×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Danish DRM Breaker Turns Himself In To Test Backup Law

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the impure-impurity-and-impureness dept.

Media 466

coaxial writes "In Denmark, it's legal to make copies of commercial videos for backup or other private purposes. It's also illegal to break the DRM that restricts copying of DVDs. Deciding to find out which law mattered, Henrik Anderson reported himself for 100 violations of the DRM-breaking law (he ripped his DVD collection to his computer) and demanded that the Danish anti-piracy Antipiratgruppen do something about it. They promised him a response, then didn't respond. So now he's reporting himself to the police. He wants a trial, so that the legality of the DRM-breaking law can be tested in court."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

466 comments

this is brave (5, Insightful)

mrvan (973822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301184)

This is really brave. Not just rant about how stupid a law is, or how unenforceable, and then just break it. But break it, deliberately turn yourself in, and show how stupid/unenforceable the law is.

From an egoistic short-term perspective this is probably seen as just stupid, but this is the way to actually enact some changes.

Bravo!

Re:this is brave (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301284)

I'd wager my left toe that absolutely nothing comes of it. The police aren't going to want to deal with it, and media companies and their government whores don't want that kind of a test case.

Re:this is brave (4, Interesting)

dintlu (1171159) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301386)

Is selective enforcement of a law an effective defense against that law's application against an individual, in Denmark?

Re:this is brave (2, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301594)

Taking this sort of totally off-topic thats one argument I'd love to use in the USA against speeding tickets. If you are on a freeway in Virginia then the cops won't pull you over unless you are doing more than about 15 mph over the limit (ie 80 in a 65 zone) , but they ticket you for the speed above the posted limit. I'd love to argue that the effective speed limit is at the point where they consider it worthwhile to come after you and not the posted limit. Thus you should be ticketed for the speed above the effective limit.

However I am too chicken to put this to a test :D

Re:this is brave (3, Insightful)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301816)

While in principle it SHOULD work, in reality they just laugh at you and hand you your ticket. Take it to trial and only one thing matters. "Sir, were you speeding?" "Yes, but..." "You can pay your fine to the clerk on your way out. Next!"

Re:this is brave (0, Offtopic)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30302024)

I'm not arguing that I would not be speeding, just that the points lost and the fine to be paid should be determined between the effective speed limit and the ticketed speed. In VA the fine is calculated as a $$amount for every mph over the speed limit.

As further examples, on I-64 you can drive about 72-75 mph in a 65 zone without being pulled over. But on I-95 leaving DC if you are not doing 80-85 mph then you are hazard to the other traffic, but at those speeds you don't get pulled over either

Re:this is brave (2, Interesting)

meerling (1487879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301888)

Often there is an unspecified leeway to account for unavoidable imprecision because we are all just human, and even our machines aren't 100% accurate.

Don't forget that traffic isn't a steady state situation, it's a dynamic one.

My uncle got pulled over for being 10mph over the limit when he thought he was going the correct speed. The cop didn't ticket him, but pointed out that his obviously new tires weren't the same diameter as the factory ones. Then told him to get his odometer recalibrated for the new tires. Seems your speedometer and odometer are directly linked to the number of rotations of tires of a specific diameter, change that and they read the wrong values. That's just one example where violations occur because of stuff you don't know about. It happens to cops too.

Of course, cops have another reason to not bother with tiny infractions. It wastes too much of their time in court arguing with joe blow that 4mph over the limit is still a violation. Even cops don't like standing in court all day dealing with stupid s###.

Re:this is brave (4, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#30302062)

My uncle got pulled over for being 10mph over the limit when he thought he was going the correct speed. The cop didn't ticket him, but pointed out that his obviously new tires weren't the same diameter as the factory ones. Then told him to get his odometer recalibrated for the new tires. Seems your speedometer and odometer are directly linked to the number of rotations of tires of a specific diameter, change that and they read the wrong values. That's just one example where violations occur because of stuff you don't know about. It happens to cops too.

Where the hell did this happen? Around here, that sort of knowledge would result in the cops making deals with the auto shops to sell people bigger tires!

Re:this is brave (1)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301630)

Can you argue that you shouldn't pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a speeding ticket?

Law enforcement has the discretion not to arrest and charge and prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute.

Re:this is brave (2, Interesting)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301724)

You shouldn't not pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a ticket, but if there were a law on the books that granted you the right to speed (hey, we are talking hypotheticals here), it would be worth putting the law to the test, as the two laws are mutually exclusive.

Re:this is brave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301810)

Can you argue that you shouldn't pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a speeding ticket?

You can. If you're being deliberately targeted. If you're simply the unlucky one who got caught that defense is harder to sell.

In the case of a speeding ticket it might be that it's impractical to strictly enforce the limit for everyone, and in that case it's reasonable to pick the worst offender, or a random offender, for the target of enforcement efforts. But if the cops picked you every day for a week even though there were many other people with the same violation during that period, you'd have a pretty decent defense.

Re:this is brave (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301840)

Can you argue that you shouldn't pay your speeding ticket because not everyone who was speeding got a speeding ticket?

Law enforcement has the discretion not to arrest and charge and prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute.

I would posit that there is a difference between law enforcement attempting (but failing) to enforce a law because they do not have enough man power, and choosing not to enforce a law because of some random personal preference.

That cops in the US don't bother to ticket all speeders (and in Virginia the law is written that there is no justification for exceeding the speed limit) is puzzling. But every now and again they have a zero tolerance crack down and the following week people are speeding again. Why should those people traveling during the crackdown be held to stricter compliance than any other time during the year?

Imagine the outcry if the cops decided to selectively enforce theft, assault or rape cases

Re:this is brave (1)

amplt1337 (707922) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301978)

Imagine the outcry if the cops decided to selectively enforce theft, assault or rape cases

There certainly is a large degree of selective investigation of these kinds of crimes. Try reporting a stolen bike in NYC sometime, for instance; you'll get laughed out of the station. (Oh sure, they'll take your report and have you fill out paperwork, but that goes straight in the Round File as soon as the door's closed.)
I believe (but don't have studies to hand) that assaults are investigated at much lower rates in neighborhoods of lower socio-economic standing. Sexual assault cases are also investigated far less diligently in acquaintance-rape situations than in "stranger in the bushes" situations, though they're both the same crime.

Re:this is brave (1)

silanea (1241518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301902)

Law enforcement has the discretion not to arrest and charge and prosecutors have the discretion not to prosecute.

Within certain constraints. Here in Germany afaik failure to act on a report about a crime (as opposed to misdemeanours) can be a criminal offence in itself, for both the police and the prosecution.

Re:this is brave (2, Interesting)

scubamage (727538) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301942)

To an extent. The discretion not to arrest/prosecute is solely dependent on whether or not the case has a complainant usually, and how much they're willing to complain. IE: You can smoke pot in your apartment alone and if no neighbors care, then you're fine. If they call the cops, they've officially filed a complaint against you and the officers have to do something, even if its just showing up and shrugging. Same thing here: he's officially filed a complaint against himself so if their commonlaw system is anything like ours (should be, based off the same one) they have to act. I think anyways, IANAL, I am just a prelaw student so I could be way off.

This is not brave (3, Interesting)

OeLeWaPpErKe (412765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301844)

Selective enforcement of laws is allowed in Denmark :

For criminal law - no (like everywhere else, including the US)

For civil law (which is what this falls under) - yes (again, like everywhere else, including the US)

The general principle is that everyone is equal before the government. But ONLY before the government. Not before someone else (you're perfectly free to have you roof done only by someone with black hair, just to name something stupid), nor before companies.

An example : a company demands payment from half it's customers, say it's christmas and everyone below 16 does not get billed (just making up some excuse). One of the customers forced to pay (16 years and 2 days old, say) cannot complain because someone else didn't have to pay. That is "selective enforcement" and is perfectly A-okay, just about everywhere in the world.

A counterexample is that the government cannot choose not to pursue a murderer. It IS a (theoretical) defence for a murderer to claim the government let another murderer go free. This usually gets applied to parking fines or speeding tickets. If you can prove the police let someone else go, you don't have to pay the fine.

The police only intervenes in matters of criminal law. And before you ask, you can get arrested "for not paying a bill", yes. But not because not paying a bill itself lands you in jail, this is civil law and cannot result in incarceration. Ignoring a court's order to pay a bill IS criminal law (it's a felony I believe).

So this guy is basically an attention-grabber who's knows he'll go free, due a basic property of our law system every first-year law student learns. The police won't do anything because that's not their job. Their job is criminal law.

Re:This is not brave (2, Interesting)

bberens (965711) | more than 4 years ago | (#30302018)

I think (surely someone will correct me) in the US if you don't actively pursue protection of your trademarks you will lose them. Therefore there can be a case where it's not possible to "selectively enforce" for some intellectual properties.

A funny result (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301392)

Would be they find him guilty. And the penalty is 10 years in prison and 100,000 euro fine!!

Re:this is brave (1)

Jherico (39763) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301376)

Except that as worded in the summary, the laws don't actually conflict. A law that gives you the right to make backups of a medium for private use doesn't necessarily guarantee you that right. A law that prohibits breaking of DRM would still apply. The only thing the other law does is ensure that he can't be prosecuted on two counts (breaking DRM AND duplicating copyrighted materials) instead of one.

Re:this is brave (4, Informative)

Fulcrum of Evil (560260) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301450)

Having the right to do something and being forbidden from doing the actions most commonly followed to accomplish this thing are in direct conflict. changing the DRM law to require some further infraction to be applicable would do a lot to resolve this conflict.

Re:this is brave (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301858)

But the thing is, that he *can* surely copy the disc without breaking the DRM? Making a copy to another DVD for backup purposes, and ripping onto your computer (I'm thinking especially if you change the format and don't just rip an iso) - while similar - are different things.

Plus, I doubt he is just keeping the files on his computer for "backup", he is probably actually watching the files on his computer. Not that I disagree with that.

Re:this is brave (2, Informative)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301950)

But the thing is, that he *can* surely copy the disc without breaking the DRM?

As I understand it, that's exactly what CSS is designed to prevent. From the Wikipedia article:

The purpose of CSS is twofold. First and foremost, it prevents byte-for-byte copies of an MPEG stream from being playable since such copies will not include the keys that are hidden on the lead-in area of the restricted DVD disk.

Re:this is brave (1)

gbarules2999 (1440265) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301964)

He can back it up on his computer, but if he tries to use the backups when a DVD gets damaged, he'll have to break the DRM to make a new disc copy. He probably just broke the DRM before he needed to, knowing that it would have to happen eventually.

Of course someone will argue that he could just buy a DVD program that lets him watch the unaltered DVD iso on this hand drive (because VLC Player and its family are also de-DRM-ing the DVD iso without premission) but that still won't let him watch it on his DVD player.

Re:this is brave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301466)

A law that gives you the right to make backups of a medium for private use doesn't necessarily guarantee you that right. A law that prohibits breaking of DRM would still apply.

Or a law that prohibits breaking DRM doesn't apply if you have the right to make a backup.

Why the fuck are you making sweeping assumptions when you are clearly ignorant of the details?

Re:this is brave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301526)

Can you not make an ISO of a DVD without decrypting it?

Re:this is brave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301566)

Not usually, no, because that requires the ripping program to actually decode the data to transfer it.

Re:this is brave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301800)

Sorry fellow A/C, he's right. You can certainly make a copy of a DVD without decrypting it. The DVD companies generally turn the compression down on their content "for quality purposes" so that the resultant files are larger than a standard DVD-R. But they can be copied (at a fraction of that speed) to a DVD-R-DL without issue. I've backed up several formerly expensive videos with that method so the kids can destroy the backups. It works fine.

Where the decryption for duplication is required is for making the unencrypted copies of the file content so they can be recompressed with a higher compression ratio and fit onto a DVD-R. This is both cheaper, and despite the massive CPU overhead, faster due to the higher write speeds on the DVD-Rs.

Re:this is brave (4, Informative)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301650)

Recordable disks aren't writable in the part of the disk where the key is stored, so if you don't decrypt it when you make the backup, you won't be able to play the backup in your player.

Re:this is brave (1)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301668)

Not necessarily. It's already pretty well accepted that you can only exercise a right so long as it doesn't conflict with other laws. Combinations of actions can preclude one right. For example in the US I have the right to bare arms. I have the right to enter a post office as well. However, I cannot bare arms while entering a post office.

Similarly, you might have the right to make a backup copy for archival purposes, but only so long as no other law is broken. If you have to crack DRM to make it then you're breaking another law and hence there's an issue.

Re:this is brave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301746)

your argument is flawed. you have the privilege to enter the post office. when you attempt to enter the post office with a fire arm you privilege is revoked.

Re:this is brave (3, Funny)

SDF-7 (556604) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301812)

No, I'm fairly certain no one will care if you take your jacket off and have short sleeves in the post office.

Baring much else will get you in trouble, of course.

And before anyone else asks -- no, you shouldn't arm bears in the post office either.

Re:this is brave (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301944)

The problem arises when all DVDs have DRM. That would be like saying you have the right to bear arms, but can't be in the country while doing it.

