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."
This could be a victory for Jammie. The judge carefully lays out, at pages 13-14, the standards for admissibility of technical evidence.
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly, this trial may end abrutly, because the RIAA's only witnesses may both be precluded from testifying.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
1) it may or may not be willful. I know plenty of people who didn't realize what they were getting into with file sharing apps. As a matter of fact, most people I know who aren't fairly computer savvy thought the whole illegal internet music thing was about downloading, not uploading.
2) it's not what we think happened. It's if there are other PLAUSIBLE things that could have happened.
I think there would be a lot less sympathy for her if a guilty verdict wasn't going to destory her life. No act of copying/sharing a few MB should end up costing you your life savings (and then some) unless it's treason (and in that case you had it coming).
I think most of us would be fine with all of these cases if the defendants involved had to pay a reasonably amount of money but clearly that isn't the way it's going.
Normal people worry me!
I have a problem with this whole proposition. I don't like dishonesty.
The RIAA suing select people for vastly more than they could reasonably claim in damages is dishonest. These select users lying to get otherwise reasonable justice is also dishonest.
The entire system needs to change, but in the meantime people should fight the good fight rather than lie and use technicalities they know are dishonest. We want to be the good guys here.