Slashdot Mirror
MediaSentry & RIAA Expert Under Attack
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Jammie Thomas, the defendant in Duluth, Minnesota, RIAA case Capitol Records v. Thomas, has served her expert witness's report. The 30-page document (PDF), prepared by Prof. Yongdae Kim of the Computer Science Department of the University of Minnesota, attacks the reports and testimony of Prof. Doug Jacobson, the RIAA's expert, and the work of the RIAA's investigator, Safenet (formerly known as MediaSentry). Among other things, Dr. Kim termed MediaSentry's methods 'highly suspect,' debunked Dr. Jacobson's 'the internet is like a post office' analogy, explained in detail how FastTrack works, explored a sampling of the types of attacks to which the defendant's computer may have been subjected, accused Jacobson of making 'numerous misstatements,' and concluded that 'there is not one but numerous possible explanations for the evidence presented during this trial. Throughout the report I demonstrate possibilities not considered by the plaintiff's expert witness in his evaluation of the evidence...' Additionally, he concluded, 'MediaSentry has a strong record of mistakes when claiming that particular IP addresses were the origins of copyright infringement. Their lack of transparency, lack of external review, and evidence of inadequate error checking procedures [put] into question the authenticity and validity of the log files and screenshots they produced.'"
I understand that the RIAA is a popular target here, but why was this article shown in bright red when I came here a moment ago? I've read Slashdot for years and I've never seen that...
Either
(a)it was because it was one of the best written articles ever in the history or internet journalism, or
(b) all the articles start out red -- during which time they are visible only to people with paid up subscriptions.
I prefer to think it was the former, but am pretty sure it was the latter.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If you'd like to have a great editor with a great conflict of interest, then yes, he should be an editor. Otherwise leave it to people who don't submit stories.
I wouldn't have to decide whether to accept or reject the stories I submit. I could just reject them mentally, before I write them, and save myself the work.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If you'd like to have a great editor with a great conflict of interest, then yes, he should be an editor.
Otherwise leave it to people who don't submit stories.
I wouldn't have to decide whether to accept or reject the stories I submit. I could just reject them mentally, before I write them, and save myself the work.
You could write some crap submissions, auto-approve them, then sue us when fewer and fewer people read them!
citation needed
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Comment removed based on user account deletion