It's not a question of how patient he was, or how frustrating it was for him, or how ignorant I am of technical things. It's a question of a man purporting to giving "expert" opinions which are not based on any verifiable methodology worthy of being used in a court of law to support someone's claim against another person for tens of thousands of dollars.
You shouldn't be feeling sorry for him, you should feel sorry for his thousands of victims.
He had a choice of whether to accept an assignment he was not qualified to do, or to perform the assignment in a shoddy and unworkmanlike manner, printing out sloppy imprecise opinions by rote inculpating innocent people. He also could have chosen to spend more than 45 minutes on the assignment, and to have done some verifying and testing and probing, in which event perhaps he would not have found himself opining that there was copyright infringement in each and every case in which he was called upon to testify.
His victims were given no choice.
If you read the deposition along with the written opinions he has given (exhibits 15 and 16 listed here), you will see that he has repeatedly stated things in his written opinion that he has no support for. And make no mistake.... the RIAA has repeatedly used those "expert" opinions to convince the judge that they had evidence of a copyright infringement by the defendant when in fact they did not.
And by the way, experts who know what they're talking about have no problem explaining themselves to lawyers, judges, jurors, or anyone else.
It's experts who are phonies, who haven't done their homework, and who don't have proper backup for their opinions, who have a problem with that.
They're not biased, violet.... They're just pointing out the glaring technical deficiencies and fallacies in Dr. Jacobson's "opinions", and the absence of any proper methodology used by him in arriving at them. I'm not especially techy either, Violet, but this thread is really one for the techies. People like you and I need to step aside and let the tech community vet Dr. Jacobson's "methods". He himself admits he has never published them, or tested them, in any way. We need to let the tech community do its work.
I beg to differ. I've taken and defended countless depositions. Objecting to deposition questions which are in the nature of cross-examination, on the ground of lack of a "foundation", is highly unusual, totally inappropriate, and without any legal justification.
Either it was a function of the attorney's inexperience, or it was a function of a calculated attempt to use up the limited time we had. (I'd agreed to end early since Dr. Jacobson had an afternoon flight to catch.).
As to the economics side of the discussion: Most of the litigation settlements are $4500. Some people don't have the money. Some people are completely innocent. Almost no one can afford what it costs to defend a case brought by the RIAA, because the RIAA handles the cases in a way calculated to maximize the costs.
As to the human side, my guess is that a person like you -- who is probably on the high end of being able to weather something like this -- would find it pretty major. If you were totally innocent of copyright infringement which would you rather do -- pay $4500 in extortion money, or pay a fortune in legal fees to vindicate yourself. My guess is that either of those would leave you pretty unhappy. There are many, many people who are totally distraught over being put in these positions, and having to make impossible choices: (a) pay money I can't afford for something I didn't do; (b) turn in my child so they can sue him or her; (c) turn in my nephew or a neighbor's kid, so he can be sued; (d) incur an open-ended expense fighting the case; (e) file bankruptcy, even though it's for a "debt" I don't owe.
Also many people are afraid they or their children are going to jail.
And none of the settlements are true settlements: they require an admission of guilt; they leave you open to further lawsuits; and they require you, for the rest of your natural life, to refrain from doing many things which are NOT copyright infringements.
Under Federal Rules of Evidence and applicable caselaw expert testimony is admissible only if it meets certain standards. Dr. Jacobson's testimony meets none of those standards and will not be admissible.
It doesn't mean a thing. In a deposition it's a totally inappropriate objection. And there was probably not a single instance in which it would have been an appropriate objection at trial.
At a trial "lack of foundation" means the lawyer's question has leapfrogged over some other material that would have been needed... i.e. laying a foundation.
But since I would only be crossexamining this guy, lack of foundation would not have been an appropriate objection to my questions there either.
I.e., the RIAA lawyer, hopefully out of inexperience rather than calculated dilatoriness, was wasting our precious time.
Exactly. They have no proof who was using the computer or even what computer it was.
I'll go you even one better, they don't even know if the index of song files in the screen shot was on one computer, or represented bits and pieces from a number of different computers (nodes, in KaZaA parlance).
He is not aware. He is not thinking of the harm his recklessness is contributing. As you say, lives are destroyed. Neither he nor the RIAA lawyers take that into account at all.
I think many of his students will be appalled at the actual contents of his testimony.
For example, he teaches a course in "Information Warfare", the entire thrust of which is that the internet is dangerous and insecure in the extreme. He teaches students all about the infinite numbers of vulnerabilities.
Then he testifies that he forms an opinion in 45 minutes based upon some printouts from an investigator who pulled down some screenshots from the internet.... with no verification whatsoever.
And that he's give about 200 such opinions. And so far, 200 out of 200 concluded, without reservation, that there was indeed copyright infringement.
What kind of grade would he issue to a student who handed in work like that?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
You shouldn't be feeling sorry for him, you should feel sorry for his thousands of victims.
He had a choice of whether to accept an assignment he was not qualified to do, or to perform the assignment in a shoddy and unworkmanlike manner, printing out sloppy imprecise opinions by rote inculpating innocent people. He also could have chosen to spend more than 45 minutes on the assignment, and to have done some verifying and testing and probing, in which event perhaps he would not have found himself opining that there was copyright infringement in each and every case in which he was called upon to testify.
His victims were given no choice.
If you read the deposition along with the written opinions he has given (exhibits 15 and 16 listed here), you will see that he has repeatedly stated things in his written opinion that he has no support for. And make no mistake.... the RIAA has repeatedly used those "expert" opinions to convince the judge that they had evidence of a copyright infringement by the defendant when in fact they did not.
And by the way, experts who know what they're talking about have no problem explaining themselves to lawyers, judges, jurors, or anyone else.
It's experts who are phonies, who haven't done their homework, and who don't have proper backup for their opinions, who have a problem with that.
Interesting thought. Thanks.
They're not biased, violet.... They're just pointing out the glaring technical deficiencies and fallacies in Dr. Jacobson's "opinions", and the absence of any proper methodology used by him in arriving at them. I'm not especially techy either, Violet, but this thread is really one for the techies. People like you and I need to step aside and let the tech community vet Dr. Jacobson's "methods". He himself admits he has never published them, or tested them, in any way. We need to let the tech community do its work.
Interesting. Anyone care to buy us a set?
Interesting thread. Thanks, guys.
Agreed. The objections were for the most part highly inappropriate.
Hmmmmmmmm.
Well you're more of a lawyer than his lawyers are.
Either it was a function of the attorney's inexperience, or it was a function of a calculated attempt to use up the limited time we had. (I'd agreed to end early since Dr. Jacobson had an afternoon flight to catch.).
As to the economics side of the discussion: Most of the litigation settlements are $4500. Some people don't have the money. Some people are completely innocent. Almost no one can afford what it costs to defend a case brought by the RIAA, because the RIAA handles the cases in a way calculated to maximize the costs.
As to the human side, my guess is that a person like you -- who is probably on the high end of being able to weather something like this -- would find it pretty major. If you were totally innocent of copyright infringement which would you rather do -- pay $4500 in extortion money, or pay a fortune in legal fees to vindicate yourself. My guess is that either of those would leave you pretty unhappy. There are many, many people who are totally distraught over being put in these positions, and having to make impossible choices: (a) pay money I can't afford for something I didn't do; (b) turn in my child so they can sue him or her; (c) turn in my nephew or a neighbor's kid, so he can be sued; (d) incur an open-ended expense fighting the case; (e) file bankruptcy, even though it's for a "debt" I don't owe.
Also many people are afraid they or their children are going to jail.
And none of the settlements are true settlements: they require an admission of guilt; they leave you open to further lawsuits; and they require you, for the rest of your natural life, to refrain from doing many things which are NOT copyright infringements.
Under Federal Rules of Evidence and applicable caselaw expert testimony is admissible only if it meets certain standards. Dr. Jacobson's testimony meets none of those standards and will not be admissible.
Hmmmmmmm.
Thanks. Interesting. I'm learning things.
That's not "all it takes". He's totally disqualified himself from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom.
I'm reading... I'm reading....very interesting indeed. I'm taking notes, don't worry. And so are all the other lawyers representing RIAA victims.
You are exactly right on that. There are certain standards. And he satisfied exactly none of them.
At a trial "lack of foundation" means the lawyer's question has leapfrogged over some other material that would have been needed ... i.e. laying a foundation.
But since I would only be crossexamining this guy, lack of foundation would not have been an appropriate objection to my questions there either.
I.e., the RIAA lawyer, hopefully out of inexperience rather than calculated dilatoriness, was wasting our precious time.
Why are you trying to take this off topic?
I'll go you even one better, they don't even know if the index of song files in the screen shot was on one computer, or represented bits and pieces from a number of different computers (nodes, in KaZaA parlance).
He is not aware. He is not thinking of the harm his recklessness is contributing. As you say, lives are destroyed. Neither he nor the RIAA lawyers take that into account at all.
He's submitted sworn reports... around 200 of them. But no defendant's lawyer has ever brought him to a deposition before this.
I think many of his students will be appalled at the actual contents of his testimony.
For example, he teaches a course in "Information Warfare", the entire thrust of which is that the internet is dangerous and insecure in the extreme. He teaches students all about the infinite numbers of vulnerabilities.
Then he testifies that he forms an opinion in 45 minutes based upon some printouts from an investigator who pulled down some screenshots from the internet.... with no verification whatsoever.
And that he's give about 200 such opinions. And so far, 200 out of 200 concluded, without reservation, that there was indeed copyright infringement.
What kind of grade would he issue to a student who handed in work like that?
Agreed, based on my 28 years of experience I thought the objections were amateurish.
Thanks, Nom. I'm not actually capable of drinking a pitcher, but a glass would go down nicely.