Slashdot Mirror
Thomas' Testimony and the RIAA's Near-Fatal Error
eldavojohn writes "The long and torrid trial of Jammie Thomas is in its second stage and in full swing. Yesterday, two major events took place: Thomas gave her surprising testimony and the RIAA was threatened for not disclosing new information to the opposing counsel. Thomas claimed she didn't know what KaZaA was before the trial started. She also admitted that the hard drive handed over to investigators was different than the one that was in her computer during the time of infringement. Her testimony from the first trial was that 'the hard drive replacement had taken place in 2004 and that the drive had not been swapped again since.' This is problematic because the new hard drive had a manufacturing date of 2005. The RIAA had its own troubles, almost losing all evidence from a particular witness when they added an additional log file to evidence without the defense being notified of it. The judge mercifully only removed that new evidence from the trial. It was related to whether or not an external hard drive was ever connected to the computer."
Sorry, "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to criminal cases, not civil cases
If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence? Nobody is forced to prove innocence. The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt. /shrug (IE: external records, etc.)
First, this isn't a criminal trial. It's civil, so there's no concept of "innocence." So they only have to show that a preponderance of the evidence shows that she committed the acts in question. The burden of proof still lies with the plaintiff, but to show a preponderance of evidence, they still need *access* to the evidence.
RIAA shenanigans aside, this is how the justice system basically works: if you have some evidence, the judge will let you request other evidence that may be related to help make your case. Here, given the fact that an IP address linked to her was observed engaging in possibly illegal behavior, it's reasonable to request access to the hard drive to determine whether her computer was involved. Most people (and probably any judge) would see that as reasonable. On the other hand, if they requested a search of her car (for instance), that would probably get tossed because it's unlikely to be relevant.
What you're basically suggesting is that search warrants and discovery be made illegal. If that happened, lots of extremely illegal behavior would be impossible to prove. Enron comes to mind initially.
As always, I'm not a lawyer, I just play one in my mind.
The RIAA's evidence is compelling.
The IP address was hers, with no WiFi, no NAT, and a password-protected Windows box
The username chosen was the one she's used online traditionally for 16 years.
The problem is, the nearly inevitible $100K verdict will not be justice, even if it is legally correct.
Test your net with Netalyzr