Prof. Johan Pouwelse To Take On RIAA Expert

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Marie Lindor has retained an expert witness of her own to fight the RIAA, and to debunk the testimony and reports of the RIAA's 'expert' Dr. Doug Jacobson, whose reliability has been challenged by Ms. Lindor in her Brooklyn federal court case, UMG v. Lindor. Ms. Lindor's expert is none other than Prof. Johan Pouwelse, Chairman of the Parallel and Distributed Systems Group of Delft University of Technology. It was Prof. Pouwelse's scathing analysis of the RIAA's MediaSentry 'investigations' (PDF) in a case in the Netherlands that caused the courts in that country to direct the ISPs there not to turn over their subscribers' information (PDF), thus nipping in the bud the RIAA's intended litigation juggernaut in that country."

Comments

It'll be interesting to see..

[malkavian]

Whether or not the RIAA manage to drown out the technical side of the argument in legal noise.
I'll be keeping my fingers crossed that this is actually the candle in the darkness that the article author believes to be the case (and no, to those that'll accuse me of being a thief of property and a subversive, I don't download music or videos. I just think the **AA are just playing dictator, and now facing their just come uppance).

Re:It'll be interesting to see..

[Mr. Underbridge]

Whether or not the RIAA manage to drown out the technical side of the argument in legal noise.

I think that legal 'snow' effect usually works better from the defense's standpoint (moreso in criminal trials, but still effective). It seems that if the jury can't figure out what's going on, they might not be inclined to award a judgement.

Re:It'll be interesting to see..

[Meski]

Wouldn't you love to see the RIAA found to be a vexatious litigant, though?

Re:It'll be interesting to see..

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Wouldn't you love to see the RIAA found to be a vexatious litigant, though? I predict you will start seeing rulings like that. Capitol v. Foster comes pretty close. And it ain't over yet.

Finally we get _real_ entertainment from the **IAA

[Podcaster]

As someone who found the original deposition to be a very enjoyable page-turner, I'm hoping that the sequel will be even better than the first one.

-P

You cannot pass!

[Dancindan84]

I am a servant of knowledge, wielder of common sense. Go back to the shadow. The strong arm tactics will not avail you, face of the recording industry! You shall not pass!

Re:You cannot pass!

[Himring]

It is an attorney -- a lawyer of the RIAA. This foe is beyond any of you. Logout!

Re:You cannot pass!

[FreakyLefty]

File, you fools!

Re:You cannot pass!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Legolas: A lament for Gandalf.
Merry: What do they say about him?
Legolas: I cannot tell you. To do so would be a violation of their copyright to the song.

Re:You cannot pass!

[jwo7777777]

From the lowest note to the highest aria, I fought him, the Lawyer of L.A and Nashville.
Until at last, I threw down my enemy and rubbed his nose upon his mountain of money, crying "Bad Dog!". Dark fiber took me. And my lip-synching became like Milli-Vanilli. Stars wheeled overhead in their Cadillac Escalades and each day was as long as Mick Jagger's career or a Moody Blues song. But it was not the coda. I felt another refrain. I've been hired to do another gig and guard against the flaming one's brother...MPAA.

Jury of peers

[packetmon]

Well as having been someone who's gone through a complete trial against the Department of Justice I can tell you what will happen in layman's terms regardless of what expert(s) is/are called. One no one will want to serve as a juror so you will get frustrated persons as jurors. Secondly she won't get a technically competent jury so their attitude will be more or less: "Is this damned thing over with". Thirdly because her jury won't be technical no matter what someone here thinks, the jury will likely be lost in technological talk that will seem foreign to them. Outcome... No one will truly care. Bottom line reality. It may be nice for /.'ers and people across the technology world to think that something big will come out of this case, and it will, because either way both sides win and lose so the write up will be favorable to whomever in either circumstance. That's the reality of it all. Consider this posting a trollish one if you care to, but facts are facts, no one on the jury will care to be there, they will be stuck like deers in headlights no matter how its explained to them, and the outcome won't make much of a difference to the world at the end of it all.

Re:Jury of peers

[tygerstripes]

While I understand your withering commentary on the outcome from the perspective of the jury, you're forgetting the impact on law.

Case law is about precedent, and if Marie Lindor can have this case thrown out of court on grounds of technological fact, it will snap a big string in the bow of th **AA. They won't be able to use this particular ruse - one of their biggest - any longer in the courts, as anyone who takes a case defending someone against such a suit will simply be able to throw this case in.

Suddenly, fighting the **AA becomes a lot easier and cheaper, and it's Game Over as far as strong-arm, expensive litigation goes - the "Industry's" biggest weapon.

I think your comments regarding the jury are valid, but your conclusions are not.

Re:Jury of peers

[packetmon]

You didn't read the fact that I said it could go either way for both parties and in the end it will only matter to them. Say what you will about precedence but the fact is, caselaw changes often. The problem with this case will be keeping the jury from falling asleep because they will (repeat WILL) be bored by a case which can be pretty long, too technological for them to comprehend. My case lasted one week and a juror slept (not kidding) and was given a warning. Do you think that juror had any idea or cared what went on? I was 27 when I was in court. My peers? Oh those guys/gals... They were 50ish computer phobes... And so the questioning began for prospective jurors "What's your favorite tv show? ... Law and Order" (good juror said the prosecutor...) "What's your profession? ... I'm a copyright lawyer for a dotcom" ... (you are the weakest link... said the prosecutor). If you've never been to a trial or sat on jury duty you shouldn't comment because you won't know the TRUE mechanisms of how it really works regardless of the outcome. The outcome means nothing to the jurors at the end of the day, most will want to get out of jury duty and just get back to normal life duties.

Re:Jury of peers

[Anonymous Coward]

Thirdly because her jury won't be technical no matter what someone here thinks, the jury will likely be lost in technological talk that will seem foreign to them.

That may work in her favor. People who don't regularly use computers tend to be intimidated by them, and people who do regularly use computers tend to have more than a few stories about how their unreliability and mysteriousness has lead to them losing data, accumulating spyware, and discovering websites in their Favorites and on their home page that they definitely didn't set themselves.

If the people on the jury have even touched a computer in their lives they'll probably be sympathetic to this approach. That's not to say I haven't met people who aren't -- but they're typically know-it-alls who feel everybody should be able to account for everything on their computer if they simply pay attention to what they're doing (and in the past I've demonstrated to them why they're wrong by showing, for example, how easy it is for a malicious individual to link your computer behind-the-scenes to image files on websites you'd never visit (well, for demo purposes, I'd use gnu.org) by misusing comment areas on vulnerable websites.)

Re:Jury of peers

[monk.e.boy]

When did defending your rights become so complex and expensive, that it's big news when someone is able to do it?

Aaaah, sweet sweet land of the free. Whence did thou depart?

monk.e.boy

Re:Jury of peers

[Atzanteol]

When did defending your rights become so complex and expensive

When was it ever easy?

Re:Jury of peers

[GreyPoopon]

The outcome means nothing to the jurors at the end of the day, most will want to get out of jury duty and just get back to normal life duties.

This is complete and utter hogwash, and it seems like you're all pissy because you lost (although I don't think you said one way or the other). Perhaps you got a "bad" jury. Did you know that jury selection is two-sided? Both the prosecuting and defense attorneys take part in the process. If you had a lame jury, blame your lawyer. Speaking from experience, and having participated in jury duty not too long ago, I can assure you that even though much of the case was boring, each and every one of us made our best attempt to stay alert and remember facts for deliberation. We tried very hard to put aside personal beliefs and make a decision based on the law and the evidence heard. At the beginning of deliberations, the jury was nearly equally divided between guilty and not-guilty verdicts. After hours of deliberation and going through the facts each of use remembered, and also asking for a read back of part of the transcript, we ended up with one guilty verdict and the rest not-guilty. Ultimately, we had a hung jury because the one person who wanted a guilty verdict was unable to set aside the fact that the alleged victim was a child, and refused to budge even though the prosecution had failed to even remotely prove their case. I think he was wrong. But I can say this about him: he was very passionate about his opinion, and was trying very hard (even with the rest of us in opposition) to do what he felt was right. So, if the defense attorney is worth anything, there will be a balanced jury that will give the case a fair shake.

Re:Jury of peers

[UnknowingFool]

If you have been following the case, the defendant is trying to have the RIAA's expert testimony excluded so it never reaches a jury. Her argument is that unlike other expert testimony, the RIAA's expert Dr. Jacobson has used unproved, unpublished methods and relied upon unknown data to make his conclusions. That would make his testimony entirely of his personal and not professional opinion. Personal opinion testimony is not allowed to be introduced as expert testimony. Also the data provided to him by Media Sentry has never been vetted to be accurate so even if his testimony could be allowed, the basis of his testimony would be in doubt. To counter the RIAA, the defendant is presenting another expert witness who has in the past successfully refuted the RIAA.

Without the expert witness, the RIAA really has not much of a case left. Their case would boil down to someone shared their copyrighted files. They can't prove if it was their files. They can't prove it was the defendant. This would set a precedent for all cases to follow like the awarding of attorney's fees might be a precedent.

Re:Jury of peers

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I was on a medical malpractice jury once. And while I was the only "technical" sort on the Jury, people were really good about asking the judge questions on matters of law.

Juries are allowed to ask tons of questions to the Judge. And the Judge is the sole answer of questions on law.

Remember Jury box is one of the 4 boxes of freedom. I realize that not a lot of other people do...

Re:Jury of peers

[spottedkangaroo]

Of course, if the **AA (is that really what we're calling them now?) loses it's biggest string and is completely unable to bring civil cases against people that steal music (er... violate copyright) it will just assist them in their purchase of consumer unfriendly laws.

"See? We can't successfully recover our losses. You have to help us."

Re:Jury of peers

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

"When did defending your rights become so complex and expensive?"

When was it ever easy? Great comment!
 
 

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Re:Jury of peers

[cortana]

Freedom Is Not Free.

Re:Jury of peers

[NeutronCowboy]

But should it be so expensive as to be beyond your reach?

Re:Jury of peers

[UnknowingFool]

You didn't read the fact that I said it could go either way for both parties and in the end it will only matter to them.

They way I read the motion, I would say it was heavily in favor of the defendant. In the deposition of Dr. Jacobson, he admitted that the methods he used were:

1. of his own design
2. never published
3. thus, never peer-reviewed
4. never accepted by a standards body (NIST, IEEE, etc.)

In response, the RIAA says that "this methodology amounts to no more than applying settled principles to the undisputed data . . . used by reasonable experts in Dr. Jacobson's field . . . is the only way to do [the analysis] . . . and there is nothing that could be peer-reviewed." In essence, the RIAA says it is such a common (and only) methodoloy, it doesn't need to be tested. The RIAA misses the point.

What they RIAA doesn't tell you that these cases are new and no one has actually challenged the methodology yet. For the first part of the 20th century, phrenology was accepted as a way to tell a person's character based on measurements of their head. It was used in court cases to help prove guilt. Later, it was debunked as a pseudoscience. Also Dr. Jacobson's methods have been successfully challenged in the Netherlands.

The second part of the defendant's motion was with the data from Media Sentry itself. In his deposition, Dr. Jacobson admitted:

1. he did not know how Media Sentry gathered the data
2. he did not know the accuracy of the data

Basically, the defendant is asking where the data comes from and how accurate is it? The RIAA's own expert does not know.

To this the RIAA responds that the "plaintiffs have authenticated the MediaSentry data . . . and the defendant has not offered one shred of evidence to contest the accuracy or reliability of the data." The RIAA tries to sidestep the accuracy question by vouching for the data themselves and asserts the defendant has no offered any proof the data is bad. That misses the point completely. The point was that the data is a such a mystery that even their expert does not know much about it. Also the RIAA hints that the defendant has not sought discovery from MediaSentry yet. What the RIAA doesn't mention is that in many court cases, it has sought to shield MediaSentry from discovery.

Finally, the RIAA challenges that all these technical arguments were made by defendant's lawyers and that the defendant has not offered any expert testimony to counter their expert. This point is moot as the defendant now has an expert.

Re:Jury of peers

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The outcome means nothing to the jurors at the end of the day, most will want to get out of jury duty and just get back to normal life duties.

This is complete and utter hogwash

No, it's complete and utter truth. Consider yourself lucky that you were on a jury with a different experience. Consider yourself lucky that the judge let you get by with a hung jury. I know of a case where a jury deliberated for over 1 month because the judge refused to allow a hung jury and after 1 month the lone holdout finally gave in. Jury duty is often about who can outlast or outstubborn (if that's even a word) the others.

Jury duty isn't about right and wrong. It's about trying to get 12 people to agree on a verdict, whatever that might be. I have unfortunately served twice on a jury and neither was a great experience, although I'm grateful they only took a few days. It's also not about "a decision based on the law" as you state, but how the jury interprets the law, which is a gigantic distinction. Judges cannot under any circumstances tell juries what the law means. They can read the applicable law statues to the jury but it's up to the jury to decide what they think it means. What a jury thinks a law means and what judges and lawyers think a law means are 2 different things.

Re:Jury of peers

[norman619]

Speaking as someone who's been a juror I am detecting some sour grapes. Yes I didn't want to be sitting in court for almost a week. Sure it sucked but guess what? I took my job as juror seriously. I understood the future of someone was placed in our hands. Yes there was one person that fit your description as an apathetic juror but the rest of us were able to get over ourselves and do the job. There are ways to explain a very technical subject to a tech illiterate. I did it all the time during my stint as technical helpdesk rep. I was able to explain to an 80 year old how her PC spoke to the internet and and have her comprehend enough empower her troubleshoot her own issue. If I can do this I'm fairly confident this lawyer will be able to explain the technical side of the case to the jurors. I doubt they Jury will be filled with 80 year olds. Another thing that made me take the case I was sitting in on seriously was the hope that if I ever found myself having to deffend myself in court I would have a Jury that would take the job just as serious as we did. Not everyone sherks their responcibilities.

Re:Jury of peers

[Himring]

Very right. My own legal troubles were an awakening. The last thing law is about is justice. Bottom line: deep pockets win. The RIAA knows that simply by making people go through the hassle of going to court, this alone could have an impact. As a matter of fact, you can keep taking someone to court ad infinitum (seemingly), without a prayer of winning, but the trouble of it alone can destroy your mind, soul and bank account.

"Justice in America is the best money can buy...." --Will Rogers

Re:Jury of peers

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Great comment, Unknowing Fool.
 
Boy, have you been paying attention.

Re:Jury of peers

[Mockylock]

Granted, it may not be the end of it all, but quite honestly... they have to start somewhere. Your or I could drive down the road drunk, smoking pot while speeding and reckless driving... get CAUGHT, pay your fines over the phone and have less fines than the 10 year old with shared music on his computer. And THAT kid has to go to court and pay a lawyer.

So, where do we start? Do we just let them keep taking more and more slack until someone stands up. Up until recently, there hasn't been anyone that has the knowledge or money to do it.

I'm not really condoning free distribution worldwide, but I do think prices have been a bit too high even before P2P. Not only that, but I think that the more successful bands are just that, because their music is put together well enough to support concert sales.

I think that it should be a set small fine with an increasing fine for more offenses. They'll get a smack on the hand and more than likely not do it again. But, taking entire families to court for thousands and thousands of dollars, is completely rediculous. The crackhead down the road who busted your window out and stole your case of $200 CD's gets away with less hassle.

I'm not flaming you.. in fact, I respect your opinion. And you're right about it not making a huge difference.... BUT, when people make it public about who is being affected and the boundaries that are really being stepped over, small cases like this will influence more people to think of a way to at least draw up some guidelines and formal procedures for future incidents.

Re:Jury of peers

[Atzanteol]

Expensive? People have *died* for the freedoms we have today. I'm afraid a little up-front dollar value pales in comparison... We must always fight for freedom. It's naive and stupid to think others won't take it from us if they can.

Re:Jury of peers

[deblau]

I'm technically competent and I was just on a jury, along with a former FBI agent and a college student. It happens more often than you think.

Re:Jury of peers

[Fujisawa Sensei]

I guess it was easier when all you needed was a gun, a sword, and maybe your personal army.

Re:Jury of peers

[danheskett]

Also, one thing many people on juries don't know and citizens aren't informed of:

No matter what a judge tells you, JURY NULLIFICATION IS LEGAL AND ACCEPTABLE. You can vote NOT GUILTY for any reason, no matter the cause, end of story.

It is never illegal for you to vote not guilty, it is never "wrong" for you to vote not guilty. If you ever get to a jury regarding file sharing, and you believe the current state of the law is unacceptable, you can vote NOT GUILTY regardless of how narrowly the judge defines the "issues at hand".

The prosecutor and judge will try to steer you to look only at narrow issues of fact and law. The truth is that juries have unreviewable and unreversable authority to acquit for any reason. (U.S. v. Dougherty, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972).

JURY NULLIFICATION IS ALWAYS 'OKAY'.

Re:Jury of peers

[dfoulger]

You are quite wrong. There is a considerable literature on this. Juries almost always take their responsibility seriously.

There is also, and this may have been the real issue for the case in question, a mild bias in juries (which judges usually try to counter in the instructions) to give a little bit of extra weight to the governments case. That's unfortunate, but very human.

Re:Jury of peers

[orgelspieler]

It's also not about "a decision based on the law" as you state, but how the jury interprets the law, which is a gigantic distinction. Judges cannot under any circumstances tell juries what the law means. They can read the applicable law statues to the jury but it's up to the jury to decide what they think it means.

That's absolutely incorrect. Juries interpret the facts. The judge interprets the law (except for jury nullification, but that's a different story). And it's up to the DA and defense attorney to explain what the law means in relation to the case. It is then up to the jury to decide whether the facts in the case are enough to warrant conviction.

I served on a needlessly long jury trial for assault with a deadly weapon. Both the DA and the defense attorney set about explaining what the law meant in their opening statements. We heard the evidence, during which the judge interpreted the law by ruling on objections. After the closing arguments, the judge gave us our charge, which is another interpretation of the law, boiled down to explain what we were required to find for a guilty verdict. It was also an interpretation of the law in the sense that the judge had ruled out the possibility of finding the defendant guilty of any lesser offenses. We decided the facts, nothing else. It was a pretty simple "not guilty" in this case.

What a jury thinks a law means and what judges and lawyers think a law means are 2 different things.

More like 15 different things each juror, two attorneys, and one judge.

As for the main point of the GP, even the most jaded juror must realize that it could just as easily be them sitting in the defendants chair. To say that all juries are just interested in getting back to work is baseless. I for one enjoyed the time off, and I liked serving my community. I would be surprised if it's even a substantial fraction of juries that are of the "screw justice let's get out of here" mindset.

Re:Jury of peers

[Boogaroo]

Every jury is different. Clearly you've seen some of the bad juries. The other poster has seen good juries. Also, while juries may think about the law, they're supposed to interpret the facts, not the law. T

Regardless, one cannot know that this jury will be composed of 100% old technophobes. The chance of a technically savvy juror is about the same as the population of the area the case is in. All it really takes is one jury member with the technical common sense to catch the important parts of the testimony. They don't even have to be an expert. This one person can answer any questions for others in the jury while deliberating.

Sure, that juror could misinterpret the testimony. Sure, they want to go home, but that's neither here nor there. The jury doesn't decide whether the law applies or not. They just decide if the person did or did not do it. All they have to decide is, does the testimony show that it is MORE or LESS likely that THIS person did what the RIAA says they did.

When I was selected for jury duty, I was HAPPY. I wasn't selected for a jury, but those who obviously would have been bad were not selected either. If you think juries suck, then do your jury duty when called.

Re:Jury of peers

[Wicked Zen]

Great comment, Unknowing Fool. Boy, have you been paying attention. LOL. When I first read this, I thought it was a sarcastic flame. :P

Re:Jury of peers

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

No, I was serious all right. It's really a pleasure when you see someone, like "Unknowing Fool", who has really been reading and absorbing the material. Moments like that make me feel like the many hours I've spent trying to get the word out.... have been worth it.

Re:Jury of peers

[fatphil]

+1 informative.

Thanks for that snippet of legal case history insight that I'm sure many US citizens and almost all foreigners will not be aware of. You seem to be fairly use nothing supersedes it?

Re:Jury of peers

[fatphil]

use = sure

Re:Jury of peers

[NMerriam]

Consider yourself lucky that you were on a jury with a different experience.

Perhaps you should consider yourself unlucky to have had a bad experience?

I've served on several juries in my life, as have multiple family members and friends. Every one of us enjoyed the process, found it interesting and served with jurors who were very serious about what we were all doing. Yes, it can be an inconvenience but I think you underestimate how much people like novelty and the feeling of doing something different and important and making a difference in the world -- and serving on a jury is one of the few times in most people's lives where they know without any doubt that their decision will dramatically, directly affect several people's lives.

Every study I know if about jury attitudes has shown that my experience was typical, and that most people take it very seriously.

That said, yes you can bore the hell out of jurors, but that isn't because they're uninterested, in my experience it's because attorneys and witnesses were so poorly prepared they spent hours circling around issues on fishing expeditions instead of getting to the damn point and moving on.

Re:Jury of peers

[19061969]

This is not completely off-topic, but almost.

In my work in statistics (in education), validity has to be shown every time analysis is done. It's never a once and for all thing. This is a real drag for research, but it helps to show that what you say has a degree of validity. In my field, any expert witness offering evidence-based testimony would be required to complete the task of showing validity right from the start, otherwise the results and conclusion are not worth paying attention to.

Re:Jury of peers

[maciarc]

When did defending your rights become so complex and expensive, that it's big news when someone is able to do it?

In the United States, sometime around 1763...

Re:Jury of peers

[utnapistim]

Expensive? People have *died* for the freedoms we have today. I'm afraid a little up-front dollar value pales in comparison... We must always fight for freedom. It's naive and stupid to think others won't take it from us if they can.

I agree with what you said except for one thing: People have not died for the freedoms you have today. They died for what they believed in and your freedoms today might not be what they had in mind.

For example, you (I assume you are American) have a (great) constitution that speaks of the freedoms and rights of people; nowadays that usually means freedoms and rights of _American_ people, while mostly ignoring the rights of others ... and I'm not sure that's what they had in mind.

My opinion may be off though, as I see things from the outside ... and then again, that could make it more accurate.

Re:Jury of peers

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You're neither more nor less "accurate"... you're just wrong.

It is one of the beautiful things in human history that democracy and freedom have transcended time, and spanned many generations, and have survived as beliefs even when dead in in the physical world, only to rise again from the ashes. And the reason is because some people were willing to risk all -- including their lives -- to preserve and protect the idea, and to keep it alive to be handed down to future generations.

Re:Jury of peers

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thank you, Alzanteol.

Beautiful comment.

Re:Jury of peers

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

By the way, your statement

I see things from the outside..... is just bunk.

You live, breathe, eat, love, hate, etc.

You're on the inside.

Sorry to disillusion you.

Re:Jury of peers

[Alter_Fritz]

NYCL.
I guess he referes "outside" as in "not american citizen, not in america but in Cyprus" according to his blog/flickr page.

and IMO his other comment isn't so wrong after all. Look what had become of the freedoms you americans once had and wherefore so many had died.

You americans now have secret laws you are not supposed to know (and all this stuff about the no fly lists, the national ID stuff, Mr. Bushs ability to get rid of every american he does not like simply by declaring him a terrorist (this habeus thingy/military act thingy IIRC)

So his pointing out that you americans have lost many of the freedoms you were 1or2 generations ago so proud of has some validity IMO.

Re:Jury of peers

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

1. It has nothing to do with countries. I trace the heritage back to the ancient Greeks, and to the Hebrews, and it probably goes back further than that, to people who fought for freedom but weren't as good as the Hebrews and Greeks at recording their histories.

2. I don't understand what you're saying "you americans". Everywhere in the world there are freedom-loving people, and there are all kinds of governmental types and corporate types who will try to take it away. It is a struggle everywhere to fight for freedom, in America as everywhere else, and it always has been.

Re:Finally we get _real_ entertainment from the **

[lottameez]

I'm waiting for the audiobook (as long I can download it off of somebody's website).

My Cousin Johan

[WrongSizeGlass]

Johan: "I don't think da two youts downloaded any illegal music".
Judge: "Youts? Did you say youts?"
Johan: "Yeah ... da two youts."
Judge: "What's a yout?"
Johan: "Why don't you ask Dr. Jacobson? He's supposedly the expert here."
Judge: "Dr. Jacobson, what's a yout?"
Jacobson: "I believe it's a file type used for illegal music downloads, your honor."
Johan: "Da defenses rests, your judgeship".

That's OK....

[advocate_one]

he'll never be able to appear in the US, someone will just have him added to the do-not-fly list... after all, he's got a foreign sounding name... that's enough for a start...

Re:That's OK....

[Anonymous Coward]

he'll never be able to appear in the US, someone will just have him added to the do-not-fly list... after all, he's got a foreign sounding name... that's enough for a start...

Done and done.

Re:Assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I know whatcha mean, bud... most of the summaries on Slashdot assume some basic familiarity with whatever random subject they present. It's annoying as hell to just jump right in with facts, under the assumption people might be able to learn through context. But, yeah, all those links to background stories made me dizzy. How dare they assume I should read so many articles to understand some news item! Jeez, just spoon feed me drivel already: "Some Dude To Kick Monopoly's Ass In Court"

Re:Finally we get _real_ entertainment from the **

[rustalot42684]

If not, just download it p2p!

+1 My Cousin Vinnie

[mccalli]

Fred's finest hour.

Re:+1 My Cousin Vinnie

[morgan_greywolf]

For those not in in the know, the parent is referring to Fred Gwynne, who played Judge Chamberlain Haller in My Cousin Vinny. Fred Gwynne, btw, is also well-known for playing Herman Munster.

The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Adult film producer]

As soon as congress passes the magical and majestic Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007.

1. Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright.
2. Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software.
3. Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations.
4. Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention regulations.
5. Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes.

and my favorite,

6. Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America.

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Dancindan84]

2. Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. For those of you having a heart attack, from the link: "Justice Department officials gave the example of a hospital using pirated software instead of paying for it."

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Valtor]

If we get life imprisonment for using pirated software, what will be the penalty for killers, rappers, etc... ? They'll be shot on sight? This is getting ridiculous!

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they'll be released early due to prison overcrowding.

Soon, it will be safer "in there" than "out here", as the only people who will be on the streets will be murderers and rapists. Rappers will roam the streets in packs, grills gleaming menacingly. People will begin pirating more in order to get a prison sentence where they will be better protected.

It's counterproductive.

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[seether166]

Until I got to your link, I really thought you were joking. Life imprisonment?! Wow. "intended" copyright crimes? When does Tom Cruise come crashing into your house to arrest you for "future crimes" with a **AA patch on his shoulder?!

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[dwarfsoft]

I wouldn't worry too much about rappers, they tend to get shot on site anyway. Tupac, Jam Master Jay, need I continue?

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[dwarfsoft]

Or shot on sight for that matter...

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[hotdiggitydawg]

If we get life imprisonment for using pirated software, what will be the penalty for killers, rappers, etc... ? They'll be shot on sight? This is getting ridiculous! Well I don't know about the killers, but personally I have no problem with rappers being shot on sight. Finally an alternative use for my mime rifle!

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Nqdiddles]

what will be the penalty for killers, rappers, etc... ? They'll be shot on sight?
Aren't rappers usually shot on sight?

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[morgan_greywolf]

Holy fsck! I thought you were kidding. Here I was thinking "Why did this get modded informative?" Until I noticed the link at the end of the post...and then followed and read it! Parent is very serious, folks. Another one that struck me:

* Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture

They'll be able to seize your PC like a they would a drug lord's vehicles and property. You have to be kidding me. In addition, what is a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime? How about anything running Linux with libdvdcss loaded on it! Ya know, so you can play those DVDs you legitimately purchased on equipment you own? Except that doing so is a violation of the DMCA?

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[morgan_greywolf]

If we get life imprisonment for using pirated software, what will be the penalty for killers, rappers, etc... ? They'll be shot on sight?

Rappers should be shot on sight for noise pollution. Rapists on the other hand...

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Attila Dimedici]

From TFA: "Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. Anyone using counterfeit products who 'recklessly causes or attempts to cause death' can be imprisoned for life." That means if you use pirated software and it causes someone's death it will be considered similar to premeditated murder. That is why the Justice Department uses the example of a hospital, as that is one of the few places where software can cause someone's death. I can't imagine a case where the software on a home computer would cause death (all of the ideas I can think of would already merit a murder charge).

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Valtor]

LOL... Sorry for that! I'm a french speaking canadian. Tho I would not be against shooting rappers too ;-)

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Dancindan84]

I can't imagine a case where the software on a home computer would cause death (all of the ideas I can think of would already merit a murder charge). I can see clippy giving someone an aneurysm. If you're using Word without clippy turned off I think that qualifies as a suicide though.

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Valtor]

I used to think that Linux distros wanting to be 100% free/libre and clean, like Ubuntu, were just too anal about it. Now I think it will soon be the only safe way of using a computer. Safe for the user that is, and not just safe for the computer...

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Red_Winestain]

Allow computers to be seized more readily. Specifically, property such as a PC "intended to be used in any manner" to commit a copyright crime would be subject to forfeiture, including civil asset forfeiture

They'll be able to seize your PC like a they would a drug lord's vehicles and property.

Glad I use a Mac.

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[morgan_greywolf]

Somehow I doubt that would help much.

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[radtea]

The IPPA would insert a new prohibition: actions that were "intended to consist of" distribution.

(from http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html)

In other news, the Attorney General announced that "suspicion of resisting arrest" will be added to America's criminal law under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution.

"We feel," he said, "that police should have the power to act to detain an individual based on their well-founded suspicions that the individual might resist the lawful actions of police in detaining them."

When asked about the use of the Interstate Commerce clause, he replied, "Obviously, if an individual is going to resist arrest they may do so by crossing state lines. The Constitution is very clear on this. In fact, the President has the power acting in his capacity as Commander in Chief to use the National Guard to detain such individuals. Furthermore, anyone who attempts to avoid arrest on suspicion is obviously guilty of resisting arrest, so we don't feel that it will be necessary, or indeed possible, for this to be tested in the courts. And if anyone attempts to do so, we will simply change the charges against them to something else, like filling out a form."

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Anonymous Coward]

Your original post should now be modded +1 Confusingly Funny.

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[belmolis]

This provision isn't worrisome in its own right since the situation in which it would be applicable is one that already falls under other laws against unintentional homicide, such as reckless endangerment and manslaughter. The disturbing thing about it is that it is a subtle attempt to equate "pirated" with "counterfeit and inferior". When somebody sells black market antibiotics, for example, there is a serious risk that they are not what they claim to be or are contaminated, so the black market drugs may really be inferior and dangerous. When somebody sells pirated copies of Microsoft Windows, the OS that the purchaser gets is just as safe (or just as unsafe) as a licensed copy.

This attempt at equating "pirated" with "counterfeit,inferior, and dangerous" is an instance of the same scam that Microsoft attempted with its "Windows Genuine Advantage" program, which implies that pirated copies of MS Windows are not "genuine".

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[TheDukePatio]

Let's at least appear to seem fair... From TFA that was referenced:

6. Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America. "That would happen when compact discs with "unauthorized fixations of the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance" are attempted to be imported. Neither the Motion Picture Association of America nor the Business Software Alliance (nor any other copyright holder such as photographers, playwrights, or news organizations, for that matter) would qualify for this kind of special treatment."

This doesn't apply to the RIAA's lawsuits against Ma and Pa Kettle, The Internet Music Vigilantes. Chances are that the DHS will only care when they find enough spindles to make AOL's head spin.

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Anonymous Coward]

Gonzales should be disbarred immediately for even suggesting such a thing, and disallowed from ever entering a public office again. As should any public official that proposes thought crime laws.

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[SailorRipley]

Maybe if you stop shilling for a second, you might realize, or find out by reading that what you are referring to is not stealing but copyright infringement...if it is most definitely Empire/Sith evil, why do you infantile shillers always feel the need to call it something it isn't?

Maybe because what it actually is, isn't so severe...maybe because people might realize all this MAFFIAA crap is so out of proportion and ridiculous?

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Plunky]

When somebody sells black market antibiotics, for example, there is a serious risk that they are not what they claim to be or are contaminated, so the black market drugs may really be inferior and dangerous. When somebody sells pirated copies of Microsoft Windows, the OS that the purchaser gets is just as safe (or just as unsafe) as a licensed copy.

Interestingly, I just heard a Microsoft representative on national radio here in the UK (Chris Evans show on Radio 2) claim that pirate copies of Windows are virus and spyware infested and you really shouldn't use them because you could lose your data, like wedding photos, and that people can hack into your bank account if you use them.

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Attila Dimedici]

That is a good point, but some people were getting worked up about the idea that this was a "life sentence for illegally copied software". It wasn't. However, in the case of medical software (and some other fields) the technical support for the software is important to make sure that the software is installed and configured properly. Although now that I think about it, there probably already exist regulations that you would not be able to meet using pirated software. I work in a laboratory that does some FDA regulated tests and we would not be able to validate our equipment according to FDA guidelines with pirated software.

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[belmolis]

For critical applications I can well see that you would want to be sure that the software you install is really what it is supposed to be, but that isn't quite the same issue as piracy. Suppose that you have a dozen identical pieces of equipment that are controlled by a piece of proprietary software - say Microsoft Radiation Therapy. If you have an installation CD and one license but install on all twelve machines, you are violating the license, but you aren't endangering anyone since you're installing the same software, presumably safe and certified, on every machine. On the other hand, if your little sister tries her hand at writing a similar program and licenses it to you for all twelve machines, there is no copyright infringement but you are taking a risk in installing a potentially unsafe and uncertified program. In general, the licensing issue and the genuineness/safety issue don't go together.

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, in both cases you would probably be in violation of certain government regulations concerning Acceptable Practice. Neither of the scenarios you mentioned would pass GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) standards (although I am not sure that many auditors would catch it).

Re:The RIAA will be getting all the help it needs,

[AJWM]

controlled by a piece of proprietary software - say Microsoft Radiation Therapy

Now there's a thought enough to give anyone nightmares.

Re:Finally we get _real_ entertainment from the **

[morgan_greywolf]

Torrent.

Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[bconway]

The 'files shared = sales lost' formula has never been proven by the RIAA, Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, or anyone else.

I stopped reading there. While everyone can agree that it's wrong for the RIAA to prosecute people who do not have the means to commit copyright infringement, let's not forget that it's still against the law when it does happen. Slashdot is, in general, a technical and smart crowd, let's not pull the wool over our own eyes. It just makes us look foolish.

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[LiquidCoooled]

You are correct, but there is a difference between saying these files are available and the reality which is (normally) your upstream capacity and group organisation of p2p makes it near impossible for those files to ALL be sent from your computer to everyone else in the universe.

The RIAA should clearly link seeing the file available and actual infringements otherwise the figures quoted are just pie in the sky.

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[bwbadger]

>let's not forget that it's still against the law when it does happen

Sure, but it's a stupid law as it stands and it should be changed. Clearly laws like these can be changed *because they are being changed right now*, though the changes seem to be making things worse.

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[tinkerghost]

The 'files shared = sales lost' formula has never been proven by the RIAA, Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, or anyone else.

I stopped reading there. While everyone can agree that it's wrong for the RIAA to prosecute people who do not have the means to commit copyright infringement, let's not forget that it's still against the law when it does happen. Slashdot is, in general, a technical and smart crowd, let's not pull the wool over our own eyes. It just makes us look foolish.

It's a perfectly valid statement to be making, the RIAA is pushing through all of the laws based on beeelionnns of $ stolen, stolen I tell you. They base the damages they are seeking on it. And yet, every peer reviewed study says it increases sales for the independent musicians - the members of the RIAA won't share detailed sales information so it's not possible to determine specifics. However, IIRC - one study found that sales jumped after every college break during which file sharing jumped.

Also check out Eric Flint's comments @ Baen books free library from back in 2002 reguarding his sales figures when he releases a book on the free elibrary. From the same collection of essays, I suggest you read the one reguarding copyright as presented in 1841 in England - pay special attention to the last paragraphs, the man is just frighteningly accurate.

Now, yes, it's illegal - not sure if it should be as the current scope of copyright law does not appear to strike a balance between the rights of society & the rights of the content producers. In that sense it needs some serious revamping. The DMCA is just bad - any law that garantees your right to fair use, but denies you access to the tools to exercise that right is bad.

So perhaps you should go back & read the whole artical & educate yourself about the whole argument not just 'stealing is wrong' - in a very real & moral sense, copyright steals from society, which is why Benjamin Franklin objected to it. The laws reguarding copyright are supposed to balance the need to compensate creative people with the rights of society at large to make use of what has been created. They do not currently balance anything.

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

You are correct, but there is a difference between saying these files are available and the reality which is (normally) your upstream capacity and group organisation of p2p makes it near impossible for those files to ALL be sent from your computer to everyone else in the universe.

The RIAA should clearly link seeing the file available and actual infringements otherwise the figures quoted are just pie in the sky. Yeah, the problem is they don't know of any.

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[Anonymous Coward]

The facts of changes in music buying habits are irrelevantr to the rights and wrongs here. if people create intellectual property they have the right to do what the fuck they want with it, including NOT giving it away for free. Unless, of yourse you are some hippie communist who thinks that the contents of a musician or software develoeprs brain are not theirs?

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[Anonymous Coward]

well said, far too often slashdot readers like to portray themselves as some kind of anti-establishment robin hood, when all they generally are doing is saving a few bucks by copying other peoples hard works.

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[Anonymous Coward]

bullshit. you and your thieving scum mates think its a stupid law because breaking it means you get shit for free, and lets be honest, you dont give a fuck if some content creator loses their job, fuck em eh? your like the kind of jerk who breaks the speed limit, who cares if it hurts some other person. fuck em eh?

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[aukset]

Actually, I could see an argument where it does. I absolutely abhor it, but Washington has in the last few decades set this country on a path where a large portion of the wealth we create as a society is intellectual wealth (I refuse to call it intellectual property). That means these things' value to society is primarily how much wealth it can generate in the global economy.

Whether this situation is good or bad is another question entirely. I would say it is bad. The point is, however, that you will encounter this argument: that the balance is struck not by adding to our cultural value, but our economic value.

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[bwbadger]

:-)

Good guess, but wrong on all counts. I am a content creator and as it happens I do not infringe on the copyrights of others.

I still think it's a stupid law. Copyright is fine, the current configuration has gone way, way to far.

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[tinkerghost]

I will pose a simple question .... since when? The concept of an idea as legal property began with the 'Statute of Anne' in 1709. As of the writing of the US constitution it was still not settled that this was a good thing. So, unless you would like to call Benjamin Franklin a 'hippie communist' I think you might want to look at the actual history of the system.

Given your attitude, I will assume you didn't read any of the things I referenced ... so let me make it easier - courtesy of the Baen ELibrary - Thomas Babington Macaulay pointed out in 1841 that the granting of a monopoly on an idea harms society as a whole - this is not (or at least was not from the inception of copyright through the late 20th century a question, it was a given. The purpose of copyright is to balance that damage against the bennefit of freeing authors from a patronage system by providing them financial control over their works. (Actually it was to protect the publishers, but they got a bit screwed in the process with the authors initially coming out ahead until the publishers could buy the copyrights from them) The vast irony is that for music, we now have both the copyright system and the patronage system - both known to damage/restrict the public domain.

I really suggest you read the Macaulay speachs since they points out quite clearly the fact that marking the expiration of term of copyright from the death of the author cheats some of the greatest works of protection while simultaniously granting vast extensions on the - normally - much inferior works of the authors early career. Further they delv into the simple fact that people do not write or create art for the sake of people who won't be born until after their childred are dead. The stated purpose of copyright is to create an incentive for people to write by giving them control over their works. Beyond the lifespan of the author, there is little to no incentive. As Macaulay puts it 'But what I do complain of is that my circumstances are to be worse, and Johnson's [author of the first English Dictionary & dead 51 years at the time of the speach] none the better; that I am to give five pounds for what to him was not worth a farthing.'

Perhaps the most telling point is that 160 years ago Macaulay pointed out exactly what will happen when people cease to feel that copyright balances against the damage done to society:

At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, y

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[cthulhu11]

However, IIRC - one study found that sales jumped after every college break during which file sharing jumped. That doesn't establish causality. It's entirely plausible that sales jumped eg. due to the kids having more free time or whatever.

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[jgoemat]

[...] if people create intellectual property they have the right to do what the fuck they want with it, including NOT giving it away for free.

Then they can keep it to themselves if they wish. As soon as they make it available to the public, I have the right to do whatever the fuck I want with it. That is until the government restricts my legal right to do so in order to grant a limited monopoly on copying and distribution to the author. That right is granted by the government as an economic incentive to encourage the production of new works. That is the stated purpose in the constitution of the United States at least. Some other countries see it as a moral right, and the U.S. appears to be moving in that direction. The explained purpose of copyright extensions is to bring the U.S. in line with other countries in the world. In fact it acts to protect the corporate interests that own the large majority of copyrighted works. This occurs at the expense of the public domain and of the people. You should read Melancholy Elephants for a look at where we're headed.

The facts of changes in music buying habits are irrelevant [sic] to the rights and wrongs here.

Since the stated purpose of copyright is to provide financial incentive for the creation of new works, something that does not financially detract from the value of copyright should not be illegal. Extending the term of copyrights to 75 years after the death of the author does little more than the original 28-year term to provide incentive to create new works. On the other hand it restricts the rights of EVERYONE. Think about that. One person gets money for his works (or not since most works that old are of little value or it is his ancestors and most don't get the financial backing for another run of publishing) for 75 years. On the other hand, BILLIONS of people have their rights restricted for THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.

Re:Let's stop deluding oureslves, shall we?

[tinkerghost]

You are correct in stating that it doesn't establish causality, however it does significantly challenge the RIAA argument that increased p2p downloads causes them lost sales. The fact that every spike in p2p activity in the study period was followed by a spike in CD sales offers stronger ancedotal evidence that p2p activity supports sales rather than the RIAA line of 'every p2p download is a lost sale'.

Re:Assumptions

[Guillermito2]

>The 'submitter' seems to have made a lot of 'assumptions' about how closely
>we have been following this 'case'.

Maybe there is a reason why Slashdot editors post news of this case quite often. Maybe you should follow it a bit more closely. It is very important, in my humble opinion. It is The Normal People vs the MAFIAA, their scare tactics and their scandalous racketing scheme.

NewYorkCountryLawyer has huge balls for fighting them face to face, and as average geeks, we should thank him for his work.

And I will start right now : NewYorkCountryLawyer, thank you.

Re:Assumptions

[Nymz]

Jeez, just spoon feed me drivel already: "Some Dude To Kick Monopoly's Ass In Court"

While some doodz may feel that way (who cares), I believe the grandparent comment was that the importantance of the story should be related to the targeted audience (Slashdot).

Perhaps if I was lawyer, or studing law, I would appreciate the play by play details of any particular case. But this is Slashdot, and the category is Your Rights Online, and I expect a story summary to relate an issue, that we consider important, in a concise manner.

Bah, it's probably just a slow newsday. (Occams' razor)

I beg to disagree with a couple of your points

[zappepcs]

As soon as congress passes the magical and majestic Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007.

1. Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright.
2. Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software. Step number two would criminalize approximately 50% of the current Windows users. This move would seriously hamper MS's future revenues and cannot be allowed.

3. Permit more wiretaps for piracy investigations.
4. Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention regulations. I'm assuming that you have heard, Viacom is going to have the DMCA repealed during their lawsuit with YouTube?

5. Add penalties for "intended" copyright crimes.
and my favorite,
6. Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America.

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html I'm reasonably certain that if the DHS were to use their position/power to spy on the **AA all of these law suits would simply vanish. I'm thinking that one DHS director finding out how much less of a cut he got than senator so-and-so would put paid to that game.

Re:I beg to disagree with a couple of your points

[Anonymous Coward]

2. Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software.

C'mon - throw a little context in here! This is for the use of pirated software which causes death (or an attempted death), such as hospitals using pirated software and risking patients lives. I'm not saying I like the bill (infact I don't) but cheap shots just make one side seem as bad as the other

RikF

I'm telling you, I have the solution to this ...

[Anonymous Coward]

All we have to do is somehow get the RIAA in a legal fight with the Scientologists...

The Netherlands sez: America has no privacy.

[KutuluWare]

One of the links in the summary goes to the judgement on appeal from a case in the Netherlands of the RIAA (or whatever their equivalent is... there's like 35 plaintiffs) vs. some ISPs. The court ruled, twice, that the ISPs didn't have to turn over names & addresses based on the list of IPs the music companies gave them. The main reason was because the court didn't believe that MediaSentry was a proper means of obtaining them.

One of the reasons they didn't like MediaSentry was this:

The Preliminary Injunction Court also considered the fact that MediaSentry is an American company and that the United States of America could not be considered to be a country that has an appropriate protection level for personal data

At least the rest of the world has figured out what most of us Americans haven't: America's right to privacy is a rapidly disappearing illusion.

Re:The Netherlands sez: America has no privacy.

[Alkonaut]

I have a broadband connection from an ISP I trust will *never* leave my name or address to a third party, unless that third party is a government agency and I am a suspect in an investigation of a very serious crime.

That amount of privacy is what expect and accept. Anything less is to me totally unacceptable, and I will cancel my broadband subscription the same day that my ISP gives a single name to a third party.

Re:The Netherlands sez: America has no privacy.

[Anonymous Coward]

America's right to privacy is a rapidly disappearing illusion.

Along with the rest of our rights.

Government needed a Constitutional amendment before it could outlaw sale and posession of alcohol, the amendment mentioned only alcohol, and was then repealed. Fast forward a couple of decades and hemp is outlawed and Constitution be damned. George Washington said "Nothing settles the evening meal like a good bowl of hemp." Under today's laws, the father of our country would be a criminal!

If they needed to amend the Constituton to outlaw alcohol, why didn't they have to amend it to outlaw hemp? Because the Supreme Court says that the Constitution says whatever Congress says it says? That's what they ruled when Lessig tried to get the Bono Act (unlimited copyright terms) declared unconstitutional.

Re:The Netherlands sez: America has no privacy.

[Frenchy_2001]

At least the rest of the world has figured out what most of us Americans haven't: America's right to privacy is a rapidly disappearing illusion.
You are at the same time reading too much and too little in the statement.
This is a statement in a court of law.
They are not talking about general privacy law, but specific ones.
There is a very big difference even in the way the law works in USA and in Europe.
For example, in Europe, your data belong to YOU. Privacy laws give you a RIGHT to have those data corrected or removed. In the US, the data belong to the organization collecting it and you have no access to it.
Another law in Europe say you cannot share those data to an organization that does not respect those principle.
This is what came to bite Mediasentry. There was a similar problem with airlines sharing their passenger information with the Department of Homeland Security as they do not respect that same principle either.

OT re: your sig

[Junior J. Junior III]

The happiness of society is the end of government. -- John Adams

I wonder if John Adams is using the word "end" in a way that is synonymous with "goal", rather than to suggest that he's some sort of radical anarchist. Do you have the context for the quote?

Re:OT re: your sig

[VargrX]

I wonder if John Adams is using the word "end" in a way that is synonymous with "goal", rather than to suggest that he's some sort of radical anarchist. Do you have the context for the quote?

I believe that your correct in this presumption:
Attribution: John Adams (1735-1826), U.S. statesman, president. Thoughts on Government (1776). http://www.liberty1.org/thoughts.htm.

The quote is in the fourth paragraph of the letter, and the context is (imo) close to what your supposing - 'end' is synonymous to goal, not 'end' being synonymous to 'end of days'

Re:OT re: your sig

[BlueStraggler]

It's a distinction without a difference. The goal/end of a journey is the finale/end of the journey. There only seems to be a distinction in cases where the finale is unreachable because the goal is too idealistic.

Re:OT re: your sig

[Junior J. Junior III]

I don't agree with that; it's entirely possible to have goals that are ongoing.

Tune Out, Turn Off, Drop Out

[grapeape]

The RIAA only has power because we enable it. With the exception of the random but rare story about some grandma in Peoria who didnt have p2p, the vast majority find themselved bullied by the RIAA because they coveted some drivel being peddled by an RIAA member. Stop buying it, stop borrowing it, stop stealing it, stop listening to it and the RIAA has no power at all. Those that continue to support the RIAA's causes either legally or illegally are entitled to do nothing other than stop bitching about it.

Re:Tune Out, Turn Off, Drop Out

[witte]

Just like deleting spam from my mailbox will stop spammers and scammers from flooding everyones mailbox ? Yeah, right...
It only takes a minority of paying idiots to give these people the funds to keep on bugging the rest of us.
And in the case of RIAA, I'm sure they have plenty of dough in their coffers to go to war with and outlast most grassroots attempts at heightening consumer awareness.

<sarcasm>Voting with our wallet probably hurts them less than copyright infringement</sarcasm>

Let me see if I've got the story so far

[DingerX]

NYCL seeks to exclude Jacobson on the basis of a failure to meet the standards of expert testimony as laid out in Daubert.
Plaintiff writes back that: A) Mediasentry's function is evident, and therefore not in need of expert testimony: it merely reports what's out there.
B) Nobody disputes that somewhere out there was a computer with the material in question.
C) Esteemed expert Jacobson's job was to associate that computer in B with a person. Using means too magical to describe, Jacobson did that.
D) In any case, defendant doesn't have their own expert witness.

