NOT a backup.
To qualify as a backup, one must be able to do SOMETHING useful with that data.

You might as well just copy 4.5gb worth of data from /dev/random since it will have the same effect.

You can't burn an encrypted DVD-R, since the spot on the DVD that normally holds the encryption key is never writable on a DVD-R. You MUST decrypt it before anything else can use it, both putting it on disc to use as a 'restore', or to convert to a format (Or even leave you with valid mpeg frames with no conversion) to play on a computing type device like a PC.

Oh, and a little tip. Just making backups will not help you at all. You need to make backups that have the ability to be restored to be useful.
Perhaps you should try that sometime on your backups. If you have been ripping encrypted ISOs of DVDs all this time, and clearly never noticed not a single disc is playable or usable, then I fear for your really important data being valid in your backups too.
Just give them a restore and make sure you CAN recover them. After any config changes to your backup setup, you should do this verification again.

It should surely be an interesting learning experience for you.

Re:this is brave

[Jherico]

The right to do something does not grant immunity from other laws in any way, even if the lack of such immunity means that for all practical purposes the right cannot be exercised without violating some other law. IANAL, but Jesus, this isn't rocket science. I have the right to travel anywhere I want in the united states, but I don't have the right to drive my car 200 mph on the highway to do so. Even if driving 200 mph were the only possible way of traveling across state borders, that doesn't mean my right to travel grants me immunity to traffic laws.

Re:this is brave

[Toonol]

I don't believe you're correct. A straight rip of an ISO from a DVD will be encrypted and unplayable, and won't include the keys. You certainly can't recompress the video without decrypting it first. I think, most likely, whatever backup tool you used did the decryption automatically and invisibly.

Re:this is brave

[vanka]

I remember when I was younger, my mom was given a ticket in Arizona for going 56 in a 55, which seemed ridiculous, but maybe Arizona is one of those states without the officer's discretion.

An officer can always use his discretion. I suspect that in this case the ticketing officer either had a quota that he needed to meet or was being an a$$^$#@.

Re:this is brave

[PRMan]

Yes, you can. A man argued that his ticket was unfair because women get off with warnings easier than men. A check of the records showed this to be true and he was let off.

It's not "the cop got me instead of him" though. That's just the officer doing his best and the police force not having unlimited resources.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Legions of wannabe-Gandhis, take heed! This is the way it's done. Civil resistance *does not* consist of breaking the law and then whining when you get arrested/beaten. You break the law and then not only turn yourself in, but demand to be prosecuted to the fullest extent.

Re:this is brave

[Fulcrum of Evil]

The right to make backups is actually no such thing. Its actually the right not to be prosecuted for violating copyright for making backups.

How is a backup a violation of copyright? Copyright is about distribution, not actual copies.

Re:this is brave

[djrosen]

I tried this once. Cop was a wiseass right back. "When you go fishing, do you expect to catch ALL the fish?" I took my ticket and left.

Re:this is brave

[anonymous crowad]

I drive 75 miles one way to work and 75 miles home on I-64, I don't want to jinx myself, but I have noticed the same thing, as long as I am just under 80mph, I won't get stopped. One problem with going above 80 Mph is that I believe not only are you 15mph over the limit, but at 80 Mph you are now considered Reckless driving

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo!

The lone cowboy, The last hero!

Re:this is brave

[dissy]

But the thing is, that he *can* surely copy the disc without breaking the DRM?

Heh, you can't even watch a DVD without breaking the DRM.

Is "breaking DRM" the new term for using the key taped to the very lock you are trying to unlock?
That is all he or anyone ripping DVDs is really doing.

Re:this is brave

[rwa2]

Sorry, sounds a bit pointless to make that kind of argument just to knock down your speeding charge.

The way I see it, speed limits are set such that the posted speed limit is generally about 10mph slower than what most sane people (say, maybe a decade past puberty) would drive if left to their own devices.

Thus, everyone in this area (I'm from MD) pretty much tends to drive at least 10mph over the speed limit all the time anyway. It also helps that you don't get any points if you're doing less than 10mph over the posted limit. Most of the speed cameras are set to go off above that threshold too. So it's kind of a nice grace zone... no one gets a ticket for going "only" 5mph over the limit. They generally let you go up to 10mph over the limit for free... generally.

The flip side is that the police can pretty much pull people over whenever they feel like it for exceeding the posted speed limit, so they still can pretty much go about their racial profiling or needing to meet their ticket quota or raise funds for the county. So it works out pretty well for them.

The really corrupt police, say, in Thailand, will also pull you over for driving too slow, if you look like you have enough money to pay them a bribe on the spot.

Re:this is brave

[erroneus]

There was a time when that kind of bravery was considered to be an "American" personality trait. We haven't seen that in these parts for quite some time. We saw it in Tienanmen Square. We see it here. We don't see it enough though. I wish I were in that sort of position in life. I have sons and a job and all those things to lose. If "Freedom" is just another word for "nothing left to lose" then I still have plenty left to lose.

Still, I will continue to admire those who put themselves out there to make real changes where possible and/or draw attention to bad government behavior... especially bad government behavior that was bought and paid for by business and industry.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be surprised to find that something got lost (or added) in translation. I don't speak Danish, but the big country to the south of Denmark is Germany and there the situation is such that people often think they have a right to a "Privatkopie", a personal copy, while they actually only have the permission to make a personal copy. A DRM scheme or other copy prevention mechanism must not be broken in the making of the personal copy.

Re:this is brave

[Hatta]

Law enforcement has the discretion not to arrest and charge and prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute.

They ought not. Discretion undermines the rule of law. When an officer uses his "discretion" to let the mayor's son go while busting every black person for the same offence, that's corruption. We all deserve equal protection under the law. If the government lets one person go, everyone should be let off.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

In Denmark, you have a right to make a backup for strictly personal use.

Another law (circa 2002) states that it is forbidden to break any DRM, and it will not contradict the personal copy as the content owners will enable the personal copies in a safe manner available within a few years.

As the content owners haven't lifted a finger to make enable making personal backups of DRM'ed content, is it still forbidden to break the DRM? (I.e. Which law weighs the most?)

Re:this is brave

[Animaether]

So essentially... you're quite welcome to make a 1-to-1 perfect copy, as long as you've got the hardware to do so. Which means either specialist hardware, hacked hardware, or some old-ass DVD drive that wasn't quite following the spec until the associations behind DVD smacked 'm around a little.

Similarly - I don't recall the right to make a copy stating that you have the right to make a 1-to-1 perfect copy; so there shouldn't be anything stopping the person from recording the display output stream.. either directly or by pointing a videocamera at the screen (which will happily defeat HDCP as well).

You're left with a less-than-perfect copy, but it's still a copy.

That's one of the arguments I would make if I were trying to defend the copyprotection crap, at least.

( I'm actually less bothered by copy protection than I am by region locking. I'm here waving good money at 20th century fox; but I can wave 10 times that and they still wouldn't release SAAB on region 2. Thanks to both drives not being region-unlockable, the lack of desire to get a stand-alone DVD player, and not being interested in fussing about with ripping tools that remove the region encoding 'on-the-fly' ('on the crawl' they mean), I had to get an el-cheapo external DVD drive and set that to region 1. I'm willing to bet that by doing -that- I'm still breaking some manner of law or agreement or whatever, though. F. )

Re:this is brave

[Pulse_Instance]

If the only way across state lines was to drive 200 mph then a speed limit of 60 mph would be denying your right to travel anywhere in the states (if driving were the only form of travel) and as such that speed limit would be illegal.

Re:this is brave

[somersault]

I put a question mark, because it seemed obvious, but I knew I might be missing something. I always wondered how these copy protection schemes could work, it makes sense if there is an area that these things can read, but can't write to. I guess most manufacturers have been too scared to produce media and writers that can do proper copies, or are in bed with the movie studios>

BTW I don't actually backup any of my CDs or DVDs (I rip my music, but not even to lossless). For any discs that are scratched (which has only happened with a couple of music CDs so far, and only when I lend them to others..) I have just torrented copies when I've moved to higher quality rips.

Backing up DRM obfuscated media is a slightly different scenario from doing everyday backups, but yeah thanks for the advice. I use both volume shadow copy and tape backups at work, and yes they both have been used for successful restores in the past couple of months.

Re:this is brave

[somersault]

It apparently is when there is a law saying "you must not unlock this door without proper supervision", even though the key is left there at all time.

Stupid? Yes.

Re:this is brave

[WretchedLocket]

But, what about his right to bear arms?

Re:this is brave

[pipatron]

If it's so simple, why don't you try to come up with some example that exists? If you had to travel 200mph to go from one state to another, there would be an exception in either of those two laws.

Re:this is brave

[Jherico]

Did you mean to reply to the parent of my post? Because you responded to me and basically said the same thing I was saying (prefaced by 'not neccessarily'.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually .. There is a small little code called "The uniform code of traffic control devices" that states in order for a speed limit sign to be LEGAL. It must show a limit of not less that 85% of the avg speed travelled by all cars on that road as measured in the same or significantly similar section. The 85% number is determined by a speed survey performed within the previous 5 years.

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1r2/pdf_index.htm

Section 2B.13 Speed Limit Sign (R2-1)
Standard:
        After an engineering study has been made in accordance with established traffic engineering practices,
the Speed Limit (R2-1) sign (see Figure 2B-1) shall display the limit established by law, ordinance,
regulation, or as adopted by the authorized agency. The speed limits shown shall be in multiples of 10
km/h or 5 mph.
Guidance:
        At least once every 5 years, States and local agencies should reevaluate non-statutory speed limits on
segments of their roadways that have undergone a significant change in roadway characteristics or surrounding
land use since the last review.
        No more than three speed limits should be displayed on any one Speed Limit sign or assembly.
        When a speed limit is to be posted, it should be within 10 km/h or 5 mph of the 85th-percentile speed of
free-flowing traffic.

Re:this is brave

[MBGMorden]

Oops - no actually it was meant as a reply to your post made by Fulcrum of Evil.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively, if the police won't enforce it against their own (when speeding and NOT using sirens/lights), then they shouldn't be able to enforce it on others.

Then again, I'd just settle for police obeying vehicle* laws when not operating as an emergency vehicle.

* Vehicle laws include moving (speeding, reckless driving, aggressive driving, running lights) as well as non-moving (leaving engine idling without driver, parking illegally) and others (operating as an emergency vehicle when it isn't an emergency (so you can run a red light)).

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

It works fine because the software you are using is decrypting the DVDs for you. If it didn't, you couldn't play them because the keys aren't present.

Re:this is brave

[Imrik]

This assumes that the effective limit is when the police feel you are traveling at unsafe speeds. It is entirely possible that the reason they let you go so fast is because they want to write tickets for larger amounts of money.

Re:this is brave

[jonbryce]

If they caught you doing 66, you might argue successfully that their speed measuring device wasn't that accurate and you might actually be doing 64 mph. Also, it doesn't make for good press. At 80+ mph, you can't really argue.

In Britain, the threshold is 10% + 2 mph above the limit for those reasons.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? That's really the best example you could think of?

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife often gets on my case for driving in the left hand lane, while going above the speed limit, but not fast enough for the jerk behind me. She always gives me anecdotes re: people pulled over for "impeding traffic" for this kind of behavior... It drives me crazy.

Let's break this down:
1.) Right lane is for slow traffic, ergo left lane is for fast traffic
2.) speed limit is x, ergo fast traffic should be going x speed
3.) x+y speed (my too slow speed) is somehow "impeding traffic" (or something like that)
4.) i am ticketable for not giving room for x+yy speeders???

Re:this is brave

[mweather]

The fine should be $$Amount x (Ticketed Speed - Posted Speed - Margin of Error)

Re:this is brave

[MattSausage]

Actually I daresay if laws keep you from exercising your rights, then you do not, in fact, have those rights.

That's like saying we have a right to free speech, but then putting a law on the books saying you must ask a police officer what is alright to say.
Laws restrict very specific instances of rights (cannot yell fire in a movie theater, cannot threaten the life of the president). But no law may completely infringe upon a right totally. Else there is no right.

Re:this is brave

[DamnStupidElf]

For consumer DVD drives, it's necessary to authenticate the software to the drive firmware before it will read encrypted sectors. You can test this by putting an encrypted DVD in a Linux box and typing 'dd if=/dev/dvd of=/dev/null' and watching the kernel message log for sector errors. The UDF directories are unencrypted so the OS can mount the disk, but the VIDEO_TS files are unreadable without authenticating the drive with a CSS key. See this quick explanation. At this point, DRM has already been broken and you're a horrible criminal, but you can still copy the entire encrypted DVD (e.g. dd if=/dev/dvd of=dvd.iso) and then you have a bit-for-bit copy of the readable portions of the DVD sectors. Not everything, because DVDs have 2054 byte sectors to include a per-sector 6 byte CSS key, but the drive firmware on consumer drives only returns the 2048 bytes of data. For all the DVDs I've ever seen, the CSS key is the same for every sector of a given file in the VIDEO_TS directory, so it doesn't really matter that the per-sector keys aren't copied. Once the encrypted copy of the DVD is made, it can still be decrypted by brute forcing the CSS key for each encrypted file at run time, which is made pretty quick by the broken cipher used for CSS. To make a long story short, you are correct that the DVD has to be decrypted before re-encoding or burning a new DVD. As others have pointed out, with consumer hardware you can't burn the per-sector keys to a DVD+/-R, which means that any re-encoded DVD will have to be burned as an unencrypted DVD.

Re:this is brave

[Jherico]

You're assuming that the laws have to have some kind of consistency. They don't. There are all kinds of situations where an action is implicitly allowed by one law and explicitly prohibited by another. You can even have situations where an action is explicitly allowed by one and explicitly disallowed by another. Logically you'd think that meant the laws were in conflict. Realistically, unless one is a higher body of law (such as the U.S. constitution vs a state law). Even then its now always clear cut. A state law which prohibits certain kinds of speech may stand in the face of the constitutional right to free speech because its in the service of an overriding concern, like causing a panic in a theater. The law isn't like a computer program. If parts of it conflict it doesn't 'crash'. It just get interpreted by people. Making a spectacle of yourself in order to try to contest some piece of law you feel is unjust is fine, but don't kid yourself that what this guy did wasn't illegal.

Re:this is brave

[steelfood]

If there ever was the term hero more appropriately used, I wouldn't know it. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a true hero. He's not doing his job. He's not saving his own ass. He's not like the fabricated "heroes" that the media likes to latch onto.

Here's a real hero, standing up for what he believes is right, and fighting the good fight.

And I wonder, in 100 years, how many people will remember him. How many people will sing his praises. I'll bet none.

Re:this is brave

[berashith]

what about hands!!! These arms are completely useless without hands!

Re:this is brave

[HungryHobo]

because if you're within (margin of error of the speed gun) then they'll leave you alone because you may in fact not be over the limit.
If you are over that then you are *definitely* speeding.
Just because they don't pull you over when they can't be certain you're over the limit does not make the limit higher.
Keep in mind that the radar guns could be off in the other direction as well, measuring you as being slower than you really were, they're only right on average.
So if the margin of error is 10 mph and they clock you doing 75 in a 60 zone then you could potentially have really been doing anywhere between 66 and 84 so they ticket you for your most likely speed- what the gun said your speed was, 75.

now radar gun tolerances are different from above but I wanted to make a point.

Re:this is brave

[Coren22]

Most MD cops are also not jerks, being from MD, I can't personally say this, but the observation has been made by out of staters to me.

Re:this is brave

[Jherico]

But no law may completely infringe upon a right totally.

Yes it can.

Else there is no right.

So?

In point of fact, the article only cites a single law as the point of contention. It says

12.-(1) Anyone is entitled to make or have made, for private purposes, single copies of works which have been made public if this is not done for commercial purposes. Such copies must not be used for any other purpose.

Which is a specific exemption to copyright law as a whole. It means you can use your own xerox machine to make a copy of a book you own if its for your own private use.

75 c. It is not permitted without the consent of the rightholder to make circumvention of effective technological measures

Means its illegal to circumvent copy protection.

The first part protects you from being prosecuted for violating copyright if you make a copy. It doesn't protect you from prosecution for circumventing copy protection.

So your point about exemptions being very specific is valid. The problem is that the issue here is one specific exemption (for private use) and one specific prohibition (circumventing copy protection) in a larger body of law. As I said before, the exemption doesn't override the prohibition. It just means you're only prosecutable under one section of the law instead of two.

Re:this is brave

[idontgno]

I'm much more worried about his professed right to arm bears.

Them critters are dangerous enough without guns and knives and such.

Re:this is brave

[Gilmoure]

Sorta' like not defending a trademark, after a bit, it's open to all to use?

Re:this is brave

[Brian Feldman]

I remember when I was younger, my mom was given a ticket in Arizona for going 56 in a 55, which seemed ridiculous, but maybe Arizona is one of those states without the officer's discretion.

An officer can always use his discretion. I suspect that in this case the ticketing officer either had a quota that he needed to meet or was being an a$$^$#@.

I suspect that in this case she was actually going faster than 56mph but the officer was being a tiny bit lenient and letting her pay the lowest possible fine.

Re:this is brave

[ultranova]

The right to do something does not grant immunity from other laws in any way, even if the lack of such immunity means that for all practical purposes the right cannot be exercised without violating some other law.

The right to do something directly conflicts with all laws that forbid you from doing it. Otherwise having that right is meaningless, since it can never affect your ability or lack of it to do something, or the consequences.

IANAL, but Jesus, this isn't rocket science.

Well, what's a small step to some is a giant leap to others./p>

I have the right to travel anywhere I want in the united states, but I don't have the right to drive my car 200 mph on the highway to do so. Even if driving 200 mph were the only possible way of traveling across state borders, that doesn't mean my right to travel grants me immunity to traffic laws.

Actually, it would. Your right to travel would directly conflict with any law that prevented you from doing 200 mph near state borders, and would likely override it.

Look, if it makes this easier to understand, consider a city ordnance that forbade publishing anything about the mayor of that city within city limits. Would the local newspapers be bound by that ordnance and punishable for breaking it, or would the First Amendment overrule it?

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Danish law is not a common law system. It is much more closely related to the French-style civil law system.

Re:this is brave

[Jarjarthejedi]

Arizona's no different, there's a leeway. You can, of course, be ticketed for 1 mile over (just as in other states) but you're almost never ticketed unless you're at least 5 over.*

*Information straight from a driving instruction class given to people who have minor violations.

Re:this is brave

[Jarjarthejedi]

Making a 1-to-1 copy would require copying the security system, which would be copyright infringement as you don't have a license to copy it. Making any copy at all is illegal right now, which is what is so stupid.

Re:this is brave

[Jherico]

Look, if it makes this easier to understand, consider a city ordnance that forbade publishing anything about the mayor of that city within city limits. Would the local newspapers be bound by that ordnance and punishable for breaking it, or would the First Amendment overrule it? Those are two different bodies of law. This issue is over two sections in the same goddamn law.

Re:this is brave

[V!NCENT]

That guy is a real hero even though he is not saving any lives probably...

Re:this is brave

[Hatta]

I'd wager my left toe that absolutely nothing comes of it.

Which left toe? Or have you lost similar wagers so many times that you have only one left toe left?

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the hell did this happen? Around here, that sort of knowledge would result in the cops making deals with the auto shops to sell people bigger tires!

 
You wouldn't happen to be from Oakland, would you? Because here we have police in bed with the towing company AND the pick 'n pull next door to them.

Re:this is brave

[SleazyRidr]

I could see that going the other way too; get a ticket for speeding and another one for a substandard vehicle.

Re:this is brave

[rhathar]

Your sig is interesting. Seeing as how you would have had to have posted for someone to say "Fixed that for you", how do you intent to mod them into oblivion?

Re:this is brave

[Jarik C-Bol]

does your wife know you are speeding?

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against—then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it.
You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of law-breakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Re:this is brave

[Golddess]

Take it to trial and only one thing matters. "Sir, were you speeding?" "Yes, but..." "You can pay your fine to the clerk on your way out. Next!"

Spoken like someone who's never been in a courtroom for a traffic violation.

Of course, my experience has been rather limited, but there were always 3 ways that you can plead: not guilty, guilty, and guilty with an explanation.

Also, judges tend to take into account your previous driving record for things like a Probation Before Judgment, where basically the ticket is thrown out (though there are still court fees). I've also witnessed a judge mark down a speeding ticket exactly like GP stated, though not for GP's reasons.

Re:this is brave

[Grishnakh]

We're talking about the USA here in this subthread, not some civilized country with sensible laws. Germany also has a "loser pays" system for civil law IIRC.

Re:this is brave

[Taevin]

Do you actually have a point to make or are you just going to sit around repeating what we already know as if it added some value to the conversation?

Here's what we know:

1. Law 1 states that you can make a copy of a DVD.
   • The only way to do so is to decrypt the content
2. Law 2 states that you cannot decrypt the content of the DVD.
3. Since it is illegal to decrypt the contents of the DVD and that is the only way to make a copy, it is therefore impossible to legally create a copy of the DVD.

We quite understand that the legal system has not crashed as a result of this, and we understand that certain parties would like to be pricks and debate about whether there is even a conflict.

don't kid yourself that what this guy did wasn't illegal.

Which is the point of this whole article: No one is. The Slashdot article is entitled "Danish DRM Breaker Turns Himself In To Test Backup Law." He himself knows what he did is illegal and turned himself in to the authorities. This is also known as civil disobedience and its purpose is to test laws that are unjust or unclear.

Assuming this makes it to trial, the judge will give a ruling in which he will either uphold the laws as-is (providing clarity as in, "yes, the intention of law 2 was to covertly remove the right guaranteed by law 1") or will make an exception to allow the free exercise of the right provided for in law 1, removing the injustice.

Re:this is brave

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, no, Denmark does not have a Common Law system. Only ex-British countries have this: UK, USA, Australia, etc.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely why calling the FDA is brave

Re:this is brave

[Cwix]

If the cops give the impression of pick on someone, then it may look like they have lost whatever impartiality they may have. So if the same cop pulls you over 5 days in a row, and you later said he was picking on you, you were never speeding. It MAY look bad.

Re:this is brave

[Jesse_vd]

that lane is not for fast traffic, it is for passing. if someone wishes to pass YOU, they must do it in the left lane, therefore YOU'D better move over when you can and let them go.

Re:this is brave

[scaryjohn]

I'd wager my left toe that absolutely nothing comes of it.

If the reason you have only one left toe, is that you lost the other four in similar wagers, then I don't like his chances after all.

Re:this is brave

[nacturation]

The fine should be $$Amount x (Ticketed Speed - Posted Speed - Margin of Error)

Cool... so you'd get paid if you got a ticket for speeding above the posted speed but below the posted speed + margin of error? The ticket should be:

if (Ticketed Speed > Posted Speed) && ((Ticketed Speed - Posted Speed) > Margin of Error)
then Fine = Amount * (Ticketed Speed - Posted Speed) / Posted Speed

Re:this is brave

[tnk1]

Guilty with explanation as a plea does not exist. It is a tool that judges use to get guilty pleas and keep things moving in court. They give you the same sentence that they would have if you had plead "guilty" or "no contest".

What is true is that most judges will, in fact, let you say something before sentencing and you can ask to have your previous driving record taken into account. If you do have a good record, that usually has the effect of reducing your fine or reducing the number of points you get on your license. I have known judges who discover that you will be unable to drive after a second speeding offense and they would commute the offense so you didn't have your license suspended or revoked for mere speeding offenses.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

A law that gives you the right to make backups of a medium for private use doesn't necessarily guarantee you that right.

Why, you're absolutely right, which is why we have 500000 laws against all the various known ways of infringing on your right to life and if I invent some new way of causing someone to die, I'm free to go on a spree until the government gets around to banning it.

The real question here is "does the law actually give you the right to make a backup?" If so, then any action preventing me from making a backup is an infringement on that right, and any government law preventing me from doing so would be a government infringement on that right. (No idea if Denmark is all gung-ho on preventing government infringement of rights or not, maybe their constitution or whatever says that it's perfectly OK.) If the law just says "if you make a backup, you won't be prosecuted" then it would be within the law to try and fail due to someone esle's actions.

Re:this is brave

[scaryjohn]

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but did you read what you copied?

First, MUTCD is an administrative manual that sets forth the relationship between federal, state and local government, not a public law that would give a private citizen a defense to a ticket. Second, I'd hazard to guess that in any particular jurisdiction, 90% of the road-miles are at statutory speed limits, so this section wouldn't apply. Third, and most glaringly, 85% of the average speed could never equal the 85th percentile speed. Unless the average you're talking about a mean that is being skewed to Hell by all the rocket-cars on the road today. (And can I get one?)

It just means that there's a consensus among civil engineers, that 3 speeding cars in every 20 an acceptable level of scofflawry.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you argue that you shouldn't pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a speeding ticket?

Law enforcement has the discretion not to arrest and charge and prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute.

You would be talking about "Moving with the flow of traffic" and yes, if traffic is flowing at twice the posted limit you can legally go with the flow and contest a ticket. Your first responsibility when driving a car is to do so in a safe manner, and second is to obey all posted signs, third is to follow the laws on the books.

Examples-
If you have to go into the oncoming lane to avoid a head-on collision you are not breaking the law. (operating in a safe fashion above all else)
Temporary signs, flares, etc. over-ride permanent ones (like in construction zones, accident scenes, etc.)
And in the abscence of all else, go by the book.

Law enforcement do not have discretion to not arrest in all cases- some laws require an arrest so it's more of a case-specific than a blanket thing. But prosecutors don't have any such requirement.

Re:this is brave

[Jherico]

First off, there is no law 1 and law 2. Its two sections of the same law. Second, the law is the Danish implementation of the EU Copyright Directive which mandates that subscriber countries implement it exactly as its been implemented, i.e. circumvention is illegal EVEN THOUGH it makes some other rights unexercisable. No Danish judge is going to repeal that. Finally, civil disobedience and testing a law are two different things. Civil disobedience can be used to force a test of a law, or to call attention to an unjust law. The latter is what is happening here, but there are any number of asshats here on Slashdot that seem to be implying that because the laws seem to conflict, one of them is going to get struck down. I'm just saying thats not the case. The only thing this guy is doing is making a spectacle of himself, a fine Danish tradition since the time of Hamlet.

Re:this is brave

[StuartHankins]

All this talk of Danishes makes me hungry.

<pads down the hall to the fridge>

Re:this is brave

[nacturation]

So this guy clearly violated the law. He has the right to make a copy of his DVDs, but lacks the proper equipment to do so without violating other laws. The correct solution is to acquire the proper equipment. This guy should go out and buy a commercial DVD read/write drive so that he can make a proper copy without resorting to cracking the DRM.

Since everyone loves car analogies, let's say I have the inalienable right to drive my vehicle on the road. However, the only vehicle I have is a non-street legal Formula 1 car that exceeds noise levels, emits too much pollution, and doesn't have mandated safety equipment such as turn signals, daytime running lights, and so on. Because I can't drive my Formula 1 car, does that mean I am denied my right to drive, or that I'm free to drive a noisy, polluting, unsafe vehicle on the road in order to exercise that right? Absolutely not... I simply possess the wrong equipment to do so.

Re:this is brave

[Pseudonym]

Does the Danish legal system have a concept similar to estoppel? Under a British-derived legal system, by not prosecuting Henrik Anderson, the authorities give everyone who follows him a legal defence.

Re:this is brave

[geminidomino]

Nope. SW Florida (where we don't have a "police department" but a "Sheriff's office").

I get the feeling that LE groups like ours are the rule rather than the exception

Re:this is brave

[AK Marc]

Can you argue that you shouldn't pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a speeding ticket?

Yes. If there is a photo system and everyone who gets identified gets a ticket, and they go through and pick out city councilmen and remove them from getting tickets, then when you get yours, it is a valid defense (under the equal protection clause). Now, if they are randomly enforcing the law, then you have no case. They are enforcing it equally against all, they just aren't looking hard. But if someone turns themselves in for a law and they refuse to prosecute, any other prosecutions on that law are open to the argument that the law is being illegally enforced because of the purposefully selective enforcement.

Law enforcement has the discretion not to arrest and charge and prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute.

True, and a complete lie at the same time. Poll taxes were enforced against blacks only. Was that legal? Nope. So, I've proved you wrong. Law enforcement doesn't have "discretion" to break the Constitution. They are not required to enforce the law (or help anyone, or save lives, or stop a crime in progress, or in fact required to do anything ever). They use their right to do nothing as an excuse to ignore all laws until a particular person annoys them. Then, they have plenty of laws everyone breaks which they can choose from to hassle them about. That's what "discretion" means.

But, of course, this is written with a US persepctive in what is and isn't allowed, and this case isn't in the US.

Re:this is brave

[AK Marc]

In the U.S., most prosecutors would simply issue something like a "decline to prosecute" letter (i.e. "We think you did something, but we are declining to prosecute"), which wouldn't set any precedent or really help anyone else.

If the prosecutors would tell the truth under oath, it would. Why did they decline to prosecute? They had a confession. They had a crime. They didn't follow it up with person A. But if the later prosecute person B for that same crime, then I would argue that is an illegal violation of equal protection. Either the law applies to both or neither, and unless they can come up with a really good reason, we should assume they prosecutors are acting illegally (why that assumption? because all assumptions should be on the side of innocence).

Re:this is brave

[scubamage]

Hm, my mistake then. Sorry! :)

Re:this is brave

[hitmark]

iirc, one of the two burnable dvd formats, yay for competition, is specifically designed so that the area where one normally store the keys on a movie dvd is unavailable for burning. This then makes 1to1 copies physically impossible...

Re:this is brave

[AK Marc]

The right to do something does not grant immunity from other laws in any way,

Uh, yeah. It does. That's what a right is. I have the right to free speech. If the law says I have the right to free speech, and another says that I can't speak unless spoken to, then there is a direct conflict. Either I can speak first, or I don't actually have the right to free speech. The right to do something requires the ability to do it. Granting someone a right then making it illegal to exercise that right removes that right.

Re:this is brave

[AK Marc]

You're assuming that the laws have to have some kind of consistency.

You are right and wrong. Laws don't need to be internally consistent. That's proven by this case, as they are obviously not consistent. However, the application of them must be. In the US, we have case law. The first judge to hear this will pick which one he likes best, and legislate from the bench. No, that's not a slam, as the neo-cons assert. That's required when the legislative branch is full of fuck-ups that can't write a law. I'd prefer that all the conflicting laws be thrown out until the legislative branch figures out a bill from a hole in the ground, but the system is such that the judge picks which part wins, then that becomes law in his jurisdiction as if written by the legislature, and a "strong hint" to every other judge.

The law must be enforced consistently, or there is no law. Note, the laws themselves don't need to be consistent, clear, understandable, or accessible, but the enforcement of them must be. That's the US system. You can complain about how you'd like it (which seems to be your real issue), but for how it works in the US, you are 100% wrong.

Re:this is brave

[shentino]

Repeatedly calling you out is a combination of two things

1. De facto abandonment of the law by refusing to enforce it generally
2. A bill of attainder by singling you out.

I think there's a supreme court case that deals with "stale laws" effectively being null and void through non-enforcement.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to "resolve the conflict", is to repeal DRM laws. Why? Because the act of copying a copyrighted work might be against the law, but this does not justify laws that govern what I do with my PC, or laws forbid me to tell others what I did.

If anything, I want to be convicted of copyright violation, not of circumventing measures that deny me administrator access to my own equipment.

Re:this is brave

[eiMichael]

Either the law applies to both or neither, and unless they can come up with a really good reason, we should assume they prosecutors are acting illegally (why that assumption? because all assumptions should be on the side of innocence).

Either you made a big typo or you didn't bother reading what you just wrote. Maybe the prosecutors feel that 100 not for profit DVD copies aren't worth the government's money to prosecute. Maybe they don't believe the confession since it could just be a ploy for attention. There is no reason to assume the prosecutors are acting illegally, there are plenty of legal reasons for them to not pursue this.

Re:this is brave

[Animaether]

Well that depends on the wording. If the wording is that you are allowed to make a backup copy of the DVD - then surely that *includes* the lead-in area and any other areas not normally 'accessible. If it says you're allowed to make a backup of the movie, then that'd be a different thing altogether (and would technically also exclude such things as deleted scenes, director's commentary, the menus, etc.)

Personally I've never seen a DVD state that you're allowed to even make a backup copy; our laws say I'm allowed to, but every DVD that I have seen explicitly forbids me to (the law supersedes What the DVD says, of course) do so by way of an annoying typically unskippable warning message.

Re:this is brave

[Paxtez]

Incorrect:

because if you're within (margin of error of the speed gun) then they'll leave you alone because you may in fact not be over the limit. If you are over that then you are
*definitely* speeding. Just because they don't pull you over when they can't be certain you're over the limit does not make the limit higher.

The margin of error on laser guns (no one really uses radar anymore) is about 0.5 - 1 mph.

Keep in mind that the radar guns could be off in the other direction as well, measuring you as being slower than you really were, they're only right on average.

Again, this isn't really accurate. True laser guns can be 'off' but normally they are not, and it is very easy to check (check, not calibration, they do not require calibration), all the officer has to do if fire it at any fixed object and if it shows 0mph, then it is working correctly.

So if the margin of error is 10 mph and they clock you doing 75 in a 60 zone then you could potentially have really been doing anywhere between 66 and 84 so they ticket you for your most likely speed- what the gun said your speed was, 75.

now radar gun tolerances are different from above but I wanted to make a point.

Sometimes if the ticket is taken to court they will cut 1mph from it take the possible error into account. Just think about it logically, most places have some sort of criminal speeding law, there is no way any piece of tech could be the primary piece of evidence in a criminal trial if it had such a huge margin of error.

Most cops aren't going to give tickets for people in the 5-10 range because, that is what everyone does. They want to focus on the people who are really breaking the laws, not just the people who kinda do.

Re:this is brave

[Atlantis-Rising]

Then nobody will ever be prosecuted for any crime.

Re:this is brave

[Opportunist]

Does it matter? If that doesn't go to court, my next move would be to the biggest tabloid of the country.

Re:this is brave

[Mista2]

Now if he was duplicating the DVD with encryption intact, then this is legal. It is illegal there to break the encryption to change the content to another format.
Eg. insert DVD - copy to .iso file, burn back to 7GB DVD, and this is legal, though highly wasteful of diskspace and defeats the real reason to rip the DVDs, which is to use them with a digital player.
If using a player based on decss, then this is most likely illegal as there are no licences paid out for this library.
Such is your freedom in the modern world.

Re:this is brave

[AK Marc]

There is no reason to assume the prosecutors are acting illegally, there are plenty of legal reasons for them to not pursue this.

I'm saying that if they don't prosecute this one, then later prosecute a similar case, then they selectively applied the law, violating the US Constitution's equal protection clause. They are free to not follow this one all they like. That's not what is illegal. It would be if they passed on this one and prosecuted another that was the same.

Re:this is brave

[Runaway1956]

To many idjits have poked their fingers into the law in to many places. I can't tell you what is "legal". But, I learned, "keep right, except to pass". If you're doing 80 or 180 mph, you BELONG IN THE RIGHT LANE, until you actually PASS SOMEONE!! It's just that simple. The boob who rides in the left lane is almost certainly not watching his mirrors for a faster vehicle to overtake him. He has gotten comfortable, and he intends to use that PASSING lane forever. Note the term, "PASSING lane". If one single care moves into the TRAVEL LANE (what you refer to as the "slow lane") so that he can get around you, then you are indeed impeding traffic.

In short, GET OUT OF THE WAY STUPID!!

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Except this is Denmark not the US. The US Constitution is not omnipresent throughout all jurisdictions you know.

Re:this is brave

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, I don't know about Denmark, but in the US at least, copyright involves several different exclusive rights. One of them is distribution, another one is reproduction. It is entirely possible to infringe on a copyright in the US by making copies without distributing them. It may be less likely to be noticed and litigated, but it is no less infringing.

Take a look at 17 USC 101 and 106 for useful definitions and the main exclusive rights compromising a US copyright, if you're interested.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Law 1 states that you can make a copy of a DVD.

Here is where you (and everyone else) made a mistake. Copying a video != copying a DVD. Law 1 states you can copy a video for personal use. Law 2 says you can't copy an encrypted video. That means Law 2 modifies Law 1 to effectively read you can copy a non-encrypted video for personal use. Examples include VHS (w/o macrovision) or over-the-air broadcasts.

Re:this is brave

[rantingkitten]

What a dumb law. If the guy in front of you is going the speed limit, then from a strictly letter-of-the-law viewpoint, why do you need to be able to pass him? So you can get in front of him and continue going the speed limit? If he's going slower than the speed limit (far more of a hazard than speeding, by the way), then just by going the speed limit you'd overtake him. What's the point of building in an exception like that?

The real reason cops don't pull you over for going slightly above the limit is because no judge would take that charge seriously and the cop would look foolish. Plus, the cop doesn't want to waste time writing you a ticket for going 7mph over. He'd rather wait for some dope going 20 over.

Plus, it's safer to have drivers keep their eyes on the road and let the speed fluctuate a bit than to have everyone's eyes glued to the dashboard to obsess over the exact position of the speedometer needle.

Re:this is brave

[lena_10326]

that lane is not for fast traffic, it is for passing. if someone wishes to pass YOU, they must do it in the left lane, therefore YOU'D better move over when you can and let them go.

Your point does not hold for every case or scenario. Although an acceptable rule, it's not a hard and fast rule because there are many left side off-ramps on US highways. Not as many as right side, but they exist and I happen to drive by them 5 days a week. If someone is driving in the left lane intending to turn off the left exit ramp, they will not nor should not be expected to move over for you to pass.

