DeCSS: Jon Johansen Retrial Begins

JPMH writes "Jon Johansen is back on trial for DeCSS. Despite the acquittal back in January, the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) is allowed to bring his case back before an enlarged panel of judges. The retrial begins today."

Most worrying bit::

[rhs98]

Most worrying bit: "If Johansen's acquittal is over-turned on appeal, it will become illegal for Norwegians to bypass DVD region code restrictions or technical restrictions that prevent fast-forwarding over advertisements, or otherwise circumvent digital controls on their own property," said IP Justice Executive Director Robin Gross.

This is really not good for peoples civil liberties at all - it sucks! This will mean lots of people will get sued potenially.

Re:Most worrying bit::

[zerocool^]

Yeah, whether people want to acknowledge it or not, the larger issue for the Norwegian people is:

If you purchase something, and you own it, can the company who created it, but who no longer owns it, put restrictions on the manner in which it can be used?

For my most chafing U.S. example, it is illegal to copy and distribute a movie. But, legally, do you *have* to watch the FBI warning at the beginning of the movie?
If you ask me, there should be no point in a DVD at which you cannot skip ahead, fast forward, or hit menu to get out of the current section of the disc.

~Wx

Re:Most worrying bit::

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

But, legally, do you *have* to watch the FBI warning at the beginning of the movie?

No, you don't, legally. My fiancee has a bonestock DVD player purchased in the US (Philips I think?) that will let you fast forward over anything (FBI warning, ads...).

Re:Most worrying bit::

[IthnkImParanoid]

I think his point was that, currently, you cannot hit menu (on licensed players) or fast forward during certain parts of the DVD, like the FBI warning scene. This is an example of the issue at stake (sellers of DVDs being able to dictate the way they may be viewed). It's not the most important one, since those scenes at the beginning last a few seconds, but if (once) ads make it into DVDs, it will become more important.

If you cannot break the encryption to do view content in another manner, you will no

Re:Most worrying bit::

[zerocool^]

Yeah, that was my point - if I get frustrated at finding nemo's 11 minutes of commercials and 5 minutes of non-skipability, while my 3 year old is running around wanting nemo!, and I copy the dvd, and just put the video file on the disc, I have to take off the css. But, have I violated copyright law?

Re:Most worrying bit::

[Jarlsberg]

There are ads on DVDs right now. Buy or rent a Disney DVD and you'll see tons of them - and you can't (easily) skip them either. This technique is also used to show standard commercials - I've seen lots of them in rentals.

Re:dont watch this DVD then

[jdbo]

I have that DVD- it does not disable the ability to "go to" a specific time - so if you're free to jump to "10:00:00" in the movie, or anywhere else that you please.

So while he disagrees with the idea of "chaptering" a movie (and so the movie is not chaptered on the DVD, which would consitute an endorsement of that approach), the DVD also does NOT interfere with the user's standard ability to navigate wherever they please.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me - if the user wants chaptering there's just a bit more work involved to simulate the effect.

Re:Most worrying bit::

[Znork]

"The problem is that you DON'T OWN IT."

Yes you do.

"The content creator is licensing it to you."

No they dont.

This is the first sale doctrine. Ownership of a copy is not the same thing as copyright. You own a copy and may dispose and/or do whatever you want with it, unless it is specifically limited by copyright law. You can watch it, sell it, give it away, lend it to someone else, do weird ceremonies over it or destroy it. What you cant do is pretty much copy it or rent it out.

Much as I'm sure Disney an

Re:SPOILER ALERT!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure... towards the end, they Find Nemo. Hope that didn't wreck it for you.

Re:Most worrying bit::

[The One KEA]

Oh my $DEITY..... they're trying to make fast-forwarding past advertisements illegal?!?

I hope someone with a brain throws this out the moment it reaches that point. This whole thing is a crock -- it's being done only to suppress fair use rights and the like. It's just like the SCO suit -- they're trying to geta nice big wave of FUD going, and I'm sure that they know it.

What's next -- a SCO-style marathon of going after blue-haired grannies who want to watch DVDs on their Linux-based PVR system set up

Re:Most worrying bit::

[Catbeller]

"Oh my $DEITY..... they're trying to make fast-forwarding past advertisements illegal?!? "

It is already illegal in the U.S. The ads autoplay, and you cannot stop them. Unless, of course, you reverse engineer a DVD player that lets you control whatever you like -- which is illegal under the DMCA. It is illegal to attempt to bypass an encrypted system, however they care to define it. it Even ROT13 qualifies as encryption, so the vendors don't even have to try very hard.

Re:Most worrying bit::

[kaworu-sama]

By simply playing a DVD in a no-region player, aren't you bypassing that? Couldn't people who use those players be sued as well as the people who made them? One could even use PowerDVD and chance the region code on their computer DVD player to "bypass", in a way, region checking. Why not sue Cyberlink?

Re:Most worrying bit::

[Zocalo]

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately in a move that I can only class as idiocy he's just released details on breaking Apple's iTunes admittedly rather weak DRM system. It's almost a given that the defense lawyers that were doing the high-fives as they realised they could use this a proof of Johansen's blatant disregard for copyright. I mean, seriously, would it *really* have hurt to have waited another couple of weeks to see how things went in the retrial?

I wish him luck in the trial, and boy do I think he's going to need it now.

Re:Most worrying bit::

[EinarH]

Personally I think that the release of that iTunes hack was just fine..but let's not get into that.
I think you are wrong about that being a very bad thing for the trial though:

1. There is no jury consisting of 12 drawn people that would swallow the "Johansen has a blatant disregard for copyright" line. In this case there are seven persons; three "academic" judges, two experts (one from academica and one from business) and two other judges.
The actor can bitch as much as she wants about moral, personality

Re:Most worrying bit::

[richie2000]

prevent fast-forwarding over advertisements

Would it be OK to close the eyes and cover the ears? How about going out of the room for a pitstop or to fetch a glass of water?

OKOKRIM

[FunWithHeadlines]

What does OKOKRIM stand for? Apparently it means:

"OK, OK, Retry Immediately, Man!"

Re:OKOKRIM

[mirko]

Sounds like a reversed "mirko K.O." ?

ecocrime

[eddy]

Losely, it's "Oko" for 'eco' (economical) and "krim" for 'crime'.

I think. I'm not Norsk.

Re:ecocrime

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not norwegian? If so, excellent guess.

It's actually spelled with an oe, but foreign characters are filtered in the slashcode. The letter 'oe' looks like an O with a slash through.

For those who may be interested: here's [okokrim.no] Okokrim's site.

Re:OKOKRIM

[hoegh]

With the risk of spoiling a joke:

OKOKRIM sound to me like a abbreviation of "Okonomisk Kriminalitet" (the first letter should be an "Oslash") which lead me to suspect that it is the prosecutor for economic criminality.

Re:OKOKRIM

[PowerBert]

Aren't they King Theodens mob?

Re:OKOKRIM

[FunWithHeadlines]

"It isn't OKOKRIM, its OEKOKRIM"

OEKay, thanks for that clarification...

Seriously, I do realize what it stands for and all, and it is interesting to see what happens to a slashed O here. I just couldn't resist the joke.

What is this about ?

[mirko]

So, let me get this straight : a guy does something that raises suspicion and gets a trial.
He's found innocent.
So, he's being tried again... and again ?
Why don't they directly send him to the electric chair ?
After all : they won't stop until he's found guilty, will they ?

Re:What is this about ?

[Kierthos]

You know, if you RTFA, you'd see, in the second paragraph, the following:

In January 2003, a three-judge panel in Oslo rejected charges brought by the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) against Johansen for accessing his DVD movies using an independently created DVD player. OKOKRIM appealed the loss and Johansen's retrial is scheduled to begin on December 2, 2003 in Oslo and end December 11, 2003. Since Johansen's case is one of first impression, it is not unusual for the case to be retried on an appeal in Norway.

Kierthos

Re:What is this about ?

[dabadab]

Why should it be that a prosecutor could not appeal? There's a multi-level system because it is acknowledged that mistakes may be made. And it really does not matter to me if that error means that someone is found guilty when he is innocent or that a murderer is let go - that error must be corrected by bringing the case to a higher level court.

Re:What is this about ?

[0123456]

"Why should it be that a prosecutor could not appeal?"

Because there have been numerous cases in history of people being harassed by governments until they went bankrupt or were finally found guilty on a bogus charge. If the government doesn't have the evidence to convict, then it shouldn't be bringing a case... and if that evidence doesn't convict the jury, then they have no grounds for trying a second time.

That you can even consider this a good thing for one second is a clear example of why Europe and the Anglo nations (all of which, I believe, ban such retrials) will never get along. We've never trusted our governments, and for good reason.

Re:What is this about ?

[dabadab]

They can appeal ONCE.
Get it? ONCE.
And, since it is a criminal case, he gets a free lawyer from the state, if he can not afford one.

"and if that evidence doesn't convict the jury"

There was no jury, his innocence was decided by three judges. They could be wrong, that's why the case is retrialed with an expanded panel of judges.

Re:What is this about ?

[0123456]

So? If their case wasn't good enough the first time around, why should they get a second chance?

As for the "no jury", I find that even more appalling than the idea of allowing retrials: it's no wonder that countries with such corrupt legal systems suffered such governmental abuse in the last century. Jury trials are the other vital pillar of legal freedom in Anglo nations: if the jury don't like a law, they acquit, and there is nothing the prosecutor can do about it.

Re:What is this about ?

[The Evil Couch]

I would rather have a panel of people that understand the law and are at least somewhat educated deciding my fate than easily swayed sheep that were picked at random from a pool of registered voters/liscensed drivers.

Judges are significantly less likely to fall for misdirection tricks from a lawyer than a soccer mom.

Re:What is this about ?

[mmaddox]

I would argue that you're assuming you're INNOCENT. The rule-of-thumb: 1) if you're innocent, trial by judge 2) if you're guilty, trial by jury.

Obviously, a guilty man has much to benefit from a panel of easily-swayed sheep. (cough cough OJ cough cough)

Re:What is this about ?

[vidarh]

Except that this is not a retrial, but an appeals case. A retrial in Norway (and most of Europe) is a completely separate concept. First of all, in an appeals case the trial does not start from scratch - the court will take into account all parts of previously presented evidence and decisions by the lower court that aren't disputed by the parties, and do not generally like to change anything where they don't believe lower court has clearly made a mistake.

Since the Norwegian legal system only has three levels, and appeals will only rarely be heard by the supreme court (the third level) and then normally only regarding matters of law, the burden isn't that great.

Add to that that Norway has a public defender system where private practising attorneys take on cases at the governments cost if you can't afford an attorney (as opposed to having dedicated, underpaid public defenders), AND that it is fairly easy to get awarded damages if you are aquitted and the court finds that the government prosecuted you without good reason, and you have a reasonable compromise.

As an example regarding the public defender system, I was refusing military service (which is mandatory in Norway) years ago. The first step then is for them to get the police to take a statement and ask you to confirm whether or not you will accept the decision from the Department of Justice regarding whether or not to transfer you to civil service. I refused.

The next step then is to ask the court to confirm the decision of the Department of Justice. In that case, I was given a partner in one of Norways most well known and prestigious law firms, with 30 years experience in defending people refusing military service, as my public defender, cost free. (I didn't really need him though - I got the court to throw the case out on a formality on my own accord, but he was a cool guy to talk to anyway :) )

Re:What is this about ?

[IdleTime]

Basically because in Norway, an appeal will not set youy back several millions. In fact, if you can't pay, you can still hire a top notch lawyer and the bill will be footed by the state.

It's only in USA (where I currently live) that you have to be extremly rich in order to endure a long judical process. Btw, USA have politically elected judges and DA's, that makes me sick to my stomach to think about. A political justice system is on the same line as the old Soviet Union. Poltics before justice!

Re:What is this about ?

[Frymaster]

Why should it be that a prosecutor could not appeal?

• because the resources of money and time of a government are "unlimited" while those of a defendent are finite. the government can always win by attrition.
• because we believe in a system where a person can be held in jail or on bond pending a trial. defendendants could be held perpetually in remand for a petty crime of which s/he is never convicted.
• the government could use points one and two above to coerce guilty pleas from innocent parties
• once ex

Re:What is this about ?

[Scarblac]

The point you miss is that if you win, the costs of your lawyers, plus damages are paid by government too. They're wasting their own money, not yours. If you don't have the funds to hire a lawyer, government will provide you with funds.

The big difference with the US is that it is a huge financial risk to have to fight a trial in the US.

Re:What is this about ?

[mczak]

This hasn't much to do with "free countries". It's a difference in jurisdiction, sure, but what's wrong with it? "Government abuse" isn't really possible, as the number of "retrials" is very limited (the case goes to a higher level court each time).

Re:What is this about ?

[0123456]

""Government abuse" isn't really possible"

A second trial for someone who's been acquitted is _already_ abuse. No free country would allow such a thing, nor consider that the people who make up their government should for one moment be considered trustworthy to have that power: any power given to them will be abused sooner or later, as it is here.

Again, that's the difference between Anglo nations and European nations: we'll take the chance of someone being acquitted improperly before we'll trust the govern

Re:What is this about ?

[kisak]

This post is really bad....

A second trial for someone who's been acquitted is _already_ abuse.

It is not a re-trial

No free country would allow such a thing,

Norway is a free country in most if not all of the definitions you could think of.

nor consider that the people who make up their government should for one moment be considered trustworthy to have that power: any power given to them will be abused sooner or later, as it is here.

That is why in Norway, as most other European countries, they have this crazy thing of fair and transparent elections to keep their goverments in check.

Again, that's the difference between Anglo nations and European nations: we'll take the chance of someone being acquitted improperly before we'll trust the government not to abuse their powers,

Canada has the same appeals structure as Norway, but they are maybe not Anglo enough for you. By the way, England and the rest of the UK are all very European countries.

