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.
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.
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.
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
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"
Yea, I was expecting him to say, "I cannot tell you what Linux is, but it is all around us..."
-capt.
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.
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"'
I've just got one question:-
When they keep saying "linux" in the transcript, how are they pronouncing it???!!:-)
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.
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?
[snip]
Mr Pink: No *&%*hole! I want the whole goddamn office. What the $%&* do you think I want.
Mr White: How about we just cut his ear off.
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.
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.
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.
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
To the contrary: the entire point of a deposition is to determine what the witness does or does not know. In any event, why do you think Mr. Garbus should have known the answers to these questions before he asked them?
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."
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!
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.
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.
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.
I think they meant decrypt CSS, (accually reverse-engineer). Which was done to create DeCSS.
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!!*****
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!
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
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?
--
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
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.
Bear in mind that this transcript came from a transcription of a court stenographer. Stenographers are much better at recording things like "I object to the form of the question", then things like "http://www.slashdot.org"
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
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.
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?
--