[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[dvd-discuss]DMCA Excemption Hearings at UCLA Day 1 Part n of N
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: [dvd-discuss]DMCA Excemption Hearings at UCLA Day 1 Part n of N
- From: microlenz(at)earthlink.net
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:55:07 -0700
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
I attended the first day's hearings on DMCA exemptions at UCLA today. (Tomorrow
I will not be attending.). This may take several emails to get the notes more
The panel is struggling with technology issues. Somethings they are starting to
get right and other things not so. They are beginning to get right the issue of
media formats vs data formats but not totally there. One can transfer the bits
from one media to another but without the data format...it's still just
bits...issues about embedded software they are becoming cognizant but not
technosavvy... There were some surprises when one of the panel asked some
questions about the red book formats for CDs.
The panel seems to be getting the idea that copy protection and access
protection are somewhat intertwined...not quit there that to copy I must have
In some ways they were ill disposed towards the presenters who gave legal
arguments regarding burdens of proof or evidence...at one point, David Carson
started pressing the RIAA attorney about a point of evidence (Jim Tyre was
enjoying this exchange I might add) who replied that he was not going to state
what he got in the course on evidence.
Marybeth Peters is either a lousy poker player or the best. She tends to put
her hands to her ears and occassionally to her mouth. When not interested she
fades into the background but when interested she moves forward next to the
microphone. At times she looks mighty puzzled and at other times she almost
The RIAA attorney really does not have clue about technology.
The macrovision guy used so many metaphors that I had a hard time to keep from
laughing out loud.
One point that S.Metalitz made during the censorware session was that they are
doing their schtick for network security by protecting us from websites that
help propagate viruses and spam..Look! I was there.. I'm not making this up...
One thing I couldn't help but notice is the mixing of statistical statements
into legal arguments. Also I would have loved to blow up the RIAA's argument
that the complaint rate from copy protected CDs is no more than the normal rate
of defectives....different mfg process dork...can you prove that you have the
same rate of defective in copy protected CDs than in non copy protected CDS?
Then the rates should be HIGHER not the same because the do not adher to the
standard. Also that 9/125000 CDs had copy protection is an obvious statistical
fallacy since those 9 probably had millions of copies and the other had
thousands....the RIAA attornes would flunk any course I would teach in
The whole notion of STANDARDS seems lost on the RIAA and macrovision presenters
and nearly loston some of the panel members...a couple of exceptions.
BIG ISSUE...when do copy protection schemes become access control and when do
they not. The RIAA representative was ill prepared to discuss that...they might
More specific notes
I got there a bit late thanks to the eternal parking lots affectionatly known
as the Los Angeles Freeway...and I still can't understand why anyone would buy
a house on Sunset Blvd since it's four lanes and heavily traveled.
I caught most of Jim Tyre's presentation. Well Done
One sound bit moment was when the opponent stated that they "need concrete
evidence of substantial impact"..and he stated that they were protecting us
from SPAM and viruses...I could only roll my eyes and shake my head...So.....
On rebuttal Jim did a very good job illustrating that the claims that database
query over the internet is inadequate by showing them some examples. Actually I
took little notes because I just enjoyed hearing the exchange. Leading the
panel through a database search that only allows 21 queries/day rather showed
up the problem.
As for some of the claims made in DC that Seth F. hadn't decrypted the
One Action Item that came out of this is that the LOC is struggling with the
definition of "censorware" and any help would be appreciated...any ideas?
The next sesson was Brewster Kahle, Barbara Simmons, and George Ziemann. -S.
In looking at my notes I realized I took no notes during Brewster's
presentation. I really enjoyed it. It was interesting to see some of the old
tricks done in the 80s on disks and copy protection.. the clumsy dongles..but
also to hear Brewster talk about the difficulties of dealing with them and
their desire to preserve a part of our culture. He made the vital point that
these are not books and one must adapt to that.again. the committee is
struggling with technology...Also it hit home....I've got a copy of a CD that
he showed...I couldn't make the thing work either! Joe Sixpack, my neighbor,
may be a contributor to the archive after I tell his wife about it.
Barbara Simmons of the ACM then made their statement. The best was during
rebuttal. Barbara was articulate in her concern. I do not think that the fact
that a computer scientist displayed such concern yet frustration was lost upon
I did find myself getting a bit annoyed at S. Metalitz at continually stating
that things need better definitions..obsolete, malfunction...obsolete meanss
not supported (duhhhh) malfunction means it doesn't work...(duhhh) ..as a
mathematician I am aware of that but the process of precision is to eliminate
ambiguity not codify the process so one has no definitions...as for his
comments about preserving things as analog satisfies everything my only comment
that I could write on my notes was "WHAT A MORON!" ....Compared with the
statement of ANY mathematical theorem, this is not an insurmountable task and
if you haven't done it...that's your problem..
I will confess that his is one where I need to organize my notes and thoughts.
I had a lot of interruptions while watching this.
The RIAA hasn't a clue about technology...surprisingly neither does
macrovision...they are merely enablers...
In some ways it was an Alice in Wonderland session...The EFF made good points.
The RIAA blopped around siting bogus statistics and even stupider unerstanding
of statistics and technology. The Guy from RIAA seemed totally ignorant of what
anyone who has dealt this modified standards knows...you deviate and the
chances of problems due to incompatibilities increases...duhhh....
One area where the EFF got into trouble was in how one might fix a broken
copyright protection scheme...or rather circumvent it...felt markers...I think
the committee was grappling with that as well
doubtless I may add more later but here's a quick summary albeit dinnerless