[00:41.560 --> 00:42.060]  Eric?
[00:42.460 --> 00:48.240]  If there's a Bob Chiarlanza in the house, you've lost your baggage claim tag.
[00:49.320 --> 00:51.240]  Anybody know a Bob Chiarlanza?
[00:52.460 --> 00:52.960]  Okay.
[00:53.380 --> 00:54.180]  Good luck, Bob.
[00:57.980 --> 00:58.740]  Hi, everybody.
[00:59.240 --> 01:02.340]  This is the legal panel because we're in legal trouble.
[01:02.680 --> 01:05.840]  And we have to have a legal panel because of that.
[01:05.840 --> 01:16.040]  So, basically, we have Robin Gross and Marty Garbus from Electronic Frontier Foundation and from our legal foundation in order.
[01:23.020 --> 01:29.320]  And we'd be in a whole lot of trouble if they weren't here because we'd be getting sued by the MPAA with nobody to defend us.
[01:29.860 --> 01:40.880]  So, basically, this panel is to update you on that situation as well as other situations that are related in the hacker world and in the community.
[01:41.600 --> 01:49.820]  So, basically, I'm going to hand it over to Robin first and to Marty just to update people on where the case stands now, why the case is important, and then we'll take questions as well.
[01:50.580 --> 01:50.900]  Great.
[01:51.080 --> 01:52.240]  I guess I sit over here by myself.
[01:52.380 --> 01:52.500]  Okay.
[01:53.340 --> 01:53.900]  Bring it over.
[01:55.120 --> 01:55.480]  Hi.
[01:56.420 --> 02:03.080]  The Electronic Frontier Foundation felt really compelled to get involved in this case when it was first filed.
[02:03.080 --> 02:04.820]  And the reason for that is obvious.
[02:05.300 --> 02:13.900]  Our First Amendment rights, our civil liberties are attempted to be whittled away here with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
[02:13.920 --> 02:17.100]  In particular, this very narrow interpretation of it.
[02:17.260 --> 02:36.860]  And so, what we're here for is to ensure that the same rights that we enjoy in sort of traditional space, the First Amendment, fair use, reverse engineering, things like that, we will continue to have the benefit of in the electronic realm as well, since that is where we're all headed whether we know it or not.
[02:37.460 --> 02:40.960]  And so, that is why we took on this case.
[02:41.240 --> 02:49.700]  And in our ten years of defending civil liberties on the net, this is by far the biggest and most expensive project that we have ever faced.
[02:49.700 --> 03:02.480]  So, I'm going to have to do my shameless membership plug here, and encourage you all, plead with you all, to join the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and donate money to the cause, because this is very important.
[03:02.820 --> 03:05.440]  And this isn't just about Emmanuel Goldstein.
[03:05.540 --> 03:06.540]  This is about all of us.
[03:06.600 --> 03:08.920]  These are our rights that we all rely upon and will need.
[03:09.020 --> 03:11.960]  He was just sort of one of the first to exercise them in this way.
[03:12.140 --> 03:13.400]  I'm just a sacrificial lamb.
[03:15.600 --> 03:21.380]  So, we've got a booth set up out in the exhibition area, and we've got materials, a lot more information.
[03:21.380 --> 03:22.380]  And you can join there.
[03:22.520 --> 03:24.040]  You can also join on our website.
[03:24.540 --> 03:30.760]  And again, please do join, because this is a very important case, and it's incredibly expensive.
[03:31.340 --> 03:35.460]  We're up against billions, and they're fighting for their life.
[03:35.500 --> 03:36.760]  So, they're using it.
[03:37.200 --> 03:45.940]  Marty Garbus has defended people, such as Spike Lee, and Lenny Bruce, and all kinds of cool people that needed defending at one point or another.
[03:46.640 --> 03:51.780]  So, I'm very happy and proud to be part of his list of clients.
[03:53.000 --> 03:59.660]  Marty can only be here for the first half hour of this panel, so I want to give him every chance to speak to the importance of this case, and to answer any questions you might have.
[04:00.320 --> 04:02.960]  About two dozen of my murder clients were executed.
[04:06.600 --> 04:10.180]  I should have told you that before we agreed on this.
[04:11.680 --> 04:13.140]  But I think it's unlikely.
[04:15.840 --> 04:17.400]  But not out of the question.
[04:18.100 --> 04:20.720]  I think the trial starts on Monday.
[04:21.600 --> 04:28.420]  The trial is one of the most important cases that will be tried for a long period of time.
[04:28.420 --> 04:33.080]  Although it relates to DVDs, it relates to far more than that.
[04:33.300 --> 04:46.040]  It relates to the right of a journalist, Manuel Goldstein, a hacker quarterly, and a website to report on an incident in a way that it sees fit.
[04:46.320 --> 04:51.440]  It relates on his right to say what he wants to say about DeCSS hacking.
[04:51.440 --> 04:55.780]  It relates to his right to say what he wants to say about the open source community.
[04:56.140 --> 05:04.280]  It relates to his right to say what he wants to talk about the monopoly power of Microsoft or any other social issues.
[05:04.480 --> 05:09.820]  So that's one part of the case which is very separate from other parts.
[05:09.820 --> 05:15.040]  The second part, which is significant, is that Emanuel Goldstein is the defendant.
[05:15.300 --> 05:24.440]  And it is not an accident that you have one defendant in the New York Southern District and you have nine movie studios allied against that defendant.
[05:25.120 --> 05:34.240]  The fact that he looks like Emanuel Goldstein, talks like Emmanuel Goldstein, and walks like Emanuel Goldstein, is one of the reasons he is the defendant in this case.
[05:34.240 --> 05:45.300]  What he does is exactly, in his quarterly, is what the New York Times does when it refers to stories and it refers to other sites that mirrored DeCSS.
[05:45.780 --> 05:51.800]  The San Jose Mercury News has come in on the side of Emmanuel Goldstein in this case.
[05:52.040 --> 05:57.920]  The New York Times has filed an affidavit, in this case, supportive of Emmanuel Goldstein.
[05:57.920 --> 06:04.360]  At some preliminary hearings, Times Mirror and the Village Voice came in on the side of Emmanuel Goldstein.
[06:04.660 --> 06:11.520]  So it's a recognition of the very substantial and complex issues that are involved in this case.
[06:11.780 --> 06:16.940]  The third significant thing, again, and not to denigrate DVDs, but it's not about DVDs.
[06:17.100 --> 06:19.980]  It's about how you will communicate in the future.
[06:20.320 --> 06:26.120]  The DVD format, the encryption format, will relate to books, movies, audio, absolutely everything.
[06:26.120 --> 06:35.540]  So what happens here will determine how the new technologies will adopt and how they will adopt to the law and what you can or can't do.
[06:35.960 --> 06:58.580]  Can you, for example, if you wanted to do a film, let's say, or do a classroom lecture on Kevin Mitnick, could you take two minutes out of a DVD and use that, assuming Emmanuel Goldstein's wonderful movie ultimately becomes a smashing commercial success along the line of Star Wars,
[06:58.640 --> 07:01.140]  and people then want to...
[07:01.760 --> 07:03.180]  And then people want to...
[07:03.180 --> 07:03.740]  Not the last one.
[07:06.620 --> 07:13.600]  You should know that Emmanuel Goldstein already has toys, gadgets, and calendars that are being developed with respect to the movie.
[07:13.900 --> 07:30.660]  But in any event, can you, with respect to the Kevin Mitnick movie, or Star Wars, or the Schindler's List, can you walk into a classroom and can a teacher say, I want to take a minute or two out of this DVD because I want to teach my class about it?
[07:31.080 --> 07:34.600]  Under the interpretation that the movie studios have of this law, you cannot.
[07:35.480 --> 07:50.920]  Can your child or your friend go into a classroom and make a presentation and say, I want to take two minutes out of Schindler's List, the Kevin Mitnick film, whatever, Gone with the Wind, to show you something about the South, something about America,
[07:51.120 --> 07:51.940]  something about anything?
[07:52.200 --> 07:53.300]  The answer is, you cannot.
[07:54.220 --> 08:04.340]  Can a librarian take people around in the library and say, listen, I want to show you something about X, either from an e-book or from a DVD or something else?
[08:04.600 --> 08:09.700]  And the answer is, if they interpret the DMCA the way they intend to interpret it, you cannot.
[08:10.340 --> 08:17.580]  Now, for the last 200 years in this country, you had a constitution, which still exists, which talks about a copyright right.
[08:17.760 --> 08:21.920]  Namely, people have the right to go out, make money, and do things for their labors.
[08:22.140 --> 08:24.840]  And then you have something called the First Amendment and free speech.
[08:25.260 --> 08:35.500]  And for the first time, because of this technology, the copyright holders have sought to end the whole fair use concept, which Robin can talk to at great, great length.
[08:35.860 --> 08:39.700]  It's one of the most important parts of the First Amendment.
[08:39.700 --> 08:44.980]  So I think that what this case does, it presents a multitude of issues.
[08:45.320 --> 08:53.260]  The expectation is on Monday when we start the trial, because Judge Kaplan has already rendered his view of the case.
[08:53.660 --> 08:58.300]  This is a case, frankly, that could be tried in 12 minutes, given his view of the case.
[08:58.540 --> 09:03.660]  He has agreed to allow us to make an appellate record a more substantial trial.
[09:04.200 --> 09:08.920]  Ultimately, this case will be won in the Second Circuit, in the Court of Appeals.
[09:09.040 --> 09:16.760]  It will not be won before Judge Kaplan, unless I'm wrong, and unless he's far more flexible than I believe he is.
[09:16.960 --> 09:29.140]  He battered the hell out of Robin Gross, who appeared the first time in January 13th, when she started to stop having an injunction imposed on Emanuel Goldstein.
[09:29.480 --> 09:32.100]  He made his biases very, very clear.
[09:32.520 --> 09:35.200]  He refused to allow Robin to make an argument.
[09:35.400 --> 09:38.940]  He refused to allow Robin to put documents into evidence.
[09:39.180 --> 09:47.020]  So it is very clear that he perceives that this is a case where copyright holders are threatened very seriously.
[09:47.020 --> 09:59.360]  He now understands what he did not understand when he was yelling at Robin Gross, that there have been no downloads through the DeCSS, that there has been no...
[09:59.360 --> 10:05.500]  There are downloads, people have looked at it, but there has been no piracy of it, and that it is a fair use utility.
[10:05.860 --> 10:16.920]  Coming in on the side of Emanuel Goldstein, beside Times, Mirror, and various newspapers, are centers from Berkeley, Harvard, and other places.
[10:17.120 --> 10:22.360]  And all this stuff is up on the net, either on Emanuel Goldstein's site, on F.
[10:22.400 --> 10:24.080]  Org, Robin Gross' site.
[10:24.280 --> 10:28.580]  So you can see exactly what's going on, you can see the decisions, and you can follow it.
[10:28.900 --> 10:30.920]  It's in a way the first internet trial.
[10:31.120 --> 10:34.420]  As you know, in the federal courts, cameras can't get in.
[10:34.740 --> 10:36.220]  But the internet gets in.
[10:36.420 --> 10:38.440]  So the stuff then goes out.
[10:38.440 --> 10:46.840]  So you can watch the trial as it unfolds, on the internet, on the sites of both Manny and Robin Gross' site.
[10:47.040 --> 10:47.580]  Thank you.
[10:48.940 --> 10:50.180]  Do we have any questions?
[10:53.420 --> 10:57.660]  First of all, I'd like to say, I do have the 12-inch Emanuel Goldstein Raver doll.
[10:59.620 --> 11:06.680]  So, secondly, I've spent many, many hours poring over the documents that have been put up on the 2600 website.
[11:06.680 --> 11:07.960]  They're fascinating, right?
[11:08.400 --> 11:09.560]  Yes, they are.
[11:10.480 --> 11:21.140]  In fact, my mother came down one day and she said, she said, what have you been doing that's been tying up the phone lines for days and days and days?
[11:21.340 --> 11:24.460]  I said, I've been reading over these documents, they are absolutely fascinating.
[11:24.620 --> 11:33.460]  My question, however, is, because of time, after reading over these documents, I'm wondering, what the hell are these people even doing in court?
[11:33.460 --> 11:36.880]  Because they get up there on the stand, they go, I don't know.
[11:37.600 --> 11:38.160]  Absolutely not.
[11:38.180 --> 11:39.260]  I haven't seen any of this.
[11:39.360 --> 11:40.300]  I don't know of anything.
[11:40.520 --> 11:41.720]  I don't know, I don't know.
[11:41.840 --> 11:43.480]  And they constantly are saying they don't know.
[11:43.760 --> 11:45.800]  What is this case still doing in court?
[11:45.800 --> 11:48.260]  You're referring to the Jack Valenti testimony, I assume.
[11:48.540 --> 12:00.460]  Well, not just that, but it seems like everyone who has ever testified says, oh, I don't know of any time that a person has turned a movie into a viewable thing and downloaded it.
[12:00.500 --> 12:02.340]  I don't know of anybody who has done it.
[12:02.420 --> 12:03.880]  I haven't seen anything about it.
[12:03.880 --> 12:06.620]  Have very many of you read the documents on 2600?
[12:07.080 --> 12:07.600]  Good.
[12:07.780 --> 12:07.900]  Wow.
[12:08.420 --> 12:09.220]  That's impressive.
[12:10.100 --> 12:13.620]  Well, I think it's very relevant showing how much they don't know.
[12:13.740 --> 12:13.740]  Let me interrupt.
[12:13.740 --> 12:16.800]  How many of you here have ever used DeCSS?
[12:18.620 --> 12:27.940]  How many of you here have ever succeeded in, through the use of DeCSS, de-encrypting, or then looking at a DVD movie?
[12:29.500 --> 12:30.160]  How many?
[12:30.260 --> 12:30.840]  One person.
[12:31.320 --> 12:34.440]  How many people before had tried it, let me say?
[12:34.960 --> 12:35.480]  Can we have that?
[12:36.980 --> 12:38.540]  How many people couldn't get it to work?
[12:38.680 --> 12:44.440]  So in other words, roughly about one out of 25 or 30 was able to make it work.
[12:44.440 --> 12:44.980]  Is that right?
[12:45.520 --> 12:47.980]  And what happened to you, for example, when you tried it?
[12:50.300 --> 12:51.020]  I don't know.
[12:51.600 --> 12:53.180]  It's just kind of kaput.
[12:54.180 --> 13:00.540]  Did anybody make this, make like a pirate video, like DVD or anything like that?
[13:00.620 --> 13:00.840]  You did?
[13:01.080 --> 13:01.260]  I had to rewrite it.
[13:01.260 --> 13:01.940]  What did you do?
[13:02.080 --> 13:03.540]  I had to rewrite it from scratch.
[13:03.760 --> 13:05.080]  You had to rewrite it from scratch?
[13:05.280 --> 13:06.360]  What do you mean rewrite it?
[13:06.800 --> 13:10.440]  I took all of the stuff that didn't work out and made it work.
[13:10.600 --> 13:13.280]  So it wasn't DeCSS.
[13:13.840 --> 13:15.340]  Wow, that must be really illegal.
[13:21.420 --> 13:25.200]  I mean, not only is the MPAA going to come after you, the guy who wrote DeCSS is going to come after you.
[13:26.440 --> 13:27.340]  Arrest that man.
[13:27.720 --> 13:28.740]  Let me ask you this.
[13:30.460 --> 13:30.840]  Sorry?
[13:31.960 --> 13:34.620]  It's the new public license, DeCSS.
[13:34.680 --> 13:35.020]  That's true.
[13:37.020 --> 13:37.860]  It was a joke.
[13:40.180 --> 13:41.320]  Can we link to it?
[13:45.120 --> 13:53.280]  Well, so I think maybe some history is in order just so people have a sense in case there are people here who don't know the actual history of how things came about.
[13:53.640 --> 13:55.760]  Basically, this all started back in, what was it, November?
[13:56.180 --> 14:00.980]  Where some sites had posted DeCSS code.
[14:01.440 --> 14:05.900]  And that DeCSS code was what defeated CSS.
[14:07.140 --> 14:11.720]  CSS is what encrypts DVDs, and it's not for copying.
[14:11.900 --> 14:13.080]  It's for playback control.
[14:13.320 --> 14:17.500]  It's what tells your DVD player not to play something from, say, Europe.
[14:17.860 --> 14:24.420]  It tells your DVD player not to skip over commercials at the beginning of a DVD that you may rent from a store.
[14:25.060 --> 14:36.100]  And also, since people who have Linux machines, since they didn't sign the copyright agreement or whatever and pay millions of dollars, there is no way without DeCSS to actually play a DVD on a Linux system.
[14:36.220 --> 14:41.240]  And that was the main reason for trying to figure out a way to make this work on Linux.
[14:41.440 --> 14:42.860]  So some people figured this out.
[14:42.980 --> 14:43.880]  They posted the code.
[14:44.020 --> 14:48.300]  And all of a sudden, they started getting threatened and harassed by the DVD CCA and the MPAA.
[14:48.800 --> 14:50.880]  And we were watching both of these developments.
[14:51.000 --> 14:54.580]  First of all, the cracking of CSS was an interesting story.
[14:54.580 --> 14:57.720]  But then the intimidation after that was a fascinating story.
[14:57.840 --> 15:03.880]  That people could actually be intimidated into taking down websites and being kicked off the net simply for publishing source code.
[15:04.560 --> 15:12.200]  That, you know, wasn't even a copyright infringement because the person who wrote the source code, that's the only person that can say take it down in my eyes.
[15:13.320 --> 15:15.620]  So basically, we thought that was an interesting story.
[15:15.740 --> 15:16.860]  We put it up on our site.
[15:16.980 --> 15:20.420]  We put a link to the source code.
[15:20.520 --> 15:22.020]  And we put the source code on our site.
[15:22.020 --> 15:25.440]  And that turned us into the problem in the eyes of the MPAA.
[15:25.680 --> 15:29.020]  And the next thing that happened was they came after us and brought us to court.
[15:29.140 --> 15:31.060]  So I just, I find the whole thing incredibly scary.
[15:31.420 --> 15:40.120]  How all of a sudden, simply by linking to something that we didn't even write, just analyzing a program, all of a sudden, we're being dragged into federal court.
[15:40.260 --> 15:42.120]  And it's something that you really can't let stand.
[15:42.900 --> 15:44.060]  Did I get everything right?
[15:44.200 --> 15:45.980]  Any facts that I overlooked?
[15:46.220 --> 15:46.360]  No.
[15:46.960 --> 15:47.340]  Okay.
[15:47.900 --> 15:48.440]  Go ahead.
[15:48.660 --> 15:49.260]  Step up to the mic.
[15:49.440 --> 15:51.360]  Manny, after hearing that, I suggest you plead guilty.
[15:51.360 --> 15:51.840]  Okay.
[15:53.460 --> 15:54.580]  Enemy of the state.
[15:54.760 --> 15:57.560]  I have a cursory knowledge of the...
[15:57.560 --> 15:58.360]  Speak into the microphone.
[15:58.440 --> 16:04.880]  I have a cursory knowledge of the issues except from what was just said and except from what my son tells me.
[16:05.200 --> 16:08.040]  But one thing that occurs to me is...
[16:08.040 --> 16:11.360]  If he's 15, he's too old at this point to really know it.
[16:11.640 --> 16:12.220]  He's 12.
[16:12.220 --> 16:12.700]  Okay.
[16:12.880 --> 16:18.280]  What comes to my mind is the intent of publishing the code.
[16:18.740 --> 16:34.280]  If you say that the intent of publishing that code was to circumvent the copyright laws, the intent, then in my mind that does constitute a violation of the law.
[16:34.280 --> 16:38.020]  And I think critical is proving what the intent was.
[16:38.180 --> 16:53.320]  If you publish code on your website and the sole purpose of publishing that code is to be used to circumvent a law, and in my mind that almost constitutes a conspiracy.
[16:54.320 --> 16:55.320]  I don't mean you.
[16:55.520 --> 17:13.160]  I mean, let's say a group of people get together and say, we're going to decipher this code and put it out in the market to enable, for the sole purpose of enabling other people to circumvent the copyright law.
[17:13.340 --> 17:15.280]  Let me just... if I can, because I have to leave.
[17:15.540 --> 17:17.380]  We're in the middle of a deposition now.
[17:17.980 --> 17:20.740]  One of the most dangerous things... and then I'll just respond to it.
[17:20.740 --> 17:26.380]  One of the most dangerous things in the law, whether it be this or political cases or whatever...
[17:26.380 --> 17:29.520]  Is to establish liability on the base of intent.
[17:29.900 --> 17:40.440]  Because if you establish liability on the base of intent, forgetting about what happens, then what it really means is somebody is deciding what is in your mind when you did something.
[17:40.960 --> 17:49.180]  What that also really means, if it's a judge or a jury, that they can decide anything that they want to about what's in your mind.
[17:49.180 --> 18:03.000]  Now, with respect to this particular case, DeCSS was developed by people who were interested in creating a Linux operating-based system that would allow for the playing of DVDs on that system.
[18:03.320 --> 18:11.240]  The way the law now functions, and I'll be very, very brief, the DVD Control Association has a license.
[18:11.780 --> 18:14.260]  They give that license to Universal Pictures.
[18:14.400 --> 18:18.280]  Universal Pictures makes a movie, which they then put on a DVD.
[18:18.280 --> 18:21.820]  Another company then takes that and presses that DVD.
[18:22.240 --> 18:26.740]  And then it is ultimately played, let's say, in a Panasonic machine, et cetera, et cetera.
[18:26.960 --> 18:30.520]  So what you then have... very anxious?
[18:31.340 --> 18:39.440]  What you then have is a closed system with respect to who can play that DVD or not.
[18:39.660 --> 18:53.960]  If someone has a Linux operating system, he goes out, or an open source system, he goes out, he pays $25, he gives the DVD company what they want, which they're entitled to have, and then he then plays it on his machine.
[18:54.480 --> 19:04.140]  Now, if what we're talking about is the protection of DVD, if we're talking about a competitive system, then there should be other companies other than those that draw licenses.
[19:04.520 --> 19:07.880]  The law on that has always been absolutely clear.
[19:08.240 --> 19:11.300]  You have monopoly issues, you have control issues.
[19:11.300 --> 19:15.700]  The question is whether the DMCA has changed that law.
[19:16.300 --> 19:18.660]  And that's an issue that's going to be decided in this case.
[19:19.160 --> 19:19.600]  Yes.
[19:19.600 --> 19:27.060]  Now, I think in this case, and I'll just finish because I'm going to leave, that I think what the other gentleman said about is there an intent to pirate?
[19:27.200 --> 19:28.540]  Is there an intent to do this?
[19:28.840 --> 19:40.280]  Are you trying to, given the new technologies, just push a button on a DVD and then, if not today, but three years from now, have four million people get a DVD for nothing?
[19:40.820 --> 19:46.900]  That's an issue that has to be discussed, and it has to be discussed in a complicated, sophisticated way.
[19:47.160 --> 19:48.680]  That's not this case.
[19:49.180 --> 19:50.860]  And no one says it is.
[19:51.680 --> 19:52.400]  Excuse me.
[19:54.200 --> 20:04.120]  Yeah, I wanted to know if you see a sea change happening here in that for so long the hacker community has been looked at on the fringe.
[20:04.120 --> 20:13.540]  Years ago, Emanuel got hauled up to Ed Markey, and he proceeded to, you know, rip him a new one very unjustly and unfairly.
[20:13.980 --> 20:21.720]  But now with that maybe the MPAA thought they could come in and they could scare, quote, unquote, you know, a bunch of little kids and push them around.
[20:21.720 --> 20:36.580]  Is there a sea change happening here that you think that with this suit going forward and the publicity that it has, that corporate America is going to think twice about, you know, just kind of scattershot trying to scare people off the way?
[20:36.580 --> 20:38.860]  Let me answer it, and then this is my last question, then I'll leave.
[20:41.280 --> 20:43.620]  Emanuel mentioned some of the other people that I had represented.
[20:43.820 --> 20:45.380]  And let me make a point about that.
[20:45.460 --> 20:47.100]  Lenny Bruce, Henry Miller, D.H.
[20:47.180 --> 20:47.660]  Lawrence, whatever.
[20:48.360 --> 20:49.700]  These are... Dan Ellsberg.
[20:49.820 --> 20:52.040]  These are people who were ahead of the culture.
[20:52.040 --> 20:54.540]  These are people who were outside the culture.
[20:54.820 --> 20:57.820]  These were people who had a certain set of social values.
[20:58.220 --> 21:04.120]  History has proven, with respect to nearly all these iconoclastic, eclectic people, that they were right.
[21:04.260 --> 21:05.660]  And that's where the culture was going.
[21:06.260 --> 21:08.300]  Emanuel Goldstein stands in their shoes.
[21:08.840 --> 21:14.220]  So what you have here is a culture clash between the past and where it's going.
[21:14.460 --> 21:20.440]  The optimistic... the question that you're asking, somewhat optimistically, is, is this going to change anything?
[21:20.440 --> 21:21.920]  How is it going to change anything?
[21:22.060 --> 21:22.700]  What's going to happen?
[21:24.640 --> 21:27.500]  Congress is, is, is influenced two ways.
[21:27.700 --> 21:30.140]  Either by money, which most of the people in this room don't have.
[21:30.620 --> 21:34.400]  Or, certainly not in the way that movie studios have it.
[21:34.660 --> 21:36.300]  Or with respect to votes.
[21:36.900 --> 21:43.900]  To the extent that this case, whether it wins or loses, becomes a public issue, and people focus on it.
[21:44.000 --> 21:45.880]  It becomes extraordinarily important.
[21:46.160 --> 21:49.220]  This is a case that requires community involvement.
[21:49.220 --> 21:50.880]  The Napster case is easy.
[21:51.000 --> 21:52.000]  People understand it.
[21:52.140 --> 21:53.680]  This case kind of gets lost.
[21:53.980 --> 21:57.340]  It could conceivably be something like the Curt Flood case.
[21:57.560 --> 22:01.040]  A case that's lost, but then leads to dramatic changes.
[22:01.220 --> 22:04.120]  Because people realize that it's inequitable.
[22:05.060 --> 22:05.420]  Thank you.
[22:06.240 --> 22:19.780]  One thing that I would add to that is, in many ways, large corporations could look at the situation right now and think that it's, that filing a preliminary injunction request is a really good thing, a really good way to get what you need.
[22:20.060 --> 22:21.100]  In this case...
[22:21.100 --> 22:22.760]  I just want to thank Marty for coming and taking time out.
[22:22.800 --> 22:23.040]  Thank you.
[22:23.060 --> 22:23.680]  Thank you so much.
[22:34.340 --> 22:37.440]  He's actually heading back now to deal with another deposition in this case.
[22:37.620 --> 22:38.860]  It's going right down to the wire.
[22:39.060 --> 22:40.500]  So it's unbelievable amount of work.
[22:40.660 --> 22:41.040]  Sorry, Robin.
[22:41.880 --> 22:56.820]  Yes, but what I was saying is that in this case and in the California case, we had DVD CCA, we had the motion picture industries just rushing into court and, you know, trying to sell the court this bill of goods in which they got an injunction issued immediately.
[22:56.820 --> 22:58.020]  And it's been months now.
[22:58.240 --> 23:01.980]  And speech has been squelched on the net as a result of it.
[23:02.120 --> 23:12.780]  And so, in many ways, I think that the current situation looks kind of good in some ways for large corporations because they've been successful in getting this preliminary injunction against the defendants thus far.
[23:12.780 --> 23:12.800]  Sure.
[23:13.880 --> 23:14.320]  Thanks.
[23:15.680 --> 23:16.120]  Hi.
[23:16.640 --> 23:17.460]  Quick question.
[23:17.720 --> 23:24.780]  How similar is this case to some of the encryption export cases like Bernstein and others where free speech was, in fact, the issue?
[23:25.280 --> 23:27.480]  And instead of it being the MPA, it was the U.S.
[23:27.580 --> 23:30.160]  government that was involved as far as trying to squelch that speech?
[23:30.380 --> 23:30.600]  Yeah.
[23:30.700 --> 23:48.040]  That's a really good question because this case is really a direct cousin, if you will, to the Bernstein case in that that's a case, if you're not familiar, that the EFF sponsored in the mid-90s, where an encryption professor wanted to put an encryption code on his website.
[23:48.380 --> 23:59.100]  And the administration came down against him saying that encryption is a munition control and there needs to be export controls on them.
[23:59.240 --> 24:03.700]  And so, by his posting this code to the website, he was violating the export encryption controls.
[24:04.320 --> 24:12.000]  And the Electronic Frontier Foundation sponsored that case as well, arguing that computer code is expressive speech.
[24:12.000 --> 24:14.020]  It's worthy of protection under the First Amendment.
[24:14.740 --> 24:20.660]  And last May, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling.
[24:21.160 --> 24:27.100]  And a few months ago, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals also held that ruling as well.
[24:27.100 --> 24:31.380]  And so, where this case comes in is somewhat similar.
[24:31.960 --> 24:33.560]  DeCSS is computer code.
[24:33.700 --> 24:43.960]  It is expressive, creative expression and is worthy of First Amendment protection, just like when you read the newspaper or a book or listen to music.
[24:43.960 --> 24:46.760]  It is a creative expression worthy of First Amendment protection.
[24:46.980 --> 25:00.460]  And if you're going to bar someone or ban someone from distributing this information, this creative expression, there needs to be a First Amendment analysis done of the situation and First Amendment principles must come into play.
[25:03.000 --> 25:12.300]  I think what we've got here with this case is that America often thinks it owns the internet, whereas this DeCSS was written by a Norwegian.
[25:12.620 --> 25:21.560]  And because the MPAA can't go after this person who wrote the code, they're just going after everyone who puts it up on the internet in America.
[25:21.780 --> 25:23.900]  Well, they did manage to get somebody in Norway arrested.
[25:23.900 --> 25:25.380]  Yeah, yeah, I know.
[25:25.640 --> 25:27.540]  But they never actually managed to get him extradited, did they?
[25:27.700 --> 25:28.940]  Well, he's here today, actually.
[25:30.060 --> 25:31.420]  We might have taken care of that for them.
[25:31.420 --> 25:32.540]  Just don't tell the feds that.
[25:33.100 --> 25:33.580]  Shhh.
[25:33.820 --> 25:40.180]  Jon Johansen and his father pair were both indicted in Norway for putting this computer code up on the web.
[25:40.340 --> 25:44.020]  And the motion picture industry is going after them very strongly there.
[25:44.200 --> 25:50.560]  And they've recently filed a motion to add Jan as a name defendant to the California case.
[25:50.560 --> 25:56.660]  And as of a couple days ago, they have sent him a notice of deposition subpoena in that case as well.
[25:56.860 --> 25:59.060]  They're going to question him further.
[26:02.070 --> 26:13.910]  I think it's also important to note, though, that we have, much like here in New York, in Norway, we've hired some of the best lawyers over there that have an excellent track record against the Norwegian Economic Crime Unit.
[26:13.910 --> 26:17.270]  And so they're representing Jan and his father there as well.
[26:17.270 --> 26:21.510]  I'd like to just touch on the point someone mentioned earlier about intent.
[26:22.130 --> 26:26.050]  And I think you can pretty much gauge our intent by just looking at our history.
[26:26.850 --> 26:35.450]  We did not publish or put up the DeCSS code on our site with the intent of circumventing any particular copyright act.
[26:35.570 --> 26:36.910]  We put it up because it's information.
[26:37.170 --> 26:39.950]  And that's what we've been doing since 1984 is publishing information.
[26:41.090 --> 26:45.530]  What is done with the information after we publish it, that's, you know, it's not under our control.
[26:46.250 --> 26:48.330]  But we believe that by putting it up there...
[26:48.330 --> 26:51.490]  For one thing, we're talking about something, we're talking about encryption that got defeated.
[26:51.750 --> 26:54.350]  What is the point of not telling people about that?
[26:54.430 --> 26:59.410]  What is the point of having bad encryption out there that's been completely compromised and then pretending it didn't happen?
[26:59.410 --> 27:02.210]  I mean, I have to wonder, what are these people thinking?
[27:03.130 --> 27:15.490]  So, obviously, by putting it up there, we're actually helping them to develop something a little bit better next time and maybe go to the open source community, you know, when they start developing the thing, so that it won't be, you know, torn apart by somebody in kindergarten.
[27:22.780 --> 27:23.180]  Questions?
[27:23.580 --> 27:29.820]  In response to what you said about Yanya Henson being added to the California case, isn't there a big matter of jurisdiction there?
[27:29.960 --> 27:32.000]  There's a huge matter of jurisdiction there.
[27:32.000 --> 27:41.100]  And one of the defendants, Matt Pavlovich, has actually filed a motion to quash the complaint against him based on jurisdiction.
[27:41.540 --> 27:50.120]  And I would encourage all the other defendants named or unnamed defendants who are outside of the Court of California to also file similar paperwork as well.
[27:50.300 --> 27:56.280]  We haven't had a ruling yet on his motion to quash based on jurisdiction, but we expect one in a few weeks.
[27:56.280 --> 28:03.580]  And if it's positive, I'd like for everyone who's a named defendant to file similar paperwork and get themselves dropped out of the case.
[28:07.350 --> 28:08.490]  I don't think that one's on.
[28:10.950 --> 28:11.830]  I had a question.
[28:12.350 --> 28:26.170]  My understanding is that on Tuesday in Congressional Committee, Orrin Hatch, who's one of the people who wrote the DMCA, blew up at Hillary Rosen of the RIAA, and said that the law is being applied inconsistent with the congressional intent behind it.
[28:26.170 --> 28:31.090]  I was wondering if you feel if that might influence the court in the future, or future courts.
[28:31.590 --> 28:41.490]  And also, what links there might be between the music issues under the DMCA and the MPAA issues?
[28:41.710 --> 28:51.530]  Well, I think they're very much linked, because the DMCA is a tool that the Recording Industry Association of America and the MPAA fought very hard.
[28:51.530 --> 28:53.490]  They spent a lot of money to buy that act.
[28:53.750 --> 29:04.470]  And ironically, however, what they thought they were getting, or what this case is about, is what they thought they were getting, and not really what they actually got.
[29:04.750 --> 29:07.510]  There was a carve-out for fair use.
[29:07.670 --> 29:11.870]  There is specific language in the act asking to protect the First Amendment.
[29:12.030 --> 29:17.890]  And there's specific language protecting reverse engineering, computer security, encryption research, this sort of thing.
[29:17.890 --> 29:27.890]  But what this case is about is an attempt to even extend what they did get, which was a hell of a lot, to something even more egregious than that.
[29:28.050 --> 29:39.770]  And I think that's what the Congress or the Senators were expressing their dislike for, is the fact that now this act is being tried... is tried to use to extend even what the DMCA granted them.
[29:40.130 --> 29:45.370]  So I think a lot of people have had the wool pulled over their eyes as far as this particular act goes.
[29:46.730 --> 29:54.090]  When the case was first announced against us, you probably saw some press that made it seem like we were a bunch of pirates.
[29:54.830 --> 30:05.650]  And Jack Valenti, the head of the MPAA, was right there saying how we're out there basically ruining the whole movie industry and causing all kinds of damage by doing things like what we do.
[30:05.730 --> 30:08.330]  And it's funny because then when he goes up on the stand, he has no idea who I am.
[30:08.330 --> 30:09.910]  Oh, you make t-shirts.
[30:10.050 --> 30:11.810]  Yeah, I make t-shirts with his face on it.
[30:11.870 --> 30:12.370]  That's all I do.
[30:12.630 --> 30:16.470]  So you have to wonder who's really writing these press releases for one thing.
[30:16.570 --> 30:18.470]  But that's only one tiny part of the whole point.
[30:19.670 --> 30:25.850]  The major issue is that they're basically misleading people by making this seem like it's about copying.
[30:26.330 --> 30:31.510]  And I think as we've demonstrated over and over again, it's not about copying.
[30:32.370 --> 30:33.650]  You guys understand this.
[30:33.890 --> 30:35.330]  Most people don't understand this.
[30:35.410 --> 30:36.630]  People in the media don't get it.
[30:36.770 --> 30:38.270]  People on the street don't get it.
[30:38.310 --> 30:39.770]  You have to explain it to them very carefully.
[30:40.030 --> 30:44.790]  But basically, if you have an encrypted file and you copy it, you can still decrypt the copy.
[30:44.890 --> 30:48.670]  It's easy as long as you have the decryptor and the decryptor exists in every DVD player.
[30:48.870 --> 30:49.210]  Right?
[30:49.490 --> 30:50.190]  Simple, right?
[30:50.390 --> 30:52.770]  Well, that kind of thing is lost on the media.
[30:52.770 --> 30:56.710]  And they think that by decrypting it, that means that we can simply copy it.
[30:56.830 --> 31:01.010]  And it makes no sense because decrypting it doesn't make it any easier to copy.
[31:01.210 --> 31:09.430]  What it does do, it allows you to bypass things like the country restriction that forbids you from watching a DVD in a different country.
[31:09.590 --> 31:13.930]  It allows you to watch a DVD on a Linux machine, bypassing the access control there.
[31:14.090 --> 31:17.070]  It allows you to skip over commercials, bypassing that access control.
[31:17.250 --> 31:18.250]  It's not about copying.
[31:18.350 --> 31:22.430]  It's about this thing called access control, which is a fairly new type of...
[31:23.170 --> 31:26.630]  type of concept when applied to consumer electronics.
[31:27.290 --> 31:31.850]  For instance, imagine if you bought a CD in London and you weren't able to play it here in the United States.
[31:32.050 --> 31:33.910]  Because, well, there's a restriction on it.
[31:34.490 --> 31:34.890]  You know, it's...
[31:34.890 --> 31:37.130]  These are restrictions that we've never had before.
[31:37.550 --> 31:41.370]  And they're trying to make it seem like that's part of what copyright is.
[31:41.370 --> 31:48.090]  And I think the reaction Orrin Hatch showed the other day pretty much proves that that's not what they meant when they drafted this law.
[31:48.370 --> 31:57.770]  That, you know, they just pretty much hand everything over to the RIAA, the MPAA, where they can pretty much write out the rules as to how you play back things you've already bought.
[31:57.770 --> 32:00.310]  I mean, you've bought a DVD player.
[32:00.490 --> 32:05.850]  I'm sorry, you've bought a DVD, you've bought a Linux machine, yet you're breaking the law if you try to make the two of them work together.
[32:06.090 --> 32:06.770]  It's insane.
[32:07.270 --> 32:14.290]  Yeah, they try to make this out like it's piracy, like it's about copying, and we have a hard time explaining that it's not.
[32:14.290 --> 32:24.510]  And so one thing that we found is helpful is to just tell people this is about buying the DVDs or watching the DVDs that you purchased on the machines that you own.
[32:24.730 --> 32:26.590]  That's essentially what this case is about.
[32:29.050 --> 32:32.050]  I mean, you know, I'd say some people in the media actually get it, so...
[32:32.050 --> 32:35.650]  Okay, well, I don't think... everybody in the media doesn't get it, but it's an uphill battle.
[32:35.770 --> 32:36.130]  There you go.
[32:36.790 --> 32:39.310]  Robin, the question I have for you is about access control.
[32:39.310 --> 32:49.710]  Do you think this case will get broadened at all to make attempts to create, I guess, create law that make access control illicit or actually make it legal right now?
[32:50.490 --> 32:52.150]  Do you think that'll turn that around a little bit?
[32:52.330 --> 32:53.370]  I'm sorry, this...
[32:54.030 --> 33:00.510]  Well, right now, the DMCA makes access control, putting a fence around something, whether or not it's a legal use of that.
[33:00.750 --> 33:06.310]  I mean, right now, you know, the fight is not exactly about whether Emanuel had legal use of what he was doing.
[33:06.310 --> 33:16.490]  It's more that he... or excuse me, that Jon Johansen and the people who created the DeCSS, it's not about them doing it for fair use necessarily.
[33:16.490 --> 33:18.550]  It's more that they violated access control.
[33:18.750 --> 33:23.150]  Well, there's two parts of the DMCA that are relevant to this discussion.
[33:23.290 --> 33:26.490]  And one is the prohibition against the act of circumvention.
[33:26.730 --> 33:28.170]  And I think that's what you're talking about.
[33:28.350 --> 33:35.910]  And the second is what this case is about, which is the prohibition against distributing tools that can be used to circumvent.
[33:35.910 --> 33:43.970]  And it's important that the first provision, the prohibition against the act of circumvention, has not yet gone into effect.
[33:44.070 --> 33:49.750]  So it's not illegal to use DeCSS for fair use purposes or any other legitimate purposes.
[33:50.090 --> 33:57.490]  But the provision against distributing tools that can be used for circumvention, that went into effect immediately.
[33:58.070 --> 34:10.790]  Now, the Copyright Office is currently going through a rulemaking provision, a study, whereby they're trying to determine whether or not particular classes of works will be adversely impacted by the prohibition against the act of circumvention.
[34:11.130 --> 34:17.770]  And they will be issuing some rulings as to whether or not there are classes of works that will be exempt from that prohibition.
[34:17.770 --> 34:20.730]  And they'll make that announcement October 28th.
[34:20.890 --> 34:22.790]  They're currently going through the study.
[34:23.530 --> 34:34.110]  What the Electronic Frontier Foundation has requested of them is that they exempt DVDs protected by CSS from the prohibition against the act of circumvention.
[34:34.670 --> 34:46.850]  Essentially, people will be completely denied their fair use rights if DeCSS is not allowed to be distributed and people are not allowed to use DCSS and to circumvent DVDs.
[34:48.290 --> 34:50.630]  Isn't that, though, putting the issue off a little bit?
[34:50.770 --> 34:54.110]  I mean, pretty soon we're going to have SDMI in all of our music.
[34:54.610 --> 34:56.930]  So we're going to have another access control technology there.
[34:57.230 --> 34:59.750]  We already have cable boxes that people circumvent.
[34:59.950 --> 35:05.230]  And so the question is, is the circumvention against fair use itself?
[35:05.410 --> 35:09.790]  I mean, is there a problem there that you see that will arise in the future?
[35:09.990 --> 35:12.090]  Yes, I mean, it's an incredible problem.
[35:12.090 --> 35:14.050]  You just mentioned SDMI.
[35:14.470 --> 35:23.390]  And imagine if Sony decides that in order to listen to Sony music, you have to purchase a Sony audio device.
[35:23.750 --> 35:27.450]  And maybe you don't want one of those or you've got something else.
[35:27.610 --> 35:37.370]  And you may need to circumvent the protection to that recording in order to get it to work with whatever system that you're using.
[35:37.370 --> 35:39.490]  And so it's the same issue.
[35:39.650 --> 35:48.070]  What happens in this case will directly relate to what happens to SDMI and whether or not people have fair use rights to use their music, to use books.
[35:48.590 --> 35:50.230]  It's much broader than movies.
[35:51.390 --> 35:56.270]  Just as a technical question, there are actually, as my understanding of it, there's two parts.
[35:56.270 --> 36:00.390]  The country code is actually separate from the CSS encryption authorization.
[36:00.990 --> 36:06.190]  So that you can authorize the country code without having to deal with the CSS.
[36:07.110 --> 36:13.310]  Like if you had an authorized CSS algorithm that you could actually set it to be a country code of whatever you wanted.
[36:14.410 --> 36:17.230]  Isn't that... I mean, so the country codes are a separate issue.
[36:17.230 --> 36:25.510]  It's that the CSS, the actual encryption key, the key to the algorithm is what they're using to, you know, as their business prop.
[36:25.950 --> 36:28.550]  And that the, you know, within America.
[36:28.870 --> 36:33.710]  And then outside, you know, across the globe, it's the country codes that are a separate thing.
[36:34.670 --> 36:37.650]  Are they actually technically separate?
[36:37.830 --> 36:39.190]  You're saying country code is separate from CSS?
[36:39.190 --> 36:45.970]  There's a separate, from my understanding of it, there's a separate, like there's the country code, the region code byte.
[36:46.350 --> 36:49.050]  And then that's, then there's something else.
[36:49.350 --> 36:52.910]  And then there's the DeCSS key, the CSS key.
[36:53.730 --> 36:55.890]  And that the algorithms are independent.
[36:57.130 --> 36:59.170]  My understanding is that it's related to CSS.
[36:59.410 --> 37:00.310]  I could be wrong on that.
[37:00.770 --> 37:01.290]  You know, I have...
[37:01.290 --> 37:01.490]  I mean...
[37:01.490 --> 37:03.410]  I don't know that much about the CSS thing.
[37:03.550 --> 37:05.190]  Well, basically what we did was we...
[37:05.850 --> 37:06.370]  You put it up there.
[37:06.410 --> 37:07.310]  We used DeCSS code.
[37:07.750 --> 37:10.310]  And that's, you know, what that does.
[37:10.450 --> 37:12.110]  Well, I can tell you what the CSS does not do.
[37:12.210 --> 37:14.190]  It does not make copying any easier.
[37:14.650 --> 37:15.690]  That's not the question.
[37:15.930 --> 37:16.850]  I mean...
[37:16.850 --> 37:22.230]  That's my extent of knowledge as to what the CSS actually accomplishes.
[37:23.350 --> 37:27.110]  I've been told that it also accomplishes defeating region coding.
[37:27.210 --> 37:29.230]  If that's not true, then I'd like to know that as well.
[37:29.510 --> 37:29.950]  I don't...
[37:30.470 --> 37:31.730]  That's a question I don't know.
[37:31.930 --> 37:32.730]  That's what I'm asking.
[37:32.750 --> 37:37.730]  Is there a panel on DeCSS later that might have more information on it?
[37:37.730 --> 37:38.350]  About technical issues?
[37:38.550 --> 37:39.610]  Dona Hanson will be on that one as well.
[37:39.890 --> 37:41.130]  As well as a few other people.
[37:41.390 --> 37:46.290]  So there might be more information about sort of the technical issues behind the technology on that panel.
[37:47.990 --> 37:48.510]  Okay.
[37:48.770 --> 37:49.930]  I have two questions.
[37:50.210 --> 37:51.550]  First off, if I...
[37:51.550 --> 37:54.790]  From what I understand, Reel left a key unencrypt...
[37:54.790 --> 37:58.470]  A CSS key unencrypted in their Zing DVD player.
[37:59.110 --> 38:00.290]  Has there been any...
[38:00.290 --> 38:05.190]  Has the MPAA taken any action against Reel for leaving that key unencrypted?
[38:05.850 --> 38:06.990]  Not that I'm aware of.
[38:07.130 --> 38:07.490]  Okay.
[38:07.490 --> 38:08.650]  I heard that Zing lost their license.
[38:08.990 --> 38:09.210]  Well...
[38:09.210 --> 38:11.310]  It was Zing, but then Zing was bought by Reel.
[38:11.790 --> 38:12.510]  They're owned by Reel.
[38:12.590 --> 38:12.950]  I didn't know that.
[38:13.870 --> 38:14.230]  It's new.
[38:14.930 --> 38:15.050]  Okay.
[38:16.070 --> 38:17.270]  They don't say that very often.
[38:17.410 --> 38:17.590]  All right.
[38:17.730 --> 38:17.850]  No.
[38:18.410 --> 38:19.870]  I think they lost their license.
[38:19.990 --> 38:21.210]  Yeah, they're the black sheep of the family.
[38:21.430 --> 38:21.550]  Yeah.
[38:22.310 --> 38:31.530]  My other question is, from what I understand, there are other programs that would just take the DVD output and rip it and put it into a file before it's brought to the video card.
[38:31.710 --> 38:34.710]  How come there's no action taken against the authors of those programs?
[38:34.890 --> 38:36.270]  I think one of them is called Soft DVD?
[38:36.970 --> 38:37.390]  Or...
[38:37.390 --> 38:37.770]  Well, no.
[38:37.850 --> 38:41.970]  I'm thinking about piping them out into, like, a file to, like, pirate later.
[38:42.250 --> 38:42.490]  Mm-hmm.
[38:42.950 --> 38:43.370]  It's...
[38:43.950 --> 38:44.370]  Yeah.
[38:46.090 --> 38:49.170]  How come there's no action against those people when there's no...
[38:49.170 --> 38:51.910]  Because I don't think copying is the issue.
[38:51.910 --> 38:53.930]  I don't think they really care that much about copying.
[38:54.090 --> 39:00.370]  I think they're more concerned with access control and all the future money they can make by controlling technology in ways they never have before.
[39:00.750 --> 39:04.930]  I mean, imagine if they got a fee from you every time you saw something on DVD.
[39:05.150 --> 39:07.590]  Imagine if they could tell when you saw something on DVD.
[39:07.730 --> 39:08.010]  I mean, this is all possible.
[39:08.010 --> 39:08.630]  Isn't that called DivX?
[39:09.210 --> 39:10.710]  It sounds a lot like DivX, doesn't it?
[39:11.090 --> 39:16.130]  But it's something that they really are banking on, apparently, and we're ruining it for them.
[39:16.130 --> 39:16.390]  Okay.
[39:16.550 --> 39:22.410]  But if they're using the argument that copying is what's being used in the case of DeCSS, then how come they're making that same argument against...
[39:22.410 --> 39:22.730]  Is there...
[39:22.730 --> 39:24.170]  Can that not be brought up?
[39:24.750 --> 39:28.010]  That they're not making that argument against other DVD-like copiers?
[39:28.270 --> 39:30.930]  I guess because they don't see them as a real threat to them.
[39:31.130 --> 39:36.150]  They don't see copying, in my opinion, they don't see copying as a real threat to them, or they would go after the real copiers.
[39:36.590 --> 39:41.710]  They see knowledge of how the technology works vis-a-vis hacking, you know, figuring things out.
[39:41.830 --> 39:45.030]  They see that as a real threat because that's loss of control for them.
[39:45.170 --> 39:49.030]  They can't just magically come up with these things that nobody knows how they work, But they have to buy them.
[39:49.190 --> 39:53.250]  Well, if you understand how it works, you can say, this is bullshit, let's do it this way instead.
[39:53.730 --> 39:55.790]  And they don't want us to ever get to that point.
[39:56.010 --> 39:56.570]  Okay, thank you.
[40:01.060 --> 40:08.760]  You've stated that access control according to region is unprecedented, but that's not quite correct.
[40:09.000 --> 40:16.060]  I mean, in the video gaming industry, there's always been access control according to region.
[40:16.060 --> 40:23.560]  And, of course, the utilities used for this were physical.
[40:23.820 --> 40:27.160]  They weren't cryptographic.
[40:27.380 --> 40:29.120]  But this isn't unprecedented.
[40:29.320 --> 40:32.060]  Well, there's also NTSC, PAL, CCAM, that kind of thing.
[40:32.460 --> 40:34.180]  But there have always been ways around it.
[40:34.680 --> 40:36.280]  And people have generally...
[40:36.280 --> 40:44.060]  So the issue is that the DMCA disallows this sort of circumvention?
[40:44.580 --> 40:47.980]  That's my understanding is that that's their interpretation of it.
[40:48.240 --> 40:48.440]  Okay.
[40:48.700 --> 40:53.680]  And the interesting thing about it is that they claim region coding is to protect Hollywood studios.
[40:54.000 --> 41:06.980]  Say a film gets released in this country and then it goes to DVD at the same time that it's released in theaters in another country, which I don't think happens all that often where something's on DVD and it's just being released to theaters.
[41:06.980 --> 41:09.040]  But I can understand that if it is the case.
[41:09.160 --> 41:13.560]  However, why are they releasing old movies from the 1970s with region coding on them?
[41:13.680 --> 41:14.980]  They're not being released in theaters anywhere.
[41:15.260 --> 41:18.100]  So it's clearly a way of making more money.
[41:18.260 --> 41:21.620]  It's a way of, you know, you have to buy this twice if you go from one country to another.
[41:21.860 --> 41:23.660]  And they can add to that.
[41:23.760 --> 41:33.160]  They can make it so that, you know, if you want to play it in a different kind of DVD player, they can, you know, add something that will make it so that you can't play it without buying it again or paying some sort of access fee.
[41:33.160 --> 41:35.800]  You know, so it's the beginning of a very ominous trend.
[41:36.480 --> 41:48.920]  And I think that while these other kinds of restrictions have been in place in the past, it's never been illegal to buy a DVD in France and get it to play, watch it in a DVD player in Norway.
[41:50.480 --> 41:53.400]  That's what this is really about in a lot of ways.
[41:53.500 --> 41:59.840]  Is it illegal for you to watch, to view, to experience the creative expression that you've already purchased?
[42:01.240 --> 42:02.800]  That is the heart of it.
[42:02.940 --> 42:08.580]  It's not just that, well, it's a region code and you're bypassing it, but that it's illegal to bypass it.
[42:08.780 --> 42:11.060]  And since when has it been illegal to do that?
[42:11.120 --> 42:18.360]  And why does copyright law make it illegal for me to buy a CD in France and listen to it in the U.S.
[42:18.420 --> 42:19.720]  and I've broken the law?
[42:19.840 --> 42:20.820]  I mean, that's not copyright.
[42:21.060 --> 42:21.940]  This is something else.
[42:22.080 --> 42:25.880]  This is an attempt to go further than what copyright will give you.
[42:25.880 --> 42:35.120]  So I see copyright, my interpretation is that it ensures that the creator, the owner of the work, gets fair compensation for it, for each use of it.
[42:35.440 --> 42:40.060]  And I don't see any way that this is being impeded upon with the DeCSS.
[42:40.300 --> 42:48.660]  If you watch a movie on a Linux machine that you've bought already, how is that hurting the artist, the person who created the movie, the people in the movie?
[42:48.780 --> 42:49.140]  It doesn't.
[42:49.160 --> 42:49.840]  You've already bought it.
[42:49.840 --> 42:59.100]  So obviously there's something else going on here where they want more compensation by having a license for every single operating system out there.
[42:59.420 --> 43:02.700]  And something like open source doesn't lend itself to that.
[43:03.040 --> 43:07.620]  I think it's... there's a lot of misunderstandings about copyright law.
[43:07.880 --> 43:16.920]  And the biggest is that copyright law is designed to provide economic incentive to artists.
[43:16.920 --> 43:20.000]  Well, that's sort of a misconception because that's really the means.
[43:20.520 --> 43:30.120]  The copyright law's intent is to spread knowledge and to spread education and to encourage a flourishing of public domain and creative works.
[43:30.280 --> 43:40.560]  And so the economic incentive that is provided to the author is the means used to achieving the ends, which is an enlightened and educated public, which is necessary in a democracy.
[43:40.560 --> 43:46.540]  So what you see in many ways with the recording industry and the motion picture industry is they get it backwards.
[43:46.820 --> 43:55.340]  They think this is all about getting them money when really getting them money is only the means to providing all of us with more education and more information.
[43:55.560 --> 43:58.600]  And that's really copyright's ultimate objective and ultimate goal.
[43:58.740 --> 44:05.120]  And it's laid out in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, quote, to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
[44:15.800 --> 44:20.180]  I wanted to bring up something about the DVD and that encryption system.
[44:21.420 --> 44:36.180]  You know, I think this was like, you know, back in the conception, you know, when the DVD standard was first coming out, I always thought that that encryption system and, you know, the region coding and all that stuff was just something to make the movie companies feel good about,
[44:36.180 --> 44:39.760]  you know, it's like strong and so they'll embrace it and mark it into it.
[44:41.460 --> 44:44.700]  But as far as that encryption system goes, I think that was kind of dumb.
[44:44.900 --> 44:50.640]  I mean, it's like, why put an encryption on there and then put a key on the same disc that tells how to decrypt it?
[44:50.680 --> 44:50.820]  Right.
[44:51.060 --> 45:05.580]  It's like, you know, if they want this kind of control, why don't they do some sort of licensing of, like, controlling the microchip that drives the, you know, optical read system or something or design the optic system or, you know, the actual, some component in the drive that,
[45:05.580 --> 45:11.120]  you know, must meet certain specifications of a license or otherwise you cannot manufacture this hardware.
[45:11.360 --> 45:11.980]  Well, they're not very...
[45:11.980 --> 45:13.540]  You know, it's kind of like, you know, hardware dongles.
[45:13.620 --> 45:14.640]  They're not very good at this.
[45:14.980 --> 45:15.660]  Yeah, and I think...
[45:15.660 --> 45:16.300]  Not yet, anyway.
[45:16.520 --> 45:31.180]  You raise a really good point here in that encryption is really not, and you all would know this much better than me, but encryption is really not the best way to protect copyrighted content because in order for encryption to work, you need both sides of the equation to want something to be secret.
[45:31.840 --> 45:39.300]  And when the motion picture industry sends out a DVD with... and it's encrypted, they're the only ones that want that content to be secret.
[45:39.440 --> 45:42.740]  And all of us want... maybe want to get at it and don't care whether or not it's secret.
[45:42.920 --> 45:45.600]  And so we'll fiddle with it and figure out a way to get it out there.
[45:45.980 --> 45:52.500]  And so it just... encryption is not the best method for creating or for controlling copy infringement.
[45:52.500 --> 46:02.540]  In fact, in my opinion, the best way to do that is to create a means such that it removes the motive and the reasons for infringement and not simply prevents all copying altogether.
[46:04.380 --> 46:07.420]  I was also going to bring up about the copyright thing.
[46:08.420 --> 46:23.360]  I am the whole intellectual property myself and, you know, I'm seeing all these companies and stuff, you know, the way they're abusing copyright, I mean, even as a, you know, intellectual property holder myself, I get worried about that because, I mean,
[46:23.520 --> 46:41.720]  the reason why there's patents and there's copyrights is, you know, I like to be able to have the confidence of putting my ideas on the internet or whatever means and letting them spread and let everybody know about it without the fear of some company exploiting it and making money off of it or otherwise erasing my name off of it and putting their name on it.
[46:41.720 --> 46:50.680]  But it's almost like these companies have turned it into something completely opposite rather than a means of being able to protect the information while it's out there.
[46:50.800 --> 46:54.680]  They're using it as like something to control it to prevent people from gaining access to it.
[46:55.160 --> 46:57.140]  Yeah, that's... you're absolutely right.
[46:57.300 --> 46:59.320]  I mean, this is an access control provision.
[46:59.420 --> 47:08.720]  Although what the CSS system does is prevent all copying because the technology, the players, the licensed DVD players won't allow you to copy anything.
[47:09.260 --> 47:15.740]  And so it is copy restriction, but it's done under the access restriction provision of the DMCA.
[47:16.040 --> 47:17.660]  So it's sort of a roundabout way.
[47:17.860 --> 47:31.480]  And it is the reason why they're trying to take more than what the DMCA grants them because the restriction against the copy technology wouldn't make DeCSS illegal because it allows people to exercise their fair use rights.
[47:31.620 --> 47:34.340]  That's why they're going after it under the access provision.
[47:35.640 --> 47:38.580]  Well, you know, about like, you know, just copying a DVD.
[47:39.360 --> 47:43.040]  I had a friend of mine that actually went over to Hong Kong, China.
[47:43.280 --> 47:47.880]  He actually purchased an actual bootleg DVD disc.
[47:48.060 --> 47:51.400]  We put it in a DVD drive and ran DeCSS on it.
[47:52.220 --> 47:58.300]  And movies that are not protected or encrypted, DeCSS will like give you a message saying it's bypassing it.
[47:58.400 --> 48:00.020]  It says nothing to decrypt.
[48:00.740 --> 48:09.960]  The movie that we got, the actual bootleg, was an encrypted movie, which I'm saying is when they copied that movie, all they did is do a bit for bit copy.
[48:10.240 --> 48:10.400]  That's right.
[48:10.980 --> 48:11.160]  Yeah.
[48:11.320 --> 48:14.200]  It does really nothing to prevent itself.
[48:15.300 --> 48:17.800]  DeCSS does nothing itself really to prevent against copying.
[48:17.900 --> 48:25.400]  It's the whole structure of requiring you to only experience the movie on an architecture that prevents the copying.
[48:26.520 --> 48:28.060]  That's the one thing we have to get out to people.
[48:28.200 --> 48:32.240]  It's not about copying because, yeah, bit for bit transfers, that's how it's done.
[48:32.440 --> 48:35.380]  That's how all the pirated DVDs are made.
[48:36.000 --> 48:38.040]  So this has got nothing to do with copying.
[48:41.600 --> 48:42.380]  Next question?
[48:46.200 --> 48:53.780]  Let's say, expecting the worst, that Emanuel and Mr. Garbus go into court on Monday and they lose...
[48:53.780 --> 48:54.540]  On Monday?
[48:55.400 --> 48:56.160]  One day?
[48:56.480 --> 48:59.720]  Well, let's say, you know, they're found out and they lose.
[49:00.000 --> 49:04.700]  Will the EFF always stand behind them through the entire long haul of the appeals process?
[49:04.700 --> 49:08.800]  We are intending on taking this case to the Supreme Court.
[49:09.120 --> 49:10.100]  That is our intent.
[49:13.230 --> 49:14.630]  Remember, join the EFF.
[49:15.290 --> 49:15.770]  Please.
[49:17.430 --> 49:21.730]  A lot of that is dependent on the support EFF gets and hopefully you can spread the word.
[49:22.750 --> 49:33.630]  I just wanted to ask you, how you... or, excuse me, what do you think the new UCEDA rules, if they're adopted, which would make reverse engineering software illegal, how do you think it might affect your case?
[49:33.630 --> 49:53.550]  Well, I think it's really interesting you mention that because if there had been a UCEDA type of legislation in place where this reverse engineering originally took place, we might be in a little bit more legal hot water if there was a provision that denied people the right to reverse engineer a certain piece of technology.
[49:53.810 --> 49:58.390]  So UCEDA would be an incredible threat to people's rights to reverse engineer.
[49:59.190 --> 50:11.630]  Another problem with it is that it can prevent people from simply talking about problems with technology, distributing other... distributing information about the weaknesses of a technology or improvements to a technology.
[50:11.770 --> 50:13.650]  It's incredibly, incredibly dangerous.
[50:13.990 --> 50:20.990]  And if it had been in place where this original reverse engineering took place, we would be in a lot more hot water than we already are.
[50:23.350 --> 50:28.390]  I'm glad you made that point about the Supreme Court because that's actually what I wanted to ask you about.
[50:29.110 --> 50:37.370]  Mr. Garvis brought up a very interesting point, something to the extent that what's at issue here is your ability to report in the manner that you see fit.
[50:37.950 --> 50:46.130]  Now, as Mr. Goldstein mentioned, if you examine his track record, it's very obvious that your intent was journalistic.
[50:46.490 --> 50:55.590]  And this gives you a lot of substantive law room as obviously journalistic freedoms, you know, the First Amendment, been legislated a great deal.
[50:55.870 --> 51:00.530]  I'd be curious, aside from procedural issues such as jurisdiction, if this does...
[51:00.530 --> 51:03.530]  Mr. Garvis again mentioned that he expected to win in the Second Circuit.
[51:03.710 --> 51:10.170]  If this goes to the Second Circuit, perhaps the Supreme Court, what sort of substantive law arguments would you be expecting to make?
[51:10.630 --> 51:16.330]  And somewhere contained in those, would you be asking them to strike at the constitutionality, excuse me, of the DMCA?
[51:17.750 --> 51:22.990]  Well, it's interesting that this case, in many ways, is the first to really interpret the DMCA.
[51:22.990 --> 51:26.390]  So, and if you look at the DMCA, it's a mess.
[51:26.510 --> 51:27.510]  It's an absolute mess.
[51:27.550 --> 51:30.750]  And it's impossible to just sort of tell by looking at it what it means.
[51:30.950 --> 51:38.490]  Because there are provisions that contradict each other, and there are provisions that have to be read sort of all encompassing each other.
[51:38.630 --> 51:45.130]  And so, it's so complicated that the interpretations that come out from the DMCA is what's really important.
[51:45.270 --> 51:46.790]  How is this act going to be interpreted?
[51:47.390 --> 51:49.670]  Because it could be interpreted 18 different ways.
[51:49.730 --> 51:51.430]  Let me tell you, it's that complicated.
[51:51.430 --> 52:01.830]  And so, what we're hoping for is an interpretation that allows for the First Amendment to continue, that allows for fair use and reverse engineering rights to continue.
[52:02.110 --> 52:10.350]  And if the DMCA cannot be interpreted in such a fashion, and I think it can, but if it can't, then we will need to overturn the DMCA altogether.
[52:13.330 --> 52:16.710]  We have to make way for the next panel, which actually is related to this.
[52:17.650 --> 52:21.350]  So, I guess we'll start that in about ten minutes, since we track down more people to be on it.
[52:22.010 --> 52:22.670]  Thanks for coming.
[52:22.750 --> 52:23.050]  Thank you.