Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


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

Jon Johansen DVD Trial Date Set 289

Posted by timothy from the the-long-arm-of-the-mpaa dept.
mpawlo writes: "As reported by Greplaw, the Norweigan 'Byrett' (district court) will try the Jon Johansen DVD case on December 9, 2002. The trial was supposed to take place this summer, but the court decided to postpone the trial to find a technology savvy judge. The case will be tried by one judge and a panel of two lay assessors. Jon Johansen is being prosecuted by the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) under Norwegian Criminal Code 145(2). Johansen created DeCSS software that can enable DVD playback on Linux. It is argued that the DeCSS software is a piracy tool." Here is the Greplaw story with more links.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jon Johansen DVD Trial Date Set More

Jon Johansen DVD Trial Date Set

Comments Filter:

  • What? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @07:23PM (#4022115)
    It is a piracy tool.
    It's also a tool with legitimate usage.
    The question is wether the law still counts when the tool has a reasonably legitimate use.

    Congrats to the Norwegians for taking the time for a fair trial by a competant judge.

    • Legitimate Usage (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @07:39PM (#4022215)
      It's just like the idiots who want to outlaw balacavas. Sure, they're 'terrorist masks', but if you've ever been in the cold for long enough, they're simply a necessary fact of life.

      For a good deal of fair-use DVD software, DeCSS was a necessary step.

      Case in point: Circumventing region restrictions. No way, no how are region restrictions in any way protected under copyright law. Neither is not playing the disk on the OS of your choice.

      Even if you want to complain that he wrote code for Windows rather than Linux, here's an example from my own situation, since I use windows for media tools: For a long time, (until a firmware patch came out) my mobo would not support DMA to my DVD drive under Windows 2000. This means fairly slow access speed and jerky, out-of-sync playback in any of the good software DVD players for win32. By ripping the DVD to my harddisk, however, I can watch it at normal quality settings. Without DeCSS and rippers based on it, I wouldn't be able to do that.

      • Actually, region encoding is protected by copyright law. It falls under the distribution clause as it limits distribution in certain geographical areas of the world as per the wishes of the copyright holder.
        • When you take your one copy and move it, that does not constitute distribution.
          The single disc is not being spread out or dispensed, it is simply being used.

          Copyright denies me permission to make copys of that work (with certain exceptions) It does not preclude me from reading, burning, watching in reverse, fast forward, or feeding to a large chicken.
          • If you bring your DVD with you, it is highly likely that you will also bring your DVD player as well. You will still be able to use this DVD player to play your region encoded discs.
            • If you bring your DVD with you, it is highly likely that you will also bring your DVD player as well. You will still be able to use this DVD player to play your region encoded discs.

              Um, no. When my friends from Europe come to visit, it would be great if they could bring some of their DVDs with them for us to watch. Oh, then can bring them... but unless I have a region-free player, we can't watch them. That's bullshit.

              It's not really practical for them to bring a DVD player in the luggage.

              -S

              • It may be bullshit, but there is nothing which prohibits copyright holders from limiting use of the material. Authors are not required to translate books into multiple languages nor are they required to allow any third party to offer this service. If they want to write their book in hieroglyphics they may do so and no one may translate the material and distribute these translations. You will have to wait for the author to provide a translation in a language you can understand if you want to read the book. If somneone buys the book second hand (right of first sale), they can't violate the copyrights and translate and distribute the work either.

                Same goes for DVDs. Content creators are not required to release their material without region encoding or copy-protection if they choose not to do so. If you want a translation, you'll have to buy the translation from the copyright holder. In this case it means you'll have to hope they offer a copy of the DVD in your region.

                Same goes if you want to sell the DVD later on. Caveat Emptor (buyer beware). If the DVD is not offered in a region version you are capable of viewing, even if you purchased another region, you aren't entitled to "translate" the work.
                • Quit tagging on "and distribute" to your arguements. That's a red herring. I'm not arguing that copyright holders have a right to do whatever they want as far as these stupid region-coding schemes. But I have (or damn well should have) a right to view material that I have bought in a locaton of my choosing. It should NOT be illegal for manufacturers to provide "region-free" players or software makers to make "region-free" software. I'm NOT talking about distrubuting copyrighted works. I'm talking about viewing something I bought when I want, where I want, and on equipment of my choosing.

                  If the DVD is not offered in a region version you are capable of viewing, even if you purchased another region, you aren't entitled to "translate" the work.

                  Why not? I bought it. I can burn it. I can piss on it. I can decorate my Christmas tree with it. I can sell it. And I can translate it.

                  -S

                • Re:Distribution (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by topham ( 32406 )
                  Somebody one day is going to have to explain to me why breaking a license related to Copyright is a criminal act, while breaking a contract is civil...

                  Oh wait, because somebody bought the legislature...
                • It may be bullshit, but there is nothing which prohibits copyright holders from limiting use of the material.

                  Yes there is, and it's called fair use. If I buy a DVD, I have the right to play it on any DVD players in any country I want.

                  It's no different than buying the UK version of a Harry Potter and bringing it back to the U.S. to read. What if the publisher didn't want me to be able to do that? Too bad, he can't stop me.

                • That's a 50% batting average.

                  Authors are not required to translate books into multiple languages

                  True

                  If they want to write their book in hieroglyphics they may do so and no one may translate the material

                  Untrue. If I happen to be able to read hieroglyphics, it is not copyright infringement if I translate the book while reading it aloud.

                  and distribute these translations.

                  True.

                  If somneone buys the book second hand (right of first sale), they can't violate the copyrights and translate

                  Untrue.

                  and distribute

                  True.

                  Content creators are not required to release their material without region encoding or copy-protection if they choose not to do so.

                  True.

                  If you want a translation, you'll have to buy the translation from the copyright holder. In this case it means you'll have to hope they offer a copy of the DVD in your region.

                  Untrue.

                  It is not illegal to own a hieroglyphics to english thesaurus. If I have the means to translate/transform the work to a format that is more suitable for me, I'm perfectly entitled to do so. However, In most situations I am not entitled to distribute that translation.

                  With regards to region coding - The MPAA isn't saying "you can't translate and distribute this work", they are saying "hand over your thesauruses, because we only want people that know hieroglyphics by heart to watch our work".

                • Re:Distribution (Score:3, Funny)

                  by nuggz ( 69912 )
                  It may be bullshit, but there is nothing which prohibits copyright holders from limiting use of the material.

                  Yes, they can prohibit anything they want.
                  There is however no way to enforce this. I can prohibit you from wearing socks and sandals, doesn't mean I have any power for force you to comply.
        • If it's supposed to limit distribution, it's a remarkably ineffective way to go about it.

          First, aren't there a relatively small number of regions? (8?) That doesn't make for very fine-grained control, plus, once the regions are set, you're stuck with them, so it can't be used to say "This release goes to countries A, B, and C, but this one goes to A and C and perhaps D but not B." Unless the industry knew exactly what regions would be needed for all time, this will not be a suitable solution.

          Second, the region control ties it not to a specific country (could we have that technology-- perhaps, by putting a GPS in every player), but a specific set of players. If you're desperate enough to watch a Region X disc in Region Y, what stops you from importing a Region X player (and, if necessary, a compatible TV?) I believe this has been done occasionally to bridge the TV standard barrier with video tape.

          Third, I may be mistaken, but isn't the region code not honoured by all players? I'm thinking some older players didn't handle it.

          I feel like these people are trying to say "We locked the bank vault" when they applied duct tape and a shrinkwrap licence to the door.
          • I agree it's in ineffective xolution and is not well thought out but it's still the right of the copyright holder to limit distribution if they want. Don't confuse my explanation of reality as a value judegment. I'm not crazy about region encoding but as I like in Region 1, I don't miss out on too many DVDs :)
            • it's still the right of the copyright holder to limit distribution if they want.

              They are only allowed to limit distribution within the bonds of the law.

              First Sale - the exhaustion of the distribution right - is one of the largest limitations of the copyright holders power to control distribution.

              Many countries have laws regarding parallel import, and they might apply for commercial import.

              Trademark law might also apply for commercial import.

              Licenses and contracts might also apply.

              What is important to note, is that you - as a private person - are rarely affected by parallel import laws, trademark laws and contracts. Thus, you only have to care about First Sale in most situations. And First Sale is the exact opposite of "it's still the right of the copyright holder to limit distribution if they want".

        • Actually, region encoding is protected by copyright law. It falls

          under the distribution clause as it limits distribution in certain geographical
          areas of the world as per the wishes of the copyright holder.

          Bzzzt, sorry, thanks for playing. Once I've purchased a piece of
          copyrighted material (be it a book, cd, dvd, or something else), I'm free to
          distribute the one, original, legal copy I have where I like. I can send it
          off to my friend in Europe or Asia to enjoy. I can take it with me for my trip
          to South America and watch it there. That's the right [bc.edu]
          of first sale. Excepting is broken DMCA law, I'm free to disable region
          coding.

        • Bzzzt, sorry, thanks for playing. Once I've purchased a piece of copyrighted material (be it a book, cd, dvd, or something else), I'm free to distribute the one, original, legal copy I have where I like. I can send it off to my friend in Europe.

          [ or ] but once sold, the person can resell it or use it anywhere in the world that they like. When I buy a paperback book in europe, and fly home with it, customs doesn't wrestle me to the ground for distribution infringment

          Er - no, incorrect. USA First Sale rights only apply in the USA, unfortunately.

          Levi recently took the major UK supermarket to court in the UK to prevent them buying jeans legitimately in the USA and importing them, on copyright grounds. Levi won.

          The reason individuals are not prosecuted, let alone wrestled to the ground, is simply that it is uneconomic. Sad but true.

          This case may well end up illuminating Norwegian law only. The access was illegal because the DVD-movies were sold with the resctrictment that the user used only autorised playback equipment. The terms visible to a consumer at the time of purchase on my region 2 copy of Lord of the Rings does not contain such a clause, even in the bit you need a magnifying glass to read.

          At least the publicity should move along the process of getting Hollywood back in their pram.

          • Levi recently took the major UK supermarket to court in the UK to prevent them buying jeans legitimately in the USA and importing them, on copyright grounds. Levi won.

            Levi claimed trademark infringement, not copyright infringement.

            See EU Court of Justice, case C-414/99 [eu.int]

            The "Levi's" and "501" trademarks in the UK are held by Levi Ltd, a UK company.

            The court held that, by importing Levi jeans from the US, Tesco and Costco infringed on the trademarks held by Levi Ltd.

      • Re:Legitimate Usage (Score:2, Informative)

        by egreB ( 183751 )
        In the interesting parts of the indictement, it sates.. (translation at the bottom)

        Ved det beskrevne forhold brøt Jon Lech Johansen kopibeskyttelsen på DVD-filmene og skaffet seg og andre adgang til dataene på DVD-platene i ubeskyttet form. Adgangen var
        uberettiget fordi DVD-filmene var solgt med forutsetning om at brukeren skulle
        bruke autorisert avspillingsutstyr og respektere kopibeskyttelsen. Tilegnelsen av
        filmene i ubeskyttet form har voldt skade fordi rettighetshaverne ikke lenger har vern
        mot uberettiget spredning av filmene.

        Roughly translated:
        Jon Lech Johansen cracked the copy protection on the [his own] DVD-movies and got by this access to the data on the DVD-discs in an unprotected form. The access was illegal because the DVD-movies were sold with the resctrictment that the user used only autorised playback equipment and respected the copyright. The access of the movies in its unprotected form has done damage because the keepers of the copyright no longer has protection against unauthorised distribution of the movies.

        I know the english is kind of scetchy right there, but it's not easy to translate norwegian law language on-the-fly..

        It seems they're suing him because the DVDs were sold with one clause - that only authorised playback equipment were to be used during playback of the movies. In other words, you cannot access the data on your OWN DISCS by your own means.
        • In other words, you cannot access the data on your OWN DISCS by your own means.

          Yeah...and the case is the same in the US under current law.
        • I know the english is kind of scetchy right there, but it's not easy to translate norwegian law language on-the-fly..

          Yea, but you did a whole hell of a lot better than this site [worldlanguage.com]...

          At the described affair brøt Jon Lech Johansen kopibeskyttelsen at DVD - the movies and generated her and other access at combining at DVD - disk's in unprotected admonish. Admittance stayed baseless as a matter of DVD - the movies stayed sold along with assumption about that the user do be about consumes authorized avspillingsutstyr and abide by kopibeskyttelsen. Appropriation at the movies in unprotected admonish has rape breakdown as a matter of the licensees no longer has protect against baseless diffusion at the movies.

          At least I hope you did better... otherwise the judge has his work cut out for him. Either that or Mr. Johansen is in big big trouble.

          -S

        • It seems they're suing him because the DVDs were sold with one clause - that only authorised playback equipment were to be used during playback of the movies.
          It will be interesting to see what evidence (if any) they are able to produce, which supports that assertion.
      • Yes, there are people who attempt to profit by copying DVD's. This law does nothing to prevent that, because anything that can be viewed can be copied.

        Rather than punish those who cause harm, the "prohibitionist" tries to make the ability to do harm illegal.

        The problem is that the most dangerous tool is the human mind and imagination. The prohibitionist cannot prohibit someone from having thoughts, so all that is left is to prohibit objects.

        "Drugs" are a perfect example. The tighter the prohibitions, the greater the violence and reclessness of those who violate the prohibitions. As relatively peaceful people who inadvertantly violate the prohibition are "removed", those who remain are the ones who are not peaceful.

        This is the same for all prohibitions, which is why they don't work.

        By making it impossible to peacefully and easily view DVD's one has legally bought, it becomes more attractive to purchase illegal "cracked" copies which will be viewable. This will enrich the less ethical criminals at the cost of the legal producers, and do vastly greater damager to "society" than the relatively innocent peaceful "sharing" that would have happened otherwise.

        Bob-

    • Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How is it a piracy tool? Please explain this.

      You can copy DVD's just fine without DeCSS. Just go ask Hong Kong or Korea.

      • Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by King of the World ( 212739 )
        By decoding the DVD video it enables reencoding at a filesize that's easier to download and trade online. The popular 400 meg ASF movie files are the result of this, and I doubt if they would be so popular if it were a 4 GIG download for quality that most people don't care about.
        • Yah, but you can pretty much already do that with bit-for-bit copies anyway. The decryption is done entirely by the player itself (which is legal)... the output is just dumped to disk or piped to a mpeg encoding program. Though I havn't ripped any DVDs myself, I think this is the preferred method of doing things.

          • Re:What? (Score:2, Insightful)

            by martyn s ( 444964 )
            No, this is not the prefered method. There are other DVD decrypters besides DeCSS, but they all just rip .VOB files and therefore makes it much easier to reencode movies, and swap it over the internet. In fact, I'm in middle of re-encoding a twilight zone DVD, which I ripped by using a program which decrypted the DVD first (I don't think it used DeCSS tho).

            Even though it might be easy to do it the way you're describing, it would still take significantly longer to rip it, and the fact is no one does it that way.

            I'm not trying to say anything one way or the other about what this should mean about the legality of this, I'm just telling you how people who actually rip DVDs do it.

        • Re:What? (Score:2)

          by Eil ( 82413 )

          Trading != piracy.

          At least, not my opinion. I define piracy as the copying of a copyrighted work for monetary profit. Since trading does not fit this description, I think the law should make some sort of distinction between the two terms.

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Cally ( 10873 )
      It's a priacy tool.
      It's funny, there's a guy with a foldout table outside my local tube station (Brixton, London, UK) selling DVDs - often of films which are still on theatrical release, or indeed have only just opened - and I'll eat my hat if deCSS was used for *any* of them. Why should a copyright infringer go to all the trouble of decrypting an MPG video file when the encrypted version will play just fine on Fred Bloggs' standard home DVD player? So someone can tie up their broadband connection for a couple of hours, uploading a ripped film to total strangers - for *free*?? Get real, these blokes want to make MONEY! They can do that selling encrypted DVDs to people owning normal players much, much more easily than trying to sell them on the net.
    • It is a piracy tool. It's also a tool with legitimate usage.

      That's too negative. It's not a piracy tool any more than a hammer is a murder tool.

      Instead, it's a tool with legitimate usage, but it also can be used for piracy.

      -S

    • Of course it is a piracy tool.

      In fact, this spring I was sailing peacefully in my boat at the North Sea, when I was approached by a wooden ship sailing under a skull and bones flag. When it reached my, my boat was boarded by a wild looking one eyed man with a large beard and a hook instead of one hand. Before I could react, he demanded all my possesions, and threatened to play a Spice World DVD for me on a portable computer running Linux unless I complied immediately. When I pointed out that the DVD was encoded and wouldn't be playable on his computer, he just laughed and showed me the DeCSS source. At that point, I had no other options than to comply.

      So DeCSS is obviously a piracy tool.

      Some claim it can be used for unauthorized copying as well.

    • > It is a piracy tool.

      Oh really? Has anyone *ever* used DeCSS to produce
      a digital copy of comparable quality to the original
      which was subsequently distributed in violation of
      copyright law applicable in Norway under the Berne
      Convention?

      I sincerely doubt it.
  • "Norwegian Economic Crime Unit (OKOKRIM) "

    OKOKRIM sounds more like it should be estblished in a prison, not a crime unit. Ick.

  • Links (Score:5, Informative)

    by SkipToMyLou ( 595608 ) <b@b.b> on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @07:24PM (#4022125)
    EEF information [eff.org] on the Jon Johansen case.

    Read the indictment. [nanocrew.net] in Norwegian.

    Linux World interview [linuxworld.com] with Johansen.

    Swedish coverage [www.digi.no] of the case.

    EEF campaign [eff.org] to free Johansen.

    Old slashdot article [slashdot.org] about original indictment.

  • wow, irony is heavy in here... (Score:4, Funny)

    by edrugtrader ( 442064 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @07:25PM (#4022129) Homepage
    courtTV will be releasing the entire trial on DVD with 3 different camera angles, and a secondary audio track with commentary by the judge.

  • DeCSS was THREE people (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @07:26PM (#4022138)
    Taken from the Greplaw link, copy pasted and formatted. Originally by "Seth Finkelstein".

    As Jon Johansen put it himself in an old interview: [linuxworld.com]

    Jon Johansen: I'm 16 now, I was 15 when it happened ... and the encryption code wasn't in fact written by me, but written by the German member. There seems to be a bit of confusion about that part.

    LinuxWorld: The other two people that you had worked with to make the player are remaining anonymous -- is that right?

    Jon Johansen: Yes, that is correct.

    ...

    LinuxWorld: Do you know why they want to remain anonymous?

    Jon Johansen: They are both a lot older than me, and they are employed. So I guess they just didn't want the publicity, and they were perhaps afraid of getting fired.


  • It seems to me that, according to law, he is guilty. The original trial is meaningless, since he can only be found guilty, if the system works the way it is supposed to. In an ordinary court it is only to determine whether a law has been broken. One [at least] _HAS_ been broken. It is not until the appeals proccess that it can be determined whether those laws are in question.

  • I wonder (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zurab ( 188064 )
    1. whether they will be able to point to any DVDs that have been pirated from the use of his code and his code only, not somebody else's; and how they will be able to prove that it was his code.

    2. if they do find his code used for piracy why would they not find VCRs, analog cables, DVD drives, and computers to be piracy tools also.

    2a. if they find pirated material created with his code, and are able to prove it, why wouldn't they go after the actual pirates rather than going after him. Because his code does have other non-pirate uses.
    • 2. if they do find his code used for piracy why would they not find VCRs, analog cables, DVD drives, and computers to be piracy tools also.

      A) They tried to (see Universal V. Sony, 1984) but couldn't...

      B) They couldn't, since such would require making all wiring illegal (anyone can jury rig an RCA patch cable)...

      C)They can and are, since they can pretty much buy any congressman they want to...
  • under linux why didn't the recording industry just create a legitimate DVD player for linux?

    I still don't see how they have a case, he never profitted from his efforts (other than he might have gotten a job interview for creating DeCSS)

    We wouldn't have this problem if mother teresa ran the record companies. The RIAA wants to eat your grandparents and prevent you from making legitimate backups of them.

    • Re:Instead of slammin Jon for making DVD's playabl (Score:4, Funny)

      by edrugtrader ( 442064 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @07:44PM (#4022246) Homepage
      it isn't just playback on linux... it is playback on linux from the harddrive... NOT the original DVD disc.

      if mother teresa ran the record companies, all we would hear is shitty local bands that she gave all the airplay to cause they were 'nice boys'.

  • It is sad (Score:2, Insightful)

    by octover ( 22078 )
    It is sad the way things are going for the consumer. Most of the people I've explained what the industry is doing have agreed that it is stupid. The industry is trying to force computers and technology to their idea of how it should be. I think there is a happy medium between their idea and the typical /. readers idea of how it should be . Unfortunatly the bastards won't bend their neck and find a better way. Will any change happen soon, probably not. However the more and more the industry tries to f#$k the consumer, the sooner the consumers will f#@k the industry. My best wishes to Jon and the EFF.

    Proud owner of a DeCSS shirt from copyleft.net

  • Jon Johansen's Age (Score:4, Interesting)

    by RickHunter ( 103108 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @07:44PM (#4022249)

    Something interesting I noticed about the timing for this case, that struck me as odd... When Jon was arrested two years ago, he was sixteen. He was, I believe, a minor under Norwegian law, and the charges were dropped. He is now eighteen, if my math is correct, and possibly older. Is this past the age of legal majority in Norway? And if so, could this be part of the motive for delaying the trial?

    After all, they probably wouldn't be able to get much of a penalty against an underaged individual who wasn't even the primary coder and who has stated many times that he wishes his code to be used as part of a DVD player. However, now that he's older, they might be able to get stiffer penalties. Or at the very least, get a black mark on his permanent record and make it much harder for him to get into a good college/university or get a good job.

    Remember, Johansen is being made an example of. The MPAA is trying to say "screw with our monopoly and we'll do this to you". They, of course, want this example to be as effective as possible.

    At the very least, everyone reading this article (especially those of you in Norway!) should support Johansen however possible. Donate money, organize protests, publicize his case. Make it a hot-button emotional issue. Make it clear that we just want to play DVDs, make it clear to people that the MPAA doesn't want them to import movies from another country and watch them before the approved-from-on-high release date, or buy at a cheaper price from the next country over.

