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."
Well if the evidence was collected incorrectly or illegally - then perhaps she's not guilty? Maybe that is an ideal thing to rally around. Due process. I'm terribly fond of it, myself.
Maybe it's for the best that only the police get to be the police, and not some corporate funded entity with a personal stake in the matter like Mediasoft. It would be nice for a court to make that point.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
NewYorkCountyLawyer is a well known lawyer and a respected expert in the area of RIAA legislation. When I read his summary, he tells, in neutral terms, about one of the obstacles the record companies have to overcome in this second trial. I can not say how the admissibility issue will pan out and I fully agree with Ray's "This should be interesting."
You are free to have your own opinions about the RIAA and file sharing, I have mine. I would certainly appreciate if you attacked the arguments instead of the writer, it makes for a more grown-up and polite discussion.
Now I'm off to wash my mouth.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
It's an issue of unknown unknowns... if you don't understand technical issues, you might not see why there's an issue in the RIAA suits that would call for a technology expert.
It's obvious that we're dealing with computer technology and if you don't understand it you need to hire a computer technologist. If I'm driving my car and I hear it making a new noise that sounds like metal on metal or something, I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that I should take it to a mechanic, because it's a car, and that's where you take a car for an explanation. Actually, I am fortunate enough to be a mechanic ("fortunate" meaning I've learned by reading books, turning wrenches, and even taking some classes) and so I usually have some idea of what is happening before I actually take my vehicle somewhere, assuming I don't just fix it myself. (Some jobs are just too stinky for me to want to deal with them.) By the same token, a lawyer who is a technologist might have some idea of what the issues are. One that does not, but who is intelligent, should know enough to consult an expert, just as they would expect that same person to consult them on an issue of law instead of charging ignorantly ahead without them.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Maybe I'm just being silly, but I prefer journalism to at least have a pretense of being unbiased.
You are, indeed, just being silly.
Would it kill NYCL to at least try to be a tad even-handed?
Probably not, but it would be phony. Isn't lying what people complain about when they talk about lawyers?
I'm not saying that's a deal breaker if it does, mind you...
I don't understand, it sounds almost like you want him to lie about how he feels even if it kills him.
Honestly, the best news source would be one that presents you with the biases of the authors of articles up front, and which provides you with competing articles with paragraph rebuttals to one another, so that you can get a feel for the different viewpoints. There are often more than two sides to a story, as well. Something like that might look a little bit like Slashdot, except with staff writers and professional editorship; personally, I often find the comments to be the most interesting and insightful part of a story (even when they're not mine.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Even if she is found guilty again, if she's found guilty on good evidence while bad evidence is thrown out that will be a win: It will set some precedent for what is good and bad evidence. (Especially if the RIAA gets some egg on their face for some of the bad evidence.)
It might not help her, but it would help the next person, who can refer to this case and say: 'This judge found these pieces of evidence inadmissible for these reasons', and tell that to their judge when the RIAA tries it again.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
When there is a huge disproportion of resources(time, money and legal counsel) between parties, sometimes judges need to take a more active role in ensuring the defendants rights are not being trampled and the plaintiff isn't blowing hot air up his ass to gloss over insufficiencies in their evidence.
Face it-lawsuits between companies and individuals are typically imbalanced.
You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
I find more often than not that lawyers, especially older male lawyers, believe they are of superior intelligence and if someone needs to explain something to them, it is somehow insulting or demeaning. Perhaps this is not limited to lawyers, but I have to say, all of the male lawyers I have known seem to reflect this pattern of not being open to new information.
But there are attorneys that specialize in certain areas. Malpractice lawyers tend to know a lot about medicine. There aren't many if any "technology" specialist lawyers and perhaps there should be.
..that this case is not a matter of whether Jammie Thomas is guilty or innocent (because I quite frankly have a negative opinion on this), but what legal standards should determine guilt or innocence, and I certainly feel the current standards fall short of high quality. I feel it's a little like Miranda, who was a thoroughly disreputable guy, but who got off in the wider interests of setting up future evidence and policing standards.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon