This expert opinion came from the witness, not from me. He isn't a puppet being told by his handlers what to say, like the RIAA's expert.
You're post sounds like pure RIAA-troll material, from the obligatory disclaimer
I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and, for the most part, I hate how the RIAA conducted themselves, but this is pretty ridiculous to the pretense of fair mindedness
I have to say I've pretty much lost all remaining respect I had for him to the sophistry
Jacobson didn't say that MediaSentry's methods were correct. He said he assumed they were correct. There's a huge difference here. to the ludicrous payload which no one in the world, not even the RIAA lawyers, not even Jacobson himself, believes:
Jacobson's testimony was perfectly fine. Your post sounds quite phony to my ear.
You got most of it. Actually there were links in TFA to everything, but I've responded separately to Bruce's post, giving him the links. Prof. Pouwelse reviewed the deposition and deposition exhibits, plus the supplemental report.
And just how much do you suppose Dr. Jacobson received for his time? Having read both Jacobson's deposition and Pouwelse's critique, I do find it hard not to question Dr. Jacobson's competence (or at least his ethics). Dr. Jacobson himself testified that he found no evidence of KaZaA on Ms. Lindor's computer. If you accept the plausibility of mis-identification (as Pouwelse's statement strongly suggests) I don't see the grounds for immediately jumping to the conclusion "oh, it must have been her son using his computer on her connection, let's go after him too" that the RIAA has pursued. They're seriously speculating she either tampered with her computer beyond the ability of their "expert" to detect, or someone else brought a computer into her home (but they want to inspect her son's desktop computer anyway). I don't know why this case is even still going... Neither do I.
...it's utterly ridiculous. That it is. That it is.
Prof. Johan Pouwelse got 220 Euros per hour plus expenses for his "investigation" and report. Do you really think he was unbiased in his report? You really think he needs the money? Think again.
1. This is the first time of which we are aware, in the 30,000 or so cases that have been brought, that a defendant has been able to retain an expert witness to do battle with the RIAA on its main case.
2. The expert this poor woman, who is a home health aide in Brooklyn, was able to retain is one of the foremost experts in the world on the science of p2p file sharing. E.g., he was selected to be the scientific director of the European Union's p2p consortium P2P-Next.
3. His opinion, that the RIAA expert's work was "borderline incompetence", is a very, very strong statement.
Sorry, I think that's newsworthy.... very newsworthy.
Look at the courses he teaches. He should know better than to present something like this to the court.
Am I misremembering, or was he the one who in one deposition that he worked with some company that sold P2P-filtering software that the RIAA is trying to peddle to universities? That's him all right. Got Ohio University to cough up $76,000 plus 16,000 per year to his 'business partners' for the 'Audible Magic' software.... and suddenly the RIAA subpeonas went away. See my article "Ohio University Pays Dr. Doug Jacobson's company $60,000 Plus $16,000 a year in "maintenance"; suddenly RIAA letters stop!"
I assume (a) you are busy people with no time to waste and (b) if I don't give you a straight answer to a simple question, you will assume -- correctly -- that I'm trying to conceal rather than reveal the truth. Spoken as a true New Yorker.:) I appreciate you giving slashdot a bit of perspective. Thanks for your contributions and your work in this area. Thank you. (I was going to say "Thanks", but didn't want to be guilty of giving a one word answer.)
You should check out his friends list. There are good reasons why it's that long....And I hate politicians, lawyers, and salesman as bad as the next programmer. You shouldn't hate us just because we weren't smart enough to become programmers.
"Is it just me, or did anyone else laugh that two one-word posts got moderated up pretty high back to back like that? No.
Seriously though, thanks for what you do. You're welcome. (That looks like 2 words, but in view of the contraction, it's really 3.)
You are confusing the discussion of infringement of the reproduction right with the discussion of infringement of the distribution right. If you re-read the top of page 6 you will see that Judge Arterton has correctly rejected the RIAA's "making available" theory.
Hi there. Posting anonymously, as I don't have a./ account - so honestly I don't even know if you'll see this. But I read the legal doc and I have to say, I'm totally impressed. The judge mentioned the idea that statutory damages in copyright law may be unconstitutional in UMG vs. Lindor - wasn't that your case? It looks like you're having a noticable and positive effect on the outcome of these trials. I just wanted to say thanks for the work you're doing.
(Oh, and [c] is totally what's going to happen.) Thanks for your kind words.
Yes. UMG v. Lindor is a case which we are handling. It was also cited in another beautiful decision, Elektra v. O'Brien, a California case decided by Hon. S. James Otero.
Wow, I've never seen so many replies to an article by its own poster. I guess you haven't seen my interview.
