IRC log started Fri Feb 21 10:01

<jdm> BTW, if anyone wants to start posing questions early, I'll update the webpage and the /topic to reflect the update

<cec> jdm: i just sent email to phil lemmons - the technology writer for duke news

<cooper> jdm: you should do it on a wiki :)

<cec> i'll send something similar to the editor of the chronicle. i can't promise anything, but...

<jdm> cooper: wiki?

<cooper> you know, collaborative hypertext editing system?

<jdm> cooper: I'm just an iggunat grad student ... I know not of this 'wiki' thing that you speak

<jdm> :)

<jpportz> kibot: google wiki

<kibot> [Front Page] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki

<cooper> http://fluffy.dyndns.info/wikiwikiwak/JackValenti

<cooper> i dumped all the content from your page in there

<cooper> but yeah, anyone can edit the page

<jdm> cooper: hrm ... is that really a good idea? :)

<cooper> i dunno

<cooper> the mpaa thugs might get wind of it!

<jdm> cooper: ;p

<jpportz> jdm: the ability of anyone to edit is the cool thing about wiki's

<jpportz> It can really help collaborative things like this.

<jdm> it might also depend on how many people we get in here

<jdm> I'd like for there to be some semblance of order, both here and WRT the web pages :)

<jdm> cooper: do you have a CS account?

<cooper> jdm: for right now

<cooper> not for long :)

<jdm> that way it's limited to only 3 or 4 people actually trying to update the pages

<cooper> don't be a weiner

<jdm> plus that means we can have some sort of filter on the questions

<cooper> we'll only have about 2 people updating them anyway :)

<jdm> cooper: ;p

<jdm> look, I'm just bracing for the worst-case-scenario (aka, tons of people showing up) given how many lists this announcement went out to

<jdm> that's all

<cooper> eh, worst comes to worst we can always just edit the wiki into something to put on your page

<jdm> well, I guess worst-case scenario is that at the end of the day a few of us edit the wiki using what's there and the logs I'm keeping

<cooper> yeah, that

<cooper> there, it's all neatened up now

<cooper> http://fluffy.dyndns.info/wikiwikiwak/JackValenti

<cooper> someone should try to blog it live

<cooper> or stream ogg

<jdm> cooper: blog it live is probably best

<jdm> cooper: streaming ogg could potentially be a copyright violation :)

<swanno> it's being streamed anyway by duke law, no?

<swanno> (yes, i know it's on real)

<jdm> swanno: it's being streamed on Thursday, IIRC

<swanno> oh

<jdm> yeah, Thursday at noon

<jdm> any word from the various news outlets ppl have contacted? :)

<cec> jdm: the tech guy doesn't want to cover it b/c it isn't directly technology related (?!), however, he thinks someone from the duke news service will be there. since the chronicle is student run, it may be a bit

<jdm> cec: is there anything we can say to the tech guy to convince him that it's tech-related?

<cec> probably not

<cec> he agrees that it is a big story, but just doesn't think it's a tech story

<swanno> citric used to have contacts at the chronicle

<swanno> dunno if he still does

<jdm> cec: think this would help? http://news.com.com/2100-1023-274763.html?legacy=cnet

<cec> jdm: i can try

<jdm> or this http://judiciary.senate.gov/special/feature.cfm

<jdm> cec: cool, thanks

<luis> how goes the great battle against evil and inequity?

<swanno> dukenews tech reporter doesn't think this is a tech story

<swanno> cec is launching a second salvo

<jdm> just got e-mail from the law school ... they haven't fully discussed the talk format w/Valenti, so they're not sure about the schedule yet

<jdm> There *is* going to be a general Q&A session after the Valenti talk :)

<cooper> excellent</burns>

<jdm> broadcast: ping :)

<mbjohn> jdm: ping reply

<jdm> heh

<gray> aww

<mbjohn> hahaha

<jdm> ;p

<jdm> ok, so we're looking to question Valenti about copyright term length, what you can and can't do with copyrighted/protected material, and what it means for the avg. person

<gray> how about "new initiatives" in the works?

<gray> mpaa is all about drm, right?