Europeans trust their governments not to abuse their powers more than someone being acquitted improperly. Oddly enough, the worst government abuses by far in the developed world have happened in... mainland European countries where they trust the governments not to abuse their powers.

Give one example. And don't mention the abuses of Hitler as an example of people trusting their goverment. Hitler was a dictator who did a coupe d'etate in a Germany in ruins after WWI.

Re:What is this about ?

[bnenning]

Or perhaps you'd prefer a system where one side has more rights than the other

Yes, I would. See Voltaire.

Re:What is this about ?

[Zocalo]

Shame he chose to write DeCSS in Europe instead.

It's more specific than that. I think this may be a quirk of Norwegian law specifically, and I've certainly not come across it elsewhere in Western Europe. In the UK, IIRC, I'm fairly certain that you cannot be retried for the same crime if found innocent by a jury. There is kind of an exception if a mistrial is declared, but I don't think the jury in a mistrial actually gets to pass a judgement.

Norwegian courts

[Lucky_Norseman]

Norway has a two-phase court system.

If either party disagree with the verdict at the lower court they can appeal and get a new trial with more judges (and depending on the type of crime, either a jury or a panel of judges)

Re:Norwegian courts

[ryanvm]

If either party disagree with the verdict at the lower court they can appeal and get a new trial with more judges

Uhh - how in the hell would both parties agree with the first decision? Isn't that why they're in a court in the first place?

Are you sure that's not a Polish court system?

Re:Norwegian courts

[szelus]

Are you sure that's not a Polish court system?

Hmmm... no. The Polish court system is the one, where when you finally got all of the judges, jury, plantifs, defendants, atorneys and clerks together in the same courtroom on the same time and date, they cannot start the process, because all the documentation get lost somehow...

And yes. I'm Polish...

Re:Norwegian courts

[dabadab]

"could afford to appeal indefinitely"

I guess you missed the part about "two-phase".
That means that it can be appealed ONCE. Not more, ONCE.

Re:Norwegian courts

[vidarh]

Actually twice, counting the supreme court. But in an appeal to the supreme court the facts of the case as established by the lower courts will usually not be touched, and the only thing at issue will usually be the application of law.

Re:What is this about ?

[st0rmshad0w]

Don't forget that he won his country's top science award for DeCSS.

If at first you don't convict ...

[Kombat]

try, try again.

</PUN CLASS=BAD>

Gee,

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know that Hollywood, USA had the legal authority to put Norweigans thru a retrial after an acquittal. What next, will Jon be tried as a terrorist?

Re:Gee,

[0123456]

An organisation as important as the MPAA can do anything. After all, the entire global economy would just collapse if people could pirate bad movies, therefore it's vital that every nation should surrender to the might of the MPAA.

It's Norweigan Law

[harriet nyborg]

The charges OKOKRIM filed against Johansen were brought under the Norwegian criminal code section 145.2, which outlaws bypassing technological restrictions to access data that one is not entitled to access. Johansen's prosecution is the first time that this law has been used to prosecute a person for accessing his own property.

this is misleading.

according to the complaint [ipjustice.org] filed against him he was charged with vilolating section 145.2 of the Norweigan criminal statute "which outlaws bypassing technological restrictions to access data that one is not entitled to access."

according to the criminal complaint he was charged with accessing the master key, the master key list, as well as the contents of a protected disk.

the question is whether the master key, and the master key list, which are intentionally encrypted, can be considered as data he is not "entitled to access."

to say he is being prosecuted for "accessing his own property" is simply shrill hyperbole.

despite the confidence expressed by his lawyer, his case is not so clear cut.

Re:It's Norweigan Law

[famebait]

to say he is being prosecuted for "accessing his own property" is simply shrill hyperbole

Shrill hyperbole empathically supported by the previous court, in that case, if you read the deliberation on the aquittal.

Re:It's Norweigan Law

[cabalamat2]

145.2 of the Norweigan criminal statute "which outlaws bypassing technological restrictions to access data that one is not entitled to access."

If Johansen has only used it to access DVDs he has bought and paid for, then he does have an entitlement to access them.

I wonder....

[armando_wall3]

If any of those guys prosecuting Jon have at least one DVD ripped at home.

Be an Anonymous Coward next time, Jon

[rcastro0]

DeCSS2 will be created just like DeCSS was, but instead of one "Jon Johansen" its creator's name will most likely sound like "d00d" or "DaMan".

Not a retrial, an appeal...

[Kjella]

Retrial is if e.g. the trial is decleared a "mistrial", or in the case of Norway, normally only if the Supreme Court finds that the lower court were waaay off (normally, they'd correct a sentence themselves, a retrial is basicly only if it'd take up too much of the court's time to do it all over again).