What can I tell you? I'm weak. I'm really too busy to be doing this stuff, but the dialogue on Slashdot is just something I really enjoy and look forward to. It's fun for me.
even the ones which are just single-word answers benefit from his experience I'm happy for my comments to be modded up or down, or neither, based entirely on their substance. I don't want points for my experience or reputation. I don't think I should be punished for brevity any more than I should be rewarded for verbosity. I speak to the Slashdot community pretty much the way I speak to the judges. I assume (a) you are busy people with no time to waste and (b) if I don't give you a straight answer to a simple question, you will assume -- correctly -- that I'm trying to conceal rather than reveal the truth. (Also, I'm kind of busy these days, having an army of clones to fight in court.)
How can the plaintiff and judge be held accountable in the Thomas case? The judge is 'accountable' for his legal errors in the appeals court, which will reverse when there are serious legal errors by the judge.
Shouldn't this be clear grounds for appeal/repeal of the decision? Absolutely.
But right now there is a motion pending to set aside the verdict. If that motion is granted, there might not be an appeal.
I wouldn't say that it's completely irrelevant; it might be a factor. "Distribute" in the Copyright Act requires that there be a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a license, lease, or lending. While arguably a 'lending' or an 'other transfer of ownership' might not require charging, sales, licenses, and leases would. So I can't say it's irrelevant.
Does this decision in of itself have any real significance in terms of the RIAA's plethora of lawsuits? I'm not entirely sure how this works. Does this set precedent, or is the judge in question not high up enough in the hierarchy for this decision to become case law?
I realize that every victory counts, but what I want to know is whether this will affect similar cases in the future. Absolutely. It's not binding, but its reasoning is impeccable, so why not?
Does this decision in of itself have any real significance in terms of the RIAA's plethora of lawsuits? I'm not entirely sure how this works. Does this set precedent, or is the judge in question not high up enough in the hierarchy for this decision to become case law?
I realize that every victory counts, but what I want to know is whether this will affect similar cases in the future. I think it will be huge.
So are judges in any way responsible this kind of error? Of course the judge is responsible. Judge Arterton had no help from the defendant's side at all; the defendant probably never even got the summons and complaint. But she took it upon herself to do the research, instead of just rubber stamping the RIAA's phony presentation.
And isn't lying something lawyers should get disbarred for? Yes.
Slashdot Mirror
You're post sounds like pure RIAA-troll material, from the obligatory disclaimer I'm a card carrying member of the ACLU and, for the most part, I hate how the RIAA conducted themselves, but this is pretty ridiculous to the pretense of fair mindedness I have to say I've pretty much lost all remaining respect I had for him to the sophistry Jacobson didn't say that MediaSentry's methods were correct. He said he assumed they were correct. There's a huge difference here. to the ludicrous payload which no one in the world, not even the RIAA lawyers, not even Jacobson himself, believes: Jacobson's testimony was perfectly fine. Your post sounds quite phony to my ear.
You got most of it. Actually there were links in TFA to everything, but I've responded separately to Bruce's post, giving him the links. Prof. Pouwelse reviewed the deposition and deposition exhibits, plus the supplemental report.
...it's utterly ridiculous. That it is. That it is.1. This is the first time of which we are aware, in the 30,000 or so cases that have been brought, that a defendant has been able to retain an expert witness to do battle with the RIAA on its main case.
2. The expert this poor woman, who is a home health aide in Brooklyn, was able to retain is one of the foremost experts in the world on the science of p2p file sharing. E.g., he was selected to be the scientific director of the European Union's p2p consortium P2P-Next.
3. His opinion, that the RIAA expert's work was "borderline incompetence", is a very, very strong statement.
Sorry, I think that's newsworthy.... very newsworthy.
Then how come you're an "Anonymous Coward". How do we know you're not a paid RIAA troll?
No, the judge is saying the 'making available' theory is bogus. They would have to prove actual copying or actual distributions.
This is big because -- you guessed it -- the RIAA has no evidence that the defendant did any copying or engaged in any actual distributions.
On page 6 the judge rejects the RIAA's "making available" theory.
I guess you didn't read the top of page 6. I suggest you read it again.
You are confusing the discussion of infringement of the reproduction right with the discussion of infringement of the distribution right. If you re-read the top of page 6 you will see that Judge Arterton has correctly rejected the RIAA's "making available" theory.
Yes. UMG v. Lindor is a case which we are handling. It was also cited in another beautiful decision, Elektra v. O'Brien, a California case decided by Hon. S. James Otero.
What can I tell you? I'm weak. I'm really too busy to be doing this stuff, but the dialogue on Slashdot is just something I really enjoy and look forward to. It's fun for me.
But right now there is a motion pending to set aside the verdict. If that motion is granted, there might not be an appeal.
I wouldn't say that it's completely irrelevant; it might be a factor. "Distribute" in the Copyright Act requires that there be a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a license, lease, or lending. While arguably a 'lending' or an 'other transfer of ownership' might not require charging, sales, licenses, and leases would. So I can't say it's irrelevant.