<jdm> gray: yeah, government-mandated DRM

<baptiste> It seems 'fair use' would be a good place to start since it seems the copywright length issue is driven from MANY places, not just MPAA, but fair use or owned material seems to come primarily from RIAA/MPAA

<gray> yeah, i think much of it boils down to what they think people should be allowed to do with their products

<baptiste> I'd love ot hear exactly why they think making a personal backup copy of a VHS tape vs a DVD are two totally different things beyond the stock 'DVD quality is better'

<jdm> baptiste: *nod* ... from what I've seen in the news recently, the RIAA is somewhat backing away from gov't-mandated DRM

<baptiste> 'Quality' has never been a fair use attribute - you copy VHS tapes or DVDs and sell them you are breaking the law, etc

<cooper> actually, valenti apparently lobbied hard against the vcr way back when

<cooper> that might be a useful tack to take

<gray> remember his remarks?

<gray> vcr is as dangerous as...

<jdm> gray: *nod* ... in his deposition on the 2600 case, Valenti basically said, "Look, I don't know any of this technical mumbo-jumbo, all I know is that decrypting copyrighted material is illegal."

<baptiste> I'd think a ping on Palladium would be interesting - see if we can pull him into strongly backing it or hedging

<gray> that was valenti, right?

<jdm> gray: yeah, that was him

<baptiste> LOL - So the act of playing my DVD in a normal player is illegal :) I knwo thats not what he meant

<jdm> the hpronline is the Harvard Political Review

<jdm> they address the Boston Strangler quote, and Valenti actually claims he was right

<jdm> he claimed that the VCR is costing the MPAA's members ~$3.5bn/year

<gray> it must be nice to be able to manufacture statistics with no data whatsoever

<gray> hrm.

<jdm> the Boston Strangler quote is probably overdone, and I'm not sure if we should push it hard or not

<cooper> no, really we shouldn't

<baptiste> ANother thought - ask him somethign along the lines of - lets say the MPAA succeeds in locking down content to the point that DVD copying isn't possible and they've thus upset tons of users - does he think copying will stop? People will just bootleg movies with tiny cameas like they do now - its still al oss. In other words, does he have proof that copy qulaity is an issue in limiting demand on teh black market?

<jdm> or at the very least he's been asked it before and I'm sure he's got 100s of answers for it

<gray> jdm: right

<jdm> baptiste: so, put together a "Let's say you get perfect DRM government-mandated. What then?" kind of question?

<baptiste> WOudl he rather have happy users with reasonablke fair use rights and blackmarket copies in good condition or very upset users who stop buying DVDs and the black market humming along as usual, just at a lower wuality

<baptiste> Right

<jdm> baptiste: well, the plunge in the market would, of course, be attributed to piracy

<cooper> he also claims that dvds "never wear out"

<gray> or how about asking if he thinks there's any way to encourage people not to copy illegally besides DRM

<baptiste> Yeah - tell any parent with toddlers :)

<jdm> cooper: that would be a good one to work on

<jdm> baptiste: *nod*

<cooper> we should bring in a dvd and "wear it out" in front of him

<baptiste> Sure - I have 3 kids, my kid plays frisbee with the DVD - I bought the MOVIE, so why can't I make a spare backup of it in case the original gets creamed

<patrick> cooper: a DVD that already died "of natural causes" could be more convincing

<gray> or just one with a scratch one it

<cooper> yes, but you see, i have no dvds :)

<patrick> cooper: especially if you can say "good thing I made an illegal backup before my toddler destroyed it"

<gray> do you think he'd know the difference between a dvd and a cd?

<patrick> gray: valenti is actually a really smart guy. so, yes.

<jdm> gray: remember, the target audience is the actual audience

<baptiste> I encountered a marginal DVD from a friend the other day - would NOT play on my Sony deck, but would play on my laptop - though on one chapter it went haywire for a while - DVD has a 'ring' almost peanut shaped on teh palying surface where it looks like the layers kinda separated

<patrick> jdm: regarding the Disney / public domain question, I see no need to single out Disney there.

<jdm> gray: there's no way in hell we're going to convince Valenti that he's wrong, or even place doubts in his mind

<gray> jdm: oh, definitely

<joeyo> someone should ask him about the forced intros to dvds

<jdm> patrick: *nod*, I just did a cut+paste from a luis question

<baptiste> jdm: that's not hte point - the point I thought was to get him on record with concrete, albeit bogus answers to very direct questions - no?

