I just skimmed the below, but it seems a very nice writeup.
My general-audience pieces from yesterday and today are at wired.com.
-Declan
On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 09:11:02PM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
> The trial against 2600 Magazine commenced at 9am today (Monday) in the
> federal court house at 500 Pearl in NYC. Throughout the day,
> approximately 40 protestors stood behind a police blockade with anti-MPAA
> and anti-DMCA signs, chanting some great slogans. The court room was
> packed all day.
>
> Unfortunately, I did not arrive until approximately 10:30am and thus
> missed hearing discussion of defendant's motion to recuse/disqualify Judge
> Kaplan, as well as opening arguments. Text of the motion/supporting memo
> have not shown up on Cryptome yet, but can be found at
> http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/
>
> <disclaimer>If I'd been allowed to make use of my laptop during the trial,
> I would not have had to resort to frantically scrawling 12 pages of
> shorthand questions and answers on 1cm-lined paper. I also could have
> simply posted my notes in their original form without need for a
> reinterpretation. I hope what follows makes sense. If not, I'd be happy
> to elaborate/clarify as best I can.</disclaimer>
>
> The bulk of the day focused on the testimony of Michael Shamos, a faculty
> member in the CMU computer science department. Shamos is also an IP
> attorney. In his June 30, 2000 declaration, Shamos claimed he was hired
> by the MPAA attorneys to "conduct certain experiments to investigate the
> feasibility of obtaining DVD decryption software (DeCSS), using that
> software to decrypt commercial DVDs, converting the decrypted videos to
> DivX format and transferring those DivX files between computers on local
> area networks." Note the words "experiment," "investigate," and
> "feasibility". They're important.
>
> I strongly recommend that you read Shamos's declaration. (It's on
> Cryptome.) IMO, this man is a disgrace to academic computing. This
> should be readily apparent from the following, and from examination of his
> declaration. (Also, a lot of the stuff below will not make sense unless
> you've read the declaration.)
>
> In case you don't make it to the end of this document, Frank Stevenson
> will be testifying at 9am on Tuesday. (I'm greatly looking forward to
> just how badly the "is that megabits or megabytes?" MPAA lawyers will
> cross-examine a competent cryptographer.)
>
> ----------
>
> Around 10:30, Shamos was asked by Simms (the MPAA lawyer) to compare
> quality differences between a "legit" DVD, and a DivX created in part via
> DeCSS. The MPAA had set up a monitor for this demonstration, but after
> protestations from Garbus (that a television and a laptop screen were not
> the same thing), Judge Kaplan suggested everyone interested just watch the
> demonstration right on Shamos's laptop. Some 15 people subsequently
> hovered around the laptop -- MPAA lawyers, defense lawyers, a little girl,
> the court reporter, John Gilmore, and a federal judge in robes...all
> bunched in the middle of the court room to view the opening credits of
> Sleepless in Seattle. It was a memorable sight.
>
> Shamos proceeded to point out objects in the foreground of the movie,
> noting their clarity and color and such. At the direction of Simms,
> Shamos's assistant (Eric Burns) then played the DivX file version. Shamos
> pointed out the same objects, this time explaining that he was looking for
> "artifacts"... irregularities on surfaces which were uniform in the
> original DVD. He explained that they were extremely difficult to spot,
> and then embarked down a path which I hope will ultimately disqualify him
> as an "expert" in this case.
>
> Shamos: "We've conducted numerous lay experiments where we've asked
> people to come in here and tell if it was a DivX or a DVD..."
>
> Judge Kaplan: "That's obviously hearsay."
>
> Shamos was then asked a round of questions by Simms pertaining to whether
> he attempted to obtain/trade DivX files with others. Garbus repeatedly
> objected, as much of the "experiment" was ultimately done by Shamos's
> assistant. Garbus also frequently objected because Simms failed to "lay a
> foundation" establishing how Shamos was qualified to answer the questions.
>
> Shamos proceeded to recount what was covered in his declaration...sort
> of. He explained how he and his assistant logged an IRC session in which
> they traded a Sleepless in Seattle DivX file for a Matrix DivX file.
>
> When asked by Simms how long it took to transfer the Matrix DivX file,
> Shamos could not recall. He estimated approximately 6 hours, but stated
> that he did not know either the start or conclude time of the transfer.
