Slashdot Mirror

/*
* This program is for setting TTF files to Installable Embedding mode.
*
* Note that using this to embed fonts which you are not licensed to embed
* does not make it legal.
*
* This code was written by Tom Murphy 7, and is public domain. Use at your
* own risk...
*/

#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>

void fatal();

int main (int argc, char**argv) {
FILE * inways;
if (argc != 2)
printf("Usage: %s font.ttf\n\nPublic Domain software by Tom 7. Use at your own risk.\n",argv[0]);
else if (inways = fopen(argv[1],"rb+")) {
int a,x;
char type[5];
type[4]=0;
fseek(inways,12,0);
for (;;) {
for (x=0;x<4;x++) if (EOF == (type[x] = getc(inways))) fatal();
if (!strcmp(type,"OS/2")) {
int length;
unsigned long loc, fstype, sum=0;
loc=ftell(inways); /* location for checksum */
for (x=4;x--;) if (EOF == getc(inways)) fatal();
fstype = fgetc(inways) << 24; fstype |= fgetc(inways) << 16;
fstype |= fgetc(inways) << 8 ; fstype |= fgetc(inways) ;
length = fgetc(inways) << 24; length |= fgetc(inways) << 16;
length |= fgetc(inways) << 8 ; length |= fgetc(inways) ;
/* printf("fstype: %d length: %d\n",fstype,length);*/
if (fseek(inways,fstype+8,0)) fatal(); fputc(0,inways); fputc(0,inways);
fseek(inways,fstype,0); for (x=length;x--;)
sum += fgetc(inways); fseek(inways,loc,0); /* write checksum */
fputc(sum>>24,inways); fputc(255&(sum>>16),inways);
fputc(255&(sum>>8 ), inways); fputc(255&sum , inways);
fclose(inways); exit(0);
}
for (x=12;x--;) if (EOF == getc(inways)) fatal();
}

} else
printf("I wasn't able to open the file %s.\n", argv[1]);
}

void fatal() { fprintf(stderr,"Malformed TTF file.\n");
exit(-1); }

And funny enough, the Wired article was by the same author... See Politech for more information from this guy.

I think it's most likely that the author didn't know better.

Declan McCullagh wrote both articles. I'm sure he knew what he was doing.

(3) DIGITAL MEDIA DEVICE. -- The term "digital media device" means any hardware or software that --

(A) reproduces copyrighted works in digital form;

(B) converts copyrighted works in digital form into a form whereby the images and sounds are visible or audible; or

(C) retrieves or accesses copyrighted works in digital form and transfers or makes available for transfer such works to hardware or software described in subparagraph (B).

Now how do you get from this to Barbie? She's not making copyrighted works audible, other than her own recorded voice!

And why has no one pointed out that the bill fails to say anything about what the security standards are required to do?

Since the Berman bill gives them a (somewhat) blank check to break "hacking" laws in pursuit of this goal as long as they notify the gov't first, I think they will end up doing exactly that.

According to the Berman bill:

"... a copyright owner shall not be liable in any criminal or civil action for disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network, if such impairment does not, without authorization, alter, delete, or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer file or data residing on the computer of a file trader."

It's a get out of jail free card for tampering with the network for stopping copyright infringement, but it does not cover tampering with files on your computer.

It's not a "license to hack [your computer]".

514(b)(1)(A) seems to rule out DoS attacks or any measures that have a serious effect on the sharing of non-copyrighted works on the P2P network.

So.. I just don't understand why this law is necessary, since - if we are to believe Berman's claims that it is only intended as a narrow safe harbour for self-help - it seems like it only leaves forms of chaffing - which should already be legal.

Anyway. If I put on my tinfoil hat, I would suspect a conspiracy between MS, Berman and *AA hiding in the expression "without authorization" combined with the latest EULA changes from MS regarding DRM/Media Player, giving MS the right to disable software on your computer.

It a user downloads the entire file from them,
the client program, upon completion of the download, will report an error since the hash that the file should have does not match the hash of the downloaded data. Not too serious - just some wasted
downstream bandwidth on the part of the user. This kind of attack also costs the ??AA mega$ as they are the only source for the file:

Simple chaffent:

Collect a list of (filename, filesize, hash) we want to fake.
Reply when someone is searching (both name search and hash search).
Allow connect from clients and start serving bogus data.
Disconnect the transmition after a little while.
Add the client IP to a ~30min blacklist (maybe shared by all chaffents).
Don't answer any reconnect requests from that IP as long as it is on the blacklist.

For the user, this should look just like someone that was online for a while and then disconnected. The user will try to resume the download from other sources, but the file is already broken.

In other words, the ??AA won't be able to corrupt your downloads
unless they out-bandwidth the rest of the p2p community. ;)

Or rather - out-search-request-answer if done as above.

This obviously won't work once you start using segment hashes, though.

The problem, essentially, is that you don't know if the metadata reported about the file (title, resolution, length, etc...) is accurate.

[snip explanation]

Sounds like a good approach for ensuring metadata integrity.

Anyway, I get this image of FBI busting someone and discovering the private key of a notorius release group on his computer. This could actually make it easier to track down the really big copyright infringers. ;-D

The second issue is eavesdropping and bandwidth throttling by ISPs

Considering that P2P traffic is something like 80% of the total Internet traffic at the moment, ISPs wanting to do bandwidth throttling is not exactly surprising. :)

In many situations you actually want to do bandwidth shaping in order to keep the network running smoothly. You don't want your P2P traffic to hog so much bandwith that the responsiveness of your interactive SSH sessions go south.

If all communications on p2p networks started with a raw exchange of public keys, the first (for example) 2048 bits of p2p connections would be different from client to client.

Smells like overkill to me, but anyway.

Ports used for (at least gnutella) p2p are already random, btw.

At least the initial connect is to a well-known port, no?

If your ISP really wants to spend a lot of time and resources to track you, they could play man-in-the-middle from the initial connect with the gnutella network. Not that it would ever be worth the effort, but anyway.

Even if this is true (and I'm not saying it isn't), the point my first parent was trying to make is that people other than the one the **AA is going after would be affected. Regardless of what you call a DoS attack, affecting other users is forbidden by sec 514, paragraph b 1 B of the bill.

The bill. I read it when the link was posted with an earlier /. story. I didn't post the link with my previous post as I didn't feel like hunting for it and if I use HTML I always forget to add paragraph tags and so everything runs together. Anyway, the relevant section to this discussion is section 514, paragraph b) 1) B) (I don't know the official legal notation for this).

(bastard onion doens't have it in their archives, and neither google nor the wayback machine have caches of it0

Well,

It's not over yet as can been seem fron very resent Karin's post to Politech. This a very scary example how copyright has turned into a tool of censorship :-(
Anyway the more people are exposed to the truth about Scientology, be harder job Scientology has to do to recruit new members.

Ville
SP4 and and proud of it ;-)

Then, with all due respect, you either need to look harder, or understand what some of those clauses do.

It took up more time to look that up and cite cases than was really worth it to me, but just in case you're not a troll, and just don't understand...

Look up:

SEC. 210. SCOPE OF SUBPOENAS FOR RECORDS OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS.

SEC. 211. CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE.

The wording of: SEC. 212. EMERGENCY DISCLOSURE OF ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS TO PROTECT LIFE AND LIMB.

wording of: SEC. 503. DNA IDENTIFICATION OF TERRORISTS AND OTHER VIOLENT OFFENDERS.

And it goes on ad nauseum. These were *not* things that have been done before. At least, not that I know of to be honest, but I'll stick by the opinions of the friends I have and some others that I know that have legal degrees. I didn't know that accurate DNA comparisons and a majority of the public use internet was around forty years ago either. But that's just me... and a very brief sampling of examples, imho.

If you're interested, the full text is available here, I couldn't be bothered right now to try and find it at a .gov site, but politechbot is usually reliable.

That and you have to really have a reasonable legal understanding for terminoligy for a lot of this stuff too. Anyway, happy browsing... I'm off for some R&R and (I think) an actual date! Woot!

Some of the confusion stems from different definitions of "attack." To a cryptographer, an attack is anything that breaks the algorithm faster than brute force, even if it is completely impractical. To an engineer, an attack is something that is practical, or at least might be practical in a few years. An attack that breaks AES to a cryptographer might not to an engineer. The rest of the confusion stems from not being sure the attack actually works.

With this logic, PC's should be banned,

Normally, I would say to hell with it, but instead of focusing on a rant, I'll just keep it short and to the point. Assume that I'll apply these points to your post in any order. Some assembly required.

1. Congress passes laws which are unjust.

2. Our shared culture has been more vastly controlled than freed, usually by means of #1.

3. Who said corporations couldn't be dictators? Heck, they own congress. See also #2, #1, and "Berman Bill".

4. The URL http://www.eff.org/Censorship/SLAPP makes it clear that the EFF is in complete disagreement with you. SLAPP="Strategic LAWSUIT against public participation." I'm glad you don't work there!

It seems that this is much ado about nothing. It seems that it was a case of overzealous cutting and pasting.

According to this response by the alleged spammers:
The TRAC site did indeed for a short period of time state "You are currently signed up for news and information." - but that statement was inaccurate and was just a template response that was generated when a person's story was submitted (standard language from a script that was copied).

Don't ascribe to malice that which can be better explained by incompetance...

Look here

Of course, if you follow the links, you'll find the original source: http://slashdot.org/yro/02/05/01/2026234.shtml?tid =103

Fortunately, Declan seems to refrain from reporting the same story over and over again, so the feedback loop should end here.

Of course, if you follow the links, you'll find the original source: http://slashdot.org/yro/02/05/01/2026234.shtml?tid =103

Fortunately, Declan seems to refrain from reporting the same story over and over again, so the feedback loop should end here.

Of course, if you follow the links, you'll find the original source: http://slashdot.org/yro/02/05/01/2026234.shtml?tid =103

Fortunately, Declan seems to refrain from reporting the same story over and over again, so the feedback loop should end here.

A previous poster provided this link. The issue is Macromedia software which wrongly sets the 'allow embedding' bit in the font. Monotype say that circumvents a copy control device.

A nice analysis of this can be found here

I see that your comment is currently rated 5, Funny. I suspect that what the moderators find funny is the fact that you obviously have no idea who Declan McCullagh is, because if you did, you wouldn't call him a troll. I'm sure he's forgotten 5 times more info on the DMCA than you've ever learned in the first place.

indeed, mccullagh is quibbling over his interpretation of technology as the word is used in the DMCA. he seems to interpret technology as code per se, and thus excuses the DMCA as not prohibiting research that doesn't publish code. yet science mandates that research must be repeatable and refutable. you can't very well properly repeat or refute code you can't access or inspect, only possibly supply a different implementation, which would in turn be prohibited.

mccullagh fails to mention other provisions of law which prohibit the marketing of or any other activity relating to codeless research which could be used to construct code. thus the lawyers whom mccullagh quotes appear quite incompetent.

the title of mccullagh's article is misleading, since he proposes to debunk myths plural, yet cites only the one from his imagination. he may quote more than one source or instance, but he only has one mythic myth.

mccullagh is further misleading in representing that the eff is protesting sklyarov's arrest as being for sklyarov's speech. the eff is quite clear that they are protesting his arrest for working on a product in a country that not only doesn't have a dmca, but where the dmca would violate express guarantees of fair use.

mccullagh contends that pr fear will temper corporate invocation of the dmca. freedom of speech by corporate restraint, how comforting. i feel the chill lifting already.

in real life, mccullagh runs a bot collecting news on technology law.

After this and Declan's previous article (something along the lines, "there should be a seperation of techies and state"), which seem, well, non-Declan (who is generally a fierce advocate for freedom and is anti-DMCA) I am wondering if this is applicable...

** MISSING **
Declan McCullagh
ACLU Award: Free Speech
Time Magazine Advocate for: Privacy
Previous Plaintiff: Challenging the Communications Decency Act
Anti-DMCA Efforts: Intervened in the landmark DVD/DeCSS lawsuit asking the court to open proceedings.

Declan McCullagh was reported missing to the /. user community. He was last known to be in Washington DC, and is believed to have undergone philosophical changes upon employment with CNET's News.com.

Incident Type: DMCA Abduction

If you have information regarding the disappearance of this individual, please contact: the /. community at http://www.slashdot.org.

This article title isn't that misleading, but a couple other ones I read gave that impression moreso. It's all the same bullshit memo from the FBI, but different people tried to skew it into a more interesting story to varying degrees:

• http://www.upside.com/News/3d5aaa991.html
• http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,103965,0 0.asp

There was another one I read before that was even worse, but I can't seem to find it now. You can read the actual letter from the FBI here though: http://www.politechbot.com/p-03884.html.

link to the actual Pittshburgh FBI email

better read than the linked article which is kinda light on detail. interesting to note that the FBI states in it that using a 802.11 access point without "explicit authorization" may be a federal crime

We are even closer than you think. Read Holling's bill S. 2048 http://www.politechbot.com/docs/cbdtpa/ and then go to cypherpunks and read Lucky Green's presentation. According to Lucky Green, S. 2048 makes it illegal to sell non-TCPA computers.

Taken from http://www.politechbot.com/p-02305.html, posted there by Duncan Frissell.

The $1K limit applies to the retail value of the product. Let's apply the law to Napster as an over reaching prosecutor might.

1. The average CD costs $12 and contains 18 songs (assumed for illustrative purposes). Each song is therefore worth $0.66.
2. One thousand dollars divided by sixty-six cents equals 1515 songs.
3. If one values songs by the price of CD singles, it takes even fewer songs (500) since those go for about $2/song.
4. So any Napster user who made 1515 (or perhaps fewer) songs available was knowingly infringing copyright law and trafficking in copyrighted materials with a retail value of more than 1000. As the US argued in its AMICUS CURIAE in A&M v. Napster "When a Napster user makes the music files on his or her hard drive available for downloading by other Napster users, he or she is distributing the files to the public at large." See http://www.loc.gov/copyright/docs/napsteramicus.ht ml
5. Likewise, a Napster user who just downloads songs is arguably "distributing" copyrighted works (to himself) since it is his command, generated by his computer, that grabs the song. So once he passes 1515 songs in 180 days, he's (arguably) a felon.

Time for a new slashdot poll: How many slashdotters are fedral felons due to their file sharing activities? The person closest to guessing the correct quantity without going over wins a get out of jail free card, curtousy of John Ashcroft! Yeah!

• Assuming that you hash the query to a bit, without a key, then use that bit to determine if you forward the query or not. The attacker simply performs the same hash, and knows whether the query was forwarded. Security broken.
• Assuming you have a 128 bit key, and you hash the query and the 128 bit key to a bit using an insecure hash, such as XORing every bit together. You reduced the security of that 128 bit key down to 1 bit. The attacker simply needs to know whether one query was forwarded, and then the attacker can precalculate whether any query would be forwarded. Security broken, (but with quite a bit more difficulty).
• Assuming you have a 128 bit key, and you hash the query and the 128 bit key together to a bit using a cryptographically secure hash. I can't see any attacks against this system. Without the key, it would appear completely random whether or not the query is forwarded.

Article
ruling Kuro5hin thread on the subject

The full text of the ruling is here.

The ruling is currently being appealed of couse, but as it stands right now what the spammers have done is prefectly legal. The FCC fine is a joke.

You can also read the relevant K5 story.

They used to sell (well they say they no longer do)

• Advanced Direct Remailer (bulk emailer) http://www.mailutilities.com/adr/
• Advanced Email Extractor (WWW email harvester) http://www.mailutilities.com/aee/

[...]
Now this is the beginning of activation for Japan's national ID systems: 11
digit number national ID, networked resident record system based on the ID
numbers, and national ID card that based on contactless radio transaction
smartcard, with 32 bit CPU and co-processor supposed to handle crypto and
digital signature, which will be issued from 2003.

This status makes computer security specialists worried. If organized
crimes or foreign spy agents get access to one of these, that could be a
disaster. Clear and present danger is here now. World class crackers might
be difficult to ignore temptations to try their penetration skills on this
network because it is built on Windows NT/2000 servers and possibly MS SQL.
You got the idea?
[...]

my bold emphasis (as if you needed it)

Taken from Politech.

Amazing ay?

Try Politechbot. I think it's exactly what you're looking for.

I'm the author of the CNET News.com article, though I do not speak for my employer. Three points:

• 2600 was sued for *posting* the DeCSS.exe utility, not for linking to it:
• reference

  Defendant Eric Corley a/k/a Emmanuel Goldstein also posted DeCSS on his Internet web site...

• The judge in the case crafted a rule limiting but not banning linking: reference

  there may be no injunction against, nor liability for, linking to a site containing circumvention technology, the offering of which is unlawful under the DMCA, absent clear and convincing evidence that [lots of details]

• When I was at Wired News, we joined an amicus brief in the 2600 case that said journalists should have the right to link to controversial material such as DeCSS.exe: source

And that's even if it makes it past CNET or ZDNET and into the mainstream press, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, L.A. Times, etc. more of the people who vote still read newspapers and watch news programs for their news, so they'll read a pro-RIAA spin and agree with them.

Yikes! I'm not sure how to change the views of the general public, but I know that I already wrote my congressmen to let them know how I feel from a professional and personal level. Will that change my congressmen's point-of-view? Maybe not, but at least they know how one of their constituents feel, just like how the democratic process is suppose to work.

...end rant

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being at least 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.

Wildly obnoxious? Alienating people?

Let's take a look at what happened. This "second round-table discussion" started at a 15 to 1 disadvantage against the public. By one reporter's count, it ended up being 23 to 1.

What was this panel really about? If you understand American politics, it was about one thing. Providing cover for the asses of US Representatives for votes on pending legislation that was written by, and paid for by the Entertainment Cartel. That's it. Plain and simple.

We tried everything we could to get representatives on the panel. We tried with the panel organizer. We tried with the Commerce Committee contacts. We tried with local legislators. Nothing worked. As the EFF lawyer stated, they were told specifically not to come to the hearing. The public was specifically being shut out of that "round-table"

There was one public representative on the panel, and except for a couple of sentences, he kept his mouth shut for the duration of the hearing.

Let's examine what happened that day, July 17, 2002. Representatives from Disney, Vivendi, Intel, IBM, MPAA, ContentGuard, AOL Time Warner, News Corp, EMI, and others sat around at a table, and patted each other on the back.

But wait. Let's start just a little earlier. Prior to the start of the "public round-table discussion", we were informed that we were not going to be permitted into the room. It was a closed meeting. We had to point out to the Committee reps that it was a PUBLIC meeting, and they couldn't bar us. We even had to find a place to download and print a copy of their announcement to show to them. When they realized that we would have printed proof that it was a public meeting, they relented, and said they would allow us to enter the meeting room.

