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
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
Breathalyzer source code in criminal trials has come up on /. a few times. If you ask me, this sets a precedent that the "propriety technology" excuse can't be used to limit a defendant's right to examine all evidence against him/her. However, those were criminal cases, perhaps civil law doesn't follow the same legal precedents?
I, for one, am looking forward to the inevitable
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.
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.