Slashdot Mirror
Judge Lets RIAA Subpoena Defendant's Employer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A judge has ruled that the RIAA can subpoena the defendant's employer in a case pending in Manhattan federal court, Atlantic v. Shutovsky. The judge's order (pdf) contained eight separate rulings deciding 19 pages of discovery disputes (pdf), resolving virtually all of them in favor of the RIAA. Other decisions made include: 'The plaintiffs were permitted to take depositions of Mr. Shutovsky's wife and his brother. Plaintiffs were required to produce all non-privileged documents or materials relating to any investigation and any sound files on their computer, and to produce a privilege log as to any claimed to be privileged. Defendant was required to provide the name and address of each person who used his computer during the three years prior to commencement of the lawsuit.'"
What evidence (if any) does the RIAA have on this person?
(None? Yeah, I thought so. Wouldn't exactly be uncommon.)
But really, it just strikes me as bizarre the amount of work they're requiring the defendant to do -- they are basically asking the defendant to investigate themself.
Ordinarily, of course, I wouldn't be worried. I'd simply turn in a bunch of sound files and say I don't remember where I ripped them from, or where the physical CD went. Because under ordinary US law, it would then be the burden of the plaintiff to prove that those particular files did not belong to me. But this isn't ordinary US law, this is bought-and-paid-for RIAA law.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Let's just hope there weren't any botnets using this computer.
If there were no botnets, then that order should be possible to fill, assuming there were no attempts at plausible deniability. That still leaves everything else awful, I know, inc. how the RIAA got its case in the first place; but still, if there were no botnets, then it should be possible to narrow down who downloaded the RIAA's sting files.
If there was a botnet on the computer, however, someone innocent will get cooked by this order. How's a layperson to know if there is?
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
Nice response of the plaintiff in the "joined letter" on page 10 where they are asked to provide details of the investigative methods used to obtain the IP address and screenshots.
They talk about lots of things in detail that aren't really relevant and than basically skip over what was really asked:
They provide lots of details on how to use Kazaa (go to a website, download the program, click this button, then that button, select entry from list X, yadda yadda) to "connect with like-minded infringers" and lots of whining about how "them be exponentially stealing perfect copies of teh precioussss".
Followed by:
"We logged on to Kazaa and then did stuff like making screenshots like everybody could do.
And we saw him do bad things, oh yes we did.
Or go and ask Media Sentry to get additional non-answers because that's all top secret business stuff you wouldn't understand anyway."
So how does one prove that the computer in question had been/was infected? Unless they kept detailed logs at the ISP then only an analysis of the traffic would be proof.
I would guess the ISP would balk at that due to;
1. The unlikelihood they had these on file. (if they did they would see a mass exodus of customers on GP)
2. The in-house costs of doing this analysis likely outside of the skill sets of the usual NOC staffers. Meaning Who is going to pay for said work? (See reason 1)
3. The Lawyers for the ISP refusing and standing on the grounds that they as a Common Carrier are not required to keep/give this sort of info without a search warrant in a CRIMINAL case. (by the way who are they we should shine some light on them)
But other claims could be made, like claiming that the wireless Linksys router the had didn't have any security or was provably crackable. [read as walk in the park]
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful