"DVD-Jon" Demands Compensation

orzetto writes "Jon Lech Johansen, known as DVD-Jon, and aquitted in a trial in Norway, after being accused of infringement for making a GUI for DeCSS, is now demanding that Norwegian Oekokrim pay for all the time and money he has lost to the trial, claiming 150,000 NOK (about 17,500 euros)."

You win, don't pay

[swoebser]

I think it's common sense that if you're a defendant and found not guilty that you shouldn't have to pay. Frankly, I'm surprised something like this doesn't exist already. Perhaps if the plaintiff had to pay ALL court costs if he/she lost there would be fewer nonsensical lawsuits.

IANAL, that's just my two cents.

Fair is fair...

[axis-techno-geek]

Heck he should sue the MPAA for damages too, if they can pressure prosocution they should also foot the blame.

...oh sorry that "liberty and justice for all" has been replaced with "liberty and justice for all those who can afford it".

Re:FYI

[Shakrai]

That is about $22,000. I would want my money back, too

Is that really all it cost him to defend himself or is that just all he's asking for in return? Did he manage to get some lawyers to take the case pro-bono (or partially pro-bono) to get the publicity or are lawyers just cheaper in Norway?

$22,000 is a nice chunk of change but it's a drop in the bucket compared to what this probably would have cost him in the United States....

Anyone have any more info on this?

Frivolous Prosecutions

[Mistah Blue]

I hope he prevails. Perhaps it will give other prosecutors pause, to think out their case. If you have a weak case and know you are going to have to pay all cases, you might decide to forego prosecution and use your resources on cases which aren't weak. This benefits the society as a whole.

Re:You win, don't pay

[|<amikaze]

It would also prevent the little guy from going up against a large corporation. When a large corporation has 20 lawyers working on a case, they can claim exhorbant amounts of money wasted on the court case, and make the guy who has been wronged pay for the whole thing.

Re:You win, don't pay

[Shakrai]

I think it's common sense that if you're a defendant and found not guilty that you shouldn't have to pay. Frankly, I'm surprised something like this doesn't exist already. Perhaps if the plaintiff had to pay ALL court costs if he/she lost there would be fewer nonsensical lawsuits.

That's a good idea until you think about the poor retired woman living on a fixed income who got screwed over by a large corporation (insert favorite evil corp here: Microsoft or SCO anyone?) and wants to get some justice. If she loses (and don't say you always win in Court if you are right -- most of the time it comes down to who has a better lawyer) she'd wind up getting stuck with the fees to pay for (insert evil corp here)'s legal dream team, would could be anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of dollars, depending on the dream team and the case.

It might be an idea for criminal cases -- having the Government pay you if you are cleared of the charges, but then, do we really want our tax dollars going to pay the millions of dollars of legal fees racked up by the likes of OJ Simpson just because he was found not-guility?

Good for him

[thedillybar]

I like the idea of a counter-suit. News like this should help prevent companies such as DirecTV from indiscriminately suing people because there's a small chance that they're guilty.

If people continue to fight these lawsuits and counter-sue, rather than just settle, then these companies will be discouraged from these rages in the future because it will end up costing them more in dollars & negative PR than it's worth.

Although I support his position/work on DeCSS

[Sheetrock]

The Oekokrim trials were clearly about establishing precedent for Norway on an important matter, not about punishing him directly. Living in a litigious society, I can tell you only one group seems to come out the consistent winner when everybody feels the need for compensation when they've been offended in some manner.

He didn't have to pay lawyer's fees, and from the sounds of it outside of having something like this looming over his head for years it's probably been a boon to him overall (he won't have to worry about finding work, for one thing.) It's probably a better time to count blessings than demand renumeration.

Re:You win, don't pay

[jfengel]

Loser-pays is common in Europe, and there are groups pushing it in the US.

There is an obvious downside to it: it tends to discourage access to the courts by people who can't afford to lose. Mike Rowe would never have been able to afford Microsoft's court costs, and if he's not 100% convinced he'll win (not just right: win) he'd be in debt forever.

