The key thing is that a working class lady and nurse's aide in Brooklyn now has a much higher level expert witness than the sham "expert" the four (4) biggest record companies in the world -- with all their resources and hordes of money -- could turn up to try to turn their sow's ear into a silk purse. If the Court doesn't throw Dr. Jacobson's testimony out the window, as we have asked it to do, Dr. Pouwelse will bury it.
I used the term "none other than" because Prof. Pouwelse is indeed "famous".
He is one of the world's leading experts on P2P file sharing, he is the person responsible for shutting the RIAA's Netherlands counterpart down, and he is "famous" to all those who have been closely following the record labels' litigations in the U.S., because his work in the Netherlands cases has been cited in the United States, repeatedly. Most significantly, he is "famous" to the RIAA, to their lawyers, to the major record companies, and to the motion picture companies.
His signing on as expert for the defendants is a tremendous coup for the defendants, and a huge blow to the RIAA.
You personally might not be familiar with his work, and I don't in any way hold that against you; but I just want you know that I did use the term "none other than" advisedly.
There is no name the RIAA would less rather see as an expert witness than his, because -(1)unlike the RIAA's expert, he is really an expert on p2p file sharing -(2)unlike the RIAA's expert he actually knows what he's talking about and actually understands what MediaSentry does and doesn't do, and -(3)he has shut them down in the Netherlands and has the ability to shut them down here.
No, I was serious all right. It's really a pleasure when you see someone, like "Unknowing Fool", who has really been reading and absorbing the material. Moments like that make me feel like the many hours I've spent trying to get the word out.... have been worth it.
"When did defending your rights become so complex and expensive?"
When was it ever easy? Great comment!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
You are correct, but there is a difference between saying these files are available and the reality which is (normally) your upstream capacity and group organisation of p2p makes it near impossible for those files to ALL be sent from your computer to everyone else in the universe.
The RIAA should clearly link seeing the file available and actual infringements otherwise the figures quoted are just pie in the sky. Yeah, the problem is they don't know of any.
Thank you, Guillermito2, for your kind words of support. And in my opinion you really got it right with this description and appraisal:
"Maybe there is a reason why Slashdot editors post news of this case quite often. Maybe you should follow it a bit more closely. It is very important, in my humble opinion. It is The Normal People vs the MAFIAA, their scare tactics and their scandalous racketing scheme."
Well that tells us what they will do with normal DMCA takedown notices, which is pretty well spelled out by law.
We have no idea what they will do -if they receive RIAA's "early settlement" collection letters, or -about the RIAA's bringing "ex parte" proceedings against its students as "John Does".
Hopefully the school will heed Prof. Nesson's clarion call, and protect the students' due process rights.
Basically, an "investigator" operates a pretext Kazaa (or other Fast Track) account... finds a 'screenshot' with titles of copyrighted songs... finds out the dynamic IP address... subpoenas the ISP to find out who paid for the internet access account that had that dynamic IP address at the date and time he made the screenshot... accepts the answer of the ISP... and sues the person who paid for that internet access.
Fighting the "John Doe" subpoena process would be maybe $5000 worth of legal time. No college would have to pay that, it would have its counsel's office handle it. Those universities with law schools could have their legal clinics handle it or the counsel's office. All they need to do is take the stuff in my Open Letter to Colleges and Universities and put it together into some legal papers... an easy job for any litigator.
Yes but the impact of the letter goes way beyond Harvard. Even if the RIAA never gets up enough nerve to take Harvard on, the letter is, or should be, read by college administrators, counsels, student legal services offices, and ISP's, all across the land.
They will always run away crying like little girls rather than face a trial. That's what bullies do. They like to pick on the helpless and defenseless. When they find someone who fights back, they back down.
You're exactly right, Hotawa, that the effects of this litigation campaign could go way beyond anything having to do with p2p file sharing of music files; the amicus curiae brief submitted by US Internet Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Elektra v. Barker expresses eloquently how the RIAA's creative new ideas on expanding copyright law, if accepted by the courts, could shut the internet down.
Well I don't know, but I do know that in Capitol v. Foster the judge concluded that their case against Debbie Foster was "marginal" and "untested" and is slamming them with what I expect to be a pretty big attorneys fees award.
You've got to remember, we're very early in the game....It is only recently that the real fighting back began, and court cases take time.
I expect we'll be seeing Rule 11 sanctions against them down the road....
Don't you think the people who read my blog are well aware of this stuff, and more?
I try to keep palaver to a minimum on the blog, and devote myself to reporting the news, because -I have limited time -The defendants and defendants' lawyers need to know the news of what's going on in the litigations -Writing takes time.
From my experience litigating against the RIAA, it has no interest in the rule of law whatsoever; its goal is to make money and monopolize as much of the digital music space as it can.
1. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure encourage the making of all motions on notice, the RIAA does everything it can ex parte. The John Doe proceedings and motion for discovery are initiated without notice to anyone, even though it would be a simple matter to furnish the university, college, or ISP with copies of the motion and other papers, which could in turn be disseminated to the "John Does" to enable them to consult with counsel and take action if so advised.
2. The RIAA joins unrelated John Does, also in total contravention of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. In 2004 the federal district court in Austin, Texas, enjoined the RIAA to cease and desist from that practice. The RIAA has been in contempt of that order ever since, merely taking care to avoid litigating in Austin, Texas.
4. The RIAA conducts a sham investigation which, at best, identifies a person who paid for an internet access account... and then turns around and sues that person without any information that that individual is actually liable for copyright infringement.
5. The RIAA has invented a claim for "Making available" even though there is no legal authority.
6. The RIAA has invented a concept of an "online media digital music distributor", and uses it to tarnish people who've never engaged in file sharing in their life.
7. The RIAA never honors its pretrial discovery obligations, taking advantage of the fact that most defendants do not have the resources to engage in a constant stream of motion practice in order to get even the most rudimentary discovery.
8. It makes frivolous assertions of "privilege" and "confidentiality" solely to make litigation more expensive for defendants in other cases.
9. The RIAA will disclose, and distort the contents of, confidential settlement discussions.
I could go on and on. But to anyone who thinks the RIAA is trying to enforce copyright law.... think again.
The key, for me, is that our system of law is an adversarial system. For there to be fair outcomes there needs to be a fight of equals, a level playing field. The RIAA has embarked on a program of using colossal wealth to prey on defenseless victims, so that it can rewrite copyright law in a way that will maximize the recording industry's wealth. And it tramples on their civil rights in the process. ACLU, Public Citizen, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Amerian Association of Law Libraries. the US Internet Industry Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and others have submitted amicus curiae briefs pointing these things out.
The article written by Prof. Nesson and Ms. Seltzer is a landmark.
The key message for the university, in my view, is this: "we should be assisting our students both by explaining the law and by resisting the subpoenas that the RIAA serves upon us. We should be deploying our clinical legal student training programs to defend our targeted students."
Harvard should make sure that the due process rights of its students are protected.
Slashdot Mirror
I have no reason to think that's so of Guillermito2.
But I am definitely a drag at parties.
Thanks, "obeythefist", much appreciated.
The key thing is that a working class lady and nurse's aide in Brooklyn now has a much higher level expert witness than the sham "expert" the four (4) biggest record companies in the world -- with all their resources and hordes of money -- could turn up to try to turn their sow's ear into a silk purse. If the Court doesn't throw Dr. Jacobson's testimony out the window, as we have asked it to do, Dr. Pouwelse will bury it.
He is one of the world's leading experts on P2P file sharing, he is the person responsible for shutting the RIAA's Netherlands counterpart down, and he is "famous" to all those who have been closely following the record labels' litigations in the U.S., because his work in the Netherlands cases has been cited in the United States, repeatedly. Most significantly, he is "famous" to the RIAA, to their lawyers, to the major record companies, and to the motion picture companies.
His signing on as expert for the defendants is a tremendous coup for the defendants, and a huge blow to the RIAA.
You personally might not be familiar with his work, and I don't in any way hold that against you; but I just want you know that I did use the term "none other than" advisedly.
There is no name the RIAA would less rather see as an expert witness than his, because
-(1)unlike the RIAA's expert, he is really an expert on p2p file sharing
-(2)unlike the RIAA's expert he actually knows what he's talking about and actually understands what MediaSentry does and doesn't do, and
-(3)he has shut them down in the Netherlands and has the ability to shut them down here.
No, I was serious all right. It's really a pleasure when you see someone, like "Unknowing Fool", who has really been reading and absorbing the material. Moments like that make me feel like the many hours I've spent trying to get the word out.... have been worth it.
Great comment, Unknowing Fool.
Boy, have you been paying attention.
Yes, but that was a much different kind of case, one based on real evidence.....
When was it ever easy? Great comment!
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The RIAA should clearly link seeing the file available and actual infringements otherwise the figures quoted are just pie in the sky. Yeah, the problem is they don't know of any.
It means without notice.
Well that tells us what they will do with normal DMCA takedown notices, which is pretty well spelled out by law.
We have no idea what they will do
-if they receive RIAA's "early settlement" collection letters, or
-about the RIAA's bringing "ex parte" proceedings against its students as "John Does".
Hopefully the school will heed Prof. Nesson's clarion call, and protect the students' due process rights.
They're all based on the same fake, flawed "investigation".
See, e.g. deposition of RIAA's "expert" witness.
Basically, an "investigator" operates a pretext Kazaa (or other Fast Track) account... finds a 'screenshot' with titles of copyrighted songs... finds out the dynamic IP address... subpoenas the ISP to find out who paid for the internet access account that had that dynamic IP address at the date and time he made the screenshot... accepts the answer of the ISP... and sues the person who paid for that internet access.
Excellent post, DamnStupidElf.
Excellent post, grimJester. I hope it gets modded to +5.
No problem; thanks for asking.
Fighting the "John Doe" subpoena process would be maybe $5000 worth of legal time.
No college would have to pay that, it would have its counsel's office handle it.
Those universities with law schools could have their legal clinics handle it or the counsel's office.
All they need to do is take the stuff in my Open Letter to Colleges and Universities and put it together into some legal papers... an easy job for any litigator.
Yes but the impact of the letter goes way beyond Harvard. Even if the RIAA never gets up enough nerve to take Harvard on, the letter is, or should be, read by college administrators, counsels, student legal services offices, and ISP's, all across the land.
Actually I take that back. Most little girls I know are a lot braver than the RIAA running dogs.
They will always run away crying like little girls rather than face a trial. That's what bullies do. They like to pick on the helpless and defenseless. When they find someone who fights back, they back down.
You're exactly right, Hotawa, that the effects of this litigation campaign could go way beyond anything having to do with p2p file sharing of music files; the amicus curiae brief submitted by US Internet Industry Association and Computer & Communications Industry Association in Elektra v. Barker expresses eloquently how the RIAA's creative new ideas on expanding copyright law, if accepted by the courts, could shut the internet down.
You've got to remember, we're very early in the game....It is only recently that the real fighting back began, and court cases take time.
I expect we'll be seeing Rule 11 sanctions against them down the road....
Don't you think the people who read my blog are well aware of this stuff, and more?
I try to keep palaver to a minimum on the blog, and devote myself to reporting the news, because
-I have limited time
-The defendants and defendants' lawyers need to know the news of what's going on in the litigations
-Writing takes time.
Unfortunately, it's out of my league. I'm just a country lawyer. I really can't evaluate such things.
The one thing I'm sure of though is you can't make peace with thugs, you just need to beat them.
From my experience litigating against the RIAA, it has no interest in the rule of law whatsoever; its goal is to make money and monopolize as much of the digital music space as it can.
1. Although the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure encourage the making of all motions on notice, the RIAA does everything it can ex parte. The John Doe proceedings and motion for discovery are initiated without notice to anyone, even though it would be a simple matter to furnish the university, college, or ISP with copies of the motion and other papers, which could in turn be disseminated to the "John Does" to enable them to consult with counsel and take action if so advised.
2. The RIAA joins unrelated John Does, also in total contravention of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
3. In 2004 the federal district court in Austin, Texas, enjoined the RIAA to cease and desist from that practice. The RIAA has been in contempt of that order ever since, merely taking care to avoid litigating in Austin, Texas.
4. The RIAA conducts a sham investigation which, at best, identifies a person who paid for an internet access account... and then turns around and sues that person without any information that that individual is actually liable for copyright infringement.
5. The RIAA has invented a claim for "Making available" even though there is no legal authority.
6. The RIAA has invented a concept of an "online media digital music distributor", and uses it to tarnish people who've never engaged in file sharing in their life.
7. The RIAA never honors its pretrial discovery obligations, taking advantage of the fact that most defendants do not have the resources to engage in a constant stream of motion practice in order to get even the most rudimentary discovery.
8. It makes frivolous assertions of "privilege" and "confidentiality" solely to make litigation more expensive for defendants in other cases.
9. The RIAA will disclose, and distort the contents of, confidential settlement discussions.
I could go on and on. But to anyone who thinks the RIAA is trying to enforce copyright law.... think again.
The key, for me, is that our system of law is an adversarial system. For there to be fair outcomes there needs to be a fight of equals, a level playing field. The RIAA has embarked on a program of using colossal wealth to prey on defenseless victims, so that it can rewrite copyright law in a way that will maximize the recording industry's wealth. And it tramples on their civil rights in the process. ACLU, Public Citizen, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Amerian Association of Law Libraries. the US Internet Industry Association, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and others have submitted amicus curiae briefs pointing these things out.
The article written by Prof. Nesson and Ms. Seltzer is a landmark.
The key message for the university, in my view, is this: "we should be assisting our students both by explaining the law and by resisting the subpoenas that the RIAA serves upon us. We should be deploying our clinical legal student training programs to defend our targeted students."
Harvard should make sure that the due process rights of its students are protected.
You're welcome, aarku.
This was a landmark article, I was very happy to see it. This could be the beginning of the end of the reign of terror.