Slashdot Mirror


RIAA's Watchdog Affidavits For Your Reading Pleasure

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "MediaSentry, in an attempt to stonewall discovery in UMG v. Lindor, has turned over nothing other than a collection, apparently a complete collection, of its publicly filed affidavits. However, these do make interesting reading indeed, and as comments started trickling in on my blog, I realized that for the technically minded among you there are probably a number of good laughs in these materials. So in keeping with the Slashdot community's analysis of the RIAA's not very expert, 'expert' witness, I thought you might like to take a shot at its not very factual, 'fact' witness."

2 of 22 comments (clear)

  1. Seems Familiar ... by Bob(TM) · · Score: 5, Funny

    Investigator: "They did it. I found out about it."
    Defense Attorney: "How did you find out?"
    Investigator: "Sorry; can't tell you that. It's a secret."
    Defense Attorney: "Then, how do we know it's valid or legal?"
    Investigator: "I'm a professional - you can take my word on it."
    Defense Attorney: "Do you have a professional license or certification that backs up your word?"
    Investigator: "Sorry - I don't see how that's relevant."

    Sure this isn't something from a Monty Python sketch?

    --

    The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
  2. Re:They need to prove their methods. by Curien · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The current mess is partly as a result of the difficulties with DNA and other scientific evidence. In the 1920s, SCOTUS created the Frye standard, which required that any scientific method presented in court needed to be accepted by a majority of experts in the field. This was a very conservative standard, and it meant that investigators couldn't develop new methods ad hoc because those methods couldn't have been widely accepted at the time of use. In the 1990s, SCOTUS instituted a new Daubert standard which allows any scientific evidence -- regardless of its general acceptance -- to be presented at the judge's discretion, and it leads to the "competing experts" situation that we have today.

    IMO, Daubert is a horrible precedent, as it forces non-experts to decide how to treat expert testimony. With the older Frye standard, some prosecutors might have a hard time prosecuting some individuals in difficult cases, but it does a much better job of maintaining the integrity of the system.

    --
    It's always a long day... 86400 doesn't fit into a short.