Slashdot Mirror

I'm not familiar with the dates/timeline here, but in most if not all jurisdictions -- and definitely in federal court -- you have only 30 days from the entry of an order or judgment to file a notice of appeal (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)). The order was apparently filed on July 16. Today is August 16, which is the 31st day. BUT Foster is just now asking the court to enter judgment for this amount, which means that Capitol will probably have 30 days from the day that judgment is entered.

why don't you just read what he has to testify?
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=aris ta_does1-21_replybestavrosdeclaration

At least Mr. Bestavros seems to know more about what he is talking about then the so called RIAA-"Expert" Doug J. that has no personal knowledge at all about what he claims to be able to testify about for the RIAA!

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_070312RBtoMagisMediaSentryExITranscriptExce rptJacobson

(shit that my one remaining Mod point expired the day before yesterday, your post would have been worth to be my premier to be Modded Flamebait. Now I just can provide you with those above links so you uninformed clod can learn something if you like)

why don't you just read what he has to testify?
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=aris ta_does1-21_replybestavrosdeclaration

At least Mr. Bestavros seems to know more about what he is talking about then the so called RIAA-"Expert" Doug J. that has no personal knowledge at all about what he claims to be able to testify about for the RIAA!

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_070312RBtoMagisMediaSentryExITranscriptExce rptJacobson

(shit that my one remaining Mod point expired the day before yesterday, your post would have been worth to be my premier to be Modded Flamebait. Now I just can provide you with those above links so you uninformed clod can learn something if you like)

Well, my original point was that generally, I had assumed that no matter what portion of a case you're in, you need at least some rationale for demanding evidence.

They have a rationale. I know that no one ever reads the stuff linked to in the article, but read the stuff linked to in the article. The rationales of both sides are pretty nicely laid out here and you can follow along with how the judge actually ruled here. Meanwhile, of course, the defense presented its rationales for not wanting the various requests to go through. This isn't a case of one side having a totally meritless argument, but rather of the judge having to decide between two valid arguments, as guided by the Rules.

I flatly reject the idea that anyone who is a copyright holder can drag anyone else into a lawsuit and immediately demand to see all of the audio files on their computer. So what, exactly, is required for the judge to approve a subpoena of this information?

Yes, you can't start a case with nothing. This is part of the reason why they have to have investigators find infringers, rather than just starting with A. Aaronson and ending with Mr. Zykowski. Rule 11 deals with that: you can't commence a civil action in order to harass people, and any factual allegations you make have to already be supported or have to be likely to be supported. It's not just the client that has to adhere to this, but the lawyer does, independently, including not merely taking the client's word for it. If you fail to live up to this standard, and bring a baseless case, you'll not only wind up with it getting dismissed, but you may be sanctioned as well.

But assuming you do meet that standard, a lot of material is discoverable. Basically, if evidence is relevant to the case and admissible, then it is discoverable; if it is relevant, inadmissible, but likely to lead to relevant, admissible evidence, then it is discoverable. Some things are not discoverable, for various reasons. Privilege is a major one. Sometimes, if the discovery request is burdensome, that can be grounds to deny it as well.

So if you're a defendant in this kind of suit, and the other side wants to see all of your audio files, then they're probably going to get to, on the grounds that if any of those files are to do with works to which they hold the copyright, they're relevant and admissible for showing that you infringed, and that they already have some evidence to support the idea that you have or have had some of those files.

If you like, you can think of it in terms of public policies: there is a strong policy goal of having wrongdoers brought to justice. There are also strong goals of permitting frank, private legal advice, and avoiding unjust abuses of the legal system. But there's not a strong policy of protecting actual copyright infringers from getting caught.

Maybe there's no avoiding it, but at this point, it's still a lot of hassle and expense to deal with a truly absurd case, even if you won at every step during discovery -- meaning you managed to prevent them from rifling through your personal files because they kind of, sort of suspect that you have something.

Meh. Just because something is personal, that doesn't mean it might not get swept up during discovery. Believe me, I've seen some crazy things doing document and privilege reviews. And while I understand that no one likes having strangers intrude into their private lives, do realize that 99.44% of the time, the reviewers aren't going to care about non-relevant files that happen to be of a personal nature. Indeed, a combination of automated and manual searches will often mean that no human looks at them to begin with. In an infringement case dealing with music and sound recordings, why would people look through emails (other than emails that have suspicious atta

Well, my original point was that generally, I had assumed that no matter what portion of a case you're in, you need at least some rationale for demanding evidence.

They have a rationale. I know that no one ever reads the stuff linked to in the article, but read the stuff linked to in the article. The rationales of both sides are pretty nicely laid out here and you can follow along with how the judge actually ruled here. Meanwhile, of course, the defense presented its rationales for not wanting the various requests to go through. This isn't a case of one side having a totally meritless argument, but rather of the judge having to decide between two valid arguments, as guided by the Rules.

I flatly reject the idea that anyone who is a copyright holder can drag anyone else into a lawsuit and immediately demand to see all of the audio files on their computer. So what, exactly, is required for the judge to approve a subpoena of this information?

Yes, you can't start a case with nothing. This is part of the reason why they have to have investigators find infringers, rather than just starting with A. Aaronson and ending with Mr. Zykowski. Rule 11 deals with that: you can't commence a civil action in order to harass people, and any factual allegations you make have to already be supported or have to be likely to be supported. It's not just the client that has to adhere to this, but the lawyer does, independently, including not merely taking the client's word for it. If you fail to live up to this standard, and bring a baseless case, you'll not only wind up with it getting dismissed, but you may be sanctioned as well.

But assuming you do meet that standard, a lot of material is discoverable. Basically, if evidence is relevant to the case and admissible, then it is discoverable; if it is relevant, inadmissible, but likely to lead to relevant, admissible evidence, then it is discoverable. Some things are not discoverable, for various reasons. Privilege is a major one. Sometimes, if the discovery request is burdensome, that can be grounds to deny it as well.

So if you're a defendant in this kind of suit, and the other side wants to see all of your audio files, then they're probably going to get to, on the grounds that if any of those files are to do with works to which they hold the copyright, they're relevant and admissible for showing that you infringed, and that they already have some evidence to support the idea that you have or have had some of those files.

If you like, you can think of it in terms of public policies: there is a strong policy goal of having wrongdoers brought to justice. There are also strong goals of permitting frank, private legal advice, and avoiding unjust abuses of the legal system. But there's not a strong policy of protecting actual copyright infringers from getting caught.

Maybe there's no avoiding it, but at this point, it's still a lot of hassle and expense to deal with a truly absurd case, even if you won at every step during discovery -- meaning you managed to prevent them from rifling through your personal files because they kind of, sort of suspect that you have something.

Meh. Just because something is personal, that doesn't mean it might not get swept up during discovery. Believe me, I've seen some crazy things doing document and privilege reviews. And while I understand that no one likes having strangers intrude into their private lives, do realize that 99.44% of the time, the reviewers aren't going to care about non-relevant files that happen to be of a personal nature. Indeed, a combination of automated and manual searches will often mean that no human looks at them to begin with. In an infringement case dealing with music and sound recordings, why would people look through emails (other than emails that have suspicious atta

The Copyright Act does not expressly render anyone liable for infringement committed by another. Metro_Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.. 545 U.S. 913, (2005). Rather, the doctrine of secondary liability emerged from common law principles. Id. Under those common law principles, one infringes a copyright contributorily by intentionally inducing or encouraging a direct infringement. The elements of a claim for contributory copyright infringement are: (1) direct infringement by third party; (2) knowledge by the defendant that third parties were directly infringing; and (3) substaintial participation by the defendant in infringing activities. See Newborn v. Yahoo!, 391 F. Supp.2d 181, (D.D.C. 2005); see also Newborn v. Yahoo! Inc., 437 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C 2006) (finding defendant was entitled to an award of attorneys' fees after prevailing upon plaintiff's frivolous and objectively unreasonable contributory copyright claim). Merely supplying means to accomplish infringing activity cannot give rise to imposition of liability for contributory copyright infringement. Id.;see also A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. 239. F.3d 1004, 1013 (9th Cir. 2001). One infringes a copyright vicariously by profiting from direct infringement while declining to exercise a right to stop or limit it. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913.

