HELSINKI DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT 07/4535
4/10 Dept. Case #: R 07/1004
25 May 2007
Chairman: Timo Jääskeläinen, District Justice
Lay members: Marianne Lindberg, Ulf Ljung, Auli Rantanen
Prosecutor: District Prosecutor Kukka-Maaria Kankaala
Defendants: X and RAUHALA MIKKO JOHANNES
Matter: MISDEMEANOUR of VIOLATING a TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURE
Proceedings initiated: 5 February 2007
DESCRIPTION OF THE MATTER
Prosecutor’s demand for penalty
1. MISDEMEANOUR OF VIOLATING A TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURE (6070/R/0135203/06)
Copyright Act, Sections 50a, 50b and 56e
Penal Code, Chapter 5, Section 3
1 January 2006 to 7 January 2006 HELSINKI
Rauhala and X have jointly and intentionally violated the ban on making or distributing means for circumventing technological measures in that X, against compensation of EUR 0.05 offered by Rauhala, has authored a computer program in the Haskell language using which technological protection safeguarding a protected work or other material, in other words CSS protection used on DVD discs, the purpose of which protection includes the prevention of directly copying material from a DVD disc, can be circumvented or disactivated or, at least this can substantially facilitate the circumvention or disactivation of such protection. After this, the defendants have used a data network to distribute the program in question to the public by sending it to a site named “organisoitukeskustelu” (organised-discussion) maintained by Rauhala and published in the Internet. The purpose of the site has been to offer in an organised manner services for circumventing and/or disactivating technological measures, among other things.
Other claims by the prosecutor:
Compensation for costs of evidence regarding charge #1
The defendants shall be ordered to compensate the State for the costs of evidence.
Criminal Procedure Act, Chapter 9, Section 1
RESPONSE BY X and RAUHALA:
Both X and Rauhala have denied the charge and demanded its dismissal. They have also demanded that the State be obliged to compensate for their legal costs including interest. The defendants have in fact admitted that they have committed the acts specified in the charge. However, the CSS protection mentioned in the charge was not an effective technological measure as referred to in Section 50a(2) of the Copyright Act, and as consequence, the defendants’ conduct could not fulfil the constituent elements of the offence of which they were prosecuted.
The defendants have stated that they used a computer running the Linux operating system. Viewing a legally obtained DVD disc on such a computer required that CSS protection be circumvented. Almost all other operating systems included a built-in CSS protection decoding or viewing program. As early as 1999, a Norwegian computer hacker was able to produce a code for disactivating the protection, using which he had made a DVD disc viewable on his computer running the Linux operating system. After this, the program was rapidly spread to the world through the Internet, and now there are dozens or hundreds of similar Web sites hosting programs suitable for circumventing the protection and discussion over the matter.
EVIDENCE:
Written evidence:
Prosecutor
1. Appendix 1, Program authored by X in the Haskell language
2. Appendix 2: Huttunen’s report
Witnesses
Prosecutor
1. witness Lari Sampo Juhani Huttunen
Defendants
2. defendant X heard for probationary purposes
3. defendant Mikko Johannes Rauhala heard for probationary purposes
4. witness Kai Rainer Puolamäki
JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT:
Attribution
The District Court dismisses the charge for both defendants.
Reasons for judgment
According to Section 56e of the Copyright Act, anyone who intentionally or through gross negligence violates
1) the ban on circumventing a technological measure referred to in Section 50a; or
2) the ban on producing or distributing means for circumventing a technological measure referred to in Section 50b, shall be sentenced to a fine.
The object of the crime is an efficient technological measure protecting a work protected under the Copyright Act, which refers to a technology, equipment or component that, in its normal purpose, is designed to prevent or restrict acts directed towards such works without the authorisation of the author or other holder of rights, and is able to achieve the protection objective.
By virtue of the testimonies of Lari Huttunen and Kai Puolamäki, who have been heard as witnesses and who can be considered information technology experts, it has been reliably determined that once a Norwegian computer hacker succeeded in breaking the CSS protection for DVD discs in 1999, the situation from an end user’s viewpoint has changed so that similar circumvention software is available from the Internet in dozens, even free of charge. Some computer operating systems even have such a program pre-installed.
From the viewpoint of copyright holders, X’s and Rauhala’s conduct described in the charge cannot be considered to have caused any slightest “gap” in CSS protection compared to the circumstances already existing. CSS protection can no longer be considered an effective technological measure referred to in the law. A consequence of this is that the constituent elements of a misdemeanour of violating a technological measure are not fulfilled. Therefore the charge must be dismissed.
Statement of judgment
The District Court has decided on the case as indicated in the statement of judgment.
APPEAL
Any party dissatisfied with the judgment may appeal to the Helsinki Court of Appeal. A declaration of the intent to appeal shall be filed with the District Court no later than on Friday 1 June 2007.
District Justice
Timo Jääskeläinen