Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



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

Jon Johansen To Be Retried On Piracy Charges 382

cecil36 writes "Yahoo has the scoop on 'DVD Jon's' latest trial regarding DeCSS being used as a piracy tool. The article claims that Hollywood is losing $3 billion a year due to piracy *yawn*, but Johansen's lawyer believes the acquittal from the previous trial may be enough for him to win the case. The case is set to go again on December 2nd this year. What are the prospects of Johansen winning a second time?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jon Johansen To Be Retried On Piracy Charges

Comments Filter:
  • Simple.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:05AM (#5642914)
    Just set the evil bit for any content decoded by DeCSS.
    • Chances are good. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by famebait ( 450028 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @07:48AM (#5643552)
      "What are the prospects of Johansen winning a second time?"

      I'd say it's almost certain. The previous aquittal was crystal clear. I think they're appealing mainly to build some strong case law.
  • Usually if a person has to have a 2nd trial then its usually better for the defense.
  • It's like (Score:4, Insightful)

    by oo7tushar ( 311912 ) <slash.@tushar.cx> on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:09AM (#5642923) Homepage
    beating a dead horse. The RIAA and their possie have enormous patience and wallets. If they don't get what they want this year then they'll do it again next year and so on.
    I bet they loose a lot more from making bad movies.
  • Obviously (Score:5, Funny)

    by SaraSmith ( 602197 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:09AM (#5642924)
    DeCSS is a terrorist tool and should be stopped. We cannot allow people to terrorize the MPAA members (who are all poor and starving) like this.

    Go get em PATRIOT act, watching Men In Black II without paying for it or ever having intention of paying for it in the first place is a serious crime. (to yourself! ever SEEN that POS?)

  • wow...... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:12AM (#5642930) Journal
    The Oslo district court ruled that prosecutors had failed to prove that Johansen's program had been used for illegal copying of DVDs, saying he was entitled to copy legally purchased DVDs.

    That's a great concept! The idea that he can use what he bought in a fair manner.... this is an interesting concept, one that we should try here in the US! Since he's using it in a manner that is fair to him, we should call it the fair use act! Imagine the possibilities!

  • by pizza_milkshake ( 580452 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:14AM (#5642935)
    "kids -- 30 seconds of joy, 30 years of suffering" -- this kid wrote a few pages worth of code years ago when he was 16. And since then his life has been spent enduring lawsuits by huge industry firms from another country. but that won't keep me from trying to create beauty with code.
    • He wrote a GUI - made himself famous - and has taken the hit for it.


      The real hackers did what real hackers do - go silent when the heat ramps up. A real hacker has no need (nor want) for fame.

      /me - who once "knew" Jon and had the first DeCSS.zip mirror by Jon's request

    • Jon has used his fme for everything it is worth. I would say that he was very dumb-headed to go public with the little GUI he made for the DeCSS at an early time. Furthermore, when the Economical Crimes Division in Norway (Økokrim) got interested, he did not erase chat-logs or dispose of his (In Norwegian copyright law) illegal CD-ROM copies of Macromedi Flash or something.

      Well, he got a job as a result of the fame so he quit school in an age of 16 (The earliest age where you can quit school legally i
  • Who next? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jesperht ( 650842 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:15AM (#5642938) Journal
    Why not go after the ones distributing the illegal media, instead of someone who just made a tool inteded for legal use...?? Its like suing knife makers for being the cause of murders!
    • Re:Who next? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ralphus ( 577885 )
      Its like suing knife makers for being the cause of murders!

      Yes, stupid indeed, but that has never stopped our lawsuit happy society. Don't you recall all the lawsuits against gun makers for similar reasons as your knife metaphor?

      DeCSS doesn't kill people, pirates kill people!

      • Re:Who next? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by agurkan ( 523320 )
        Him... I really do not want to start discussing US constitution but:
        I do not think your analogy holds. There are certain guns which are obivously offensive weapons or can be changed into offensive weapons with simple changes. Knives, in general, are used for cutting things. This is their general purpose in today's society. Banning knives will hurt the society. Banning the distribution of weapons that can kill tens of people in minutes or restricting the weapons that are used to shoot at objects at a distan
    • Nearly all the articles articles ignore the fact that DeCSS is used for viewing. The remainder only mention it in passing. It seems that anyone can copy DVDs to their hearts content without ever having to actually decode them.

      The real issue seems to be control over the choice of viewing platform.

    • Re:Who next? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by moncyb ( 456490 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @07:35AM (#5643513) Journal
      Because the MPAA doesn't want to stop what they call "piracy." They want total control over distribution and how the movies are viewed. When anyone can watch a movie without the advertisements, they lose. When anyone can watch a movie outside of it's burned in region, they lose. When anyone can use an unapproved device (and not pay money to the DVDCCA for anti-consumer activities), they lose.

      Also applies to non-decss areas. When a ticket sale is made to an independent movie, they lose. When a grandmother watches a birthday video of her grandson instead of a video titled "Johnny's Birthday" by Disney, they lose. When you can watch amateur movies for free on the internet, they lose. When any startup company can easily create and distribute a movie without the help of the MPAA or member companies, they lose.

      It is very much in their interest to stop free trade and new technology. If you really look at their behavior with DVD and the internet, this fight is not about copyrights at all.

    • Re:Who next? (Score:3, Informative)

      by ajs ( 35943 )
      Why not go after the ones distributing the illegal media, instead of someone who just made a tool inteded for legal use

      Because piracy doesn't scare Hollywood/the record industry. Piracy is a known quantity, and is figured in as a business risk.

      The prospect of legitimate users circumventing every new scheme for boosting revenue through restricted use of media is terrifying to these people! The idea that a new technology offers the chance to essentially print money, and then some f'r'ner comes by and makes
  • This is a complete violation of what most of us stand for. Hollywood has always tried to putt a cap on the movement of open source software (in general), and always will. This leads into another issue, the laws which currently prohibit people from doing certian activities which are considered illegal are putting a wall in the path of some truly brilliant peoples future. People like him could be the next Einstein, or Gutenberg, and will never be able to express thier brilliance because the American corpor
  • Anyone heard of "double jeopardy?"

    Or am I missing something?
    • You're missing something. Norwegian law allows re-trying a defendant.

      But even if it were taking place in the United States, it would still be allowable, because this is a completely different set of criminal charges.

      Schwab

    • You are missing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )
      The fact that this is happening in Norway. US law does not apply, including our constitutional protections. As I understand it, it's not a full trial, basically a higher court reexamines the evidence and can make a new ruling. Kind of a like an appeal in the US, except here only the defense can do that.

      In any case, US law applies only within out borders.
  • Norway isn't the USA.
  • by Lord_Slepnir ( 585350 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:22AM (#5642951) Journal
    "What are the prospects of Johnson winning a second time?"
    From the article: There is no specific legislation in Norway that bars the digital duplication of copyrighted material

    I'm going to go out on a limb and say pretty good.

  • It doesn't matter what the outcome is. Either way, the bloodthirsty hounds of the media conglomerates will continue trying to jail him and anyone like him. If the movie and music industries were given a complete carte blanche, we would see the total prison population in the US alone more than double.

    With any luck though, one day the arguments and lawsuits of those industries will collapse under the weight of their own absurdity.

  • What's the Norwegian for, "Amicus Curiae?"

    Schwab

  • Ex post facto? (Score:2, Informative)

    by TheCubic ( 151533 )
    How about ex post facto applying for this case. If the ruling body had made the law that they want to try Jon under _after_ DeCSS was written, it stands to reason that the law should not be able to apply to him.

    Well, IANAL, (definitely IANANL), but IWLOF (I Watch Law and Order Frequently).
  • Copying (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rf0 ( 159958 ) <rghf@fsck.me.uk> on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:33AM (#5642984) Homepage
    So "DVD Jon" is being charged with creating software which allowed the copying of DVD's. So why aren't the people who created VCR's being charged as they allow copying of films as well. Ok so I will say that yes I'm sure this makes pirating a bit easier but if you've ever looked a DeCSS it just providers a framwork that 99.9% of people couldn't use. It wasn't until people starting writing GUI/CLI DVD rippers that it became possible. Should they go after them?