The judge is basicly saying that indirect infringement requires direct infringement. If this principle were applied to the "coupons expiration date + gplv3" theory, it would say that Microsoft is not guilty of infringement if Novell is not guilty of direct infringement.

Free software advocates, in their zeal to get Microsoft, should not attack this principle, because that would make it easier for the RIAA to persecute innocent people accused of copying songs.

Because of the grandfat her clause, the FSF has all but admitted it does not intend to proceed against Novell.

The bill and the justification are available online:

The Bill
The Justification

Interesting reading.
--
Need to trade for a newer girlfriend? Now you can!!

The bill and the justification are available online:

The Bill
The Justification

Interesting reading.
--
Need to trade for a newer girlfriend? Now you can!!

Should have previewed. Here's the fixed links:

You'll recall from an earlier article that Tanya Anderson's lawyer (in Oregon) found a number of grounds on which to countersue.

[...]

I expect we'll shortly see television ads from the law offices of James Sokolove asking whether you have received a settlement request from the RIAA [...]

Holy crap, if you haven't read the claim, take the time. I can see why they are using racketeering as a pretense to sue. I can't believe all the RIAA did to this lady. Click here to read it - Pike and Fischer Internet Law and Regulation

Neither the summary nor any news story I've read so far does it justice. I agree with the comment above: RIAA and the other co-defendants are in very serious trouble. They have screwed up big time, and not just with Ms. Andersen.

Holy crap, if you haven't read the claim, take the time. I can see why they are using racketeering as a pretense to sue. I can't believe all the RIAA did to this lady. Click here to read it - Pike and Fischer Internet Law and Regulation

Whatever their tactic may be in general, this order was issued as part of an actual lawsuit, Capitol Records, Inc., et al. v. Does 1-16, Civil No. 07-485 WJ/LFG (D. N.M.). The order is available online, for instance. Note the language "Plaintiffs, companies who own copyrights in various sound recordings, bring an action against unnamed Defendants, Does 1-16, for copyright infringement."

The case started out as Atlantic Recording Company vs Andersen, but if you look at the most current court documents, you would see that the Plaintiffs are - Atlantic Recording Company, Priority Records LLC, Capitol Records Inc, UMG Recordings Inc, and BMG Music.

Guess which organization all of those indivdual companies belong too? The Recording Industry Association of America.

The RIAA isn't a separate group from the individual record companies, the RIAA IS those companies. So therefore, if you are being sued by a collective of recording companies who all belong to the RIAA, you ARE being sued by the RIAA. Elementary my dear Watson.
So are you trying to say that being sued for tens of thousands of dollars by individual record companies is somehow better than being sued for tens of thousands by the RIAA?

Now if someone can explain to me how the GP was insightful??

the transcript
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=elek tra_barker_070126OralArgument
via
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#Ele ktra_v_Barker
or via
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007 /01/index-of-litigation-documents.html

Actually, let's be careful here.

Ohio University's office of Student Legal Services has done an excellent job -- far better than the SLS at many other schools -- of advising the students. In fact they affirmatively went out of the way to help them find counsel and to make them aware of their legal rights, and of resources upon which they could draw.

The problem is that under their charter, they're not authorized to litigate in federal court, and have to refer the students to outside counsel.

Now the university's counsel's office should be taking a more activist role than it has, as Mr. Hazelbaker eloquently pointed out in his letter (pdf).

Approach of MediaSentry

The technical information provided by MediaSentry is limited and their measurement procedure is simplistic. MediaSentry did not conduct a thorough investigation such as outlined above to provide evidence of infringement.

The statement from Tom Mizzone hints in item 27 that they systematically searched the Kazaa network for certain keywords, by means of modified Kazaa software. How they resolved relevant technical problems such as superpeer hopping, NAT translation, and firewall relaying by Kazaa is unclear.
In item 28, it is stated that no actual complete file transfer took place; It was only initiated at this stage. Item 30 again hints that MediaSentry simply took filenames at face value and did not mention any correction for pollution on Kazaa. Pollution levels can be as high as 90% for some files.

