NYCL said: "2. It isn't true that you have been posting here for a lot longer than I have been posting RIAA litigation news. You only joined after these stories started being posted."
I'm new here, and not familiar with organisational stuff, but from what I can see and interpret; Ray you are at least with that statement totally and plainly wrong! I guess the number behind the username is the usernumber that gets incremented with every new registered member. Given that, he is in the first 100 thousands (which would mean he is clearly VERY much longer here then your RIAA storys.) You are in the 900 thousands which means you are longer here than me the 1 million guy! -> which would be a pirma facie proof that my interpretation is correct about numbervalue and duration of membership.
P.S. Oh and I think the classification as Flaimbait and troll for the parents are unjustified! (maybe some modpoint guys can correct them. The arguments critisising Ray's style are valid to some degree IMO)
last time I checked its still in the discovery phase. (or something like that, since the judges order that discovery ends 60 days after hdd inspection and it is a bit doubious if he interprets those "drafts" as a deadline setting point. And on the "rate a judge" website I stumbled accross, he is described as fair, but not as a judge that is tough in enforcing deadlines)
it was the Santangelo case was 5 seconds before trial, with preperation dates set, when RIAA caved in. The lindor case is theorethicaly far awa
So if RIAA want to keep their game running and make sure that their "expert" will not be burned they can now stipulate to a dismissal if they want to prevent damage that will shut down all their othr running and future cases if the "expert" gets judicially discredited as useless for the cases!
why is that part you refer to prove that NYCL is a dick?
This expert has a CV spanning over dozends of pages. In the moment questioner found out he claimed to not know the meaning of something he is asking him about his educational background. Questions about educational background seems to be routine business when deposing "experts". See the millin deposition in canada for example where MediaSentry president was the RIAA expert.
NYCL did not asked Jacobson those questions about his education at the beginning. So at this point in the depositon where NYCL got the alleged feeling something about an answer makes no sense was the right time to ask his educational background. a handful of questions about his educational background isn't what I would call being a dick
A. No, "inculpated." Would you please define that for me. Q. Do you not know what the word "inculpated" means? A. That's correct. Q. Are you familiar with the word "exculpate"? A. No. Q. What is your educational background? A. Computer engineering. Q. Well, which school did you attend? Did you get a Bachelor's degree? A. Yes. Q. What school? A. Iowa State University, science and technology. Q. When did you graduate? A. With which degree? Q. When did you get your Bachelor's degree? A. 1980. Q. Do you have any other degrees? A. I hold a Master of Science in electrical engineering. Q. When did you get that? A. 1982. Q. Any other degrees? A. A Doctor of Philosophy, Ph.D., in computer engineering. Q. When was that? A. 1985. Q. And you are associate professor at Iowa State University? A. That is correct. Q. And you do not know what the word "exculpate" means? A. That's correct. __ finishing of the question complex you claim make him a Dick.
But you and others are right. NYCL attitute in/. discussions are a bit questionable. But using THIS deposition as an example for his behaviour here is as wrong.
before you discredit this organisation for having such a bad apple among them;
In his CV and in the other papers he does not mention who the certifying body is/was.
its just one line on page 21 XIII. Professional Activities 2004 Certified Computer Forensic Examiner 2001-present Member InfraGard
I'm willing to bet with you, if it is the organisation you mentioned, they will be really pissed about his incompetence when it comes to propper procedures in forensic examinations. So please don't give this organisation a bad name without forensicly sound evidence that he is one of them But he will be deposed tomorrow in another case, I guess he can answer the question who certified him, if renewals of certification are mandatory and so on. And he can hopefully answer this time exactly how many reports he had written for RIAA so far. Last time he was not sure how many exactly (~200)
the problem with it is that he has NO clue about the stuff he was designated by RIAA to testify about. Having no clue about what you testify as an expert is what makes it inadmissible.
Defendant's lawyer explains it this way: Although Dr. Jacobson proposes in the report to testify as to "the procedures used and results obtained by MediaSentry," he displayed utter ignorance as to those procedures at his deposition. He admitted that he does not know what processes, procedures or software were used by MediaSentry. (T 31). He does not know if the methods used by MediaSentry have ever been "tested by any testing body." (T 42). He does not know if MediaSentry's methods have ever been subjected to any form of peer review; as far as he know, MediaSentry itself is not peer-regulated. (T 42, 43). He does not know if MediaSentry's methods have been published. (T 42). He does not know if there is a known error rate in MediaSentry's methods. (T 43). He does not know of any standards and controls over MediaSentry's methods (T 43). He does not know if MediaSentry's methods have generally been accepted in the scientific community. (T 43). In evaluating all of the reports and materials generated by MediaSentry (including the screenshots, system logs and user logs that are attached to the complaint and supposedly form the basis of its allegations) and the purported data contained in those documents, Dr. Jacobson assumed that they were accurate. (T 43). Clearly, the scientific reliability of MediaSentry's methods and materials can only be established by expert testimony. [...] In summary, Dr. Jacobson is not qualified to opine about whether the uploading and downloading alleged in the complaint actually occurred or who is responsible for it if it did.
While such a "in limine" motion might be all day lawyer routine motion business as usual...
THIS special one is very important for the overall cause in the greater war. If it will be granted, then would that mean that RIAA can pack in with their methodology since they have nothing else to offer which comes even close to evidence usable in a real Court of Law
That's why THIS routine motion is/. report worthy IMO.
And Ty (the lawyer that made it) was so smart to not cite any other case in his letter as example why their motion should be granted. He cited cases and used quotes that were made by those 2 NY judges that are responsible for this case too!
"[...]except, of course, by not reading any of the legal documents."
for most of those that say RIAA is a plaintiff your assumption is probably right.
but..
maybe a few actually HAVE read some docs, that suggest exactly that!
"RIAA" IS the driving but not officially named plaintiff after all.
if you have the necessary credentials to access public court records online, you might want to read for yourself that allegedly "attorney Kenneth L. Doroshow of the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA"), Plaintiffs' union and trade group informed the Court, the defense counsel and the public that the RIAA who is not a named plaintiff is, in fact, prosecuting this case against Deborah Foster (and other cases filed by the record labels)."
Slashdot Mirror
maybe he wanted to stay anonymous to not ruin his chance to be choosen as juror in the Lindor case?! ;-)
(Not that I truely believe RIAA will risk that this case will EVER be heard before a jury of 12)
NYCL said:
;-)
"2. It isn't true that you have been posting here for a lot longer than I have been posting RIAA litigation news. You only joined after these stories started being posted."
I'm new here, and not familiar with organisational stuff, but from what I can see and interpret; Ray you are at least with that statement totally and plainly wrong!
I guess the number behind the username is the usernumber that gets incremented with every new registered member.
Given that, he is in the first 100 thousands (which would mean he is clearly VERY much longer here then your RIAA storys.)
You are in the 900 thousands which means you are longer here than me the 1 million guy! -> which would be a pirma facie proof that my interpretation is correct about numbervalue and duration of membership.
P.S. Oh and I think the classification as Flaimbait and troll for the parents are unjustified! (maybe some modpoint guys can correct them. The arguments critisising Ray's style are valid to some degree IMO)
You might want to check your facts
it is not yet at the trial stage yet.
last time I checked its still in the discovery phase. (or something like that, since the judges order that discovery ends 60 days after hdd inspection and it is a bit doubious if he interprets those "drafts" as a deadline setting point. And on the "rate a judge" website I stumbled accross, he is described as fair, but not as a judge that is tough in enforcing deadlines)
it was the Santangelo case was 5 seconds before trial, with preperation dates set, when RIAA caved in. The lindor case is theorethicaly far awa
So if RIAA want to keep their game running and make sure that their "expert" will not be burned they can now stipulate to a dismissal if they want to prevent damage that will shut down all their othr running and future cases if the "expert" gets judicially discredited as useless for the cases!
why is that part you refer to prove that NYCL is a dick?
/. discussions are a bit questionable. But using THIS deposition as an example for his behaviour here is as wrong.
This expert has a CV spanning over dozends of pages.
In the moment questioner found out he claimed to not know the meaning of something he is asking him about his educational background.
Questions about educational background seems to be routine business when deposing "experts". See the millin deposition in canada for example where MediaSentry president was the RIAA expert.
