

Why Watching DVDs on Linux is Illegal in the USA - vilgax
http://www.howtogeek.com/138969/why-watching-dvds-on-linux-is-illegal-in-the-usa/

======
anoncow
We continue trying to find ways to create new outlaws. 6 strikes came into
effect and nobody is bothered. The govt does not represent the people. What is
said is not meant. We live and are expected to live chasing things we don't
want and as slaves to masters, hoping to be masters someday. It is extremely
disturbing to be able to think about all this and live life. It is no wonder
that some people choose to ignore all of the negativity and live whatever is
left of their lives.

~~~
sp332
"6 strikes" doesn't make any new criminals. It's a voluntary deal with certain
ISPs that doesn't (directly) involve criminal charges or civil lawsuits.

~~~
anoncow
doesn't DIRECTLY involve criminal penalty AS OF NOW.

~~~
bconway
Logical fallacy: Slippery Slope.

~~~
willurd
You're misrepresenting the slippery slope fallacy
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope>).

    
    
      A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small
      first step leads to a chain of related events culminating
      in some significant effect.
    

6 strikes is neither a relatively small first step, nor is prosecuting people
under it a grand leap (it's the next logical step). Slippery slope isn't a
tool for dismissing any claims of cause and future effect, it is an informal
rule for when claims of cause and future effect are permitted, namely when one
can "demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect". In this
case, "language of the agreement between ISPs and the entertainment industry"
([http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Six-Strikes-Official-
Says...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Six-Strikes-Official-Says-Nothing-
Happens-After-Sixth-Strike-121693) and
[http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Will-ISP-Six-Strikes-
Incl...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Will-ISP-Six-Strikes-Include-
BitTorrent-Lawsuits-119981)) clearly states that ISPs have the full authority
to _report_ 6 strikes offenders to copyright owners, should they choose to
prosecute them:

    
    
      The Participating ISP will, however, continue to track and
      report the number of ISP Notices the Participating ISP
      receives for that Subscriber’s account, so that information
      is available to a Content Owner Representative if it elects
      to initiate a copyright infringement action against that
      Subscriber.
    

No demonstration of said process is necessary because the right by IPSs and
copyright holders to engage in this very process has been clearly reserved.
Not a slippery slope.

------
spindritf
In Poland you can make a backup copy of a DVD circumventing "security"
measures where necessary. More, you can share that copy with members of your
family and people in your social circle. It's considered fair use.

Anyway, while this law seems completely and horribly broken, technology
allowed us to escape it a bit. I don't even have optical drives in my
computers any more.

Of course, this means that watching any movie or tv show on a computer
requires downloading it from... a source because popular online players (some
offer content for free, like TVN, a large private broadcaster; and not just a
clip here and there — full episodes, even whole films) usually require
Silverlight which doesn't really work on Ubuntu. Luckily, that — downloading
copyrighted materials for personal use — is, again, legal†.

† some exceptions apply.

~~~
TomaszZielinski
It might be legal from criminal law POV but you can still be sued in a civil
court for most of those use cases. Of course that rarely happens.

For those interested how a post-communist country criminalizes copyright
violations, here's a link to the relevant section of our Copyright Act:

[http://prawo.legeo.pl/prawo/ustawa-z-
dnia-4-lutego-1994-r-o-...](http://prawo.legeo.pl/prawo/ustawa-z-
dnia-4-lutego-1994-r-o-prawie-autorskim-i-prawach-
pokrewnych/rozdzial-14_odpowiedzialnosc-karna/?on=21.10.2010&exact=yes)

~~~
gngeal
"It might be legal from criminal law POV but you can still be sued in a civil
court for most of those use cases."

You can get sued for anything, but the court will throw it out if the civil
case is unfounded. I don't know how you have it in Poland, but the Czech
copyright act stipulates that private copies ("copies for sole personal use")
of everything except software and "electronic databases" (telephone
directories etc.) are completely outside the purview of copyright protection,
up to and including the disregard for the legality of the source of the copy
(confirmed by a verdict of the Supreme Court in 2006) If something similar is
the case in Poland, what basis could a civil case possibly have?

~~~
TomaszZielinski
The OP wrote "† some exceptions apply." and you could drive a truck through
those exceptions to fair use.

For instance, "copies for sole personal use" that you mentioned, in Poland are
"single specimens shared by people in a personal relationshiop" (link to this
specific rule: [http://prawo.legeo.pl/prawo/ustawa-z-
dnia-4-lutego-1994-r-o-...](http://prawo.legeo.pl/prawo/ustawa-z-
dnia-4-lutego-1994-r-o-prawie-autorskim-i-prawach-
pokrewnych/art-23/?on=21.10.2010)) which literally indicates that the digital
transmission between people who don't know each other is excluded from its
scope.

Also, the fait use section ends with a limitation clause:
[http://prawo.legeo.pl/prawo/ustawa-z-
dnia-4-lutego-1994-r-o-...](http://prawo.legeo.pl/prawo/ustawa-z-
dnia-4-lutego-1994-r-o-prawie-autorskim-i-prawach-
pokrewnych/art-35/?on=21.10.2010) \- which is a totally unclear ruke but means
something similar to "fair use cannot hurt author".

------
jzwinck
Equally weird is that watching PBS content online is blocked if you're not
physically sitting in America. For those who don't know, PBS is a US non-
profit TV network, partially funded by the federal government and to varying
degrees the states. Yet their website actively blocks would-be viewers outside
the US, including US citizens (who are required to pay US taxes wherever they
live).

Oh, and when I took my Korean-made but US-bought TV to the UK, guess what? Its
Netflix feature stopped working completely.

Whether buying a DVD or streaming video online, I'm tired of not getting what
I pay for.

~~~
rhplus
The PBS geo-blocking is reasonable to understand. Video streaming can get
_expensive_ and international delivery almost certainly isn't in the
foundation's stated mission at this point. Things also get complicated when
you consider that PBS is not just one non-profit, but many "member stations",
each operated as a separate non-profit. It's not their main objective navigate
through the difficult task of making international streaming pay for itself
(i.e. through correctly targeted ad partnerships or additional fund-raising).
It's easier to just block it.

But back to the numbers: I'd estimate that PBS is paying around $0.05 per show
to stream. I'm basing this on CDN costs in the range $0.10/GB - $0.20/GB, the
size of 30 minute shows weighing in between 125MB and 250MB, plus storage and
admin overheads. I might be wrong, but it looks like they're delivering their
bits via CloudFront[1] and so those costs basically _double_ for viewers
outside of the US and Europe[2]. Even if it's not CloudFront, the basic cost
structures stay the same. Why on earth would they want to serve content to
users who mostly aren't giving them money and are costing twice as much to
serve?

One last point: the link below are for Downtown Abbey, for which PBS certainly
doesn't have international streaming rights.

[1] <http://video.pbs.org/videoPlayerInfo/2335534842>

[2] <http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/pricing/>

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>I'd estimate that PBS is paying around $0.05 per show to stream. I'm basing
this on CDN costs in the range $0.10/GB - $0.20/GB, the size of 30 minute
shows weighing in between 125MB and 250MB, plus storage and admin overheads.

If they actually own the rights to the show they want to distribute to the
public for free and the primary thing stopping them is the cost of a CDN, why
aren't they using BitTorrent? At least as an option that says "no CDN in your
country, international users use this"?

~~~
rhplus
My guess it that PBS still needs to control distribution of their content
because it is still a _valuable source of fund-raising revenue_. Revenue from
DVD box sets [1] and international licensing deals goes back into producing
new shows. Setting their content free on BitTorrent would quickly erode the
revenue generating potential of that content.

[1] <http://www.shoppbs.org/home/index.jsp>

~~~
AnthonyMouse
The purpose of PBS is to take donations and public money and produce free
content. I have a hard time believing that there are a lot of people who would
buy a PBS DVD box set but decide not to because it was available on the
internet -- especially since it's _already_ available for free on the internet
in their primary market, just not world-wide. Moreover, if they distribute
using BitTorrent, they can include the usual "if you enjoy this program,
please support it with a financial contribution" message, in which case the
wider the programs are distributed the more people see the message and the
more money gets donated.

------
bpatrianakos
This is nothing to get in a tizzy about. DMCA is stupid, we know, but the
reality is that laws are made all the time that have some asinine edge-case
side effect that makes a totally innocent action a criminal offense. The
important question here is, are you likely to be prosecuted for such a dumb
thing. I think it's relatively safe to say you won't. Obviously we can't say
the same for those of us who'd be inclined to build our own DVD playback
software but to use it to view a DVD is, in reality, not going to get you in
trouble.

I'm not saying I support this. I absolutely don't. My question is, what's the
point here? To me, this comes off as another article meant to get all the
anti-copyright, anti-DMCA people to all come together and pat each other on
the back for how smart they are for being against such silly laws. This stuff
is good to know and interesting but I'm still a little disappointed its on the
front page of HN. It seems like exactly the kind of thing the guidelines say
not to post. It's an easy up vote - who can't get behind the idea of DVD
playback on Linux being illegal being, well, ludicrous.

~~~
anoncow
There really is no point putting up a "fight". The content creators do not
want to give their hardwork away. The content creators have to do whatever it
takes to live. If the measures that they take legally bugs us, then we should
create our own content and distribute it the way we want to or approach the
courts. Talking about how a proprietary format is taking away our freedom will
do nothing. And yes put your money where your mouth is. Support companies that
do it the right way.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
Your argument is that if we disagree with a preposterous law, we should have
to opt out of the law by opting out of popular culture. Why shouldn't we just
fix the law?

~~~
anoncow
We can ask courts to allow reverse engineering. We can ask them to exempt
personal use and backup. We can hope to remain invisible. But even after all
of that we are still beholden to these content creators who hold us in
contempt(their actions prove that). And if the courts and luck don't smile on
us we end up being criminals too. Look at the music industry, even if lossy,
the mp3s now available do not have drm. So things will change if we want to
and we won't have to shun pop culture.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
OK sure, stop giving Hollywood money until they change their ways. Don't buy
DRMed media. But fix the law too. They aren't mutually exclusive.

------
craftman
Guys, the best way to react to this is to create our own content (music,
films, books, theater, whatever...) then share and appreciate with friends. We
dont need those companies to invent our life.

~~~
demetrius
That would be great, but I can’t imagine living without all the pirated books.
You can replace entertainment, but how can you replace everything else?

~~~
craftman
Sorry, I dont know. I always bought my books since I am a student (spending
lot of money into them btw). Unfortunatly, books that worth the money, and my
time reading them are not so numerous.

Anyway, I guess internet is still a good place to find publicly available
information not yet copyrighted by some doomed organisation.

------
caf
I was a little taken aback to realise that a new generation of hackers that
doesn't remember a world _without_ the DMCA is now here. DVD Jon isn't a kid
anymore... he'd be pushing 30 by now.

------
pfortuny
I just realized the other day that public projection of a DVD in an oil rig is
illegal (yes, they appear explicitly in the banner). Funny: hospitals,
schools, ..., oil rigs!

Unbelievable.

~~~
nwh
You can't use iTunes in the production of nuclear weapons either. I suppose
they're just covering all bases.

~~~
Torn
I'm guessing that's because some of the software libraries iTunes is built on
has that clause as one of its licence agreements

~~~
SquareWheel
Just an easter egg from Apple, not an actual dependency.

------
ishansharma
I don't love in USA but I have an impression that laws like this are made just
to put more money in pockets of RIAA and other similar ass.es.

Most of the copyright laws are standing on the line of sanity and one small
change can make them appear like creation of a kindergarten kid.

~~~
babarock
The way I look at it the problem is a bit more subtle than that. In the
interest of full disclosure, I'm not a US-citizen either.

Recent technology is making several business models (of which the RIAA is a
great example) obsolete. These businesses are powerful enough not to die the
way the typewriter or the analog photo film did. These laws (like the DMCA)
are a cry for help, a last resort from a dying industry. This is why their
side of the argument has always appealed to emotions and not reason. ("How
would the world be without movies?" - a complete straw man).

I don't believe it's a conspiracy to make the rich even richer, it has more to
do with the difficulty of renewing oneself when technology makes you obsolete.
The problem is that a few (or more) innocent casualties are going to get hurt
as the Hollywood Titanic (yay, a metaphor!) goes down, but ultimately this
whole "technological protection measures" shenanigan is going to disappear.
Hollywood is doomed and it knows it.

