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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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:First

[Jaysyn]

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

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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: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

[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: 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.

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.

Lightweight!

[Locke2005]

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

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?

missing tag for this article

[Errtu76]

IANAL .. really

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?

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

[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: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

[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.

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: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...

What I want to know is

[lanadapter]

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

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

[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.

WHAT?

[Kingrames]

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

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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: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.

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.

Were I him...

[JerryLove]

I would have turned myself in for 1 instance, not 100.