Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

'DVD Jon' Acquitted On All Counts in DeCSS Case

Posted by timothy on Tue Jan 07, 2003 07:59 AM
from the minor-victory-for-common-sense dept.
benh57 writes "Jon Johansen, the author of DeCSS, has been acquitted on all charges by the Norwegian Supreme Court.' Johansen and his defense attorney Halvor Manshaus won on all counts, with the Oslo court ruling that Johansen did nothing wrong when he helped cracked the code on a DVD that was his own personal property.'" Here's Aftenposten's story, in English. Read on below for some more links, and please post others in the comments. Update: 01/07 14:02 GMT by T : Reader Torstein Grotnes writes with a correction: The court which cleared Johansen is not Norway's Supreme Court, but rather "the 'tingrett' which is two steps below 'supreme court' level."

Here's John Leyden's story at the Register about the ruling.

LarsBT links to this Reuters newsflash and points out that since Johansen's arrest, "Norway has introduced legislation similar to the European Unions directive on copyright [pdf], making it illegal to circumvent any copyright protection - making it highly unlikely that he would be found not guilty under these new rules."

An anonymous reader writes with some background (or do a search on Slashdot for DeCSS ;)): "Read the DVD-Jon lawsuit story here and here" and notes that "'the prosecution decided to charge Johansen with a data break-in, rather than handle the matter as a copyright case.' The court said that DeCSS could be used both legally and illegally and referred to similar cases outside the computing industry. The court said it was difficult to conclude on Johansen's intentions with DeCSS, but there was no conclusive evidence."

+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Hip Hip . . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gabrill (556503) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:01AM (#5031689)
    Hooray!
    • absolutely.

      this could make me to believe in justice again :-)
    • by anonicon (215837) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:38AM (#5031872)
      Enjoy it while it lasts, Jon was found innocent because the laws in Norway haven't been updated to be in concert with the EUCD (Europe's DMCA), which Norway will have to be part of. Once the EUCD is implemented across Europe, his actions would be criminal and he would go to jail. FWIW, the American government is pushing hard for it to be implemented there. For more information on the EUCD, check out http://ukcdr.org/issues/eucd. [ukcdr.org] For good examples of how the DMCA sucks, check out the EFF's unintended consequences list. [eff.org]

      Peace,
      Chuck
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07 2003, @09:07AM (#5032058)
        Nope, no, nei, wrong, error!

        Norway does not have to implement any EU directives whatsoever. Why? Because they are not a member of the EU

      • by Zemran (3101) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @12:43PM (#5033764) Homepage Journal
        You assume that the EUCD will become law... Although effected by business most European governments are democracies (unlike the US where only the super rich and big business run the country) and the same pressures do not work. I accept that Blair is too busy bending over for Bush to consider not doing as asked but Europe is much bigger than one country.
  • by unterderbrucke (628741) <unterderbrucke@yahoo.com> on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:01AM (#5031691)
    The judge realized that information wanted to be free!
      • Indeed... (Score:3, Insightful)

        I'm quite certain the phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt".
      • by Anarchofascist (4820) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:17AM (#5031762) Homepage Journal
        ".. in the U.S. courts, in criminal trials, it's "beyond a shadow of doubt". If there wasn't enough evidence to rule in favour of guilt, then by law, he is innocent."

        The judges (according the the Aftenpost article) went one step further than that and said there was "no evidence" to convict. This implies (to my untrained legal eye, which nonetheless is legally bound under pain of imprisonment to obey every single law in the land, every E.U. directive, and every libel law in Australia, because ignorance of the law is no excuse) that none of the evidence provided by the prosecution would lead the judges to convict Jon.

        One small step forward for justice. That feels like such a hollow thing to say when thousands have disappeared from US streets to be held secretly (and legally) in internment camps.
              • Re:What a surprise! (Score:5, Informative)

                by rebbie (165490) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @09:35AM (#5032263)
                What about the case of Yasser Esam Hamdi [cnn.com] a U.S. Citizen born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana now being held in Guantanimo. He certainly is a "legitimate citizen." Nobody is questioning that fact....

                • "The Pentagon source said Hamdi's status as a U.S. citizen will not affect the government's ability to try him as a "battlefield detainee" -- rather than trying him in civilian courts, like Walker Lindh."

                It seems to me that the U.S. government is doing what it wants to do and is making the rules up as it goes along. And yes -- the "media" is buying this and regurgitating just what it's being fed.

              • by EllisDees (268037) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @01:04PM (#5033925)
                >Do you really think that the media wouldn't be ALL OVER an instance where the government has taken a legitimate citizen?

