DeCSS: Jon Johansen Acquitted In Retrial 457
EssJay writes "DVD-Jon is acquitted in the retrial. The verdict was expected in January, but was announced today in the papers." We had posted about the retrial beginning - it's a good holiday present to get this early.
At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Common sense 1, recording industry, nil
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:5, Informative)
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:5, Informative)
The UK EUCD implementation grants specific requirements that mean you must be allowed access to an unencrypted copy of the data if you have a legitimate reason for needing it... unforuntately the procedure for enforcement of this is ridiculously complicated (you must complain to the home secretary, IIRC).
I'm not sure how it'll work in norway, but I'd hope there would be some similar provision.
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:2, Informative)
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:3, Informative)
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:3, Informative)
Area. In English, it's called the European Economic Area (I know it's confusing at times; it's called "space" (Ruimte) in Dutch as well). And Norway had every freedom not to join -- it's just that at the time Norway was expecting that it WOULD shortly be joining the EU. That is, after all, what the Area was all about: a stepping-stone to full EU (then EC) membership.
which is EU+Norway
I'm sure Iceland for one ap
Why the EEA agreement sucks (Score:5, Interesting)
The original EEA, which was a deal between EU and EFTA, was a rather good agreement between two both fairly large European organizations, e.g. in the joint court there'd be 2:3 EFTA:EU judges. It wasn't directly designed as some kind of "trial EU membership", not in that sense, but of course it laid the groundwork for even tighter integration and most people looked at it as a stepping stone.
However, the whole balance of power shifted in 1994, when most of the other countries joined the EU. You can almost say they merged. Only Norway, Iceland and a couple others you need a magnifying glass to see on a map were left "outside", in EFTA. We turned it down with about 53% no, so was a close call. They got a lot bigger, we got a lot smaller. And with EU expanding, it is shifting even more.
Ever since that time, it's become more and more like a leash. Where is was once thought that in case of a disagreement, both sides would hold reasonable power to dispute it, we're now getting directives slapped at us with a "take it or leave it", with the joint force of EU behind it and only a slumbering veto power paragraph if we disagree.
Some of our politicians tout our independence (as independent as being a speck of dust instead of a rock in a storm) and have in general a very inflated view of Norway's role on the international scene. No, being so small, insignificant and without commercial interests that we make good neutral peacemakers is NOT a sign of power!
I think Norway should either get in EU, or get out of EEA. Preferably in EU. But what we have today, is pretty much the worst of both worlds, stuck in a limbo, that yes, we didn't expect to be in. At least within EU we'd be a voice in the choir, right now our situation reminds me of a Calvin&Hobbes strip. Calvin is out looking at the stars, gazing out in the great depths. Then he yells "I mean something". And then in the final scene "...roared the speck of dust". Translated it back from Norwegian to English, so not sure if I got it literally correct. You get the picture.
Kjella
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:5, Informative)
That doesn't seem particulalry likely. The central reason that Johansen was never found guilty was that he didn't write or distribute this software with the purpose of violating copyrights (as in making copies and redistributing) but for enabling premissible use (i.e. making the damn things readble under Linux after you spent good money on them). That use remains permissible and Artible 6, sub 4 of that same Directive states that both governments and industry must see to it that it remains possible to take such permissible actions and that circumventing copyright protections for such purposes can never be a violation.
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:5, Informative)
Here we are dealing with accessing the DVD, there is nothing in it that prevents making a copy of the DVD (it will end up as an encrypted copy as well of course), but the "protection" does not prevent copying in any way, only access.
The EUCD deals with circumvention of protection that deals with copyright issues. For example copying which is a right the copyright holder has. Accessing a work is NOT something exlusive to the copyright holder and hence not an issue of copyrights.
If you look at the Swedish implementation (or suggestion for it at least), they make exactly this reasoning and the implementation only deal with protection that deals with copyright rights. Encrypting something for example, is not such a thing (nor is for example region coding, which is also specifically mentioned). Hence you can circumvent or do whatever you want in that regard.
Some EU countries might implement it differently and also include access protection but that is NOT a necessity under the EUCD.
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit (Score:4, Informative)
McDonald's was repeatedly warned that it was serving its coffee hotter than it should -- close to boiling. They were told to serve their coffee at a more normal temperature. When the woman received third degree burns to her thighs because McDonald's repeatedly refused to. All she did was remove the lid to add her cream and sugar and received third degree burns. Think about that.
"She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard."
So, McDonald's knew they were serving their coffee too hot, they'd been sued before, and now a woman who removed the lid to add cream and sugar had to had skin grafts as a result.
Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit (Score:3, Informative)
Let's also look at the situation:
Woman pours (accidentally) scalding water/coffee into h
McDonald's Law? (Score:4, Interesting)
PS (even though it defeats what I said above): Nice selective quoting. The reason why the judge lowered the punitives is because she was found partly at fault in this case.
Re:McDonald's Law? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point re: the selective quoting. Remember, this thing is saved as my Slashdot PGP signature (thats how often this shit comes up)- and MY point initially was that "This woman DID NOT get millions from this. Why? The judge lowered it, because the JUDGE has that power."
My intention wasn't to say who was at fault, or wether she should or shouldn't have sued. Its to show that there are some internal balancing mechanisms in the legal system. The additional implication hinted at
Re:sigh... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it was found that while the McD coffee was hot, it was at a lower temperature than a typical cafe's coffee.
I'm having a hard time believing this statement. I worked for McDonald's around 1991-1992, and the coffee we served there was incredibly hot. As in, let it cool for 30 minutes with the lid off, and it might not blister your tongue. I'd be interested to know the actual conditions and research data for the comparison you describe, it sounds to me like doctored evidence.
Re:More Info On The Frivolity (Score:3, Informative)
Absolutely nothing, because she wasn't driving; the car was stopped when it spilled.
"After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; nei
Re:More Info On The Frivolity (Score:4, Insightful)
Only in the land of the brave.
Other places, coffee is supposed to be brewed at 197-205F (92-96C), and served at no lower temperature than 176-187F (80-86C) for regular coffee and a few degrees lower for espresso.
McDonald's coffee, if it was 185F, was served according to the recommended temperatures. If they were at fault, it would be by serving the coffee in cups not appropriate for drinking hot coffee from.
Never ever should coffee be served at as low a temperature as 130-140F, and definitely not made that way -- you can't possibly get the flavour out of beans that way, and what you end up with will have little to do with coffee.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:More Info On The Frivolity (Score:3, Informative)
The temp at which coffee is made surely must be hotter than which it is served. Maybe people are mixing "made" and "served" in this thread because they're in a hurry.
Sure, my wife makes my coffee with boiling water in the French press. If she ever served me boiling coffee, I'd have a few choice words for her. :)
Also, 180F really is way too dangerous to use for normal household use, nevermind the waste of heating power to maintain it. I set my water heater to 14
Re:sigh... (Score:3, Informative)
Your brewer should maintain a water temperature between 195 - 205 degrees Fahrenheit for optimal extraction.
the temperature should be maintained at 180 - 185 degrees Fahrenheit.
From National Coffee Association of USA [ncausa.org] So what exactly did McDonalds do wrong? It served coffee at recommended temperature for taste. They broke no laws. Why should they pay for her medical bill? Did they jump in her car and force her to spill coffee on herself?
Re:sigh... (Score:4, Insightful)
McDonalds was aware that at the temperature that they served coffee was dagerous, and that people had burned them selves so bad, it required medical attention, and time in the hospital.
It is reasonable to expect people to spill coffee, as such, you better be sure it's not going to put them in the hospital.
Very few people taste anything thats 185 degree farenhiet, because it will burn your tounge.
The suit is not that coffee was spilt, but that the coffee was dangerous. Do you think if you bought a cup of coffee, spilt it on yourself, it would be reasonalbe to have to go to a burn ward for a week?
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it does, if you live in Norway...
From what I read here at /. those of you living in the USA shouldn't hold your breath as long as you have the motion picture and music industries controlling your legislature :-(
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:5, Informative)
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:3, Informative)
What right is this that people keep talking about?
In the U.S., and a few other countries I know of, it's generally been the case that you are ALLOWED to make a backup copy of digital media, but you do not have the RIGHT to it. That means that if you can, you may, but if they implement some assinine "protection", things like the DMCA can kick you in the nuts for making your copy.
In fact, our sister company determined, about a year and a half ago, that, according to German law, German consumers DO NOT have
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I think it is only fair to have a law to protect your rights in this area. I'm only protecting my investments. By storing originals off-site, i.e bank-vault, I can restore my huge CD collection after let's say a fire or water damage since I only use the copies at home.
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:5, Informative)
It appears to mean just that in Norway, at least.
While Norway isn't a member of the European Union (EU), they are -- like Switzerland -- a member of the European Economic Cooperative (EEC), and laws are quite often synchronized across EU+EEC. This might have influence on, if not directly affecting, how EU laws will be interpreted.
EEC seems to be one of the three remaining venues of appeal for the MPAA and its lackeys in this case -- it's hard to imagine how this ruling could be anti-competitive in nature or otherwise impart European trade rules, but it's a possibility.
The case might also be escalated to the Norwegian supreme court, for a principal ruling. However, I am not sure that the MPAA would want that to happen, as that would be a definitive ruling affecting all similar cases in the future, and with the firm rulings of the two lower courts, it's highly unlikely that the Norwegian supreme court would rule differently.
The third venue of continued legal action would be to charge Mr Johansen according to US laws in the US, because the GUI for DeCSS that he published was made available on the US market. Let's hope that Mr Johansen has learned from the Skylarov case, and won't be stupid enough to visit the US in the near future.
Regards,
--
*Art
The beauty of the Norwegian system... (Score:5, Interesting)
They do definately not want that to happen, but they have very little choice. Since the prosecution can appeal, it will set precedent if they choose not to appeal. Unlike the US, where I understand you must be found guilty all the way up to the supreme court to ever get there, since any aquittal is final. Yes, it does suck for DVD-Jon. But for the rest of us, it means that a precedent will be set at the first possible opportunity, not with some poster child case for the prosecution.
The Norwegian economic crime unit is getting major egg-on-face factor out of this. They've spent 4 years prosecuting a single teen individual with two straight losses in court. This is like an advanced task force that's supposed to deal with organized crime, fraud, embezzlement, stock scams, anti-cometitive behavior, corruption, money laundering and so on. Yes, "computer crimes" is also defined as one of their specialities, but I think everyone but themselves think that going after DVD-Jon is shooting sparrows with a cannon. Which makes it all the more embarassing when they fail.
I think they will try to appeal - simply because they have nothing to lose. If nothing else, just to delay this becoming a final precedent until after the EUCD has been implemented, making the ruling primarily of historical interest. Though I'm sure it will be interesting to see the same argunents about what legal rights you have compared to the legal limitations of the EUCD. Either way, congratulations to DVD-Jon. That this ruling was made already now (wasn't expected until mid-January) is a clear sign, that the prosecution's arguments were quite sternly rejected.
Kjella
Why visit the U.S.? (Score:5, Funny)
Why else but to stock up on cheap Region 1 DVDs to take home and copy!
Re:At last - now lets hope we can all move on (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Norway not a member of EU (Score:2)
As earlier stated, Norway (and Switzerland) are not members of the EU, but of the EEC, which is basically the EU plus a couple of closely related countries (much like Puerto Rico is related to the US, while not being a member state). EEC is governed by EU economic laws, and while the EEC doesn't actively participate in EU legislation,
Re:Any Norwegian Attorneys in the House? (Score:3, Informative)
excellent news (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:excellent news (Score:5, Informative)
(I am not a lawyer, but I am a Norwegian.)
Actually, I think the norwegian justice system is more corporation-friendly than the american one.
For example the MS anti-trust trial - it would never happen here. Inside trading, etc., is often ignored as well.
Re:excellent news (Score:4, Informative)
Thats the US (in)justice system for you. Of big business, by big business, and for big business.
Re:excellent news (Score:2, Funny)
Re:excellent news (Score:5, Insightful)
Norway is almost completely free from lobbying and leading politicians being stock market investors. You won't find a _single_ senator in the US that doesn't have a million dollar income as well as substantial connections to one or more industries. In Norway, you won't find a _single_ stortingsmann or judge who has a million dollar income or vested interests in large corporations -- hell, even the prime minister is a clergyman with a sub-$50k income when not being a politician.
It's very difficult to buy yourself a law in Norway, while it's the only way to create or change laws in the US. Norway is governed through legislation, while the US is governed through litigation.
The two cultures are a world apart, and it's simply uncomprehensible to the average Norwegian just how different things are, and how protected the Norwegian citizen really is. Just as it's incomprehensible to the average American, who is unable to differentiate concepts like socialism and communism, or understand how values without a monetary value can pre-empt any economic claims.
True, Norway is still slowly drifting towards American attitudes, but the drift is very slow, and the cultural chasm between the two cultures is so vast that it's hard to compare the two in any meaningful way in any near future.
The word "greed" sums it up pretty well - in Norway, greed is still considered a sin, and not something to be proud of, even if present to a small extent in individuals and a larger extent in corporations. In the US, greed is considered a driving force, and not only normal but necessary, both for individuals and corporations.
Regards,
--
*Art
Wrong, by 60% (Score:5, Informative)
At the time (Jun 13), only 40 out of 100 were millionaires, with 22 of those Republican and 18 of those Democrat. Of the same group of 40, 6 were Women and 34 were Men. The top 3 wealthiest are all Democrat.
From a blurb at the bottom, there are at least a few "common" people in the Senate... "at least 10 senators reported net worths of less than $100,000." Still a substantial salary in my opinion.
Not surprisingly, the founding fathers had a more "ogliarch" view of government. Benjamin Franklin believed that if the Senators were not given a salary [senate.gov], then only the wealthy could afford to spend their free time governing the nation. He was voted down, and congress instituted a salary of $6 per day [congresslink.org].
Re:Socialism and communism are the same (Score:5, Insightful)
And nothing has happened since then?
Libertarianism and capitalism as distinct terms didn't exist when the US was founded, but they are now both recognized. Just as socialism, communism (and various derivates like socioliberalism) have developed since the times of Marx and Engels.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:Socialism and communism are the same (Score:5, Informative)
a) Marx didn't invent communism he only co-wrote the Manifesto with Engels. So what Marx has to say on the subject isn't the last word.
and
b) The communism Marx was talking about is very different to the Communism you have in mind; the latter being better described as Stalinism.
Re:Leninism is dominant form of Marxism. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you not suppose those parties had a political agenda? Can you say the word, "propoganda"? The only connection between the Stalinists and Marx was that the former used the latter's Manifesto as a tool to convince the proletariat that they were an actual communist party. It's a classic example of Stalinist doublespeak; and you've fallen for it!
I don't know any as it happens. I've encountered sever
Re:Socialism and communism are the same (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. Go read the Communist Manifesto, where Marx and Engels devoted a whole chapter to denouncing various forms of socialism, some he explicitly connected to reactionary or utopian movements, making it very clear that these forms of communism in Marx' and Engels' eyes were the wrong direction and would not lead to a communist society.
The terms socialism and communism are used in a few different ways in Marx' works depending on
Re:excellent news (Score:3, Insightful)
Warm Fuzzys (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Warm Fuzzys (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a good thing we don't get ALL the Government we pay for: can you imagine policies like this with COMPETENT Government employees and enforcement ????
not fair -- best of out 5!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! (Score:5, Informative)
They have to. The next higher court (the "highest court") is the last stop. No case can go further. If the high court decides to hear it (as they probably should) then it becomes a precedent.
P.S. And they aren't retrials per se. The Norwegian, and Swedish, legal systems allow for a maximum of three trials in succedingly higher courts. And only the highest court can set a precedent.
Also, no plea bargains, no jury (only laypersons that sit for a longer term), no bail, and the state pays for your lawyer of choice who can claim according to a set (fairly generous) standard (there are no criminal attorneys that operate outside of that system).
Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! (Score:5, Insightful)
So far I like this system much better than our (American) system. Can the State drown the defendant in prosecuting lawyers whereas the defendant is only entitled to one lawyer, or it is one prosecutor and one defender?
Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! (Score:2)
So far I have not heared about any cases against private persons where the state has used more han two prosecuting lawyers.
In some business cases (Norsk Hydro vs. Government?) I think they are allowed to use more lawyers in the case "build up" and investigation.
Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I don't know the specifics about Norway, but in Sweden it is one prosecutor. However, he is also formally the head of the police investigation team, so he has some help there also. As such he has a sworn duty to try and find the truth, and hence if he uncovers anything that would tend to exhonorate the defendant he has to take that into account in trial as well (i.e. has to make it known to the court), so at least in theory he's (to some small extent) working for you in court as well, though in practice it may not be perfect.
Note though that the prosecutor is a civil servant, i.e. not elected, so you won't see "show trials" just for the publicity. Prosecutors are fairly anonymous people here.
Also, there's often another lawyer on the prosecutors "team", that's there to represent the interests of the victim, not the state, in cases where damages to the victim may be awarded (we don't typically do a separate civil suit for that, though there's nothing stoping it in theory). Thus the verdict can come down as "three years in prison, a fine and damages paid to the victims). I don't know if that's done in the US?
It's not a perfect system. But on balance it's not a bad system either.
Little primer on the US system (Score:3, Informative)
In a criminal trial the prosecution is represented by government lawyers. Generally, there are two of them one primary and one backup. They are not police officers but are officers of the court, which means they are sworn to find the truth. Like in Norway, they must present exculpatory evidence if they have it. Doesn't meant they always do, but that's what the law says they have to. The
Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! (Score:2)
Of course they have to give up, this is Norway.
Now, if the case were tried in California--it'd be another story--the wall of the courtroom would burst open in a cloud of flame and smoke and you'd hear a deep voice with an Austrian accent say "I ahm de highest court. Hasta la vista, baby"
Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! (Score:5, Informative)
They can lock you up for up to 48 hours before they need a court order for an arrest. Unless there's specific reasons for keeping the alleged perp interned, like destruction of evidence or risk of fleeing the country, the suspect is almost always released without bail (which doesn't exist) while awaiting trial.
And fleeing is simply unthinkable for the average Norwegian -- not only is the culture different, but there's no state borders to hide behind to avoid prosecution, like in the US. You'll have to go to a different country, where you won't have papers, and thus it is almost certainly easier to just face the court system in Norway. I'd think that the average Norwegian would rather be a prisoner in Norway than a fugitive anywhere else in the world.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! (Score:4, Informative)
Well, not really. The police can question you for 6+6 hours (you have the right to the lawyer of your choice), and then they have to press some form of charges. After that a "custody hearing" has to take place "as soon as possible, though no later than 48 hours after being taken in custody". There a judge will decide if the case against you is strong enough to go to trial at all (at that time), or if the charges are severe enough and there is sufficient risk of flight or disturbing the investigation, that you should remain incarcerated pending trial.
So it's not unlike the US system only that there is no bail. In the cases were a US judge would deny bail a Swede would be held in custody, and in the cases where the US judge would say "bail set at", the Swede would go free, withouth having to pay any bail.