So the same day, NYCL responds to D), by announcing their own expert.
A-C are wrong too, of course. If mediasentry were what the letter claimed it was, it would be Kazaa, not mediasentry. Since it is not Kazaa, there is no way to tell (beyond mere faith) that there actually is a computer out there with that stuff on it, and not some fiction caused by a corrupt/imperfect implementation of Kazaa's protocols, or the software to display it. And we all know that the esteemed expert's methodology has demonstrable error, but no way to quantify that error.

Re:Assumptions

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thank you, Guillermito2, for your kind words of support. And in my opinion you really got it right with this description and appraisal:

"Maybe there is a reason why Slashdot editors post news of this case quite often. Maybe you should follow it a bit more closely. It is very important, in my humble opinion. It is The Normal People vs the MAFIAA, their scare tactics and their scandalous racketing scheme."

Re:Assumptions

[john_lewmanny]

The above is not a troll. The summary is confusing in fact.

Re:Assumptions

[xtracto]

And after the hearings finish, he suerly goes to the pub to talk about the case with the lawyers of the MAFIAA, I know it, my best friend (and neighbour) is a lawyer.

Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 1 minute since you last successfully posted a comment
Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy, or clicked the Back button to accidentally reuse a form. Please try again. If the problem persists, and all other options have been tried, contact the site

pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

what a bunch of hypocrits and liars. you like music but you're unwilling to pay for it? get a life.

Re:pathetic

[Travelsonic]

Even more pathetic is somebody rambling about arguments that weren't made, and arguing based on gross generalizations... (if I make music, and I want it to be shared freely, it is legal, no generalizations you make can change that). Take your own advice, loser.

Oh COME ON! You pull a Javert and get a +5???

[Spy der Mann]

(In case you don't know who Javert is, search the wikipedia)

The 'files shared = sales lost' formula has never been proven by the RIAA, Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, or anyone else.

I stopped reading there.

WHY? Just because something is illegal (this means, that some guys voted a law against it - not more, not less, period) doesn't mean that it will automatically hurt the sales of the record companies. Yes, downloading songs is illegal. But so is protesting against president Chavez if you live in Venezuela. The moral and ethics of music piracy are NOT at discussion at this point. What is at discussion is: a) Whether Marie Lindor actually infringed copyright, and b) whether she made the RIAA lose thousands of dollars in music sales.

Prof. Pouwelse did an empyrical analysis, and this means SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, proving that just because people downloaded a song from the internet, doesn't make the RIAA lose sales from it. This can have a tremendous impact on RIAA's fines, because if you only made them lose 1 cent by downloading a song from the internet, the stratospheric fines they're asking you to pay might only become a small fine of ten bucks.

Re:Oh COME ON! You pull a Javert and get a +5???

[Anonymous Coward]

Downloading songs is illegal on the USA, not in every country. It isn't the world's fault that in the USA individual rights worth less than shyte. Land of opportunity? Only if it is the opportunity to get fucked in the ass. Shameful country...

Re:Assumptions

[BakaHoushi]

Though there is also this "related stories" bar under said article, which leads one to other stories, with previous data, allowing one to get the whole story which is, in fact, related to "your rights online."

Many, many news events can't be summarized in one news article. A little background reading is not asking all that much, IMHO.

don't forget the artists

[nietsch]

A large enough call to every artist to not sign any RIAA contracts would have a bigger impact, because people might actually do that. Stop listening to music that you think defines your style/personality? why not ask to stop breathing?

Re:don't forget the artists

[grapeape]

Some would argue that if your playing the good little consumer and basing your style and personality on what some record company shill is pushing on you then you really have neither you've just cloned someones elses idea of what they should be.

Re:I'm telling you, I have the solution to this ..

[Rob the Bold]

All we have to do is somehow get the RIAA in a legal fight with the Scientologists...

That would be an AWESOME steel-cage match. "Two litigious organizations go in, only one comes out!" Reminds me of when I tried to get the Mormons and the Baptists at the office to duke it out. Good times.

Of course, the danger is they might combine and form a more powerful entity, a la "Nomad" (or "V'ger").

Re:Assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

eh, not really, in fact.

A couple of monts later....

[kwark]

"It was Prof. Pouwelse's scathing analysis of the RIAA's MediaSentry 'investigations' (PDF) in a case in the Netherlands that caused the courts in that country to direct the ISPs there not to turn over their subscribers' information (PDF), thus nipping in the bud the RIAA's intended litigation juggernaut in that country."

And a couple of months later Brein (the dutch ..AA equiv.) won a case against UPC (an ISP), forcing them to hand over the subscribers information: http://zoeken.rechtspraak.nl/resultpage.aspx?snelz oeken=true&searchtype=ljn&ljn=AY6903&u_ljn=AY6903
(in dutch btw).

Re:A couple of monts later....

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yes, but that was a much different kind of case, one based on real evidence.....

Re:A couple of monts later....

[kwark]

It is still up to a judge to rule on what evidence is real or not.

It the above mentioned case, email and IP addresses found in the userdatabase of a private tracker where enough to force the ISP to hand over the subscriber information.

Also to be noted: the ISP turned over the info for 2 of its customers before the judgment. For these 2 the email and IP where both run by the ISP, and since these email adresses where assigned by the ISP to the subscribers.

The biggest threat to your right of privacy if you are allegedly breaking the law is a spineless ISP.

Re:Assumptions

[Redlazer]

Well, to be honest it is asking a lot, but none of it is really REQUIRED. Its what im going to call "optional".

-Red

Re:Assumptions

[mstahl]

A little background reading is not asking all that much, IMHO.

You must be new here. Welcome to Slashdot!

Re:Assumptions

[Nymz]

A little background reading is not asking all that much, IMHO.

Well, I hope you take that advice before you post next time, since it's obvious you're the only not following it.

I suppose if an article regarding Care Bears was to be posted, you would tell people to go the the Official Site before asking yourself how The Care Bears Battle the Freeze Machine relates to News for Nerds if for no greater reason than you submitted BakaHoushi's Care Bear Video to Youtube.

A little background reading is not asking all that much, IMHO.

Legal != Right

[Khammurabi]

While everyone can agree that it's wrong for the RIAA to prosecute people who do not have the means to commit copyright infringement, let's not forget that it's still against the law when it does happen.

Reminder: (legal != right) && (illegal != wrong)

Just because a law exists saying something is illegal does not mean that law is right or just. For reference, you can examine the laws of any dictatorship or fascist government.

Fair use and not-for-profit media distribution has a definite place in society, and the fact that piracy is still quite rampant means that we have yet to find an acceptable place for it yet. Cowering before those who have money or power is not an acceptable response.

Re:I'm telling you, I have the solution to this ..

[imikem]

Oh Noooes!! ScientAAlogy! Body Thetans that are lawyers. We're all doomed.

Oh what an original tought!

[nietsch]

perhaps you would explain how your plan(?) solves the problem of RIAA having the money to corrupt the US? As far as I can tell people want to be clones to a certain extent. You didn't get that idea to be original all by yourself, now did you?

Re:Oh what an original tought!

[grapeape]

Its no plan and no its not original, its what people have been saying since the RIAA tried to eliminate fair use back in the 70's when casette tapes debuted. Eventually people are going to have to decide which is more important their freedoms or the latest Britney Spears CD. Sure its tired, and of course its been repeated ad nauseum but that doesnt make it any less true. The majority have decided long ago to be sheep, conform, follow and assimilate with the rest of the herd but it doesnt mean everyone has to. The battle with the RIAA at the moment is a lost cause, too many people in high positions with greased palms and not enough people in the masses who care. The only real hope is that more and more draconian laws get pushed through to protect business interests for the evil public so that eventually it inconvenices or criminalizes enough people to make the masses stand up and notice. Of course by the time that happens it will likely be to late but hey at least someone will maybe write a song about it.

Dr. Pouwelse's qualifications...

[Anonymous Coward]

...do not seem to be any better than Prof. Jacobson's. He is a fresh PhD (thesis topic is on low-power computer architecture), and has only recently looked at P2P issues. What are his qualifications to "debunk" Jacobson's testimony?

Is he a professional engineer? Does he know the definition of inculpate?

Re:Dr. Pouwelse's qualifications...

[MrMr]

With respect to question 1:
His qualifications are that he is heading a research group and has published several peer-reviewed scientific papers on the analysis of p2p network traffic.

With respect to question 2:
A brief check shows he's a professional engineer who subsequently acquired a PhD at one of the better universities (rank 53 worldwide, 13 in europe).

With respect to question 3:
Do you know this definition?
http://www.webster.com/dictionary/slander

Re:Dr. Pouwelse's qualifications...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slander? Are you truly being serious?

I can only hope for the defendant's sake that Dr. Pouwelse has a stronger grasp of legal issues than you apparently do.

Several centuries ago,

[rajkiran_g]

when one hears the word pirate, the image that comes to the mind is that of a wicked looking man with a gun and a cutlass exhorting money from a miserable looking woman with a child in one hand (the victim).

Today, that image seems to have been reversed. With RIAA/MPAA with their arsenal of lawyers being the "victims" of piracy whose existence is threatened by school kid "pirates"

Medieval Warfare

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet Jesus, I'm tired of academic bullshit. I really don't see why they just haven't dropped them on a giant island style and just let them have at it Battle Royale style with a blow torch, hand grenades, and some kitchen equipment from Grandma's attic.

It costs a bunch of security.

[FatSean]

Indeed, freedom means that the RIAA's memeber organizations do not have a secure line of income. Freedom means that you risk violence and attack because you do not spy on and restrict the actions of your people.

The RIAA Against Slashdot

[Nom du Keyboard]

This battle has become the combined weight and resources of the four major record companies funneled through the RIAA, against the might of an aroused Slashdot user community. Every insight, every chink, every technical shortcoming in the RIAA's boilerplate cases that's exposed, discussed, and dissed here helps the defense. The RIAA affiliated companies may believe they have bought the Congress, but the public at large are still the ones with the votes. I'm certain no corporation, or group of corporations, has ever fought a battle before against so many thousands of people able to organize and provide their own insights, each able to expose one more little lie in the Plaintiff's snake-tongued, slippery arguments.

Re:I'm telling you, I have the solution to this ..

[Anonymous Coward]

Given their behaviour, what makes you think the RIAA isn't comprised of Scientologists?

Re:Assumptions

[Em Adespoton]

I'm sorry, but your reply might be considered copyright infringement in some countries. Are you prepared to be deported to one of these countries for a criminal theft trial?

Saying that you live in the US and other laws don't apply to you won't hold up. After all, if an Australian can be estradited to the US for breaking US copyright law (but not Australian copyright law), why can't you be extradited to, say, Cuba for writing something readable in their country that looks awfully similar to something one of their citizens wrote?

Copyright is not theft. The theft (if there is one... there likely wasn't in the case we're discussing) would be under "theft of sale" doctrine, which is a separate matter from copyright infringement, and NOT criminal (yes, theft is a crime).

Just Like Any Other KaZaA User

[Nom du Keyboard]

The Plaintiff's claim that the data was gathered in a method just like any other KaZaA user would find it. That brings up 2 interesting points:

1. Most KaZaA users aren't attempting to locate the person they're sharing files with. This means that Media Sentry may be operating the program in ways unlike what a normal user would do.

2. KaZaA is an ad-ware, spyware, ridden piece of crap-ware. It loads all kinds of stuff on your computer no sane user would want, and refuses to run without it. Is Media Sentry really going to claim that they have larded up the computer they're using to gather critical data with all this junk? What does that do to the accuracy of their data collection?

Or did they run something illegal, like Kazaa Lite, and aren't admitting to it. AFAIK, no one even knows how they collected the logs of connections and packets, since they haven't been deposed yet.

And as for the claim that the Defense hasn't even tried to depose Media Sentry yet, that's like the son killing his parents, then falling on the court for mercy since he's now an orphan. The RIAA has fought every attempt to depose Media Sentry by claiming that the Media Sentry investigator is not an expert witness, hence can't be questioned. And that the contracts that spell out how all this investigation is to be done are confidential, since revealing them would expose how infringers would then be able to use that as a road map to avoid detection.

What they're really admitting is that there are huge, gaping holes in their investigation process. Any Defense lawyer should be demanding to know where there holes are, since they might be used to impeach the claims that Media Sentry could have gathered the data they claim to have.

Re:pathetic - ACTUALLY, SOUND EXCHANGE

[Nom du Keyboard]

if I make music, and I want it to be shared freely, it is legal, no generalizations you make can change that

Actually, that's not presently true. If you're been following events of the last couple of weeks in this area, Sound Exchange, a royalty collection body for public song play, including Internet streaming "radio stations", claims the right to collect and distribute royalties not only for RIAA affiliated artists, or artists that have signed on with (and paid a fee to) Sound Exchange, but for all artists whose music is played through these venues regardless of their wishes in the matter. Also, if you don't claim your money from them, they plan to keep it!

So you have a wonderful song, give it to your friend running a shoe-string Internet radio station to play for free. Sound Exchange swoops in, demands royalties on your song, and keeps them until you somehow pry it from their cold, greedy hands -- probably paying more to get it back than you'll actually receive from them in the process.

That's certainly not my definition of being shared freely.

15 minutes

[phorm]

I remember reading through one of these trials awhile ago. It was a loooooong excerpt, but quite interesting.

Now my memory might just be a little off, but didn't this supposed expert also take all of *15 minutes* to examine the evidence given to him. Did he not also neglect to log various items that indicated that infringing material was not on the drive. His attitude was that he didn't find what I was looking for, so I didn't record anything, rather than recording that there was a lack of infringing material found.

Re:15 minutes

[UnknowingFool]

Yes, one of the minor objections of the defendant was that the expert did not record his analysis (audio or visually) and had no notes of the analysis but relied purely on his recollections. Although courts do not necessarily need the analysis to be as detailed as an autopsy, there has to be some documentation of procedure.

Never

[phorm]

Fighting for what you believe in, for freedom, or against oppression has never been easy. Fighting for your rights, or what is right, has never been easy, especially when the alternatives were popular at the time

Re:Never

[Pikoro]

See my sig.

Being on slashdot

[phorm]

I've always been impressed that you had the technical acumen to show up regularly here on slashdot, as well as to seek the advice from those here who have a more detailed technical knowledge. The **AA may have bucketloads of money, but it just goes to show that it doesn't always work when a community works together, and a lawyer is smart enough to use the resources of "the people" instead of an overpriced, overpomped "expert."

People often have commented on slashdot "so what are we going to do except bitch about it." The fact is, however, that there are quite a few field experts here (IT, legal, etc), and when we work together to share knowledge and fight against the idiocy that goes on in today's courtroom, we can make a difference. Possibly a much bigger difference than the whole "boycott" movement.

It's always nice to have you on our side NYCL :-)

Re:Being on slashdot

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I've always been impressed that you had the technical acumen to show up regularly here on slashdot, as well as to seek the advice from those here who have a more detailed technical knowledge. The **AA may have bucketloads of money, but it just goes to show that it doesn't always work when a community works together, and a lawyer is smart enough to use the resources of "the people" instead of an overpriced, overpomped "expert." People often have commented on slashdot "so what are we going to do except bitch about it." The fact is, however, that there are quite a few field experts here (IT, legal, etc), and when we work together to share knowledge and fight against the idiocy that goes on in today's courtroom, we can make a difference. Possibly a much bigger difference than the whole "boycott" movement. This is a remarkable community, and I love being a part of it.

I'll never forget the first time I discovered it. I'd checked my sitemeter and found some referrals from "slashdot.org". I went there and found what appeared to be a "forum" or "discussion board", but one which was unlike anything I'd seen before. There was an incredible, highly intelligent, debate going on over a post on the Elektra v. Santangelo case.

People were debating over issues -- sort of like a Talmudic debate -- citing to different portions of the transcript, and to different portions of different legal documents, for support of various points. They seemed to be quite scholarly, and not unlike lawyers, but I didn't think it was a lawyer's site, so I asked my youngest son, who is a techie, if he'd ever heard of Slashdot. And of course he said "of course" and proceeded to tell me what it was. And my life hasn't been quite the same since.

One of my most memorable experiences was the "honor" of being roasted and villified by some, and defended by others, in my Slashdot interview, and the ensuing comment period, over my abruptness with some of the questioners and commenters whom I considered a bit troll-like.

I am proud to be part of this robust, questioning, diverse community, and would be overlooking a valuable resource were I not to seek the input of its members.

Re: Real evidence

[MikeBabcock]

That's the kicker, isn't it? Real evidence. Its amazing how many lawsuits the RIAA appears to launch without any. Just a suspicion ... even evidence that something bad is happening isn't evidence that a specific person committed a crime.

If Walmart bulk-sued its customers every time something went missing from the shelves ...

Re:"Let's stop deluding" yourself", shall" you"?"

[SailorRipley]

if people create intellectual property they have the right...

and just how much intellectual property has the MAFFIAA created?

Unless, of yourse you are some hippie communist who thinks that the contents of a musician or software develoeprs brain are not theirs?

As it turns out, the MAFFIAA and software corporations like Microsoft seem to be hippie communists as they think that the contents of musician or software developer belongs to them, after all, they collect, often without paying the "artists"

I don't want make this a personal attack, however: English is not my mother tongue, but I manage to type correctly and construct correct sentences...so so should you

Re:Assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

as posted previously by someone else:

Seriously, it's two thousand goddamn seven, the "What is this X the article speaks of?" thing is OVER. You're on the fucking Internet, go to Google or Wikipedia and do five seconds of research, then act like you're an expert, like the rest of us.

what I'm wondering...

[SailorRipley]

Isn't KaZaA proprietary, so wouldn't the MediaSentry software one way or the other infringe on Kazaa copyrights? Reverse engineering, copyright infringements, blahblahblah bye bye MediaSentry...

wouldn't that be hilarious?

Qualifications aren't the point!

[Anonymous Coward]

The point isn't "I have more published papers than you!" Frankly, that doesn't matter so long as the experts understand the issues on which they're supposed to be experts.

The problem here is that the RIAA's expert is testifying that, although they use secret methods to identify infringers, ones with unknown reliability, he's sure they're accurate. What, if anything, he bases this conclusion on, however, is apparently not something he wants to talk about. I mean, he examined her computer and found nothing infringing on it. His main argument that she must be the infringer is that their secret programs work perfectly, and the ISP could never misidentify someone (even though ISP identifications have frequently been wrong in other cases).

Although he was offered by the RIAA to testify as to how Media Sentry works, he apparently doesn't know much, if anything, about that. He dodged all of those questions. He's not sure how reliable his programs actually are, because they've never bothered to try and find out (never mind that being a legal requirement under Daubert). Now they're arguing that because no one has challenged his previous depositions, they must be good enough.

Forgive me for not buying that. "Yes, our secret program identifies infringers without fail! No, we won't tell the Court how it works, even though I was sent by the RIAA as a witness for that exact purpose. No, I don't know anything about the business, or whether we get paid per infringer caught. I'm sure that our secret program doesn't have any flaws, but I'm not going to tell you why! I'm an expert, you should just swallow whatever tripe I spew without questioning me!"

Honestly, I haven't seen an "expert" so feeble since SCO had one of their own executives testify. They had to backpedal, claiming he was a "fact" witness because they knew his "expert" analysis and ridiculous legal conclusions (he's not a lawyer) were so absurd they couldn't make any use of his testimony otherwise! Never mind he was originally submitted as some kind of "expert" until they had to change their story (even they can't keep their stories straight any more; I don't even think they try).

Were I ever to see this from an expert as a juror (and I assure you, I do _NOT_ try to get out of jury duty), you had better believe that I would take it as evidence of duplicity and hold it very strongly against whichever side offered me such a pathetic "expert."

Re:Qualifications aren't the point!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The problem here is that the RIAA's expert is testifying that, although they use secret methods to identify infringers, ones with unknown reliability, he's sure they're accurate. What, if anything, he bases this conclusion on, however, is apparently not something he wants to talk about. I mean, he examined her computer and found nothing infringing on it. His main argument that she must be the infringer is that their secret programs work perfectly, and the ISP could never misidentify someone (even though ISP identifications have frequently been wrong in other cases). Although he was offered by the RIAA to testify as to how Media Sentry works, he apparently doesn't know much, if anything, about that. He dodged all of those questions. He's not sure how reliable his programs actually are, because they've never bothered to try and find out (never mind that being a legal requirement under Daubert). ........ Forgive me for not buying that. "Yes, our secret program identifies infringers without fail! No, we won't tell the Court how it works, even though I was sent by the RIAA as a witness for that exact purpose. No, I don't know anything about the business, or whether we get paid per infringer caught. I'm sure that our secret program doesn't have any flaws, but I'm not going to tell you why! I'm an expert, you should just swallow whatever tripe I spew without questioning me!" Good post.

I wish you would post under a User ID, because my filtering preferences take out all "AC"'s unless they've been modified upwards.

By the way, this expert had never been deposed before.

Re:Qualifications aren't the point!

[Alter_Fritz]

maybe he wanted to stay anonymous to not ruin his chance to be choosen as juror in the Lindor case?! ;-)

(Not that I truely believe RIAA will risk that this case will EVER be heard before a jury of 12)

It's worse than that...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right that this new expert is a much better one that the other expert (and he has an easier job, too—it shouldn't be hard to drive a truck through the unreliable, untested, secret methods used by the RIAA expert in court).

However, with respect to this:
> Do you know this definition?
> http://www.webster.com/dictionary/slander

You should've asked him the definition of libel. Slander is spoken, libel is written, and defamation covers both. Just like evidence that exculpates someone shows them to be not guilty (or not responsible, this being a civil case), with evidence that inculpates someone being the exact opposite (showing them to be guilty or responsible for some offense).

And I'm no lawyer, just some average guy with a BS in math from a "party school" who barely obtained it. Yet, strangely, I seem to know more than our friendly Ph.D from the RIAA, given that I know the basic legal terms, I have plenty of ideas about what he could've done to make his case more reliable, and I wouldn't have been afraid to say "I see no evidence of infringement" if that's what the facts of the case supported. Although, I guess you don't get to submit hundreds of unchallenged declarations on behalf of the RIAA if you do that, because I sure don't know any other witnesses who always give testimony on behalf of one party, inevitably supporting their case. Even claiming that you still think they're guilty although you can't find any evidence on their PC and didn't bother to save your Encase logs because of that.

The RIAA expert, IMHO, should be barred from testifying until and unless he can establish the reliability of his methods. But don't take my word for it. Read Dr. Pouwelse's findings on the unreliability of MediaSentry evidence for yourself and realize that that evidence is being used in this case:

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.

Re:Assumptions

[pete-classic]

How's the view from atop your high horse?

I was lampooning the submitter's style. The phrase "none other than" is usually used when revealing someone or something quite famous in context. I read slashdot daily, and am probably more familiar with these matters than anyone I know. That's not to say I'm terribly familiar, but this is an issue that almost no one cares about. I've never heard of this Professor or his institution. I will freely grant that this is out of my own ignorance, but that doesn't make the tone of the summary or the use of single quotes any less silly.

I'm sure that Mr. Beckerman is a terrific guy, who is selflessly laboring for our collective benefit. I'm sure that Prof. Pouwelse is a towering figure from Mr. Beckerman's position in the trenches on this issue. But let's not take ourselves too seriously here. This isn't a question of World Peace, and the summary was silly. Laugh a little.

-Peter

WAIT EVERYONE! This is good news!

[db32]

Lets look at the unintended consequences!

If you believe you should pay for linux, and use linux, that is attempting to pirate and punishable under this law! That cleans up this Novell problem quite nicely! Further, all of these companies that violate the GPL and embed linux into crap without opening the source could be held liable, even more if any of those devices are life/death equipment! Life in prison for violating the GPL! Piracy will be such a risk that people will start to shy away from pirate copies of Windows, forcing them to cough up the insane prices or to find an alternative.

I am reasonably certain that this is one of those laws that will make such an unholy clusterfuck of things that it can't help but force some fixes to start happening. Of coarse I could be wrong and all the sheep line up to be slaughtered and we all wind up screwed.

What? wait a sec - you forgot someone

[tacokill]

Ok, for those not in the know (including the parent), the *real* star of that scene was Joe Pesci....not Fred Gwynne.

Yes, I remember the judge (Fred). But Vinnie (Pesci) WAS the scene. I just can't believe you'd explain it and use Fred as the reference.

Re:Assumptions

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I used the term "none other than" because Prof. Pouwelse is indeed "famous".

He is one of the world's leading experts on P2P file sharing, he is the person responsible for shutting the RIAA's Netherlands counterpart down, and he is "famous" to all those who have been closely following the record labels' litigations in the U.S., because his work in the Netherlands cases has been cited in the United States, repeatedly. Most significantly, he is "famous" to the RIAA, to their lawyers, to the major record companies, and to the motion picture companies.

His signing on as expert for the defendants is a tremendous coup for the defendants, and a huge blow to the RIAA.

You personally might not be familiar with his work, and I don't in any way hold that against you; but I just want you know that I did use the term "none other than" advisedly.

There is no name the RIAA would less rather see as an expert witness than his, because
-(1)unlike the RIAA's expert, he is really an expert on p2p file sharing
-(2)unlike the RIAA's expert he actually knows what he's talking about and actually understands what MediaSentry does and doesn't do, and
-(3)he has shut them down in the Netherlands and has the ability to shut them down here.

Re:Assumptions

[obeythefist]

It's true, we need more heroes like the EFF and NewYorkCountryLawyer.

Re:Assumptions

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thanks, "obeythefist", much appreciated.

The key thing is that a working class lady and nurse's aide in Brooklyn now has a much higher level expert witness than the sham "expert" the four (4) biggest record companies in the world -- with all their resources and hordes of money -- could turn up to try to turn their sow's ear into a silk purse. If the Court doesn't throw Dr. Jacobson's testimony out the window, as we have asked it to do, Dr. Pouwelse will bury it.

Re:Assumptions

[obeythefist]

It seems to me the RIAA having an "expert witness" was a rather token gesture to imply a degree of diligence was taken when approaching the case. For the most part this seems to have worked for them, but it is nice now to see the true strength of their case being tried... this is what courts do really, isn't it, by testing the accounts of two conflicting parties with regards to a particular event.

I am certainly looking forward to seeing what happens next.

Can the RIAA replace their expert with, say, an expert? Or is it too late, they've bought the ticket and they have to take the ride?

Re:pathetic - ACTUALLY, SOUND EXCHANGE

[Travelsonic]

Sounds challengable, even shakey, but it's too early in the morning for me to figure it out.... all I know is if I hold copyright of a work and any corporation claims my best interest and violates those rights to so-called do so, I'd hope their asses boil slowly and painfully.

Re:Assumptions

[pete-classic]

I get it. In fact, I got it from my second reading of your summary. I got it before I made my initial comment.

Mutual understanding is a rare and precious thing. I'll look for it elsewhere.

In all seriousness, I appreciate what you're doing on this front, but you and Guillermito2 must be an absolute drag at parties.

-Peter

Re:Assumptions

[BakaHoushi]

Sorry, but I'm not sure I'm getting your point here. Care Bears are not an inherently nerdy subject matter. At least when viewed from the admittedly somewhat biased /. perspective of equating nerd to "Someone in the IT field or similar," or at the very least, intellectualism in general. In the case of this article, it's a take on a case involving the RIAA, a company whose practices, regardless of your views on them, are most definitely affecting "our rights online."

Thus, if only by two degrees of separation, the RIAA is directly connected to "Your Rights Online," and news on the RIAA can thus be associated with "nerd news." The Care Bears have no inherit relevancy to any pre-ordained subject field that we have on /.

Of course, it IS very subjective, and what one considers "news for nerds" others may just call "news" and others still may just call "schlock on a slow news day." It all depends on your definition of the word "nerd," as well as how much relevancy one expects in an article's applicability to said definition, and then more subjective viewing in determining the "nerd value" of any given article.

Short Version: Nothing is inherently nerdy, nerdiness is a subjective value, but some topics arguably have a larger inherent relevance.

Re:Assumptions

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I have no reason to think that's so of Guillermito2.

But I am definitely a drag at parties.

Re:Assumptions

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

It seems to me the RIAA having an "expert witness" was a rather token gesture to imply a degree of diligence was taken when approaching the case. For the most part this seems to have worked for them, but it is nice now to see the true strength of their case being tried... this is what courts do really, isn't it, by testing the accounts of two conflicting parties with regards to a particular event. I am certainly looking forward to seeing what happens next. Can the RIAA replace their expert with, say, an expert? Or is it too late, they've bought the ticket and they have to take the ride? Excellent observation. That's exactly right. They never expected him to be tested, and he never was. (That is, until February 23, 2007, when we took his deposition, and he wound up taking himself out of the game.)

Yes they can replace Dr. Jacobson with a real expert.

But finding a real expert who will agree with Dr. Jacobson that MediaSentry's secret procedures are hunky dory, and don't need to be checked or vetted, is another thing again.... none of the better people, like Johan Pouwelse, would ever sign on to such a thing.

In fact, a course which Dr. Jacobson himself teaches, "information warfare", completely contradicts his entire RIAA-case show.

Re:Assumptions

[pete-classic]

That made me chuckle, so now I'm totally confused :)

-Peter

Re:Assumptions

[KC7JHO]

Would the RIAA then not just decide that this case is better un-fought and just drop the charges? If they did this would the court disallow new cases to be brought using similar evidence?
I'm just wondering if they will simply attempt to duck the setting of precedence instead of chancing their case.

Re:Assumptions

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Would the RIAA then not just decide that this case is better un-fought and just drop the charges? If they did this would the court disallow new cases to be brought using similar evidence? I'm just wondering if they will simply attempt to duck the setting of precedence instead of chancing their case. If they were smart they would.

So far I haven't seen any "evidence" of their being smart.

Flashback

[dcray2000]

I interviewed with this guy when I worked in the ISU Research Park in 2000. Was not impressed...

Most of his employees at the time came from my company.

Few months later one of his developers, who was quite good, asked for a bigger piece of the pie and was canned. 3/4 of the rest of the dev staff promptly quit. This is the first I've heard of him since then.