                Have you heard this one? [charlotte.com]

                "Five months later, the alleged proprietor of a small-time document mill is at the center of what appears to be the only criminal case of its kind in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks -- one in which secret evidence has been presented against the defendant. Atriss remains in jail, now on $500,000 bond -- an amount consistent with a murder charge -- but prosecutors will not say why he poses such a serious risk or give him a chance to respond."

                This is going too far. Our government is pissing all over the constitution. We are *not* at war until congress makes a declaration of war, and even then, US citizens have the right to see the evidence that is being used against them. I hope every one of you dumbasses who voted for the dumbass currently in charge is happy with the dictatorship that's forming right before your eyes.
  • Norway (Score:5, Interesting)

    by muyuubyou (621373) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:04AM (#5031706)
    Thank God this guys is norwegian and didn't drop by the USA.

    I wonder what happened if he was american

    Sklyarov anyone?
      • Re:Norway (Score:4, Informative)

        by skahshah (603640) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:11AM (#5031734)
        Sklyarov never got acquitted. He made a deal. Everybody knows what it was. Not exactly the same thing.
      • Re:Norway (Score:4, Insightful)

        by macdaddy357 (582412) <macdaddy357@hotmail.com> on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:24AM (#5031806)
        Elcomsoft eventually was acquitted. Nothing has been done to compensate Dmitry Sklyarov for the time he spent behind bars. Adobe's gross assets, plus 10% would be a good start.
        • Re:Norway (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Floyd Turbo (84609) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:45AM (#5031901) Journal
          I certainly agree that Adobe should pay, and pay heavily, for the harm they did to Sklyarov and Elcomsoft.

          The same should apply to the harm that the MPAA did to Johansen.
      • Re:Norway (Score:5, Informative)

        by videodriverguy (602232) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:26AM (#5031814) Homepage
        Sklyarov wasn't acquitted - he agreed to be a witness for the prosecution in return for immunity. That is a BIG difference.

        His company was acquitted, not him. Even if they were, he still spent a certain amount of time in a US jail, away from his family. He will never receive compensation for that time.

        So, it seems that the USA and Norway are not equal. Especially as I don't remember a case where Norway attempted to use it's laws against someone not even in the country.
  • by rokka (631038) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:04AM (#5031707)
    all in norweigian... http://www.digi.no/dtno.nsf/pub/md20030107114651_q iz_14357518
  • Very nice... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stikves (127823) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:05AM (#5031708) Homepage
    Yet, I still wonder if this conclusion can be used against DMCA itself.
  • Not supreme court (Score:5, Informative)

    by DeeZee (84216) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:05AM (#5031710) Homepage
    The ruling came from the norwegian "Tingrett", which is one of the lower courts. Hence, an appeal will almost certainly be made before the two week deadline is up.
    It ain't over till the fat geek burps...
            • Re:Not supreme court (Score:5, Informative)

              by 91degrees (207121) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:51AM (#5031945) Journal
              In countries like Sweden and Norway, you cant sue McDonnalds for 100M$ for spilling hot coffee on yourself :)

              To be fair to the person who did this, she only sued because the coffee was abnormally hot (third degree burns requiring a skin graft). McDonalds knew about the risk. She initally just wanted McDonalds to pay her medical bills. McDonalds refused.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:06AM (#5031711)
    The bastard never wrote DeCSS, he merely wrote a GUI. This is a sad day.
  • by Xner (96363) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:06AM (#5031712) Homepage
    Some people's enthousiasm may be dulled from the fact that this ruling only applies to the coutry of Norway. Fear not, I think this will have subtle but far-reaching consequences, especially for those of us in the EU.

    Even though Norway is not part of the EU, I'm sure people over here will pay attention and (hopefully) it will help sink that DMCA-like abomination the EC has been mulling over for a few years now for good.

    It's happening. People are starting to pay attention. With most households owning a DVD player, things like "region code" are filtering down to the masses, and people are a lot more receptive when you attempt to explain how CSS, end-to-end encryption and the DMCA affect what they can (and are allowed) to do with digital media they payed for.

    And most people do not like it one bit.

