Slashdot Mirror
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."
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly
In your experience, is this generally the case?
Yes. If the judge says 'this is the rule we're going to play by' then that's the rule.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained.
Me neither. But I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw. I'm sure that with most state licensing statutes, the result would be otherwise.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Please, make up your mind and tell me how to properly react to this already.
eldavojohn, you're a cool guy, you can figure it out.
But seriously...
1. most of the rulings are totally right down the middle and easily anticipated
2. the ruling on the MediaSentry is bad, but it's not applicable to the other 49 states
3. the ruling on the expert is ok except for the part about NAT
4. if the judge applies the standards he described to MediaSentry and Jacobson, case closed, Jammie wins.
So it all boils down to whether he applies the same rule; and he appears to be a fairminded Judge, so I would say this portends a victory for the good guys.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Is there a jury involved in a situation like this, or is a judge looking at possible testimony and then deciding which of that testimony he (himself) is allowed to hear vs which he (himself) isn't?
You should be modded +5 for asking one of the best questions I've ever received on Slashdot.
Answer: the preliminary questioning of the expert is done before the judge, out of the presence of the jury, and is called a 'voir dire' [same term that's used for jury questioning]; if the judge rules his testimony is totally inadmissible, he never gets to testify before the jury; if the judge rules it is admissible, then he gets to testify in the presence of the jury.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful