Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register)
The Register reports that "DVD Jon" Johansen is headed back to court in Norway, despite having been acquitted almost a year ago. "Norway's special division for white-collar crimes, Økokrim, acting at the behest of Hollywood studios, appealed against this verdict. Økokrim is appealing against the 'application of the law and the presentation of evidence' during the original trial."
(Log in to post comments)
DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register) Posted Dec 2, 2003 15:50 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] I guess Norway doesn't have a double-jeapordy law?(Of course, the USA has lots of ways to get around that too; even if acquitted in criminal court, you can still be sued into oblivion in civil court.) -Rob
DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register) Posted Dec 2, 2003 16:03 UTC (Tue) by sethg (guest, #14970) [Link] In the US, a defendant who is found guilty of a crime can appeal to a higher court, but a verdict of not-guilty cannot be appealed. (As you say, the government can try to nail the defendant again with a civil trial.) Judging from the Register article, Norwegian defendants do not have the same protection.It's not clear from the article how big a deal this is. The prosecutors could just be going through the motions of an appeal that has no chance of succeeding, just so they can tell the MPAA "see, we did everything we could".
DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register) Posted Dec 2, 2003 17:31 UTC (Tue) by jack_walker (guest, #17402) [Link] In the US, the government can never be a plaintiff in a _civil_ trial. In recent prominent cases in the US, private individuals have brought suit against acquitted defendants but neither the US or state governments have participated in any other capacity than providing the court system in which the civil trials took place.Double jeopardy only applies in criminal trials and does not prevent a private entity from bringing suit against a plaintiff. The principle of double jeopardy is specifically designed to limit the power of the government to persecute individuals. Jack
Government can sue someone civilly Posted Dec 5, 2003 17:47 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] In the US, the government can never be a plaintiff in a _civil_ trial. Yes it can. There are various statutes that specifically declare certain activity to be damaging, but not criminal, and designate a certain government official as having standing to sue people on the public's behalf to recover the damages. This is a fairly recent adjustment to US legal system and is IMO a huge slide away from traditional Constitutional values. But it's there. And of course it's always been possible for the government to sue a person for traditional damages, such as where the person vandalizes a bridge and the government makes him pay to repair it. That was taken a little too far by the city of Gilroy, California, some years ago which IIRC passed an ordinance saying that drunk drivers were civilly responsible for the costs of arresting and trying them. Because it was civil liability, the city had a lower standard of proof that the person really drove drunk than for criminal penalties. So you could be acquitted of the crime of drunk driving, but if a court still found it was more likely than not that you were driving drunk, you'd have to pay thousands to reimburse the city for arresting you. I always expected that to fail a 14th amendment (criminal due process) test, but I never heard.
DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register) Posted Dec 2, 2003 18:19 UTC (Tue) by docolczyk (guest, #14874) [Link] >In the US, a defendant who is found guilty of a crime can appeal to a >higher court, but a verdict of not-guilty cannot be appealed. (As you >say, the government can try to nail the defendant again with a civil >trial.) Judging from the Register article, Norwegian defendants do not >have the same protection.Before submitting comments, it helps that you actually *know* what you In the US criminal system, the principle factor for retrials is not trials or verdicts, but jeopardy. You cannot be put in jeopardy twice. This is
Even in cases where the judge does everything right and there is no defense
DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register) Posted Dec 2, 2003 20:06 UTC (Tue) by rickfdd (guest, #4519) [Link] Yes, in theory, but weren't the Los Angeles policeman who beat Rodney King and found not guilty in state court, retried for a different federal offense (violation of civil rights) for essentially the same beating.
DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register) Posted Dec 2, 2003 16:04 UTC (Tue) by guan (subscriber, #13326) [Link] There's no specific double-jeopardy law in the legal tradition of most Nordic countries.I believe the term "retrial" is misleading however. Here points of fact are being appealed. That is not usually possible in US law. A "real retrial" takes place in the court of first instance.
DVD Jon retrial begins today (Register) Posted Dec 2, 2003 17:22 UTC (Tue) by jasonW (guest, #15835) [Link] From http://www.ipjustice.org/media_releases/120103jj.html”If Johansen's acquittal is over-turned on appeal, it will become illegal for Norwegians to bypass DVD region code restrictions or technical restrictions that prevent fast-forwarding over advertisements, or otherwise circumvent digital controls on their own property,” said IP Justice Executive Director Robin Gross. One that that annoys me to no end is buying a DVD only to be forced to sit and watch movie previews. And, as far as I am concerned, this should forcing me to watch said ads should be illegal. I bought a DVD for a certain movie. If they want to advertise to me, that is fine, but forcing me to watch those ads is another story. What we are seeing is technology bypassing the old business models and people don't want to let go of those models and adapt. It has been said before, but if we continue down this path most people in the world will be "criminals" by definition of the courts (though, that does not mean they are morally wrong to do it. Remember, legality does not equal morality). The world could possibly be a truly free and interesting place in ten years, or it could be absolutely restrictive and orwellian.
|
|||||||||||