Also, your point does not hold during bumper to bumper rush hour traffic, which is fairly common. I hope you're not the type who whams on the horn during that case. It'd be like blasting the horn at the car ahead who's blocked by a big truck. Nothing anyone can do.

Re:this is brave

[Jesse_vd]

Who's talking about US highways? Anyways, obviously it's ok to use a left lane if you need to make a left-lane exit. The point is the left lane is not for travelling in.

Re:this is brave

[Taevin]

First off, there is no law 1 and law 2. Its two sections of the same law [www.kum.dk].

Great, even better. It's not a complex, unintended interaction between two disparate laws with different intentions, it's just a poorly written law that (apparently) contradicts itself.

Second, the law is the Danish implementation of the EU Copyright Directive [wikipedia.org] which mandates that subscriber countries implement it exactly as its been implemented, i.e. circumvention is illegal EVEN THOUGH it makes some other rights unexercisable.

Yes, the EU Copyright Directive says basically the same thing as the Danish implementation with regards to personal copies:

Article 5
(2) Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 in the following cases:
(b) in respect of reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial, on condition that the rightholders receive fair compensation which takes account of the application or non-application of technological measures referred to in Article 6 to the work or subject-matter concerned;

No Danish judge is going to repeal that.

The EU is not the same as the US Federal government. No, a single Danish judge is not going to repeal an EU directive, but a ruling could shed light on a troubling issue possibly eventually leading to a change in the wording.

Interestingly, however, the EU Copyright Directive states this in the preamble (my emphasis added):

Whereas:
(52) When implementing an exception or limitation for private copying in accordance with Article 5(2)(b), Member States should likewise promote the use of voluntary measures to accommodate achieving the objectives of such exception or limitation. If, within a reasonable period of time, no such voluntary measures to make reproduction for private use possible have been taken, Member States may take measures to enable beneficiaries of the exception or limitation concerned to benefit from it. Voluntary measures taken by rightholders, including agreements between rightholders and other parties concerned, as well as measures taken by Member States, do not prevent rightholders from using technological measures which are consistent with the exceptions or limitations on private copying in national law in accordance with Article 5(2)(b), taking account of the condition of fair compensation under that provision and the possible differentiation between various conditions of use in accordance with Article 5(5), such as controlling the number of reproductions. In order to prevent abuse of such measures, any technological measures applied in their implementation should enjoy legal protection.

Since the rightsholders have never shown any intention of voluntarily doing anything, the judge could in fact do something about it: provide a recourse via exemption to Danish citizens. More likely though, I suppose, is that the judge would give the rightsholders the opportunity to "voluntarily" provide enabling measures for the beneficiaries. Sounds like a win-win to me, if I'm being objective (I actually think DRM is one of the most obscene abuses of law I've seen in my--admittedly short--adult life).

Civil disobedience can be used to force a test of a law, or to call attention to an unjust law.

Yes, I believe that's exactly what I said.

The latter is what is happening here, but there are any number of asshats here on Slashdot that seem to be implying that because the laws seem to conflict, one of them is going to get struck down. I'm just saying thats not the case. The only thing this guy is doing is making

Re:this is brave

[HybridJeff]

He could be going below the speed limit. I wouldn't want to try passing going 99km/h at 100km/h on a single lane highway. It would be much safer to pass at 115 and get back over into the left lane quickly.

Re:this is brave

[jedidiah]

If I see someone coming up behind me driving like a reckless moron, I am not going to increase the chaos of the situation by changing what lane I am in. I simply can't trust that the moron behind me won't run into me as I try to get out of his way. If some jack*ss behind me is creating an unsafe situation, I will maintain the status quo.

If you are going above 100, you have NO business being in any other lane than the "passing lane".

Pretending you drive for NASCAR is what causes accidents. Not grannies loitering in the passing lane.

Re:this is brave

[broeman]

It is becoming popular in Denmark these days, since people are losing faith in the justice system. Civil disobedience is not about winning the case, but exposing the (unjust, unclear, stupid?) law to the public (whereas the newspapers never cared about in the first place).

It seems to work for this guy ;)

Another guy from Facebook, is questioning the morality of the tv-license system in Denmark (or Europe in general), since it also applies to an (min. 256kbit) Internet connection. He is also awaiting court, for not paying it, to make his stand.

Re:this is brave

[X0563511]

I used to live right on the border of LA and Orange counties.

I never had any problems when I drove 5 over the limit, ever... but I was only driving in CA for about a year and a half. I also had a car that would make an officer lean towards pulling me over ('91 Nissan 240 - popular for drift racing apparently)

Re:this is brave

[Hymer]

That is not correct, it is the same law (even in the same paragraph):
You are allowed to copy or/and decrypt your own DVDs for personal use all other copying/decrypting is prohibitet.
You may decrypt a DVD for the purpose of viewing it on a otherwise unsuported system if you have the legal right to view it on a normal DVD player.

Yes, I've read that law...

btw. You do not need to decrypt anything to make a sector by sector copy.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Are backup copies a "right" in Denmark, or merely "legal"? The English translation in the article says "entitled", but is "entitled" the legal equivalent of "right"? And assuming it IS a right, under Danish law which is the party of fault, the DRM *mechanism* or the law which protects it?

My only experience with law is that, where common sense is lacking and lawyers prevail, nothing is ever black and white. I could see all kinds of ways in which the two laws may not, technically, be in conflict. I suspect this case has a long way to go.

[And, BTW, I object to this whole Captcha mechanism when posting as unfair to those of us who are numerically challenged. The first few times were OK -- what's nine plus four or eight plus five, any idiot can do that. But my god! I was just asked to solve eight times eight! How in the universe anyone is supposed to solve THAT without a calcu...

Oh, um .. never mind.]

Re:this is brave

[Eivind]

True, and it's actually one of the most scary things about trends in current laws.

In -principle- our elected represenatives, representing the people, decide what is allowed, and what is not. They're accountable to the people (in principle !!!), and if the people don't like how new law is written, can be swapped at the next election. This is how it -should- work.

Increasingly though, we've got laws which EVERYONE is breaking (not literally everyone, but let's just say a solid majority in large groups of people), but where only a tiny fraction is ever investigated or punished for it.

This gives the police a power they're not supposed to have: The power to go up to any random member of that group, and arbitrarily decide to punish him/her. All they have to do is decide to investigate, since basically everyone is guilty anyway, the result will very likely be some evidence found, and a conviction.

If the punishment for such crimes is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime, this adds insult to injury.

Copyright law is a good example. We had a class in university (I studied computer-science) on laws relevant to IT, and one such example was copyright-law. The professor asked anyone in the class (~75 students) who could honestly say they've NOT broken copyright-law in the last month to raise their hand; something like 5 hands went up.

CS-students aren't typical, offcourse, I'd nevertheless guess that a majority of students have broken copyright-law recently, even students in less techie departments.

Re:this is brave

[khellendros1984]

I lived in Germany for three years as a child, and I noticed that was the case there. But in most parts of the US, the concept of a dedicated passing lane doesn't really exist, in practice. The left lane is just the "fast lane". It just tends to move faster than the lanes further to the right.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful indeed. This was already tried in Finland a couple of years ago (with publishing deCSS I think). The cops just told the guys to go home, and the media didn't feel that was interesting enough.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, only once.

Re:this is brave

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations...
---snip-----
 

The way I see it, speed limits are set such that the posted speed limit is generally about 10mph slower than what most sane people (say, maybe a decade past puberty) would drive if left to their own devices.

----snip-----

            It is my understanding, from references I read far in the past, that the posted speed limit is the maximum safe speed for that section of road under poor conditions (rain, etc). I was taught that, taking that into consideration, one should adjust one's speed according to the conditions. If in thick fog, or torrential rains, slow down another 10/15 MPH.
            Now, having said that, I can pretty much guarantee that driving the speed limit under all conditions will ensure two things. 1) the driver is VERY unlikely to get a ticket and 2) the driver will ALWAYS have a ever-widening gap between the front of their vehicle, and the cars in front of him/her.
          One of the things that torques me off no end are the lousy drivers today who seem to think that 10-20 over the speed limit is appropriate no matter what the conditions. Another, by the by, are the drivers who never learned to pass on the left, and, so continually make it impossible for folks to get out of middle lanes by blasting by on the right.
          I could go on, but, in closing let me say You Dang Kids! Get Off My Lawn
          regards
          dave mundt

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll only get those read errors on third generation DRM-sabotaged drives, if I recall correctly. First generation drives will happily hand you the scrambled data leaving it to your software to descramble it.

Re:this is brave

[Splab]

No. However, it is up to the police to choose what lawbreaking they are after - and with COP15, he couldn't have chosen a worse time for this to be tested, the police doesn't have time to do it and will probably just ignore him.

Re:this is brave

[Jesse_vd]

Germany, road-wise, is a very enlightened place. I think Europe as a whole has a much better handle on the situation

Re:this is brave

[howlingmadhowie]

it is really a most stunning abuse of law. something like this:
"hello, i'm a private company and i misled my customers into buying a product telling them it was product A (a film) when it was actually product B (encrypted data). Because i totally screwed up and made it trivial for the customer to transform product B (what i sold them) into product A (what they wanted to buy) in the privacy of their own homes, can you make this a criminal offense punishable by up to 5 years in prison? KTHXBYE"

Re:this is brave

[RingPeace]

You only have one left toe, you only have one right toe, all the others are somewhere in between, having ten toes and all. What you may be thinking of is feet, those we have two of one left and one right.

Re:this is brave

[L4t3r4lu5]

It's actually down to the local council to specify the arbitrary tolerances. West Yorkshire, for example, equipment is calibrated at 10% + 4mph.

My best guess is this is to prevent anyone with a little knowledge going "Ah, I can do 80mph on the motorway with impunity! They only catch those doing 81mph!"

Re:this is brave

[L4t3r4lu5]

USA != Denmark.

Re:this is brave

[L4t3r4lu5]

Bad analogy, and requires a qualifier.

Playing a DVD is as you have said; Using the taped key to open the lock and access the contents. Ripping a DVD is more like opening the lock with the taped key, photocopying all of the sensitive documents inside, and putting the copies on your desk. The security protection is gone.

Re:this is brave

[BeardedChimp]

Except that is not how error measurements work, they are statistical and not exact.
Its more reasonable to say that if the speed limit is 60 and the error is +-5mph, then if you are >2x the error over the speed limit then you are probably speeding (>95% chance).
Sucks for those 5%, but I'm pretty sure their margin of error should be smaller than +-5

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, there is lots of UK evidence to show that laser guns can do strange things on angular surfaces or reflective surfaces and that they are a bit too specific in the point they measure. There are various cases of motorcycles being clocked and impossible speeds for the conditions/traffic etc. ! I remember was proved to be a reflection from the bike and the coach travelling in the opposite direction causing an error, another was belived to be that the laser actually read the speed of the top "spoke" of the alloy front wheel as it travelled forward at faster speed than the rest of the bike.

Test have also had lasers register walls moving at 50mph due to operator error. Here is one article

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-365563/The-great-speed-gun-scandal.html

Re:this is brave

[Carewolf]

You are missing a crucial legal ruling in Denmark. When you have bought something legally you are allowed to take the necessary measures to use it for its intended purpose. This means that it is legal to break the DRM to watch the DVD in Linux for instance. So does backup have the same protection as replay, since both are rights granted by sales-law?

Re:this is brave

[ConfusedVorlon]

the law doesn't need to be struck down. What happens is that judges 'interpret what the law meant to say'

so, a judge could rule 'clearly the clause stopping breaking of DRM was not intended to stop personal backups where such DRM is routinely circumventable'.

That would then become case law and set a new precedent which effectively 'clarified' the original law.

Similarly, a judge could rule 'clearly the right to a personal backup was not intended to override the clause on circumventing DRM. Indeed the movie industry has demonstrated how you can make backups with a video recorder without breaking DRM at all'

of course the ruling would run to many pages of closely argued legal casuistry and the precedent doesn't have the same power as an actual change in the law. Nonetheless it would be a blow to DRM if the case law ruled against it.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Its not all that different to having laws that say you can own a gun - but other laws that say you can't shoot people with said gun :)

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, its amazing how few people actually know this.

Re:this is brave

[mpe]

Wrong, there is lots of UK evidence to show that laser guns can do strange things on angular surfaces or reflective surfaces and that they are a bit too specific in the point they measure. There are various cases of motorcycles being clocked and impossible speeds for the conditions/traffic etc.

Or possibly even just "impossible". Given that some police force managed to clock a Mini going faster than Thrust SSC...

Test have also had lasers register walls moving at 50mph due to operator error.

Which you'd expect to classify the thing as "not fit for purpose".

Re:this is brave

[MattSausage]

What is wrong with you people?

Re:this is brave

[mpe]

If the cops give the impression of pick on someone, then it may look like they have lost whatever impartiality they may have.

The same thing will happen if they give the impression of ignoring (even protecting) law breakers. If anything they should hold the likes of other police officers and politicans to a higher standard than members of the general public.

Re:this is brave

[MattSausage]

I can see why this particular situation deserves the treatment Andersen is giving it. This should be decided in a court of law as there really is two sides to this issue.
My view of this is similar to having the right to own a firearm, but in the same law giving you that right, there is wording making it illegal to purchase or be given any type of firearm. If it is illegal to procure a firearm, then one does not have the right to own it.. and vice versa.

With two conflicting laws, the court has to decide which supercedes which.

Re:this is brave

[HungryHobo]

They want to focus on the people who are really breaking the laws, not just the people who kinda do.

if you're over the limit you're not kinda breaking the law, you are breaking the law.deal with it.
at worst they're focusing on people who are breaking it in more sign significant ways or breaking the law in a manner which more seriously endangers the people around them.

Re:this is brave

[Golddess]

But if the speedlimit is x, and he's going x+y where y is a positive number, then there shouldn't be anyone who wishes to pass him, at least not legally.

No I do not let the speedlimit dictate my speed, but if I'm doing 70 in a 55 zone, and you want to go faster but can't because I'm in front, that's your problem, not mine.

Re:this is brave

[MBGMorden]

I didn't say that I would mod them into oblivion - merely that it would happen. A dying man with his last breath can say "I will be avenged." and that's not a contradiction.

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking this sort of totally off-topic...

Followed by a whole page of comments not related to the actual article (haven't even clicked on page 2 yet). Well done, sir!

Re:this is brave

[Runaway1956]

Mmm-hmmm. Whatever. But, if you're doing 75 or 80, and refuse to get out of the way of the guy doing 100, how do you KNOW he doesn't have a child bleeding to death in the back seat, and you are delaying his trip to the hospital? Or, how do you KNOW that it isn't an unmarked police vehicle, on his way to a bad accident, or a bank robbery, or whatever the hell?

Just because YOU judge him to be a reckless moron, doesn't mean you have all the facts. Chances are, he is really just another moron endangering everyone on the road. But, you just never know for sure. I had a set of headlights come into sight WAY behind me one night, on a two lane road - to far to judge how fast they were going. A minute later, I looked, and they were much closer - I knew he was moving on. I was speeding, 70 in a 55, and he was going at LEAST double my speed. When he caught up to me, I eased as far right as I could get, to make it easier for him to pass me. As he passed, I noticed a flash of blue behind his grill, an emblem on his door, and another flash of blue inside his rear window. Cop? Fire marshall? Medical? I don't know, but he had SOMETHING important to do!

Re:this is brave

[rwa2]

Meh, I've never run into any jerk cops. But I've heard it has a lot to do with the way you talk and behave once you get pulled over.

Pretty much, I never argue, try to make truthful explanations without trying to make excuses, and take my warning or citation. If there's any arguing worth doing, save it (and any GPS or evidence or whatever) for later when you can take it to traffic court (which you usually win if the cop doesn't show up, or sometimes they'll knock down your charge/points somewhat if you have a smidgen of a case or agree to take remedial training).

Also anything you can do to put the cop at ease helps them become less nervous. I've had a DC cop friend tell me a good way to prepare is to turn your inside lights on, get your license and registration out on the dashboard (so you don't have to make any sudden moves towards places you might have a concealed weapon), make sure you and your passengers have their seatbelts on, and simply sit there and wait with both hands on the wheel.

As far as MD cops go, I've found I would get pulled over much, much more near Ocean City than anywhere else (once just for having a headlight out). So pay much more attention to the speed limits near party towns, where they often have to maintain a large police force to deal with drunks over spring break.

Re:this is brave

[rwa2]

Good day kind sir!

I've always found it safer to try to keep up with traffic. After all, it's better to be safe than right! (of course, a corollary to that is it's better to be a lucky driver than a good driver)

Driving is safer when everyone's going about the same speed and spread out as far apart from each other as practical. Passing should be done briskly and deliberately... no one should really drive side-by-side because that closes off their ability to swerve. Sometimes I'll check and keep count of how many cars have passed me vs. how many I've passed. If the ratio is around 1:1 and maybe not more than 9:1 (let the 10% of people driving faster than me set off the speed traps) then I'm in good shape.

In Germany it's against the law to pass on the right, but they take driving very seriously. If we could convince people to not drive slow in the left lane, we could do it here too, but a lot of those people are trying to be self-righteous and "teach other people a lesson" in a confrontational manner. I try to avoid confrontations on the road (identify the a**holes and put as much distance between you and them as possible). In which case I would argue it's safer to carefully pass those people on the right if only to get yourself out of that situation.

I always thought the speed limits were set somewhat low to account for old^H^H^HFloridian people with slower reaction times. ;) During wet weather I do increase my following distance. But of course during really bad weather with low visibility I would actually drive slower... same logic as "don't overdrive your headlights".

I do pay close attention to the yellow cautionary speed limit signs. I might still add 10mph to them if I'm in a car under good conditions, but pretty much follow them to the letter if it's wet or if I'm in an SUV or other vehicle with challenged handling. I do find it funny (and indicative of my point) that sometimes out in the country you'll be on a road with a 55mph posted speed limit, and then come up to a curve with a 55mph cautionary yellow speed sign.

Anyway, you're welcome on my lawn anytime (just mind the dog poop) :>

Re:this is brave

[IndustrialComplex]

If you are going above 100, you have NO business being in any other lane than the "passing lane".

Pretending you drive for NASCAR is what causes accidents. Not grannies loitering in the passing lane.

If you are in the passing lane and not passing, you are wrong. It doesn't matter what anyone else is doing, if you are cruising in the passing lane you are wrong.

Re:this is brave

[IndustrialComplex]

What a dumb law. If the guy in front of you is going the speed limit, then from a strictly letter-of-the-law viewpoint, why do you need to be able to pass him? So you can get in front of him and continue going the speed limit? If he's going slower than the speed limit (far more of a hazard than speeding, by the way), then just by going the speed limit you'd overtake him. What's the point of building in an exception like that?

So you can minimize the time that the cars spend side by side. It is safer to pass a car quickly.

In your situation, if the person were driving 54 and the speed limit was 55, you could only pass him at a 1MPH differential. That will put you in the passing lane (or the oncoming traffice lane) for a longer period than if you simply accelerated to 65, passed, and then decelerated to 55 after you put a safe margin between you and the car you just passed.

You aren't just passing the car, you are passing the car AND the safe distance in front of the car.

Re:this is brave

[plague3106]

Yes, you're still impeding traffic. The law doesn't say you can't imped traffic unless you're going the speed limit.

You're creating a dangerous situtation, regardless of the actions of others.

Re:this is brave

[plague3106]

. If someone is driving in the left lane intending to turn off the left exit ramp, they will not nor should not be expected to move over for you to pass.

I think its reasonable then to expect them to speed up to match the speed others are expecting.

Re:this is brave

[plague3106]

Except speed limits by and large aren't legally set to begin with, which is why pretty much everyone does speed. And if you're doing 70 in a 55, and someone wants to pass why not let them? You feel you have some moral high ground for you to be a jerk?

Re:this is brave

[plague3106]

Actually it is people loitering in the passing lane which causes accidents, as do those to vary greatly from the flow of traffic.

That said, someone who is going really fast probably don't care about your indesesiviness, and probably won't move to pass on the right if you're indicating you'll move. All you do by blocking someone like that is piss them off, which increases irrational thought, thus leading to a more dangerous situtation. Better to move out of the way.

Re:this is brave

[plague3106]

Huh? I've been to the traffic kangaroo courts a few times. Its exactly as the OP claimed, hence why I refer to it as McJustice.

Re:this is brave

[plague3106]

The margin of error on laser guns (no one really uses radar anymore) is about 0.5 - 1 mph.

I think you have some reading to do. There are arguments that laser is less accurate than radar, as there are a number of factors that can affect it (rain I believe being one). And plenty of places still use radar... its still the most widely used tool.

Most cops aren't going to give tickets for people in the 5-10 range because, that is what everyone does. They want to focus on the people who are really breaking the laws, not just the people who kinda do.

It depend on how much revenue the locality needs.

Re:this is brave

[Golddess]

Except speed limits by and large aren't legally set to begin with

Try telling that to the officer who pulls you over, or the judge when you try contesting the ticket in court some 3-5 months later.

And if you're doing 70 in a 55, and someone wants to pass why not let them?

Because I have no intention of slowing myself down in order to merge into the traffic in the next lane over just to let some fucktard tailgater pass me.

Re:this is brave

[lena_10326]

Who's talking about US highways?

I am talking about US highways because that is where my driving experience is.

Re:this is brave

[b4dc0d3r]

Standard practice for getting out of your first ticket is to request a continuance because you recently discovered that the speedometer might not be accurate, so you need that tested and also would like details of the calibration for the radar device on the day it was used. Most likely they won't want to try to reschedule and will just dismiss, you owe court costs.

If they do reschedule, you get one try to have the speedometer tested, to prove you were under the limit as your car informed you that you were. Depending on the results, and the officer retaining the calibration data, you have a good chance of it being thrown out, you still owe court costs.

Off topic I know, but since ignorance of the law is no defense, you might as well become as familiar with the court system as you can.

IANAL, and your local laws will vary. You could check prior court appearance logs to see if this has been attempted before and how well it went over for that judge.

Re:this is brave

[shaitand]

"Just think about it logically, most places have some sort of criminal speeding law, there is no way any piece of tech could be the primary piece of evidence in a criminal trial if it had such a huge margin of error."

The accuracy of laser guns for speed tracking has not been established in court. As a result many courts will dismiss a ticket if a laser gun is used. See this:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Beating-a-Lidar-Speeding-Ticket---How-Lidar-Laser-Accuracy-Has-Been-Legally-Questioned&id=3242955

There is more to the error rate than the gun. If you know your speedometer is broken then its on you but something like a tire diameter change can cause the reading to be off.

Re:this is brave

[Jesse_vd]

it is your legal responsibility though. move into the right lane when safe to do so, let him pass, then if you wish to continue passing people, move back to the left lane. why's that so hard?

Re:this is brave

[Jesse_vd]

no, you're impeding traffic

Re:this is brave

[shaitand]

I don't know about Danish or EU law. But in the U.S. the intent of the law is (supposed) to be as important as the letter.

Here a court has a third option. The court can determine that the law is unclear and therefore it is impossible to determine what is and is not legal under it. This makes it invalid pending clarification from lawmakers. They can also narrow this conclusion to apply to a specific clause of the law or to certain applications.

Re:this is brave

[AK Marc]

What, no insightful mod? I don't know Denmark law. I do know US law, and I know this is a US site, so I was was stating what would happen here. It was also meaningful because the people I was responding to were also speaking as if they didn't know Denmark law either and were speaking from a local perspective.

Yes, I know US law doesn't apply. However, I don't know Denmark law, and can't read Danish either, so I can only speak of what I know.

Are you saying that in Denmark they can cherry pick laws and apply them only to people that are disliked by authorities? Or are you just whining that "US" appeared in a post, regardless of the truth of the statements?

Re:this is brave

[Painted]

Or you might run into one of those morons that insist on going 10-20km/h under the limit, right up until the moment you try to pass, at which time they'll gladly go 10-20 over* out of spite / stupidity / machoism / whatever. It's just about the most aggravating thing I run into while driving...

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard of a lane change? You don't have to stay in the left lane, if someone is on your ass, change to the right lane and let them pass, then move back over so that you can resume passing slower traffic.

I hope I've misunderstood and didn't actually just have to explain that to you.

Re:this is brave

[StikyPad]

And you're what's wrong with the roads..

It's not your role to dictate others' speed, just as it's not theirs to dictate yours. Be courteous and move over, and the world will be a better place for everyone.

Re:this is brave

[Cwix]

I agree, I was just explaining why they might have a defense.

Re:this is brave

[StikyPad]

Of course, cops have another reason to not bother with tiny infractions. It wastes too much of their time in court arguing with joe blow that 4mph over the limit is still a violation. Even cops don't like standing in court all day dealing with stupid s###.

It's not so much that it's a *waste* of time, but that to pull over every 4mph speeder they'd be missing other 10+mph speeders. There's enough of the latter to keep the court's docket full in most places, so unless people slow down (ha!) you won't start seeing zero tolerance.

That said, there *are* places with zero tolerance speeding enforcement, usually on certain days of the month announced beforehand, but always in small towns with nothing better to do.

Re:this is brave

[StikyPad]

God, I hope you're not a cop who actually believes that nonsense. Any measuring device requires calibration to maintain accuracy, including LIDAR.

LIDAR works by comparing time-of-return for the light pulses emitted. A delta zero between samples ALWAYS = 0 speed, regardless of the accuracy of each sample, so measuring the speed of an object at rest is, at best, a functional test, not a performance verification. The samples themselves are created by measuring ticks of an oscillator (timebase). When (not if) the timebase drifts, then the measurement will begin to deviate from nominal, for values > 0. The timebase is affected by a multitude of factors, including, but not limited to: temperature, chemical corrosion, and physical changes from bumps or drops, etc.

And by the way, uncertainty is always +/- ((percent of measurement) + (n units of resolution)).. it's never a strictly fixed value in units of measurement such as the "0.5 - 1MPH" you quoted.

Re:this is brave

[StikyPad]

(Score:-1, Factual)

Re:this is brave

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, Golddess is what's wrong, the person going 15+. It can't possibly be the entitled whore riding Golddess' ass who thinks they own the road and that their needs and desires are the only things that matter and everyone should bend over backwards to ensure they are never inconvenienced. Nope, it's always the person in front of those whores who are what's wrong with the roads.

That was sarcasm btw.

Re:this is brave

[plague3106]

Try telling that to the officer who pulls you over, or the judge when you try contesting the ticket in court some 3-5 months later.

Ya, part of my claim is that the government is corrupt and not following its own laws. That the cop or judges continue helping the state break the law doesn't mean they aren't in fact breaking the law. Of course, if you have the money, you can usually appearl to a real court, and this makes it more likely you'll get the ticket thrown out on those grounds.

Because I have no intention of slowing myself down in order to merge into the traffic in the next lane over just to let some fucktard tailgater pass me.

Ahh, so you're a self centered ass? Well don't be mad at the fucktard tailgating you then, you have a chance to get him off your ass, and you refuse to take it. And in some states, you're now breaking two laws, because some have a law stating you need to keep right if you're not passing. Who said you need to slow down in the right lane anyway? Are you afraind youll be stuck in the right lane b/c of heavy traffic? Then just speed up.

But if you're blocking someone, I don't think you have any justification to call them a fuckward for tailgating when you can move over or speed up and you refuse to do so.

Re:this is brave

[StikyPad]

I never condoned tailgating or aggressive driving -- that's just another side of the same coin, and certainly not courteous behavior. Neither did I say it was "always the person in front." It IS possible for two people to be wrong, as you may have heard, but the person in front can defuse the situation quickly and easily by exhibiting proper driving etiquette. Yes, EVEN IF the guy behind you is being an ass. As they say, if you're not part of the solution...

Re:this is brave

[Divebus]

Everyone should spend a week driving the Autobahn. If you're not actively passing someone, you had better be in the right lane. If you're in the left lane, as most Americans believe is their entitlement, you're likely to get plowed by (in this order) a Mercedes, an Audi and a Volkswagen. Keep right except to pass, please.

Re:this is brave

[Divebus]

I beat a speeding ticket in New Shrewsbury N.J. (back in the Nixon administration) by going to the police station and requesting to see their FCC license to operate the radar. After an hour of three people tossing filing cabinets, getting more and more worried that they actually didn't have one, they found it. The license had expired two months before and I suggested they reverse all the speeding tickets they had issued during the expiration period. They sincerely thanked me for that exercise.

Re:this is brave

[HungryHobo]

I didn't want to get into a long rant about standard deviation etc, I'm quite aware of how error measurements work.

First

[2obvious4u]

Not a smart move. Better to avoid the law even if you are correct.

Re:First

[Jaysyn]

I'm very glad civil-rights leaders in the 60's weren't so cowardly.

Re:First

[jayme0227]

Man, moderators, please, vote this guy underrated. Just because he is a coward doesn't mean he's a troll.

Re:First

[Applekid]

I wonder how much more expensive legal fees are today than almost 50 years ago.

It certainly is noble, since a lot of courts won't even hear about these kinds of conflicts without Ripeness. But, I can't say I'd willingly bankrupt myself to expose hypocrisy, whether I'm found right or wrong.

Re:First

[Korbeau]

Man, moderators, please, vote this guy underrated. Just because he is a coward doesn't mean he's a troll.

He's not a troll, he is just missing the point.

Yeah, as a general rule stay away from the law because:

time + money + possibility of judicial error + personal attacks on image etc. > satisfaction/reward (usually)

But the Danish hacker is trying to make a statement here.

Re:First

[Jaysyn]

I wonder if the Euro version of the EFF will help him out?

Re:First

[Locke2005]

So true... That Rosa Parks bitch should have just sat in the back of the bus where she belonged!

Re:First

[2obvious4u]

I don't know what the repercussions are in Denmark but here in the US when you see FBI warnings before a movie stating you'll be fined $150,000 and 10 years in a PMITA prison... I'd rather just keep my mouth shut and let someone who actually got caught challenge the system.

That quote is from the +5 informative post in the Kudos comment thread. A lot has changed since the 60's. Federal Minimum sentences, outrages fines, etc. Also if your skin color gives you away you really can't keep your head down so you had to fight for your rights. This is something that anyone can avoid; boycott or follow their rules. As noted in the comments from the torrent freak website: the probable outcome (if this goes to trial) is that the law will be changed to not allow personal backup copies; not that the circumvention will be removed.

So was the troll cause I was going for my first, first post ever on any forum, or because you disagree that its best to avoid law enforcement unless you can help it?

Re:First

[Conchobair]

There is a thin line between courageous and stupid. I support the guy for being so bold.

Re:First

[alexo]

He is not a troll and he is not missing the point.
He voiced an unpopular opinion.

However, when push comes to shove, the overwhelming majority of the human population on this planet will do exactly what he suggested. If it was otherwise, this topic would not be newsworthy.

Let's try a poll. How many slashdotters can honestly claim to have done something similar (with citations to prove it)? How many of us stand for our rights when we know that there's a good chance we will be smacked down for it, hard?

The problem is that nobody likes a mirror shoved in front of their face, so we grandstand and call him a coward and moderate him down to make us feel better about ourselves.

Re:First

[alexo]

I'm very glad civil-rights leaders in the 60's weren't so cowardly.

Yes, most people are very glad when $SOMEONE_ELSE is not so cowardly.

Kudos

[overshoot]

Civil disobedience done right. The world would be a better place if more of us (and I'm specifically pointing to empty-nest geezers like that one in the mirror) had the cojones to do similarly rather than constantly bitching.

Re:Kudos

[sakdoctor]

I agree in theory; and for Denmark this might be a good strategic move, but facing the digital inquisition is far more risky here.

Re:Kudos

[Cocoronixx]

... modded wrong.. posting to remove post

Re:Kudos

[Zibben]

Why did I suddenly get an immage of John Cleese running into the room in a robot costume screaming "Nobody expects the Digital Inquisition!!" Need more coffee.

Re:Kudos

[hansamurai]

I don't know what the repercussions are in Denmark but here in the US when you see FBI warnings before a movie stating you'll be fined $150,000 and 10 years in a PMITA prison... I'd rather just keep my mouth shut and let someone who actually got caught challenge the system.

Re:Kudos

[throwaway85]

I agree wholeheartedly. Hopefully he is not nailed to the proverbial cross for taking this brave action to directly challenge DRM. If he wins, I wonder what implications this will have for filesharing in Denmark? DRM may be struck down, but the degree to which that impacts piracy cases will be determined in large part by how central DRM is to anti-piracy prosecution.

Re:Kudos

[electricprof]

In the US we tend to face draconian damage awards if found guilty of even ridiculously small amount of infringement. So, we may have to have somebody successfully challenge the size of the damages before challenging legality. Does anybody know the difference in damage award size in Denmark and the US?

Re:Kudos

[belthize]

It's just a ruse. I've ripped the little label off of every mattress I've ever owned and they never once filed charges.

Re:Kudos

[r_jensen11]

It's just a ruse. I've ripped the little label off of every mattress I've ever owned and they never once filed charges.

All the label says is that nobody other than the consumer can remove the label. So whilst the manufacturers and retailers can't remove the label (primarily because the label tells you what materials are used, etc,) it does not limit the rights of the consumer.

Re:Kudos

[Anonymous Coward]

If he didn't sell or distribute anything illegal he certainly can't go to prison.
And the fine/penalty won't come close to court costs wich he'll also have to pay if he loses.

Re:Kudos

[mujadaddy]

I have no idea why you get that "immage." Because it should be Michael Palin.

Re:Kudos

[h4rm0ny]

What's sad is how that act can terrify others around you. I carried out the similar but actually real behaviour of cutting the stupid labels attached to the leads of some new keyboards at a place I worked - I refuse to believe that any of us need to be instructed by it to read the three paragraphs of safety information on the bottom of the keyboard. One of my staff was horrified and thought that it might be breaking the rules.

I tell you this: A society that is afraid to cut labels off keyboards is fucked. Oh, and good luck to the Danish guy. I bet he's not afraid to tear labels off things.

Re:Kudos

[Tanktalus]

GP owns a mattress store, you insensitive clod.

:-P

Re:Kudos

[CannonballHead]

I bet he's not afraid to tear labels off things.

Ever read one? Ever read WHO is forbidden from delabeling it?

Know why those labels are there in the first place? That's right. Because some consumer somewhere probably sued the company because he didn't know mattresses were heavy or that you shouldn't eat your keyboard or something stupid like that... :)

Re:Kudos

[Dan667]

I am guessing damages in Denmark for DRM breaking are more reasonable like a fine of a bunch of tulips or a tin of those little butter cookies.

Re:Kudos

[geminidomino]

Hey, he did say he needed more coffee! ;)

Re:Kudos

[SheepFister]

This guy has balls the size of a small planet... Good on him, it will be interesting to see what comes of this.

Re:Kudos

[Nyder]

I don't know what the repercussions are in Denmark but here in the US when you see FBI warnings before a movie stating you'll be fined $150,000 and 10 years in a PMITA prison... I'd rather just keep my mouth shut and let someone who actually got caught challenge the system.

And it's because of views like yours that the world gets into the mess it's in.

Re:Kudos

[spire3661]

Stop referring to prison as PMITA. It is extremely hypocritical.

Re:Kudos

[mestar]

"Special interest groups" are becoming too powerful all over the world. This is similar to tariffs, in that, it distributes money to one small group by taking from everybody else in a nation. I'm talking about this "no DRM breaking" law.

How can this law pass all the levels needed for something to became a law. It just keeps one group wealthier, without any benefits to anybody else. It does not even pass a chuckle test. How long before one groups simply passes a law that directly says that we need to give money to them? We need a worldwide revolution. :)

Re:Kudos

[Anonymous Coward]

Just to play the devil's advocate, I for one have never consumed a mattress.

Re:Kudos

[egburr]

How many people actually consume the mattresses they buy? Personally, I buy them to sleep on, not to eat.

Re:Kudos

[je ne sais quoi]

Know why those labels are there in the first place? That's right. Because some consumer somewhere probably sued the company because he didn't know mattresses were heavy or that you shouldn't eat your keyboard or something stupid like that... :)

You couldn't be further from the truth and the fact you automatically assume that those labels are unnecessary and the result of a frivolous lawsuit is a sign of just how gullible our society has become. Those labels are there so that the person selling the mattress can't claim it's stuffed with handpicked goose feathers and made with a silk cloth exterior and charge the buyer three times as much when it is actually made from reused synthetic products. It's called truth in advertising. Those types of consumer protection things were used a lot back in the days before regulatory capture when the government occasionally acted in the best interests of the consumer instead of the corporation.

Re:Kudos

[anonymous crowad]

I am guessing damages in Denmark for DRM breaking are more reasonable like a fine of a bunch of tulips or a tin of those little butter cookies.

Oh noes, they are gonna send him to the Netherlands?

Re:Kudos

[idontgno]

"Imma cheez sammich, om nom nom!"

Except I have no cheez, because I'm in Mr. Wensleydale's cheese-free cheesemonger's shop.

Re:Kudos

[Anonymous Coward]

here in the US when you see FBI warnings before a movie stating you'll be fined $150,000 and 10 years in a PMITA prison... I'd rather just keep my mouth shut and let someone who actually got caught challenge the system.

I had the same exact problem before discovering that pirated movies don't have that warning, so I'm free to redistribute/resell/upload them!

Re:Kudos

[CannonballHead]

OK, so it's stupidness on the part of the advertiser that caused it and not the consumer. We all know the "the coffee burned me when I spilled it" stories, though, too.

Re:Kudos

[h4rm0ny]

One can be against piracy and DRM at the same time. This is not "similar to tariffs in that it distributes money to one small group by taking from everybody else in a nation". Aside from that sentence not actually making sense (distributing to one group) or particularly relating to tariffs (a duty imposed on goods crossing political boundaries), content producers do not take from everbody in a nation. They take from those that give them money in exchange for the content. It's a free choice.

Now DRM is bad because I've yet to see an implementation that doesn't restrict my legitimate use of something I've purchased. But that doesn't mean I'm in favour of freeloading by taking things without paying for them. Watermarks I'm absolutely fine with - they enable producers to protect their rights without interfering with what I can do with what I've bought.

Re:Kudos

[CodeBuster]

but here in the US when you see FBI warnings before a movie stating you'll be fined $150,000 and 10 years in a PMITA prison... I'd rather just keep my mouth shut and let someone who actually got caught challenge the system.

In the United States, where sentences are harsher, fines larger, and prisons are operated as for-profit growth industries, this is probably a wise decision on your part.

Re:Kudos

[BobMcD]

I did once. I'm still digesting it, so I'd say, not many.

Re:Kudos

[dasunt]

We all know the "the coffee burned me when I spilled it" stories, though, too.

Actually, it was a "the coffee caused 3rd degree burns that required skin grafting" story.

According to the trial, McDonald's coffee was served at a temperature that would cause 3rd degree burns within 2 to 7 seconds, and burns that would require skin grafting in 12 to 15 seconds.

But hey, keep ranting if that helps you. ;)

Re:Kudos

[will_frag_for_food]

Let that be a lesson to everybody who thinks it's cool to wear coffee instead of drinking it!

Re:Kudos

[Grishnakh]

So if the coffee will cause 3rd degree burns to your outside skin, what exactly do you think it's going to do to the inside of your mouth when you drink it?

Re:Kudos

[WraithCube]

Umm, taste like its supposed to? This has already been covered to death, but for optimum flavor coffee is supposed to be brewed at around 200 degrees F.

Re:Kudos

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have been if it would have been an image. But it wasn't. Immages always picture John Cleese and never Michael Palin, let alone Sarah Palin, who is probably not related.

Re:Kudos

[AK Marc]

Stop referring to prison as PMITA. It is extremely hypocritical.

How is it hypocritical? It's a statement that going to prison is a sentence of rape, endorced and enforced by the State. If you want the jokes to stop, then push for prison reform to end inmate violence.

Re:Kudos

[Grishnakh]

Just because it's brewed at one temperature doesn't mean you need to serve it at that temperature, especially if the person is sitting in a car. Simple solution: brew it at 200, then put it in a separate pot that keeps it warm for serving. How hard is that? Most coffeemakers do just that.

Re:Kudos

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as a coffee lover, I can say that's a half-truth - yes, coffee is meant to be filtered/brewed at around 200F, but you've missed that the resultant drink should be served at around 150-160F.

You can't possibly drink coffee at even 180F without causing yourself injury, and you'll lose any trace of flavor as the oils quickly evaporate, and any milk scalds to boot.

Not entirely sure what you're kidding yourself you're drinking, but I think you should be informed it isn't coffee any more, now it can more accurately be described as "ruined, bitter swill for masochists and idiots"

 

Re:Kudos

[Anonymous Coward]

"Civil disobedience done right." - Funny how civil disobedience is okay when it follows your beliefs. When you dis-agree with the stance, THEY'RE F'ING CRIMINALS!!!!!

Re:Kudos

[The Grand Falloon]

Working as a barista, I had one customer who would regularly order his lattes at 180 degrees. I always gave the look of "Ok, man, but you're fuckin' crazy." Milk does not like being steamed to that point. It starts rumbling like it's somehow going to explode. I felt nervous just making the damn things, but every time he'd take a big swig of it right as I gave it to him. I think he just had something to prove.

Re:Kudos

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like that's your problem.

Re:Kudos

[Carewolf]

According to the trial, McDonald's coffee was served at a temperature that would cause 3rd degree burns within 2 to 7 seconds, and burns that would require skin grafting in 12 to 15 seconds.

That's the temperature hot coffee has. And yes that is what nearly boiling hot water will do to you. I am amazed you are actually defending a case of someone suing because they are "too stupid to operate hot water".

Re:Kudos

[Splab]

Prisons in Denmark are generally considered holiday resorts (except for "maximum security" (gangs, bikers et.al)). You have the right to have internet installed in your cell, there are common rooms with consoles and tellies, you get healthy food and depending on the prison you can actually walk outside during the day.

Most inmates in Denmark have better living condition than students in Denmark do.

If you end up in maximum security and aren't member of a gang it usually means you killed someone or sexually assaulted someone, if the latter prison wont be fun.

Re:Kudos

[Carewolf]

Does anybody know the difference in damage award size in Denmark and the US?

Damages in countries with civil law are usually not intended to punish. The reason the damages are so high in the US is because the damages are also penalties or fines for breaking the law. This is very specific to the US, I don't even think the UK shares the US problem with damages despite also using common law. But damages are not relevant here, since there is no damage done to the copyright holder.

Re:Kudos

[nahdude812]

This case is often brought up as an example of frivolous lawsuits, but in reality it's actually a really good example of consumer protection.

The primary reason McDonalds lost that case is because when the product manager for McDonalds' coffee was on the stand, (s)he was asked, "What temperature do you serve your coffee at?" they didn't have an answer. McDonalds was not controlling the temperature of their coffee, they were serving it at whatever the hottest setting was for the line of industrial coffee makers they used.

Just because a coffee maker can produce coffee at a few degrees short of boiling doesn't mean that this is the temperature at which coffee is served. The simple fact is that spills are inevitable. Certainly it was unwise of her to have put the coffee cup in her lap to prepare it, but this is only the cause of her specific injury, the potential for injury existed whether or not she had the coffee in her lap.

For example, I have been served coffee in which the lid of the cup was not properly secured. If you hold such a cup near its rim, the lid can pop off and the lateral compression the lid was offering is suddenly removed causing the cup to fall out of your hands. Imagine that this happened while the cup is handed to a person in a car, just as the cup is over the person's body. Exactly the same injury occurs.

McDonalds lost this case because they were producing a product which possesses a measure of danger, and they failed to even try to control the amount of danger it presented. At issue was not how the coffee was spilled (spills are inevitable), but rather whether McDonalds took steps to protect their customers when a spill happens by mitigating the amount of damage it can produce.

Re:Kudos

[bar-agent]

I say we start calling prison "the salad bar."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=077UtUWGQOA

law vs. law

[datapharmer]

How does this work, does the older one win because he can beat up the younger law?

Re:law vs. law

[runyonave]

Old or new should not matter. What matters is that the laws contradict each other.

If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist

Re:law vs. law

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, it is probably more like .... Law vs Law, who ever wins, we lose!

Re:law vs. law

[OzPeter]

If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist

If you lived in a true democracy you would get the laws that people voted for - this may or may not include DRM

To quote Men In Black

A person is smart, but people are stupid

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

Both laws live in harmony. Copying the video is not illegal, breaking the DRM is.

Re:law vs. law

[runyonave]

DRM solely exists to provide corporations more control over the products they sell. It in no way is beneficial to the average user.

So therefore the average users, or the people who provide the majority of votes, would never vote for DRM.

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for all of those people who have invested in said publicly-traded corporations . . .

Re:law vs. law

[OzPeter]

DRM solely exists to provide corporations more control over the products they sell. It in no way is beneficial to the informed user.

So therefore the informed users, or the people who provide the majority of votes, would never vote for DRM.

FTFY

And how much lobbying would you expect corporations to do to ensure that the general public is not well informed??

Re:law vs. law

[Atlantis-Rising]

A true democracy is not 'for' the people. It is by the people, which is an entirely different concept.

Put yourself in a room with ninety-nine other people, and then ask yourself if you'd like to be forced to obey what any fifty-one of them decide they'd like you to do. I'd wager you don't.

Re:law vs. law

[thelonious]

I prefer living in a Republic (USA).

Re:law vs. law

[Grygus]

You're assuming the average voter would be aware of the situation. With the number of people who suddenly think that universal health care is Marxist simply because someone on TV said so, I have very little faith in people doing their own research. The vote could easily carry DRM if that's what the media wanted.

Re:law vs. law

[thisnamestoolong]

We don't live in a true democracy -- a true democracy would be an absolute nightmare. We need a buffer to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. If the United States were a true democracy, it is likely that Conservative Christianity would be the official religion, morality would be mandated on a mass scale (far more than it already is), and things would be an all around disaster. Pure democracy = mob rule, plain and simple.

Re:law vs. law

[Grygus]

Is making a backup merely legal, or is it expressed as a right? If the former, you're correct, but if it's the latter then DRM conflicts.

Re:law vs. law

[NeoSkandranon]

If they could be convinced or tricked into believing DRM is in their best interests, they would gladly vote for it.

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that be any worse than being forced to obey what a political elite of three people would like you to do?

Re:law vs. law

[greensoap]

Well, looking at it from a U.S. perspective it would depend. First you have to look at whether the laws truly contradict and who passed the laws (state v. federal). If law A was passed by congress in 1980 and a contradictory law B was passed by congress in 1990, then law B trumps. The courts would say that law B supersedes law A and congress intent must have been for law A not to apply any longer. This is because congress had spoken on the issue and now says something different. The newer law must reflect congress current intent on the law rather than out of date view of the older law.

Now things change if we are talking about state passing a law and congress passing a law. You have to do a whole bunch on constitutional analysis at that point. State rights vs federal power.

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobbying? They would do the same thing the do now. Buy votes. I'd wager they might even save money - Congressmen aren't cheap!

Re:law vs. law

[BJ_Covert_Action]

If you lived in a true democracy you would get the laws that people voted for - this may or may not include DRM

That's actually a pretty important point. In a system where you can get laws passed based on the majority's will a society tends to develop some terrible foibles. Take California for example. Here in California, we have a proposition system in our state government. Anyone can write a proposition (item to be voted on to become law) and then get that proposition, no matter how biased, stupid, or retarded onto a ballot via petition. With enough activism and bullshitting, therefore, we could literally have a person write a law outlawing use of dihydrogen monoxide in every household, spread some FUD and shout louder than any sane person out there, raise a very passionate but misinformed movement, and get that law on the ballot. Then, if the majority of voters that turn out vote for the proposition, that proposition becomes law. This is one of the closest systems to direct democracy that I have ever seen in government. It has its consequences.

For instance, our population continues to vote for convenience projects funded by the government. We want a high speed train? Turn it into a proposition. God forbid we let a private company develop one. Nope, let's have our state government build it with our tax dollars. We need more revenue? Well we don't want to raise taxes so let's just let our congress figure that one out. This trend happens continuously and, after a few decades of retarded laws and projects, our budget is such a mess that even an educated (maybe) and bloated congress cannot figure out how the hell to solve it.

Another example? Sure. There is a large portion (though not a majority) of folk in California that think gays should have the right to marry. Thus, over the past few years, these groups have written a number of propositions trying to legalize it. They have come in strangely worded forms that helped to confuse the issue in the minds of most voters. They have been, repetitively, met by an equally passionate, and, in my opinion, bigoted, movement that votes down said propositions. Never mind silly things like civil rights, equality, respect for other folks. Never mind studies done to show that gay families can and do function just as well as hetero families and so on. None of those details have stopped a very vocal group of people from implementing a systematic discrimination into our very state laws.

That is the consequence of true democracy. The mob rules. If the mob is stupid, stupidity rules. If this mob is full of asshattery, asshattery rules. If the mob is kind and just and intelligent, compassion, justice, and intelligence rules.

I am not saying that one system is better than another, but I would caution anyone to be careful about wishing for true democracy. It can be a terribly ugly overlord.

Re:law vs. law

[Bobfrankly1]

And how much lobbying would you expect corporations to do to ensure that the general public is not well informed??

Case in point, look at lobbying and advertisements in the USA over health care reform. Those with the money to do so, will to the best of their ability, un-inform or mis-inform the masses.

Re:law vs. law

[Atlantis-Rising]

In some ways, yes, it probably would be worse. I'd rather be ruled by the malicious than the ignorant.

Re:law vs. law

[Kjella]

Actually, it would be more like the stories popping up about Wikipedia. Whoever has the most time, the most patience, knows the rules best, plays best with the system will win. Expect flash mobs, filibusters, wholly uninformed voting based on loose rumors because no one has time to read it all. Plus you really get mob rule, like Switzerland just outlawing minarets which is quite clearly aimed at restricting one minority's exercise of their religion. And finally, the people do not vote in the best interest of the people. Each person tends to vote what's best for themselves, which is a different thing entirely.

Let me take an example from Norway:

3.5 million eligible voters
2.6 million in workforce
2.5 million working
1.8 million working in private sector

Right now, the private workers are in a small majority among the total voters. Very soon the number of senior citizens will skyrocket and they will lose that majority. Everyone votes for their benefits and public sector people vote for their own salaries, who do they think will pay? It's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner...

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of curiosity for the lawyer/business/combination types, would defining politics as a market do anything about the lobbying situation? Politicians are already bought like commodities. I'm wondering what effects this would have on the way things operate.

Re:law vs. law

[Myrimos]

If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist

I'm not happy with DRM, but it bears to be said that a true democracy is two wolves and one lamb deciding what to have for dinner.

Re:law vs. law

[Sandbags]

You are correct sir, mostly. The USA is NOT a "true democracy", but it is a democratic for of government. Technically, it's a Federated Constitutional Republic utilizing a Globalized Presidential system and representive democracy. Spelled out, Federated (national, state, and locally subdivided), Constitutional (document providing powers to seperated executive and legislative branches), Republic (where the head of state is not a monarch but subject to both pubic vote and suffrage). Presidential (to preside) over a representative democracy (people do not directly vote on laws nor do they have direct power over those elected/appointed). By Globalized, our president gets permission from various world organizations and other governments to perform certain acts, and world opinion has nearly as much influence on our government as our own voters do.

By "true democracy" you must be refering to "direct democracy" instead of "representative" democracy. The USA is only marginally a "representative" as elected politicians are in no way bound to vote in the favor of their constituents, nor is there a formal feedback process (only letters and complaints, which can be easily ignored in favor of lobyists who are not typically working the the favor of the constituents or people, but of themselves or a corporation). This is where the Capitolism enters the playing filed, and where the USA is somewhat apart from others.

It is also correct, though not completely in the traditional sense, to add the work "socialist" in front of Republic, as the USA does use numerous socialist policies. Socialism is not itself a form of government, but can be used to describe any form of government. Commonly, socialism is put by many people on a scale between democracy and communism, as if those could be directly compared as government types, and often it is confused with Marxism. Also, many confuse "socialized" with "socialist" but these are completely different terms. In a socialist nation, goods and saervices are litterally OWNED by the people, and your work efforts provide you a share of those resources equal to the work others do. Socialized services are services provided to those by others who can not afford them otherwise, regardless of effort put forward. Socialized healthcare for example does not mean you have to perform services for the government, nor that you receive certain preferential treatment in healthcare, MEDICARE is already defined as socialized medicine. So long as joinging a government run program is not COMPULSORY (options to select from both public and private options exist), then "socialized healthcare" is simply the fallback coverage for those without coverage, and the choice for others.

Re:law vs. law

[Sandbags]

Um, no. Regardless of what the people vote for in terms of laws, we still have a constitution and branced government with balances. A Direct Democracy would simply replace the Senate and House (which would mostly still exest to WRITE the laws they would simply no longer have a part in passing them), but it would not replace the executive or judicial branch, nor scould the people pass (or courts not overturn) a piece of legislation that violated our constitution.

Remember, we still CAN vote direct, to change the constitution itself (that's the only way other than simple ammendements) The PEOPLE vote to hold a constitutional congress....

Re:law vs. law

[corbettw]

Corporations don't exist in a vacuum, they are owned and run by people. People who vote and contribute to political campaigns. Neither of those things would change in a pure democracy.

Re:law vs. law

[RobDude]

Short term - sure; letting everyone copy everything for free is great.

Long term - you end up with a society where nobody produces anything that can be copied for free.

I earn a living writing software. People pay for that software; that payment allows me to keep writing software. If tomorrow comes and everyone can copy my software for free - short term, the people all end up with software for free. They are happy. Long term, I stop being a computer programmer and find a profession where my work can't be digitally copied. Maybe I become a plumber. Long term, there is no new software.

Same with Movies and Music. Without $$$ things don't happen. You can't have a high budget action movie without $$$. And you don't get $$$ unless people are paying for your content.

You'd be able to convince a lot of people that laws to protect these things are good things.

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

Old or new should not matter. What matters is that the laws contradict each other.

If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist

Indeed, a true democracy is little more than a lynch mob

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to be under the impression that it's a proven fact that control over a product that you yourself sell is a bad thing "to the average user". I see two problems with this: First, it's not "the average user" that laws are (supposed to be) designed to protect but people in general -- that is, the law is there to protect the user, the CEO of the company selling the product and every employee that sits between the two. If laws were merely in existence to protect the consumers then, by gross absurdum, all products would be free. Second, you seem to believe it's a proven fact that the creator of a product should have no control over the product they sell, "for the good of man" or so. However, there's no proof that that's the case. Few reasonable people argue for the total removal of copyright or even trademark or patent laws, and for good reason -- there is a greater economic incentive to produce with rather than without those laws. However, the real sticking point is at what level of control is the individual economic incentive large enough to produce but the consumer still retains adequate protections. For example, if I couldn't distribute software I personally produced with a license of my choosing I probably wouldn't create software as a job since my paycheck would probably be lower due to the fact that I couldn't contractually prevent others from redistributing my works.

tl;dr: Prove (or at least describe) your assumptions and think about the people on the supply side of the chain as well when considering overall good.

Re:law vs. law

[Seth Kriticos]

Nice argumentation, except that you are WRONG!

Sure, things would change. The classical business models wouldn't be viable any more. Companies would have to adapt new ones, but creation of software/content would by no mean end, or be reduced much for that matter.

You can see good examples of business models that have giving content/software away for free. Like for instance Nine Inch Nails. You can download their new albums from their website for free, in high quality. You can do whatever you want with it, and they made a shitload of money with it. Read techdirt for more examples.

You can't deny that free software is out there too. It's made with other business models in mind, and it thrives like never before.

Also, many sane people don't even want to completely abolish copyright, just reduce it to some saner values, like 5-10 years. What the heck do you want with lifetime + 90 years copyright. Not to mention patents. The current system is much more inhibiting for content/software creation than it is good for progress.

Also, when was the last time you saw a really good movie in the cinema? Really can't get much worse, even if we stop having movies all together, but that would not happen either. We'd probably see much better movies that would be used with other business operations in synergy to generate profit and actually make the word advance in an actually competitive way.

Now please stop being an ass and think before you write something.

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

DRM solely exists to provide corporations more control over the products they sell. It in no way is beneficial to the informed user.

FTFY

No, you broke it.

It doesn't matter whether someone is informed or not - DRM is not beneficial to *any* end user.

It's true that only informed people would vote against it, but to claim that it's beneficial to someone who doesn't know about it is absurd.

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups."

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your statement but get the quote right.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals"

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Cowpat]

republic is the opposite of monarchy, and describes the nature of the head of state.
democracy is one of a variety of forms of government, and bears no relation to the nature of the head of state

so, to recap. government != state. You may be confused because you (apparently) live in the USA, where that line is blurred.

Re:law vs. law

[RobDude]

U mad? You sound mad....

Your argument doesn't really make any sense...but you sure sound angry. I remember what it was like to be a teenager who really likes to download music too - so I guess I understand.

You say that "...many sane people don't even want to completely abolish copyright". My original argument was that you'd be able to convince a lot of people that copyright is good.

So your panties are all in a wad because...we pretty much, sorta, agree?

You also talk about how 'things will just change, man!' but you don't really explain how. This new business model you speak of...you didn't really explain. The Nine Inch Nails example doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion. They are a band that got famous with the help of millions of dollars worth of advertising and who are already rich. The fact that they gave away a CD doesn't mean that, if ALL of their music was free, they'd still exist and produce music of the same quality. It just means that, they are so rich, they can do whatever they want.

Can you name *one* band who got rich and/or famous without charging anyone for anything?

I think the answer is 'No'.

The honest truth here is that NOTHING STOPS *YOU* from giving away YOUR work. If you really believe in this concept of free - *YOU* can make a movie and give it away. You can make a CD and give it away. You can write software and give it away.

Anyone can.

So why don't you?

If you are going to honestly try to argue that either approach is equally good (or better) then why do the people who produce stuff continue to copyright it?

It's really easy to say, 'I should be able to download that - cause I like stuff and I want stuff, but I don't want to pay for it, and the business model will just change, and I'll get everything I want for free'. It's much, much harder to say, 'I spent three years of my life working on this. Now - here you go, have it for free. I'll just eat water for dinner'.

The reasonable alternative is to find a way to force consumers to pay for your work. And while that's certainly possible, it doesn't really change anything. You end up back into the model of people paying for things they want to enjoy.

With software that means either built in ads (like Google) or server-side dependencies (like TotalFark or MMORPGs that require you to be online). All that's done is....made it hard or impossible to 'copy' the game, since the game lives on a server.

Re:law vs. law

[taucross]

Democracy is a system ensuring that the people are governed no better than they deserve. And if you think you deserve better, the only way is to educate and/or empassion your fellow human being.

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

A related note: in a true free market, there would be no DRM.

In an idealised free market, there are an infinite number of producers. So if one company is producing something with DRM, there are a hundred other companies producing something identical without DRM. Their products are cheaper, since they don't have to spend anything to implement DRM - and more importantly, they're more convenient for consumers - so the company with the DRM-laden product would sell zero copies and go out of business.

Re:law vs. law

[shutdown -p now]

DRM solely exists to provide corporations more control over the products they sell. It in no way is beneficial to the average user.

A law doesn't have to be beneficial to the majority to be approved by it. You merely need to convince them that it is. And when you control the media, it's extremely easy to do so.

Re:law vs. law

[shutdown -p now]

In some ways, yes, it probably would be worse. I'd rather be ruled by the malicious than the ignorant.

It seems to me that "rule by malicious" was a feature of representative democracies sometime mid-20th century; these days, it looks much more like "rule by malicious and ignorant" to me.

In truth, I think, the answer is to scale democracy down to the level where it works - confederations of small states, and so on.

Re:law vs. law

[shutdown -p now]

I'm not happy with DRM, but it bears to be said that a true democracy is two wolves and one lamb deciding what to have for dinner.

Do you seriously think any other form of government - say, representative democracy, or "A Republic That Is Not A Democracy", as some of our misguided American friends love to call it - would help the sheep if they're outnumbered 2 to 1?

Weimar Republic was a representative democracy too, by the way. And the funny thing is that NSDAP didn't have the majority of people's votes, but they could convince the majority of parliament factions to pass the laws that they wanted (NSDAP had 43% in the not-quite-fair elections immediately preceding the vote on the Enabling Act; but 83% in the Reichstag voted for it, and it pretty much openly handed power over to the Nazis).

In many ways, it was an epic fail unmatched by any state practicing direct democracy - people love to remember about Athens and Socrates, but it definitely pales compared to the abuse of democracy in Weimar Republic.

Re:law vs. law

[sjames]

Even if everyone involved in the production of DVDs (including everyone involved in movie and music production) in the U.S. toed the company line and voted for DRM, they'd be vastly outnumbered by everyone else. Add in everyone employed by a company that produces software and they'd still be a spit in the ocean.

It's easy to forget given the way hollywood wags the dog, but there are a lot more janitors, cashiers, mechanics, etc. in the U.S. than there are people working for the RIAA, MPAA, and all their affiliates.

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracies, will fine in principle, shitty-but-better-than-anything-else-we've-tried to coin a phrase, aren't quite the panacea. Witness the debacle here in Switzerland recently, where a bunch of racist, neo-nationalist, anti-Muslim fucktards promoted a law to ban the planning approval for minarets. Most people don't know a minaret from a martini, but this glorious representative participatory democracy just required the national government to pass a law breaching the country's obligations to international humanitarian law. Democracy in (selective) action. Of course, the national referenda instructing the government to decriminalise cannabis haven't actually been implemented despite repeated attempts by the populace. If we lived in a true democracy, do you think we would even recognise it?

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh, the average users would never vote for having to pay money for a product either. That's completely irrelevant.

Re:law vs. law

[Per Wigren]

Do you honestly believe that the average user has done that?

Re:law vs. law

[harl]

Yes. Anyone with a mutual fund.

Re:law vs. law

[david_thornley]

Except that a true democracy would limit the ability of a relatively small but noisy group to affect policy. There aren't really all that many of those right-wing Christian fundamentalists, but they're noisy, fairly well-organized, and determined. In a representative democracy with a two-party system, they can exert a lot more power than their numbers would indicate. In a direct democracy, any proposal to establish their religion would be voted down overwhelmingly, since everybody who wasn't part of that group would vote "no".

It's likely that the US would be an explicitly Christian country, but I don't think it would be any narrower than that.

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless said people owned a stake (really or otherwise) in that company. An average user probably wouldn't turn up to vote. ;)

Re:law vs. law

[ichigo 2.0]

So therefore the average users, or the people who provide the majority of votes, would never vote for DRM.

Have you tried speaking with said average users? The ones I have talked about the matter with have all been on the side of DRM/stringent copyright because "otherwise everyone will pirate and there will be no more music/movies/software". Some might even invoke the "Amiga theory", which is that Commodore died because of rampant piracy (even though it died because the Amiga was no match for consoles in the gaming front and no match for PCs on the software front).

No, in a true democracy people will get precisely what they want, which is why we are all suffering and will continue to suffer in the future due to all the nice things our predecessors wanted.

Re:law vs. law

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's inconceivable that a group could trick people to do something that may not be in their best interests?

Re:law vs. law

[thelonious]

Try looking up republic some time and read the FULL definition. Also, try to lose that attitude, it's very pissy.

Re:law vs. law

[thelonious]

Here's a start for you

From Wikipedia...

In the United States, Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to only having direct democracy[6], and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".

Good for him

[IndustrialComplex]

I'm guessing that the law there is similar to the US in which you really can't do much about a law until it actually impacts you. I'm not sure I'm happy with that situation, in that some poor soul (or souls) has to effectively be martyred before the 'protections' kick in.

Or is this case simply one of two laws which contradict each other?

Horrible idea

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reliable way to test your backup law is to restore your backup law into a freshly partitioned legal system.

Tiananmen Square

[C_Kode]

Next he will want to burn himself in Tiananmen Square! :D

Won't Loving Work.

[InvisibleClergy]

He's just going to be slapped with an unreasonable fine he can't pay and then he will have to file for bankruptcy or some such thing. Courts are fine with giving out unreasonable fines because "hey, at least it's not jail time." However, fines can make it impossible for you to pay your bills, even if you are allowed to pay them off over a period of time.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[NevarMore]

Except he's in Denmark. I can't comment specifically but many European nations have sliding scale fines.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Kjella]

Dude, this is Scandinavia. We don't award insane damages here, in fact we generally give way too little IMO. People that have had their lives completely ruined, like 20 years innocent in prison get less than a million dollars. Murderers are often only required to pay 100-200k$ in damages. That is one of the reasons the TPB case became such a big deal in Sweden, for Americans a little over 4 million dollars is not that unusual, around here it's unheard of. There was for example here in Norway just recently about a 16 year old who got the biggest insurance payout ever after a traffic accident - 11.6 MNOK = 2.08 million USD. Still not much when he's probably got another 60 years to live and will need special care for the rest of his life.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[thisnamestoolong]

We need that in America. It is completely absurd that if Bill Gates and I committed the same criminal offense, we would incur the same fine. Bill would pull the money out of his wallet in much the same manner that I buy a pack of gum and go about his day, whereas I would be financially devastated. In this case, while the actual dollar amount of the fines were equal, the punishment absolutely was not. The fine should be adjusted so that the punishment is equal in both cases -- it is completely absurd that this is not the case already.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[coaxial]

There was for example here in Norway just recently about a 16 year old who got the biggest insurance payout ever after a traffic accident - 11.6 MNOK = 2.08 million USD. Still not much when he's probably got another 60 years to live and will need special care for the rest of his life.

Yeah, but at least you have universal health care. The US still doesn't. That would be communist-socialist-nazi-facism didn't you know? (That's why Hitler and Stalin were such great buds.)

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Meneguzzi]

But on the flipside, in Scandinavia (and most of Europe) if you need a hospital or support for some physical limitation, you won't have to pay through your nose to get it, as this is seen as a basic human right. In the US, if you need constant medical attention and you don't have a steady revenue stream (or a big hoard of cash) you are pretty much screwed.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Delwin]

In the US bankruptcy cannot get rid of your student loans or any civil penalties. Huge civil penalties are actually worse than jail time because a few years in jail and you get out and have a chance to start over (barring Felonies which have other issues). Even life sentences usually have some possibility of parole. Huge civil penalties here and you are never going to have more than substance levels of money ever again.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[DrData99]

Wasn't there a $100,000 speeding ticket in Finland a few years back?
Putting speeding in the same class as murder?
Or did I just mis-remember that?

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Zarhan]

Wasn't there a $100,000 speeding ticket in Finland a few years back?

Yes. That happened to the current CEO of Nokia (back then he was VP or something). The fines are scaled according to your income (the idea being that if the fine were a fixed sum it would just give richer people a reason to consider it 'fun tax' instead of a real punishment) so a guy making tons of money gets a big ticket too. If you have no income, it goes down to a few hundred euros (depending on crime).

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, buds. And now a mad Kenyan scientist have spliced them and created the Obamination - the ultimate tool of all that is evil - and got it a fake Hawaiian birth certificate. What a coincidence that all this should happen in our lifetime, huh? But, then again - we are special.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Kjella]

But on the flipside, in Scandinavia (and most of Europe) if you need a hospital or support for some physical limitation, you won't have to pay through your nose to get it, as this is seen as a basic human right. In the US, if you need constant medical attention and you don't have a steady revenue stream (or a big hoard of cash) you are pretty much screwed.

That is a truth with some caveats. Yes, if you are in need of real medical treatment then yes, if you're just disabled and need help... depends. There's been more than one case where they've put young 20-30 year olds in retirement homes because that's where they can deal with wheelchair users for example. Technically all your needs are met but it's crushing to live that way over any amount of time when you're 25 and they're 80 and don't exactly share your interests. There's not much of a budget for a social life unless you're able to get around on your own, they're supposed to help you more but well... yeah. Let's just say things happen much faster if you have money yourself and can fight for refunds afterwards instead of fighting to get it in the first place.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[jockeys]

you raise a good point, but think about this:

by extension of that arguement, Bill Gates' time is worth much more than mine. for killing the same person, should I get a longer sentence since the opportunity cost (years of wages) is higher per year for him?

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[negRo_slim]

Nokia Boss Gets Record Speeding Fine

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Meneguzzi]

You are absolutely right in that, but the point I was trying to make is that 2 million dollars (for example) go a much longer way to mitigate the consequences of actions in Europe than it would go in the US. With a couple hundred thousand Euros you can pretty much do all the home modifications you need to live well at your own home and be productive in Europe, since you can count on having doctors, hospital bills and drugs paid for by the state, whereas half a million dollars in the US would go away pretty fast in the American healthcare system.
The side effect of this is that there is a *very* profitable business here (in the U.S.) for lawyers to try and squeeze every last penny of a lawsuit even beyond what would be reasonable, with a large drain for the person pursuing the case, and a large potential for abuse all along the line.
In any case, I think people are free-er in Europe exactly because things do not turn around money as a requirement for survival. At least I felt a lot safer to protest about the causes I believe in while I lived in London (before coming to the US) than I do here.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Next up: Elderly homeless beggar robs diamond store, gets fined $2 and week of community service.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[steelfood]

Actually, since he's probably got a better lawyer than what you could possibly get, he'll probably walk out without paying a cent.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[tacokill]

Right. And in the US, states usually use a point system. Get too many points and your driver's license gets revoked. Solves the same problem (people not respecting and following the laws) and isn't a hidden income redistribution effort.

It's wrong to give a rich guy a harsher punishment because he's rich just like it's wrong to give a poor guy a harsher punishment because he's poor.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[asaz989]

In which case he will have made his point - that the law allowing non-commercial backups has been nullified by these DRM antics, and can't act as a sop for the record companies to say "hey, look, these laws are totally reasonable! They let you do some things!"

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Imrik]

The cost to him may be higher, but so is what he can afford. A year for him would probably have a smaller relative impact on his finances than it would on yours.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Toby_Tyke]

It's not a harsher punishment. It's exactly the same punishment. Five percent of your monthly wage.

(Or whatever figure they actually use)

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[loshwomp]

and isn't a hidden income redistribution effort.

Now that is amusing, although I suspect you were being serious. A system that extracts money from filthy rich scofflaws? I'd welcome it.

It's wrong to give a rich guy a harsher punishment because he's rich just like it's wrong to give a poor guy a harsher punishment because he's poor.

That was the whole original point -- an $XX fine is a harsher punishment to me than it is to Bill Gates.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[aitikin]

Definitely depends on the state. Illinois doesn't have a points system, you can just lose your license for about a year for having at least 2 speeding tickets in 1 year if you don't go to court and don't handle them perfectly. My roommate has been without a license for almost a year now for that very reason.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[DangerFace]

Here's another point - he is rich and white - the only way he could (statistically) live longer is be female or live in any other developed nation. Because of this, a year to him is worth less, since he'll be getting blowjobs from cybwhorgs and swallowing a pill for dinner long after I've kicked the proverbial. Since his time is worth less, he should spend much longer in prison than a normal human. QED.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[didroe84]

You need to actually think about the reason for fines. It is supposed to be a punishment that is significant enough to make you not want to break the law again. If the fines are fixed and you are rich then the punishment is actually less because the amount of money is worth less to you.

This system is designed to right the wrong you describe, giving a poor guy a harsher punishment.

In the UK we have points and a fine, although the fine is probably fixed. Personally, I think points are good for giving people a bit of leeway before revoking their license but fines are better for stopping people who will just speed until they're up to the last point. Getting a point doesn't directly cause you any hassle so it won't be as effective as a deterrent.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[alexo]

It's not a harsher punishment. It's exactly the same punishment. Five percent of your monthly wage (Or whatever figure they actually use)

How will it work for ?

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the US has a similar system with the setting of punitive damages. As I understand it punitive damages are meant to act as punishment, and so will be higher against richer entities. This is however a great idea that should be instituetd with all punitive payments, including fines for traffic violations.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Anci3nt of Days]

So where is the incentive to earn?

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[loshwomp]

So where is the incentive to earn?

Your incentive to earn (which I'm sure is alive and well) doesn't trump the intended incentive to keep you from breaking laws.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[ZiakII]

From the article "Mr Vanjoki had to pay a fine equal to 14 days of his income in 1999, which was about 14 million euros ($12.5 million)."

Holy crap so a speeding ticket in the US for a normal worker would be $1500+? For going 16 MPH over the speed limit?

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Anonymous Coward]

The speed limits are set by the road.
 
  Keep in mind that the curvy ice-laced roads of Finland are an entirely different beast from the straight desert roads of America.
Also; why should the state be lenient for a person who is essentially putting everybody else in danger? HE DID THE DEED IN THE CAPITAL. IN THE CITY WITH THE LEAST AMOUNT OF CARS PER POPULATION IN THE WHOLE COUNTRY. WITH PEDESTRIANS ALL AROUND. INCLUDING KIDS.
 
Finland has two rates; minor speeding (which you can do accidentally, if you are just following the car in front of you) and major speeding, where the driver has to intentionally go "fuck this". Normally the fine is much less. The minimum today is 115 euros (which can be given instead of a sum tied to income). It's only tied to income, if you do over +16 km/h.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[CowboyBob500]

They do. When I was a student (in the UK), I got given a fine where the supposed minimum was £1000. However, I made a representation to the court that as a student I could never afford that and supplied details of my income, and they calculated exactly what I needed in order to just about survive and reduced the fine to leave me that minimum amount for about 3 months. OK, I couldn't afford beer, but I could live. In the circumstances I thought that was pretty fair and reasonable given that a fine is supposed to punish you, not leave you bankrupt.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Enforcement of the law should not be, and should never be for the sake of "punishment".

The fact that you want to "punish" people for breaking a law implies that you do not believe in rehabilitation or personal responsibility.

If I steal a candy bar from a store and get caught, I should be expected to pay for it and any damages associated. If I make millions of dollars that candy bar and those damages do not magically become higher in value.

Even if we call it a punishment, as you want to, the "punishment fits the crime" is the general rule, not "the punishment fits the individual who perpetrated it".

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[thisnamestoolong]

Umm... in many of these cases, the judge will assign punitive damages to the defendant. That acknowledges that the fines in question exist solely as punishment to the defendant in an attempt to teach him/her to not do whatever they did again. I do believe in rehabilitation and personal responsibility, but we don't live in a world of black and white, there is a time and a place for both carrots and sticks in the criminal justice system. For the record, I think carrots are more effective most of the time, but when the stick is required, we should make sure that the size of the stick is appropriate to inflict the same amount of pain, regardless of the defendant.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Toby_Tyke]

Well, I said "whatever figure they use" because I'm not sure how they assess it. It wouldn't be too hard to use your overall income as the basis for the fine instead, which would include capital gains.

Re:Won't Loving Work.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument has merit for some laws, and doesn't quite work for others. The legal system can be seen to serve two purposes: to discourage certain behaviors, and to make the damaged party whole. As an economist I tend to think that all damages can be quantified, but even if you do not believe that to be the case, you must agree that SOME damages can be quantified.
If i steal 10 dollars from someone, that's how much damage I've done. Now suppose some statistics show that I get caught 10% of the time, then my damages should be a bit above $100 to make it a bad deal for me to steal. Regardless of whether it was me or Bill that did the stealing the damages would still be an expected $100, and it would be unreasonable (may even my unconstitutional under cruel and unusual clause) to fine him say a million bucks (even though bill has 10,000 times the wealth as i do)
Less clear examples include speeding. Bill is not a whole lot more dangerous than I am when speeding, and in fact speeding is not such a heinous crime that it must be prevented at all costs. The damage is done against other drivers, or lacking specific names, against society. Society should exact payment roughly in line with damages.
There are whole teams of lawyers (both private and public) that have tried to figure out how to weigh damages for more serious crimes. If you buy that theory, then all crimes should have some semi-fixed range of fines (maybe varying a little for wealth, but not a few orders of magnitude). Even if you don't buy that theory, you still have to agree that speeding or breaking DRM is NOT the same thing as murder, and the punitive portion (that scales with wealth) should not play as large a role as the compensation portion.

A funny result

[Anonymous Coward]

Would be they find him guilty. And the penalty is 10 years in prison and 100,000 euro fine!!

too much time on his hands

[thelonious]

I guess some people don't have to worry about making a living?

Re:too much time on his hands

[Grygus]

Perhaps he owns a company that sells blank DVDs.

Re: Probably not that high fine

[Anonymous Coward]

Being from scandinavia (not Denmark though, but laws are likely quite similar), I can say that I would be really surprised if the fine was any more than a couple of thousand euros. Fines/damages here are meant to be payable and any unreasonable fines/damage will be cut down to a level that's feasible payable for the person in question. That's one of the things you learn in the introductory law courses here.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

To paraphrase:

[Anonymous Coward]

Peasant: Well I didn't vote for it
RIAA: you don't VOTE for DRM!
Peasant: Well how did we get DRM then?

Pedant alert

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you mean "to paraphrase a quote from Men In Black".

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

Re:Pedant alert

[OzPeter]

I believe you meant "to paraphrase a quote from Men In Black".

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

FTFY. Past tense :P

Lightweight!

[Locke2005]

His DVD collection consists of only 100 discs?!? How big is his collection of movies downloaded via bittorrent?

Re:Lightweight!

[thelonious]

Do you want the numbers with or without pron?

Re:Lightweight!

[Anonymous Coward]

DVDs downloaded with bittorrent are trivial to backup. The same goes for other sources available to those who know how to USE the NET. It's only videos acquired through MAFIAA sanctioned means that present a problem.

Re:Lightweight!

[berashith]

Yes, someone will be pissed when the request to see the hard drive shows thousands of movies and his disc collection that was backed up doesnt quite match up title for title.

Re:Lightweight!

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

One would hope that he doesn't have a collection of movies (or anything else copyrighted) downloaded via bittorrent, since it would:

a) Significantly increase the likelihood that he will be charged and convicted,
b) Increase the damages awarded if charged and convicted, and, worst of all,
c) Completely fuck up the test by introducing an extra factor into the court's decision

Re:Lightweight!

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, you people REALLY know how to over-analyze a joke!

Re:Lightweight!

[Phyrexicaid]

That's what I'd be worried about. Swaggering in to test the law on the couple of items you *do* have, and they find all the music and movies you *don't* have legally. Whoops!

That Dude is My Hero!

[MarkvW]

He's not a whining sniveling cowardly hypocrite like the Pirate Bay defendants.

This guy's putting it on the line. Does he have a defense fund that can be contributed to?

Re:That Dude is My Hero!

[rotide]

From what I gather, he is just trying to pit the law against itself. He's not out to find a loophole. He merely knows there are two laws at play. One that allows you to make backup copies and another that won't allow you to break the DRM of which _stops_ you from making backup copies.

He doesn't really need a defense, the law is already his defense. Really he's just using himself as a pawn to put one law straight up against another to see which one actually matters.

From the article: Henrik feels that the situation he is trying to draw attention to can only be solved by him going to trial. Hopefully then the Minister for Culture and the Danish parliament will see that the law has to be changed.

Re:That Dude is My Hero!

[MarkvW]

He'd be safer with a lawyer. If the Court finds no conflict and that the DRM law controls his situation, wouldn't he be subject to sanction? I don't know the law of his country, but I think it prudent to be concerned.

Re:That Dude is My Hero!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not a whining sniveling cowardly hypocrite like the Pirate Bay defendants.

This guy's putting it on the line. Does he have a defense fund that can be contributed to?

This is his site (in Danish): http://www.enfrustreretforbruger.dk/home/

There's a donation button.

Re:That Dude is My Hero!

[Splab]

If the police decides to press charges he will be offered a lawyer, else his insurance company will normally have coverage for parts of the bill, but this will most likely be requested as "fri proces", if granted it means it is a principal ruling and the government will foot the bill all the way to supreme court (højeste ret).

missing tag for this article

[Errtu76]

IANAL .. really

This is not brave

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Selective enforcement of laws is allowed in Denmark :

For criminal law - no (like everywhere else, including the US)

For civil law (which is what this falls under) - yes (again, like everywhere else, including the US)

The general principle is that everyone is equal before the government. But ONLY before the government. Not before someone else (you're perfectly free to have you roof done only by someone with black hair, just to name something stupid), nor before companies.

An example : a company demands payment from half it's customers, say it's christmas and everyone below 16 does not get billed (just making up some excuse). One of the customers forced to pay (16 years and 2 days old, say) cannot complain because someone else didn't have to pay. That is "selective enforcement" and is perfectly A-okay, just about everywhere in the world.

A counterexample is that the government cannot choose not to pursue a murderer. It IS a (theoretical) defence for a murderer to claim the government let another murderer go free. This usually gets applied to parking fines or speeding tickets. If you can prove the police let someone else go, you don't have to pay the fine.

The police only intervenes in matters of criminal law. And before you ask, you can get arrested "for not paying a bill", yes. But not because not paying a bill itself lands you in jail, this is civil law and cannot result in incarceration. Ignoring a court's order to pay a bill IS criminal law (it's a felony I believe).

So this guy is basically an attention-grabber who's knows he'll go free, due a basic property of our law system every first-year law student learns. The police won't do anything because that's not their job. Their job is criminal law.

Re:This is not brave

[bberens]

I think (surely someone will correct me) in the US if you don't actively pursue protection of your trademarks you will lose them. Therefore there can be a case where it's not possible to "selectively enforce" for some intellectual properties.

Re:This is not brave

[pipatron]

I will correct you. I'm not from the US but I still know that Trademark law is completely different from copyright law and patent law. Please don't bunch them together.

Re:This is not brave

[Kjella]

I will correct you. I'm not from the US but I still know that Trademark law is completely different from copyright law and patent law. Please don't bunch them together.

Yes, but he's still right which makes you wrong. Trademarks can lose their protection if they become generic words, for example "aspirin" is no longer a protected trademark but a general name for painkillers. Obviously the trademark holder can't go around controlling what everyone says, but he has to at least take action against companies and others using it officially. For example, "to google" is starting to become a synonym for "to search (on the Internet)", but Google would quickly protest against anyone using that term for searching on Bing or Yahoo or whatever.

Re:This is not brave

[Valdrax]

Selective enforcement of laws is allowed in Denmark :

For criminal law - no (like everywhere else, including the US)

Actually, in the US, prosecutorial discretion provides a nigh-unreviewable power for prosecutors to decide whether or not to bring charges. About the only way to challenge a selective prosecution in the US is to prove that their is a discriminatory motive and effect in prosecuting decisions.

I don't know how Denmark compares, but I've seen several references to Denmark having "discretionary prosecution." I don't know what that really means, though.

Re:This is not brave

[sjames]

In the U.S. you don't have to go that far. Estoppel will do fine. If you knowingly permit an activity long enough you can lose your right to put a stop to it later. I have no idea how that works in Danish law.

Re:This is not brave

[L4t3r4lu5]

In the UK, it's down to the Crown Prosecution Service to determine if there is sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. If there is not, then there is no trial.

This is why none of the politicians who were using tax payer money to pay for home renovation and leisure activities have been put to trial for fraud and embezzlement. CPS say "Nope, sorry. Not enough evidence." Same with the Chief Constable in charge of the Jean Charles de Menezes incident.

Re:This is not brave

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to enforce your trademarks to keep them. Once registered with the USPO (or respective country's governments version of it) the trademark is the companies forever as long as they continue using it. (The 'continue using it is the catch' where you can lose it). Generic use of the word does not allow others to use the trademark nor does it invalidate the companies right to enforce their trademark.

A company can selectively prosecute users of their trademark (with exception of counterfeit goods using it, where the respective governments have a criminal case against the perpotrators).

Aspirin became legal to use because the Trademark was lost to Bayer as part of the 'War Reparations' from WWI. It wasn't because it had become a 'generic term'. (Note: Generic term for aspirin is spelt with a small 'a' and Bayer brand aspirin uses a capital when referring to their product 'Aspirin'.)

Coke is still trademarked (though it has become a generic term for cola).

Re:This is not brave

[arethuza]

Slight correction, in England and Wales it is the CPS. In Scotland it is the Procurator Fiscal (specifically the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service). No idea what it is in Northern Ireland.

Re:This is not brave

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That's not the same as choosing not to pursue a specific case. Of course there are physical limitations to the job of the prosecution. That doesn't mean they get to choose to whom to sue, and they don't. Not in the US, and not in the UK.

Antipiratgruppen

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but laugh each time I say it... Antipiratgruppen, LOL.

A martyr or a...

[diitante]

noble idiot?

I do live in Denmark

[nielsdybdahl]

I do live in Denmark. The danish copyright laws are based upon the copyright rules from the european union, that all member states have to implement in their national laws. One of these rules state that it is allowed to circumvent the copy protection schemes if it is necessary to use the media. That is probably intended to make it possible for Linux users to play DVDs, but in this case it might also be used because if the user has a PC without a DVD drive, then it is necessary to rip the DVD with a different PC. Another european rule states that temporary copies that are necessary for using the media are always allowed. Again in this case if the user has a PC without DVD-drive, then it is legal to store the DVD content on a harddrive (which is not a permanent copy).

Re:I do live in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU laws are actually based upon the Bern WIPO treaty, the same treaty that US, UK and Australian (hi from over here!) copyright laws are based on, but individual countries have to implement the laws.
 
The right to backup personal copies was granted in that treaty as a part of fair use, and the right to break DRM for fair use legally granted in the states in 2000.

Re:I do live in Denmark

[TangoMargarine]

How is a copy on hard disk not permanent? Is "permanent" defined in this context as "you can unplug the component, wait 5 minutes, plug it back in, and the data's still there" like with RAM, or "this DVD-R is permanent because I cannot write to it again"? (I'm not being sarcastic; I actually want to know.)

Re:I do live in Denmark

[Anonymous Coward]

"Temporary copy" caveats in copyright laws are almost always meant to exclusively apply to copies in main memory, video cache, and things like that.

Re:I do live in Denmark

[xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D]

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've seen the law usually deals not with the technical details but the intention or social details. So doing an "rm" after watching the movie would (I'm guessing) probably count as it being temporary. We all know that the movie is still stored on the disk and it wouldn't be hard to recover it, but still it shows an intention: it was intended to be used temporarily.

Re:I do live in Denmark

[T-Ranger]

Its talking about drive buffers, OS file-system buffers, frame buffers (video cards), and the like.

Re:I do live in Denmark

[JustNiz]

>> How is a copy on hard disk not permanent?

Uhh because you can erase it?

What I want to know is

[lanadapter]

How does he fit through his door with such massive balls?

The laws do not conflict.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can copy the data in its raw form and therefore have your right to have a backup without decrypting it and breaking the DRM on the data.

This guy is going to get owned.

Conflicting law precedent?

[relaxinparadise]

Are there any precedents anywhere for having conflicting laws and what happens in cases like this where it would seem that one of the two laws in question would have to be illegal itself? I would hope that he has his lawyer fees taken care of or is a lawyer himself, something like this sounds expensive.

They did respond...

[slimjim8094]

he just couldn't hear it over the sound of his gong-size balls knocking together.

Seriously. I want to buy this guy a beer.

It seems likely the police/DA are going to be like "what, are you stupid?" and not prosecute the case. But in that case, I should hope that attitude gets used as precedent - if nobody cares enough to do anything to this guy, even when he makes it so easy, why should they do it to someone who makes it hard?

(the preceding is essentially American law, apologies in advance for where it doesn't apply)

Re:They did respond...

[NevarMore]

(the preceding is essentially American law, apologies in advance for where it doesn't apply)

Would be a good idea to append this to every foreign policy action that my country uses.

How does that work?

[Weaselmancer]

I agree with your analysis, I'm just wondering why it would work out that way.

The police aren't going to want to deal with it

Why exactly? I know you're right, but I'd love to know the reason why. A law has been broken. The police have been notified. They aren't in the revenue stream for content producers, so there is no financial motive for them to ignore it. And yet we both know that this will come to naught.

This *will* get buried, but I'd love to know exactly the reasons why.

Re:How does that work?

[Imrik]

The police are charged with dealing with criminal cases, civil cases have to be brought to the court by those wronged.

Re:How does that work?

[DaleSwanson]

There is no civil case here as there has been no copyright infringement. Rather in Denmark it is illegal to break DRM. He broke DRM and thus broke the law. The issue is that in Denmark there is the legal right to make copies, and in order to do that you must break the DRM.

Re:How does that work?

[MightyMartian]

I'm sure Denmark is the same as every other country as far as police forces go. They detest these sorts of laws that require them to investigate acts that are of such limited damage, and yet require such an excessive amount of work. Imagine the paperwork they'll have to fill out, the time that will be taken away from more useful things, or from doing nothing at all. And for what? Some guy who cracked his DVD encryption to make personal copies?

The fact of the matter is that cops pick and choose all the time what they will and will not enforce. There are jaywalking laws in my town, and have been for decades, but I have yet to see or hear of anyone getting nailed for it, because the amount of effort required to write a ticket as compared to the fine and the actual good it will do anyone just makes it a waste of time.

Re:How does that work?

[Valdrax]

Why exactly? I know you're right, but I'd love to know the reason why. A law has been broken. The police have been notified. They aren't in the revenue stream for content producers, so there is no financial motive for them to ignore it. And yet we both know that this will come to naught.

That's quite the financial motive to ignore it right there. Cops, prosecutors, and courts have limited budget to address crime. The last thing anyone in a position to enforce these laws really wants is a huge, expensive hassle that won't result in any offender going to prison -- especially for something that hasn't really harmed society in any big way. I mean, as someone outside of the revenue stream for producers, the police & prosecutors are going to find this far less important than a murderer or even a petty shoplifter.

This guy has basically announced his intent to bleed the system of money until he gets a law overturned. Why accommodate him when there's better things to do?

Re:How does that work?

[HybridJeff]

It might however result in precedent freeing them of an obligation to press charges in similar situations in the future, saving untold amounts of future work.

Re:How does that work?

[xenobyte]

It is actually legal to break or circumvent DRM in order to be able to 'listen' to the music or 'view' a movie... whatever that means...

Is is legal to break or circumvent DRM in order to use a specific device to view/listen to a CD/DVD?
Or do you have to use an off-the-rack CD or DVD player? - how about a software player on Linux or maybe BeOS or something else?

The common interpretation is that you have the right to use your 'common devices' (ipod, car stereo etc.) and to break the DRM if that is necessary but we do need a ruling as to the exact interpretation.

Re:How does that work?

[LBt1st]

That would require them to actually think ahead. Sadly, this is a world of instant gratification.

Re:How does that work?

[volpe]

The issue is that in Denmark there is the legal right to make copies, and in order to do that you must break the DRM.

This is stupid. The fact that you have a legal right to do something doesn't imply that you have the right to take whatever means are necessary to exercise that right even if you have to break other laws in the process. You have the right to make personal backup copies. Therefore, in the absence of DRM, nobody can sue or arrest you merely for making such copies. That doesn't mean you can break DRM, steal blank DVD-R's, or break into someone's house to use their computer, in order to do it. I have the right to go home at the end of the work day and watch Seinfeld reruns on the local TV station. That doesn't mean I have the right to drive 95 mph in order to get home in time to watch it. Should I try it and tell the cop I'm just exercising my right to watch Seinfeld and then see which legal principle wins out?

Re:How does that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should the police and prosecutors decide which laws should be enforced? That is a decision for the lawmakers to make, and if they don't want a law enforced, they revoke it, or don't make the law in the first place.

I understand the police prioritizing which crimes they go after, and prosecutors not prosecuting because there isn't sufficient evidence for a conviction, but the crime has been reported and they know who the perpetrator is and where the evidence is, in this situation there should be an obligation to arrest and prosecute the perpetrator for his crime. And if doing so for stupid crimes causes problems for the police they should complain to the people responsible for the laws so they can be changed/revoked.

Re:How does that work?

[DaleSwanson]

If the government can pass laws that restrict you from being about to exercise your rights then what good are rights? The only way to make your lawful backup copies is to unlawfully break the DRM. In the US we have the right to freedom of speech. Should the government be able to come up with same law that effectively outlaws speech (say a law the prohibits you from making any sounds in public), while claiming that you still have the right, it's just illegal to exercise it.

As for your example about Seinfeld. As far as I can tell you don't have any legal rights to go home and watch Seinfeld. Even if you did, breaking the speed limit isn't the only way you could exercise that right. Sure you could put yourself in a situation where it was (as in you are 30 miles away and the show starts in 20 minutes). The key difference here is that you, not the government, put yourself in a position where the only way to exercise that right was to break the law.

If you did have the legal right to watch Seinfeld at your home, and the government required you be somewhere at a specific time, and that there was no way for you to legally get to your home in time to watch Seinfeld, then you'd have an argument that the government was preventing your from exercising your right.

Re:How does that work?

[Valdrax]

It might however result in precedent freeing them of an obligation to press charges in similar situations in the future, saving untold amounts of future work.

Sorry for the late reply, but what obligation? If they had any sort of obligation, they'd be taking the case right now. The decision not to take the case shows that the obligation doesn't even exist.

This could well backfire

[puddles]

He could have made the copies but retained the DRM. Or, he could have made exact DVD copies with the DRM in place. OK, so it's not possible to make exact copies of dual-layered DVD but that's a technological issue, not legal.

I don't understand how the two laws are contradictory.

WHAT?

[Kingrames]

This Danish guy just... Turned himself in? My god, someone save him! Doesn't he know that cops EAT DANISHES?

Re:WHAT?

[The Grand Falloon]

You are my hero for today. Of course, we're only 14 minutes into today, but it ain't nothin'.

Re:WHAT?

[polle404]

Doesn't he know that cops EAT DANISHES?

In Denmark, cops eats 'Citronmåner' a nasty half circular sandcake with citrus glazing. http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citronhalvm%C3%A5ne (sorry, danish wikipedia)
oh, and 'Danishes' are called 'Wienerbrød' (Bread from Vienna) in Denmark, so technically, Danes are eating Austrians when in Denmark, but Danes when in US.

Confused yet?