Re:this is brave (5, Informative)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301804)


I know this is hard, but sometimes you have to read the article. ;) Apparently, Danish law gives the individual the right to make a non-commercial backup for personal use. That isn't a law saying you may do something, it's saying you have a right to do so. In which case DRM infringes on that right.

Re:this is brave (1)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301848)

It's like having the right to defend yourself, but not being allowed to carry a weapon. If you have the right to defend yourself you have the right to be armed. Not that it holds up in court though...

Re:this is brave (1)

godrik (1287354) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301522)

I agree it's brave. It's a bit like calling the FDA to make sure your restaurant is clean enough.

Re:this is brave (2, Informative)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301596)

It's a bit like calling the FDA to make sure your restaurant is clean enough.

The FDA has nothing to do with restaurant inspections. That's handled by county-level health departments.

Re:this is brave (1)

SleazyRidr (1563649) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301656)

This guy deserves some serious cred. Of course, it could turn out that he just hasn't thought it through, but it seems like he's pretty serious.

Re:this is brave (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301678)

In the US this case would be easy, he would just be charged $20,000,000 per DVD as per corporate wishes.

Re:this is brave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301874)

This man's balls are made of brass. Maybe silicon due to our modern times, but the statement still stands.

First (1, Troll)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301186)

Not a smart move. Better to avoid the law even if you are correct.

Re:First (5, Insightful)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301240)

I'm very glad civil-rights leaders in the 60's weren't so cowardly.

Re:First (1)

Applekid (993327) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301606)

I wonder how much more expensive legal fees are today than almost 50 years ago.

It certainly is noble, since a lot of courts won't even hear about these kinds of conflicts without Ripeness [wikipedia.org]. But, I can't say I'd willingly bankrupt myself to expose hypocrisy, whether I'm found right or wrong.

Re:First (2, Insightful)

2obvious4u (871996) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301828)

I don't know what the repercussions are in Denmark but here in the US when you see FBI warnings before a movie stating you'll be fined $150,000 and 10 years in a PMITA prison... I'd rather just keep my mouth shut and let someone who actually got caught challenge the system.

That quote is from the +5 informative post in the Kudos comment thread. A lot has changed since the 60's. Federal Minimum sentences, outrages fines, etc. Also if your skin color gives you away you really can't keep your head down so you had to fight for your rights. This is something that anyone can avoid; boycott or follow their rules. As noted in the comments from the torrent freak website: the probable outcome (if this goes to trial) is that the law will be changed to not allow personal backup copies; not that the circumvention will be removed.

So was the troll cause I was going for my first, first post ever on any forum, or because you disagree that its best to avoid law enforcement unless you can help it?

Re:First (1)

jayme0227 (1558821) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301496)

Man, moderators, please, vote this guy underrated. Just because he is a coward doesn't mean he's a troll.

Re:First (1)

Korbeau (913903) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301642)

Man, moderators, please, vote this guy underrated. Just because he is a coward doesn't mean he's a troll.

He's not a troll, he is just missing the point.

Yeah, as a general rule stay away from the law because:

time + money + possibility of judicial error + personal attacks on image etc. > satisfaction/reward (usually)

But the Danish hacker is trying to make a statement here.

Kudos (5, Insightful)

overshoot (39700) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301204)

Civil disobedience done right. The world would be a better place if more of us (and I'm specifically pointing to empty-nest geezers like that one in the mirror) had the cojones to do similarly rather than constantly bitching.

Re:Kudos (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301266)

I agree in theory; and for Denmark this might be a good strategic move, but facing the digital inquisition is far more risky here.

Re:Kudos (3, Funny)

Zibben (1451167) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301358)

Why did I suddenly get an immage of John Cleese running into the room in a robot costume screaming "Nobody expects the Digital Inquisition!!" Need more coffee.

Re:Kudos (4, Informative)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301360)

I don't know what the repercussions are in Denmark but here in the US when you see FBI warnings before a movie stating you'll be fined $150,000 and 10 years in a PMITA prison... I'd rather just keep my mouth shut and let someone who actually got caught challenge the system.

Re:Kudos (1)

belthize (990217) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301482)

It's just a ruse. I've ripped the little label off of every mattress I've ever owned and they never once filed charges.

Re:Kudos (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301560)

It's just a ruse. I've ripped the little label off of every mattress I've ever owned and they never once filed charges.

All the label says is that nobody other than the consumer can remove the label. So whilst the manufacturers and retailers can't remove the label (primarily because the label tells you what materials are used, etc,) it does not limit the rights of the consumer.

Re:Kudos (4, Interesting)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301666)


What's sad is how that act can terrify others around you. I carried out the similar but actually real behaviour of cutting the stupid labels attached to the leads of some new keyboards at a place I worked - I refuse to believe that any of us need to be instructed by it to read the three paragraphs of safety information on the bottom of the keyboard. One of my staff was horrified and thought that it might be breaking the rules.

I tell you this: A society that is afraid to cut labels off keyboards is fucked. Oh, and good luck to the Danish guy. I bet he's not afraid to tear labels off things.

Re:Kudos (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301794)

I bet he's not afraid to tear labels off things.

Ever read one? Ever read WHO is forbidden from delabeling it?

Know why those labels are there in the first place? That's right. Because some consumer somewhere probably sued the company because he didn't know mattresses were heavy or that you shouldn't eat your keyboard or something stupid like that... :)

Re:Kudos (1)

throwaway85 (1658473) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301380)

I agree wholeheartedly. Hopefully he is not nailed to the proverbial cross for taking this brave action to directly challenge DRM. If he wins, I wonder what implications this will have for filesharing in Denmark? DRM may be struck down, but the degree to which that impacts piracy cases will be determined in large part by how central DRM is to anti-piracy prosecution.

Re:Kudos (3, Insightful)

electricprof (1410233) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301406)

In the US we tend to face draconian damage awards if found guilty of even ridiculously small amount of infringement. So, we may have to have somebody successfully challenge the size of the damages before challenging legality. Does anybody know the difference in damage award size in Denmark and the US?

Re:Kudos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301598)

If he didn't sell or distribute anything illegal he certainly can't go to prison.
And the fine/penalty won't come close to court costs wich he'll also have to pay if he loses.

law vs. law (-1, Offtopic)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301212)

How does this work, does the older one win because he can beat up the younger law?

Re:law vs. law (3, Insightful)

runyonave (1482739) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301262)

Old or new should not matter. What matters is that the laws contradict each other.

If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist

Re:law vs. law (4, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301396)

If we lived in a true democracy (for the people), DRM would never exist

If you lived in a true democracy you would get the laws that people voted for - this may or may not include DRM

To quote Men In Black

A person is smart, but people are stupid

Re:law vs. law (4, Insightful)

runyonave (1482739) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301558)

DRM solely exists to provide corporations more control over the products they sell. It in no way is beneficial to the average user.

So therefore the average users, or the people who provide the majority of votes, would never vote for DRM.

Re:law vs. law (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301640)

Except for all of those people who have invested in said publicly-traded corporations . . .

Re:law vs. law (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301660)

DRM solely exists to provide corporations more control over the products they sell. It in no way is beneficial to the informed user.

So therefore the informed users, or the people who provide the majority of votes, would never vote for DRM.

FTFY

And how much lobbying would you expect corporations to do to ensure that the general public is not well informed??

Re:law vs. law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30302022)

Lobbying? They would do the same thing the do now. Buy votes. I'd wager they might even save money - Congressmen aren't cheap!

To paraphrase: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301672)

Peasant: Well I didn't vote for it
RIAA: you don't VOTE for DRM!
Peasant: Well how did we get DRM then?

Re:law vs. law (1)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301802)

You're assuming the average voter would be aware of the situation. With the number of people who suddenly think that universal health care is Marxist simply because someone on TV said so, I have very little faith in people doing their own research. The vote could easily carry DRM if that's what the media wanted.

Re:law vs. law (1)

NeoSkandranon (515696) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301966)

If they could be convinced or tricked into believing DRM is in their best interests, they would gladly vote for it.

Pedant alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301682)

I believe you mean "to paraphrase a quote from Men In Black".

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

Re:law vs. law (1)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301824)

We don't live in a true democracy -- a true democracy would be an absolute nightmare. We need a buffer to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. If the United States were a true democracy, it is likely that Conservative Christianity would be the official religion, morality would be mandated on a mass scale (far more than it already is), and things would be an all around disaster. Pure democracy = mob rule, plain and simple.

Re:law vs. law (2)

Atlantis-Rising (857278) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301662)

A true democracy is not 'for' the people. It is by the people, which is an entirely different concept.

Put yourself in a room with ninety-nine other people, and then ask yourself if you'd like to be forced to obey what any fifty-one of them decide they'd like you to do. I'd wager you don't.