Item 33 indicates that MediaSentry has no knowledge of the limitations of Kazaa in file searching. Not many of the 2,499,121 users online would be able to see the mentioned 736 files. Reliable global searching in P2P file sharing networks is still an unsolved problem. Only users connected to the same Kazaa Superpeer are guaranteed to see these files when Kazaa operates properly (roughly 100 to 150 users as measured by Prof. Keith Ross).

Item 36 states that no computer hygiene precautions where taken. The collected evidence of the spacemansam@KaZaA alias cleary contains multi-peer downloading contamination. Therefore, it is difficult to establish the contribution of the various IP-addresses. It is possible that some IP-addresses contributed 0 Bytes to an actual download, thus there was only involvement and no actual contribution.

Audible Magic software is one of the tools used by the RIAA "expert" in that recent RIAA suit where the RIAA expert was knocked down:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/28/20 2206
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_070223JacobsonDepositionTranscript
Nothing like relying on trade secrets and black box algorithms to make you sure that you're taking down the right files and leaving up the clean ones.

Audible Magic software is one of the tools used by the RIAA "expert" in that recent RIAA suit where the RIAA expert was knocked down:
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/28/20 2206:/
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_070223JacobsonDepositionTranscript:/
Nothing like relying on trade secrets and black box algorithms to make you sure that you're taking down the right files and leaving up the clean ones.

the problem with it is that he has NO clue about the stuff he was designated by RIAA to testify about.
Having no clue about what you testify as an expert is what makes it inadmissible.

Defendant's lawyer explains it this way:
Although Dr. Jacobson proposes in the report to testify as to "the procedures used
and results obtained by MediaSentry," he displayed utter ignorance as to those
procedures at his deposition. He admitted that he does not know what processes,
procedures or software were used by MediaSentry. (T 31). He does not know if the
methods used by MediaSentry have ever been "tested by any testing body." (T 42). He
does not know if MediaSentry's methods have ever been subjected to any form of peer
review; as far as he know, MediaSentry itself is not peer-regulated. (T 42, 43). He does
not know if MediaSentry's methods have been published. (T 42). He does not know if
there is a known error rate in MediaSentry's methods. (T 43). He does not know of any
standards and controls over MediaSentry's methods (T 43). He does not know if
MediaSentry's methods have generally been accepted in the scientific community. (T
43). In evaluating all of the reports and materials generated by MediaSentry (including
the screenshots, system logs and user logs that are attached to the complaint and
supposedly form the basis of its allegations) and the purported data contained in those
documents, Dr. Jacobson assumed that they were accurate. (T 43).
Clearly, the scientific reliability of MediaSentry's methods and materials can only
be established by expert testimony.
[...]
In summary, Dr. Jacobson is not qualified to opine about whether the uploading
and downloading alleged in the complaint actually occurred or who is responsible for it if
it did.

( http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename= umg_lindor_070426MTRtoMagisInLimineJacobson )

HTH

1. whether the expert's conclusions have been tested or are testable
2. whether the expert's conclusions have been published and subjected to peer review
3. the potential or known error rate
4. whether the expert's conclusions have gained general acceptance in the relevant scientific community.

By his own admission Dr. Jacobson fails on every count.

We all know there are huge holes in analyzing the evidence. Ms. Lindor can not call an expert to dispute Dr. Jacobson's testimony because his methodology has not been published. it has not been subject to peer review. There has been no formal analysis of the reliability. And his methods have not gained enough acceptance for anyone else to be familiar with them. If Ms. Lindor can not call her own witness she is denied due process. The RIAA may as well just use voodoo science.

If Dr. Jacobson's methodology had been subject to peer review, there would be peer-reviewed articles analyzing the details brought up in the deposition such as IP spoofing, malware, the Kazaa protocol, and MediaSentry.

The motion to exclude brings up a couple other huge problems with Dr. Jacobson's testimony. It's not that Dr. Jacobson is a bad guy or that he is somehow incompetent. The problem is that Dr. Jacobson can not draw any 'expert' conclusions in the legal sense. NewYorkCountryLawyer always puts the word 'expert' in quotes when he mentions Dr. Jacobson. I think that's because Dr. Jacobson is not legally an expert.

And I'm guessing he had something to do with getting the decision published in Internet Law & Regulation, which is where I learned of it.

The RIAA controls the settlements, too. Here Matthew Oppenheim, who is from the RIAA, controlled the settlement process.

"[...]except, of course, by not reading any of the legal documents."

for most of those that say RIAA is a plaintiff your assumption is probably right.

but..

maybe a few actually HAVE read some docs, that suggest exactly that!

"RIAA" IS the driving but not officially named plaintiff after all.

if you have the necessary credentials to access public court records online, you might want to read for yourself that allegedly "attorney Kenneth L. Doroshow of the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA"), Plaintiffs' union and trade group informed the Court, the defense counsel and the public that the RIAA who is not a named plaintiff is, in fact, prosecuting this case against Deborah Foster (and other cases filed by the record labels)."

See
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capi tol_foster_070404DeftsObjectionsConfidentiality (pdf in iframe!)
at p4 2.

The RIAA should be harassed just for their use of evil analogy, and the hypocritical corporate use of frivolous nuisance suits as a tool to effectuate their will upon society. From the EFF amicus brief:

The RIAA itself has likened its campaign to drift net fishing, admitting that "[w]hen you go fishing with a net, you sometimes are going to catch a few dolphin." Dennis Roddy, The Song Remains the Same, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Sept. 14, 2003...

In addition, the RIAA is attempting to expand the scope of its copyright protections beyond what the statutes provide. This copyright "grab" stems from the plaintiffs' erroneous theories of secondary liability in copyright law. These theories, which the RIAA knows are wrong, attempt to put parents, employers, teachers, and other internet account holders on the hook for third-party computer activities-even when the defendant has no knowledge or ability to supervise the actual alleged infringers...

The difficulties facing "the dolphins" are compounded by the challenges that individuals face when attempting to litigate in federal court. When the RIAA threatens suit against an individual, it makes sure to offer her a carefully chosen sum that is substantially smaller than the legal fees required to fight the accusations, even for defendants that are completely innocent noninfringers...

Thus, at the heart of Defendant's counterclaims and Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss is the question of consequences - namely, what consequences should attach to plaintiffs who carelessly net "dolphins" in their mass litigation campaign and then walk away from these cases when a dolphin acts affirmatively to protect itself? Defendant has alleged that Plaintiff's case here has no merit, has been brought to harass him, and that he has not infringed any of its legal rights.

How can this guy justify the RIAA's strategy of bringing lawsuits against people in order to conduct an investigation? You're supposed to conduct your investigation before, not after, you start a lawsuit.

See Brief of ACLU, Public Citizen, EFF, American Association of Law Libraries, and ACLU Foundation of Oklahoma.(pdf)

Hope your post gets modded up.

Also you happen to be offtopic. There isn't the slightest intimation that this child, who was 7 years old at the time of the alleged infringement, has any involvement whatsoever.

You are right. The record labels who are demanding to take the deposition of a 10-year-old girl are identified in the answer and counterclaims.

They are -Atlantic Recording -Priority Records -Capitol Records -UMG Music and -BMG Music. Everyone out there, please boycott those labels.

Is the order they appear on the documents based on anything in particular? It looked like it might be alphabetical on the state of incorporation (California, Delaware, New York). Atlantic and its artists deserve responsibility, but I'd hate to let Capitol and BMG (or some of their artists, like "Paul McCartney" [Capitol] and "Bob Dylan" [Sony BMG]) off the hook just because of where the corporate headquarters is.

Everyone is rallying against RIAA as a whole, but there is only a single RIAA member behind this lawsuit: Warner Music Group, which owns Atlantic Records.

Warner is the very same company that gave the children of late Mr Scantlebury 60 days to grieve before they would be sued. (Warner v. Scantlebury) They only dropped the suit after it got media attention.

Warner also owns Elektra Records that is suing a woman with multiple sclerosis. (Elektra v. Schwartz) MS is a disorder that can worsen rapidly if the sufferer is put under stress.

And, apparently it did: In a March 2 letter to the judge, her lawyer basically writes that she is now so sick that she can no longer defend herself. Guilty or not, Warner Music has shortened her life just the same. I guess "compassion" is a foreign concept to them.

Plaintiffs' current counsel invoice Plaintiffs in accordance with alternative billing arrangements that they have negotiated with Plaintiffs. As such, Plaintiffs' counsels' invoices do not provide any information about the hours spent on any cases. Though counsel track their time for individual cases, that tracking is not part of the invoices.

One of the arguments the RIAA is using to say they don't need to pay Foster's legal fees is that the cost of their legal team would have exceeded the amount Foster would have needed to pay them if the RIAA won. ( http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capi tol_foster_070221MotReconsider [ilrweb.com] , page 4)

Even if RIAA is telling the truth their legal fees, how could that possibly be a valid reason not to pay Foster's legal fees? If its a law, it seems rather silly and easy to abuse.

a) Why does the defendent care about the plaintiff's billing hours?

The defendent doesn't care, the judge does.

One of the arguments the RIAA is using to say they don't need to pay Foster's legal fees is that the cost of their legal team would have exceeded the amount Foster would have needed to pay them if the RIAA won. ( http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capi tol_foster_070221MotReconsider , page 4)

The judge is now saying "put up or shut up."

b) Why does the plaintiff care if the defendent finds out?

Two possible ideas I can come up with...(disclaimer, IANAL, so these may not even matter)

1, it's a disgustingly high amount which is now released into the public record, which could bode badly in future cases
2, it's a stall tactic, plain and simple.

They are, however, interested in avoiding having to pay her legal fees.

In Capitol v. Foster it was held that if they dismiss "with prejudice" defendant is a "prevailing party" and therefore eligible for an award of attorneys fees. See July 13, 2006, Order and Decision. (pdf)

WARNER BROS. RECORDS INC.; UMG RECORDINGS INC.; SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT; ARISTA RECORDS LLC; and BMG MUSIC

The RIAA's argument that they shouldn't have to pay attorney's fees is based, in part, that the cost of their legal team would have exceeded the amount Foster would have needed to pay them if the RIAA won. ( http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=capi tol_foster_070221MotReconsider , page 4)

The judge is now saying "put up or shut up."

It looks like a significant problem exists here. Specifically, I just looked up the DHCP addresses from the computer present on a handwritten note (Exhibit 17) http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_070223JacobsonEx17. Those DHCP servers are from CableVision. I am assuming that CableVision is a New York cable company???

It looks like Mrs. Lindor's computer was configured for cable modem access. Accusing her of downloading files over Verizon DSL with a cable modem is a bit of a stretch ...

12 Q. Do you have any idea why the case

13 hasn't been dropped by now?

14 MR. GABRIEL: Objection to form.

15 Lack of foundation.

16 A. I don't get involved with -- so no.

If we take for granted that the evidence offered by expert testimony is not persuasive to most who understand the technology at stake, I can only imagine the RIAA thinks judge and jury will find it persuasive that the kazaa username on the mediasentry screenshot is "jrlindor." Does anyone else worry that the RIAA can win without providing technical evidence of infringement, but still achieving preponderance of the evidence?

The bulk of the testimony seams to indicate that Mrs. Lindor had a Cable Modem. However, Dr. Jacobson testified he wasn't certain if she had a cable modem or a DSL modem. If you look at the tracert log you see the line:

15. a3-0-0-1728.dsl-rtr10.ny325.verizon-gni.net

This would lead me to believe that this is likely a DSL address. It is a pretty major detail could really weaken the RIAA case. The exhibit is at: http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_070223JacobsonEx13

You can run a tracert and find out if you are connected via that router by typing something like this at the Windows XP command line:

tracert slashdot.org

or

tracert 141.155.57.198

It would be really interesting to know if any New York customers connecting through a3-0-0-1728.dsl-rtr10.ny325.verizon-gni.net are running DSL or Cable Modems. It might really help the case.

Thanks for your assurances, which are based on guesswork and speculation on your part.

Law is not based on guesswork and speculation.

Under the rule of law we are supposed to know what we can and can't do, not have to guess at what will happen after someone sues us and we spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars or more to find out.

As the Computer & Communications Industry Association and U.S. Internet Industy Association said in their brief, the RIAA's attempt to expand the distribution right to "making available" would "both ignore the plain language and structure of the Copyright Act and distort copyright law in a way that would threaten varied interests across the American economy and society" (Amicus Brief at page 2), "sweep into the reach of copyright law many activities not now covered by copyright law" (Amicus Brief at page 10), and would render "the boundaries of the [distribution] right ... indeterminate and unpredictable, creating chilling effects on members of Amici [companies in the computer and internet industries] and virtually every other participant on the Internet" (Amicus Brief at page 11).

The fact that you're able to imagine an argument that might or might not defeat the applicability of this new infringement theory to hyperlinks is wonderful. I'm very happy for you. But in the real world having some vague argument that might or might not ultimately carry the day in a litigation is not much comfort to anyone, nor would it be to you if you were sued.

You've got that right. Exactly. That's why the ACLU, Public Citizen, the EFF, and others supported Ms. Foster's motion with their amicus curiae brief.

In Elektra v. Barker, where the RIAA was arguing that merely 'having the song files available' in a shared files folder was a copyright infringement, the Government distanced itself from that position by specifically stating in its brief that it had NEVER prosecuted anyone for "making available". See Statement of Interest of United States of America (pdf) at page 5, footnote 3.

Isn't that some kind of breach of privacy for all the other users listed in the log files?

On the flip side, I'm waiting to see one of the spambot systems start churning out e-mails that copy the text of the "Dear Customer" letter at the end of the RIAA's missive... wouldn't it be funny if all the spam filters became trained to mark such mail as spam? (read the actual letter here)

By subpoening the "wrong" hard drive, which turned out to have no evidence of wrongdoing, hasn't the prosecution demonstrated right there that their methods of identifying culprits are unreliable?

yes, did any of those people pay royalties to Fraunhofer, the owner, or rather, the thief, of the mp3 format? No? Then they're thieves. If instead they'd ripped the music to Ogg Vorbis, they'd be legally fine.

Since some of these laws are way too easy to violate, and violations do no easily measured harm (the theoretic harm the RIAA gets so worked up about is just that-- theoretic), while the laws themselves do plenty of harm, those laws ought to be nullified.

Finally, how does this Dr. Jacobson sleep at night? A university professor, living off taxpayer money, biting the hand that feeds him. I wonder if some action could be started towards getting him dismissed from his university position? Probably has tenure tho. But maybe if he commits perjury, as seems he might, that would do it?

What's worse is that if the RIAA does the equivalent of planting evidence, finding them out will be much harder than catching this hypothetical cop, because as everyone has been pointing out, logs and such like computer evidence have no security whatsoever, nor even much reliability. So even if they haven't been tampered with in any number of undetectable ways, they might not be accurate. With the cop planting evidence, there's a much better chance it'll be found out.

- quote -
4. In connection with my analysis, I have reviewed all of the underlying investigative data for this case, including all of the data supplied by MediaSentry. I have also reviewed the information supplied by the defendant's Internet provider, Verizon Internet Service. In particular, I considered the following:

.
.
.

5. Based upon my review of the foregoing materials, as well as on my education and experience, it is my opinion and belief that defendent's computer had a public Internet Protocol ("IP") address and was not connected to the Internet via a wireless router. I base this on the data mentioned above, as well as on the registry entries recovered from the computer and the fact that there was no internal IP address here. Based on how IP addresses are assigned, it is not difficult to determine whether a computer was connected to the Internet via wireless router. This computer was not.

6. In addition, it is my opinion and belief, based on my education and experience and on the data recovered from the data recovered from the hard drive that I revieved, that this hard drive was not the same hard drive that was used to sharte copyrighted sound recordings as shown by the MediaSentry material.
- unquote -
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=umg_ lindor_061226jacobsondeclaration

01. What data, you found no data on the HD indicative of Kazza filesharing.

02. What bearing on the case does a wireless connection make.

03. Is it technically possible to detect from the ISP, when connected through a wireless router.

04. Where was this detecting done.

04. Where does MediaSentry come into the picture.

05. What logs and where.

06. Since you have the ISPs logs why are they not sufficent to show file sharing.

07. Where is this other alleged HD alleged to be residing.

08. You claim you found the CV of Gustave Lindor on the 'clean' HD. Why would he leave his CV on an incriminating machine. What possible legal bearing does his residence have on the case.

