RareButSeriousSideEf said:"In the larger scheme of things, it's going to be really difficult to stem the tide against the RIAA's intimidation tactics until a boilerplate, "paint-by-numbers" defense plan is available to victims^^^^^^^defendants without the financial means to retain expert counsel.
You are exactly right. That is the reason I have my blog and website, and why I think it is important for all of this to be public. That is also the reason why it is important for all of the defense lawyers to fight against the RIAA's reflexive seeking of 'confidentiality' orders on everything.... the RIAA wants to be able to stonewall in each case, and make each litigant have to spend $5k of legal time for each and every tidbit of information he or she gets.
Xenographic writes: "I rather had in mind ordinary things like discrediting the processes by which they currently gather "evidence" so that they actually do something resembling what I think of as due diligence from a technical perspective. Or perhaps clever means to counter their more insidious dirty legal tricks."
Thanks, Xenographic.
Yes I do intend to discredit their phony "evidence".
I don't know if I can ever be as "clever" as the RIAA's lawyers, but I certainly have been trying to bring to the Court's attention, and will continue to try to bring to the Court's attention, the RIAA's "insidious dirty legal tricks".
And I am grateful to my more technologically minded friends on Slashdot for their ideas on how to do it.
Yes they are stonewalling, and have made frivolous arguments of "privilege". They have also argued that even if the documents are produced, they should be kept confidential, and should not become part of a "public record". So if the judge lets me have the documents, but rules that they're confidential, then I can use them for Ms. Lindor's case, but every other litigant will probably have to fight for them all over again.
My understanding is that the software MediaSentry uses is "proprietary", hence not peer reviewed, hence not reliable according to well settled legal principles. Which is why I have sought, and the RIAA has sought to stonewall, the MediaSentry agreements which, according to the RIAA's own admission, lay out the "parameters", "instructions", and "processes" of MediaSentry's "investigation". See motion papers here,here, here, here, here, and here.
Well if you have any suggested questions to ask him, fire away. Maybe we can encourage him to find a more honest line of work. You are in an excellent position to formulate questions, because you know the things he taught you about how to do things the right way, and you probably know that his "declaration" did not follow any of the safeguards he would have taught his students to follow.
I'm constantly reading and in touch with Groklaw. For a time Groklaw hosted our litigation documents, I have a link to Groklaw on my blog, and Groklaw frequently refers to articles on my blog. And you may be right that the question would get good input there. But the point werewolf is making, which is correct, is that I'm not asking for input on legal issues.... I'm asking for input on the technical issues only. Also, I don't think I can just submit potential stories there, like I can here.
By the way, since we're all Slashdotters it's probably not necessary to say this, but: it would be helpful to us if some of you who really know what you're talking about would be kind enough to critique comments which appear knowledgeable, but aren't.
Thank you HerculesMO. I really intended it as such.
The legal geeks and the computer geeks uniting.
1. We are representing poor and working class people who don't have the financial resources that the RIAA has.
2. The RIAA's legal positions are so bizarre that, if adopted by the courts, they will crush innovation and destroy the internet as we know it, making it bad for all of us.
3. Yes the RIAA is my particular target, and it is a good one because it is in the front line of trying to wreck our legal system, destroy our freedoms, and prevent innovation.
4. On technical issues we need technical help.
5. A lot of great stuff has been posted already. (Even the jokes are ok, they help to brighten my otherwise dreery days a bit. I assume they're coming from people who don't have the technical information to impart, so nothing is lost except the time it takes me to read them, and then recover from the laughing.).
Thanks to all (except the RIAA trolls who are out in force today on this one... I wonder why).
Thank you very much, Schnauzer Guy. I'm not at all worried. I'm actually thrilled and very much looking forward to it.
Isn't it public knowledge, by the way, that the RIAA big labels are big customers of Palisade and that Dr. Jacobson is the founder and a big shareholder of Palisade?
Thanks zepo1a, I appreciate it. But I must confess I am having a lot of fun reading these. It took me awhile to get to question number 2, because I first had to stop laughing from reading question number 1:
How old are you?
You see, I'm doing a research paper on how long a human can live without a brain.
Slashdot Mirror
RareButSeriousSideEf said:"In the larger scheme of things, it's going to be really difficult to stem the tide against the RIAA's intimidation tactics until a boilerplate, "paint-by-numbers" defense plan is available to victims^^^^^^^defendants without the financial means to retain expert counsel.
You are exactly right. That is the reason I have my blog and website, and why I think it is important for all of this to be public. That is also the reason why it is important for all of the defense lawyers to fight against the RIAA's reflexive seeking of 'confidentiality' orders on everything.... the RIAA wants to be able to stonewall in each case, and make each litigant have to spend $5k of legal time for each and every tidbit of information he or she gets.
Yes, this is work I which I didn't have.
Xenographic writes: "I rather had in mind ordinary things like discrediting the processes by which they currently gather "evidence" so that they actually do something resembling what I think of as due diligence from a technical perspective. Or perhaps clever means to counter their more insidious dirty legal tricks."
Thanks, Xenographic.
Yes I do intend to discredit their phony "evidence".
I don't know if I can ever be as "clever" as the RIAA's lawyers, but I certainly have been trying to bring to the Court's attention, and will continue to try to bring to the Court's attention, the RIAA's "insidious dirty legal tricks".
And I am grateful to my more technologically minded friends on Slashdot for their ideas on how to do it.
You are correct that I am "the honest type of lawyer". I don't do "maneuvers".
Yes they are stonewalling, and have made frivolous arguments of "privilege". They have also argued that even if the documents are produced, they should be kept confidential, and should not become part of a "public record". So if the judge lets me have the documents, but rules that they're confidential, then I can use them for Ms. Lindor's case, but every other litigant will probably have to fight for them all over again.
Thank you for the suggestion. Great idea. I love Groklaw, but was unaware that I could make a story submission there.
My understanding is that the software MediaSentry uses is "proprietary", hence not peer reviewed, hence not reliable according to well settled legal principles. Which is why I have sought, and the RIAA has sought to stonewall, the MediaSentry agreements which, according to the RIAA's own admission, lay out the "parameters", "instructions", and "processes" of MediaSentry's "investigation". See motion papers here,here, here, here, here, and here.
Thank you very much, LuYu.
Could you explain this in a bit more detail? Thanks.
Well if you have any suggested questions to ask him, fire away. Maybe we can encourage him to find a more honest line of work. You are in an excellent position to formulate questions, because you know the things he taught you about how to do things the right way, and you probably know that his "declaration" did not follow any of the safeguards he would have taught his students to follow.
Thank you very much, Davis, for your extremely thoughtful response.
My impression is that they
-make money on the settlements
-lose money on the default judgments and
-lose a lot of money on every contested case.
Sometimes greed does bad things to people.
Thanks very much, SchnauzerGuy.
I'm constantly reading and in touch with Groklaw. For a time Groklaw hosted our litigation documents, I have a link to Groklaw on my blog, and Groklaw frequently refers to articles on my blog. And you may be right that the question would get good input there. But the point werewolf is making, which is correct, is that I'm not asking for input on legal issues.... I'm asking for input on the technical issues only. Also, I don't think I can just submit potential stories there, like I can here.
By the way, since we're all Slashdotters it's probably not necessary to say this, but: it would be helpful to us if some of you who really know what you're talking about would be kind enough to critique comments which appear knowledgeable, but aren't.
Thanks to all for your input.
Aren't you a bit off topic here? I wonder how you will get moderated. Sounds like trolling to me.
Unfortunately you have your facts wrong. The RIAA doesn't have a shred of evidence of any uploading. to anybody.
Thank you HerculesMO. I really intended it as such.
The legal geeks and the computer geeks uniting.
1. We are representing poor and working class people who don't have the financial resources that the RIAA has.
2. The RIAA's legal positions are so bizarre that, if adopted by the courts, they will crush innovation and destroy the internet as we know it, making it bad for all of us.
3. Yes the RIAA is my particular target, and it is a good one because it is in the front line of trying to wreck our legal system, destroy our freedoms, and prevent innovation.
4. On technical issues we need technical help.
5. A lot of great stuff has been posted already. (Even the jokes are ok, they help to brighten my otherwise dreery days a bit. I assume they're coming from people who don't have the technical information to impart, so nothing is lost except the time it takes me to read them, and then recover from the laughing.).
Thanks to all (except the RIAA trolls who are out in force today on this one... I wonder why).
Thank you very much, Schnauzer Guy. I'm not at all worried. I'm actually thrilled and very much looking forward to it.
Isn't it public knowledge, by the way, that the RIAA big labels are big customers of Palisade and that Dr. Jacobson is the founder and a big shareholder of Palisade?
Exactly, werewolf1031. Appreciate that. And appreciate your input.
Priceless.
Thanks Rick. Just want to warn you this guy SlashdotParent is a troll.
That's a translation from the Dutch.