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."
Please provide, in detail, proof of your statement above as it pertains to this case, complete with references.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Personally I:
Wish that the ethical definition of copyright violation were more important than the "definition" of theft as they are ethically the same.
Wish that non commercial copyright had the same ethical weight as commercial copyright violations (it actually does but not here apparently)
Wish that the straw man of "non-commercial copying has no measurable impact on the sale" would be seen as the smoke and mirrors that it is.
Wish that people would start taking responsibility for their actions and stop rationalizing their ethical lapses into a 'cause celebre'.
Wish that the idiots that post these things had the cojones to use their own names and not hide behind "AC" like a sniveling little girl hiding behind her mothers skirts.
Why bother
Yes. Yes, you're right. Let me pull my foot out of my mouth to clarify that when I said "which is what Kazaa does" I meant "which is what Kazaa does when run by the user". And when I said "putting up copyrighted files" I meant "putting up copyrighted files without the owner's permission".
Thanks for insisting I clear that up. Funny how nobody else got confused though. Guess they all must have an IQ above 30.
She does not have to go through any of it. She didn't have to violate their copyright. She could have settled.
Instead, she decided to fight it out and it was that decision that let to years of court cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, etc.
You are blaming those whose rights were violated for protecting those rights while absolving her of all responsibility for the position she is in.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Did you bother to read the decision? Apparently not, because if you did, you would have your answer.
Red herring. MediaSentry didn't hack into her computer. MediaSentry used the capablities of a stock verison of the P2P software, Kazaa, to get the information. Said information is provided by the software by design. She voluntarily provided the information by using Kazaa.
Also, are the U.S. laws concerning your actions extra-territorial? Minnesota's laws are not.
If I am in a state where I hold, or do not need to hold, a PI license and you are in, say Minnesota, and you call me and tell me you some information that incriminates you in a crime against my client, is it your contention that I have committed a crime in Minnesota? Are you saying that I can not testify against you in Minnesota because I am not a licensed PI in Minnesota even though I am complying with the laws where I live, have my business, and work and the information came to me in my home location and was willingly provided by you?
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
While her defense is that she didn't do it, the claimant is doing a pretty good job of proving she did. In fact, her defense of "I didn't do it" looks quite a bit like someone saying "That is not mine and I have no idea how it got there." when a bag of marijuana is found in said someone's car while he is the sole occupant.
If you want to dabble in bad analogies I will.
Her claiming she didn't do it is just like the guy here who took is girlfriend's baby boy, smashed him to the ground, beat the crap out of her, took the baby and drove off then tossed the baby out the window of the car while driving down the interstate and then saying that it was all a dirty game and he didn't do it.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
We enjoy fucking. We almost never "make love." Cuddling is fun and we do that often, but when it comes to sex, multiple orgasms are way more fun than a slow grind with some cuddling thrown in. We both agree after eight years of it.
Sex is animalistic. It's instinctual. Why do you need to make it something else?
Put identity in the browser.
I stated he should read the decision, then I summarized the decision. I guess you, being a lawyer, have no experience with summarizing thing, rights?
By the way, how is it MediaSentry conducted an investigation in Minnesota when they never entered Minnesota and have no agents in Minnesota? Under you theory, you are practicing law in every state because you are posting legal opinion on slashdot.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
I am just as partisan as you are. I don't care if she had the money to settle or not. She could have agreed to make payments if she didn't have the money. I believe she did, in fact, violate the copyright of others. It was her decision to use Kazaa and to make songs available over Kazaa. If she didn't do that, she would not have been sued.
Well, let's see, so far she has not provided a reasonable explanation. She has tried to provide a series of unreasonable ones, such as that someone used a non-existent wireless access point to frame her. How is it you believe she didn't do it? Remember, this is a civil case and there is not presumption of innocence.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Do you remember this statement you made:
Now, you have stated as that as fact, not opinion.
Regarding Daubert, reading an IP address off of a screen and tracing it back is to it's source computer is not peer reviewed, standard practice in the field of IT? Interesting.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.