The meeting started with a statement from the Commerce Sub-Committee Chair, and went around the table, with panel members making their introductions, and then making brief statements. Jack Valenti, who apparently was alerted to our website that listed the event (along with Jack Valenti notable quotables, which included some of his outrageous past statements, such as: "The VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone" Jack Valenti, head of the MPAA --
1982"") pre-empted the criticism by saying that he was known for using colorful language in the past in order to get his point across.

We were "informed" of the format of the hearing, that no statements from outside the panelists would be taken. So we could not get a seat at the panel, and we could not comment from the audience.

So Jack enlightened us on how he worked in the Johnson Administration to make the world better. And other things. And so it went. Then we were shown a ridiculously funny screen (probably a power point page) that showed the dozens of groups, and dozens of encrypting/drm/technological schemes to control content. From there, others made their introductions, and made their statements. One of Jack's early statements said something to the effect of (without actually naming the public) the public's view being noise, and a distraction, and that he puts these views, and this noise, out of his mind, as should they all, if they are to get anything done on this issue.

Up to that point, the audience was fairly quiet, but we laughed when the more outrageous statements were made. There were plenty to go around. Even the dude from Phillips, and another tech guy (Intel I believe) got into it with Jack Valenti on a number of occasions. But up to this point, there was really only laughter and occasional gasps from the audience at some of the statements.

About halfway through the proceedings, after having listened to numerous inflammatory statements made by Jack, and by others from the Entertainment Cartel, Jack started to get more intense in his statements. He compared fair use rights and file trading to a burglar using a skeleton key to rob all the houses in the neighborhood. He really said that.

I let that one slide off me. But after an exchange between Jack Valenti and Big IT where it got a little heated, Jack cooled off a bit, and then made a statement saying that the moving industry, and the IT industry needed to get together with legislators to write legislation to stop all the theft. I had enough. I stood up, and in a voice loud enough to be heard from the back of the room, I said "what about the public?" Paraphrasing myself (I don't have the transcripts yet), I said that the public was not being represented on the panel, the public is the true stakeholder on this topic, where are the public voices? I said this in a loud enough voice to be heard from the back of a large room. Was I yelling? I don't know. I know that I was speaking loud enough to be heard. That's it. Ask others.

What was Jack Valenti's reaction? He did something that shows he is a very astute individual when it comes to testifying in Congress. He continued talking. He talked right over me. He had the microphone. His voice, speaking directly into the microphone, not my voice from the back of a large meeting room, was being recorded. But the chair wouldn't have it. He interrupted me, and was telling me to sit down and be quiet. No comments were allowed. But Jack, knowing the press was there, turned an interruption of his speech into a chance to look good. He said that if I allowed him to finish his statement, he would allow me to respond. The chair tried to shut me up, but when I heard Jack say that, I sat down, and he finished his statement. Then, before I could give the chair a chance to shut me down, I stood back up, and gave my two cents. I (paraphrasing myself again, from memory) stated that the panel was not representative of the public, the public were the stakeholders, and there needed to be public representatives on the panel. As I stood up to respond, Ruben Safir, Brett Wyncoop, Seth Johnson (who held up his hand for two hours by the end of the meeting waiting to be called on to make a statement) Jay Sulzburger and others stood up, and I introduced Richard Stallman (who had just been awarded an honor by the United Nations) and we tried to get the panel chairman to recogize him to allow him to make a statement. Richard did not stand up, and said nothing. We, from New Yorkers for Fair Use , NYLXS , and several other groups, made the few statements that we were able to squeeze in.

The chair was having none of that. He said that Brett, who was mistakenly recognized earlier as a panelist (it was standing room only, with people standing, sitting on the floor, kneeling, sitting on laps, etc) when he was kneeling near one of the tables, and when he was called on, he made his statement. So the chair said that since Brett had made his short statement, the public had been heard, we had our chance. "We have a structure here!" was said repeatedly by the chair.

So we were told to shut up and sit down. Richard Stallman never said a word at this point. He wasn't given the chance.

After we sat down, Jack Valenti was clearly flustered. The press was present. They had heard the exchange. It would not be good PR for the MPAA. So he made some more astounding statements. He couldn't understand why I was saying the public was not represented on the panel. He was the public. He indicated the guy across from him (the Intel rep, I believe) and said he was the public. He said the Commerce Sub-Committee reps seated at the head of the table were the public, the public was represented.

After that exchange, the "round-table" discussion continued. More statements were made, calling for legislation. A few of the IT reps were against legislating the unknown. The Phillips rep, the Intel rep, and a couple of others were against legislation putting controls into the hardware, without a specific definition of what the controls were. The rep from Listen.com was against the drm legislation in general. He stated repeatedly that he was competing against free P2P, and his company was making money on it. And the IBM rep, the Phillips rep, and one other IT rep stated several times after my outburst/shouting/statement/activism/disruption/al ienation/obnoxiousness (insert preferred word depending on your agenda) that the public needed to be included in the discussion, and was missing from the current panel.

