Slashdot Mirror
DeCSS Depositions Begin
Booker
noted that cryptome has the
DeCSS deposition now online for folks to read it. Hopefully someone can post a translation: I'm reading it and just seeing a lot of objecting and refusing to answer questions.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
In fact, that exchange was in my original submission for the story... I understand that Mr. Garbus is what... in his 50s? And Linux etc is a pretty new thing for him. He's worked really hard to try to understand what's going on... but reading this deposition has a "comedy of errors" feeling to it. Lots of things that show that they really don't quite know what's going on.
:/
I'd like to see a place where those people who are "in the know" could review the case materials (they're all faithfully posted to cryptome) and try to correct the technical errors in their strategy, re-explain the things that are causing confusion, etc.
These are the people who are gonna make the laws when they set this precedent on the DMCA, and it seems that they're floundering a bit.
---
That looks almost like a bad turing test.
From that, I take it you have concluded that Lawyers are not yet intelligent.
Time/Warner filed to remove our hero, Martin Garbus, because the law firm he is a partner in is representing Time/Warner in another, unrelated matter.
The judge ruled that the matters are unrelated, but before he did, he ordered Garbus not to interview any people from Time/Warner.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
I suggest skipping ahead to page 87, line 15, and starting from there. You won't miss much.
We spend so much time reading dispositions, lawsuits, trials, anti-trust crap....
Considering the number of page views they get from us debating legal stuff we are probably ignorant about, can't they at least afford legal council for us?
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
Hehe, reminds me of that Seinfeld routine where he's talking about lawyers. He said that when lawyers say "Your Honor, I object" it's lawyer-speak for "'Fraid not". And when the judge overrules the objection it means "'Fraid so".
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
A complete prick? This is slightly acrimonious, but not nasty or unprofessional. It is what you should expect from serious hardcore lawyers. They don't get into screaming fights, but neither do they hold hands and sing "Kumbayah."
OK, I agree with you here, it seems to be a lot about having the best lawyers. However, I think Garbus seems to be a good one, he just hasn't got all this stuff right, besides, it is not easy to say if he did get it wrong, or if something was lost in the transcription.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I'd agree, but I'd also note that this principle has its limits: witness the disastrous Gates deposition. It's important that the witness walk a line between not volunteering information and outright stonewalling.
I think the following sections show that theory to be flawed: Q. CSS-auth we have agreed is a Linux BSD program written by the Livid Group? A. It is a Linux program written by Derek Fawcus. --- Q. Do you know whether or not it is a Linux BSD program? A. Can you describe Linux BSD? Q. You previously said that CSS-auth was a Linux BSD program. A. I belief I said CSS-auth was a Linux program.
3 compression algorithm of the content, the length of
4 the movie, the additional items on the disk.
5 Q. Assuming that a movie consists of 4
6 gigabytes of data, would it take more than 200
7 hours to transfer a movie via standard 56K modem
8 connection to the internet?
9 A. I haven't done the math.
(Skip a bit)
14 Q. What is your answer?
15 A. Approximately 160 hours.
16 Q. Can you tell us how you arrived at
17 that computation?
18 A. I took 4 gigabytes, multiplied it by
19 8 to get gigabits, divided that by 56,000 bits per
20 second. This is not completely precise, but close
21 enough, I assume. I Divided by 56,000 bits per
22 second, giving me the total number of seconds,
23 divided that by 3,600, which is the number of
24 seconds in an hour, to arrive at approximately 160
25 hours.
Okay, that is assuming you can connect to the internet at 56,000 bits per second (actually, with a 56k modem, it would be 56,600). The maximum you can connect at (according to FCC power regulations) is 53,333 bits per second, making the end figure approximately 167 hours. Add to that the fact that a good majority of people with 56k modems can't connect at a v.90 speed, I'll assume the average connect speed with a 56k modem is 38,000. That brings the final calucation to 234 hours. (Of course, this is assuming the internet is perfect; you're not going to get a sustained transfer rate equal to the connection rate.) Quite a difference, huh?
Don't want to pay Lars? Sue him!
Heh... in honor of the fucking MPAA's lawyer, Mr. Gold, I am going to "object to the form of this comment."
Seriously though... why does he object to the form of every other question? Just goes to show that the MPAA doesn't feel that they have too great of a case and have to win it on legal nitpicking. Bastards.
--
The MPAA depositions treat it as proven that DeCSS is a device which circumvents copy protection. I'm not sure anyone has done a good enough job there of educating the judge that what it circumvents is not copy protection, inasmuch as copies can be made of ciphertext, but player control, controlling what devices customers can use to play their DVDs. If this is not done I predict (regretfully) that MPAA will prevail.
To make matters worse, this line of questioning was actually regarding the distributed form of DeCSS - nothing to do with the DVD itself. It was shortly after this that Mr. Garbus demanded the man's hard drive, I think. :/
---
MR. GARBUS: Mr. Schumann, is it or is it not true that while at Computex in Taipei, Taiwan, last week, you stole a Taiwanese boy's pants and used them for your own private use? Did you know you were in fact commiting a crime against major movie studios, and that the MPAA are very concerned about this?
MR. SCHUMANN: No, I was not aware.
--------
Oscarfish.com: tropical fish with attitude. Way t
I assumed he was actually saying "Linux/BSD", meaning that the programs are relevant to both operating systems. Though it is pretty funny that he was corrected by the witness.
My point, taken from the DeCSS deposition:
A. I do not.
A. Can you describe Linux BSD?
A. I belief I said CSS-auth was a Linux program.
A. I believe it is.
It's no wonder some of the large companies with very well paid lawyers can manage to get UCITA and the DMCA passed, as well as coming up with these blatently illegal (or at least shifty) EULAs (IMHO acronyms are fun.). I honestly hope that as the younger generation, which has been more exposed to computers and technology than any other before it, grows up, things like this will not so easily be slipped under the public eye. At the same time, I can look at my peers who can't even get into MS Office, and realize that that hope will probably never come true.
-- Wedg
Jake
Dating: while( 1 ){ call_girl(); get_rejected(); drink_40(); } return 0;
4 MR. GARBUS: It occurs to me,
5 Mr. Gold, that you just might have an
6 objection if I ask for that file.
7 MR. GOLD: I think I would.
8 Although you might have been so amazingly
9 clever I wouldn't have recognized it. I
10 gave him a compliment and I think it
11 deserves to be on the record.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I dunno, this certainly IS relavent, I mean the
very idea that a person could be in legal trouble
because he wrote some code that a company disliked
is frightening...
Though...as to your suggestion...I would rather
not go to Lie School and become a liar myself.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Yea, I was expecting him to say, "I cannot tell you what Linux is, but it is all around us..."
-capt.
Bambi Meets Godzilla (1969)
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Yeah, I was curious about this. Why he said that... I mean, one should think that the MPAA would be hammering on this as well, that DeCSS takes away region codes, but their expert witness says it is irrelevant... I wonder how to best use this, perhaps act stupid, the MPAA should return to the question some time, and perhaps the best would be to say "but your expert witness testified that it was irrelevant...".
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
It's boring stuff.
Reading that u can imagine the lawyer with a gun pointing to the guy.
Here in Spain we don't have those problems...people, when are caught hacking or something, simply dissapear.
And happens the same with those who do not appear on the Media (papers..etc.). They simply dissapear on a mist of strange lawyers appeared from nowhere, and policeman.
They, finally, are gonna make Internet not free.
Most people are looking at this from the wrong prespective. It isn't a interview to obtain information about a subject. It is a deposition that will be used in a trial.
It is like a chess game where both sides are playing for position. The lawyer questioning the witness wants to 'lock-in' the witnesss into a particlular line of testimony without tipping his hand. The lawyer who represents the opposing side wants to avoid that from happening and give as little information as possible to his oppenents.
For example, if a lawyer catches a witness in a lie, he is not going to challenge him on the spot. Instead, he will rephrase the question a couple of different ways to ensure that the witness is truely lying. He will wait for the trial to impeach the witness giving the opposing side less time to react or minimize the damage.
While you are focusing on trivia about Linux/BSD and asking about the hard drive, the lawyer was nailing down certain facts. The witness has never played a copy of the movie. He only viewed the movie using the original DVD.
He also got the witness to declare that he thought DeCSS was not relevant to regional coding. (It doesn't matter whether the lawyer agreed or disagreed, the witness can not go back and change his position without losing credibility in the court room.
The lawyers were also probing the witness about the feasability of transferring files created by DeCSS and if he knew of any instances of a pirated movie being traded or sold. (The witness only knew of the ones from the Hong Kong pirate factories and did not know of any using the DeCSS.)
In my opinion, the biggest win was that the witness admitted that cryptographers learn from reading source code and that it is an 'axiom' of the cryptrophy field that a code that does not have peer review is weaker than one that does.
The witness also admitted that there was merit in a scolarly journal, e.g. ACM's, to include parts of the code in writing an article. In other words, there are other reasons, besides pirating movies to publish the DeCSS.
As for the objections, they basically fell into two catagories: attorney-client privilage and "form".
Reading between the lines, it appears that the witness was hired by the law firm to do some investigation into the case. Any work that was done for the lawyer would fall into the attorney-client privlilage and work-product category. In other words, you don't have to give the other side a blue-print of your case.
The other objections were related to the form of the question. If the question is too ambigious, too complecated, etc., the opposing side will object and the questioning lawyer will rephrase the question.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
MR. GARBUS: If that is so, then we don't get into any disagreement about confidentiality.
MR. GOLD: That's not good enough, because, among other things, I don't want to wake up and see this transcript in the newspaper tomorrow, and I have reasons to believe that that is a possibility, but I won't get into that thoroughly.
In light of this discussion, I have designated the entire transcript as confidential.
There's about 50 or so questions to this effect in differing forms. The jabs from the other lawyer are great like "He is not here as a legal expert and so I am going to put an end to this. If you want legal advice, see your colleagues. They will be happy to help you."
The one asking the questions seems not only technically incompetent (for which I would have expected him to have had an advisor who prompted him with good questions) but doesn't even understand his own questions. Perhaps that's just a clever smoke-screen to allow him to ask some inapropriate questions, but that's pretty far-fetched.
just read whole thing... head very numb now...
'course I'm visible now.
15 Q. Do you know whether the Disney
16 search engine, for example, will do a search if you
17 put in DeCSS?
18 A. If Disney has a search engine, which
19 I will believe is true, I would presume it would.
20 Q. And do you know how many sites then
21 come up under the Disney search?
22 A. I have no knowledge.
23 Q. Is your answer "no knowledge," would
24 that be true with respect to any of the other
25 plaintiffs in this case?
INTERIM COURT REPORTING
136
1 Schumann
2 A. Yes, that's correct.
3 Q. Do you know if the Disney search
4 engine will take you to CSS.auth?
5 A. I have no knowledge.
6 Q. CSS.cat?
7 A. I have no knowledge.
8 Q. Do you have any knowledge of how
9 many people have downloaded or taken off --
10 (Telephone interruption.)
11 BY MR. GARBUS:
12 Q. -- downloaded DeCSS?
13 MR. GOLD: I object to the form.
14 MR. GARBUS: Pardon me?
15 MR. GOLD: I object to the form of
16 the question.
---- "If we have to go on with these damned quantum jumps, then I'm sorry that I ever got involved" - Erwin Schrodinger
Other bits make it sound like the he doesn't understand what he's talking about, technically. E.g., talking about when Robert Schumann (the witnes) tried out DeCSS:
Mr Garbus seems to be unaware that the decrypted version of the DVD file can be deleted.
Other than that, it seems fairly conventional [to my limited experience, IANAL] The Mr Garbus is doing the usual trick of multi-threading several lines of questioning so that it's harder for the witness to work out what he's leading to.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
This is so very scary. Seems like this lawyer just doesn't quite get it. But, he's a professional, assumedly, and intelligent, assumedly, and dangerous in that he's probably not the only one...
I assume this excerpt is about the printing of Linux DVD development mailing list logs: (emphasis mine)
A. I downloaded a -- I didn't download.
There is a large amount of Linux DVD development, I
guess, history that you looked through.
Q. You chose not to put that into your
affidavit?
A. It is three inches of paper.
MR. GARBUS: I ask that that be
produced.
MR. GOLD: I will take it under
advisement.
And this is about, I guess, proving that Schumann downloaded and used DeCSS. And how...?
Q. Isn't DeCSS designed to send the
material to a permanent computer file or a
computer's hard drive?
A. That is the function that it
performs, yes.
Q. So wouldn't you have that hard
drive?
A. Certainly.
Q. Where would that hard drive be?
A. It would be in a computer in my
office.
MR. GARBUS: Will you produce
that?
MR. GOLD: The entire computer in
his office?
MR. GARBUS: The hard drive.
MR. GOLD: You want the whole hard
drive?
MR. GARBUS: Yes.
19 Q. To your knowledge, was MORE or any
20 members of MORE involved in the decrypting of
21 DeCSS?
22 A. Can you define "decrypting"?
23 MR. GARBUS: Withdraw the
24 question.
Damn Stupid Lawyers
Nah. I think this is more like the 18 wheeler hitting a Pinto from behind.
I've just got one question:-
When they keep saying "linux" in the transcript, how are they pronouncing it???!!:-)
lol.. sounds like a plan.
--
|-_-| . o O ( bEef!)
Maybe Linus is the first Open Source Human? Just hope he's a stable build...
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Well, it seems you have missed a point, Garbus is our man.... :-) Yeah, he mixes up things badly at the start, but it improves as you go down.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
"they"? FYI, the "they" you refer to, the party asking for the hard drive entered as evidence, is Martin Garbus, the defendants' lawyer. Mr. Schumann, the witness being interviewed, is MPAA's witness trying to testify that DeCSS is a piracy tool.
From your attitude and comments I'd guess you think DeCSS shouldn't be under a lawsuit right now. If that's true, your reading of the transcript was TOTALLY off track. If stuff like this is too hard for you to understand, please don't even try, because obviously it only serves to further confuse the issue and cause you to spread misinformation.
Ask a silly person, get a silly answer.
True. Also, understanding the technical issues is not the be-all and end-all of a defence case. If he's good at lawyering, that's probably the main thing.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Yes, I chose my wording badly and I apologise to him for it. It's great that there's a competent lawyer working on the defence, and it's great that the team are listening.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
How about the defense lawyers take a stardard encripted DVD, copy the DVD in question bit-for-bit, burn it to a blank DVD and pop it into a handy DVD player. While this is going on, make everyone in the court room sit there, and when the process is done in about, several hours, there will be a copied DVD, not using DeCSS, which would more or less end the trial. And to further punctuate how stupid the entire thing is send the copy ov the DVD image across a 10 base T (standard college network, in my expierence) and see how long that takes. Im my best uneducated guess the entire process will take the better part of a day or two. I have no idea what the actual times are, but it seems to me that that would show the judge, jury, whoever that this is just another waste of the courts time.
On the contrary, the last thing the MPAA wants to do is admit that DeCSS has applications that seem perfectly legitimate to the man on the street and/or fall within traditional fair use doctrine.
Let slip the fact that the stakes are the MPAA's ability to preserve market cartelization (region coding) and push extra advertizing (fast-forward lockout), not the ability to curtail bootlegging, and they lose the PR part of the political battle.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
No, becuase the 'poor' are too damn stupid to know how to grow food or do much of anything without the rich organizing, training, and supplying equipment to them.
In most instances (repeat for emphasis _most instances_) being 'rich' means that a person through their own hard work and enginuity created something better than the sum of the available parts, and resultantly got some portion of the benefit. If thats organizing people to tend fields, or building tractors, or creating crops with better yeilds, or whatever.. that 'rich' person made life a little better for the people around him.
So go starve the rich, see how far you get when nobody is around to build tractors to plow the fields, and trains to transport the food, or medical supplies for the 'poor' who can't manage to do much of anything but consume resources and breed.
Here's a clue; the cold war is over and guess what? The comunists/socialists lost.
I just looked over their website and according to their faq they provide 'food', I don't see training or water purification equipment! I didn't see any 'donate a tractor now' button either. They do state that occasionally they will entice people to get out of their squalor and do something useful for their comunity by bribing them with food. I guess for some if planting a field now doesn't feed us today then there is no point. *shrug*
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
He mostly emphasizes that despite the dificulty of making pirated DVDs, there is a real danger of pirating DVD movies by compressing the DeCSS'd movie files with DivX, which he claims can currently compress a movie to 1.2Gb, small enough to put on two CDR's, or to send over a 100Mbs LAN in 7 minutes.
That would explain all the questions about DivX and CDRs. I seem to recall that the witness admitted that he has not actually viewed any movies that were compressed with DivX or put on a CDR.
He also attacks the argument that DeCSS has "legitimate academic, commercial or scientific value", noting that if this were the case, then it would only be available in source code, since, it is hard to learn how a program works from a compiled binary.
That also explains some of the questions. The witness kept referring to the .exe files. Which is probably why the lawyer asked exactly how he got the file. (I recall the witness saying that the MPAA provided them and he did not download them himself.) It also explains why the lawyer kept asking if the witness knew if the MPAA provided everything they downloaded.
For those critics saying this is boring: it is no more boring than watching a chess game. If you understand some of the startegy, it is extremely interesting. If you don't know anything about chess, it is extremely boring.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
This was clarified elsewhere in the deposition, where it was clarified that by "Linux" they were referring to Linux developers or Linux-related companies.
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
A common thing for a lawyer to do when beginning a deposition is to ask for the home and business address of the deponent. That's probably what was marked confidential on page 4.
Not only that but I suspect he is labouring under the popular misaprehension that the hard-drive =PC-(keyboard+monitor+mouse), i.e. the case and the bits inside. I think it would be quite amusing if the witness turned up with the little black/silver box, 3.5"x6"x1" with the Western Digital label on and the lawyer guy spent ten minutes trying to find the VGA port.
Rich
Since more than half the score 2+ comments at the time I write this (pretty early into the thread) have totally confused who's who, let's try to explain: MR GOLD: The plaintiffs' (MPAA/studios) lawyer MR GARBUS: The defendants' (2600, DeCSS) lawyer, who MPAA has tried to get thrown off the case MR SCHUMANN: A witness for MPAA. Hopefully, now that you know this much, please also realize that lawyers, even smart, good lawyers that might be on YOUR side, don't necessarily know each detail about, for instance, how Linux DVD device drivers interact with the hardware, or that sort of thing. They don't need to, either. What they need to be able to do is to argue their point to a judge who doesn't know that either, and convince him/her that they are right. Thus, it isn't necessarily a failure that they might not get each and every technical detail completely right. And as to trying to get MPAA's witness to provide his computer for evidence, you can bet that the other side would try to do the exact same thing - so why would it not be a valid move for the defendants?
Ask a silly person, get a silly answer.
Since more than half the score 2+ comments at the time I write this (pretty early into the thread) have totally confused who's who, let's try to explain:
MR GOLD: The plaintiffs' (MPAA/studios) lawyer
MR GARBUS: The defendants' (2600, DeCSS) lawyer, who MPAA has tried to get thrown off the case
MR SCHUMANN: A witness for MPAA.
Ask a silly person, get a silly answer.
Is it me, or is every question asked at the beginning responded to with some form of "I don't know?" I'm no lawyer, but one would think that if I were taking a deposition, I would ask questions that I KNEW there were answers for, and ask the useless stuff later.
... NO. Do you know what this is? NO.
Do you know so and so? NO. Did you ever hear of
I gave up after reading the first several pages.. almost looked like they asked my Grandma to testify in Microsoft's case.. and she can't even type.
We don't need no Net Explorer We don't need no Thought control
Mr. Gold would likely not make all these objections at trial, but if he does not make them now, he cannot make them at trial. The witness will answer the question notwithstanding the objection unless Mr. Gold specifically instructs the witness not to answer the question. There is nothing unusual or unprofessional about Mr. Gold's conduct in this regard.
This was amusing, but I seems like Garbus had a purpose here - he is trying to establish whether this clown actually did the things (downloaded and used DeCSS) that he said he did before initiating the suit, or if he's just parroting what his techs have told him to say. The plaintiff have had credibility with the judge because they have appeared (to him) to know what they're talking about. This is a first step in destroying that credibility, and exposing the knee-jerk, know-nothing reasoning that led to this suit being filed in the first place.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal...
Despite all the hoopla and heat and large amounts of time being wasted by a lot of people on this issue, at the end of the day, what will happen is what people on the net want to happen. The genie's out of the bottle, and nothing short of a total international police state has any chance of putting the little people back "into their place". Men with guns will still try to exert the will of those in political and monetary power every now and then, but you can't successfully hold back the tide with the occasional sweep of a broom.
;-) Like supports like. Don't expect any acceptance of the new online reality from that quarter.
Nor can you do so with commandments from on high. The pronouncements of judges or of Moses himself won't make any real difference at all except in closing off one particular avenue or another. But there are infinite avenues to try.
Furthermore, only lawyers gain from the current focus on appealing to reason through the courts. It's doomed to failure simply because the courts are part of the establishment, whereas everyone associated with the net is a heinous outlaw.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Perhaps the most important question was when the witness was asked whether the MPAA lawyer was his lawyer. The answer was "I am a hired expert witness", then Mr. Gold put a quick stop to that line of questioning. Attorney-client privilige only applies to discussions between an attorney and his client, which the witness was not. No wonder Garbus was livid in his appeals to the court to get the MPAA to quit abusing the attorney-client and work-product priviliges!
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
When I said "they," I meant the lawyers, of course. You read too far into things man.
Yes, I don't think this case has a point. Why? Because it has NOTHING to do with DeCSS other than 2600 provided links to it. I guess rootshell better shutdown quick before someone sues them for hosting denial of service attacks. wooo.
All 2600 did was link to files. Hollywood doesn't like these files (ok, I can see where they are coming from and agree that DeCSS isn't the "best" thing out there) and demands that 2600 censor information. I applaud 2600 for standing up for our free speech.
Again, all that this lawsuit will prove in the end is that money buys censorship. If a company doesn't like something, shut the people up and keep their mouths closed with beurocratic red tape.
Yes, DeCSS could destroy DVD by making studios cautios about releasing big titles on DVD.
No, 2600 should not be responsable for a program that they linked to.
In the deposition, they point to meaningless issues of Mr. Schumann trying out DeCSS himself. They try to accuse him of pirating a movie when all he was guilty was of curiosity about some cryptography.
Whoops.. I guess its illegal to be curious or inquisitive in this world. I guess we should all shutup, fall in line, take a number, and fit into YOUR cookie cutter mould. Bah, not for me.
Lighten up. The CREATORS of DeCSS should be under lawsuit, not the people who were talking about it.
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
But they made their fortune when they discovered that their machine also worked in reverse...
--
Here's my mirror
--
Here's my mirror
For some more substantive tidbits, I actually read the whole thing (I have an advantage, I'm used to doing this sort of thing -- I used to be a consulting economist and I have read many of these puppies). Aside from the nice chunk pulled out by inquis, they cover:
To start, here's a good chunk from inside around pages 82 and 83.
To summarize, Schumann has stated for the record that DeCSS is not intended to evade region coding or fast-forward through copyright notices and the like.
From pages 106-109:
So Schumann has does not know about (even secondhand) any DVDs that have been pirated using DeCSS; nor do the plaintiffs, the MPAA, or their lawyers.
From pages 119 and 120:
So Schumann can't say anything about the quality of a video file after it's passed through DeCSS -- he can't contradict the Toronto Star article. It does not matter whether or not the MPEG file plays properly or not; only that Schumann can't say anything about them. Folks reading here will know that the bits from the file are the same after such a symmetric encryption/decryption, anyhow.
On pages 134-136:
Schumann doesn't know about Infoseek (owned by Disney, one of the plaintiffs) having links via their search engine to DeCSS, CSS.auth, etc.
There's some more stuff, but it does get repetitive after a while. Hope this helps some of the folks who are less legal-oriented.
--Paul
So assuming that the DeCSS case will wind up in the worst case scenario, i.e., the companies outlaw knowladge, I think it would be a great time for programmers to being to unionize, and go on strike.
I think Jello Biafra said it pretty good in Electronic Plantation
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
Windows NT is based on VMS, so the first one isn't far off.
neither of whose subtleties a court reporter would understand.
i was just waiting for the hordes to leap upon that glaring wrongness.
as for grabbing a hard drive, well, it's nice to give as we get. might as well harass them too.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
Only Big Brother would sue Emmanuel Goldstein, the "Enemy of the People."
Atrifact of stenographer , probably...
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
I wonder if the AARP will jump on the bandwagon as well... now *THATS* something to be afraid of *G*
-- Dr. Eldarion --
No, I sent in info on the depo post, right after it went up.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
If I understand this correctly, it is mostly about Martin Garbus representing 2600 questioning Robert W. Schumann, who appearing as a technical person kind of for the MPAA. Don't flame me if I haven't got this right, it isn't really clear what's going on here....
Actually, I didn't see them really entering the topic of links in any depth. That's what this particular case is about, isn't it?
Now, the only point that was made that was a bit interesting, is this: Infoseek is a Disney search engine. Disney is among the plaintiffs. Has Infoseek linked any of the code? Of course they have!
Other than that, Leon P. Gold, representing the plaintiffs did appear pretty arrogant. When trying to stop Garbus mouth from asking difficult questions about what the witness was doing there, we read
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Q. Tell me, what does DeCSS do?
A. DeCSS, as described in my
Declaration, DeCSS performs three -- has three
parts to it, if you will. It authorizes the DVD
drive to release the CSS protected information, it
allows its user, through user interface, to select
one or more files from the DVD to copy.
Both select what to copy and also
where to copy those data files, and that can be on
any, I guess, connected drive or network connection
that is attached to their computer in the standard
Windows file system. And then after the user
indicates what files they would like to decipher
and store, it then proceeds to read -- decrypt the
contents of those files and store them where
indicated by the user.
Q. And you indicated that you undertook
that exercise; is that correct?
A. I did run the DeCSS, yes.
Q. What movie did you use?
A. I don't recall. It may have been, I
think, The Matrix came out around then.
Q. Do you know how big the movie was,
how many gigabytes?
A. It was 4 or 6 gigabytes. It was
probably 4 gigabytes.
Q. Do you have a record of what movie
you viewed?
A. I doubt I kept a detailed written
record of it.
Q. You actually don't know what movie
it was or how big it was?
A. Not exactly, no.
Q. Did you leave the deciphered or
decrypted files on your hard drive?
A. I doubt I did. I may have.
Q. How big is your hard drive?
A. I think the machine that ran on was,
I don't know, 10, 12 gigabytes.
Q. Did you have to clear files out in
order to make room to store the movie?
A. No.
Q. You had between 4 and 6 open
gigabytes of space on your hard drive?
A. Yes.
Q. You didn't play it, so you don't
know if it would actually play?
A. I played it from the DVD.
Q. But you didn't play it from the
stored files; is that correct?
A. I did not.
So Schumann, the guy that is supposed to testify the DeCSS can be used to decrypt DVDs never played back the movie he copied! And, deleted the copy of the movie from his HD afterwards This has to hurt the MPAA case.
Most of the rest of the testimony deals with how Schumann became aware of DeCSS, what other methods of pirating DVDs already existed prior to DeCSS being written (using a video capture card to re-record to VCD); the impracticality of copying a DVD (DVD-R's not readily available, can't download a DVD movie over a 56k modem, loss of quality if put on VCD, etc.); and, whether there were any known cases of DeCSS being used for pirating.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
Good analogy, but I was thinking more along the lines of a freight train.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Bablefish or any other online translator could handle legal mumbo jumbo. You could feed it an entire court proceeding and all bablefish would have to say is: "That guy is screwed!"
Just a thought.
Q: To your knowledge, was MORE or any members of MORE involved in the decrypting of DeCSS?
A: Can you define "decrypting"?
Mr. Garbus: Withdraw the question.
Q: CSS-auth we have agreed is a Linux BSD program written by the Livid Group?
...
A: It is a Linux program written by Derek Fawcus.
Q: Do you know who developed CSS-cat?
A: I do not.
Q: Do you know whether or not it is a Linux BSD program?
A: Can you describe Linux BSD?
Q: Where would that hard drive be?
A: It would be in a computer in my office.
Mr. Garbus: Will you produce that?
Mr. Gold: The entire computer in his office?
Mr. Garbus: The hard drive.
Mr. Gold: You want the whole hard drive?
Mr. Garbus: Yes.
Mr. Gold: I object to that as irrelevant.
Mr. Garbus: So it is your position that all the questions I would have after January 14th of this witness are subject to the attorney-client privilege?
Mr. Gold: I don't know. I don't think I could answer that question now. I don't know what you are going to ask.
Q: What was the difference in time, if you remember, between the time you downloaded the DeCSS and you downloaded the materials?
A: It was infinite.
Q: When you say you have spoken to people at those companies, who is it that you have spoken to at each of the companies? For example, Universal.
Mr. Gold: If it was after January of 00, don't answer. If it was before, don't answer.
A: I assume my business -- confidential information is covered under the confidentiality clause, the earlier confidentiality issue.
Q: You have a lawyer there.
Q: Did you download any materials in addition to that which was sent to you by the MPAA from either of these websites prior to January 14th?
A: How do you describe "download"?
Q: Take it off the machine and print it.
Mr. Garbus: It occurs to me, Mr. Gold, that you just might have an objection if I ask for that file.
Mr. Gold: I think I would. Although you might have been so amazingly clever I wouldn't have recognized it. I gave him a compliment and I think it deserved to be on the record.
Q: What is his background?
A: He is an IT professional.
Q: What does that mean?
Q: Do you know what strings are?
A: Strings?
Q: Yes.
A: In the computer sense?
Q: Yes.
A: I believe so, yes.
Q: Tell me what they are.
A: Strings is typically a term used to define a sequence of text characters.
A: It's clearly an area that is an area of, I guess, hot development, if you will, or interesting development and is, at this point, obviously gotten attention.
Q: When you say "hot", what do you mean by "hot"?
A: Hot as an area of developmental activity.
Q: Be more specific. Can you?
A: By "hot", I referred to by having public focus on it, if you will.
Mr. Gold: He testified to a lot of --
Mr. Garbus: We disagree. We will get a ruling on it.
Mr. Gold: What you won't do is interrupt me. So if you will hold your horses and your fire for just a few seconds, I will finish.
By the way, if you haven't realized, Mr. Garbus is the guy on "our" side, asking the questions. The witness answering is a stooge for the MPAA. The above collection is only meant to point out some funny things and is not representative of the whole deposition. Towards the latter half, Mr. Garbus asked some real pointed questions that bolstered the defendants' case.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
Parts of it are marked confidential, see begining (lines 8-13 on page 4), so it looks like Mr Gold got his way.
Um, no. Gold wanted the whole thing marked confidential. The fact that you are reading it means Gold lost. They had a hearing and the judge sided with Garbus (except that journalists can't actually attend the depositions - they can only get the transcripts). Only personal information and things that are truly trade secrets will be redacted. Otherwise, 'prominent' people's depositions will be released to the public within 3 days, all others within 10 days. Anything released can be posted on the net.
"Wow, so now Linux is a legal entity? Last I checked, it was just a kernel... "
Watch out, they'll misunderstand and think you said 'colonel' and try suing the U.S. Army.
-- "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joseph Stalin
MR. GARBUS: When you say you have spoken to people at those companies, who is it that you have
spoken to at each of the companies? For example,
Universal.
MR. GOLD to Mr. Schumann: If it was after January of 00, don't answer. If it was before, don't answer.
I guess that about covers all the bases....
'sapientia potestas est'
I interpret this as Schumann being nitpicky here. Performing the CSS decryption is one part to the job. But, unless I'm mistaken, DeCSS (or its firmware equivilent in a OTS DVD player) does not have a part in the process of evaluating the region code. That's up to a different component.
Or am I mistaken?
>but reading this deposition has a "comedy of errors"
>feeling to it. Lots of things that show that they really don't quite know what's going on.
Actually, I think you wrongly get this impression because (like me) you are unfamiliar with the arena. Reading it, I get the impression of a master at work. The law is not about technology but principles, and so even in this highly technical case some instances of technical accuracy (or innacuracy) are simply of secondary priority to getting other things right - other things that may be so esoteric as to be missed by us, but in this arena can have significant repercussions.
Our whole attitude has been that the ramifications of case are bigger than DeCSS, and Garbus has his mind firmly on getting the job done using the methods that work in the courts. Some of the criticisms posted have been ideologically driven (eg that a particular distinction is important and must be preserved, when such a distinction is only directly important when working in this arena, not his).
17 Q. What was the difference in time, if
18 you remember, between the time you downloaded the
19 DeCSS and you downloaded the materials?
20 A. It was infinite.
21 Q. Did you do it the same day?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Which did you do first, to the best
24 of your recollection?
25 A. I'm sorry. I did not download the
INTERIM COURT REPORTING
40
1 Schumann
2 materials I reviewed that is attached here. I did
3 not do the downloading. I reviewed downloaded
4 materials, which is what I said in my affidavits,
5 but I did not, myself, download these materials.
6 Q. Your colleagues did?
7 A. They did not.
8 Q. Who did?
9 A. My client did.
10 Q. Which client?
11 A. That would have been MPAA.
I got lost here.. is he saying that he worked for
the MPAA?
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
Guys/gals, put this one down as a typographical error before we start looking too petty, and let's start looking at the real substance of what the two sides are saying.
It's just a matter of hacking a simple perl script, all the stuff is so regular it shouldn't be problem getting good HTML from it. I just haven't got the time.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I think they meant decrypt CSS, (accually reverse-engineer). Which was done to create DeCSS.
That's why you're an AC?
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
If nothing else, I think this points up a new career opportunity for geeks -- "High Tech Court Reporter." Between the oddly phrased questions from the lawyers and the obvious transcription errors, the deposition in its current form is a sure cure for sanity (and I'm only up to the lunch break).
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
The law firm Garbus works with also had a relationship with Time Warner. At the time of this deposition, the MPAA was trying to get him thrown off the case for this reason. That effort has since failed. In the interim, the judge sought a compromise by allowing him to continue but specifically excluded Time Warner until he had time to decide whether to throw Garbus off the case.
"Give a man a match and he'll be warm for an hour; light him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
****Gfx Scrollbar Special case hit!!*****
BH
Fools! They laughed at me at the Sorbonne...!
No, I got that bit - I assumed from the questioning style that he was cross-examining a prosecution witness.
Unfortunately the MPAA can afford any lawyer they want. Unfortunately that can make a difference. It shouldn't be that way. It shouldn't be possible for *anyone* to be a really outstanding lawyer. There shouldn't be any room for someone to make a difference between being an adequate lawyer and a virtuoso lawyer. How can you pretend justice is being done, if one side might win purely as a result of having better lawyers? Sigh, what a world.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
No intention of taking the piss. I said "inquisitor" cos I took it to be a cross-examination of the other side's witness.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
MR. GOLD: You want the whole hard
drive?
MR. GARBUS: Yes.
Woah. Garbus had me fooled. The way he was talking I just could have sworn he only wanted the first 1024 cylinders!
The lawyer Mr Garbus, keeps referring to "Linux BSD".
Mr Garbus actually is a complete layman about tech matters, although his associate Mr Hernstadt is much more informed. Garbus has posted a couple times to the Openlaw mailing list and it's very clear that he can barely type and that he isn't exactly sure what a mailing list is.
He is, on the other hand, an extremely competent lawyer. John Young, who has attended many of the hearing reports that he is exceedingly composed in front of the often hostile Judge Kaplan. In fact, his effectiveness is starting to score points. In the last hearing (on public access to the transcripts), Kaplan wasn't so hostile to our side. One of the points Garbus then made is that he needs public access because the issues are so technical.
Instead of bashing him as 'computer-illiterate', we need to understand that these things are not obvious and accept the burden to explain them. We're lucky that he is a good enough lawyer to have won us the right to read them at all -- believe me the MPAA brief from Proskaur Rose trying to close off the depositions was no small thing to defeat.
The Openlaw forum is in fairly regular communication with Hernstadt, so when they make errors, we just need to politely put them on a list and explain them so they don't make the same mistake twice.
The whole thing looks like a bunch of back and forth bickering, and to a certain extent it is. Once you understand what is really going on, things become more clear and the exercise becomes more useful.
The purpose (for the defense) of a deposition such as this serves two purposes. First, you try and find out what the potential expert witness knows and has witnessed.
Secondly, and more importantly in the case of this particular expert witness, Mr. Garbus has placed into the record a long list of what Mr. Schumann does not know and does not have knowledge of. For instance, among the hundreds of factoids teased out by Mr. Garbus, it came out that Mr. Schumann has no knowledge of anyone ever using DeCSS to create a pirate DVD disk that was then sold.
This limits the value of the witness to the MPAA at trial. He can't claim that he has seen or heard of anyone using DeCSS to burn a pirate DVD and sell it, because he testified that he hasn't in his deposition. This also gives Mr. Schumann about a hundred different chances to blow his credibility on the stand by contradicting his deposition.
Think of it as seeding the minefield.
This is how the game is played, and you have a front row seat. Enjoy!
Also available on the Cryptome site is a copy of Second Supplemental Declaration of Robert W. Schumann. This is basically his response to his own testimony where it gets to add any additional information he doesn't feel he explained adequately during the questioning.
He mostly emphasizes that despite the dificulty of making pirated DVDs, there is a real danger of pirating DVD movies by compressing the DeCSS'd movie files with DivX, which he claims can currently compress a movie to 1.2Gb, small enough to put on two CDR's, or to send over a 100Mbs LAN in 7 minutes.
He uses Gnutella & Freenet as examples of the real current threat, saying "the most concentrated activity in the unauthorized digital copying and Internet transmission of pirated copies occurs among college-age students. This is not only because of the demographics of age and interest, but also because access to wideband systems is readily available to them."
He also attacks the argument that DeCSS has "legitimate academic, commercial or scientific value", noting that if this were the case, then it would only be available in source code, since, it is hard to learn how a program works from a compiled binary.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
The whole situation of this case has got to be one of the biggest insults to justice that I have ever heard. The people responsible for bringing this case about should be the ones rotting in jail.
Eh...
Aren't you afraid that you'll dissapear for saying that?
Eh...
MR. GOLD: That's not good enough, because, among other things, I don't want to wake up and see this transcript in the newspaper tomorrow, and I have reasons to believe that that is a possibility, but I won't get into that thoroughly.
Hmm. Paranoia? Maybe he reads slashdot.
Seriously, is there any legal reason for the confidentiality discussion?
WTF? We spend so much time reading dispositions, lawsuits, trials, anti-trust crap.... Why even code anymore. Let just drop everything and become a large group of beer lovin lawyers. come on you know you want to :)Oh BTW information should be free like the birdies, or buffalo depending on who you ask.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
All in the first few paragraphs! (I snipped a little for brevity.) These depositions will surely provide countless hours of funny friction, disagreement and roundabout legal-talk!
When asked if "Alcoholics Anonymous" would be jumping on the litigation bandwagon, their spokesman said "Our lawyers are looking into whether is is sufficient to simply have an acronym ending in 'AA' or whether the actual name must also include the words 'American' and 'Association'"
Rich
Why didn't someone make an edited version...and post a link to both the edited and non-edited versions, or a summary or something. There is just too much legal information thrown in to make it very readable.
I swear, your honour!
:-)
It wasn't my fault. I was just holding the knife and the policeman accidentally fell on it 17 times!
(irrelevant to the DeCSS case, but it sprang to mind
Now, seriously, have you ever considered how many times some deeply technical issues are being discussed and decided upon by commitee members and others who are completely clueless on the matter? Or how many times an "expert" has been called (expert being some guy the board members knew of as a "knowledgeable" guy)?
We DO need some experts from the hacker ("hacker" in the proper sense) community down there, guys!
Trian
I'm no longer fed up with MS Windows: I go rid of them
Damn, if people like this are going to be representing either side in this case, I don't hold much hope for anything useful to be accomplished:
Q. Go ahead. What is your understanding of CSS-cat based on its name?
A. It is a mechanism for reading files.
Q. Do you know who developed CSS-cat?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know whether or not it is a Linux BSD program?
A. Can you describe Linux BSD?
Q. You previously said that CSS-auth was a Linux BSD program.
A. I belief I said that CSS-auth was a Linux program.
Say what? What the hell is Linux BSD? If these people have such a feeble grasp on even the names of the technologies that they're fighting over, why are they involved in the trial at all? CSS-cat is a mechanism for reading files? I guess that's... a way of putting it... kinda forgetting the important part of DECRYPTING THE DVD DATA FIRST, which is what this damn thing is all about, yes?
--
Why are Time Warner constantly being singled out as an exception? What am I missing here?
I'd say more like a supercluster hitting a superstring.
every man and every woman is a star
How did he pronounce '00'?
'OO'?
Besides, there wasn't a year 00, or a year 0, although there should have been. But it would have been quite a while ago.
Ask me if I've been required to disclose any crypto keys.
Q. When you say you have spoken to people at those companies, who is it that you have spoken to at each of the companies? For example, Universal.
MR. GOLD: If it was after January of 00, don't answer. If it was before, don't answer.
Gotta luv them lawyers....
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
Why shouldn't he just be asking for the hard drive? That is all he needs in order to find out what is on the computer? DUH
here are some things I found interesting and why I found them so.
page 39 line 25 - page 40 line 11
hmm... so that means that the lawyer only got to see hand-picked posts by 1337 warez d00dz... the signal-to-noise ratio on some lists can be quite low.
page 66 line 18 - page 68 line 16
translation: supposedly "piracy" happens, but I have never seen it happen for myself.oh yea, and a special bonus, following right after the previous quote:
oh, so i've seen a pirated DVD. but it was not from CeCSS.
that's all for this episode... damn this thing is long...
the inquisitor has spoken.
I'd say it's more like a freight train hitting a bicycle.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
depositions- a lot of the deposition is about asking 20 million dumbass questions going into every single little detail about the most trivial things. If you numb the mind of the person you are questioning then they are more likely to slip up when you ask them the important things (usually disguised as more boring detail ones).
Q. Do you know what Linux is?
A. I assume so, yes.
Q. You assume you know?
A. As much as anybody knows what Linux is.
Here's an interesting exchange between Hernstadt and Schumann.
Q. Does DeCSS permit a consumer who has purchased a DVD to fast-forward through sections of a DVD that the manufacturer has prevented from being fast-forwarded?
A. DeCSS itself?
Q. That's my question.
A. No.
Q. Does DeCSS enable someone to use with some other program, like a DVD player, to skip the region code?
A. I think it is irrelevant to that problem.
Q. You think DeCSS is irrelevant to that problem?
A. To the problem of evading region code?
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. In a Declaration if there is a statement that says that DeCSS permits you to evade region coding, a region coding limitation, then that statement is incorrect?
A. In my professional opinion, DeCSS is irrelevant to evading the region coding, in your terminology.
Q. Why is that?
A. Because region coding is not part of the DeCSS specification.
Schumann probably means CSS specification there, but this is still bunk. Hernstadt posted about this dialog on the Openlaw mailing list. We confirmed his beleif that he basically caught Schumann spewing junk, so this'll give us a good chance to "impeach" their expert witness come trial time.
Of course DeCSS lets you evade region codes -- it doesn't pay any attention to it and will decrypt DVD's from all regions. Schumann was clearly trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
15 which Frank Stevenson published DeCSS?
16 A. Do you have a name for that?
17 Q. http/crypto.GQNU/
18 A. I don't believe I know that website.
A wise man once said 'Do you know what you get when you feed a hundred starving childeren? A thousand starving childeren.'
I know it seems cruel at face value to deny a starving person food, but by artificially cirumvend the laws of natural selection is a recipe for disaster.
If you save all the weak or sick members of a herd of anamals (I dono, gazells perhaps) from predators and succoming to their sicknesses then soon you've got a heard of weak sick anamals who can no longer fend for themselves. Whereas if the weak or sick are taken out of the herd by natural selection (at the hands of some chetas or something) then you end up with a healthier herd.
It works the same way with humans dude. In conclusion, let the starving starve; its more humane to their potential offspring.
-- Greg
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
I love this... The MPAA lawyer wanted to have the whole freaking deposition marked confidential, and then he might decide some of it could go out later. This is both a) the funniest suggestion I have seen in a while, and b) the saddest attempt at legal strategy I have seen in a while. If they keep this up, though, the same thing might happen as in the Microsoft case, where the judge just gets so pissed off at their stalling, lying, and obfuscating that he says "we can't trust you on anything, so we're finding you guilty".
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Page 25, starting at around line 17. They get into the definition of a "compressed" file and how he obtained it. Instead of understanding simply "I downloaded the program in a compressed archive, unpacked it and used it," they drag it out to this long winded borefest of who compressed it, how it was compressed, why it was compressed, how long it took to decompress, blah.. god.. it's all like that.. ugh.
4 Q. Well, tell me how you had it
5 compressed.
6 A. I didn't compress it. I received
7 it -- I would have received it, I believe,
8 compressed. I don't remember the details. It's a
9 standard technique, however.
They have the nerve to ask for his harddrive simply because he used DeCSS to see if it would work. It's irrevelant unless they wish to accuse him of stealing movies (like, if he copied lots of movies on his harddrive and ran a site.. that would be bad... but if was just examining DeCSS.. then gimme a break!)
Price, Quality, Time. Pick none. What, you thought you had a choice?
Parts of it are marked confidential, see begining (lines 8-13 on page 4), so it looks like Mr Gold got his way.
Say no to software patents.
[Recess was taken, some parts removed]
-- the MPAA has done any investigation or examination into Linux's attempts to build a DVD player?
A. Other than what I performed?
Q. Yes.
A. No.
Wow, so now Linux is a legal entity? Last I checked, it was just a kernel...
You'd think that the lawyers would have been at least partially briefed about the technology they're asking questions about...
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
A. It is a group of Linus developers who are in the process of -- I assume they arestill doing it, developing a DVD player for Linux.
And I thought Linus was fully developed. :)
Thad
Thad
Rich
Now THAT is proffessional consciousness for a /. poster.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
to get a better lawyer? This is absolutely ridiculous, lawyer that represents defendants has absolutely no understanding of technology.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Thanks! I hadn't considered that possibility. Good thing I wasn't the deposee (or whatever the legal term is) - I would have just looked at my lawyer with that wtf? look that a dog gets when he hears a far away sound (or is receiving instructions from the mother ship - I could never figure that out).
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
Look at this:
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., PARAMOUNT
PICTURES CORPORATION, METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER
STUDIOS, INC., TRISAR PICTURES, INC.,
COLOMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, INC.,
TIME WARNER ENTERTAINMENT CO., L.P.,
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC., and TWENTIETH
CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
ERIC CORLEY a/k/a "EMMANUEL GOLDSTEIN"
and 2600 ENTERPRISES, INC.,
Defendants.
Am I the only one who's getting visual images of an 18-wheeler hitting a Civic at 110 mph?
--
" Q. Do you know whether or not it is a Linux BSD program?
10 A. Can you describe Linux BSD? 11 Q. You previously said that CSS-auth was a Linux BSD program.
13 A. I belief I said CSS-auth was a Linux program.
Q. Do you know what Linux is?
14 A. I assume so, yes.
15 Q. You assume you know?
16 A. As much as anybody knows what Linux is.
18 Q. Tell me what you understand Linux to be.
20 A. Linux is a variation of the UNIX operating system.
22 Q. Have you ever operated Linux?
23 A. Yes, I have.
24 Q. Do you know what the term "open source" means?
------- [next page] --------
2 A. Yes, I do.
My email is real.