Re:law vs. law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301970)

Would that be any worse than being forced to obey what a political elite of three people would like you to do?

Re:law vs. law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301502)

Both laws live in harmony. Copying the video is not illegal, breaking the DRM is.

Re:law vs. law (0, Redundant)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301836)

Is making a backup merely legal, or is it expressed as a right? If the former, you're correct, but if it's the latter then DRM conflicts.

Re:law vs. law (2, Informative)

greensoap (566467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301988)

Well, looking at it from a U.S. perspective it would depend. First you have to look at whether the laws truly contradict and who passed the laws (state v. federal). If law A was passed by congress in 1980 and a contradictory law B was passed by congress in 1990, then law B trumps. The courts would say that law B supersedes law A and congress intent must have been for law A not to apply any longer. This is because congress had spoken on the issue and now says something different. The newer law must reflect congress current intent on the law rather than out of date view of the older law.

Now things change if we are talking about state passing a law and congress passing a law. You have to do a whole bunch on constitutional analysis at that point. State rights vs federal power.

Good for him (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301242)

I'm guessing that the law there is similar to the US in which you really can't do much about a law until it actually impacts you. I'm not sure I'm happy with that situation, in that some poor soul (or souls) has to effectively be martyred before the 'protections' kick in.

Or is this case simply one of two laws which contradict each other?

Horrible idea (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301314)

The only reliable way to test your backup law is to restore your backup law into a freshly partitioned legal system.

Won't Loving Work. (3, Interesting)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301364)

He's just going to be slapped with an unreasonable fine he can't pay and then he will have to file for bankruptcy or some such thing. Courts are fine with giving out unreasonable fines because "hey, at least it's not jail time." However, fines can make it impossible for you to pay your bills, even if you are allowed to pay them off over a period of time.

Re:Won't Loving Work. (3, Insightful)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301488)

Except he's in Denmark. I can't comment specifically but many European nations have sliding scale fines.

Re: Probably not that high fine (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301646)

Being from scandinavia (not Denmark though, but laws are likely quite similar), I can say that I would be really surprised if the fine was any more than a couple of thousand euros. Fines/damages here are meant to be payable and any unreasonable fines/damage will be cut down to a level that's feasible payable for the person in question. That's one of the things you learn in the introductory law courses here.

Re:Won't Loving Work. (4, Insightful)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301910)

We need that in America. It is completely absurd that if Bill Gates and I committed the same criminal offense, we would incur the same fine. Bill would pull the money out of his wallet in much the same manner that I buy a pack of gum and go about his day, whereas I would be financially devastated. In this case, while the actual dollar amount of the fines were equal, the punishment absolutely was not. The fine should be adjusted so that the punishment is equal in both cases -- it is completely absurd that this is not the case already.

Re:Won't Loving Work. (1)

Absolut187 (816431) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301670)

Or more likely, the prosecutor's office will just ignore him.

Typically the solution that requires the least effort is the one that government bureaucrats will choose.

Re:Won't Loving Work. (4, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301760)

Dude, this is Scandinavia. We don't award insane damages here, in fact we generally give way too little IMO. People that have had their lives completely ruined, like 20 years innocent in prison get less than a million dollars. Murderers are often only required to pay 100-200k$ in damages. That is one of the reasons the TPB case became such a big deal in Sweden, for Americans a little over 4 million dollars is not that unusual, around here it's unheard of. There was for example here in Norway just recently about a 16 year old who got the biggest insurance payout ever after a traffic accident - 11.6 MNOK = 2.08 million USD. Still not much when he's probably got another 60 years to live and will need special care for the rest of his life.

Re:Won't Loving Work. (0, Troll)

coaxial (28297) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301986)

There was for example here in Norway just recently about a 16 year old who got the biggest insurance payout ever after a traffic accident - 11.6 MNOK = 2.08 million USD. Still not much when he's probably got another 60 years to live and will need special care for the rest of his life.

Yeah, but at least you have universal health care. The US still doesn't. That would be communist-socialist-nazi-facism didn't you know? (That's why Hitler and Stalin were such great buds.)

That Dude is My Hero! (5, Interesting)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 4 years ago | (#30301730)

He's not a whining sniveling cowardly hypocrite like the Pirate Bay defendants.

This guy's putting it on the line. Does he have a defense fund that can be contributed to?

Antipiratgruppen (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30301948)

I can't help but laugh each time I say it... Antipiratgruppen, LOL.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...