[jkaiser]

From Tom's Hard News...


Trial has begun in Oslo, Norway for a Norwegian youth charged with overwriting and breaking a program for unlocking the security codes of copy-protected DVDs. Jon Lech Johansen pleaded innocent on Monday to the charge of breaking data security laws. Johansen, now 19, was 15 years old when he reportedly wrote a program called DeCSS, which unlocked the Content Scrambling System (CSS) security codes put in place to prohibit unauthorized duplication of DVD technology. Johansen claims that he received the basic security codes from other members of a hacker network located outside Norway, and that his only purpose for using the security codes was to combine them into a program that would enable him to watch DVDs on his Linux-based computer. However, DeCSS allows users that have not paid for DVDs to copy and share DVD files over the Internet. Johansen's simply written program is one of many programs readily available that are capable of cracking DVD security codes.


It is interesting to note that charges were not filed against Johansen until after Norwegian prosecutors received a complaint from the United States' Motion Picture Association of America. Johansen's attorney contends that first of all, his client can't be convicted of hacking into a DVD that he had already paid for and had title to, and secondly, that "Johansen did not break the security code." The prosecution decided to charge Johansen with a data break-in, rather than handle the matter as a copyright case. The Oslo prosecutor in the case claims that Johansen and his hacking friends were part of an "international crime network" operating on the Internet from Germany, England, Russia and The Netherlands. If convicted, Johansen could be sentenced to up to two years in prison, plus fines and damages compensation.

 

[wormzer]

It all sounds like a stretch to me.


And the one point of this story that has to be remembered is that CSS encryption was broken not to steal content but to PLAY it. Encryption schemes that prevent legal use are going to be toppled much more quickly than those used to prevent illegal use.


matt

 

[work permit]

The copyright nazi's have been smart to target foriegners. Jon Lech Johansen joins Dmitry Sklyarov as another person in a far away land with a funny sounding name targeted for this sort of prosecution (or should I say persecution). What do people in Norway think of us for bullying them into prosecuting this kid? As americans, we should be ashamed


Luckily, they couldn't even nab a guy in texas .


Join EFF .

 

[jriver]

Quote:

Originally posted by work permit The copyright nazi's

That's a strong term for a group that represents the legitimate interests of owners of intellectual property.


They have been heavy-handed at times, but they see wide-spread, organized theft of property that is theirs.

 

[work permit]

Well, they tried to nab him for distributing the software. That didn't work. So now, they are prosecuting him for watching his own DVD's on his own computer. They argue that he broke into another person's locked property to gain access to data that he is not entitled to access.


He owned the DVDs and he's never been accused of copyright infringement or assisting in copyright infringement.


Ok, they're not Nazi's. They're Stalinists.

 

[SteroMAdMAn]

Quote:

Originally posted by work permit Ok, they're not Nazi's. They're Stalinists.

Either way...... Agreed

 

[jkaiser]

bump

 

[ebacherville]

I think its a joke how they say he stealed the content... So if i buy a DVD and burn it, did i destroy there property, I have never signed a legaly binding document saying i will not copy or destroy "there property"


If you bought a DVD or CD you should be able to do as you see fit with it.


What are they going to do when we get brain implants perfected and we watch a movie once and its captured into memory forever, did we steal it...


This is just stupid... there in the business to make movies and show them at theaters and sell original copies...after that they should step away.


If i went and bought Millions of copies of movies at a big discount, and gave them away, they would probably try comming after me... They act like Movies and CD's are money and it will cause inflation if I copy a movie to my hardrive....


Think about it its like if you counterfited money but never spent it..it would have no meaning...


They say its ok to buy a cd then let friends borrow it, so why is this ok, according to them the only you purchaced it you cant let a friend watch that movie...


Put on your boots...it just keeps getting deeper and deeper.

 

[DblHelix]

Also as far as I understand it I am legally allowed to make a copy of a disc which I own as a backup but yet it is illegal for me to own the software that I need in order to make a copy. This is the ridiculousness that I have to laugh at every day as an American.

 

[stickman]

They need to learn that as soon as they stop ripping the consumer off, the consumer will stop copying discs. I think the record and movie industries are going about this all wrong. First of all, is right that I pay $16 for the Star Wars Episode II DVD but the sound track costs $18!?!? And this argument that we are ripping off the artists is just plain bull s**t. Artists are lucky to see $1 of each CD sold. And it costs maybe $.05 to make it. And moreover, these copy protections schemes will never work. As soon as they release, someone will figure out a way to break it. I've even heard Steve Jobs utter those very words. If there is value in the product, I'm more then happy to pay for it. I think $20 is a fair price for DVDs considering the quality, packaging and like. But its hard to justify $20 for a CD. Just my $.02.


Jason

 

[SteroMAdMAn]

Quote:

Originally posted by stickman They need to learn that as soon as they stop ripping the consumer off, the consumer will stop copying discs. I think the record and movie industries are going about this all wrong. First of all, is right that I pay $16 for the Star Wars Episode II DVD but the sound track costs $18!?!? And this argument that we are ripping off the artists is just plain bull s**t. Artists are lucky to see $1 of each CD sold. And it costs maybe $.05 to make it. And moreover, these copy protections schemes will never work. As soon as they release, someone will figure out a way to break it. I've even heard Steve Jobs utter those very words. If there is value in the product, I'm more then happy to pay for it. I think $20 is a fair price for DVDs considering the quality, packaging and like. But its hard to justify $20 for a CD. Just my $.02. Jason

Very true. CD's are a relativly old music platform, they've been around for a good 15yrs solid. Obviously it has become many many times cheaper to produce CD's than ever before.


DVD's are new, cheaper, and in their adolescence. Plus their cheaper if not the exact same price as most CD's if you know where to buy them.


Something just isn't right, that I'm paying the same price $18+/- for a CD now that I did in 1987/88. Hell, I probably would have had to pay a $1000 for 256kb of RAM then, but now, shiiiiit. Its highway robbery for what they've been charging for a CD, its time I robbed back.

 

[theturtle]

Why can't the mpaa get this, you cannot charge someone with copyright infringement or any sort of "data breakin" charges if you own the work. If I buy a picasso painting and start making my own copies (since I'm so talented) I am not infringing on picasso's copyright because I bought it! The fact is the mpaa does not have control over a technology that allows you to do what they have been doing for years, mass produce audio and video. Of course they are petrified of this since they will not make money. Really if there was a fund to pay bands or movie makers to make movies then yes people should use it. I don't think there is a legal precedent at all for them but there is an economical one. Sadly if no one buys dvd's or goes to the theater or buys cd's or goes to concerts, the artists will not make the money they need to develop their works. Does this mean we should use the government to develop laws to stop citizens from doing what they please no, but when episode III doesn't come out because Lucas films has gone bankrupt some ppl may think twice about downloading or "getting a copy from a friend" and go pay these ppl for their work. Nothing is free in this world and i think this whole thing would and should be balanced out in an economical way and not by the legal system, it's just folly.



On a side note, if someone comes along and starts doing the same quality work as you but in less time and for less money, what do you do. If you are in the business of distributing audio and video, you develop new technologies for distribution for richer content and you invent new ways of distributing. Oh wait that would cost money that these fat cats don't want to spend. These companies should and I hope they do die off.


just my 2 cents, sorry for my ramblings and bad english

theturtle

 

[DaWorm]

I think the closest two analogies I can come up with are lockpicks and bongs. I know bongs are legal to make and sell, but not to use (at least not for what 99.999% of people smoke in them). I am not so sure about lockpicks. I think it is legal to make them and distribute them, but not to use them. And that is what DeCSS is, a lockpick.


I wonder if someone made a master key that would open every doorlock made by a certain lock company, and passed it out to all his friends, if they would prosecute the guy who made the keys or the guys who used it to burglarize people's houses? Seems the latter are the ones doing wrong, but its the former they go after.


Besides, its a moot point anyway, until DVD's are superceded by something else. The genie is out of the bottle, and locking this guy up isn't going to do anything towards putting it back in.


As in another thread, though, I do have to disagree with the statement "if you own the work" because you don't. You own the media the work is contained on, and a license to use that media it that has restrictions. Subtle, but extremely important difference. Passing copies to friends is one of the things that is restricted by that license. Loaning the original media to a friend is ok, as long as you don't watch the copy while your friend has it. In this, the MPAA has every right to object. But that isn't what we are talking about here. We're talking about distributing lockpicks, which is a completely different thing. They haven't the resources to prosecute the people who use the lockpicks to break their license agreements (and thus the law) so they go after the guy who made the tool to make it possible (and if he hadn't done it, there are thousands of others who would have.) This is what is ridiculous about the whole thing. A hammer can be used to kill someone. Do we outlaw making hammers, or outlaw using a hammer to kill someone?

 

[kharvel]

There is a common misconception that when someone purchases a CD or a DVD, that person owns that CD or DVD. That is not legally true. That person only bought a LICENSE to the music or movie on the CD and DVD.


Therefore, copying the CD or DVD is technically illegal unless you purchased additional licenses for the copies.


The RIAA and MPAA is trying to emulate the licensing terms of software companies who develop high-end software products. They don't want the consumers to "own" the CD or DVDs. They want the consumers to own the license and charge them for the license accordingly.


That's why RIAA and MPAA are going after Mr. Johansen. If Microsoft or Autodesk had encrypted their software DVDs using DeCSS then no one would be surprised if they went after people like Mr. Johansen. RIAA and MPAA are trying to emulate software companies in their persecution of license offenders.


However, the problem is, the average consumer does not understand or do not accept the concept of music and movie licensing. Most consumers feel that if they paid $18 for a CD, they are the owners of not only the physical CD itself but also the music on the CD. This is precisely why the RIAA and MPAA is getting so much bad publicity while Microsoft, Adobe, et al don't face much scrunity.


Now here is the disclaimer. I am not in any way supporting RIAA or MPAA. I am simply providing their point of view. I am in fact a supporter of people (especially people from Iran, Libya, China, Cuba, and other countries unfriendly to the USA) who thumb their noses at the RIAA, MPAA, Ernst Hollings, and the entire US government by developing copyright-infringement and hacking tools. These people will one day free us from the clutches of a future US government controlled by corporate masters. Long live doom9.org.

 

[Dean Roddey]

Quote:

I am in fact a supporter of people (especially people from Iran, Libya, China, Cuba, and other countries unfriendly to the USA) who thumb their noses at the RIAA, MPAA, Ernst Hollings, and the entire US government by developing copyright-infringement and hacking tools. These people will one day free us from the clutches of a future US government controlled by corporate masters. Long live doom9.org.

If it weren't for the income this country brings in from software and music and movies, we'd be in some serious trouble. Encouraging people in other countries to rip off our country's greatest assests is something akin to economic treason, IMHO. If you want to feed and cloth and school the children in this country whose parents make their living in these industries, then I have no problem with you destroying them. But otherwise, your point of view is basically dangerous and seriously shortsighted, and so full of the bogus anti-capitalist psychosis that's floating around today. You'd be better off helping Saddam get his bomb, so that we'd get our demise over quickly, rather than letting other countries bleed away our life blood slowly and you sitting there and encouraging it. If you really believe that hackers are going to free anyone of anything, you have a screw loose.

 

[Phat Phreddy]

kharvel, What you say is mostly true except
Quote:

copying the CD or DVD is technically illegal unless you purchased additional licenses for the copies.

it is my understanding that making a single backup of any media you have purchased is fully legal and comes under the fair use category... This is especially applicable as the media organisation sell you the right to listen (not own) the content on the one hand yet refuse to provide replacement media (damaged scratched disks) at media costs on the other... If in fact I have only bought the right to listen to the audio then they cant have it both ways....


In actual fact the legal defence this guy is using is that he was only attempting to try to access the media he had purchased on the hardware of his choice (Linux PC) surely he has the right to fair use of the purchased media ???


Also as to Lockpicks... Having been interested in locks and lickpicking as a curious youth I own sets of lockpicks, I in fact used them for the first time in years a week or so ago when a friend locked herself out of her apartment much to their impressed amazement (cheap cruddy asian lock, not my skill... Modern locks are so hard to pick that most locksmiths simply drill the lock or if its a shutter rather than deadbolt jiggle the door with a soft shim... But thats OT ) and know of no law against ownership / making / selling them whatsoever... You dont need a licence for a couple of small bits of bent steel surely ??


Dean, did you see my recent post on the proliferation of media surrounding me and the way the government here actually penalizes buyers who purchase legitimate media !!! NUTS !!!!

 

[frogger1980]

Quote:

Originally posted by wormzer And the one point of this story that has to be remembered is that CSS encryption was broken not to steal content but to PLAY it. matt

Why don't you break into the bank where you have a checking account around midnight and when you get caught, say that you were only going to remove your own money.



Intentions are not a defense when breaking an access control system.

 

[visualbyte]

You have to remember this is norway we are talking about, a pint of beer cost about 8 dollars more in some places. A person buy right in most nordic nations has the right to do nothing. Copyright laws of other nations are very easy to uphold because the citizen has infringed some one elses laws under norways law this is a crime in its self. look at there percentages of crime lowerest in europe. (a lot lower than US ) there is no freedom of speech, us brits have no freedom of speech. we dont have a constetution. And now right to overthrow our goverment. I dont know which amendement it is but the US citizen has right to bare arms against the goverment / pres if there feel unhappy. ( What these political leaders should remeber) we put them there, we can remove them but it takes four years. what is now reqired is a radical overhaul of politics,law, and general nice behaviour. FREEDOM IS ONLY IN YOU MIND its something they let you think youv got.

 

[Phat Phreddy]

Flawed analogy.... More like you have a safe in your home but loose the key or combination... You then resort to picking the lock or defeating the safes tumblers... Any problem ??? Now suppose you found out that simply by performing a set of sequence moves you could open this safe (this is not as uncommon as it may sound) and you then publish this info... Can the safe manufacturer sue you ?? NO !!!


In fact in the locksmith community manuals of key to number combo's and non destructive entry systems to lockboxes are published...


He had the right to play the media that much we must agree... He owned the media it came on... He did not distribute the media.... What part of being smart enough to access the media on his choosen platform is against the law ??

 

[Phat Phreddy]

Visualbyte, strange post from the UK... As a Brit (though Ex-pat) I have to say that much of that is not true... In the UK there is the right to 'free speech' and the freedom of the press and freedom of information acts are all pretty powerful... Yes there are cases when publications are witheld usually under the 'Obscene publications act' and this does give rise to some odd cases as the list never get revised (eg I had to get a US person to mail me William Burroughs's Naked Lunch' as it is still on the list and hebnce banned for sale (not import or ownership)...


Also to say we have no constitution is also false as it is simply a different legal structure.... We have Law and Statute... The US has its Constition as its first guide and it is constantly being revised (by money not legal precident as decided by courts) by Senate etc... What do you believe constitution means if not a legal system and structure ??