Johansen Takes The Stand In DeCSS Trial
from the no-choice dept
Jon Johansen took the stand in the DeCSS trial, where he pointed out that he only wrote the program so he could view movies he already owned on his Linux box. Apparently, the prosecutor responded to his claims by saying that DeCSS "only works in Windows". I would imagine that's easy enough to prove wrong. Why is it so difficult to understand that creating tools that can be used to break the law is different than breaking the law itself?
3 Comments | Leave a Comment..
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
- White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation





Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
No Subject Given
There are plenty of law making it illegal to own a tool that *could be* used in the commission of a crime. This is nothing new.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
...Illegal to own a computer
There is a simple distinction that needs to be drawn. A tool whose intended/primary use is for perfectly legal things shound not be able to be outlawed or used only for "licensed" uses just because it can possibly be used for illegal means. It's really not that hard to say, "what did you create this for?" or "what percentage of users use it for legal vs. illegal means. Because if you start applying the lock pick/gun analogies, not only will computers require licenses, pretty much every tool--hammers, screw drivers, hacksaws, wire cutters...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment