RE: [dvd-discuss]DMCA Excemption Hearings at UCLA Day 1 Part n of N

[microlenz(at)earthlink.net]

On 20 May 2003 at 16:13, Richard Hartman wrote:

Subject:        	RE: [dvd-discuss]DMCA Excemption Hearings at UCLA Day 1 Part n 
of N
Date sent:      	Tue, 20 May 2003 16:13:05 -0700
From:           	"Richard Hartman" <hartman@onetouch.com>
To:             	<dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Send reply to:  	dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 9:30 PM
> > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss]DMCA Excemption Hearings at UCLA 
> > Day 1 Part n
> > of N
> > 
> > 
> ...
> > What was evident is that there needs to be more interchange 
> > between legal and 
> > technical communities on these matters. When the question was 
> > asked regarding 
> > how to fix broken copy protections I wanted to jump up and 
> > say "Ok...if in 
> > hardware, then I get my scope, borrow a logic analyzer and RE 
> > the chips..if if 
> > software..then I'm going to run the drivers in a symbolic 
> > debugger and watch 
> > until they fail and then find what went wrong...that's muach 
> > easier....then I 
> > patch the software..".."WHAT violate the santity of intellectual 
> > property...".."sure its easy...replace XXX with YYY at 
> > location ZZZ do until 
> > finished...."..Is that hard...no piece of cake....my scope I 
> > bought at the TRW 
> > swapmeet for $50..my (scalar)network analyzer cost $100 but I 
> > can't get the 
> > cables or manual for it..I can download a hex editor for free..."
> > The whole notion of technology is a bugber but to those that 
> > do not see it as a 
> > bugbear they are frightened.
> > 
> 
> 
> You can reverse that last statement when it comes to
> technical people looking at the legal process as well!
> 
> This list is a great start on getting interchange between
> the two communities though.  The bigger issue is how to
> spread the effect beyond the scope of the list membership...

It all comes down to communication. As Eb Rechtin (rediscoverer of the phase 
lock loop)  pointed out, the irony of Arpanet was that it was created to 
facilitate remote supercomputing but what it facilited was remote 
communications.

I recognize that on the legal side there is the incentive to keep ones 
arguments secret lest one's opponent know them and have more time to study them 
than you do for rebuttal...Maybe the organization at slashdot may be a 
model..it's another problem... Gwen H. did well but I really wanted to jump up 
and speak at times....I might add that I got there 15mins late and other than 
Jim T. (who I had seen his picture with Wendy Seltzer a few years ago) everyone 
else there was a total mystery to me..with little time before to confer, set 
strategy, or otherwise prepare....before...or seemingly afterwards (I'm not 
buying a 007 digital camera the size of a comb....the pix sucked....my SLR cost 
less and takes better pix. My cheezy earthlink digital camera was free and does 
also)
If SCOTUS has sanctioned expert witnesses, then there should be no problem in a 
hearing. If Brewster can get the Internet Archive lawyer to speak when she was 
not on the agenda, maybe some experts in the courtroom can do so as well.



> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!