I think user identification is hands down the largest flaw in the RIAA's case based on the "expert" testimony. Here's the evidence I saw (according to the PDF):
1) In the computer's registry, there's a public IP that was assigned to the user's account. 2) The IP used to share music was assigned to the user's account.
This means:
1) At some point, perhaps most recently, the computer was connected directly to the modem. Many users (especially my family) do this out of frustration with their router. Moreover, as other commenters have suggested, there could have still been a router while the computer maintained the public IP. 2) It's probable that the music was shared from someone connected somehow to the defendant's modem, but even that's not definite. IP's can be spoofed, or the RIAA may be wrong - check their methodology. i.e. if they check the IP by sending a message to the Kazaa user saying "l0l y0 dud3, wh4t's y0u4 1p?", the IP's not necessarily reliable.
Moreover, I didn't see anything discussing MAC addresses in there. Though they're eminently spoofable, they at least give you some idea of what network interface card you're talking to. If the RIAA does whip out the computer's MAC as evidence, you can simply point out how nearly every consumer wireless router offers MAC cloning.
In short, I think the best option would be to show in court how a normal customer might configure a computer connected to a router to have the public IP and have the router clone the computer's MAC. This would take a PC, a cheapo wireless router, and about 1-2 minutes. Then ask the expert how he'd know it was that computer, and not someone parked outside in a van that did filesharing. If he can't prove the PC had the public IP at the time the RIAA claims it was filesharing, even better - only MAC spoofing (or not even that if a MAC isn't produced as evidence) would need to be turned on, and that's a simple checkbox in router configuration. It might be worth researching if, at the time, that was required to get Verizon working with a router - ISP's have been known to tie accounts to MAC's. Even if not, some installation guides recommend simply checking the box to avoid the issue altogether. I simply fail to see how his testimony is incompatible whatsoever with there being a wireless router on the defendant's network either at the time of file sharing or at present. His vigorous handwaving about checking the registry suggests to me that, no, there's nothing there.
The one wrench in things would be if there's no evidence the computer was ever assigned a private IP. At this point you'd have to fall back on the possiblility of having a router while maintaining the public IP, which is more tenuous. You could also question how long the IP cache has been maintained, or use the following (I think better) argument: the "expert" wants to have his cake and eat it too, and winds up contradicting himself. On the one hand he says there's no value to this drive - it just *can't* be the one he's looking for. But then he turns around and bases his wild no-wireless-router claim on a registry entry! So which is it...is the drive in or out?
I'm on the Princeton DARPA team, and we're on Track B. The prize money at the end was a nice incentive and certainly garnered attention for the competition, but that's not where the real harm lies. For passing the site visit, there was a prize of $50,000, and for making it to the finals, a $250,000 prize (don't quote me on the amounts, that's just my recollection). These milestone prizes would've gone a long way to offset the financial disparity between Track A teams (who've received substantial DARPA grants) and the Track B teams. We're on a shoestring budget, and that money would've been incredibly useful. Instead, we now have to go the entire distance without a dime from the government.
One key point in Apple's defense is that they can simply point at the other online stores - Napster, Wal-Mart, etc. They have more open standards (WMA), but not by much.
Think of it this way: The iPod can only work with iTunes. Most of the iPod competitors can work with any of the competing stores. Granted, the competing stores aren't as good as iTMS yet, but Apple's not preventing them from competing.
General Grievous:
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/general grievous/
If you haven't seen the cartoon series that ran on Cartoon Network a bit ago, he's the jedi-killing droid. Judging by the site, it seems he'll be the main baddie in Episode III.
As for the 6-winged X-Wings, I was a bit suprised - I thought they'd show Headhunters (2-winged), which, according to the books, are the proto-X-Wings.
Slashdot Mirror
I think user identification is hands down the largest flaw in the RIAA's case based on the "expert" testimony. Here's the evidence I saw (according to the PDF):
1) In the computer's registry, there's a public IP that was assigned to the user's account.
2) The IP used to share music was assigned to the user's account.
This means:
1) At some point, perhaps most recently, the computer was connected directly to the modem. Many users (especially my family) do this out of frustration with their router. Moreover, as other commenters have suggested, there could have still been a router while the computer maintained the public IP.
2) It's probable that the music was shared from someone connected somehow to the defendant's modem, but even that's not definite. IP's can be spoofed, or the RIAA may be wrong - check their methodology. i.e. if they check the IP by sending a message to the Kazaa user saying "l0l y0 dud3, wh4t's y0u4 1p?", the IP's not necessarily reliable.
Moreover, I didn't see anything discussing MAC addresses in there. Though they're eminently spoofable, they at least give you some idea of what network interface card you're talking to. If the RIAA does whip out the computer's MAC as evidence, you can simply point out how nearly every consumer wireless router offers MAC cloning.
In short, I think the best option would be to show in court how a normal customer might configure a computer connected to a router to have the public IP and have the router clone the computer's MAC. This would take a PC, a cheapo wireless router, and about 1-2 minutes. Then ask the expert how he'd know it was that computer, and not someone parked outside in a van that did filesharing. If he can't prove the PC had the public IP at the time the RIAA claims it was filesharing, even better - only MAC spoofing (or not even that if a MAC isn't produced as evidence) would need to be turned on, and that's a simple checkbox in router configuration. It might be worth researching if, at the time, that was required to get Verizon working with a router - ISP's have been known to tie accounts to MAC's. Even if not, some installation guides recommend simply checking the box to avoid the issue altogether. I simply fail to see how his testimony is incompatible whatsoever with there being a wireless router on the defendant's network either at the time of file sharing or at present. His vigorous handwaving about checking the registry suggests to me that, no, there's nothing there.
The one wrench in things would be if there's no evidence the computer was ever assigned a private IP. At this point you'd have to fall back on the possiblility of having a router while maintaining the public IP, which is more tenuous. You could also question how long the IP cache has been maintained, or use the following (I think better) argument: the "expert" wants to have his cake and eat it too, and winds up contradicting himself. On the one hand he says there's no value to this drive - it just *can't* be the one he's looking for. But then he turns around and bases his wild no-wireless-router claim on a registry entry! So which is it...is the drive in or out?
I'm on the Princeton DARPA team, and we're on Track B. The prize money at the end was a nice incentive and certainly garnered attention for the competition, but that's not where the real harm lies. For passing the site visit, there was a prize of $50,000, and for making it to the finals, a $250,000 prize (don't quote me on the amounts, that's just my recollection). These milestone prizes would've gone a long way to offset the financial disparity between Track A teams (who've received substantial DARPA grants) and the Track B teams. We're on a shoestring budget, and that money would've been incredibly useful. Instead, we now have to go the entire distance without a dime from the government.
------
http://pave.princeton.edu/
One key point in Apple's defense is that they can simply point at the other online stores - Napster, Wal-Mart, etc. They have more open standards (WMA), but not by much.
Think of it this way: The iPod can only work with iTunes. Most of the iPod competitors can work with any of the competing stores. Granted, the competing stores aren't as good as iTMS yet, but Apple's not preventing them from competing.
General Grievous: http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/general grievous/
If you haven't seen the cartoon series that ran on Cartoon Network a bit ago, he's the jedi-killing droid. Judging by the site, it seems he'll be the main baddie in Episode III.
As for the 6-winged X-Wings, I was a bit suprised - I thought they'd show Headhunters (2-winged), which, according to the books, are the proto-X-Wings.