It's not infeasible; it's so common in England that it's sometimes called the English rule. But it would involve a substantial change to American jurisprudence.

Re:You win, don't pay

[swoebser]

I don't think it would completely prevent your average joe from suing a large corporation. Remeber, you'd only have to pay if you didn't win the case. You would, however, have to be 100% sure you'd win or you'd be hosed. I'm guessing there aren't a lot of people out there who would be willing to take that kind of risk agaist a gaggle of high power lawers.

Re:FYI

[bluekanoodle]

"Are the free lawyers actually any good in Norway?" He got off, didn't he?

Re:FYI

[Shakrai]

"Are the free lawyers actually any good in Norway?" He got off, didn't he?

Yes, and every so often somebody will win a million bucks playing the lottery. That doesn't mean that the lottery is a good investment.

Re:Microsoft

[Mr. Underbridge]

MPAA could not get the Okokrim into this trouble as the MPAA has no authority over the Norwegian police. It was the Okokrim's decision to pursue this case - geez, it would be a major scandal if it turned out that some foreign organization has a say in what the police does.

Right, I'm sure this esteemed organization woke up one day and said "You know what is threatening our great nation? DVD decryption."

Somehow I don't think so. I'm not claiming corruption, but I've a feeling someone gave them the idea that this would be a very good thing to go after.

Re:You win, don't pay

[|<amikaze]

In that case, the government is the prosecutor. This brings another awful argument to the table. This would encourage lawyers to charge absolutely rediculous amounts. If a person was guilty and admitted it, then they would go for the cheapest law firm, since they'd have to pay for it. However, if a person figured they could get out of the charges, they'd hire the most expensive lawyer possible and the government could be out of millions of dollars because of a small legal loophole.

How would you feel knowing that your tax dollars put millions of dollars into the pockets of a lawyer who protected a rapist by using every means possible?

Re:Although I support his position/work on DeCSS

[theLOUDroom]

The Oekokrim trials were clearly about establishing precedent for Norway on an important matter, not about punishing him directly.

Maybe that was the part of the case the was important to you, but this case was most definately about punishing him directly. If he lost, that's what would have happened.

I'm sure it all seems like it just this abstract case about precedent to you, but your career was not at stake. If someone decided to try and use you to "set an example" in a totally B.S. manner, I bet you would want compensation for your wasted time and trauma as well.

Re:Compensation for What?

[defile]

So really, what you're saying is that "DVD Jon" deserved to be sued for trying to watch a DVD he bought, and deserves to pay for his defense even though a court has sided with him twice?

This case is not about stealing copyrighted works . It's about who owns the things that you buy.

freedom vs. free$

[Doc Ruby]

The failed prosecution of DVD Jon demonstrates that Norway, at least, protects the rights of its citizens from corporate/government collusion to persecute. He might be due $20K, a decent return for a Norwegian 20 year old's part-time college job as inexpert witness in his own defense. But Jon's damages from their unmerited actions fall less on his wallet than on his spirit. The real damage was the threats to his liberty, arrest, denigration, disgrace and professional disenfranchisement. These years of undeserved defensive living can not be restored, and have no price.

In the US, there is a distinction between civil and criminal violations of law, and their remedies. While the vagaries of US history, and lawyerly perversions of principles of "justice" often assign "punitive damages" to perpetrators and award them to victims, criminal penalties are assigned to those who damage intangibles: public trust, individual liberty, principles of Justice itself. In DVD Jon's case, there is a great deal of that kind of damage, to Jon, and to his compatriots, and ripples to us, in other countries.

The remedy includes holding those behind these prosecutions liable for their actions in wrongfully prosecuting him. Moreover, if this kind of wrongful prosecution is found to be systemic, the judge ought to assign changes in the system. Otherwise the perpetrators will be free to attack Liberty without repercussions, and the rising tide of corporate attacks on human rights will pervade Norway. Combine corporate financial superiority with their liability immunity advantage, and it looks pretty bad for the humans. Unless Norwegians see themselves in DVD Jon's shoes, and get their country back on track.

yes, and...

[tuxette]

...also remember that this case was a "prestige" case for Inger Marie Sunde. The self-proclaimed computer crime expert who doesn't know what an algorithm is put a lot on the line for this case, personally and professionally, didn't take her first loss well, and has thankfully realized that she would lose an eventual appeal.

Her case was based primarily on poor or non-existing evidence and character assasination (among other things, she likened Johansen to gang-bangers). She wasted Johansen's time, the judges' and jury's time, and taxpayer money. So yes, Johansen is in the right to seek compensation from Okokrim.

Re:Compensation for What?

[jdgeorge]

So really, what everyone here is saying, is that it's OK to crack proprietary code ("code must be free"), steal copyrighted works ("music must be free") and get away with it.

No. The Norwegian legal system is saying that that Jon Johansen's actions were legal. If you disagree with their conclusions (and want to do something other than whine about the attitudes of Slashdotters like yourself), you should explain your reasoning to the legislative body of the Norwegian government and the Motion Picture Association of America (which prompted this legal action.)

Re:FYI

[WegianWarrior]

No, he wasn't. He was charged once, the lower court said he hadn't done any wrong and the Oekokrim (echonomic crime unit) appeled. It may not be the way things work in the US, but it's the way thigns work here - and work pretty damn good I might add. Both the defendant and the plaintiff may appeal if certain conditions are present.

There is a number of important differencies between the norwegian and the US system of justice. One of the most important ones to recall is that they are different; so don't scream up at the instance you hear something that's different from what you're used too - like the fact that lawyers paid by the state are pretty damn good.

Re:Compensation for What?

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

So really, what everyone here is saying, is that it's OK to crack proprietary code ("code must be free"), steal copyrighted works ("music must be free") and get away with it. Aperently most of you still live at home (like DVD Jon) and don't directly have to pay bills, except for maybe your stash and some Dew now and then.

No, what we're saying is that it's legal to reverse-engineer hardware and software for the purposes of interoperability and exercising your fair-use rights. In other words, it's perfectly legal to crack the CSS encryption on DVDs so that you can watch the DVDs that you legally purchased on your Linux computer, which after all these years still has no commercial DVD playing software.

We also recognize that there's a big difference between stealing (depriving someone of a physical product they own) and copyright infringement (making a digital copy of something, which doesn't deprive the owner of their copy nor does it deprive the copyright holder of any revenue if you otherwise wouldn't have purchased it). We also recognize that morally there is a big difference between downloading a few MP3s off the Internet (just for fun, to try out new bands, for albums that are not being produced anymore - which is no more immoral than borrowing a book or a CD from a friend) and wholesale mass-copying (people who burn 'pirated' CDs and sell them in the streets).

Re:You win, don't pay

[Oestergaard]

There is an obvious downside to it: it tends to discourage access to the courts by people who can't afford to lose

While that *sometimes* can be a bad thing, I believe that it will *often* be a good thing.

SCO vs. IBM
(we're broke and have no product, so give us some money)

Smokers vs. Phillip Morris
(hey, I thought smokes were good for you, I thought they had vitamin-C in 'em and stuff)

Oh, and then there's the hospitals hiring lawyers and explicitly telling *every* patient when they leave, that if the patient sues and loses, they will counter-sue. They did that to stop what became routine; that most patients did in fact sue after being treated, because there was a good chance of getting some form of compentation and no risk associated with suing.

Sure, sometimes the wrong guy loses - which is why civilized countries do not have capital punishment.

But fundamentally, I think that it is a good idea to let people/corporations who sue know, that there is a risk associated, and suing is not something you should do just for fun, or because "heck, it might work". Going to court is not a game, or at least, it ought not to be. In my humble oppinion of course.

Re:You win, don't pay

[Asic Eng]

It would also prevent the little guy from going up against a large corporation.

