[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Jon Johansen acquitted!!
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Jon Johansen acquitted!!
- From: Jeremy Erwin <jerwin(at)ponymail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:55:52 -0500
- In-reply-to: <3E1B07EC.B66EA8E6@ia.nsc.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
On Tuesday, January 7, 2003, at 12:01 PM, John Zulauf wrote:
Lars Gaarden wrote:
Sham Gardner wrote:
Finally some good news:
We won this one. According to the judgement, gaining access to a DVD you
own with "non-approved" tools is not illegal and making available a
digital crowbar is in most instances legal if it can not be proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the person making it/making it available
did so with the intent of assisting others in breaking the law.
So, as close to a total victory as you can get.
Frustratingly, the court that actually heard the facts about DeCSS has
found that Jon Johansen had no ill intent in writing, using, and
providing DeCSS. Judge Kaplan in 2600 below found otherwise, but
without a fully developed record. To bad 2600 can't be challenged again
based on the Johansen victory.
Norway's law on the subject may be different. Although we may like to interpret
- (2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -
¤ (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
¤ (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
¤ (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
As "No one may offer to the public a device or service that is primarily designed to break a good solid code for the purposes of engaging in commercial infringement of a work still under copyright," Kaplan viewed the clauses 1201(2)(A) and 1201(3)(A) as neccessariy following from 1201(1)(A)-- deCSS breaks the code-- therefore its only significant purpose is to "break the code", and thus is prohibited under law, never mind any intent
"b. Section 1201(a)(2)(B)
As the only purpose or use of DeCSS is to circumvent CSS, the foregoing is sufficient to establish a prima facie violation of Section 1201(a)(2)(B) as well.
It's a rather strict reading, but it is possible under US law. Under Norwegian law, such a twisted reading may not be possible. Unfortunately, I can't read Norsk or NyNorsk, so referring to the Norwegian law may be difficult.
Nevertheless, a good victory.
BTW, congrats to Wendy on her recent employment with the EFF.