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."
While they certainly don't want to disclose anything, they will probably be forced to disclose it to defense, so claims can be validated and/or rebutted properly. Otherwise it's the same claim as SCO -- "I have tons of evidence you did very bad thing, but I won't show it to anyone, not even a judge"
Hyperom.com
IANAL, so obviously don't take my word as legal advice, but I was under the impression that discovery rules only pertained to criminal cases, not civil cases? Any lawyerly types care to chime in on this, maybe shed a bit of light on the subject?
Nope, the amount of discovery in civil cases often dwarfs that of even the largest, most complex criminal cases, and the rules are similar. You can refuse to produce documents on certain bases, including that it involves proprietary information or business secrets, but you have to convince the judge of this, which can be tough. A lot of times the parties will enter into confidentiality agreements, where only the lawyers (and possibly expert witnesses) will gain access to the produced information, not the clients. I think it would be tough to convince the judge that a confidentiality agreement wouldn't protect them.
This motion may well come up for a conference or oral argument, or further briefing, so it would be interesting to see what you folks think about why these kinds of items are (or are not) necessary to test the validity of MediaSentry's methods and procedures.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I'm not sure it's the same case, but in the one I read about, the company that produced the unit was required to turn over the source code for independent verification and analysis. Apparently, it was a joke ... with comments like "this section is just for testing and shouldn't be shipped", with some major design flaws as well. It didn't even do a proper baseline measurement, and it's results could have been off by something like +/- 50 percent or something like that. I should go Google that case and see what eventually happened with it.
In any event, proprietary software shouldn't be when people's lives are on the line. That includes losing judgments on the order of a quarter million dollars (as happened in a recent RIAA case.)
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You know, I've read this piece before, but just now noticed that he claims that the TRACEROUTE that they ran from media sentry TO the ip address in question was stored on the computer that they are investigating....
which is silly on face. The computer (that they claim was Lindor's) didn't have a traceroute TO it from Media Sentry ON it...
So, clearly, the people producing these documents are -- just plain not competent.
In fact, DEFG and H all aren't on "lindor's computer"
uh.... And I'm sure that's been commented on before, but I just noticed it.