    All in all hes been proven innocent once and will be again

    Rus
    • So why aren't the people who created VCR's being charged as they allow copying of films as well.

      I remember reading the transcript of a congressional hearing in the 80s where the MPAA accused the VCR guys of being the doom of the movie industry.
      I would be very suprised if they hadn't tried to stop them with some lawsuits

      • The exact phrase was something like "The VCR is to the movie industry what the Boston Strangler is to women." Ah, Jack Valenti - such a way with words.

        And yes, they did take it to court - and lost [museum.tv].
    • Re:Copying (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WegianWarrior ( 649800 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:57AM (#5643038) Journal
      Erm.. no. DVD-Jon was charged for what amounts to 'breaking and entering' into somewhere he wasn't allowed to go; to be more spesific, the encryptioncodes. The prosecution realised that since they couldn't by a long shoot prove that he wrote to program (if he indeed did) to allow illegal copying of movies, they didn't dare charge him with it. In short, despite the hype, they plastered much the same charge on him as they would have dine if he had broken into his neighbours home and had a look around.

    • It wasn't until people starting writing GUI/CLI DVD rippers that it became possible. Should they go after them?

      This is something I have often wondered myself. The MPAA fights DeCSS so aggressively that they succeed in getting people shut down for putting the code on T-Shirts, yet nice and user friendly programs like DVD Decrypter [dvddecrypter.com] just seem to be left alone.

      Can anyone explain this logic to me?

    • So why aren't the people who created VCR's being charged... as well

      Speaking of VCRs and such... What, if anything, in any of these copy-protection schemes prevents copying by digitizing the analog output?

      • "What stops analog copying?"

        In theory, your DVD player adds MacroVision(tm) to the signal.

        But MPAA really do not care about analog redistribution, per se, because it's not an issue for them: it doesn't scale to 10,000 copies very easily, like dumping a DeCSS'ed data stream onto Internet II.

        What they are more worried about is digital duplication of perfect copies over communications networks, both todays, and those just over the horizon.

        At some point, the DVD-R/DVD-RW technology will get to where it can
        • by Cyberdyne ( 104305 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @06:27AM (#5643399) Journal
          At some point, the DVD-R/DVD-RW technology will get to where it can make a verbatim copy of a still-protected DVD, and the game will be up for them, since people will just copy verbatim images of the CSS'ed DVD's themselves.

          In fact, you could just send the raw DVD data over a network to a remote site *now*, and burn a copy, and to heck with the idea of CSS anyway: a bit-for-bit copy is identical: let your DVD player DeCSS the contents for you with legal chips.

          Not with a "normal" DVD burner: they can't write the keys to the appropriate track, it seems. The CSS keys are stored in a special area, which cannot even be read with normal DVD drives directly: you have to go through a cryptographic dance with the hardware (css_auth) before you can read that track. Consumer-type DVD recorders cannot write to that track, and ISTR it's not writable on standard blanks either - you need a special "mastering" recorder and blank. Since those recorders are aimed at movie studios, and priced accordingly, with the blanks costing more than pre-recorded DVDs, that idea is pretty much a non-starter for piracy: it's cheaper to buy legit copies in a store!

          Then ...the region codes supposedly stop that from happening, given that most of the large scale piracy actually occurs in China, and no one would ever think to bring a Region 1 or a region-free DVD player into China, and none of those DVD's could ever make it back to the U.S., right?

          Region coding does strike me as pretty dumb. Apart from the extra costs - instead of making one "English" version, to sell in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK and Ireland, you have to make and distribute "North America - English" (US/Canada), "Europe - English" (UK/Ireland), "Asia/Pacific - English" (NZ/Australia)...

          (Thanks to national censorship, you have to make separate UK versions anyway, with modified artwork to feature the government's censor-approval certificate, but hopefully that will die soon.)

  • This could go two ways, and both for the same reason. On the one hand he could have an easier time, seeing as the EU is a bit miffed at the US at the moment. On the other hand, that could be reason to screw Jon, just to show the US a little goodwill.

    And even though I'm glad Jon did what he did and defends himself, I'd still not want to be in his shoes.
    • Norway is not currently part of the EU, although there are close ties between them (e.g., they are in the EEA which brings them somewhat into the internal EU market zone, and they particpate in schemes like Europol).

      All the signs are they probably will join eventually, although I believe the last referendum in '94 voted not to (although that was pre-Euro, which may affect how people vote next time).
  • Retrial points (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot ( 227666 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:37AM (#5642992) Journal
    One thing to keep in mind is that when one is prosecuting a case, either in criminal terms or as a plaintiff, there are usually multiple angles to take when building one's argument. If the prosecutor chooses a different angle of attack in this new trial, it might bring new points that weren't stressed in the previous trial, which gives the defense more challenge in defending. Granted, in theory the bulk of available information should have been put forth in the previous trial, but information or points that the prosecution might have thought unnecessary could be brought to light. In the United States, the prosecution has to outline and show their case on paper before they can even begin to argue it in court, and the defense has to receive all that information, on witnesses and what they're probably going to say, on evidence, etc. I don't know if this is required in Norway or not. If it isn't, and if there are new bits and pieces of information that weren't used before, this could be a very bumpy road for the defense.

    It's a damn shame that there isn't a practical way to force the hand of the prosecution. Between his age at the time he wrote DeCSS, the fact that he's already been acquited once, and the fact that this is a completely nonviolent offense that he has been accused of, I'd imagine that Norway's court would have a lot more important, and more success-likely cases to prosecute. Cases like murder, rape, even theft that are pushed back because of the state appeal of a case they already lost against a minor who simply wanted to use his computer as the new-age equivalent of a VCR, and enable others to do the same.
  • Bad example ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AftanGustur ( 7715 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:38AM (#5642998) Homepage


    I don't think that Hollywood and the movie studios care so much about the outcome of the trial as long as the process is scaring the shit out of other potential code writers.

    The goal of the process is not "justice" (Whatever that word means in the US of A) but to make an example out of John. "Hey, if you mess with us we will keep you tied up in legal problems for 10 years, guilty or not!"

    The whole thing isn't exactly giving a good image of the USA as the "land of the free and brave" but rather something like the "rich and blinded by power".

    • Re:Bad example ? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Arandir ( 19206 )
      The whole thing isn't exactly giving a good image of the USA as the "land of the free and brave" but rather something like the "rich and blinded by power".

      Funny, I thought he was being tried in Norway...
      • Re:Bad example ? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by GigsVT ( 208848 )
        Funny, I thought he was being tried in Norway...

        Tsk, you can't let little details like that get in the way of a good US bashing rant.
    • 1) ???
      2) Start war with Iraq
      3) Profit [nytimes.com]!
    • Re:Bad example ? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by clickety6 ( 141178 )
      The whole thing isn't exactly giving a good image of the USA as the "land of the free and brave" but rather something like the "rich and blinded by power".

      I think the idea of the USA as the "land of the free and brave" hasn't existed in most of Europe for a long tiem now. They mayt be brave, but in terms of restrictions on people and loss of civil rights, America seems more and more like some third world dictatorship every year...!

  • by kinnell ( 607819 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:40AM (#5643004)
    What does he expect. If you go sailing around the carribean, stealing gold from the spaniards while waving a cutlass and crying "shiver me timbers", you can expect the authorities to try you on piracy charges. The sooner we send this scourge of the seaways to Davy Jones' locker, the better. Hang him from the yard arm, I say!
    • by panurge ( 573432 )
      Offtopic I know, but actually, you usually got a knighthood and a good job in the British Government. (Walter Raleigh, Francis Drake) But times have moved on: now you just get the knighthood, and the shareholders pay for your huge pension fund.
  • by surprise_audit ( 575743 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:44AM (#5643010)
    If the MPAA can keep on pursuing Jon, regardless of his acquittal, on the grounds that his product enables "movie piracy", then surely there's a lot of other folks that should be seriously worried right now.

    1) Smith&Wesson, Colt, Heckler&Koch all have products that enable, for example, car-jacking, armed robbery and murder.

    2) GM, Ford have products that enable many people to commit actual crimes and subsequently escape into other jurisdictions.

    3) Numerous beer, wine and liquor manufacturers have products that cause many deaths, often when combined with items 1 & 2 listed above.

    Call it flamebait, or troll if you like, I don't care. No, the above don't relate to the DMCA - so what? They're just as ridiculous as retrying someone who was acquitted, and that's all my examples are intended to show.

    Jon was acquitted - what on earth could the MPAA produce as evidence that wasn't produced last time around? Not much, I suspect. If a firearms manufacturer can say "we just produce guns, we don't kill people with them" and get away with it, why can't Jon say "I'm legally watching DVDs I already own" and be safe from this modern Inquisition? I sincerely hope that the Norwegian courts are able to hand off Jon's defence expenses to the MPAA. If not, he should be considering suing the MPAA for libel, slander, defamation of character, loss of earnings, etc.

    This post is a comment on the stupidity of the DMCA and the MPAA and has nothing to do the Gulf War or gun control. (In case you're interested, I firmly believe that gun control means hitting your intended target first time, not squeezing off a few rounds and calling whatever you hit the target...)

    • by PCM2 ( 4486 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @03:59AM (#5643150) Homepage
      If the MPAA can keep on pursuing Jon, regardless of his acquittal, on the grounds that his product enables "movie piracy", then surely there's a lot of other folks that should be seriously worried right now.

      1) Smith&Wesson, Colt, Heckler&Koch all have products that enable, for example, car-jacking, armed robbery and murder.

      News Flash: That one's already been tried. [ncpa.org] It ain't like computer hackers are the only people to ever have to defend themselves from aggressive lawsuits.

      (Then again, on the earlier example -- while it's true that guns don't kill people, trigger fingers don't fire bullets...)

    • Sigh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )
      I think you are missing some things. Teh MPAA is not going after him again, the prosecution is. In Norway, like the US, a company doesn't prosecute anything, the government does. From what I have been told, in Norway if either the defense or presecution does not accept the ruling they can appeal it to a higher court. It then gets retried. That court is then the final word on things.

      so its not a matter of the MPAA wanting to present new evidence, it's a matter of the prosecution ebing mad they lost, and wan
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @02:45AM (#5643013)
    The problem with hollywood's "we're losing 3 billion annually" numbers is that they are taking an estimated number of copies made each year at a price of FREE and multiplying it by the price they charge for DVDs. If they took an economics course they would realize that the demand for a movie is very elastic, meaning as the price goes up the number of movies purchased goes down. At a price of essentially zero the demand for every movie is HUGE, thus there are hundreds of thousands of downloads. If it actually cost the retail price of the DVD to download the movie then downloads would significantly drop. To find the actual amount that downloading DVDs costs hollywood you have to shift the demand curve along the supply curve until you hit the price of the retail DVDs and then you have the real number of lost DVD sales, which would be significantly less than 3 billion dollars a year because the demand for DVDs is most likely very elastic (help me out here any of you people who actually have an economics degree, what do you think the actual cost to Hollywood is? Is the demand elastic?)

  • by MoThugz ( 560556 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @03:06AM (#5643055) Homepage
    I bet there won't ever be a movie released about "The DVD Jon Trials"... At least not on DVD.
  • Trademark (Score:2, Insightful)

    by soliaus ( 626912 )
    I wonder if hollywood will try to sue PigDog [pigdog.org] for using the trademark'd name "DeCSS". I mean, they are suing for it, why not take advantage of it? Go get em guys!
  • What's their beef? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stonan ( 202408 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @03:15AM (#5643074) Homepage
    'Prosecutors in January lodged an appeal, objecting to the application of the law and the presentation of evidence. '

    If they object to the law, shouldn't that be debated by government reps? I don't think a judge has the authority to ignore the law.

    Objection of evidence presentation should have been done at the time the evidence was introduced, shouldn't it? Just because your legal team didn't think of a 'snappy comeback' at the appropriate time isn't a reason for a 'do-over' (IMHO).

    • Prosecutors in January lodged an appeal, objecting to the application of the law and the presentation of evidence. '

      If they object to the law, shouldn't that be debated by government reps? I don't think a judge has the authority to ignore the law

      Read your own quote. They arn't objecting to the law, which would make it a case for the 'wegian parliment, but they are objecting to the application of it. And as norwegian judges are tasked with applying the law, not interprenting it (well, there is a subtl

  • Can he sue for malicous use of the legal system?
    I know this isn't the United States and I'm not famlure with the legal system where he is.

    But here if you can show the suing party is pushing this for non-legal issues you can sue back.
    It's such a flimsy thing here so I'm not even sure it's done elsewhere.
    • The Norwegian legal system is quite different from the american. Suing for malicious use of the court system has to be very, very well founded in the charges brought agains Jon. In this case the prosecutor (Økokrim) has a duty to intercept and investigate. After all,Jon HAS done something that comes quite close to breaking the law. So the Økokrim is in their right.

      As for retriution, he can sue for money lost due to the case and a small ammount of money for damages. As a rule, in the courts of No
  • Not Double Jeopardy (Score:3, Informative)

    by Pettifogger ( 651170 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @03:57AM (#5643147)
    I think it's already been pointed out that this isn't double jeopardy, most specifically because this is being tried in Norway, not the United States. There are a couple of other important points that follow from that, too.

    First, even IF he gets convicted, the case will have absolutely no bearing on any federal or state law in the United States. No court in this country will recognize Norwegian law.

    Second, though I know little about the Norwegian court system, an appeal usually focuses primarily on whether or not the law was correctly applied in the previous case. If that's how things work over there, there's a good chance the ruling will uphold the judgment of the lower court.

    Third, if my experiences in US Courts are any guide, foreign companies/corporations/groups tend not to fare so well against a local defendant.

    I might be totally wrong about those last two points, but I hope everyone in the US doesn't freak out too much. It's not going to have any bearing on what happens here. And beside the point, the genie (DeCSS) is already out of the bottle. They're just trying to frighten people out of using it.

  • by jthorpe ( 545911 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @04:58AM (#5643225)
    Whilst I'm aware of a few programs that use DeCSS for copying DVDs to formats such as DivX, removing the CSS, what if DeCSS was used legitimitely in a piece of software such as a DVD player that contained a binary form of the decoder and was not capable of pirating DVDs? I pose this question because I am currently developing a small Linux distro and there are some really good pieces of software around that allow the playback of DVD. I would like to include such software, but not at the expense of a court battle.

    What deems DeCSS illegal (in terms of the MPAA)? If I were to (for example) compile Xine , Mplayer or Ogle with DeCSS support compiled into the programs by means of a static version of the library, the program will still play DVDs as normal, but the DeCSS code could not be used for anything else on the system because the library does not have to exist on the computer, besides inside the player itself. In doing this, am I breaking the law, or at risk of having the MPAA onto me?
  • by nordicfrost ( 118437 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @06:11AM (#5643380)
    OK.Jon Johansen made the GUI + some subsystem to break the CSS DVD encryption. Mind you, he got these codes from a German fellow, he did not get the codes himself.

    In current Norwegian copyright law, you are entitled to make a copy of a copyrighted work for personal use (Åndsverkloven 12, 1st section. This does not apply to computer programs or databases.). Jons program does not facilitate the copying of the DVD, just the reading the contents. He also argued that DeCSS could be used for making backups of the DVD.

    Jon argues that he made DeCSS to view the contents of the DVD on this Linux computer. The prosecution argues that he mocks Linux and was a BSD-guy at the time of DeCSS. Anyway, the DeCSS program first appeared on Windows.

    The prosecution wanted to nail Jon on the paragraph 145 of the Norwegian penal code. It says that (summary) "anyone gaining illegal access to locked data, also computer data can be punished with jail for a maximum of six months". Note the "illegal" part here. The judge ruled that Jon had only gained access with DeCSS to data HE had bought. It was his copy of the work in question so he had a right to access it. He did not distribute any illegal copies, and he did not gain unlawful access to the DVD although his program might be used for that.

    Disclaimer: IAANLS (I am a Norwegian law student)
  • by Openadvocate ( 573093 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @06:53AM (#5643432)
    I don't have a standalone DVD player, but I have a CD-ROM drive that can read DVDs. So yesterday I decided that I should get it to work so that I could watch the few DVD's I would come across.

    So I installed the DVD player software that came with the drive. I had 2 DVD movies that came bundled with different stuff, not movies I wanted to watch but good enough for testing.
    First problem, they were different regions so I had to search the internet for a Firmware to the drive that wouldn't increment the region change counter. It works I think, but the DVD player program still counts down.

    Next problem, the DVD player program won't let me play the movie because it is copy protected and I have TV-OUT enabled. WTF, Now I do not have it enabled but my plan was to use it and watch the DVDs on my TV. So I am forced to watch them on the PC or buy some software on the internet that can bypass this.
    After spending a couple of hours, I decided that DVD's were not worth the hassle for me anyway, I don't need a standalone player for the one movie I want to see every month and playing it on the PC is too much of a problem.
    I am left with the feeling that they really don't want me to play their DVD's and their copyprotection attemps only works on those, like me, who are not really into it, and don't care enough about it to spend days to gain knowledge on the subject. But putting these roadblocks in the way to cripple the technology has just killed my interest in the media.
  • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @07:14AM (#5643474) Homepage
    Basicly, this appeals court is reviewig his case based on the law as-is, i.e. the question of guilt. With the same interpretation of the law as last time, he should undoubtably win.

    However, I'm certain the prosecution will appeal to the Supreme Court, because of the principal nature of the case. This court is deciding what the correct interpretation of the law is, which is ultimately what is in question here.

    Personally, I think it works out pretty good. In the US the prosecution could make ten DMCA charges, and even if they'd get thrown out in the first court, but you'd still tie them up in court and there'd be no precedent set. Not appealing in a Norwegian court would basicly be admitting to having no case. And if they do appeal, they risk getting a precedent against them. Personally I think that's fine. The first meritful case goes up to the Supreme Court, not some posterchild case for either side.

    I hope for the Supreme Court to reject the prosecutions appeal (on the ruling in this trial, which I assume DVD-Jon will win). That's about as much egg-on-face factor as you can get. And they deserve it. It's coming from the same group of geniuses that wanted to ban anonymous email.

    Kjella
  • by Compulawyer ( 318018 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @08:34AM (#5643705)
    I don't know about anyone else, but when I read stories about retrials after acquittals, it makes me REALLY glad the U.S. Constitution prohibits Double Jeopardy (and not the round in the television show either).
    • Tell that to OJ Simpson.

      For those who have forgotten, or wern't around, he was found legally innocent, in criminal court, of the murder of his wife. He was then found guilty, or responsible, I believe the word was used, in *civil* court.

      If they want you badly enough, they'll get you. Ask Kevin Mitnick; nice end run around due process there, eh?

  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @09:20AM (#5643910) Homepage Journal
    I wonder how much Hollywood is losing by alienating their customers with their strong arm tactics and the loads of crap which they put out every year. They spend how much trying to ram the latest Adam Sandler or Rob Schnider (Derp-de-do!) movie down our throats? I'm so sick of their shit that I'm just passing on everything they put out. I've got better things I can do with my money and time.
  • Hero (Score:3, Insightful)

    by m1a1 ( 622864 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @11:21AM (#5644818)
    Reading articles like this really saddens me. Johansen is (or should be) a hero to all users of open source. Every time I put a Cowboy Bebop dvd in the drive I must say a silent thank you prayer to Johansen because what he gave us was NOT without cost.

    This poor kid is being hassled, harrassed, and treated like a criminal for wanting to watch dvds he owned on a computer he owned. By writing a few lines of code (which should be protected as free speech) he brought the wrath of the entire film industry down on his head. Poor guy. Hopefully this trial is quick and painless.
  • by warrior_on_the_edge_ ( 605123 ) on Wednesday April 02, 2003 @11:46AM (#5644948)
    Trial, Trial, Trial again.

Trap full -- please empty.

Working...