Slashdot Mirror
Court Rejects RIAA's Proposed Protective Order
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You may recall that a few weeks ago the Court rendered a detailed decision providing for safeguards in connection with the RIAA's proposed inspection of the defendant's hard drive in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. The decision instructed the RIAA to submit a proposed protective order consistent with the Court's decision. The RIAA submitted a proposed protective order yesterday, which attracted some thoughtful commentary by readers of my blog, but today the Court rejected the RIAA's suggested order, explicitly rejecting many of the 'enhancements' included by the RIAA, including production of 'videos' and 'playlists' which might be found on the hard drive. Instead the Court entered an order the Court itself had drafted. The Court explained that 'the purpose of compelling inspection is to identify information reasonably calculated to provide evidence of any file-sharing of Plaintiffs' copyrighted music sound files conducted on the Defendant's computer. Once this data is identified by the computer forensic expert... any disclosure shall flow through the Defendant subject to his assertion of privilege and the Court's authority to compel production, just as disclosure would occur in any other pre-trial discovery setting... (1) As should have been clear from the Court's May 6, 2009 Order, although the Plaintiffs may select experts of their choosing, these individuals are not to be employees of the Plaintiffs or their counsel, but must be third-parties held to the strictest standards of confidentiality; (2) the inspection is limited to music sound files, metadata associated with music sound files, and information related to the file-sharing of music sound files — it shall not include music "playlists" or any other type of media file (e.g., video); (3) the Examining Expert shall be required to disclose both the methods employed to inspect the hard drive and any instruction or guidance received from the Plaintiffs.'"
I typed some queries for lyrics into Wolfram alpha, and now they have to fight the RIAA!!
It seems as though that the judges in these cases are becoming more educated as to the technical aspects of this case and P2P filesharing in general. This can only mean that the RIAA's tactics will be scruntized more closely by the court than ever before. This can only be a good thing for defendants in these cases. If the defense prevails, this is the start to the end of this mess for once-and-for-all. Thanks to NewYorkCountryLawyer for keeping us on top of this.
Sig this!
Any lawyer that can't come up with a production order that sticks to court ordered criteria should be sanctioned on the spot. I.E. you have a list of things that your order MUST satisfy, yet you think that there quite a bit of flex in it. Its like getting a shopping list with milk, eggs, butter, bread and coming home with cheese, quiche, marjoram (not margarine) and chips. How daft must the RIAA lawyers be to do this? In my experience as a COMPUTER FORENSICS EXPERT I have never seen attorneys flaunt a court order and attempt to come up with new criteria. I guess I'm in the wrong circuits.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
SO, someone scans the drive, maybe comes across a few music files. They log said files and each file might have meta data information. But what about file sharing data? Does the fact that I have uTorrent ensure a copyright infringement or me a distributor? Do such programs keep logs of all the files shared or distributed? And what would be in the meta data that would also label me as the above mentioned. If any music files WERE found then if you can produce the original disk great, if not then your up the creek with out a paddle I guess. I am glad to see the RIAA not get their way on this front. Letting them choose the company would have been WAY out of line and far to great a possibility of abuse. Also glad to see a court that actually seems like it knows what it is doing.
If they're only allowed to examine music files, then what if:
You came up with your own file extension (eg. .ffm - file for music) and renamed all your mp3's to .ffm.
Then, configure Windows to open .ffm files with WMP, Mediamonkey, or whatever.
A forensics expert isn't going to have the option of booting the Windows install on the HD, and since .ffm isn't a standard music file, and they can only examine music files, you've just completely hidden all your music from investigation.
Not secure, by any means, but I can't see how they'd get any evidence without breaking the court order.
And then, you can prove they broke the court order, because everything they claim was an mp3 file was examined thinking it wasn't an mp3 file.
Interesting, no?
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
It's covered as a "derivative work", transcoding is clearly a derivative in this sense, and you would be screwed :-)
17 U.S.C. Â 106) provides:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending....
It is hard to see how transcoding or quality degradation would satisfy any of the "transformation" or "fair use" exceptions.
Just out of curiosity,Ray, if one were so inclined, how could an individual (or group) file an amicus brief with a court? Is there a boilerplate example to reference?
IANAL, but it goes something like this: first, you hire a lawyer...
Just out of curiosity,Ray, if one were so inclined, how could an individual (or group) file an amicus brief with a court? Is there a boilerplate example to reference?
There's no such thing as boilerplate, the way I look at it. Legal documents have consequences, and need to be drafted with reference to the situation at hand. I have actually submitted an amicus brief, and a revised amicus brief, in this very case, on the subject of the due process evaluation of the RIAA's statutory damages theory. Here and here.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
A judge used the term "metadata" correctly. That is a good technical concept to grasp. We geeks and our friends like NYCL (who may also be a geek - not trying to exclude) have been bandying it about for years, but to 99% of the population it is a pretty foreign term.
Each example like this implies that the judicial is growing more familiar with technical concepts. That makes me happy. :)
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It never bodes well. I remember when Microsoft was giving the EU court hell behaving as if it were a US court where they can appeal everything ad infinitum and eventually end up with whatever they want AND an official apology to boot.
But here it's the plaintiff and the court butting heads. I'm not a lawyer... definitely not. But I have got to say, that when you give the people who are making a decision either for or against you a difficult time, it can't be terribly wise... it just can't be. Even the lay-people know the courts systems aren't completely fair. What manner of arrogant do you have to be to behave in this way?
There's no such thing as boilerplate, the way I look at it. Legal documents have consequences, and need to be drafted with reference to the situation at hand. I have actually submitted an amicus brief, and a revised amicus brief, in this very case,
Great! We can we can just cut-n-paste yours and fill it in with our own points.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
There's no such thing as boilerplate, the way I look at it. Legal documents have consequences, and need to be drafted with reference to the situation at hand. I have actually submitted an amicus brief, and a revised amicus brief, in this very case,
Great! We can we can just cut-n-paste yours and fill it in with our own points.
Thanks for bringing a smile to my weary face. You deserved your "Funny" mod.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Ray, something else to add to your arsenal (I mentioned here elsewhere). The existence of a "shared" directory does not mean anything was or could be shared with various BitTorrent clients. Various I have used require a shared directory set, but then allow a user to either (a) not actively share it (it exists, it can be shared later, but it isnt currently being shared), or (b) set the upload rate to zero while still "sharing" it (ie: aint gonna do a thing at 0bps even though it is "shared").
Methinks in many cases, the **AA should thus not be able to rely on the existence of a shared folder (and/or it's contents) as any sort of indication of sharing. And of course, as you have probably already thought of, even if shared, it gives no indication that the files in question were in such a folder when it was being actively shared.
I'd think the most the RIAA could prove from a shared folder is that the folder exists, it has certain content in it and... hmmm... well, that's it without actual proof that the torrent client actually shared anything.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Someone plugs in their iPod to your system, you play their music off it, the iPod goes away with the music still on.
No copyright infringement.
Entry in a playlist.