That being said, I think the US is ahead of other countries when it comes to
finding a solution to this problem. The effects of the SOPA/PIPA protests had
on Congress is the obvious example, but more broadly, the constant ongoing
debate looks promising. This debate is always avoided or dismissed as
nonesense in France (where I currently live) and it cannot possibly be held in
the Middle East (where I'm from).

I just wished the judiciary system wasn't so harsh on the scapegoats of this
whole mess. Because let's face it, the victims (again, obvious one is
Schwartz, but there are many others) are scapegoats and everybody knows it.

~~~
Torn
We have anti-copyright-theft trailers in cinemas, and they employ similar
straw men. "Imagine a world with all cinemas... gone". As if piracy will stop
people going to the cinema for films they really want to see.

------
waterlesscloud
The weirder thing on Linux is that you can watch Amazon's streaming videos in
Firefox, but not in Chrome. Apparently the Flash plugin for Chrome on Linux
removed drm for some reason, so Amazon killed it as a supported platform.

~~~
fpgeek
It's even weirder than that because you can watch Amazon videos just fine
using Flash in Chrome Google TV. In fact, until the most recent Google TV
update that was the only way to take advantage of this high-profile, remote
control button-worthy feature.

------
flexie
Yet another marginalization of freedom serving the interests of a the few
well-lobbbied rightsholders.

------
sbouafif
In France using VLC to watch a DVD is illegal too.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DADVSI>
<http://www.videolan.org/press/eucd.html>

------
jdhuang
Curious to hear whether these weird Linux-asymmetries apply to Blu-Ray or
online digital media (e.g. Hulu/Netflix) too.

I would be willing to accept the fact that DVDs were invented so long ago that
some of their restrictions are a little archaic.

~~~
betterunix
These issues absolutely apply to Bluray, and to basically any other format
with copyright restrictions. It is not an issue of DVD being invented long
ago; the DMCA is what is obsolete here.

------
JohnHaugeland
This isn't even close to correct.

What the DMCA says is that you can't strip and redistribute the content, not
that you can't strip and watch it. This is an old false stalking horse.

And even if this is correct, this wouldn't make you a criminal; since nobody
knows, this does not rise to the level of intent.

Notice how if this was true, people would be making a fortune going after
TiVo.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Panic>

Notice that he's also saying that it's legal to jailbreak a phone (it isn't,
anymore,) and that the reason it was legal was an exemption to the DMCA (which
is completely incorrect.)

Notice that the thing he's claiming is illegal is a link to a thing that's
actually about a completely different topic - space shifting, ie they claim,
taking the DVD, decoding it, then transferring that decoded version to another
device.

Oh, and that place he's citing is _also_ wrong. This isn't what the problem is
in the eyes of the copyright office. Space shifting is perfectly legal, and is
done on large consumer devices all the time. iTunes can do it, your Archos can
do it, the SlingBox can do it, the high end TiVo can do it, I think the Hopper
might be able to, et cetera.

Quoting the source he claims said this was illegal:

> "And the RIAA and the MPAA agree with you. In > 2005, their lawyer (now the
> Solicitor General of > the United States) assured the Supreme Court that >
> “The record companies, my clients, have said, for > some time now, and it’s
> been on their Website for > some time now, that it’s perfectly lawful to
> take a > CD that you’ve purchased, upload it onto your > computer, put it
> onto your iPod." > > Movie executives agree as well. Mitch Singer, the >
> Chief Technology Officer of Sony Pictures Entertainment > explained to
> author Robert Levine that the idea for > the movie industry’s UltraViolet
> program evolved out > of Singer’s own frustration with transferring movies >
> between PCs in his home.

And, of course, the Fair Use clause of the copyright act makes it perfectly
clear that you're allowed to do this as long as you aren't transmitting it to
other people. Have fun. Go nuts.

There was a point at which it was, briefly, illegal to decode DVDs under
Linux, but it had nothing to do with any of this, and it's long since undone.
What was actually going on was that the MP3 decoder is under patent by
Fraunhofer AG, and back in the mid-1990s, before most people understood what
Linux was, but when MP3 players were starting to become popular, Fraunhofer
started to assert their patent to take money from device manufacturers.

A few MP3 makers protested that they were using the MP3 stuff built into
Linux, and as such they weren't the ones using the tech, Linux was, and
Fraunhofer ought to go after Linux. Fraunhofer fell for this, and in response,
the community removed MP3 stuff to insulate itself from legal nonsense. A
couple months later Fraunhofer figured out what Linux was, and issued a free
use license like decent people, but the community was so long since
neckbearded out over the topic that they never put any of it back in.

And then the legends of what was going on began.

This is why you don't take legal advice from random programmers on the
internet.

This is a bunch of moral panic over a misunderstanding of the copyright
system. There's absolutely no reason that it's illegal to watch a DVD in
America. This just isn't true at all.

~~~
DanBC
You're wrong.

> What the DMCA says is that you can't strip and redistribute the content, not
> that you can't strip and watch it.

No, the law is clear that circumventing a copyrights protection measure is
illegal. Similar laws got passed in many countries.

Here's a case from the US:
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealNetworks%2C_Inc._v._DVD_Co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealNetworks%2C_Inc._v._DVD_Copy_Control_Association%2C_Inc.#DMCA_claims_on_Content_Scramble_System))

> _The court decided that RealDVD is primarily designed or produced to
> circumvent CSS technology. In particular, the court found that the removal
> of crucial CSS technology in DVD drive-locking, secure storage of content
> keys on DVD, CSS authentication and CSS bus encryption during the playback
> of copied DVD content from the hard dive is a circumvention of CSS, even
> though they are not needed when playback from the hard drive. The court
> further explained that even though RealNetworks is a licensee of CSS
> technology, it does not shield RealNetworks from DMCA claim because the
> removal of CSS technology is a violation of DMCA._

~~~
JohnHaugeland
And in that case, what made that software product illegal was that the court
found that it was for breaking the DVD, _not_ for playing it back.

It's important to actually understand the case.

~~~
DanBC
> what made that software product illegal was that the court

No. Some laws are not enforced, but that doesn't make the regulated activity
legal.

Someone who owns the original DVD and who wants to play it back (with no
storage or format shifting) is breaking the law, because there's no authority
from the copyrights holders.

(<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention>)

(<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201>)

> _“circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work,
> to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove,
> deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the
> copyright owner;_

~~~
JohnHaugeland
I enjoy how you cut my sentence mid-way through to make it look like it said
something very different than what it actually said.

~~~
BCM43
I think that was unintentional. What a I read from DanBC's comment was that it
was referring to the fact you stated _the court found that it was for breaking
the DVD, not for playing it back._. Just because the court said that the
problem was something else, and not the playback, does not make the playback
legal.

~~~
JohnHaugeland
No, the fact that nothing makes it illegal is what makes it legal.

I'm sort of confused where this is coming from.

~~~
DanBC
To watch a DVD you need to get around the CSS.

There is no authorised method to do this on Linux. Thus, anyone watching a DVD
on Linux is circumventing an effective rights protection measure without
authorisation. That's a crime in the US. (And similar actions are crimes in
other countries too.)

~~~
JohnHaugeland
"To watch a DVD you need to get around the CSS."

No, you don't. You just need to decode it. What's illegal is leaving it
decoded and redistributing it to others.

.

"There is no authorised method to do this on Linux."

One, there doesn't need to be.

Two, of course there is. Have you ever even tried to look?

.

"Thus, anyone watching a DVD on Linux is circumventing an effective rights
protection"

Luckily, the Supreme Court, the RIAA, the MPAA, and the current Attorney
General of the United States disagree with you, as does a casual familiarity
with the law.

~~~
DanBC
This is baffling. I really don't understand what you don't get about this.

To watch a DVD you need to decode the CSS.

You either have authorisation to do this, or you don't.

On Linux there is no authorised method to do this, and thus it is illegal.

Whether anyone is interested in prosecuting that illegal use is irrelevant to
this discussion; and it's not been what you've claimed.

> What's illegal is leaving it decoded and redistributing it to others.

Let's examine this sentence.

i) circumventing the rights protection without authorisation is illegal.

ii) distributing copy right material without permissions is illegal

Thus, your sentence "What's illegal is leaving it decoded and redistributing
it to others" covers 2 illegalities, the circumvention and the distribution.