NYCL did not asked Jacobson those questions about his education at the beginning. So at this point in the depositon where NYCL got the alleged feeling something about an answer makes no sense was the right time to ask his educational background.
a handful of questions about his educational background isn't what I would call being a dick
A. No, "inculpated." Would you please define that for me.
Q. Do you not know what the word "inculpated" means?
A. That's correct.
Q. Are you familiar with the word "exculpate"?
A. No.
Q. What is your educational background?
A. Computer engineering.
Q. Well, which school did you attend? Did you get a Bachelor's degree?
A. Yes.
Q. What school?
A. Iowa State University, science and technology.
Q. When did you graduate?
A. With which degree?
Q. When did you get your Bachelor's degree?
A. 1980.
Q. Do you have any other degrees?
A. I hold a Master of Science in electrical engineering.
Q. When did you get that?
A. 1982.
Q. Any other degrees?
A. A Doctor of Philosophy, Ph.D., in computer engineering.
Q. When was that?
A. 1985.
Q. And you are associate professor at Iowa State University?
A. That is correct.
Q. And you do not know what the word "exculpate" means?
A. That's correct.
__ finishing of the question complex you claim make him a Dick.
But you and others are right. NYCL attitute in
before you discredit this organisation for having such a bad apple among them;
In his CV and in the other papers he does not mention who the certifying body is/was.
its just one line on page 21
XIII. Professional Activities
2004 Certified Computer Forensic Examiner
2001-present Member InfraGard
I'm willing to bet with you, if it is the organisation you mentioned, they will be really pissed about his incompetence when it comes to propper procedures in forensic examinations. So please don't give this organisation a bad name without forensicly sound evidence that he is one of them
But he will be deposed tomorrow in another case, I guess he can answer the question who certified him, if renewals of certification are mandatory and so on. And he can hopefully answer this time exactly how many reports he had written for RIAA so far. Last time he was not sure how many exactly (~200)
she does not own one too!
it was stuff from her ex husband if I remember corrrectly what I read about it in the court papers so far.
the problem with it is that he has NO clue about the stuff he was designated by RIAA to testify about.
= umg_lindor_070426MTRtoMagisInLimineJacobson )
Having no clue about what you testify as an expert is what makes it inadmissible.
Defendant's lawyer explains it this way:
Although Dr. Jacobson proposes in the report to testify as to "the procedures used
and results obtained by MediaSentry," he displayed utter ignorance as to those
procedures at his deposition. He admitted that he does not know what processes,
procedures or software were used by MediaSentry. (T 31). He does not know if the
methods used by MediaSentry have ever been "tested by any testing body." (T 42). He
does not know if MediaSentry's methods have ever been subjected to any form of peer
review; as far as he know, MediaSentry itself is not peer-regulated. (T 42, 43). He does
not know if MediaSentry's methods have been published. (T 42). He does not know if
there is a known error rate in MediaSentry's methods. (T 43). He does not know of any
standards and controls over MediaSentry's methods (T 43). He does not know if
MediaSentry's methods have generally been accepted in the scientific community. (T
43). In evaluating all of the reports and materials generated by MediaSentry (including
the screenshots, system logs and user logs that are attached to the complaint and
supposedly form the basis of its allegations) and the purported data contained in those
documents, Dr. Jacobson assumed that they were accurate. (T 43).
Clearly, the scientific reliability of MediaSentry's methods and materials can only
be established by expert testimony.
[...]
In summary, Dr. Jacobson is not qualified to opine about whether the uploading
and downloading alleged in the complaint actually occurred or who is responsible for it if
it did.
( http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename
HTH
While such a "in limine" motion might be all day lawyer routine motion business as usual...
/. report worthy IMO.
THIS special one is very important for the overall cause in the greater war.
If it will be granted, then would that mean that RIAA can pack in with their methodology since they have nothing else to offer which comes even close to evidence usable in a real Court of Law
That's why THIS routine motion is
And Ty (the lawyer that made it) was so smart to not cite any other case in his letter as example why their motion should be granted.
He cited cases and used quotes that were made by those 2 NY judges that are responsible for this case too!
"I wouldn't describe an ex parte motion as secret, since it's on the public record in an open court room that anyone can walk into,"
Hey, Nice argument. Say, by any chance you aren't from a Vogon ship, are you?
and you could sue the RIAA expert for making an illegal "perfect digital copy" of your music too! :-P
it's more like 3 thousand and not 3 hundred.
"[...]except, of course, by not reading any of the legal documents."
i tol_foster_070404DeftsObjectionsConfidentiality (pdf in iframe!)
for most of those that say RIAA is a plaintiff your assumption is probably right.
but..
maybe a few actually HAVE read some docs, that suggest exactly that!
"RIAA" IS the driving but not officially named plaintiff after all.
if you have the necessary credentials to access public court records online, you might want to read for yourself that allegedly "attorney Kenneth L. Doroshow of the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA"), Plaintiffs' union and trade group informed the Court, the defense counsel and the public that the RIAA who is not a named plaintiff is, in fact, prosecuting this case against Deborah Foster (and other cases filed by the record labels)."
See
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=cap
at p4 2.