Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

'DVD Jon' Acquitted On All Counts in DeCSS Case 466

Posted by timothy 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."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'DVD Jon' Acquitted On All Counts in DeCSS Case More

'DVD Jon' Acquitted On All Counts in DeCSS Case

Comments Filter:

  • Hip Hip . . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Gabrill ( 556503 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:01AM (#5031689)
    Hooray!

    • Re:Hip Hip . . . (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dunkelfalke ( 91624 )
      absolutely.

      this could make me to believe in justice again :-)

    • Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:4, Informative)

      by anonicon ( 215837 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:38AM (#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

      • Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I don't know the laws in your country, but in Norway you get judged by the laws that are working at the moment you do something. The goverment can not pass any laws later and make you a criminal for what you have done when the law wasnt working.
        If Norway laws cet updated acording to the EUCD, and you have broken the EUCD before it was working in Norway, you will of course get judged by former Norwegian laws, not any new laws.
        • That's true in America as well. The Constitution specifically forbids ex post facto laws, meaning that you can't pass a law and then convict people of breaking it before it was enacted.

      • Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:07AM (#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

        • Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:3, Informative)

          by LarsG ( 31008 )
          Yes, yup, ja, right, correct!

          Sorry that I have to tell you this, but Norway's deal with EU through the EEC deal force Norway to implement a lot of EU directives - including the EUCD.

          The Norwegian Department of Culture is expected to release a law proposal in february. If you want to do something about it, join Electronic Frontier Norway. [www.efn.no]
      • AFAIK Norway is not a part of the EU [eu.int], so they do not have to adjust their laws an accordance of the EU.

        They might implement it (in this case, I don't see why they should), but they certainly don't have to by any treaty.
      • Even if Norway were in the EU, Jon couldn't go to jail -- EU law is purely civil, not criminal. So the most he'd be faced with is a whopping fine.

      • Re:Hip Hip . . .(not) (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Zemran ( 3101 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @01:43PM (#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.

  • What a surprise! (Score:4, Funny)

    by unterderbrucke ( 628741 ) <unterderbrucke@yahoo.com> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:01AM (#5031691)
    The judge realized that information wanted to be free!

    • Re:What a surprise! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kierthos ( 225954 )
      No, the judge realized the rules of evidence.

      Okay, I have no idea exactly how or if the Norweigan courts rule on evidence, but 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.

      Kierthos

      • Indeed... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Xner ( 96363 )
        I'm quite certain the phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt".

      • Re:What a surprise! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anarchofascist ( 4820 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:17AM (#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.
        • Anarchofascist wrote:

          > 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.

          It's not hollow. Not to the young man who had three years of his life stolen from him because he wanted to play a DVD. Now, barring an appeal by the prosecution, he has that life back again.

          Today is a victory for justice. Rejoice, and don't feel guilty about rejoicing. Without the celebration of victories, how can we possibly find the heart to continue to fight all these injustices? We would give up hope, and that would help no one.

          Fight on, and don't give up hope. The great victory of Justice, Liberty, and Peace may be closer than you think.

          "Lightning shines on wavey beach, and all clouds are made right:
          Happiness Appears!"
          From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961).

  • Norway (Score:5, Interesting)

    by muyuubyou ( 621373 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:04AM (#5031706)
    Thank God this guys is norwegian and didn't drop by the USA.

    I wonder what happened if he was american

    Sklyarov anyone?

  • read the entire verdict here (Score:5, Informative)

    by rokka ( 631038 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:04AM (#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 @09:05AM (#5031708) Homepage
    Yet, I still wonder if this conclusion can be used against DMCA itself.

    • Re:Very nice... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DaBj ( 168491 )
      No it can't.

      Jon was prosecuted in a Norwegian court, under Norwegian law. Believe it or not, in countries like that consumers still have rights. (And judges has brains).

      This won't even affect the EU version of DMCA either, since Norway isn't a member of the EU.
      • Believe it or not, in countries like that consumers still have rights. (And judges has brains).

        They do?

        From the /. article: "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."

    • Re:Very nice... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JanneM ( 7445 )
      No. DMCA is an american law. He was tried, and acquitted in a norwegian court, according to norwegian law. Other than in extraordinary circumstances you do not take precedent from another country's legal system.

  • Not supreme court (Score:5, Informative)

    by DeeZee ( 84216 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:05AM (#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...
    • This is correct, if the verdict is appealed it will then be decided by the "lagmannsrett" and if it's appealed again it'll end up in the supreme court.
    • Don't be too certain. The higher courts might reject the appeal, since the argumentation in the ruling is supposed to be pretty decisive and solid. We'll see, though. There are powerful forces in motion, they might be able to somehow convince the court that the appeal should be accepted. Jon's lawyer did a good job, though. He was very low key and right on point, making it hard to argue that the judge was biased (like in the MS case).
    • So there's no law in Norway against double jeopardy? In the States, if you're acquitted, there can be no appeals...

  • Can't anyone get it right? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:06AM (#5031711)
    The bastard never wrote DeCSS, he merely wrote a GUI. This is a sad day.

  • Norway, Europe & The World (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xner ( 96363 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:06AM (#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.

    • DMCA-like abomination the EC has been mulling over for a few years now for good.

      Mulling?

      It has already passed all the legislative stages in the EU and is now in force. All that matters now is that the member states will incorporate it into their national legislation -- something which they are obliged to do under EU law.

    • Re:Norway, Europe & The World (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Cally ( 10873 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:38AM (#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 @09:06AM (#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".
  • How come none of the TV companies are trying to sue me for video taping last nights episode of enterprise... why is the person who invented the video recorder not in jail...

    its simple ... because tv stations know they wouldn't win... and the sooner the movie studios learn that too the better

    • I guess because you pay tax or some other fee to watch the shows, so it doesn't really matter if you watch them at the time of broadcast or later, you payed anyway, you even pay for shows you don't watch...

      I did write something about that in my journal [slashdot.org]...

    • Re:Video Tape (Score:5, Insightful)

      by chill ( 34294 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:17AM (#5031765) Journal
      You need to check out some history.

      When the VCR was introduced, the industry DID try and prevent it from being released to the public. IIRC, Disney was also a major lobbiest in trying to get the court to believe that VCRs were evil and would drive the whole movie/television industry broke.

      I believe the court case that covered "time shifting" of content was a close vote.
    • This is the so-called Betamax case in which the courts said that just although VCRs had illegal uses, they had many legal uses such as time-shifting. Therefore, the courts refused to ban them.
    • Assuming you're in the US, the industry tried to sue Sony's (I believe it was) ass off and the Supreme Court said that it didn't break copyright law to have the ability to time-shift programming. At the time the DMCA did not exist and would still not apply since 1) videotape is analog and deteriorates as you make more copies and 2) there are no copy control mechanisms on last night's episode of Enterprise. The DMCA might be applicable to macrovision removal devices however.

      I am not a lawyer, I saw this all on an episode of Ally MacBeal.

    • Re:Video Tape (Score:2, Interesting)

      by rune-bare-rune ( 74864 )
      They tried. In the so-called Betamax case [museum.tv] Universal and others sued Sony and lost.

      The U.S. District Court (And later the Supreme Court) ruled in favor of Sony, stating that taping off air for entertainment or time shifting constituted fair use.

  • Correcting errors (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:10AM (#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 @09:33AM (#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...)
    • 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.

      You guys don't have double jeopardy protections? In the US, if you are found not guilty, that's the end of it. They can't try again. If you are found guilty, though, you can appeal.

  • The verdict (Score:3, Informative)

    by Avakado ( 520285 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:10AM (#5031730)
    The entire verdict is available in Norwegian here [domstol.no]

  • GET READY (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BillGod ( 639198 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:13AM (#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.

  • This is just the first battle. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Zayin ( 91850 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:13AM (#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.

    • 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.

      Not neccesarily so. As representatives from EFF Norway told on their press conference today, the EUCD/Infosoc directive leaves room for interpretation, and a very loose version of the law could very well be implemented. Also, see this page [www.ivir.nl].

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

    by EvilTwinSkippy ( 112490 ) <yoda AT etoyoc DOT com> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:18AM (#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 ) <haasNO@SPAMitu.dk> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:19AM (#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.
  • I sincerely hope that he now sues those American robber barons for damages...

    Paai

  • not really a victory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WPIDalamar ( 122110 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:19AM (#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.
  • Just want to point out that it is not the Norwegian Supreme Court that has made a ruling, just a regional court in Oslo. The Norwegian prosecutors (Økokrim or Economic Crime Unit) may still appeal to a higher court.

    Anyone who actually read the Aftenposten article [aftenposten.no] will of course know this already.

    Also see the articles on CNN [cnn.com] and The Register [theregister.co.uk].

  • It IS a victory, only a partial one (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This ruling means that it is perfectly legal to bypass protections meant to prevent abuse of copyright (for a legit use, of course), in Norway.

    TO DO:
    - extend this ruling to the rest of the world
    - state that it is legal to bypass copy-protections to make copies allowed under fair use rights

  • 2600? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by the_Bionic_lemming ( 446569 )
    I'm surprised nobody mentioned 2600's legal difficulties resulting from hyperlinkinbg to DECSS. Perhaps they can appeal and even counter sue now?

  • Victory (Score:5, Interesting)

    by E-Rock-23 ( 470500 ) <lostprophytNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:41AM (#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.

  • Slight error in the article... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sander_ ( 55929 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:41AM (#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 ) <.ervin.kosch. .at. .gmail.com.> on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @09:56AM (#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

  • Norwegian laws protect what a consumer can do... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:14AM (#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).

    • Re:Norwegian laws protect what a consumer can do.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Alomex ( 148003 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:39AM (#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".

      • Re:Norwegian laws protect what a consumer can do.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Sodium Attack ( 194559 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @01:26PM (#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.)

  • Overturning-the-EUCD-HOWTO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by infolib ( 618234 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:28AM (#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.

    • Re:Overturning-the-EUCD-HOWTO (Score:4, Insightful)

      by yggdrazil ( 261592 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @12:06PM (#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.

  • If a thief farts and noones there.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nhavar ( 115351 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:29AM (#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.

  • The Axis of Evil is expanding (Score:4, Funny)

    by hysterion ( 231229 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @10:47AM (#5032339) Homepage
    First Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea.

    Now Norway.

    Is Massachusetts next? This is scary.

  • More on the verdict (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pere ( 23710 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2003 @12:02PM (#5032837)
    I heard the verdict live on norwegian radio today. I havent read the statement yet, so the quotes might not be 100 percent accurate.

    First two comments.
    * The verdict can be appealed to "Lagmannsretten" (one step below Supreme Court) within two weeks. No statements yet in Norwegian media whether they will do that, but at least one legal expert "guessed" that they will not. The prosecutor (ØkoKrim - "Economical Chrime") will decide if they shall appeal, not MPAA!

    * Norway have not yet implemented the European Unions directive on copyright, but they will probably do it soon.

    Here is what I found interesting and amusing:
    The law they used is mainly about "breaking in" og "gaining access" to "stuff" that is not yours and that is protected. The original law is very old, but was changed (about 20 years ago?) to include digital information.

    Tha court mainly states that you cannot be convicted for breaking into something that is yours. (If you choose to break into your own car that is your prioblem, not the courts).

    It also states that the methods used for breaking into something (it specifically addresses "reverse engineering"-techics") isnt unlawful in themselves. They are just unlawful if you are not entitled to the information the protection is protecting.

    The next issue was that the keys themselves could be looked at as the information that was protected (not the content of the DVD). This is slightly more tricky, but firstly the judge said that the first key was not protected at all (this is clearly not breaking into anythin). Then she said that since the "real data" here is the movie, and that since he has the right to look at the movie, gaining access to the keys that protected this infomation could be not be regarding as unlawful.

    The last point was whether the reason wasnt looking at the DVD, but to illegally copy DVDs. Several examples for "real life" was used here. It seems clear that you cannot the held accountable (in Norwegian law) if you sell/distribute goods with an legal appliance, even if it is used illegally. (If you sell an axe, you are not responsible if someone uses the axe for murder). There is however legal precedence stating if you know that the intent is clearly illegal, you can be hold accountable, even if the goods in themself is lega. The judge used an example from Supreme Court where a person was convicted for selling equipment for destilling alcohol. He was clearly aware that it was used for illegal purposed, but claimed that each part for legal to sell.

    This means that if Johansen distributed/sold/developed deCSS when he knew that the main reason for this was to illegally copy DVDs, he could be convicted for that. Johansen claimed that his main reason was developing a Linux DVD player.

    The judge referred several IRC-logs, where Johansen made statements like "Linux sucks", "I wish that all Linux fanatics would be shot" and "FreeBSD rulez" (and an e-mail where he states that Linux is a very good OS, but FreeBSD is better). (Several in the courtroom started to laugh at this time, and the judge had to tell them to be silent). She also mentioned that he didnt have Linux installed at at the time, and that the only thing he developed was a GUI for Windows. However, the court did not find it proved - beyond reasonable doubt - the Johansens main reason was to develop programs that could be used illegally. He terefore falls in the same category as thos selling/distributing goods that can both be used legally and illegally.

    And as you all know: not guilty.

Slashdot Top Deals

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Close