And please support this guy, they've been trying to ignore him into oblivion for half a year, but some of us Danes are hoping he'll take it all the way. Hopefully it'll hit the EU parlament.

at the risk of beating a quote into the ground

[sammy baby]

"In Denmark, it's legal to make copies of commercial videos for backup or other private purposes. It's also illegal to break the DRM that restricts copying of DVDs. Deciding to find out which law mattered, Henrik Anderson reported himself for 100 violations of the DRM-breaking law (he ripped his DVD collection to his computer) and demanded that the Danish anti-piracy Antipiratgruppen do something about it. They promised him a response, then didn't respond. So now he's reporting himself to the police. He wants a trial, so that the legality of the DRM-breaking law can be tested in court."

Something is awesome in the state of Denmark. And it's Anderson.

These two laws are not contradictory

[Anonymous Coward]

A similar analogy is the US first amendment gives the right to free speech, but not the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. Think of it as a Venn diagram. Law A (right to make personal copies) says it's legal to do something. Law B (don't circumvent DRM) says you can't copy something that's been encrypted. Therefore it's legal to make personal copies of anything that doesn't have DRM. So it's legal to copy VHS (unless it has macrovision) or OTA broadcast but not DVD. Why is that so hard to understand?

Re:These two laws are not contradictory

[jacobbreynolds]

Im not sure whether thats correct when usually to have a law, one has to stipulate when, where and how the conflicts with an original law are dealt with. I'd also suggest that a judge would give precedence to newer laws in any court of law.

We really need someone with a law degree (at the very least) to clear this one up, hopefuly the guy has resolved this dillema otherwise he could be walking into a massive fine.

Re:These two laws are not contradictory

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case there is no direct conflict between the two laws. Here's another example: it is legal to drive if you have a valid driver's license. It is illegal to drive too fast (speeding). Neither law references the other because there is no direct conflict.

Medical but not food as a basic right is amusing

[tlambert]

"if you need a hospital or support for some physical limitation, you won't have to pay through your nose to get it, as this is seen as a basic human right"

Medical but not food as a basic right is amusing; same goes for breathing, water, sex, sleep, homeostasis, and excretion.

Only after you take care of these physiological needs do you get to the next tier of Maslow's hierarchy of needs:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

where "health" is located... and that's considered a safety issue, after security of: body, employment, resources, morality, and the family, only just edging out security of property.

-- Terry

Declaratory Judgement

[ikegami]

Isn't that what Declaratory Judgements are for? Or are those just for civil issues?

How to support Henrik Anderson

[jonaskoelker]

If you read the comments to the article, you'll note a link to Henrik's home page, http://enfrustreretforbruger.dk/ (which is in danish).

If you click "Sådan støtter du op om digitale kopier" (how to support digital copies), you'll see a page telling you to click the paypal link on the right hand side (of his home page) to donate any amount "for the running of enfrustreretforbruger.dk".

That would be an obvious way to support him. There may be laws against collecting money under a false pretence (A Time To Kill says there are such laws in the US, fwiw ^_^), so you may want to add a note to the paypal transfer saying "Hi. Here's some money for whatever purpose you like. You might want to spend them on lawyers etc." (although I suspect that if you give him money without saying that he can spend them for whatever he likes, you're the only one who can sue him for having taking your money under a false pretence. IANAL, TINLA, ask a ninja, etc.)

The support page at http://enfrustreretforbruger.dk/home/?p=882 also lists putting banners on your web page, reading his twitter feed, writing to the Danish ministry of culture ("minicult"? :D), and joining a project that Ekstra Bladet (a Danish tabloid news paper) is running where you can submit your own digital copying stories.

You can also send him an email and ask how you might help. Click on the "kontakt" (contact) link in the upper-right corner.

(I'm not going to post his email address here on slashdot since he'd get, well, slashdotted with mail. If you really want to get in touch with him, you can take the time to click a few links. Also, he posts his street address and phone number there, but encourages people to comment on his blog articles where relevant.)

I hope this helps, and that Google Translate can get you the rest of the way.

The argument *for* DRM

[jonaskoelker]

Here's the argument for DRM I've heard Ed Felten present. You might remember Ed Felten from a story where the music industry encouraged people to research their new watermarking schemes, which he did, and then they threatened him to not publish his findings because they didn't like them.

Anyways, here goes: Suppose I can make a movie for $22. Alice and Bob are each willing to pay (up to) $10 for a copy. Carol is willing to pay $5. Dave is not willing to pay any amount of money for it. Nobody else wants to watch it.

What should I charge per copy? If I charge $5, I make $15, a net loss. If I charge $10, I make $20, again a net loss. If I charge anything above $10, I make $0, and charging prices less than $10, except exactly $5, is dumb because I can up the price to match an amount a person is willing to make and thus make more money.

This assumes that at any price, Carol can buy and resell to Alice and Bob. But if that's no longer true, I can sell at $10 to Alice and Bob, and sell a $5 copy to Carol. That way, I make $25, a net profit of $3. Of course, if I charge $9.50/$9.50/$4.50 I make $1.50 and my customers each "profit" (in the sense of buying something cheaper than the largest price they were willing to buy at) $0.50, so I make society at large more prosperous.

Note that this only works when I can prevent Carol from reselling. I can do this with DRM that works. Of course, I can also do this with an invisible pink unicorn which is just as likely to exist, but that's not really the point. The point is that there is a rational argument for DRM.

My personal opinion is that people don't know what they really want (because they don't know when they get DRM, what it is, what it does, or what that means for them), that you-the-seller need DRM that works against everybody, that this DRM doesn't exist, and that DRM that does work against a large part of the population is not what people want (because it prevents them from doing what they really want---even just the legal subset), that ultimately the damage caused by DRM outweighs the gains, and that DRM that works effectively prevents DRM'ed copyrighted works from ever entering the public domain (i.e. it prevents We The People from exercising our natural and legal rights to enjoy those works).

In summary: Here's an argument. It's not the full story, and I think the counterarguments win, but here it is.

He also turned in public Danish television

[jonaskoelker]

He also turned in a Danish TV station, "TV2", for an article part of "TV2 Beep", which states that

You put a DVD in the machine, My Movies downloads cover art and information from the net, and rips the movie to your hard disk.

You can put your hundreds of DVDs in your attic [etc.]

(My translation from Danish to English, Henrik quotes the article on http://enfrustreretforbruger.dk/home/?p=812)

He claims that TV2 is indirectly encouraging illegal activity, and has reported them to the Anti-Piracy Group (Antipiratgruppen). As he says, not because he dislikes TV2, but to create a debate about these issues.

He has also reported DR (a tax-funded TV/Radio/media-house-thing) for "So Ein Ding"* (A Tech show, I assume), and PC World (a magazine) for indirectly encourage illegal activity (also, not because he dislikes them, but to start a debate).

(*German for "Such a thing", a reference to a line from an old Danish christmas TV show, "So ein Ding muss ich auch haben"--"I must also have such a thing")

On eating keyboards

[jonaskoelker]

or that you shouldn't eat your keyboard

If anyone fails to realise that you shouldn't eat your keyboards, I'll give you a hundred to one that person has never cleaned one.

Especially not one of mine :(

Law wording

[DrYak]

I don't know how the law is worded in Denmark, but in Switzerland you're explicitly allowed to break DRM if it stands in your way to exercices "fair-use" copies according to the copyright law.

The Denmark law wording could be explicit (as in Switzerland) or not clear enough (so you can't exclude that DRM breaking has to occur in order to exercice "fair-use"), so the whole test case might make sense, in order to create jurisprudence that DRM can legally be broken in order to create legal copies.

Re:Law wording

[qc_dk]

Well, the problem is one of a clash between a danish law and an EU law. The danish law gives you an explicit right to make a backup copy. In the old days you were also allowed to copy a friends cd you had borrowed(He couldn't copy it and give you a copy since that would be distributing).

The EU passed it's own version of the DMCA and that means all the member countries have to create similar legislation. And, because Denmark is the teacher's pet when it comes to passing legislation we were one of the first countries to put it into effect.

I'm no legal expert, but I believe that the EU law will weigh more heavily if it goes to court. But, the danish national character being pragmatic, I guess the police is just going to dismiss the case, on the grounds of it being silly to to accuse yourself.

We can hope, however, that his stunt will get the attention of someone in parliament. They might be more willing to look into copyright issues after the success of the pirateparty in the EU election in sweden. It would just have been better if he had waited another ½ a year until we get close to election time.

Re:Law wording

[Jherico]

Not if Switzerland implements the EU Copyright Directive. From Wikipedia:

Unlike Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which only prohibits circumvention of access control measures, InfoSoc Directive also prohibits circumvention of copy protection measures, making it potentially more restrictive. In both DMCA and InfoSoc Directive, production, distribution etc. of equipment used to circumvent both access and copy-protection is prohibited. Under DMCA, a potential user who wants to avail herself of an alleged fair use privilege to crack copy protection (which is not prohibited) would have to do it herself since no equipment would lawfully be marketed for that purpose. Under InfoSoc Directive, this possibility would not be available since circumvention of copy protection is illegal

Re:Law wording

[qc_dk]

But Switzerland isn't in the EU. So why would they?

The only reason they have any DRM laws at all is probably that WIPO is located in Geneva.

Re:Law wording

[Jherico]

But Denmark IS in the EU, so why would their copyright law be worded like the Swiss one?

Re:Law wording

[qc_dk]

It isn't. There is an old law on copytight that specifically gives the right to copy in some cases. Then there is a new law concerning DRM that follows the EU copyright directive. These two laws are in conflict. I'm just afraid that if this goes to court the EU-inspired law will take precedence.

Direct democracy

[DrYak]

We don't live in a true democracy -- a true democracy would be an absolute nightmare. {...} Pure democracy = mob rule, plain and simple.

Switzerland practice direct democracy, and apart from some idiocies now and then (such as last week-end's ban on minaret) is doing pretty well.
It hasn't busted into civil war or whatever other evil you're afraid of.

The people even periodically vote *tax increases*.

the northerners have found the tao

[Anonymous Coward]

there were burning monks and prague students, there was the little man bulldozing a whole fucking town and some other guy smacking two skyscrapers and all it takes for a dane is to confess for a petty crime. outrage!! that's twice as badass as is drawing a caricature.

Re:Medical but not food as a basic right is amusin

[Anonymous Coward]

That probably only tells you that in Scandinavia the prospect of dying from hunger is so remote that it doesn't even occur to Scandinavians that you need a right for that.

Re: Probably not that high fine

[qc_dk]

Plus Denmark being in the scary 'socialist'/communist commune of scandinavia if we bankrupted a person for the rest of his life, the rest of us tax payers would just have to support him for the rest of his life. Making the procedure rather pointless.

Re:Medical but not food as a basic right is amusin

[Anonymous Coward]

Who says food and shelter arent's seen as basic rights in Scandinavia? They are.
And sex? Sorry; that matter you'll have to take into your own hands.

Re:Medical but not food as a basic right is amusin

[qc_dk]

Ah, but you see in scandinavia food is already seen as a basic human right. So we have just added health in there as well.

On another note why is sex in the first tier? Surely that is not a basic need?

I was trying to pass the car on the horizon!

[bussdriver]

I wasn't speeding, I am allowed to speed to pass somebody and that somebody was on the horizon. How can I pass them if I don't drive faster than they do officer? ;-)

Civil disobedience

[Pseudonym]

Gandhi didn't make a bit while of salt to put on his lunch while nobody was watching. Rosa Parks didn't sit at the front of the black section of the bus by accident, completely unaware that she'd be asked to move when the white section filled up. John Gilmore didn't turn up at the airport with no ID because he'd forgotten to bring it.

If you have reason to believe your life may be in danger, by all means break a bad law in secret. But really, most of us have no excuse for such cowardice. Real civil disobedience is breaking a bad law and facing the consequences with your eyes open. Good on you, Henrik Anderson.

Reminds me of the Scopes Trial

[Dudeman_Jones]

The Scopes trial started pretty much this way too

Re:Medical but not food as a basic right is amusin

[anss123]

That probably only tells you that in Scandinavia the prospect of dying from hunger is so remote that it doesn't even occur to Scandinavians that you need a right for that.

I remember this story about a visiting dignitary from Kenya. They talked about Norway in WW2 and how terrible it was during war due to starvation. He was surprised that there had been a starvation in Norway and they went on about how they had to eat bread baked with phloem because they couldn't get corn. The Kenyan then said "that's not a starvation, that's not having your favorite food."

Probably an urban legend though.

Re:Medical but not food as a basic right is amusin

[AK Marc]

Medical but not food as a basic right is amusing;

Yes, it is silly. Food needs to be taken care of first. I agree so strongly that I will push for the US to move towards a plan for helping people get food before we finish getting health care. I was thinking, since it would be impractical for the government so deliver the food personally, that those in need could just get vouchers for the food, and get those in regular stores. Personally, I would start the program with coupons that would be exchanged for the good in question, in common sizes in the stores, and just have one item per coupon. The sheets of coupons would look suspiciously like postal stamps, so we could just call it Marc's Food Stamp program. But not until the government provides basic support for food would I consider any medical care.

Swiss DMCA

[DrYak]

Not if Switzerland implements the EU Copyright Directive.

As stated by others, we are not members of EU

Under InfoSoc Directive, this possibility would not be available since circumvention of copy protection is illegal

The law making circumvention illegal could be worded in a way which contain exception for "fair-use".

Case in point : The Swiss law,
in French and high German (sorry no english translation).
Art 39a, paragraphs 1 and 3 make it illegal to circumvent copy protection and make mean for said circumvention illegal - as in InfoSoc Directive.
*BUT* paragraph 4 states that this interdiction doesn't apply to people circumventing protection to make lawful usage of the media.
(So in Switzerland, it is Ok to break BlueRay's AACS and BD+ protection when trying to play a BlueRay movie on Linux, because these protections stay in the way to legally use the movie)

In the case of the EU, there's still some controversies, because InfoSoc tries to define a strict list of such exceptions.

Nonetheless, this guys' usage follow the exception 2.b (private copies) and 3.o (pre-existing law - such as "fair-use" exceptions of copyright law) of article 5 of InfoSoc.

The argument for DRM is nonsensical

[alexo]

Note that this only works when I can prevent Carol from reselling. I can do this with DRM that works.

Why would you want to prevent Carol from reselling a movie but not from reselling a refrigerator?

Because I think I can...

[jonaskoelker]

Why would you want to prevent Carol from reselling a movie but not from reselling a refrigerator?

Well, as a seller, I always want to price discriminate (that is, sell the same thing at different prices to different people), because it always benefits me, no matter what I'm selling.

It sometimes also benefits society, as I outlined above: society gets the benefit of me making the film (which is a benefit, as it costs $22 to make and society is willing to pay $25 for it). I chose the numbers so that this was the case; I could have chosen the numbers differently.

Now, to your question: why do we see DRM on movies and not refrigerators? Well, because it's possible to put DRM on computer systems*, but not really on physical objects. If I could make sure the refrigerator only ran on power outlets in your home, I might be tempted to sell you a refrigerator you couldn't resell, such that I can price discriminate. But I can't (at least I don't know how).

* Whether it actually works is a different question.

Re:Because I think I can...

[alexo]

Actually, the doctrine of first sale ensures your right to resell the refrigerator.

Hm, a rather stupid idea

[angel'o'sphere]

He wants a trial, so that the legality of the DRM-breaking law can be tested in court.

The difference between US system of law and most european countries is: we have a predetermined law and not a "law by court ruling".

Of course the law in denmark is legal ... technical speaking. A judge can not "overrule" the law, except it is unconstitutional and then usually a special jury decides that.

What a judge can / could do is to define if the law (that specific paragraph) is to be used in that particular case. At least that is in layman terms how law works in germany. As soon as a law is signed and active no judge can say: well I ignore it because bla bla bla ... as it is active it is always valid.

angel'o'sphere

How about... I give you the finger

[Anonymous Coward]

... and you give me my phone call?
Agent Smith: Mr. Anderson... you disappoint me.
Henrik: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. I know my rights. I want my phone call.

Re:at the risk of beating a quote into the ground

[Anonymous Coward]

(Agent Smith voice)Mister Anderson.........

TFA gets his name wrong

[Buchenskjoll]

His name is Henrik Andersen, not Anderson. This is his website (in Danish): httt://www.enfrustreretforbruger.dk

In The Netherlands they would too...

[thrill12]

...famous case here is that of Teun van der Keuken, who turned himself in in the Netherlands for eating chocolate of which he knew and could proof it was produced by ('modern') slaves in Africa. The prosecutor refused to prosecute, and he had to invoke a special law to sue the prosecutor to force him to sue. In the end even that was turned down, however. The judge did express his sympathy with the cause (abandon the sale of slavery supported chocolate in Dutch super markets). He decided to start his own chocolate company to make things better - which does sell slave-free chocolate -, and it is getting results now... Perhaps the Dane should consider starting his own big movie studio and sell things while actually encouraging copying :)

Analog or Digital

[Anonymous Coward]

So - is there anything in the law stating that the allowed copy is presumed a "DIGITAL" one ?
If I made an analogue copy - would I be able to conform to both clauses ?
I would obviously be using the DRM in order to play back the media - but I would NOT be circumventing it.

Do they have estoppel?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought if a law is not enforced, then something ... can't later enforce it.
Secondly, there is usually a principle that damages must occur - well for negligence at least.
Got to have a few more implications.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but if doing A is legal, but to do A you need to break law B - doesn't that make you liable for breaking B?

Thus for example, burning books is legal, but to do that you'd need to start a public outdoor bonfire which is not legal. You'd be fined for the bonfire and since burning books is legal it's just pushed to one side? (no ones cares if you don't break the law, but only the laws that you break people care about)

Re:at the risk of beating a quote into the ground

[Jedi Alec]

But Mr Anderson, how can you make a phonecall...when you can't speak?

Aspirin does not demonstrate this

[mykdavies]

"As part of war reparations specified in the 1919 Treaty of Versailles following Germany's surrender after World War I, Aspirin (along with Heroin) lost its status as a registered trademark in France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, where it became a generic name and can be spelled in lower case.[18][19][20] Today, "aspirin" is a generic word in Australia, France, India, Ireland, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States.[21] Aspirin, with a capital "A", remains a registered trademark of Bayer in Germany, Canada, Mexico, and in over 80 other countries, where the trademark is owned by Bayer, using a uniform chemical formula for all markets, but adapting the packaging and physical aspects for each.[22][23][24] Since the word "aspirin" has become generic in many countries, Bayer has embarked on an aggressive trademark protection campaign in the United States and owns more than 1,000 U.S. trademarks on various pharmaceutical drugs.[25]" from wikipedia

Temporary == Limited times

[Anonymous Coward]

Temporary == Limited times

Therefore why not use the same reasoning that the US supremes used to justify extended copyright times: it's limited time because it isn't expressly infinite. So any copy you make isn't expressly infinite in duration too, therefore temporary.

Were I him...

[JerryLove]

I would have turned myself in for 1 instance, not 100.

Andersen, not Anderson

[brucmack]

His name is Henrik Andersen, not Henrik Anderson - both the summary and article are wrong. Anderson is the Swedish spelling and as such is not common in Denmark.