Slashdot Mirror


RIAA's 'Expert' Witness Testimony Now Online

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The online community now has an opportunity to see the fruits of its labor. Back in December, the Slashdot ('What Questions Would You Ask an RIAA Expert?') and Groklaw ('Another Lawyer Would Like to Pick Your Brain, Please') communities were asked for their input on possible questions to pose to the RIAA's 'expert'. Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University, was scheduled to be deposed in February in UMG v. Lindor, for the first time in any RIAA case. Ms. Lindor's lawyers were flooded with about 1400 responses. The deposition of Dr. Jacobson went forward on February 23, 2007, and the transcript is now available online (pdf) (ascii). Ray Beckerman, one of Ms. Lindor's attorneys, had this comment: 'We are deeply grateful to the community for reviewing our request, for giving us thoughts and ideas, and for reviewing other readers' responses. Now I ask the tech community to review this all-important transcript, and bear witness to the shoddy investigation and junk science upon which the RIAA has based its litigation war against the people. The computer scientists among you will be astounded that the RIAA has been permitted to burden our court system with cases based upon such arrant and careless nonsense.'"

1 of 512 comments (clear)

  1. Re:One quick thought about licensure by Cassini2 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I would expect my licensing body would get annoyed with me if I spent "45 minutes" (Page 54) drafting a report that was used as part of litigation. They expect that Professional Engineers check our facts so as not to mislead a jury. This avoids sequences of questions like that from Page 42, where the witness essentially admits:

    a) he did not look for alternative explanations,

    b) he did not check how accurate his findings were (potential rate of error),

    c) he has no standards or controls,

    d) he is not using published methods accepted by the scientific community, and

    e) has no way of determining if the information given to him was correct.

    It is considered a substantial problem if a Professional Engineer misleads a jury, as it can pervert justice. As such, it is very important for the legal duties be taken seriously and with the required standards of care.