<baptiste> joeyo: *cough8 ad dollars *cough*

<gray> the "dvds do not wear out" in particular, seems good, since it's obviously factually wrong

<jdm> baptiste: it would be nice to publically trap him, but even getting him to admit in plain english what his plans are and what he wants would be good

<baptiste> jdm: agreed

<patrick> Don't expect to publicly trap him. He's heard these questions before, and his entire job is to have spin-doctor answers for them.

<jdm> one question I'd like to see is "Here's a digital camera, a handheld tape recorder, and a pair of headphone. Which of these should have DRM in them?"

<patrick> The key thing is to present enough opposition that the audience walks away skeptical.

<patrick> (especially if there are reporters in the audience!)

<patrick> jdm: I still think that's too easy a question for him to spin-doctor, unless you're extremely specific with text from the SSSCA.

<jdm> Does anyone want to be the public face of our group to the press?

<jdm> patrick: *nod*

<mbjohn> guess frinky doesn't :\

<patrick> We should have a question about public domain extensions.

<patrick> "In fifteen years, will the MPAA seek another copyright term extension?"

<patrick> I want Valenti on the record saying either

<patrick> a) no

<jdm> patrick: Possibly, "Here's a passage from the SSSCA, is this on the right track? If so, how will you prevent digital camera from falling into this arena?"

<jdm> patrick: He'll probably say, "Well, we should look at that when the time comes."

<patrick> or b) yes, in contrast to our arguments about life expectancy, European laws, etc.

<patrick> jdm: that's too obvious a cop-out.

<jdm> patrick: I'd rather see, "International copyright treaties require copyright terms of 75 years for corporate works, and life+50 for authors. US law provided 95 years, and life+70. Will we need to extend that to, perhaps, 115 years and life+95, or are they fine where they stand?"

<gray> i assume he's got stock answers for why creators need to hold copyrights after their death?

<jdm> gray: for the families

<gray> of course.

<gray> think of the children!

<jdm> gray: the 75 years and life+50 is international standard

<gray> well, i understand the international standard aspect, which i suppose is what he uses as justification

<jdm> gray: I'm not saying it's good, but with anything less than 75/life+50, he can fall back on "Well, that's what this internation treaty requires."

<jdm> s/internation/international/

<cooper> here's what i've collected so far:

<cooper> http://fluffy.dyndns.info/wikiwikiwak/MpaaQuestions

<baptiste> Or perhaps simply ask him this: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of our constitution states " [The Congress shall have power] "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;" What does that mean to you regarding your media content?

<jdm> baptiste: too open-ended

<gray> would the "never wear out" demonstration be made more effective by also mentioning studies of dvd lifespan, or is that overkill?

<baptiste> jdm: WHy?

<cooper> actually, that might be even more effective

<jdm> gray: I studies might be overrated, I think the case of "Any of you that are parents will know that .."

<baptiste> Pin him down on his interpretation of limited time

<patrick> baptiste: the constitution thing was tried, with no success, in Eldred.

<baptiste> Still it might be nice to see what he thinks - regardless

<jdm> maybe a question about average life expectancy vs. copyright terms

<baptiste> It gives insight on their thinking - like 'We don't care what the constitution says, we want to preserve our income stream forever'

<patrick> baptiste: he already addressed it in stories re: eldred. He thinks the constitution gives congress the power to do whatever it wishes. 7 justices agree.

<gray> also true. because with the copyright terms, you're basically ensuring that the vast majority of copies of the work will be unreadable before the copyright expires

<jdm> "My children will have passed away by the time Treasure Planet goes into the public domain."

<patrick> baptiste: they're too smart to admit they don't care what the COTUS says. So instead they claim "here's what the COTUS means," or "the COTUS was written before Napster" or whatever.

<gray> jdm: which was just an adaptation of an earlier public domain story

<jdm> gray: *nod*

<jdm> Perhaps a Treasure Island/Treasure Planet question?

<cooper> yes, let's

<cooper> that would be more focused than the general disney q

<jdm> how many Disney movies were taken from the public domain?

<gray> the majority

<patrick> jdm: nearly all of the animated ones.

<patrick> jdm: perhaps not Emperor's New Groove. <g>

<jdm> yes, but if we could say "37 of 39 disney movies are based on public domain stories. It's a Wonderful Life fell into the public domain and is now a US tradition. What's wrong w/the public domain?"

<patrick> jdm: most notably, actually, Jungle Book. Kipling explicitly refused to license the story to Disney, so they just waited until it hit the public domain.

<jdm> patrick: can we dig up any proof of that?

<patrick> Wonderful Life is NOT public domain and is NOT a tradition, any more.

<luis> right

<luis> was about to say that ;)

<patrick> Wonderful Life's music is still copyrighted. Only one network (NBC?) has a license to show it.

<gray> Cultural giants borrow, and so do corporate giants. Ironically, many of Disney's animated films are based on Nineteenth Century public domain works, including Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Cinderella, Pinocchio, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Alice in Wonderland, and The Jungle Book (released exactly one year after Kipling's copyrights expired).

<gray> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20020305_sprigman.html

<patrick> It was briefly shown on loads of cable channels, until the owner of the music sued (or threatened to?)

<jdm> http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/greatmovies/wonderful_life.html

<patrick> Gray: I think at least a few of those are pre-19th c.

<gray> which were in turn written down in 19th cent, i think was his point

<jdm> hrm

<gray> ah, perhaps more accurate:

<gray> http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/2000-02/0428.html

<patrick> jdm: Ebert doesn't have the whole story. Wonderful Life is at least partially back under copyright.

<jdm> oh well .. It's a Wonderful Life would have been a good question :(

<jdm> patrick: yeah, some googling now reveals that

<gray> you could stick to literature

<cooper> heh - "Money, however, is negative--it's corrupting the body politic."

<jdm> ok, so how exactly do we want to phrase the public domain question?

<jdm> gray: how about computer programs?

<cooper> how much money did your organization give to fritz hollings in his last campaign?

<baptiste> Some light reading http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary/

<cooper> does anyone think that might be a valid question?

<gray> jdm: not as relevant to mpaa?

<patrick> Most cartoons use classical music courtesy of the public domain. Anyone who reuses Shakespeare or Jane Austen or Dickens ... public domain. Not just Disney.

<gray> patrick: i think the point is that of using public domain works to make copyrighted works

<patrick> cooper: campaign donations are inflammatory and probably irrelevant to what JV will discuss.

<jdm> patrick: yes, but a simple question along the lines of "Disney does it, why can't we?" might be in order

<gray> and then fighting to extend those copyrights

<baptiste> He may have already answered this elsewhere but it might give folks some context - exactly what fair use rights does he believe users SHOULD have, if any?

<oirad> None.

<jdm> baptiste: he claims fair use isn't in the law (he's wrong)

<jdm> baptiste: fair use is 17 USC Sec 107

<gray> so what does he think people should be able to do with his industry's product?

<jdm> gray: but it and watch it

<baptiste> jdm: to which you resond 'So you believe people have NO fair use rights' Again - educating the audience to his views

<jdm> gray: s/but/buy/

<gray> but what rights do you have to what you buy?

<swanno> can you view a movie in your home with 100 guests?

<jdm> swanno: I think that's already been answered in the courts :)

<icon> swanno: you have a big house. :)

<patrick> jdm: he did backpedal very quickly on the "no such thing as fair use" statement.

<Rankin> as long as you don't charge, iirc.

<jdm> I think we should steer clear of asking him for the exact legality of certain situations

<patrick> jdm: why?

<gray> i'm just wondering, in general, what he thinks people should be able to do

<gray> and why he thinks they shouldn't be allowed to do anything else

<baptiste> Another interesting topic - in light of the failur eof Divx DVDs, does he believe time limited content has a future in some form and is that where the MPAA would like to go (ie degradable DVDs, time locked content, etc)

<patrick> jdm: if something is a) clearly against the law, but b) clearly fair (i.e., should be legal), it could make a good point.

<jdm> patrick: if you read his 2600 testimony, he basically answers those as "I'm not a lawyer and I don't know."

<gray> jdm: he's good at claiming not to be an expert

<jdm> patrick: "That's too technical for me."

<jdm> gray: yeah, I know

<patrick> jdm: perhaps stating it as "Should this be allowed?" or "Is it fair to...?"