If the trial comes out "innocent", then you will be compensated (quite handsomely) for the time spent incarcerated, so it's a form of bail in reverse. You don't pay to stay out of jail, you get paid to spend time in jail. :-)
Also, if you haven't been convicted of a crime you won't see any other prisoners, there's no "drunk tank" or similar here. You get single accomodation, both when arrested and in jail. So there's no risk of "innocent" people being forced to spend time with real criminals.
Re:not fair -- best of out 5!! (Score:3, Funny)
Pining for the fjords are we? :-)
Odd... (Score:5, Funny)
a court of law has ruled against the big media companies and for the little hacker guy who wrote a cool C++ program to let us all watch DVDs that we legally own?
Was Rod Sterling seen anywhere near the court, at all?
Re:Odd... (Score:3, Interesting)
A case with a faulty component in a VCR even landed in the supreme court and the "little guy" won.
The judges are not elected but hired and our politicians are not easily bought in a society with so few peope.
What they lack in corruptability they make up for in naivety, though, so it evens out.
C? C++? (Score:3, Informative)
reverse engineering legal in Norway again (Score:5, Interesting)
The US needs a DVD-Jon - any takers?
AngryPeopleRule [angrypeoplerule.com]
Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again (Score:2)
Sentenced and jail terms? You must mean 'declared copyright terrorists, shipped off to Cuba and held indefinitely without a trial'.
Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again (Score:2)
Cool! Actually it's pretty foggy and nasty here, and the girls wear too many clothes (and booze and cigars are way too expensive.) I wouldn't mind being shipped off to Cuba and staying there indefinitely without a trial.
Oh, I guess you mean that horrible resort hotel in Gargamo, wotsitcalled, not Club Med.
Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes... there are NO democrats in support of the DMCA...
Let's see... the DMCA was proposed by DEMOCRAT Senator Fritz Hollings of South Carolina. A Democratically controlled Senate passed the law. (Granted, the house was Republican-controlled at that time.)
A DEMOCRAT President (Clinton) signed the DMCA into law...
Those damned Republicans!
Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again (Score:2, Insightful)
are you kidding? without dmca and under a more open atmosphere kevin mitnick was accused of being capable of start a nuclear war using a pay phone and a whistler and stoling code from sun that worth 1 billion (the prosecution said it, the same code that you could buy at the time around US$300)
the russian guy... the one that cracked adobe pdf, spent days in the jail without proper defense
with that paranoia what do you think that would happen to a DVD John in the US? t
Re:reverse engineering legal in Norway again (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The risk is way too high. In Norway DVD-Jon risked _maximum theoretically_ two years in a nice prison and a fine of a 250000 NOK ($37000). In USA I would think that the stakes are significantly higher; several 5-10(?) years in prison and millions in expenses.
2. The lawyer cost in US would be much higher. The Norwegian state pays all of Mr. Johansens bills. In USA you would have had to sell your kidneys.
3. Judges and a expert jury ruled in this case. In USA the whole case would have been decided by a non-technical jury influenced by media and excellent RIAA/MPAA lawyers. Good luck.
It's not a retrial (Score:5, Informative)
It's not quite over yet, the police can appeal to the Supreme Court, which may or may not decide to hear it. The ultimate humiliation for the police would be if it was appealed but the Supreme Court decided not to hear it. But given the amount of beating the police has had in this case, they would be pretty fanatical to even think about appealing.
But yeah, it didn't take them too long, the case was apparently quite easy for the judges.
Re:It's not a retrial (Score:5, Informative)
In at least Sweden (where I am from) aquittal by the jury means no appeal for the prosecutor, but jury trial is only used in "freedom of press" cases such as libel.
Further, It is not the police that prosecutes a case, but rather the "publics prosecutor" (I suppose like a district attourney in the US) or in this case a special "public prosecutor" tasked with a specific type of crimes.
These prosecutors work closely with the police though, and directs much of their work.
Erik
Good things about Norway (Score:5, Interesting)
The new ruling was made by a panel of three professional judges backed up by four lay judges, two of whom had technical expertise relevant to the case.
Why can't trials in the US (especially regarding technology) be overseen by judges with relevant expertise? Doesn't that seem like an obvious component of having a fair, just ruling?
Re:Good things about Norway (Score:5, Informative)
In a case like this I would rather stand in front of a judge with a jury consisting of experts rater that "clueless" non-technical fellow citizens.
Re:Good things about Norway (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good things about Norway (Score:2)
Not only that, but a jury of your peers as applied to white collar charges should require experience and knowledge in the white collar field. Only people in the field will have an adequate perspective to apply to the case.
After all, Joe Blow McDonald's cashier does not have adequate perspective to weigh such issues as decry
Re:Good things about Norway (Score:3, Informative)
Defendants in criminal cases have the ability to waive the jury and submit to a "bench trial", in which the judge is both the finder of law and the finder of fact. It is a tactic used very frequently when the case turns on something very subtle, and the defendant believes the jury might be confused. Judges have extensive e
No surprise here... (Score:5, Informative)
A few points that are in an article in Norwegian and not the English article (translated directly, I'm not responsible for journalists' errors):
Unfortunately, despite a second humiliation, I have a feeling they're going to appeal this to the Supreme Court. And waste more taxpayer's money.
I wonder if Inger Marie Sunde is going to take another "sabbatical" now, like last time hehe...
Next lawsuit already in planning.. (Score:5, Funny)
Norway is a den of copyright criminals. Make no mistake; we in Oekokrim and our new best friends from the MPAA won't give up our holy fight to take avay the evil fair use rights from the Norwegian movie fans just because our holy cause suffered a minor setback today.
Indeed, another criminal right up Johansen's alley is already under investigation and will be brought to justice soon. This criminal mastermind is known as VHS-Lars [www.nrk.no].
There is reason to believe he has has connections to Osama bin Laden, too.
Justice At Last (Score:5, Insightful)
I think British copyright law, EUCD notwithstanding, explicitly allows what Jon did, but the wording is a bit convoluted and non-obvious and would need testing in court.
Still, it reaffirms the common-sense position that it is not a crime to use goods you own for their intended purpose, even if in the course of so doing you are required by circumstances to invent a tool.
Reverse engineering and Windows (Score:2, Funny)
While it is not particularly well-written software, I'm sure we could learn many things from the source code that we could use in Open Source Software/Free Software/GNU/Linux. I'm thinking specifically the GUI and Windows' tip-top TCP/IP stack.
Some nice things from the verdict (Score:5, Informative)
This is good, especially the last paragraph. Apparently, the verdict makes it clear that the film industry is infringing on people's rights, not the other way around. It also makes it clear that any "you owe us your first-born" licenses or restrictions is null and void, and even ought to raise some eyebrows with legislators. It makes it clear that the entertainment industry is trying to take legislator's jobs away from them, by themselves setting all the rules. That ought to make legislators slightly upset, I would assume...
Well Done DVD-Jon .... (Score:5, Informative)
Well Done DVD-Jon
Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing, great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense. [brainyquote.com]
There is a beautiful Gallery of CSS descramblers by Dr. David S. Touretzky (Carnegie Mellon University). [cmu.edu]
His site is a gallery devoted to representations of a piece of software that has been deemed illegal because it can be used to break through the copy-protection system on DVD movies. [princeton.edu]
Good, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Legally, perhaps not... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes
Oh for the love of... (Score:5, Funny)
Who would have thought the courts would rule correctly?
Re:Oh for the love of... (Score:2)
Just add 'with 2 proofs of purchase of a copy of DeCSS'
I have trouble seeing how anyone would ever match that--even if someone did sell it, you'd only need one copy. On the other hand, if someone ever sent you the two bar codes, you'd better make sure you have some rope, duct tape, and a mighty big Norwegia-sized shipping crate ready.
Should be able to copy our own DVD's (Score:5, Insightful)
DeCSS (Score:2)
If all else fails... (Score:2, Funny)
Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense!
Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!
But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with this case?
Nothing. Ladi
Backups allowed (Score:4, Informative)
"a DVD-record is a fragile media that may be damaged, thus the buyer must be entitled to make a copy, for-instance of a film that he wants to preserve".
technical expertise (Score:2)
Read: NERDS
He had to win
When will the press learn? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does the press always uncritically report that DeCSS "cracks DVD copy protection codes"? It is clear that CSS is about preveting changes to region coding and the extraction of media. It doesn't prevent copying of the original DVD in any way, shape or form. As long as the DVD industry can sustain the spin that CSS is about copy protection they are winning the hearts and minds war.
How can we get the press to report these issues in a more intelligent way?
Some additional info from the court (Score:5, Informative)
DVD Jon was charged with breaking a rule in the Norwegian penal code that makes it illegal to "break a protection
However, the crux of the case ended up being the term "illegitimate access". The court decided that there is nothing illegitimate about breaking a protection to gain access to something you have bought. An important part of this is that in Norway, the labels that distributors stick on DVDs, CDs and software are not binding for consumers (more explicit consent is required for binding agreements). If the labels were binding, the access would have been illegitimate. Luckily for Jon (and for freedom of information), this is not the case.
BBC's treatment of this is disgusting! (Score:4, Informative)
Bunner case (Score:5, Informative)
At the trial the question came up whether in fact the reverse engineering involved was legal under Norwegian law. They called for opinions from Norwegian lawyers. The plaintiff trotted out a tame lawyer who asserted (without any support) that it was not legal. The defendant's lawyer said nothing in Norwegian law or case law supported any opinion one way or the other. The judge took that to mean that in fact it wasn't legal.
Now that it's established that in fact it was legal, Bunner et al. should be able to have the decision vacated. (Shame on that judge.)
Wow (Score:3, Funny)
What a bastion of individual freedom you've got over there.
Norway's Judiciary Seems to Make Sense (Score:3, Insightful)
In the USA, cases like this end up before our Supreme Court -- 7 judges, none of whom has any technical expertise whatsoever, and who are appointed for life by whichever political regime is in power when one of them dies.
No wonder our tech laws favor owners at the expense of innovators.
Yea for DeCSS but not for iTunes DRM? (Score:4, Insightful)
I like iTunes a great deal. I'd hate to see them make it any more difficult for me to get the same level of service I'm getting now. However, if they changed their policy to circumvent his efforts, I would blame Apple, not this guy for making use of his rights.
I've even heard peple claim, "Apple DRM is easy enough to get around, just burn a CD and a re-rip in whatever format!" I doubt these same people would accept the same excuse from the MPAA "CSS is already easy enough to get around, just burn it to DVD and rip it!" Why in the hell should I have to burn it to CD? That's wasting my money, time, and resources on a completely unecessary step, not to mention that I may not have a CD burner to begin with. I guess I should just be screwed over in that instance, as long as the majority of users are happy.
Re:DVD Jon (Score:5, Funny)
~S
Re:Aftenposten article (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Aftenposten article (Score:2, Funny)
You must be new here
Re:Aftenposten article (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So what, So what's your fcking point ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Copyrights (Score:2)
Chapter 2 - Copyright Ownership and Transfer
[...]
Everything contributed by Caldera etc. to Linux
under the UNSIGNED nonexclusive GPL prior to the
present SCO's purchase (transfer of ownership)
from Novell is eliminated by sec 205(e) from the
protection of the GPL under the Copyright Act.
1. The GPL is not a transfer of copyright ownership, which is what this law refers to. It is a licence. Licences do not have to be signed, otherwise you'd need Bill Gates' signature in order to run a co