IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

KEVIN BALL, ET AL.	)
	)
	Plaintiffs,	)
		)
v.	)	Case No. 1:00CV00-867
	)	Judge Gladys Kessler
AMC ENTERTAINMENT, INC. ET AL.	)
	)
		Defendants.		)

AFFIDAVIT OF LAWRENCE R. GOLDBERG

COMES NOW Affiant Lawrence R. Goldberg and makes this
	affidavit based on his personal knowledge and belief:

1.	I am 49 years old.

2.	I am presently Director of Media Access at WGBH
	Educational Foundation, which is located in Boston, MA. 
	I am not affiliated with any party to this case and have
	not been paid for any testimony or participation in this
	case.

3.	I am providing this Affidavit at the request of
	counsel for Plaintiff to clarify information regarding
	the planned installation of open captioning equipment in
	the United Kingdom, which was testified to at the April
	1, 2004 Fairness Hearing by Mr. Kelby Brick.

4.	Contrary to Mr. Brick's description of the equipment
	as "closed captioning," the equipment that will be
	installed is, in fact, open captioning equipment.
	Specifically, it is a form of open captioning known as
	Digital Theater Systems-Cinema Subtitling System, or
	DTS-CSS.  Through DTS-CSS, caption files are sent to
	movie theaters on CD-ROMs and are loaded onto an
	exhibitor's DTS-CSS drive (basically a personal computer
	with a hard disk and CD-ROM drives).  DTS-CSS utilizes
	the same hardware and file delivery mechanism as RWC. 
	The difference from RWC, however, is that instead of
	displaying captions discretely in the rear of a theater
	on a data wall and reflecting the text on reflectors at
	individual seats as RWC does, DTS-CSS includes a
	modified video projector that, at the press of a button,
	projects the captions directly onto the movie screen for
	the entire audience to see.  DTS-CSS does not provide
	any means for closed captioning, i.e., giving each
	audience member the choice of seeing captions or not.
	Instead, its chief benefit (in the present context) is
	that it makes open captioning easier for the theaters,
	by eliminating the need for special prints with
	"burned-in" captions.

5.	In addition, the DTS-CSS (and Dolby) open-captioning
	equipment that is being installed in the UK is funded in
	part by the UK Film Council's Ł500,000 National
	Lottery-funded Cinema Access Programme.  It is estimated
	that this sum of money will equip more than 10% of the
	theaters in the UK with captioning and audio description
	systems. This is the 10% figure that was incorrectly
	described by Mr. Brick as a legally required amount of
	captioning in the UK.  This level of installation is
	possible because 50% of the exhibitors' costs are
	subsidized by the lottery fund. An article describing
	the national lottery and its funding of this program can
	be found at the following link:
	<http://www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/news/?p=
	D4A15725054641BC48OlH1D1C9CA&skip=>

6.	Finally, contrary to Mr. Brick's testimony, there is
	no law in the United Kingdom requiring 10% of theaters
	to provide captioning, open or closed. Instead, the
	United Kingdom has its own ADA, known as the "Disability
	Discrimination Act" or DDA. It was enacted in 1995 and
	comes into full force later in 2004. The DDA applies to
	all buildings that are used by the public, but does not
	explicitly require theaters to offer captions, open or
	closed.  Instead, the dissemination of the open
	captioning equipment in the UK mentioned by Mr. Brick
	(and discussed above) is due to the special lottery
	funding made available to exhibitors.  The text of the
	DDA is available at the following link:
	http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1995/1995050
	.htm.

I swear under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
	and accurate to the best of my recollection.


							____________________________
								Lawrence R. Goldberg
		

	 