Judge OK's MediaSentry Evidence, Limits Defendant's Expert

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the judge has denied the defendant's motion to suppress the MediaSentry evidence for illegality, holding that MediaSentry's conduct did not violate any of the three laws cited by the defendant. The judge also dismissed most of the RIAA's objections to testimony by the defendant's expert, Prof. Yongdae Kim, but did sustain some of them. In his 27-page decision (PDF), Judge Davis ruled that Prof. Kim could testify about the 'possible scenarios,' but could not opine as to what he thinks 'probably' occurred. The court also ruled that, 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case, the Court excludes Kim's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant's Internet account through an unprotected wireless access point. Similarly, because Kim explicitly testified that this case does not involve any "black IP space," or any "temporarily unused" IP space ...., he is not permitted to opine at trial that hijacking of black IP space or temporary unused IP is a possible explanation in this case.' Dr. Kim was also precluded from testifying as to whether song files were conspicuously placed in a shared files folder or were wilfully offered for distribution. The judge also precluded him from testifying about Kazaa's functioning, but it was unclear to me what the judge was precluding him from saying, because the offered testimony seemed to relate only to the question of whether the Kazaa-reported IP address precluded the possibility of the device having been run behind a NAT device."

Comments

Re:Could be a victory

[DaveV1.0]

if the judge applies the standards he described to MediaSentry and Jacobson, case closed, Jammie wins.

That is the second time you have said that. Provide proof of that statement or admit you are just making it up.

Re:Get over it

[Travelsonic]

Maybe they aren't SHOWING confusing, but that doesn't make it that they aren't confused, and that you shouldn't be clearer. A LOT (majority?) of people take your words literally. P.s: IQs are bullshit, not that you had a high enough IQ to realize that to begin with.

Re:Innocent until proven guilty

[DaveV1.0]

I see you are an idiot. Maybe you should ask Ray. Innocent until proven guilty is only for criminal cases. If that were not the case, one would not automatically lose if one did not show up for a civil case.