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.'"
Next will come the MPAA and the BSA.
And after that, that annoying bunch of greedy hacks the Author's guild. Fuck those pussies.
eat out my asshole!
So much for those arguments.
"In case of emergency, break glass. Scream. Bleed to death."
Artists deserve to make money on their work. Why do people hate the RIAA? The protect artsts from people illegally stealing music off the internet.
And yes, downloading music without paying for it is STEALING.
So fuck you retards that want somthing for nothing.
You Poor fuckers need to get out of your parents basement and get a job you freeloading fucktaints.
Thank you for your coverage of these events, even if you're biased. ;)
Then again, consider the audience!
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
Please? At the very least you'll have someone with an honest to god education who can proofread and write decent articles on your editorial staff, as opposed to ... kdawson.
I've prepared a few expert reports in my time, but IANAL, however, as satisfying/intimidating these reports may be, most of the time they'll be downplayed or ignored by the other side. In court, if you ignore it, unless the judge is on the other side, it DOES go away.
I'm waiting for the expert testimony, because anybody can type up 30 pages that equate to "Nuh-uh!" but judges sit up and take notice when someone sits in the witness chair and says "Nuh-uh!"
Essentially, what I'm saying is that while the slashdot community will rally around this news item, the legal community won't take notice until there's a precident.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
Daubert is around one of these corners.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Maybe save that color for something important, like a virus that has infected 90% of online porn.
Yeah, digital evidence can be such a bitch, especially when you gather it remotely. You have no idea if the client (remote end) is telling the truth or not, let alone if it was tampered in transit or not, and even if none of that is true, there's still no way to link what a computer does definitively to what a person designated as the primary user of that system, simply because that system could have been previously compromised via a litany of vectors. In short, why this ever got this far is beyond me... The standards of evidence have slipped quite a bit. These days, you yell "computer!" in a crowded court room and bring in an "expert" in a suit, and the judge and jury will believe just about anything. IP addresses and hashes as "digital fingerprints"? a smack of MP3s on a hard-drive is "evidence"? If I rip a CD I legally purchased, encode it into MP3, and then the CD is damaged and thrown away, or stolen, does that make my digital copy illegal? Apparently. things that are perfectly legal to do to their physical counterparts become illegal to do when a computer becomes involved, simply because someone yelled "computer!" in a crowded court room.
Please god, send us a lawyer worthy of Mordor.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
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...
Thank you Ray for all you do for us.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
Jammie? I lade his marma.
Man, it's a good thing the industry is dying. Have you been laid off yet? Soon you'll have to prostitute your anus for a meal! So sad...
What exactly is a "misstatement"?
Is it an incorrect statement?
An inaccurate statement?
A misleading statement?
A correct statement used in the wrong context?
A deliberately obfuscated or weasely statement?
Reminds me of people who say they "misspoke" - usually means "lied".
What is FastTrack? Is this what they were talking about?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The report discussed various types of 3rd party attacks to which computers are subject, and noted:
A miscreant wishing to cover his or her tracks on the Internet has many options, the most likely of which is direct exploitation of one or more computers owned by a third party. Those computers can then be used for activity that the malicious party would not want linked to his or her Internet account. The average uninfected âoelife expectancyâ of an Internet-connected computer running the Microsoft Windows XP operating system without any security updates (âoepatchesâ) is as low as 4 minutes [15]. Since all Windows XP systems attempt to connect to the Internet immediately upon installation/first boot, and since it requires some time to download all security updates from Microsoft (which, for a newly-installed Windows XP system, can measure in gigabytes, with a typical Internet connection only capable of handling a few megabytes per second), it would not be surprising that any given Internet-connected Windows XP computer be infected with any number of pieces of âoemalwareâ (software malicious to the user of the computer on which it is installed).
Seems like there expert is saying here "Hey XP is a sickly child in the streets of Mexico" Kind of interesting that they make this correlation and unfortunately I don't have time to go over the whole report right now but I would like to see what other reads have to say about this part for now
I find this all very interesting from a kind of "we're living through history" perspective. What we've been witnessing over the past few years is almost the complete devaluation of the record company's main 3 products, 'recording', 'promotion' and 'distribution'.
Artists needed record companies to make them nice recordings and to promote them (advertising and getting their records out). The record companies made most of their money off of record sales. The artists made most of their money off of concerts and appearances. With recording equipment fairly inexpensive in comparison to the recent past, and free or nearly free software that can professionally mix, recording now comes at a very low cost. The only real advantages of a studio now are the sound-proof room and the technician that knows what they're doing. If a musician spends the time to learn and experiment with acoustics, the trained technician becomes less valuable, and all you need is some equipment and a nice room.
It's obvious to anyone reading Slashdot that promotion and distribution can be handled through the Internet now for extremely little money.
It's amazing to think how these 3 things which were so valuable for such a long time became cheap so suddenly. The argument that file sharing is anti-capitalist is completely incorrect. It's capitalism at work. It's just that the value of the job that record companies do is no where near the value it had even a decade ago. Ironically, pretending it's still the same is anti-capitalism.
I'm not sure that's the wisest thing to wish for. :D
MediaSentry and the RIAA deserve to be constantly under legal and political attack!
How could a legitimate expert in the field make the errors and omissions Prof. Doug Jacobson did in his testimony? It appears from what has been said that either Jacobson's academic credentials or his honesty are suspect. These omissions are not minor, nor are they so esoteric that a so-called "expert witness" could be forgiven for being unaware of them.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
"Gunny! Double the charge in the clue cannon!"
Gunny: "Aye,aye cap'n!"
Capn: "And stand ready to reload. I think it's gonna take more than just a few rounds!"
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
Professor Kim claims that typical internet connections are only capable of handling a few megabytes per second. If one were to assume, conservatively, that "a few" means 3-4, then a "typical" internet connection is on the order of 25-35 megabit. Please, Professor Kim, tell me where in the US this is "typical" as I'd like to move there. Further, the gigabytes number is quite off. Service Pack 2 can be installed to an unpatched Windows XP machine, and it's only 108 MB. SP3 needs at least SP1, but it's only 72 MB. 180 MB, at Professor Kim's "typical" connection, would only take about a minute to download, leaving a three minute window before infection. The rest of his report is somewhat more accurate, but these sloppy facts would hurt his testimony--if either the judge or the RIAA's expert witness knew any more than that, which I doubt.
Mostly innuendo and facts of marginal relevance.
Except for these two zingers:
http://lists.sans.org/pipermail/unisog/2004-April/
http://lists.sans.org/pipermail/unisog/2005-January/
Look for the messages regarding "MediaSentry". Real network administrators posting their experiences receiving nonsensical requests from MediaSentry and related entities for information about bogus IP addresses. Doesn't reflect too well on MediaSentry's methodology.
Another fucking Jew. Typical extortion tactics. Either be their slaves or DIE.
"The New Age. The New Beginning."
What would be interesting, and possibly helpful, would be a screenshot showing that someone with the IP address of a SafeNet office (or an RIAA lawyer's law office) has a lot of files on their computer with filenames suggesting kiddy porn or something to that effect. Introducing that faked screenshot as evidence would be interesting, since any testimony supporting the validity of the Safenet screenshots may support a felony case against Safenet (or the RIAA lawyer).
I don't have the skills/time to find the appropriate IP addresses, ascertain operating systems and such, and then fake the believable screen shot. I don't know that it would be legal, either, so please don't take this as a suggestion. It would be interesting in court, though.
Another good one to read -> http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/print.html
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
You'll need 50.1% approval to pass the motion.
Let's see, there are 1,500,000 Slashdot members...
1,500,000 members, of whom maybe 5% are active?
I don't think that's going to fly. Reminds me a bit of the post-Microsoft ISO SC 34 committee.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is it too late to object? They probably don't know about that conflict of interest, so I'm sure they wouldn't mind if someone just happened to tip them off...
given the history of mistakes in evidence / accusations has anyone considered making a spoofing app that just sits there pretending to transfer copyrighted works ?
low traffic use but reporting back to the trackers/peers that it has downloaded a lot.
even better if it can attempt to spoof IP's as well, sometimes effectively, sometimes not. just to make sure there is a very real an provable occurance of this happening so it can be used in defence. always the highest profile movies / music at the time to get the attention of mediasentry.
anyone running it would have an element of confusion to use in their defence if accused, and also anyone else being accused will be able to point at it saying well how can you prove it wasnt someone else running this that spoofed my IP?
The faked screenshots are there as evidence of how you can fake a screenshot.
As such, there is NO ILLEGALITY in putting them forward as evidence, even if they were evidence of a KP ring in RIAA headquaters and a tactical diagram of Air Force 1 and a plan to kill the president in the hands of Media Sentry.
Because these are not put forward as evidence of KP in RIAA HQ, nor of evidence that Media Sentry are plotting terrorism. They are put forward as evidence that screenshots can be faked.
And as such, they are SAYING that RIAA aren't in charge of the largest KP ring in the world and that Media Sentry are not traitors.
The reason why you do this is so that RIAA/Media Sentry can't counter with "but they are true!". They'll admit or profess (hey, maybe there is KP in RIAA HQ...) that it is wrong and therefore admit that screenshots can easily be faked.
And that is completely legal.
...unless there's tequila involved.
I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of the actual technical stuff which Dr. Kim discusses.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Wasn't that the company that in addition to being the RIAA's techno-snich, was also the one responsible for flooding networks with false files.
"Under Attack" I don't think is strong enough. Unless that phrase ends with "with a baseball bat" or "by gauss cannons" or "by pirate ships" or something of that nature.
Besides being totally unethical and wrong, I seriously wonder why they were never taken to task for criminality. To me it is the same thing as spammers flooding the net with bad links, and we are throwing them in jail these days.
Wait, is that proof by wishful citation, proof by mutual reference or proof by vehement assertion? ;-)
Hey, that should have been a numbered list ending in "Profit!".
When you imitate the RIAA's business strategy, there's no profit step :p
The defendant's lawyer did not object.
Can't you disbar them for gross negligence of their client's interests, or something?
Or does it only make them a lousy lawyer?
Or.... The explanation certainly is easy, it's just not very satisfying to me :)
Aha. An excellent point, and a fine argument.
Therein lies the bugaboo -- the only compelling reasons, for the politicians, currently have to do with the wads of cash and free lunches that the RIAA and member companies provide.
Which points to the underlying malaise of the whole US political system: how do we re-align the interests of the political class with the interests of the country as a whole, and of the citizens (i.e. humans, not corporations) in particular?
I have no real ideas that don't involve some degree of bloodshed (which is depressing to me, as I'm generally a pacifist). Johnsonav, do you have any thoughts? You seem a sharp mind; I'm interested if you have any feasible solutions at hand.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Capn: "Belay that, Gunny! Triple-shot 'em instead. And prepare full broadsides both starboard and larboard, and call in the marines from the tops to help man the guns. We'll come about and hit 'em with both sides, reloading as we go -- now that the fog has cleared and we can see the size of this behemoth, it's clear that it'll take a while to get through that thick hull. An extra ration of grog to the crew that first punches through!"
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Therein lies the bugaboo -- the only compelling reasons, for the politicians, currently have to do with the wads of cash and free lunches that the RIAA and member companies provide.
I'm not quite so pessimistic. I can't really blame politicians for upholding the current copyright regime. From their perspective, copyright protection has enabled the production of a rich and diverse artistic ecosystem in the US. I'd be nervous too about drastically changing anything, for fear of killing the goose that lays the golden egg. It's worked for 200 years, why scrap it now?
We have to show them that we can produce art of the same, or better, quality without the protections of traditional copyright. We need to show them that copyright is unnecessary or harmful. We already have a decent start on this: artists are increasingly releasing their work to be shared freely, a significant portion of the software market is dominated by GPL or BSD licensed software, and people everywhere are making and distributing content on sites like YouTube. We've not quite reached parity yet with the traditional media; but it's close.