> Two, of course there is. Have you ever even tried to look?

Yes, I have tried to look. I can't show you what I have not found. Have you
tried to look? Feel free to provide a link to any rights holder anywhere
giving authorisation.

~~~
JohnHaugeland
"This is baffling. I really don't understand what you don't get about this."

The part where the Supreme Court and the US Attorney General say you're wrong
is probably your first hint.

.

"To watch a DVD you need to decode the CSS."

Yep.

.

"You either have authorisation to do this, or you don't."

Authorization is a function of whether you paid for it.

.

"On Linux there is no authorised method to do this, and thus it is illegal."

1) There doesn't need to be. Authorization is not about what technology is in
use.

2) There are actually Linux DVD players which have paid for their Fraunhofer
license; I don't know why you keep claiming otherwise, when a simple Google
search can straighten this out.

3) Again, authorization has nothing to do with what software you're using, and
everything to do with whether you plonked five dollars on the till at Walmart.
It's called the First Sale Doctrine.

.

"Whether anyone is interested in prosecuting that illegal use is irrelevant to
this discussion"

Why do you keep bringing up something nobody else is talking about, then
saying "but that's irrelevant?"

.

"i) circumventing the rights protection without authorisation is illegal."

Yes, this is the piece you keep repeating, like just saying it a bunch of
extra times will change what authorization is.

.

"Thus, your sentence "What's illegal is leaving it decoded and redistributing
it to others" covers 2 illegalities"

(sigh)

.

"Yes, I have tried to look"

Try harder. There's Fluendo, LinDVD, the codecs in Ubuntu have been licensed
from Cyberlink since 2008, Boxee is legal, your TiVo (which is Linux) can give
you a legal remote viewer as a .deb, et cetera.

You're too busy feeling correct to check the things being said to you.

.

"I really don't understand what you don't get about this."

Which is commonly the case for people who don't consider what it means that
they think someone citing the Supreme Court and the US Attorney General is
wrong about the law.

(cough)

Please have a nice day; I'm bored of this.

~~~
DanBC
> Authorization is a function of whether you paid for it.

No it isn't. Authorisation is a function of whatever rights you're given,
normally at the point of purchase but not necessarily.

> 2) There are actually Linux DVD players which have paid for their Fraunhofer
> license; I don't know why you keep claiming otherwise

I have never said that there are no Linux distributions that do not have a
valid Fraunhofer licence. This is not about patent restrictions. We agreed
that earlier in the thread, and I thought that you understood that point, but
perhaps I was mistaken.

Taking just one example from your list: Boxee uses libdvdcss to circumvent the
CSS encryption on DVDs and thus it's possibly breaking the DMCA. Again, just
because no-one is going to prosecute doesn't make it lawful.

> someone citing the

None of the cites you've made have supported your various changing positions.

------
SeppoErviala
This is not limited to Linux but affects all players that use libdvdcss. For
example, Windows and OSX versions of VLC come bundled with the library.

------
zabuni
Minor quibble with the article. Handbrake is not illegal. It does not break
encryption, it merely transcodes. It, by design, does not come with a copy of
libdvdcss, and you have to download it through other means. It will also, on a
mac, go find VLC's copy and use it.

The people behind Handbrake are somewhat touchy about this, for good reason.

------
unreal37
Who are these people who want to play DVDs on Linux? I have Windows and I have
played a DVD on my computer exactly "never" times in the past 20 years.

If you want to play a DVD on Linux, boot Windows for that. Or use a DVD
player. Or don't watch DVDs any more. Or crack it in the comfort of your own
home for only your own use, and noone will ever prosecute you.

------
lysium
It's also illegal to do so in Germany.

~~~
cygx
In principle, circumventing DRM does indeed violate copyright law (or rather
the German version thereof).

However, there's also the right to make private copies, and I'm not aware of
any relevant case law.

Keep in mind that this is civil law, and "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter"
("No plaintiff, no judge").

------
dimadima
Whaaaaaat? This is the oldest news ever. I'm going back to sleep, and when I
wake up, this site better not be a throwback to 2002, OK?

