Valenti NYT Op-Ed vs. Valenti DeCSS Deposition

We're persuaded to post this... Anonymous points out some minor discrepencies between Jack-Valenti-during-a-deposition and Jack-Valenti-in-the-New-York-Times... "There he goes again. Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Asociation of America, has yet another Op-Ed in Wednesday's New York Times putting forth the MPAA's particularly twisted notion of the purpose of U.S. Copyright law. We've seen it all before: the vitriolic name-calling ("casual thieves," "Internet marauders,"), the equating of infringement with theft (which it isn't, see Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207), the demands for the transfer of even more rights from users to publishers/distributors, etc.

"What makes Valenti's piece interesting this time, though, it that it so closely follows his deposition in MPAA v. 2600 (the DeCSS case in NY). Compare this claim by Valenti in the NYT:

"A number of new movies, the ones now in theaters, have already been put on the Internet by pilfering zealots eager to enfold films in the same embrace now choking the music world, even though few computer users yet have ways to download them."

with these excerpts from the deposition:

Q Has anyone ever told you that they had ever seen on the internet a DVD de-encrypted by DECSS?
A I don't recall.
[...]
Q Do you know how many copies of films or
how many films have been copied through the
use of camcorders?
A A lot.
Q Do you know if any of those films have
been shown on the internet?
A I don't know.

Q Do you know whether the MPA has ever
checked into whether or not you can take a rented
movie and put that on the internet?
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
[...]
Q Do you know whether or not you can take
a video that you make, a duplicate, and then put
it on the internet?
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
[...]
Q You don't know whether it's possible or
whether or not it's legal. Is that right?
THE WITNESS: Don't know. I don't know
whether it's possible. I don't know whether it's
legal.
[...]
Q Do you know whether there have been any
instances where people have gone in with
camcorders and then taken the material from the
camcorder and translated it to the internet?
THE WITNESS: I don't know.
Q Do you know of instances where movies
have been shown on the internet where they have --
very shortly after the release of the film and
before DVDs or videos of that film have made
available to the public?
A I don't know.

If Jack Valenti knows so much about new movies appearing on the Internet that he can justify the claims made in his NYT Op-Ed, how come he couldn't remember any information about a single instance during his deposition?

"

Comments

Haiku

[YASD]

Jesting Pilate asks
"What is truth?" and washes hands
Jack says "I don't know."

------

Deposition memory loss

[gorilla]

What is it about deposition which causes people to suffer from strange memory losses?

Regan & Gates had similar bouts when it was there turn to get awkward questions asked of them.

Re:Deposition memory loss

[Seth Finkelstein]

The possibility of perjury charges may have something to do with the memory loss.

And even if not perjury, whatever you say can, literally, be held against you in a court of law ...

- The Lunatic From Boston

Re:Deposition memory loss

[gorilla]

Is not saying you've forgotten when you haven't perjury?

Re:Deposition memory loss

[Hamshrew]

Yes, but how can you prove that? Denying knowledge can't be proven wrong, and you can "be reminded" later, if convenient. Also, this may fall under the Fifth Amendment, though I doubt it.

Re:Deposition memory loss

[Nater]

No, this is not a criminal case. The 5th amendment does not apply.

Re:Deposition memory loss

[Chops-Frozen-Water]

What is it about deposition which causes people to suffer from strange memory losses?

Attorney-client privelege. In the deposition, since it's a legal proceeding, he doesn't have to admit knowledge gained/imparted through his legal counsel. So throughout his deposition, all his "I don't know" translate to "I don't remember if anyone other than my lawyer(s) were the first to bring this up". Of course, in his op-ed pieces, he can spout whatever he's heard without legal context. That's the fun trick of legal testimony.

Remember, the Legal World and the Real World don't work the same way.
--

Jack is trying to keep his job.

[Big Torque]

Jack Ass Knows more than he is saying and everyone knows that. He did not think he would have to go to court. This is the problem with slapp's if some one calls your bluff and drags you ass in to court you end up looking like an ass hole. The MPAA is willing to do anything to get the control on how DVD's Are viewed back they lost. Too Bad!! don't like it use stronger encryption, Don't like it don't leave the Encryption key open to all to see (Thanks Xing). Or better yet don't use Technology and the Law to rob people of their choice and freedom. Jack loss the case on VCR's way back in the day. The DE CSS and the DMCA were setup for one propose to remove what we won and now have with Video Tape the ability to fast forward, have real rewind not that jerk around crap and stop the action with out permission. If he loses this he is gone and he knows that. I am looking forward to see him in court.

Re:Jack is trying to keep his job.

[(void*)]

What a great job that is. Being paid to rant, piss, moan, and call people names. Sounds like a job lots of USENET (f)lamers would love.

Re:A little vitriolic name calling of my own

[SEWilco]

Good thing it's labeled "opinion" and not "fact". Not that he said it's what the wished, not what he knew.

Let the DeCSS Lawyers know

[rgmoore]

This is exactly the kind of think that could be very useful in impeaching his credibility as a witness if and when this thing goes to trial. Just having him read one version of the truth as from the editorial and then the other version from his deposition can make a guy like this look very stupid and dishonest. Will it be vital for the success of the case? Probably not. Will it be one more element that will help? Maybe so.

The conclusion:

[(void*)]

Since he says he doesn't know jack-shit about all that technology in court, and yet opines in NYT about it, the only conclusion we can draw is that Jack Valenti must be an ignoramous ranting his head off. In other words, he should be treated in exactly the same manner a a loony spouting crap - ignored.

So lets move on. There nothing to see here.

Re:The conclusion:

[Wah]

umm, seems more likely that he is lying in court. He lobbies for laws, and then denies any knowledge about what those laws are about. He toed the letter of the law just like Clinton did.

Unfortunately, while he should be ignored, he isn't, he was a special assistant to a President, for bob's sake.
--

So reply to the op-ed.

[Keith Russell]

Has Anonymous considered submitting this to the Times? It is an opinion section, so you can use the testimony to support your opinion that Mr. Valenti is a less-than-authoritative source.*

*: <rude>Jack is full of $#1t, clue-impaired, or both.</rude>

Every day we're standing in a wind tunnel
Facing down the future coming fast - Rush

In case you didn't know...

[gavinhall]

Posted by 11223:

...all CEO's have speechwriters. Jack Valenti the CEO didn't say any of that in the New York Times. Jack Valenti's speechwriters did. On the stand of the deposition he'll reveal that he doesn't actually know much about this or care - so long as he makes money.