Its importance has been known to me, and to a few in the tech community, all along. In fact, in Elektra v. Barker, where this battle is being played out in Manhattan, the US Internet Industry Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have all weighed in with amicus curiae briefs, showing how the RIAA's lawsuit against a young nursing student living in a Bronx housing project could ultimately shut the whole internet down if the RIAA's legal argument for such an expansion of the Copyright Act were to be adopted by the Court. The case is scheduled for oral argument on January 26, 2007, at 2:15 PM, in federal court in Manhattan, before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.

It is so important for the tech community to get behind the RIAA defendants, because the battle being played out in the RIAA v. Consumer arena will have far-reaching implications, way beyond the world of sharing music files.

The Defective by Design group, part of the Free Software Foundation, has indeed recognized the importance of it and is trying to raise funds to help the RIAA victims.

Additionally, the attorneys defending these cases are in desparate need of tech people to serve as consultants and/or expert witnesses, especially in the areas of (a) hard drive forensics, and (b) hash, metadata, internet file transmissions, etc. Compare, e.g., the RIAA's bogus "expert" statements here (pdf) and here (pdf) with the genuine independent expert witness declaration (pdf) which shut down the RIAA's operation in the Netherlands.

Its importance has been known to me, and to a few in the tech community, all along. In fact, in Elektra v. Barker, where this battle is being played out in Manhattan, the US Internet Industry Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have all weighed in with amicus curiae briefs, showing how the RIAA's lawsuit against a young nursing student living in a Bronx housing project could ultimately shut the whole internet down if the RIAA's legal argument for such an expansion of the Copyright Act were to be adopted by the Court. The case is scheduled for oral argument on January 26, 2007, at 2:15 PM, in federal court in Manhattan, before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.

It is so important for the tech community to get behind the RIAA defendants, because the battle being played out in the RIAA v. Consumer arena will have far-reaching implications, way beyond the world of sharing music files.

The Defective by Design group, part of the Free Software Foundation, has indeed recognized the importance of it and is trying to raise funds to help the RIAA victims.

Additionally, the attorneys defending these cases are in desparate need of tech people to serve as consultants and/or expert witnesses, especially in the areas of (a) hard drive forensics, and (b) hash, metadata, internet file transmissions, etc. Compare, e.g., the RIAA's bogus "expert" statements here (pdf) and here (pdf) with the genuine independent expert witness declaration (pdf) which shut down the RIAA's operation in the Netherlands.

Its importance has been known to me, and to a few in the tech community, all along. In fact, in Elektra v. Barker, where this battle is being played out in Manhattan, the US Internet Industry Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation have all weighed in with amicus curiae briefs, showing how the RIAA's lawsuit against a young nursing student living in a Bronx housing project could ultimately shut the whole internet down if the RIAA's legal argument for such an expansion of the Copyright Act were to be adopted by the Court. The case is scheduled for oral argument on January 26, 2007, at 2:15 PM, in federal court in Manhattan, before Judge Kenneth M. Karas.

It is so important for the tech community to get behind the RIAA defendants, because the battle being played out in the RIAA v. Consumer arena will have far-reaching implications, way beyond the world of sharing music files.

The Defective by Design group, part of the Free Software Foundation, has indeed recognized the importance of it and is trying to raise funds to help the RIAA victims.

Additionally, the attorneys defending these cases are in desparate need of tech people to serve as consultants and/or expert witnesses, especially in the areas of (a) hard drive forensics, and (b) hash, metadata, internet file transmissions, etc. Compare, e.g., the RIAA's bogus "expert" statements here (pdf) and here (pdf) with the genuine independent expert witness declaration (pdf) which shut down the RIAA's operation in the Netherlands.