    Good luck to you, Jon! I remember being shocked back in 2000, when you got arrested on nothing more than the say-so of the DVD CCA for releasing a simple program that did nothing more than read data. I'm shocked that the MPAA's still persecuting you. I hope you can prove your innocence and strike a blow for the right to use generic computing technologies.

    • Something interesting I noticed about the timing for this case, that struck me as odd... When Jon was arrested two years ago, he was sixteen. He was, I believe, a minor under Norwegian law, and the charges were dropped. He is now eighteen, if my math is correct, and possibly older. Is this past the age of legal majority in Norway? And if so, could this be part of the motive for delaying the trial?

      Does not work that way. It is the age he did the crime at that counts, not the age he is tried at. They probably cannot do much in punishing him.

      However if the court finds hin guilty, that sets the pretext for any civilian procceedings into compensation for lost profit...

      • Ahhhh. And there are now two years worth of "lost" profits for the MPAA to point their fingers at?

        • Ahhhh. And there are now two years worth of "lost" profits for the MPAA to point their fingers at?

          Good point. Makes sense to me.

          Although I am not sure the MPAA could delay a Norwegian court.

          • They got him arrested in the first place with no more than a letter. I'm sure that they or their European division could arrange for some legal distraction or technicality. Though I'm also being unnecessarily pessimistic - the Norwegians could have simply been wanting to avoid having another Kaplan blindly sign off on whatever the industry shoves under their noses.

        • You don't need to look for a conspiracy here. Usually when losses are calculated for punishment/fines they include estimated future losses as well. They didn't need to wait.

          Besides, There isn't a chance in hell that they'll ever see the kind of money that they would call a month of losses. This kid probably won't make that much money in his whole life.

    • Re:Jon Johansen's Age (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Good luck to you, Jon! I remember being shocked back in 2000, when you got arrested on nothing more than the say-so of the DVD CCA for releasing a simple program that did nothing more than read data. I'm shocked that the MPAA's still persecuting you. I hope you can prove your innocence and strike a blow for the right to use generic computing technologies.

      Sigh...when are people going to get a clue? Releasing a simple program that did nothing more than read data? Come on, are we really supposed to believe this shit. I mean, I guess that means people must go to jail everyday for simply putting the laws of Newton to work, right? They were just using a chunk of metal to propel an object through the air. It's not really their fault that the other person died from a bullet wound...

      Trying to dilute a (perceived) crime into it's most basic elements is pointless. You end up glossing over the fact that someone did something (allegedly) illegal. If someone hacks a large website, their not really guilty, right? They just sent some packets over a network, no harm done. Uh-huh...sure.

      I'm not saying I necessarily agree with what's going on, but I can certainly see where the other side is coming from. If all you can see is "a simple program that [reads] data", then you need to open your eyes to the bigger picture.

      • Re:Jon Johansen's Age (Score:4, Insightful)

        by rmassa ( 529444 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @08:11PM (#4022372)
        Actually, you should be the one opening your eyes to a bigger picture.

        Diluting the percieved crime is the best way to find the parties who are most culpable. The people who are at fault in this case are the ones who _pirate_ the movie and use the tool that John wrote for non-legal purposes, not those people who want to watch a dvd on their damn linux box. What this kid did was not (or should not be) illegal. What people are using his tool for is illegal. You can't imprison someone for creating something that "might" be used for illegal purposes, if their intent and wish for developing that tool was for something that should be perfectly legal. (watching a DVD that you purchased with your own money).

        Diluting this issue is exactly what should be done, because we don't charge gunsmiths with murder. (Even though guns see their most widest use in killing people)
        • Lets take this a step further in examination:

          the only way this software could be used illegally is to copy a dvd into another format (say divx) and send to a friend (or no friend for that matter).

          No one would use this software to make dvd's of it - the resulting image wouldn't play on a dvd.

          I think this is an important distinction.

          More important, however, is that *at the time* there was no other way to play dvd's on linux boxes. Nothing in us law (that i'm aware of) says that the mpaa should have control of both the media *and* the players.

          My guess (hope?) is this would have never come up if they had released a linux player.

          Course an even bigger issue is that fact that never before has *code* been illegal - only the wrongful use of it. I'm sad to see this change...
        • I agreed with everything you said, right up until...

          "(Even though guns see their most widest use in killing people)"

          Why on earth would you ruin a perfectly good argument by pulling some bullshit, completely false, bogus statistic (or merely statement) out of your ass?

          Guns see their widest use in the capacity in which they were originally designed for. Hunting.

          -Tommy
          • Guns see their widest use in the capacity in which they were originally designed for. Hunting.

            Were you trying to be funny?

            Guns are most often used for non-hunting sport. Clay shooting, benchrest rifle, pistol drills, turkey shoot (the turkey is a target, I mean the target is a target, I mean a piece of paper.. blah, I mean no animals die in the process :), the list is endless.

            Shooting for sport far outweighs hunting in almost every gun related way.

            I hope the anti-gun people can see that restricting guns is the equivalent to the gun people trying to restrict the ownership and use of inflated pigskins, or golf clubs (or as they are known on the street, cop clubbers). It's just a piece of sporting equipment in many cases.
    • For that matter, isn't there some form of statute of limitations? Furthermore, as his "criminal" act did not result in bodily harm or property damage, is it really so ethical (well, yeah, we ARE talking about the MPAA here, but that's besides the point) to hold someone responsible for something that amounts to TP'ing the Hollywood sign when they were kids, only to seek perse- er- prosecution when they're old enough to lock away?

      I mean jeeze, when I was a kid, I got drunk a lot before the whole zero tolerance thing, before I was legal age for drinking, and gave booze to my similarly underaged friends... Does that mean I should go to jail for corruption of minors (including myself)? That's just plain stupid, for lack of a better description...
    • Or at the very least, get a black mark on his permanent record and make it much harder for him to get into a good college/university or get a good job.

      Interviewer: Have you ever been convicted of a major crime?
      Jon: Actually yes.
      Interviewer: startled Oh? For what, may I ask?
      Jon: Well, um, remember DeCSS? Well, I wrote it.
      Interviewer: Wait a minute... Jon Johansen? Well, I suppose there's no question about your skills...

      Since it's such a high profile case, it probably won't negatively affect his employment opportunities.
      • > Since it's such a high profile case, it probably won't negatively affect his employment opportunities.
        You should be right - the fact that he wrote DeCSS in the first place might have a positive affect - in inteverviews with techies. But most interviews are done by management, so maybe not so much help there.
        The more important issue is that in many countries, a criminal record is an automatic bar to obtaining the security clearance necessary to work on defence (military) contracts. That potentially rules out a lot of jobs. It might also make it much harder (or even impossible) for him to obtain the visas necessary to work abroad.

      • Want to bet that if the movie industry wins, the first thing they're going to push for is barring Johansen from employment in the technology field? After all, he is an Evil Terrorist Hacker!(TM)

        • I don't want to make that bet at all, even though I am a betting man. That's probably because if the MPAA had its way, any person who buys less than 5 DVDs a month would be arrested and fined.
    • Or at the very least, get a black mark on his permanent record and make it much harder for him to get into a good college/university or get a good job.

      I don't think such a mark would have that large significance. Here in Finland (and I believe it to be quite similar in Norway), colleges or universities can't pick students based on reputation (I'm not sure how it is in the US, at least you imply that they can). There may be some other routes with interviews etc, but the vast majority get in though tests. The ones with the highest marks get in.

      Also, I doubt very many employers check any criminal records. (I'm not sure can they check them either, I doubt it.) And as someone said, it's also a good show of your skills.

      What it might make difficult would be getting some state jobs relating to security (defence ministry, police, etc), and maybe getting credit cards, and of course getting a visa to the US, for example. But I doubt very much that they can set a "black mark" on someone that has really large effect.
  • I wish I could read the indictment, because I can't figure the arguments out. If the DVD player decodes the encrypted data on the disk, HOW can DECSS be an aid to piracy?

    I mean, a piracy tool that does not do anything doesn't make sense. I realize that the real issue is that the MPAA wants to control the format of distribution, but I'm interested in how the prosecution is arguing this case.

    The only thing I can think of, is that you could better compress the decoded disk and then make it viable for download? Is this true? Does norweigan law specify exactly what a piracy tool is? Obviously a CD burner could be a piracy tool too, so how do they make the distinction in the law between a device that can be used for many things including piracy, and a piracy device? I hope it isn't exclusively prosecutorial discretion.

    • I speak Norwegian (Score:2, Informative)

      by MrHanky ( 141717 )
      and I'll try to answer some of your questions.

      Jon Johansen is tried (translation:) "for having broken a protection or in a similar fashion gotten access to data that are stored or are transferred by electronical or other technical means and for having caused damage by appropriation or use of such knowledge, or complicity to this." (Yes, this translation sucks. I'm tired.)

