Slashdot Mirror


RIAA Case, Capitol vs. Thomas #2, Starts Monday

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's first trial verdict having been tossed out last year, the RIAA is coming back for a second round starting Monday. This time the trial will be in Minneapolis, rather than Duluth, and the defendant will have a team of pro bono lawyers on her side. But perhaps the most important new development is that this time, the 'technical' evidence garnered by MediaSentry and 'explained' by the RIAA's expert witness Doug Jacobson, will not get the free pass it got the first time around. In the 2007 trial in Capitol Records v. Thomas, no objection was made by defendant's lawyer to the MediaSentry/Doug Jacobson 'evidence' upon which the RIAA relied, and the evidence was admitted without objection. This time there will be no free ride, as defendant's tech-savvy lawyers have already filed a list of objections to the RIAA's proposed exhibits. Most notably, they attack the 'technical' materials submitted by MediaSentry and Dr. Doug Jacobson under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which requires evidence based on 'scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge' to be based on sufficient facts or data, to be the product of reliable principles and methods, and to be the result of those principles and methods having been applied reliably to the facts of the case. If the evidence fails to meet those standards, it is inadmissible. This judge has already shown acute awareness of these principles in deciding which subjects the defendant's expert could and could not address. This should be interesting."

5 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Uh, he's *not* a journalist, maybe? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Funny

    And why are you replying to someone who replied to a troll, giving more attention to this thread, and therefore to the original troll?

    I never said I was the brightest light in the firmament.

    (sigh)

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  2. Re:Um, he is phony! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Funny

    drinkypoo, what do you think was the giveaway about my "phony" hidden "bias"? Do you think it could have been the part of my Slashdot profile where I refer to my "doing battle with the RIAA & MPAA"? Or do you think it could have been that he saw the part on my blog where I describe the RIAA litigations as an "attempt to monopolize digital music and redefine copyright law", or my characterization of them as "sham"? Or do you think I tipped my hand by using the title "Recording Industry vs. The People" for the past 4 years?

    Damn. And here I was trying so hard to keep my "bias" a secret.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  3. Re:Lawyers and geeks by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hybris

    I actually had to look up hybris to make sure it wasn't a simple misspelling of 'hubris'. Turns out it's a legit variation (although seemingly rarely used). I had already come up with a good joke definition for it too:

    Hybris - noun. Excessive arrogance or pride in more than one field of knowledge.

    Ah well...

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  4. Re:Um, he is phony! by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Help! Moderators! I fell into the trap, and fed the troll with the above comment, and now I've been modded "Flamebait".

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  5. Re:It's my impression by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Kind sir, may I please have your IP address?

    127.0.0.1