Slashdot Mirror
Should RIAA Investigators Have To Disclose Evidence?
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A technology battle is raging in UMG v. Lindor, a court case in Brooklyn. The issue at hand is whether the RIAA's investigator SafeNet (the company that acquired MediaSentry) now needs to disclose its digital files, validation methodology, testing procedures, failure rates, software manuals, protocols, packet logs, source code, and other materials, so that the validity of its methods can be evaluated by the defense. SafeNet and the RIAA say no, claiming that the information is 'proprietary and confidential'. Ms. Lindor says yes, if you're going to testify in federal court the other side has a right to test your evidence. A list of what is being sought (pdf) is available online. MediaSentry has produced 'none of the above'. 'Put up or shut up' says one commentator to SafeNet."
Without disclosing the hows, it would be extortion- otherwise I could sue you for taking my content and say, well my proprietary ways say you did, so pay up!
Yeah I saw him kill her and recorded it on my camera, but im selling the footage so its...
Well I'm innocent and i have a video to show it but its...
I cant disclose what guns i had in my possession at the time of the murder as my guns are...
Theres no way something is too 'proprietary and confidential' to show a court of law!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
But neither does the judge/jury have to consider the RIAA's claims that they have evidence but won't show it.
How far does judicial credulousness stretch these days?
"Be light, stinging, insolent and melancholy"
Works in Guantanamo!
How can evidence be considered valid if the source of how it is obtained is not disclosed?
If this was anything except technology, the judge would laugh them out of the court.
Policeman: "He was going 11MPH above the speed limit."
Judge: "How were you able to do that?"
Policeman: "Sorry, but that's proprietary information. If leaked, it would damage our ability to catch speeders.
This has been tested on a slightly different case. Florida police can't use breathalyzers without providing the source. Unless you can show that there is no trickery in your technology, it shouldn't be held admissible in a court of law.
If you're looking for prior examples, try the current U.S. Administration.
"We have the smoking gun on Iraq, but we can't show you until after we go to war."
"We have the evidence to prove these guys are terrorists but we can't show it to you. disregard the canadian."
"We aren't doing anything wrong. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Remember when it started getting around that people were beating DUI charges by requesting the source code of the machine? If that was reasonable, this is a slam-dunk. The basic right to confront your accuser is one of the most important of the rights we have. If the defendant doesn't have the right to attack the evidence presented against him, he is effectively denied due process.
It's your case, RIAA. Put up or shut up.
I'm not a lawyer, and I barely understand my legal rights to facing my accuser in this digital world, but I do know this:
We don't have any prior examples of this specific niche technology at work. There's no baseline of acceptable "industry standard" out there - every bit of information about these products is held so closely to the chest of these businesses that we just do not know where the hell this data comes from and, more specifically, we don't know how this data is corroborated with ISPs to find these people who are supposedly committing the infringements. Plus, we have no idea of what the failure rate of this entire process has been. On top of all of that, there is no independent analysis of this method.
If the RIAA litigation team was an inventor, this whole ordeal would be nothing short of them running around screaming about how they've invented perpetual motion, and then not letting anyone independently verify that the machine works.
That's not what's going on here. It's more along the lines of "This person accused me of something bad, so let me start with determining the credibility of their evidence, the chain of custody for that evidence, and the error rate for the methods they used to collect said evidence"
Comparing this to the "slutty girl" defense is inaccurate. The defense is challenging the methods that MediaSentry used to collect the evidence. Although it would be interesting to know how many of the subpoenas issued to ISPs have been responded to with "That IP address was not assigned to a subscriber at time in question" as it would directly relate to the error rate of MediaSentry's methods.
It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.
RIAA Lawyer: We have proof, Your Honor!
Judge: Great! Can I see it?
RIAA Lawyer: Nah!
Judge: That doesn't sound too lawyerly.
RIAA Lawyer: Well, I could call it "proprietary and confidential!"
Judge: Uhm, okay then.