After some more discussion, the panel was asked by the chair to sum up their positions. This is where it got interesting. And this is where you separate the sheep from those who understand politics in America.

This "second round-table discussion" was a fraud. It was designed with one thing in mind. Provide cover for the legislators. The Commerce Committee, and this sub-committee was charged with one thing. Provide cover. This is an election year. Every House of Representatives seat is up for re-election. The US Reps are going through the motions. They are shaking the trees and raking the leaves. The Entertainment cartel already has bills written up by their lawyers. They want these bills passed. And the legislators want the Entertainment Cartel money so they can get re-elected. There is one week left before the summer break. That's this week. After the summer break, the legislators will not have time for these bills. They will be fighting over War legislation, economic legislation, senior issues, environment, and re-election items. And they will be running for re-election. This year will be a tough election. Control of the House and Senate are both up for grabs.

Getting back to the summations, this is where the horseshit started to fly. Starting with the lobbyist for AOL Time Warner (yeah, they actually sent a lobbyist) and continuing with Jack Valenti of MPAA, and Vivendi, and others, the panelists all looked at each other, or their notes, and lied straight into the microphone. They stated that a consensus had been reached. Talks between IT and Entertainment were not enough. Help from legislators, in the form of legislation was needed. They actually stated that a consensus was reached (none was, the Entertainment and IT industries remained far apart, and they admitted that the public needed to be represented), they stated that the panel was in agreement that legislation was needed, etc. This couldn't be further from the truth. But the truth didn't matter when they were making these statements. These statements were being made for one reason. They were providing sound bites for legislators to use for their justification later in voting for what will be highly anti-consumer, highly anti-fair use, and highly anti-open source legislation. That's it. They are supplying sound bites and cover for legislators.

It was at this point, when Jack Valenti was trying to sound conciliatory to the IT rep (I think it was the Intel guy again) when Jack summed up by stating that the Entertainment Industry and IT had to get together with Congress to find a solution. It had been a long day at this point, very hot outside, not enough air conditioning inside, and this one slipped by me. But luckily, Richard Stallman caught it. He said aloud (paraphrasing from memory again) "so the IT industry and the entertainment industry are conspiring again to the exclusion of the public" He was completely correct on this, and it was an important point to bring up. It repeated what we had been saying all along, and it pointed out that even after we repeatedly tried to get the public to have a voice in what was happening, that Jack Valenti, and Big IT were in agreement to exclude the public. This was an important point, and it is the only statement that Richard Stallmen made inside the committee room. Everything else that Richard Stallman said, and the rest of us said was made on the steps outside the Commerce Committee building, at our impromptu news conference after.

Upset that your electronic school books expire at the end of the semester? (see nyfairuse.org web site on this one, it's true) Too bad. Upset that you can't back up you music CD to protect against scratches? Too bad. Upset that you'll have to pay a second time for the same song if you want to transfer it from your CD to your Rio? Too bad. We held hearings, the public was represented, a consensus was reached. It's right here in the transcript. At least five people stated that a consensus was reached. Where were you? We held hearings. You should have made your voice heard then. You should have contacted my office. I have no record of you ever contacting me. How was I supposed to know this would happen, you should have told me. I was voting to protect musicians, to help keep them off of welfare...

Cover and sound bites. That's what the hearing was all about.

Toward the end of the hearing, Mike Miron, of ContentGuard, made the most outrageous statement of all. And this one slipped under the radar of the journalists. It was made as people were getting restless, as the meeting was winding up, and others on the panel were starting to pack up. In one breath, he associated kids trading files with spies and terrorists such as Wen Ho Lee, Jonathan Pollard, and Robert Hanson. He stated that P2P networks enable spies and terrorists to upload military secrets to the internet, and that in light of September 11, this must be considered. Having been personally affected by September 11, this is the most outrageous statement I have ever heard. Anyone who knows anything about the Robert Hanson case knows that he was a highly knowledgeable person on technology, and used his technical skills far beyond what a mere P2P network can provide. Many tools are available to computer users for uploading files, including ftp, sftp, putty, scp, and many others. Other tools, such as PGP, steganograpy, GnuPG, SSH, and others would accomplish much more, and would better hide the tracks of a would be spy or terrorist. Equating kids with spies and terrorists, and using September 11th to provide a sound bite for a Congressman on the DRM issue is appalling. But the Entertainment Cartel will do what it takes to get their bills through.

So the "round-table" was held on July 17, a Wednesday. I'm sure you all saw the wave of bills on DRM, on allowing the Entertainment industry to hack into your computers and destroy files with civil and criminal protections , and on various other issues regarding DRM and Fair Use attacks. These bills were out the end of the same week, or the beginning of the following week. How many of you believe that the legislators sat around on July 18 to write these bills? Or is it more believable that these bills were already written prior to the round-table meeting?

We have been in contact with the Commerce Dept. We will have representatives present during the next discussion. It naturally will be separate from the industry panel (don't wanna kill the golden goose, and don't wanna give the opposition their own sound bites from the same meeting), but it is a step forward. A step that we did not have before we opened our mouths. A step that we would not have if we would have behaved like lambs to the slaughter, as Al3x would have us do. A forum where we will try to correctly define DRM

Should we have spoke out? Or not? You tell me.

But before you do, check out http://www.nyfairuse.org as they have a more complete account of what happened, and that was written a couple of days after the "round-table", not from my memory as I am doing now. Check it out, then tell me: Should we have kept our mouths shut like Al3x wanted? Or did we do something right by taking on Jack Valenti 's poisonous fud and rhetoric?

Did you speak out? Should you have spoken out? Sent an email? Made a phone call? Sent a fax?

I can't answer for you. I can only answer for myself. And I did what I thought was right.

Vincenzo.

I can be reached through the NYFairUse Discuss mailing list

btw, this is just one member's opinion. For official positions by NYLXS or NYFairUse , go to their web sites.

Ummm. The "media industries" are not countries, so why would they ever view you as "citizens" instead of "consumers"?

Well of course they would not, but the government is supposed to view us as citizens. Over the last few years the US government has started to refer to us as "consumers" however, which implies that to some extent the government has transitioned into a media company. Certainly the boundaries have gotten hazy. It is as if the government exists to provide the legal clout to protect the market for media industry. So it is not fair to split them apart as you have.

A current example of this thinking in US government is the aptly named Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act, available here.

Here is an example of US government language from this bill:

• (17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" technology. Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers's desire to access digital content.

The sale of entertainment related content has become a very large industry for the United States. Much of the US related manufacturing revenue has moved overseas during the past 40 years or so -- one of the few markets that the US still leads is "entertainment." The dollars do not just go to the "industries" and the stockholders. Entertainment related dollars employ millions of US citizens, pay taxes, and support US politicians. As long as the dollar value is high you are spitting in the wind, unless you think a revolution is brewing. But revolutions only change what group of people collect the money.

The only way for an individual to escape is to be a producer instead of a consumer. Becoming a producer also empowers one to arbitrarily force fair use onto those commercial media one chooses to purchase (assuming that the "industry" fails to plug the analog hole.) But that arbitration remains a personal thing for those that have some sophistication as producers, rather than for "consumers" in general.

FIRST, read the bill. Second, read Berman's analysis. Third, read Berman's statement.

Only then should you write a letter to your representative. And be sure to back up your statments very thoroughly if they contradict Berman's in any way.

If you'd like to have someone try to tear holes in your argument, feel free to reply here :).

It doesn't have one yet, but the text of the bill as introduced, is posted (in pdf format) on Declan McCullagh's site.

From the analysis, prepared by Rep. Berman and friends:

"Nor could copyright owners avail themselves of the safe harbor for interdiction efforts on websites, FTP sites, IM services, or IRC channels. The definition is structured so narrowly to ensure that the safe harbor is only available in circumstances in which copyright owners have no effective alternative to technological self-help for addressing infringements."

So does this mean that if it can be shown that the copyright owner could have dealt with the problem in a different way, they'd be liable as if they had no safe harbor?

Ahh, Symantec pledges to acquiese to FBI backdoor demands

This is a real problem and needs to be addressed.

Has Symantec policy changed with respect to things
like magic lantern and so forth?

bugtraq. Poof.

Oh, and since NTK is slashdotted already, you might want to read the original politech message to see what we're talking about.

Oh, and since NTK is slashdotted already, you might want to read the original politech message to see what we're talking about.

Anthrax, no way. That has to be some kooky retired redneck general with keys to the lab, or, worse, someone who still works in the lab. The targets (Judith Miller, Sen. Daschle, Tom Brokaw) are hardly folks that would be high on al-Qaeda's list of most heinous infidels.... if anything, they are all more visible to and hated by elements of the American right. Interestingly enough, the attack on Daschle (which was perhaps an attack on all of Congress rather than him personally, who knows) came just as the patriot act was being debated on the Hill. Who would gain from spreading that particular kind of fear at that particular moment? Hardly Osama bin Laden. In fact, in papers found on a computer bought by a reporter in Afghanistan, an al Qaeda operative admits in a memo that "despite their extreme danger, we only became aware of [chemical and biological weapons] when the enemy drew our attention to them by repeatedly expressing concern that they can be produced simply."

(By the way let's not forget that al Qaeda's nuclear weapons plans included an internet spoof from the "Journal of Irreproducible Results"....)

These people may want to kill all Americans, but they are not the most sophisticated bunch, no matter how well orchestrated 9-11 was. That anthrax was home grown, and it was probably someone who still has access to a biodefense lab, and his identity is possibly well known to a number of people around him who find him embarassing and dangerous but protect him anyway because they've known him for so many years.

Don't be surprised if that's not far from the truth. Anyone who remembers the RIAA's bid to gain the rights to hack into peoples' computers looking for pirated music, and was, around the same time, a Politech reader, might remember an exchange with an industry spokesman where it was openly admitted that the RIAA sits in and even drafts pieces of legislation.

Don't be surprised if that's not far from the truth. Anyone who remembers the RIAA's bid to gain the rights to hack into peoples' computers looking for pirated music, and was, around the same time, a Politech reader, might remember an exchange with an industry spokesman where it was openly admitted that the RIAA sits in and even drafts pieces of legislation.

More than five years ago, the German zine 'Radikal' published instructions on preventing nuclear-waste transport by rail, which have since been placed onto the internet. Deutsche Bahn, the German rail operator has responded with lawsuits against the original host, search engines, and Indymedia-NL. Indymedia-NL had links to mirrors of the zine, indirectly linking to the instructions, which were published as a comment on its open-publishing newswire.

On June 20, a Dutch judge ordered Indymedia-NL to remove the links, requiring "Indymedia immediately after receiving this sentence to remove and to keep removed the hyperlinks, which are placed on (a) website(s) under the control of Indymedia, if those hyperlinks lead directly or indirectly to the Radikal article."

Indymedia-NL has responded with a press release, stating that they consider "the ruling a dramatic limitation of the possibilities of the Internet and the freedom of speech."

(c) Independent Media Center. All content is free for reprint and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere, for non-commercial use, unless otherwise noted by author.

See here.

Here are some claims in the bill submitted by Sen. Hollings et. al. that could potentially be affected by this law (the interesting ones in bold):

The Congress finds:
(1) The lack of high quality digital content continues to hinder consumer adoption of broadband Internet service and digital television products.
(2) Owners of digital programming and content are increasingly reluctant to transmit their products unless digital media devices incorporate technologies that recognize and respond to content security measures designed to prevent theft.
(3) Because digital content can be copied quickly, easily, and without degradation, digital programming and content owners face an exponentially increasing piracy threat in a digital age.
(4) Current agreements reached in the marketplace to include security technologies in certain digital media devices fail to provide a secure digital environment because those agreements do not prevent the continued use and manufacture of digital media devices that fail to incorporate such security technologies.
(5) Other existing digital rights management schemes represent proprietary, partial solutions that limit, rather than promote, consumers' access to the greatest variety of digital content possible.
(6) Technological solutions can be developed to protect digital content on digital broadcast television and over the Internet. [OK, this is probably true since it does not mention the level of protection.]
(7) Competing business interests have frustrated agreement on the deployment of existing technology in digital media devices to protect digital content on the Internet or on digital broadcast television.
(8) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to the dissemination, and on-line availability, of high quality digital content, which will benefit consumers and lead to the rapid growth of broadband networks.
(9) The secure protection of digital content is a necessary precondition to facilitating and hastening the transition to high-definition television, which will benefit consumers.
(10) Today, cable and satellite have a competitive advantage over digital television because the closed nature of cable and satellite systems permit encryption, which provides some protection for digital content.
(11) Over-the-air broadcasts of digital television are not encrypted for public policy reasons and thus lack protections afforded to programming delivered via cable or satellite.
(12) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(13) Consumers receive content such as video or programming in analog form.
(14) When protected digital content is converted to analog for consumers, it is no longer protected and is subject to conversion into unprotected digital form that can in turn be copied or redistribute illegally.
(15) As solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(16) Unprotected digital content on the Internet is subject to significant piracy, through illegal file sharing, downloading, and redistribution over the Internet.
(17) Millions of Americans are currently downloading television programs, movies, and music on the Internet and by using "file-sharing" technology. Much of this activity is illegal, but demonstrates consumers's desire to access digital content.
(18) Piracy poses a substantial economic threat to America's content industries.
(19) A solution to this problem is technologically feasible but will require government action, including a mandate to ensure its swift and ubiquitous adoption.
(20) Providing a secure, protected environment for digital content should be accompanied by a preservation of legitimate consumer expectations reading use of digital content in the home.
(21) Secure technological protections should enable owners to disseminate digital content over the Internet without frustrating consumers' legitimate expectations to use that content in a legal manner.
(22) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate legitimate home use of digital content.
(23) Technologies used to protect digital content should facilitate individuals' ability to engage in legitimate use of digital content for educational or research purposes.

(I got the above text from the politechbot page.)

Now, I don't have a clue whether the above document falls under the new law or not. Certainly it makes a number of claims and conclusions without using statistics (except the vague "millions"), so perhaps it would be protected by its ambiguity. But: If it is subject to the new law, then that means that any citizen can challenge the veracity of any phrase in proposed legislation. Big can o' worms! And if it's not subject, then expect even less actual background information in future bills as they are made more and more ambiguous so they do not become subject to the new law.