> Shamos was then asked by Simms about the "technical parameters" of the
> transfer. Shamos estimated the effective bitrate of the transfer at 250
> kbps and stated the internet connection was via a 100 megabit switch
> network.
>
> [10 minute break]
>
> After the break, Shamos was asked by Simms to repeat his DVD vs. DivX
> quality demonstration with copies of the Matrix. Once again, some 15
> people crowded around the laptop and watched clips of both a legit Matrix
> DVD, and a Matrix DivX file. Garbus objected to the demonstration,
> stating that unless one had seen the Matrix 35 times, it would be
> impossible to tell the difference between the two without a side-by-side
> comparison.
>
> Judge Kaplan: "This is not Gone With the Wind."
>
> At Simms' prompting, Shamos then discussed how he was able to transfer the
> Matrix across the LAN in 20 minutes (10bT) and 3 minutes (100bT). After
> that, he answered a number of questions pertaining to his "qualifications"
> for discussing the availability of bandwidth at universities and in the
> country in general.
>
> Shamos: "There is a massive need for additional bandwidth."
>
> Next, he was asked by Simms what would happen if a large number of
> students attempted to trade DivXs simultaneously. Shamos stated that the
> network would become slower and slower. Simms then asked how network
> traffic fared at the time of the experiment. Shamos stated that he
> effectively had about 1/3 of the theoretical maximum bandwidth.
>
> [lunch until 2:15]
>
> After lunch, Shamos testified that since January of 2000, approximately
> 650 movies have been converted into DivX format, comprising approximately
> 10% of the available DVDs. He also stated that obtaining DivX files was
> easy over IRC, and more difficult if one contacted people through iSONEWS.
> His testimony for the MPAA concluded with comments that DeCSS played a
> major role in the making of DivX files because it was recommended as the
> "tool of choice" on multiple web sites, "easy to obtain," and "easy to
> use." When asked if there was an easier way to descramble a DVD, Shamos
> stated that he was not aware of any but admitted not having "deep
> familiarity" with content of the question. (Ding ding ding.)
>
> Both sets of lawyers got into an argument at the close of Shamos's direct
> examination, which I couldn't note fast enough...
>
> Judge Kaplan: "I'm not sure I understand what you're all saying to me."
>
> ---
> Before the defense began cross-examination of Michael Shamos, Hernstadt
> (one of the defense attorneys) informed Judge Kaplan that Frank Stevenson
> was in town and would be returning to Oslo Tuesday evening. Hernstadt
> asked whether Stevenson could be permitted to testify. Kaplan said that
> he would hear discussion on that at 4:30, after Shamos was excused.
> ---
>
> I was told by several people that Garbus's performance earlier in the
> morning (re: the recusal motion and opening statements) was sub par. I
> didn't witness it, so I don't know. I can say that IMHO he did a
> wonderful job in the afternoon.
>
> Garbus began by eliciting the conditions under which Shamos undertook his
> "project" for the MPAA attorneys. Shamos previously made $25k as an
> expert witness in iCrave. He estimated that he would make $30k from the
> MPAA for his current work; his rate with the MPAA is $400 an hour.
>
> [Garbus's cross-examination skipped around to different topics...I'm not
> going to alter their order nor will I attempt to reword the following into
> enjoyable reading...I'm trying to keep this as true to a prose rewrite of
> my shorthand transcript as possible.]
>
> Shamos was sent ~300 pages of affidavidts/depositions by the MPAA
> attorneys. When questioned, Shamos remembered reading MIT prof. Harold
> Abelson's declaration, as well as that of CMU prof. Dave Touretsky.
> Shamos recalled that Touretsky hosted a web page which contained various
> incarnations of DeCSS, including C source, an image of DeCSS on a tshirt,
> the DeCSS algorithm, an anotated version of the algorithm,
> etc. (note: he knew this BEFORE his 'experiment'.)
>
> Garbus then asked if Shamos was aware of how many people accessed
> Touretsky's page. Shamos was not aware and suggested that Garbus could
> examine the CMU logs.
>
> Garbus then asked Shamos to explain how he decided to become involved in
> the case. Shamos said that after receiving the court documents, and after
> the preliminary injunction was issued against 2600, he decided to
> participate.
>
> Next, Garbus asked Shamos the following questions (not sure if these are
> exact quotes...but you get the general idea):
>
> Garbus: Do you know of one person who has copied a DVD as a result of any
> download from 2600?
>
> Shamos: No.
>
> Garbus: Has anyone at MPAA told you of anyone having copied a DVD [from
> 2600]?
>
> Shamos: No.
>
> [etc. Shamos admitted that no one told him the DivX of the Matrix for
> which his assistant traded a DivX of Sleepless in Seattle was made with
> help of DeCSS.]
>
> Garbus moved on to questions about the resources of the MPAA and whether
> the MPAA had conducted any studies on DeCSS. [don't know; no] Then, to
> when CSS was first cracked. [1997] Then, whether he'd seen documents
> given to Schumann [no], then back again to how much money the MPAA spent
> trying to determine who copied DVDs. [no way of knowing]
>
> Shamos then explained that DVDs would replace VHS because they allowed
> users to "skip around" and "are digital."
>
> Shamos was asked to do his "study" by William Hart. It was specifically
> requested for this lawsuit, and Shamos was selected because of his
> expertise in the area. Shamos admitted to being given a precise set of
> instructions on how to carry out his study. [I missed some things
> here...they were talking quickly...something about being asked by Hart to
> remove references to the 1st Amendment and to the NYT's linking to DeCSS
> from his early declaration drafts to avoid "clouding the case with 1st
> Amendment issues."]
>
> Garbus next asked if Shamos had read any issues of the Hacker Quarterly.
> [no] The line of questioning wandered off to how, when there were
> thousands of sites (according to hotbot) which contained references to
> DeCSS, Shamos opted to grab DeCSS specically from 2600's site. Answer:
> ***Shamos was told to do so by the MPAA lawyers.***
>
> [questions skipped around again: the "study" required several
> steps; Shamos had to locate #divx as one of them; Shamos has used
> computers since 1962; Shamos spends 4 hours a day on computers; Shamos
> teaches corporate classes on the side; Shamos makes $700k so
> doing; courses concern ecommerce]
>
> Next, Garbus asked about the qualifications of Shamos's assistant on the
> project, Eric Burns. Eric is a CS undergrad at CMU.
>
> Garbus inquired about whether or not school was in session during the
> period when the study was conducted. 4/5ths of the school was not in
> session. (CMU adjourns sometime in May.) Shamos admitted that network
> usage during the periods when school is not in session is not the same as
> when it is. Shamos admitted that he did not include this in his report
> for the MPAA. The MPAA did not ask Shamos about normal usage. Shamos did
> not know what the results would have been had the "study" been conducted
> during the school year. Shamos admitted that some of the "study" was
> connected on the network after midnight, that he knew there was a
> difference in network speed at that time, and that he also did not include
> this information in his report.
>
> [break]
>
> Shamos explained that he and Eric purchased a computer for the test around
> 3pm of some day which he could not recall. They took it back to the CMU
> CS offices, set it up, and connected it to the network. [in case you
> haven't read the Shamos declaration, they also bought a copy of Sleepless
> in Seattle on DVD]
>
> Garbus listed several alternatives to DeCSS, asked if Shamos had heard of
> them, or if Shamos had asked the MPAA if there were faster copy techniques
> than any including DeCSS. [answer to all questions was no.] Interspersed
> in these questions were rehashed questions of Eric's qualifications as an
> assistant.
>
> Next, Garbus asked about LAN speeds at CMU 2 years ago [same as now], 4
> years ago [don't know], and the general trend [don't know].
>
> Garbus: To your knowledge, isn't it true that LAN speeds haven't changed?
>
> Shamos: [don't know]
>
> Shamos was not surprised to hear that Northern Lights found 700k hits for
> DeCSS. Shamos did not know how many sites in the US contained DeCSS in
> object or source code, nor did he know outside the US. Google had a large
> number of DeCSS hits. Shamos did not search Yahoo or AOL for them.
>
> When asked the speed of the Internet -> CMU connection, Shamos called it
> "very fast." When asked what very fast meant, Shamos said, "We try to
> have the best stuff," and explained that CMU was one of the leading
> schools and therefore had the best connections. (Not bad for an
> "expert," eh?)
>
> After downloading DeCSS via 2600, it took about 45 minutes to get the
> Sleepless in Seattle DVD DeCSS'd. Next, they attempted to make it into a
> DivX. It was about 10pm on the first day of the "experiment" by this
> time. At 10pm, Eric and Shamos began the process of learning how to
> compress into DivX. Shamos had not done this before.
>
> When Garbus asked whether Eric had made a DivX before, he pointed out that
> as there was a possibility Eric would be called to testify, Garbus
> strongly hoped Eric was not currently present in the room.
>
> A sheepish-looking Eric Burns immediately stood up from the back of the
> court room and exited.
>
> Garbus asked again whether Eric had made a DivX before and Shamos said
> that he didn't know, and that the goal was not to make implicit use of
> Eric's technical expertise.
>
> Shamos then explained that the whole process was done in several parts,
> the hardest of which was sync'ing the audio and video tracks. Shamos had
> no previous experience in sync'ing. He was not sure if Eric had. Shamos
> said the sync'ing process took them approximately 10 hours of trial and
> error.
>
> Garbus: Would you agree it's tough?
>
> Shamos: It's not fun.
>
> Garbus: It's difficult?
>
> Shamos: It's a lot easier than making the movie in the first place.
>
> The questioning went back to the sequence of events. Shamos could not
> recall what happened at 10pm on the first day of the "study." He admitted
> to not having any notes on when Eric left on Day 1, nor to having logs or
> timesheets of specific hours spent on the project or what was
> accomplished. The MPAA lawyers did not suggest such timesheets.
>
> Garbus skipped ahead to the IRC session where the Sleepless in Seattle
> DivX was traded for the Matrix. He asked if the logs provided of that
> session were complete. [they were not.] There were two logs made -- one
> of the general #divx chat, and one made of a private conversation
> initiated in #divx.
>
> Garbus revealed that ***some of the log was typed in.*** This was not in
> Shamos's declaration, nor was Hart informed of it.
>
> Garbus's questioning returned to the point in time in which the DivX was
> sync'd. Shamos did not know what time the sync'ing was finished. He said
> Eric told him as soon as it was complete; they double checked that the
> sync was proper; then they started looking for a trade.
>
> Shamos stated that around 11pm, Shamos and Eric were in Eric's office.
> Eric began looking for a trader, and when he found one and began the
> transfer, Shamos went back to his own office.
>
> Shamos did not know the speed of the connection, but surmised it was
> 1/3. Garbus then asked how long the IRC chat took. Shamos did not
> know. Judge Kaplan pointed out that the log covered 23:15 to 23:45 and
> asked whether that was valid.
>
> Shamos: The times in the log have not been altered.
>
> [Garbus then pointed out an inconsistency between P.245 and the time when
> Shamos claims to have left. I didn't write down what this was...]
>
> Garbus then asked whether Shamos kept records when experimenting at
> CMU. Shamos stated that he didn't do experiments.
>
> Garbus asked when Shamos left on the next day, and asked whether the MPAA
> lawyers were billed. [4am, i don't know] Shamos did not have
> timesheets. Shamos has not billed the MPAA lawyers yet. His desktop
> computer has a small log of hours spent per day on the project, but it
> lacks specificity. Eric makes $100 an hour from the MPAA lawyers.
>
> Shamos stated that Eric attempted to DivX Fight Club, but was not
> successful. Shamos did not know why the attempt failed, nor was he aware
> that DeCSS did not work on Disney movies. Eric was not asked to copy
> Fight Club, nor were there any memos or notes about the matter. Shamos
> could not remember telling the MPAA lawyers that DeCSS failed on Fight
> Club, but stated that it sounded logical that he would have done so.
>
> Garbus concluded cross-examination with a handful of random questions, the
> last of which was whether or not CMU approved of his experiment. Shamos
> very defensively said it was acceptable use of the university computer
> systems. Garbus said he would ask Touretsky's opinion on the matter
> later.
>
> ---Redirect of Shamos (MPAA lawyers try to cover their wounds...)
>
> For the portion of the experiment which involved use of DeCSS, the laptop
> was not connected to the LAN. LAN traffic does not affect processing
> time.
>
> ---End redirect.
>
> Garbus then stated his desire to move to exclude Shamos as an expert.
> Kaplan postponed that discussion until later, and then heard some
> discussion regarding the deposition/testimony of Frank Stevenson. I'm not
> going to bother with my transcription of that. Frank's testifying
> tomorrow morning and I've only got 1.5 hours to sleep. =)
>