Also, for the people I see making fun of the name, it's really &Oslash;kokrim, &Oslash;ko = eco- of economics, and krim of crime... It's just not fucking possible to get slashdot to show HTML character codes :p

Anyway, I hope they appeal it all the way to the top and fail with flying colors... too bad, that by then the EUCD will probably already be in effect, making the precedent outdated...

Kjella

Re-trial is common when a precedent is being set

[Space cowboy]

According to the article, when a precedent is being set, it is common for an appeal to succeed, and this is what has happened. Actually (despite hoping Jon will prevail) I think this is a pretty good idea - a second look at something with big ramifications is probably a good thing under any circumstances...

Simon

Double-jeopardy etc etc.

[grazzy]

Before we all get all tear-eyed with nationalistic ideals etc etc, we should remember where RIAA and MPAA comes from.

Jon is now 18 years old

[teamhasnoi]

apart from the fact he's done more to shape IP laws, copy protection, open source software and linux - he's had to deal with this BS since he was *15*.

I was still sitting on legos and eating giant bowls of Sugar Crisp in front of the Smurfs when I was 15.

When will we see the takedown of fair use in this country?

OT Question: Don't the major linux players (IBM, RedHat, um.. Dell ect.) distribute some sort of linux DeCSS DVD player? Why are they not being hunted down and sued by the MPAA?

Re:Jon is now 18 years old

[dabadab]

"apart from the fact he's done more to shape IP laws, copy protection, open source software and linux"

He did what?
Last time I checked, all that he had to do with DeCCS is to write a lame GUI for it.

Stiff penalties.

[Anonymous Coward]

"the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) is allowed to bring his case back before an enlarged panel of judges."

The dangers of viagra abuse.

Accessing data to which he was not entitled

[Anonymous Coward]

"The charges OKOKRIM filed against Johansen were brought under the Norwegian criminal code section 145.2, which outlaws bypassing technological restrictions to access data that one is not entitled to access."

So it should boil down to whether people are entitled to access data on DVDs for which they paid fair and square. Why do we pay $25/DVD if it isn't for the right to access the data on them?

Wording...

[OneFix at Work]

The wording here is misleading. He's not really being tried in the same court...if I had to compare it to something most of us would know, it would be the US Supreme Court. You can start small and work your way up through the system, this is what has happened with his case.

What we have now, that we didn't have much of before was derivative works. Just who is using DeCSS? There are certainly a lot of DVD players for Linux that use the libraries to play encrypted DVDs...But on the other hand, every DVD r

Thanks to Jon and his lawyer...

[Overzeetop]

...for fighting the good fight.

He's a bright kid (in the computer sense), and yet - apparently - stupid enough to pick on a 600 pound gorilla (RIAA/MPAA). I suppose the only thing to say is, "Thank you." Even US corporations with fat legal warchests aren't willing to take such a chance. Every revolution must start somewhere, and most truly successful ones start at the bottom.

Prosecutor doesn't know algorithms

[rRogta]

Here's from a norwegian newspaper:

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article. jh tml?articleID=682755

If you scroll a little down you'll find:

According to newspaper VG's web site, the
technical nature of the case led to judge Wenche
Skjaeggestad asking the prosecutor to explain the
meaning of the central term 'algorithm' (a
computational procedure applied to solve a
problem), a request eventually satisfied by one
of the expert assessors.

Now, who could expect the prosecutor to actually understand what it is he's beeing charged of? That would just be silly..

bloody rediculous

[CAIMLAS]

Nothing like companies/industries not wanting their products to be sold.

It makes absolutely no sense why the RIAA would give a damn about DeCSS - it enables people to watch their over-priced DVDs in foreign countries. This requires at least some purchase. What's the deal?

New Rule For Disclosure

[LaCosaNostradamus]

These court cases should illustrate to Mr. Johansen and rest of us:

If you're going to crack open the schemes of the corporate overlords, do so anonymously.

This would never happen in the US

[philovivero]

This type of travesty could never happen in the United States. We don't just keep re-trying someone until we can finally prove they are guilty. We just stick 'em in Guantanimo Bay.

Prosecutor couldn't explain the term "algorithm"

[IroNick]

The prosecutor in the DVD-Jon case had to get help from an expert judge to explain what an algorithm is. Here (Norwegian only). [www.vg.no] The newspaper where I first read this (The biggest in Norway) explains that an algorithm is a "mathematical concept". They used this article to demonstrate the the case was very technically complicated...

Sadly, not all news are for nerds... :)

Wby we have "double jeopardy" in Norway (long)

[Kjella]

Yes, the prosecution can appeal a decision in the Norwegian court system. Note that this isn't a new trial, it's an appeals process. But I think we and the USA has a completely different understanding of how the justice system should work, and why double jeopardy should/shouldn't exist. I'll try to explain:

In the American system, it's all about finding the one trial that'll get them acquitted, be it that the jury that is so biased, incompetent, stupid, subjective, easily influenced, prejudicial, scared of sending innocents to jail or otherwise inept that they can't manage to find a man guilty even when the evidence should have been sufficient. Or through lack of experience on part of the judge and the prosecution, making the legal proceedings be of an inadequate quality.

I guess the reasoning is that if one jury is able to see reasonable doubt, there is reasonable doubt. In theory, it sounds like sound legal thinking. However, I can think of so many other reasons why one specific jury may find reasonable doubt where there is none. In the US, that seems to be acceptable, but I think most other places it'd be seen as a flaw, if the evidence was in fact sufficient (another matter altogether if the evidence is insufficient, both of us use "innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt").

In Norway, and I might add in quite a few other countries, we instead realize that trials are not perfect, and that judgements may be too excessive. This can go both in favor as well as disfavor of the defendant, and in extremes leading to aquitting those that by the evidence should have been guilty, and also in some cases sentencing the innocent. In particular, I'm thinking about sentences that get overturned in a higher court, though technically you're not sentenced until the judgement is final.

Instead, we base our legal system on competence. A higher court, with more/better educated judges, a full jury, is considered to be more competent, and so a more accurate instrument of justice than a lower one. That is, that a higher court will make less incorrect decisions, putting more guilty in jail, and freeing more innocents.

Now ask yourself this: If you were checking if a product was inside a specification, would you use one fairly accurate measurement, or many less accurate ones and reject it if one is outside the acceptable limits? I think the Norwegian system works great, it's just that some laws are completely nutty and sentences are overall too low. But that's a completely different discussion...

Kjella

Norwegian Legal System

[dachshund]

Now ask yourself this: If you were checking if a product was inside a specification, would you use one fairly accurate measurement, or many less accurate ones and reject it if one is outside the acceptable limits?

If the product were extremely critical-- say, a life and death sort of thing like a pacemaker-- I would reject it if it failed even one test. And that would be good practice. You propose to retest it again and again until you get the result you want. Try explaining your rationale to the family of the the person who dies because you were trying to be "reasonable" in your testing, rather than stringent.

A higher court, with more/better educated judges

In the Norwegian system, it's possible to be acquitted by no less than two different courts before some third set of judges decides to jail you. If you believe that the third set is somehow "better" than the lower courts, then you're implicitly casting the other two sets of judges as wrong or even incompetent in those cases (perhaps because they're under-educated?) You're admitting that most of the legal decisions in your country are being made by judges who are periodically (nay, regularly) in error. That's a legal system I'd love to be subject to.

This has gone way too far.

[dtfinch]

He was like 14 or 15 when he released DeCSS and it wasn't even illegal in his country at the time.

It is like the time...

[nonameisgood]

...I got locked out of my house and was arrested for breaking into my own home.

Until DMCA and it's counterparts elsewhere go away, we are all at the mercy of the **AA overlords and lackeys.

--
Free beer is nice, but I can speak more freely if I buy the beer.

bad case, bad court, bad law, bad judge

[t_allardyce]

Its a Micky Mouse court under layered by freedom restricting laws that serve only corporate interests. If the MPAA stopped making films today for example it would not matter there would be people who would make better films for less, just as if Microsoft stopped what they were doing, (well,people already make better software for less). What public interest do laws like the DMCA serve? I've never seen a real criminal busted by the DMCA, in fact "arrested under DMCA" would probably boost my trust for someone (if i were an employer i would hire them on the spot)

Then theres the inability for the court members to fully understand the situation. All they see is "this law says you cant do this because it violates this companies IP security, this kid has broken the law" which is the same thing the politicians see. What the people in charge don't see or understand is the free speech issue and all they listen to are well trained, well articulated expensive company lawyers who know exactly how to sell the case just like the salesperson at that electronics store knows exactly how to sell your parents the wrong thing. Law and politics shouldn't be like that, otherwise the whole system is useless.

The really bad principle in this

[panurge]

is the idea that individuals can be repeatedly prosecuted in order to "clarify the law". If a law was so badly designed or so obscurely drafted, or if the education of state prosecutors and judges is so neglected, that a valid prosecution fails, it should be up to the representative government to redraft the law or address the training of law officers.

Anybody who has been engaged in a long drawn out legal case with many hearings knows that it is one of the worst things that can happen to anybody, and even if one is eventually successful it may take years to recover. What is happening in Guantanamo Bay is deplorable, but surely what is happening in this case is deplorable on a smaller scale. To me, both cases are like prosecuting a small scale cannabis seller because the guy running the big operation selling crack is too powerful and the police badly need a drugs bust for the statistics.

Re:Pay the piper.

[KrispyKringle]

Right. And I wouldn't be able to watch DVD's I have legally purchased, on a machine I legally own, on a DVD-ROM which came with a royalty-paid, licensed version of a CSS descrambler, without running an operating system which I don't like but for which I have a fully paid, legal license to.

In other words, nobody is hurt, financially, by me using Linux and DeCSS instead of Windows and WinDVD. I've paid all my licenses, including my Microsoft tax (actually, I got a free license from a site-license, but somebody paid it, which is really all that matters).

I'm thinking you were trolling, but I wanted to bring this up anyway.

Re:Pay the piper.

[KrispyKringle]

That's not really that germane, I don't think. I can see that you would make the case as, he didn't do this for a significant non-infringing use, he did it with the express point to infringe (I'm not familiar with the Johansen case specifically). But regardless, there is a significant non-infringing use of even Windows-only decoders (ripping for backup or legal copies, for example) and the legality of banning all reverse engineering or unexpected use is suspect, in my opinion. But then, I'm speaking US law,

Re:Pay the piper.

[PowerBert]

If it wasn't for Jon, I wouldn't have 60+ DVDs at home and the movie industry wouldn't have 900 of my hard earned cash.

I don't have a DVD player, I dont run windows. If it wasn't for Jon and the fine guys at Ogle, Mplayer, Xine, etc I wouldn't buy DVDs.

The movie industry needs locking up in a cell with a 7 foot guy called Buba wearing a dress. Pricks!

Re:What happened to double jeopardy?

[a_timid_mouse]

Oh no? What about O.J.? Same crime, two different courts (criminal vs. civil). Is this the same kind of situation?

Re:What happened to double jeopardy?

[Overzeetop]

No, OJ dis not face criminal prosecution twice for the same crime. The key is the governments ability to restrict or revoke an individual's liberties.

Both trials were a farce. The criminal trial demonstrated how flawed the legal system is. A jury of your peers has turned into a jury of the uneducated and unemployed who understand neither the legal system nor the law, much less the simple physics of everyday life. The civil trial demostrated the inequity of the legal system. If OJ had been a penniless street kid he wouldn't have gotten sued. He had money, and the family decided to punish him financially via the courts. OF course, as a penniless street kid, he would have hanged after his court appointed attorney slept through most of the trial.

Re:What happened to double jeopardy?

[Richard_at_work]

No, different in every case.

OJ was tried in a crinimal court of law and found not guilty based on the evidence. HE was then pursued in a civil court of law and was found to be responsable for the deaths, regardless of not being guilty of the deaths. There is a difference, someone can be found responsable for something without actually doing it.

The bit that most people leave out here is that OJ appealed the responsable verdict and it was found in his favour, so essentially he came out of the whole orde

Actually, that's not really true...

[sethadam1]

(I am not a lawyer, of course, but...)

You certainly CAN be tried for the same crime twice. You cannot, however, be tried on the same charge. Not to mention, you can be tried in criminal court, and then again in civil court, a la OJ Simpson.

No, admittedly, it's not likely that the Justice system - if you call it that - would try you for manslaughter after finding you "not guilty" of murder, but you CAN be found guilty of one infrigement and not of another - for the same crime.

Re:Norweigan Economic Crime Unit?

[Theatetus]

Not to feed the troll, but according to this [cia.gov], Norway has a per capita GDP of $31,800, a Gini index of .26, and $68 billion in exports vs. $37 billion in imports. Not too shabby for a bunch of fjord-huggers -- and they're Gini index sure kicks the US's ass (we're at something like .43)

Re:Ok, that really sucks

[vidarh]

Actually most civilized countries, regardless of your definition, does NOT have protection against appeals to a higher court, only against retrial. You have the concept of double jeopardy in Norway as well, but applied to retrials not appeals, as it is throughout most of Europe, and in fact in most countries with a legal system not originating in from English common law.

Re:Ok, that really sucks

[AKAImBatman]

Appeals are still double-jeopardy. In the U.S., the prosecution cannot appeal an innocent verdict, while the defense can appeal a guilty verdict as long as they can show sufficient grounds. This is to protect citizens against the possibility of being harassed until they go bankrupt or are found guilty.

This appeal is a perfect reason why "no double-jeopardy" laws exist.

Re:Ok, that really sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no reason to prevent the government from retrying their case once or twice. In Norway the limit is three times. First the Tingretten (lower court), then Lagmannsretten (sort of jury-based, depends .. it may either be a jury, or a combination of judges, some jurors, and some people educated in the field), and finally Hoyesterett (Supreme court). Both the government and the prosecuted may choose to appeal for any reason.

The government may appeal if they lose, or if they don't think the punishment

Re:Ok, that really sucks

[AKAImBatman]

In theory, due to your double jeopardy laws, if the accused is guilty and aquitted - he may walk out of the courtroom and then tell the press "They released me, but really - I did do it! Ha! Ha!

