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."
Did you read the RIAA's reply?
(Since the pdf is of a scanned document, any spelling errors are mine.)
"Rather, defendant's counsel appears to be engaged in a fishing expedition that this Court has already found to be improper. Specifically, much of the information that the defendant seeks is precisely the same information that she unsuccessfully sought when this Court denied her motion to compel and granted plaintiffs' motion for protective order on March 30, 2007. Defendant cannot obtain through the backdoor what she was unable to obtain through the front door."
Safenet's reply boils down to: Even the Defense has admitted that the information they want is proprietary and confidential and they have not satisfied the high burden of proof necessary to show their need.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
And this is different from real people..... how?
Given the amount of flat-out lying being revealed in other RIAA cases, and that the data security's evidence seems to be made up out of whole cloth based on what they've revealed so far, it looks like the RIAA and their paid witnesses are themselves making up plot devices. So let's be cautious before we blame someone else for invoking a metaphor, instead of giving mistaken if not fraudulent testimony in court.