In some cases it would - then again the current system allows the big guy to sue the little guy until he gives up because he runs out of money. So both systems will fail some of the little guys at some point. To evaluate them you'd have to compare how they compare on average. I think the current US system looks very bad there - employing over half of the worlds lawyers just has to be a ridiculous amount of overhead.

Re:FYI

[cannon_trodder]

He didn't actually say what his reason for exemption was. But it was obviously a reasonable one as he didn't even have to discuss it in court.

If the law says there are exemptions to military service, and you fit the criteria, why is that un-heroic? What if someone has a disability that would make them ineligible but the military service records don't reflect that disability? Going to court would be a fair way to settle the dispute.

Re:I'm actually surprised

[arcade]

Because this is Norway. We generally don't sue for insane amounts - and such demands would be flat out denied by the court.

I'll be quite surprised if he actually gets as much as he has demanded. Especially since this has led to him getting a quite good job.

Different rules for corps

[jcsehak]

I think there should always be different standards for individuals and corporations. For instance, if Bono saw you selling illegally produced copies of "Achtung Baby" and he called you names and took the CDs, and you took him to court for theft, I think a judge would throw the case out. At least, Judge Judy would ;) But if someone took the RIAA to court for the same thing, they (the RIAA) should get penalized to the full extent of the law.

So if it's "Individual vs. Corp," then Ind. pays own fees if he loses, but Corp pays his fees if he wins, and Corp pays their own fees either way.

If it's "Corp vs. Corp" or "Ind vs. Ind," then loser pays the fees.

So things are biased in favor of the individual, but so many other things are biased in favor of the corporation, it works out alright. And that's the way it should be. I mean, I can't find anything wrong with this reasoning, and I've been thinking about this for a full 10 minutes or so.

Re:FYI

[Tassach]

It'd take a Constitutional amendment to change that

I wish. Lately, our government hasn't even bothered paying lip service to the Constitution except when it serves their own interests to do so. USA-PATRIOT and subsequent laws are so blatantly un-Constitutional as to make me sick. Secret trials? Warrantless secret searches? US Citizens held indefinately without charges and without access to a lawyer? Criminal defendants denied the right to confront their accusors, and not being allowed to call witnesses on their own behalf?

If the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to overthrow Constitutional government, I'd say that they were pretty damn effective.

Re:FYI

[toph42]

I think you are mistaking this. We aren't overlawyered, but simple over-litigious, necessitating the damn lawyers.

Re:FYI

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, imagine someone who refuses to donate their person to the state just because the state asks! Why, that person should be made a slave or something! Oh, wait...

Re:Compensation for What?

[Qzukk]

steal copyrighted works ("music must be free") and get away with it.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Who said anything about stealing? The purpose of DeCSS was originally, and has always been, to decode encrypted DVDs for the purpose of viewing them on platforms where no decoder exists (ie, Linux).

If you're going to claim that you somehow have the right to take away DeCSS because teenaged kiddies use it to pimp out the latest release of the matrix on kazaa, then its only fair that you also take away guns, cars, airplanes, knives, forks, baseball bats, golf clubs, fireplace pokers, and everything else that could conceivably be used in the comission of a murder.

If you're going to backpedal now and claim that copyright isn't anywhere on the same level as murder, then how about a world without printers, fax machines, scanners, and copiers?

Re:FYI

[Homology]

There are a couple things one must understand about Norwegian (Scandinavian, for that matter) justice system, is that there are limits (not hard, though) on the amount of damages that may be awarded by the court, and you may not sue without a good reason (and you better back it up with facts).

Now, since the court does not award insanely high awards, we have ambulance chasers and similar parasites at much, much lower level than in USA.

And yes, suing. I believe that the second most common threat an US citizen will give (after "I'll kill you!") is : "I'll sue you!". Beeing sued in USA is tantamount to personal financial ruin, so the mere threat of it might make one cave in. Just witness the US RIAA suing 13 old children, and harassing with impunity.

The US justice system is one very much fucked up system, so much that even lawyers that profit on it is concerned.