    • by Cally (10873) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @09:38AM (#5032291) Homepage
      I'm a UK citizen, and one of the "John Doe"s on the California deCSS case (#13, lucky for some) (cited for redistributing deCSS.) Congratulations to Jon, let's hope that this is the start of the Law waking up to, and acknowledging, fair use and common sense. My mirror's still up [demon.co.uk] despite various nastygrams from the ISP prompted by bullying tactics by the MPAA (presumably, the complainant was anonymous but who else could it have been?) and the EUCD directive which is currently on hold for a month or two [eurorights.org]. Is it too much to hope for to wonder whether this case could lead to a rethink of the whole DMCA-like tenor that European law has been heading in of late?
  • Personal property (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LunarOne (91127) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:06AM (#5031715) Homepage
    Oslo court ruling that Johansen did nothing wrong when he helped cracked the code on a DVD that was his own personal property
    We can be sure that the movie industry will be looking for a way to make it such that DVD's are not our "personal property".
    • Re:Personal property (Score:4, Informative)

      by ccady (569355) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @09:00AM (#5032005) Journal
      The California courts have a precedent in saying that, despite the attempts by software makers to claim that their software is merely licensed, the user can treat it as a sale nonetheless.

      Article here [olemiss.edu], here [216.239.39.100] and here [acm.org]. (Three ways to get to the same article.)
    • by Bonewalker (631203) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @09:54AM (#5032386)
      The funny thing is the movie industry will also have to pay him for the rights to his story.

      The sad thing is no one will watch it except for the underground hackers who have the skills to hack the CSS and watch it on their Linux box.

  • Correcting errors (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:10AM (#5031727)
    Norway has introduced legislation similar to the European Unions directive on copyright, (..)

    This is incorrect. We have _not_ implemented INFOSOC in our laws yet. Therefore, Jon Johansen has _not_ been found innocent under a INFOSOC-"enabled" law. We probably will have to, though, due to WIPO. :-(

    Also, this was _not_ in the Norwegian equivalent of a Supreme Court. It was in one of the lowest courts. Økokrim (the ones prosecuting) has 14 days to ask for the case to processed again, in a higher court.

    • Re:Correcting errors (Score:5, Informative)

      by infolib (618234) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:33AM (#5031844)
      This is incorrect. We have _not_ implemented INFOSOC in our laws yet. Therefore, Jon Johansen has _not_ been found innocent under a INFOSOC-"enabled" law.

      Indeed. The INFOSOC directive is also known as the European Copyright directive. (EUCD) [ukcdr.org] The status for implementation in the different states is here [wiki.ael.be]

      We probably will have to, though, due to WIPO. :-(

      The Wipo Copyright Treaty (WCT) [wipo.org] is not the main problem. If you look at article 11, the "technological measures" (DRM) need not be "protected" against circumvention if it restricts acts that are "permitted by law".

      The problem is that the EU (due to intensive lobbying and lack of citizen attention) has massively overimplemented the WCT. Thus the EUCD art. 6 demands that member states forbid circumvention even for many otherwise legal purposes.

      Please note that the EUCD was passed years ago, and has to be implemented in national law. (Deadline Dec 22 2002, only Denmark and Greece made it.) That is, unless somebody challenges it before the European Court for being invalid. (I hope...)
  • The verdict (Score:3, Informative)

    by Avakado (520285) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:10AM (#5031730)
    The entire verdict is available in Norwegian here [domstol.no]
  • GET READY (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BillGod (639198) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:13AM (#5031739)
    Now HOLYWOOD will be wanting us to "license" DVD's from them for our own use. That way they can maintain ownership of the DVD itself.
  • by Zayin (91850) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:13AM (#5031743)
    The real showdown will be when Norway implements the EUCD directive. Then this verdict could be rather irrelevant as the new laws could make such actions illegal anyway.

  • Of course... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EvilTwinSkippy (112490) <yoda AT etoyoc DOT com> on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:18AM (#5031773) Homepage Journal
    This simply shows that at least in Norway decrypting a DVD is not data theft. OTOH, since the prosecution did not try to charge him with copyright circumvention we still have no ruling on the matter.
  • Infosoc (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bish.dk (547663) <haas.itu@dk> on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:19AM (#5031779) Homepage
    LarsBT links to this Reuters newsflash and points out that since Johansen's arrest, "Norway has introduced legislation similar to the European Unions directive on copyright [pdf], making it illegal to circumvent any copyright protection - making it highly unlikely that he would be found not guilty under these new rules."

    Norway is not part of the EU, but still takes most new EU-laws and directives and implements them into their own law. The irony of them implementing the Infosoc-directive (Euro-DMCA) mentioned above is that they're almost the only ones doing it [slashdot.org]. So far, only Denmark (*sigh*) and Greece has implemented the directive.
  • by WPIDalamar (122110) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:19AM (#5031782) Homepage
    This isn't really a victory. It should have never gone this far in the first place. Calling it a victory is like saying someone who got hit by a car and survived was lucky ... if they were really lucky, they wouldn't have been hit in the first place.
  • Victory (Score:5, Interesting)

    by E-Rock-23 (470500) <lostprophyt AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:41AM (#5031878) Homepage Journal
    And somewhere, echoing through the mountains of Norway, the Hallilujia Chorus is heard...