<jdm> gray: although hopefully after giving a speech at a law school, he won't be able to claim that as easily :)

<jdm> patrick: *nod*

<jdm> patrick: probably a better approach

<gray> "If your daughter were raped, would you allow her to copy a dvd?"

<mbjohn> gray: haha

<jdm> ;p

<mbjohn> gray: we got your back ;)

<patrick> gray: Violent crime might actually be a useful topic here

<patrick> "10 years in jail for rape, but 20 for helping blind people read their ebooks. Is that right?"

<baptiste> patrick: outstanding!

<gray> "Well, I don't set penalties"

<patrick> Of course, Dmitri didn't end up in jail (except awaiting bail)

<gray> you can see that one from miles away

<mbjohn> ok, so probably silly question, but should dvds played under linux be brought up somehow?

<baptiste> he'll claim linux users are all pirates ;)

<patrick> mbjohn: isn't there now a licensed DVD player for Linux?

<mbjohn> baptiste: heheh, probably :)

<baptiste> then we all stand up and say 'really?'

<patrick> mbjohn: I've seen that question asked and answered before.

<gray> well, then we all reach for our eye patches

<jdm> mbjohn: I think so, and I think a preable to the question should point out that Pixar, Disney, and New Line Cinema all use Linux

<patrick> mbjohn: said player doesn't encode to divx and doesn't skip the FBI warning, of course...

<mbjohn> patrick: ah, OK, I thought it was probably brought up before, but I thought I'd ask, thanks

<patrick> jdm: Linux is a server OS, not a client.

<baptiste> Thats a great question 'Do you think forcing movie watchers to see the same FBI warning over and over and over again on every disk really helps prevent piracy?

<jdm> mbjohn: "Like Pixar and Disney, I create graphics using the Linux operating system. blah blah blah ..."

<jdm> patrick: yes, but they use it for their server farms

<patrick> jdm: making movies != watching them.

<jdm> patrick: it prevents him from using the "well, linux users are pirates" approach

<patrick> jdm: that is, there aren't enough Linux-as-client users to bother with.

<patrick> jdm: in any event, there IS a legal DVD player for Linux.

<gray> well, the opposition isn't to the OS itself, right, but just that the client app needs sufficient drm, right?

<jdm> patrick: which one?

<patrick> gray: exactly.

<MThom> patrick: What is the 'legal' linux dvd player? if any. I'm a little peeved that I have to use Apple or M$ to view the thousands of dollars worth of DVD's that I have purchased.

<jdm> gray: *nod*

<gray> so linux is really a red herring

<baptiste> I think in addition to 'prepared remarks' we need to give him enough rope to hang himself - let audience members jump on stuff - for example, start off by asking 'What would your ideal DRM environment be in fairly non technical terms, ' Let him go on about this restriction and that and maybe the audience will pounce on stuff.

<gray> has he been asked why he thinks mpaa's interests should trump those of the (much larger) hardware industry?

<jdm> "I got my wife a DVD for Valentine's day, but one of our cats scratched it up. Should it be legal for me to make a DVD backup of the replacement I'm going to buy?"

<patrick> gray: careful, there's precedent for that.

<patrick> gray: Macrovision-crippling is mandatory on all VCRs, courtesy of the DMCA.

<cooper> okay, new things on the plans and questions pages linked here: http://fluffy.dyndns.info/wikiwikiwak/JackValenti

<gray> right, but this is a pre-existing industry

<patrick> gray: so were VCRs!

<gray> onto which he wishes to pile all sorts of restrictions

<gray> patrick: certainly not as well established

<jdm> what about this: http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/3039.cfm

<patrick> gray: VCRs existed for 15-20 years before the DMCA mandated Macrovision-suckage last year.

<jdm> Harry Potter was released without Macrovision. If sales haven't suffered, that would be nice to point out

<baptiste> I think we need to avoid harping on DVDs all teh time - don't forget the effort to encrypt all data streams from player to viewing device

<oirad> all vcrs have macrovision on them now? Huh? (I think I have to replace my vcr)

<jdm> baptiste: yeah, what about headphones?

<patrick> oirad: sort of. long story.

<oirad> baptiste has a point: isn't the mpaa also pissy about tivos?

<patrick> oirad/gray: Macrovision counts on VCRs having gullible color-balance circuitry.

<patrick> oirad/gray: most did, but not all, until last year. Now it's mandatory.

<baptiste> Yeah - ask him about time shifting any way that's so bad - is it JUST because it pretty much requires content be copyable?

<patrick> oirad/gray: and Macrovision scrubbers are now illegal, though I think "signal cleaners" are still OK.

<oirad> patrick: does that mean anything of substance for me buying a new vcr?

<jdm> baptiste: his response is that the Sony-Betamax case was ONLY about time-shifting free over-the-air broadcasts

<mako^^> what are Macrovision scrubbers?

<patrick> oirad: some cheapo VCRs used to have non-standard input circuitry that could ignore Macrovision. No longer.

<patrick> oirad: I don't know which ones.

<patrick> oirad: I've resorted to illegal means for copying videos.

<jdm> does anyone here have an iMac?

<patrick> oirad: decss/divx/etc.

<oirad> patrick: but that should only apply to commercial tapes, right? Like me moving stuff from my Replay to tape for archival isn't gonna be a problem?

<jdm> more importantly, does anyone here have an iMac that got screwed over by a copy-protected CD?

<baptiste> But I wasn't talking about the betanmax case - I want to know why the MPAA doesn't want people to be able to time shift? AGain - try to nail him down when he says 'because it makes our media vulnerable to copying' you say - why don't you concentrate on putting pirates in jail instead of making everyone slife miserable with anti copying technology that always gets broken?

<patrick> mako^^: an adapter-type thing that suppresses the color bursts in the invisible parts of an NTSC display.

<patrick> mako^^: about $50, cheaper by homebrew, illegal to sell.

<gray> jdm: technical difficulties. will be solved by DRM.

<patrick> baptiste: the MPAA, as such, probably doesn't care about timeshifting.

<baptiste> patrick" but fun to make - I made one YEARS ago when it first came out

<jdm> gray: hrm ... true

<jdm> gray: maybe the Sharpie case?

<baptiste> patrcik: bull - they want broadcast flags embedded in content to ENSURE you can't record a given movie broadcast over the air

<patrick> re time shifting: the cable companies and networks care.

<baptiste> they do care - though maybe not as much as, say, broadcasters

<patrick> re time shifting: but the MPAA produces _movies_ not broadcast TV.

<jdm> pointing out that a black magic marker can circumvent DRM. should magic markers be illegal?

<patrick> jdm: "substantial non-infringing uses."

<baptiste> right - and again - the MPAA wants to have broadcast flags so their content can be marked 'non recordable' and the TIvos of the world refuse to recor dit

<jdm> patrick: what, like a t-shirt? :)

<patrick> baptiste: that's to prevent copying. I think they're OK with time-shifting.

<mako^^> patrick: thanks

<baptiste> I'd like ot hear him say that - I don't think he will

<patrick> jdm: shirts are OK. DeCSS code on shirts isn't -- no noninfringing uses.

<jdm> patrick: it keeps me warm

<baptiste> remember - client side time shifting REQUIRES you be able to copy a given movei, etc

<patrick> (jdm: obviously stupid. I'm just reporting it like I hear it.)

<patrick> jdm: the code doesn't keep you warm!

<jdm> patrick: sure it does ... it makes the material thicker :)

<patrick> jdm: actually, it does. DeCSS uses lots of Athlon power. Athlon power = heat.

<jdm> patrick: hehe

<patrick> baptiste: yes, of course.

<patrick> baptiste: but if there were a way to make the movie no-copies, play-once (pure time shifting), I don't think the MPAA would have any objections.

<patrick> baptiste: they're already licensing movies for Time Warner onDemand, for example.

<baptiste> I'd like to hear him agree to that - I don't think they ever have. As for the TimeWarner stuff - sure but that is provider side 'copying' vs client side.

<patrick> baptiste: it's pure time shifting!

<patrick> baptiste: the MPAA doesn't mind time shifting, except where it involves copying (by the user). That's my point.

<patrick> baptiste: so we can ask about copying, but asking about time shifting makes no sense.

<seth> anyone here from a foreign country?

<patrick> mako?

<baptiste> :)

<seth> it might be useful for them to bring up the point of playing a different region code dvd here

<seth> if I bought them in france I'm sol

<seth> if I decode or regionset on linux to play them

<seth> I'm breaking the law

<gray> seth: you should be boycotting france, anyway!

<seth> s/france/england/

<swanno> freedom fries forever!

<jdm> "I'm a computer security expert, and more and more security research is moving overseas because of the DMCA. Does it matter to you that DRM is actually weakening the US's security infrastructure?"

<jdm> (or something along those lines, perhaps less dramatic)

<baptiste> "They'll take my french fries out of my cold dead hand!"

<baptiste> jdm: excellent

<seth> baptiste: I agree with you about feeling like you're in a foreign country

<jdm> oh, region coding could be a good one

<baptiste> THough he'll say 'I'm not an expert' :)

<seth> baptiste: I'm less and less pleased with how we look overseas. arrogant is fine, arrogant and unjust is not fine :(

<jdm> baptiste: The question should be "Does it matter to you that ...", not "Do you think it's legal that ..."

<baptiste> seth: agreed 100%

<baptiste> jdm: *nod*

<jdm> ok, so how many questions do we want to squeeze in, and how many people are coming?

<gray> do we have confirmation that there's a Q&A session?

<swanno> gray: yes

<jdm> gray: yep

<seth> suggestion

<seth> 2 laptops

<seth> one person taking down what he says

<seth> the other typing up what the audience says

<joeyo> agreed

<jdm> *nod*

<baptiste> one with a camera recording it then ask if his public presence is a copyrighted work

<jdm> baptiste: I think it is, actually

<jdm> baptiste: this is a planned talk, which indicates a script, which indicates a performance based on a copyrighted work

<baptiste> jdm: I know - was just being a smart aleck :)

<jdm> baptiste: ;p

<jdm> :)

<patrick> jdm: is the Q&A session copyrighted?

<jbw> Q&A is not supposed to be scripted - unless there are planted stooges in the crowd

<jdm> patrick: I want to say yes, but I'm not sure ... at the very least I'm pretty sure his comments are copyrighted ... we could report on them, but not repeat or rebroadcast the Q&A session in its entirety

<baptiste> all volunteers to be stooges raise your hand!

<jdm> heh

<baptiste> jdm: um wait - isn't the law school planning to offer a webcast file later?

<gray> fev 27

<patrick> baptiste: they are indeed.

<gray> A webcast of the lecture will be available as of noon, Thursday, Feb. 27 at www.law.duke.edu/webcast/.

<jdm> baptiste: a few days later

<gray> but not the reception

<patrick> baptiste: presumably they had to clear it with JV in advance.

<gray> will the Q&A be at the reception?

<jdm> gray: no, after the talk

<patrick> jdm: did you confirm that there will be Q&A?

<jdm> gray: there's also going to be a special "student session talk" but there's no point in that really

<jdm> patrick: yes

<gray> ah, okay

<patrick> jdm: what's the student-session talk?

<gray> how big is the place where it's being held?

<jdm> gray: the student session is at 3, but it's only for students, no press, no other audience members

<patrick> jdm: are we "students?"

<jdm> patrick: basically he gets to spin issues to the students alone

<jdm> patrick: *nod* undergrads and grads

<jbw> stooges

<patrick> jbw: students and stooges are often highly correllated.

<jdm> patrick: I don't really see too much point in going to that, since there won't be any press or bigwigs there like there will be at the regular talk

<jdm> it might be useful to try and convince any law students who go, but my (short) experience is that they tend to already be set in their ways

<jbw> not much money in defending poor Linux people, lots of $ for lawyers on the other side. so, not many law students interested in representing the opposition?

<gray> aren't a lot of the faculty not very pro-drm?

<baptiste> yeah I think we need to lead him down the path of DRM holding back academia

<jbw> what's the best example of that?

<patrick> jbw: Ed Felten.

<patrick> jbw: sent a paper regarding SDMI to a conference, got a cease&desist letter, axed the paper.

<patrick> jbw: sued to have the courts say "research papers are OK" and lost.

<patrick> jbw: eventually presented the paper at another venue after the RIAA openly denied sending the cease&desist letter.

<jbw> clear enough. that example will get the crowd going

<mbjohn> wrt the questions page, I missed how t-shirts are the subject of legal threats under the DMCA :\

<patrick> mbjohn: that's not recent.

<patrick> mbjohn: someone (thinkgeek?) got a cease&desist for printing or selling decss shirts.

<luis> copyleft

<luis> http://eon.law.harvard.edu/archive/dvd-discuss/msg06131.html

<mbjohn> patrick: ah, ok, thanks...I hadn't heard about that so I was just curious

<mbjohn> luis: cool, thanks!

<joeyo> http://zdnet.com.com/2100-11-522652.html?legacy=zdnn&chkpt=zdhpnews01

<mbjohn> joeyo: good link too, thanks!

<baptiste> L8R

<jdm> do we want to try and bring t-shirts into the mix?

<gray> probably not the best

<gray> not as relevant as, say, dvds

<patrick> jdm: t-shirts... no.

<jdm> ok

<patrick> jdm: I just noticed that t-shirts were the DVDCCA using trade secret law.

<patrick> That is, they're not the MPAA, and it's not the DMCA.

<patrick> Valenti: "Suing over a t-shirt? I/we had nothing to do with that."

<jdm> patrick: the DVDCCA actually does mention the DMCA, IIRC

<patrick> And I'd probably nix the pen thing, too. No one has sued over pens. They have substantial noninfringing uses, and the manufacturer certainly isn't guilty of "willful violation."

<patrick> jdm: maybe, but the claim was primarily trade secret, was it not? That's out algorithm/patent/secret, and you can't use it unless you're a licensee.

<patrick> s/out/our/

<patrick> Anyway, DVDCCA != MPAA.

<jdm> hrm: "a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."

<jdm> so to effectively control access to a work, all that is required is the application of information

<patrick> Or a process or a treatment.

<patrick> XOR counts.

<jdm> whee

<jdm> the "do not copy" flag on CDs counts

<patrick> You could even argue that _un_encrypted MPEG counts -- isn't decompressing it a "process" or "treatment?"

<jdm> whee

<jdm> true

<patrick> No, I don't think the "do not copy" flag counts.

<patrick> I don't have to apply any information (key) or process/treatment (program) to read the music.

<patrick> I just ... ignore that bit.

<jdm> patrick: it could be argued that you need to know that you should ignore that bit

<patrick> If "do not copy" tracks were also XOR'd, that would be DMCA-protected.

<patrick> jdm: that makes no sense.

<jdm> patrick: well, yes, but it depends how much you want to get into legalese :)

<patrick> jdm: that's like saying that my signature on a painting keeps you from viewing the painting.

<patrick> It doesn't.

<patrick> A curtain would keep you from viewing the painting.

<patrick> So, notably, a watermark _is not_ an effective access control.

<patrick> But I wouldn't bet a jail sentence on that. ;)

<jdm> patrick: this isn't really a watermark or a signature, it's a sign in front of your painting that says "Don't take a picture of this painting."

<patrick> It's a sign _next to_ the painting, but not obscuring it. That's key.

<jdm> patrick: and if you took a picture of that painting, then you obviously ignored the sign

<patrick> You don't have to move, or even acknowledge the sign to see the painting.

<jdm> patrick: but in a way you do ... if you're writing a CD player, you need to know what the bits on the disc mean

<jdm> patrick: you need to know that you should put a one-bit filler in your struct when you're reading in the header

<patrick> jdm: disagree. Plenty of reverse-engineered specs have "bit 4: unknown" but still work.

<patrick> jdm: sure. The spec there would say, "just write a one. This value is usually one, and that seems to work."

<jdm> patrick: but with the DMCA you'd need to prove that you didn't know that flag was there

<patrick> jdm: a device that does nothing but strip that bit might be illegal. A device that ignores it entirely would probably be OK.

<jdm> patrick: as opposed to them proving that you knew what it was and ignored it

<jpportz> lovelace: see the last URL in the topic for questions proposed so far

<lovelace> Loading now.

<lovelace> About the one question: '"dvds never wear out" - http://www.hpronline.org/news/347207.html - bring in a dvd scratched by toddler to prove otherwise :)', wasn't there a study recently that showed that dvds have a limited lifetime?

<patrick> lovelace: we talked about that, and no one here had a dead DVD to offer. Yes, there was such a study recently.

<cooper> somebody else should update with further questions - i'm a bit busy atm