In theory, yes that could happen. In reality, the DA would simply try to nail you on some bullshit charge that can carry a hefty penalty. e.g. Al Capone was nailed on tax evasion after the various agencies were continually unable to prove his involvement in serious crimes.

Re:Ok, that really sucks

[0123456]

"There is no reason to prevent the government from retrying their case once or twice."

There are very good reasons: for example, historically juries in civilised nations have routinely refused to convict people for breaking unpopular laws, effectively providing direct democracy in the jury box. Since the prosecutor can't get a retrial, that person is now free.

This is why Prohibition was finally ended in America: it simply became too difficult for the cops to get anyone convicted. In Europe, they would have been tried by judges, found guilty by the government, and the law would still stand.

"In theory, due to your double jeopardy laws, if the accused is guilty and aquitted - he may walk out of the courtroom and then tell the press "They released me, but really - I did do it! Ha! Ha!""

Indeed they could. Which is far better than an innocent person being persecuted by the government with repeated retrials... particularly if that "guilty" person was breaking some bogus law that 90% of the population oppose.

See, this is the difference between the civlised, "innocent until proven guilty" nations and the authoritarian "guilty until proven innocent" nations. As bad as some abuses have been in Britain and America, we've never started World Wars or slaughtered millions of our own people: there are good reasons for that, and our long-standing fear of giving people uncontrolled power is the largest one.

Re:Ok, that really sucks

[vidarh]

Actually most DO let bot sides appeal to a higher court. Applying double jeopardy to appeals is something limited to a relatively small number of countries, mostly with legal systems based in common law.

Re:Ok, that really sucks

[0123456]

What do you think we meant by "civilised countries"? No country that values the state above the citizens can be considered civilised.

Re:Ok, that really sucks

[vidarh]

In that case I think you'll find NO civilized countries, and certainly not the US. As for the specific case of double jeopardy, you are taking one tiny aspect of differences in the legal system and trying to present it as a massive change in favour of the state, when I'm quite confident that you'd find that most people in the European countries that allow appeals on aquittals would be many times more concerned about facing trial in the US than their home country.

The lack of a decent public defender system

Re:Ok, that really sucks

[AKAImBatman]

You cannot appeal an innocent verdict in the U.S. Such an appeal would be considered...

wait for it....

DOUBLE-JEOPARDY

Re:Ok, that really sucks

[Abm0raz]

wrong

You can appeal any verdict in the US. You need to have a reason to appeal though, such as a potential mis-trial, tampered evidence, new evidence, etc. If there are no anomolies or grounds for retrial, the appeal is denied.

Larry Flint was found innocent and the prosecution appealed to the supreme court, which upheld the decision.

Know the laws before quoting them.

-Ab

Re:Ok, that really sucks

[soft_guy]

OK, then why were the cops who were found not guilty of beating Rodney King retried and sent to prison after the LA riots?

Re:Tried twice for the same crime!!!!

[ATMAvatar]

Actually, there are an abundance of crimes for which you can be made to stand trial twice in the US. For example, murder is illegal in most states, as well as the federal level. If you are acquitted at the state level, you can still be brought to trial at the federal level, in effect, being tried twice for the same crime.

Re:Tried twice for the same crime!!!!

[zmooc]

Yeah - be happy!; in the US only 10% of the cases gets to a trial at all; the other 90% is blackmailed and never sees a judge. In Norwich on the other hand all suspects get a chance to be judged by the judge and after that both parties get a second chance to be judged by a higher judge. Now which of those systems do you prefer?

No, Not exactly.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

The prosicution cannot appeal any decision, only the defence can in a criminal trial.

Re:now it's time for

[Overzeetop]

I hope they don't use a linux box to play the video daily double from a commercial DVD.

Re:hmm

[a_timid_mouse]

How the hell is parent post "insightful"?? LOL

Re:Love that US Constitution!!

[Draoi]

Before you get too high-horsish about US justice, from your own quote;

No person shall [..] be deprived of life, LIBERTY, or property, without due process of law;

So, what about all those folks in Guantanamo bay?

Re:For those who knock US justice...

[tgd]

And that did a whole lot of justice in the case of people like O.J. Simpson.

I wouldn't knock the Norweigan system just because its not like ours. Our country isn't exactly a pinnacle of legal fairness, you know.

Re:For those who knock US justice...

[vegetablespork]

That was technically a different charge of "violating Rodney King's civil rights." It's bullshit--anyone could see they were being retried for the same offense, but since there seemed to be an interest in keeping the teeming underclasses from burning the rest of LA, it stood. I'm sure the same would happen again if someone managed to offend a sufficiently well-connected corporation. There's more than 1 intellectual "property" law, after all.