    Score one for the good guys. This counts as a big win for Linux users, as we now have a case to cite. While that might not mean much here in the United States, it is a shininhg example that not all circumvention software is intended for use in pirating.

    It also marks a major slap in the face for the MPAA, who needs one at the moment. They've been throwing their weight around too much the last few years, and it's about time they got put in their place. Now, all we need is a similar precident here in the US, and our rights to do what we want (privately, of course) with things that we buy will be ever the slightest bit safer.

    I happen to have the DeCSS code (and no, I won't send it along, so don't ask). I haven't compiled it yet. I kept it around in the event that my DVD ROM would go to hell (which it did), so that I could boot into Linux and simply watch my DVDs. I wasn't going to rip them, burn them and ship them off to my friends. I was just going to watch them. Now, I happened upon a DVD player for free, so I really don't need it at the moment. It's just nice to have around, just in case.
  • by Sander_ (55929) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:41AM (#5031883)
    It might well be that our capital is Oslo and the people in Oslo tend to think nothing ever happens outside the capital. However, Jon was not aquitted by the supreme court, but their local county level court in the capital; the county court used precedents from the norwegian supreme court in their findings.

    Given the finding of the court it is unlikely that the prosecution will use their oportunity for appeal, firstly to the local circuit court, and from there into the supreme court.
  • Other stories... (Score:4, Informative)

    by randomErr (172078) <tekratNO@SPAM2d.com> on Tuesday January 07 2003, @08:56AM (#5031983) Journal
    Other stories on DVD Jon:
    CNN Europe [cnn.com]
    Neowin(Netherlands) [neowin.net]
    ABC News [go.com]
    Google News [google.com]

    History of DVD Jon:
    DeCSS show trial opens in Oslo [theregister.co.uk]
    The Register, UK - 10 Dec 2002 ... that carry a maximum sentence of up to two years in jail or huge fines and compensation
    for his role in creating and distributing the DVD cracking DeCSS ...
    AllegedDeCSS hacker faces two years [zdnet.co.uk]
    ZDNet.co.uk, UK - 10 Dec 2002 ... Johansen became an Internet icon three years ago after he co-authored the DeCSS
    utility that unwraps the copy protection found on DVDs, known as Content ...
    No jail time sought for teen in Norway DeCSS trial [itworld.com]
    IT World - 17 Dec 2002
    In closing arguments Monday, prosecutors called for Jon Lech Johansen, the 19-year
    old Norwegian charged with using and distributing DeCSS, a program that can ...
    Prosecutors: Confiscate DeCSS hacker's computers [hollywoodreporter.com]
    Hollywood Reporter, CA - 16 Dec 2002 ... Johansen has said his software, DeCSS, was necessary to watch movies he already
    owned on his Linux-based computer, for which DVD software had not yet been ... [2600.com]
    DECSS AUTHOR JON JOHANSEN PLEADS INNOCENT TO COMPUTER BREAK-IN
    2600 News - 09 Dec 2002
    Jon Johansen, author of the DeCSS computer program which removes the encryption
    from DVD video discs, has pleaded innocent in a Norwegian courtroom to ...

    Stories on DeCSS in the US:
    Supreme Court won't hear DeCSS case [com.com]
    ZDNet.com - 06 Jan 2003 ... The effect is that Pavlovich is no longer barred from distributing the DeCSS descrambling
    utility by a court order, but he could be sued again if he decides to ...
    Supreme Court Withdraws Stay in DVD Encryption Case [internet.com] - InternetNews.com
    US court lifts order in DVD decryption case [out-law.com] - Out-Law.com
    Update To Pavlovich DeCSS case; Stay Lifted [slashdot.org] - Slashdot

  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @09:14AM (#5032107) Homepage
    The article refers to "Norwegian laws that protect what a consumer can do with his or her own property."

    We need some laws like this in the United States.

    Laws that say "I bought it, I own it, it's MINE."

    More and more, corporations are attempting to retain control of their products after consumers have purchased them. This is not only unfair to consumers, it is profoundly contrary to the American tradition of property ownership.

    (And, yes, I understand the distinction between "purchasing" and "licensing." I object to the imposition of legal fictions that assumes "licensing" in situations where the commonsense reality is that the transaction is a purchase).
    • by Alomex (148003) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @09:39AM (#5032297) Homepage
      The article refers to "Norwegian laws that protect what a consumer can do with his or her own property."

      We need some laws like this in the United States.


      Actually they do exist, hence the need for DMCA to turn them back. About a decade ago, a publishing executive told me they had never prosecuted people who photocopy books because lawyers had adviced them that property rights in the US likely allowed you to do so, and even to sell those copies so long as you didn't profit. "the last thing we need is a legal ruling making it official and unambiguously legal".

      He also mentioned that in most other countries this would not be the case, but that "the US has one of the strongest personal property laws out there".

      • by Sodium Attack (194559) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @12:26PM (#5033637)
        Actually they do exist, hence the need for DMCA to turn them back. About a decade ago, a publishing executive told me they had never prosecuted people who photocopy books because lawyers had adviced them that property rights in the US likely allowed you to do so, and even to sell those copies so long as you didn't profit.

        Not very likely. Although whether one is profiting from copying does have some bearing on whether copying falls into the "fair use" exception to copyright, it is not the only thing considered. Copying entire books and selling them is almost certainly not fair use and thus illegal (if the book is copyrighted and you do not have permission of the copyright owner) even if you do not profit from it.

        There could be a number of other reasons why the publisher doesn't sue--most likely, because someone making and selling a handful of copies doesn't dent the publisher's profits enough to make it worth the cost of sending lawyers after the person doing the copying. If some organization were making and selling thousands of unauthorized copies--even if they were doing it without profit--you can bet the legitimate publisher would go after them, and the publisher would win, too.

        Also, keep in mind that unlike trademarks, copyrights can be selectively enforced without diluting the copyright--if they choose not to prosecute some copyright violations, it does not affect their copyright.

        IANAIPLBIDWWTOARB. (I am not an intellectual property lawyer but I do work with them on a regular basis.)
  • by infolib (618234) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @09:28AM (#5032197)
    Since a lot of posts in this thread are about the European Copyright Directive (EUCD) [ukcdr.org] I would like to give a brief summary:

    The EUCD has been passed. This means that the member states must implement it in their national legislation. They should have done so by Dec 22 '02 but only Denmark and Greece made it. Status reports here. [wiki.ael.be] Norway's not a member of the EU.

    The EUCD can be overturned in two ways:
    1. In the European Court.
    This means that somebody challenges the directive for being invalid under the EU treaty. It could be. [www.ivir.nl]
    It's hard to get a case before the European Court, so this would probably need backing by one of the member states. This is being looked into, but it's not easy.

    2. Through normal legislative process.
    The EUCD article 12(1) [ukcdr.org] states that "Not later than 22 December 2004" the Commission shall report on the application of the directive. Regarding article 6 (The bad one) "it shall examine in particular whether that Article confers a sufficient level of protection and whether acts which are permitted by law are being adversely affected by the use of effective technological measures [DRM]. Where necessary, in particular to ensure the functioning of the internal market ... it shall submit proposals for amendments to this Directive."

    We definitely do intend to influence that report and have article 6 amended, but the entertainment industry is doing the same, so this isn't easy either.
    On the other hand the directive was forged with very little public attention to article 6, so nearly all attention on the case would be in our favour.
    • by yggdrazil (261592) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @11:06AM (#5032875)
      Norway is not a member of the EU, but we are a member of the European common market through the EEA agreement. The EEA agreement commits Norway to implement all applicable EU law into its own without delay. Norway implements EU law into its own faster than any of the other 18 EU and EEA countries.

      But we have no influence on EU law, and can't vote for representaties which may influence the process. It's stupid, but that's what you get with a EU-ignorant population and a referendum.

      Read-only laws, we have no write permission. Activists which are EU citizens will have to try to change the EUCD for us, through their elected representatives.
  • by nhavar (115351) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @09:29AM (#5032213) Homepage
    If a thief breaks into your home and steals your CD/DVD collection should it be the MPAA/RIAA that files the report with the police. After all it's the MPAA/RIAA property that you are just licensing. Should it not then be their responsibility to replace your media since you still license it.
  • by hysterion (231229) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @09:47AM (#5032339) Homepage
    First Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea.

    Now Norway.

    Is Massachusetts next? This is scary.

    • by nordicfrost (118437) on Tuesday January 07 2003, @09:14AM (#5032109)
      Acutally, the manufacturer of the Xing DVD player could sue Jon for damages. They have, without dispute, lost A LOT of money after this incident. Not only was their CSS-keys retracted from the market, they also had to pay a fine to the DVD CCA. They are the real losers in this ordeal.