Once that happens, we'll probably see copyright fade into irrelevance. The laws may never leave the books, but so long as artists don't invoke their protections, they may as well have.
Which points to the underlying malaise of the whole US political system: how do we re-align the interests of the political class with the interests of the country as a whole, and of the citizens (i.e. humans, not corporations) in particular?
Well, now that's a problem well above my pay-grade.
The thought that worries me, is that maybe we've got the government we deserve. No matter how much money corporations pour into campaign coffers, the people are the ones with the power to vote them out. But, we don't. If the citizens of this country really wanted to change things, they could. Any attempt to change the political system has to begin by changing the mindset of the citizenry. Unfortunately, that's far harder than enacting campaign finance reform or term limits.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
We have to show them that we can produce art of the same, or better, quality without the protections of traditional copyright. We need to show them that copyright is unnecessary or harmful. We already have a decent start on this: artists are increasingly releasing their work to be shared freely, a significant portion of the software market is dominated by GPL or BSD licensed software, and people everywhere are making and distributing content on sites like YouTube. We've not quite reached parity yet with the traditional media; but it's close.
Note that the only reason GPL works is because of copyright, though. By default, you're not allowed to use other people's code (due to copyright violation). GPL grants you the right to use certain code as long as you follow certain restrictions (e.g. that you release your own code under GPL as well).
If copyright is eliminated entirely, then GPL will "fail" in the sense that people could then take the source code posted on the internet, and use it without complying to the GPL, and there'd be no way to sue them for doing so.
(And just to show that I'm trying to clarify something here, and not just doing a strawman argument -- nor arguing with you at all, for that matter, -- I'll explicitly highlight the fact that there's another possibility that I'm not bothering to address, which is that we don't eliminate copyright altogether, but simply "fix it somehow" so that GPL still works, but everything that makes copyright sucks disappears.)
I wouldn't actually go so far, in part because I am not convinced that copyright per se is harmful. I would simply like to see copyright laws rolled back several iterations to more closely coincide with their initial implementation and original intent. The more recent revisions that extend copyright essentially indefinitely are an absolute perversion of the original compact made with the public -- i.e., that we, the people, would grant authors and other producers with *limited* monopolies, for the express purpose of encouraging them to help enrich the public domain. What we have now, instead, is little more than an egregious power grab by moneyed corporations as they seek to lay claim to every aspect of our modern culture. I propose no killing of the goose (copyright) that lays the golden egg (much of modern culture -- books, movies, music, etc.). The problem is that the goose no longer allows us to make use of that golden egg. Thus, I propose instead that we undo the mutations that have given the goose the enormous size, sharp fangs, and poisonous venom that imperil any of us mere mortals who even think of approaching that golden egg. :)
Oofda -- this gets complicated. Yes, while in theory the public has the power to revamp who gets into office, the reality is complex in the extreme. On the one hand, you have moneyed interests who get to decide the very candidates we vote for -- meaning that the elections are rigged before they even happen. Then there are the deeper issues of failing civics education and deliberate disinformation on pretty much all sides of any issue...
I agree with you here, though I might quibble with you about the "has to begin" part :). I think changing the public mindset is vital, but I'm not so sure it's necessarily the first step -- there are probably many ancillary issues that could be taken on before or in parallel to this.
Plus, by way of disclaimer, I grew up in DC, so I am naturally biased towards the cynical when it comes to "da gubmint". :-P
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
The solution is to hack a firmware update that makes printers LIKE to share music!
"It helps me print."
Singularity, here we come!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
While it is true as you say that without copyright law the GPL would fail, without copyright law the GPL would not be needed.
To give an example, suppose there was no copyright law, and Microsoft decided to use modified GPL code in their next product, without distributing the source. OK, we would not have the source BUT they would have no way to stop us dissassembling, decompiling, reverse engineering to our hearts content, and once we had source that did whatever their modifications did, we would be able to distribute it to our hearts content.
I neglect the possible effects of patents and trademarks of course. But then, my personal opinion is that software patents are actually completely invalid anyway.