Back to court for 'DVD hacker':15yr old cleared earlier this year of making DVD pirating program

[Analog]

A Norwegian man cleared earlier this year of making a DVD pirating program when he was 15, has pleaded not guilty in a landmark appeal of the case.

Text

Mr Johansen, nicknamed "DVD Jon" by the net community, created his program to watch films on a Linux-based computer, without the need for DVD-viewing software.

 

[Codewiz]

Too bad his program was not for dvd pirating. There were existing programs out there that would help in pirating. He just broke the encryption so he could watch it using Linux.

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Too bad his program was not for dvd pirating. There were existing programs out there that would help in pirating. He just broke the encryption so he could watch it using Linux.

Correction:

Mr Johansen, nicknamed "DVD Jon" by the net community, created his program to watch films on a Linux-based computer, without the need for DVD-viewing software.

He then posted the program onto the net in 1999.

Its the last part that negates any contention he did this for his own personal use.

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Too bad his program was not for dvd pirating. There were existing programs out there that would help in pirating. He just broke the encryption so he could watch it using Linux.

Correction:

Mr Johansen, nicknamed "DVD Jon" by the net community, created his program to watch films on a Linux-based computer, without the need for DVD-viewing software.

He then posted the program onto the net in 1999.

Its the last part that negates any contention he did this for his own personal use.

maybe he posted it on the internet so other people could use it to watch their legit DVD's on linux

 

[tcsenter]

maybe he posted it on the internet so other people could use it to watch their legit DVD's on linux

Which is another way of saying...

Its the last part that negates any contention he did this for his own personal use.

 

[Codewiz]

So since he released the software to the public it is automatically for pirating? Whatever......

He released the software so that Linux users could watch DVDs just like Windows users could. It is called Fair Use. I buy it, I should be able to watch it regardless of what OS I run on my computer. If the corporations won't release software to enable this then someone will find a way to do it.

 

[tcsenter]

So since he released the software to the public it is automatically for pirating? Whatever......

There is a huge difference between me tinkering with something for my own personal entertainment, curiosity, or utility, and me distributing to millions of others a 'turn-key' solution based on what I learned to accomplish the same goal without having to know anything more than where the power button is on a computer.

The first is usually non-malicious, often healthy, personal interest or curiosity that results in no material harm to the market value or viability of the patented/copyrighted property. The second results in material harm to the market vaue or viability of the patented/copyright property and removes any contention that my motives were non-malicious or that I was doing this for my own personal use.

 

[faZZter]

Hmmmm, I didn't know there was a difference between breaking the encryption for personal use vs. public use.

I don't think the courts would approve of either one.

(don't get me wrong though, I am totally on the fair use bandwagon!)

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

So since he released the software to the public it is automatically for pirating? Whatever......

There is a huge difference between me tinkering with something for my own personal entertainment, curiosity, or utility, and me distributing to millions of others a 'turn-key' solution based on what I learned to accomplish the same goal without having to know anything more than where the power button is on a computer.

The first is usually non-malicious, often healthy, personal interest or curiosity that results in no material harm to the market value or viability of the patented/copyrighted property. The second results in material harm to the market vaue or viability of the patented/copyright property and removes any contention that my motives were non-malicious or that I was doing this for my own personal use.

BS.
What you're saying would be the same as saying it's okay to think that Disney sucks or makes lousy films but as soon as I say it out loud it's "malicious" and "damaging" right?

You may not realize it, but you're trying to use motive to establish a limitation on legitimate freedom of speech and media. And no, this is not the same as a threatening or yelling "fire" in a crowded theater so don't even bring up those examples. If you need a real analogy, think Anarchists Cookbook or pornography, as computer code is written word that is published.

 

[tcsenter]

Hmmmm, I didn't know there was a difference between breaking the encryption for personal use vs. public use.

Actually, I'm using the pro-piracy crowd's own argument against them, and all they can do is play stupid. Well...maybe playing isn't the right word.

That argument goes something like, 'I should be able to reverse engineer and tinker around with stuff that I own as long as its for my own personal use and I'm not like disseminating copyrighted or patented trade secrets to anyone else.'

When confronted with their own standards, as you see, they flatly reject them.

 

[tcsenter]

BS. What you're saying would be the same as saying it's okay to think that Disney sucks or makes lousy films but as soon as I say it out loud it's "malicious" and "damaging" right?

Hey Vic. As usual, you really don't have a clue. Saying "Disney Sucks" is not remotely 'the same as' disseminating copyrighted information or trade secrets. California's Supreme Court already ruled unanimously on your 'computer code as free speech' by enjoining the appellate court from even considering the Free Speech question altogether. And we know how that argument went over in New York...like a lead balloon.

If you want to use a credible analogy next time, try that one: DeCSS as 'protected First Amendment speech' = lead balloon.

 

[Vic]

Bah. I'm humming a copyrighted song out loud right now, ts... other people can hear... when does the RIAA sue me?

 

[digitalsm]

See his DVD "hack"/software has a legit legal use, as well as some not so legal uses.

His new software for cracking iTunes songs, allowing them to be played anywhere, does not have a legit legal use.

He didnt break the law in the first case, but in his latest stunt, he did cross the legal(and civil) line.

 

[Buickbeast]

The main reason they can get him is the fact that he had to bypass the encryption on the dvd's. That in it self is illegal by law. All dvd software must purchase the right to decrypt the data.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

tcsenter, every time you post about subjects like these, you talk about piracy and such... a few days ago you were saying the EFF = piracy propaganda and brainwashing.... I did not say anything to you then, but now you start again with all these claims, and I have to take a stand.

I don't know what you do in real life, but based on all your judgment of values, and the fact that you're making these grandiose statements, which have no substantiation - unless you've published scientific or legal articles on the issue - I think you're a movie industry shill. And if you're not, well, you could be a great one.

I am glad that I don't live in the same city, state, or country with you. That is all. Good night.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
tcsenter, every time you post about subjects like these, you talk about piracy and such... a few days ago you were saying the EFF = piracy propaganda and brainwashing.... I did not say anything to you then, but now you start again with all these claims, and I have to take a stand.

I don't know what you do in real life, but based on all your judgment of values, and the fact that you're making these grandiose statements, which have no substantiation - unless you've published scientific or legal articles on the issue - I think you're a movie industry shill. And if you're not, well, you could be a great one.

I am glad that I don't live in the same city, state, or country with you. That is all. Good night.

He's not. IIRC, he actually lives on disability income and is an ex-health care industry worker.

He's just one of those "if you're not for us, you're against us" black-and-white people. Not that he is unknowledgable. Quite the contrary. I'll give him kudos for knowing his sh!t even when I don't agree with him.
He just doesn't see the grey area on issues like these. You know, the kind who think that those who are against the Drug War must all be drug users or that those who worry about the limitations caused by over-reaching copyright laws must all be pirates.

Want some notable copyright/patent violators (aka pirates per tc) who got away with it? Try Apple, MS, Compaq, and Dell. Without reverse engineering someone else's copyrighted/patented work, they would never have existed, and neither would have their beneficial products and/or competitive prices. Copyright laws ARE beneficial to society and industry, but only when they don't go too far. Pushed as far as this issue is and they are the path to the limitation of free speech and media and the gateway to monopoly and price gouging.

Had Johansen attempted to sell DeCSS for profit, then I would say Hang him! he's a pirate. But didn't. He merely gave it away.... just numbers on a screen and he just gave it away. Think about that.

editted for typo

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
See his DVD "hack"/software has a legit legal use, as well as some not so legal uses.

His new software for cracking iTunes songs, allowing them to be played anywhere, does not have a legit legal use.

He didnt break the law in the first case, but in his latest stunt, he did cross the legal(and civil) line.

Oddly enough, that crack was unnecessary. iTunes songs could already be burned to audio CD, and that in turn could be re-encoded to mp3, thus removing all encryption safeguards.

Bear in mind that I think people who buy iTunes for $0.99 per song are stupid anyway. For the same price I could own the entire album, with the complete artwork and liner notes, in more durable physical form and in higher audio fidelity, which I could encode to mp3 for digital use at my leisure, and not worry about all this BS.

<- awaits lawsuit for "providing instruction on piracy"

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
See his DVD "hack"/software has a legit legal use, as well as some not so legal uses.

His new software for cracking iTunes songs, allowing them to be played anywhere, does not have a legit legal use.

He didnt break the law in the first case, but in his latest stunt, he did cross the legal(and civil) line.

I fail to see the difference. Both circumvented a media-protection scheme in order for the purchaser to be able to use the media he PURCHASED how he sees fit. Please delineate...

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

So since he released the software to the public it is automatically for pirating? Whatever......

There is a huge difference between me tinkering with something for my own personal entertainment, curiosity, or utility, and me distributing to millions of others a 'turn-key' solution based on what I learned to accomplish the same goal without having to know anything more than where the power button is on a computer.

So what would you think if he published his source code, creating a sort of "knowledge buffer" that only allowed those with enough computing prowess to compile his program to be able to use his knowledge? Or perhaps if he merely wrote instructions on the METHODS he used to circumvent the protection so that others could write their own programs?

It seems like you are more averse to people who you think of as "undeserving" using sophisiticated techniques to circumvent media protection than the circumvention itself.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
See his DVD "hack"/software has a legit legal use, as well as some not so legal uses.

His new software for cracking iTunes songs, allowing them to be played anywhere, does not have a legit legal use.

He didnt break the law in the first case, but in his latest stunt, he did cross the legal(and civil) line.

what if somebody want's to play their AAC on an MP3 player?

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
tcsenter, every time you post about subjects like these, you talk about piracy and such... a few days ago you were saying the EFF = piracy propaganda and brainwashing.... I did not say anything to you then, but now you start again with all these claims, and I have to take a stand.

I don't know what you do in real life, but based on all your judgment of values, and the fact that you're making these grandiose statements, which have no substantiation - unless you've published scientific or legal articles on the issue - I think you're a movie industry shill. And if you're not, well, you could be a great one.

I am glad that I don't live in the same city, state, or country with you. That is all. Good night.

I'm still waiting for the "take a stand" part. So far, all I see is 'I don't like you very much, Mr. Smarty Pants. Good bye!'

Are you holding your breath until you turn blue...or something? Cuz, I can't see that from here.

 

[Platypus]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
See his DVD "hack"/software has a legit legal use, as well as some not so legal uses.

His new software for cracking iTunes songs, allowing them to be played anywhere, does not have a legit legal use.

He didnt break the law in the first case, but in his latest stunt, he did cross the legal(and civil) line.

The amount of misinformation is astounding in this thread.

He was responsible for DeCSS which was a circumvention device for getting around the content scrambling system implemented in DVDs. What he did WAS illegal according to copyright laws, but he did it so he could do something legal. He has a legal right to watch what he purchased, and he did it. This new case is also illegal.
I am glad people like John exist. Also as far as DeCSS is concerned, he released a proof of concept and it was then implemented by other people.

It's all about fair use. Companies who block your right to exercise fair use are reasons why these things are done. Fair use is also a legal standard, it's not just a moral ideal or whatever else anyone in this thread is trying to convey.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
tcsenter, every time you post about subjects like these, you talk about piracy and such... a few days ago you were saying the EFF = piracy propaganda and brainwashing.... I did not say anything to you then, but now you start again with all these claims, and I have to take a stand.

I don't know what you do in real life, but based on all your judgment of values, and the fact that you're making these grandiose statements, which have no substantiation - unless you've published scientific or legal articles on the issue - I think you're a movie industry shill. And if you're not, well, you could be a great one.

I am glad that I don't live in the same city, state, or country with you. That is all. Good night.

I'm still waiting for the "take a stand" part. So far, all I see is 'I don't like you very much, Mr. Smarty Pants. Good bye!'

Are you holding your breath until you turn blue...or something? Cuz, I can't see that from here.

mmm this has potential to get good

 

[JackBurton]

Hey tcsenter, tell me, what software/movie/music recording company do you work for?

They have tools on the net that are freely distributed to crack Windows/Linux accounts to gain access to data on that machine. Do you think the authors of those programs should be prosecuted too? Will it sway your opinion any if I told you those tools are used by IT departments to retrieve data off EX-employees machines that have purposely locked the company's machine with only ONE account that THEY created? Hmmm?

Can you see that from there?

 

[tcsenter]

They have tools on the net that are freely distributed to crack Windows/Linux accounts to gain access to data on that machine. Do you think the authors of those programs should be prosecuted too? Will it sway your opinion any if I told you those tools are used by IT departments to retrieve data off EX-employees machines that have purposely locked the company's machine with only ONE account that THEY created? Hmmm?

Why would this sway my opinion again? I forget.