      The case is in two parts: he breaks a protection, which gives him access to a work that he has bought the right to access. I think the judges will understand this, but Økokrim seems to think otherwise: "The access is unauthorised because the DVDs were sold under the condition that the users should use authorised playback equipment and respect the copy protection." Personally, I know of no such condition.
      The other part is whether he caused any damage by spreading information on CSS and the DeCSS program itself. (This part has been added in the new incitement.) Obviously, DeCSS has made DVD piracy a lot easier, but, as you say, so has CD-recorders. If Jon Johansen in considered to be an "accomplice to piracy", so should Plextor and all good ISPs.

      Oh well. I need some sleep now.
  • Scandinavian Slashdotters may be interested in a discussion on the case [gnuheter.com] over at Swedish Gnuheter. Some are thinking about arranging a protest in connection with the trial, but Scandinavian courts are very rarely impressed by such activities. Still, a manifestation of the kind might have other results than affecting the courts. The public is probably not aware of what is going on in the copyright wars and they need to be addressed through the media accordingly.

    Regards

    Mikael
  • JUDGE: Would that you could render this extermination unnecessary by renouncing this method of illegal decryption!
    JOHANSEN: No, Your Honor, it cannot be. I don't think much of our profession, but, contrasted with respectability, it is comparatively honest. No, Your Honor, I shall live and die a Pirate King.
    (SONG -- PIRATE KING)
    JOHANSEN: Oh, better far to live and die
    Under the flightless bird I fly,
    Than play a corporate raider's part
    With a pirate head and a pirate heart.
    Away to the cheating world go you,
    Where pirates all are well-to-do;
    But I'll be true to the song I sing,
    And live and die a Pirate King.
    For I am a Pirate King!
    And it is, it is a glorious thing
    To be a Pirate King!
    For I am a Pirate King!
    SLASHDOTTERS:You are!
    Hurrah for the Pirate King!
    JOHANSEN:And it is, it is a glorious thing
    To be a Pirate King.
    SLASHDOTTERS:It is!
    Hurrah for the Pirate King!
    (Inserted to avoid lameness filter.)
    Hurrah for the Pirate King!
    JOHANSEN:When I sally forth to seek my prey
    I help myself in a royal way.
    I rip a few more flicks, it's true,
    Than a well-bred hacker ought to do;
    But many a hack with a first-class clone,
    If he wants to call his warez his own,
    Must manage somehow to get through
    More lines of code than e'er I do,
    For I am a Pirate King!
    And it is, it is a glorious thing
    To be a Pirate King!
    For I am a Pirate King!
    SLASHDOTTERS:You are!
    Hurrah for the Pirate King!
    JOHANSEN:And it is, it is a glorious thing
    To be a Pirate King.
    SLASHDOTTERS:It is!
    Hurrah for the Pirate King!
    (the lameness filter, to avoid, inserted.)
    Hurrah for the Pirate King!
    (exeunt.)
  • Honestly.

    I mean, this is not just some minor licensing issues or whatever. People are actually trying to put other people in jail for writing software that enables people wo watch DVD:s they have payed for. That's exactly what's happening - why can't the people adovacting this crap see that?

    *sigh*

  • Good luck Jon (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cally ( 10873 ) on Tuesday August 06, 2002 @07:50PM (#4022270) Homepage
    The original Slashdot story about Jon prompted me throw up a mirror on my own site [demon.co.uk], and link to it from a comment. (I'm a UK citizen resident in the UK, as is the server holding my little site.) A couple of months later I was clearing the christmas mail list backlog when I came across a legalistic document concerning deCSS. To my amazement it seemed I was a defendant ("John Doe #13") in the California case. (The 2600 case is in NYC.)

    In the ensuing two and a half years I've become increasingly radicalised (in the geek sense: I had a flirtation with "IRL" politics for a few years in my late teens/early 20s and lost interest pretty thoroughly after that.) In retrospect, this event was the first time I made a small gesture [demon.co.uk] of public support for the freedoms we all consider so important. The reaction to it, whilst amusing, has given me a different perspective on matters which previously seemed unconnected: the importance of the GPL, for instance, the reasons *why* the DMCA is just the tip of an iceberg...

    The only moral to my anecdote is this: where's *your* mirror of deCSS? Mine's still there [demon.co.uk] =)

  • He's a victim of this war.

    He's already served his purpose. He took the rap. The mpaa was looking for a scapegoat anyways......
  • Piracy my ass. It allows me to run down to Blockbuster so I can watch something every weekend and watch movies in full quality. Else, I'd have to get half rate movies off the internet. Who are they kidding?

Slashdot Top Deals

Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.

Close