Slashdot Log In
RIAA Vs. Web 2.0? Social Media and Litigation
Posted by
Soulskill
on Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:14 PM
from the onward-and-upward dept.
from the onward-and-upward dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "After learning that Professor Nesson's CyberLaw class at Harvard Law School has set up a Facebook page to assist in its defense of Joel Tenenbaum in an RIAA case, SONY BMG Music v. Tenenbaum, Wendy Davis of the Online Daily Examiner opines that 'Web 2.0,' and more particularly, the 'social media,' are playing an increasingly important role in RIAA litigation. We at Slashdot have already learned that principle, and have made good use of it, as have our friends at Groklaw."
Related Stories
[+]
Interviews: Answers From Lawyers Who Defend Against RIAA Suits 740 comments
You had some excellent questions for attorneys Ty Rogers and Ray Beckerman, who maintain the Recording Industry vs The People blog. Here are their answers, verbatim, as they were sent to us by Mr. Beckerman.
[+]
Ask Slashdot: What Questions Would You Ask An RIAA 'Expert'? 616 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer asks: "In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has submitted an 'expert' report (pdf) and 26-page curriculum vitae (pdf), prepared by Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University who is the RIAA's expert witness in all of its cases against consumers, relating to alleged copyright infringement by means of a shared files folder on Kazaa, and supposed analysis of the hard drive of a computer in Ms. Lindor's apartment. The RIAA's 'experts' have been shut down in the Netherlands and Canada, having been shown by Prof. Sips and Dr. Pouwelse of Delft University's Parallel and Distributed Systems research group (pdf) to have failed to do their homework, but are still operating in the USA. The materials were submitted in connection with a motion to compel Ms. Lindor's son, who lives 4 miles away from her, to turn over his computer and music listening devices to the RIAA. Both Ms. Lindor's attorney (pdf) and Ms. Lindor's son's attorney (pdf) have objected to the introduction of these materials, but Dr. Jacobson's document production and deposition are scheduled for January and February, and we would love to get the tech community's ideas for questions to ask, and in general your reactions, thoughts, opinions, information, and any other input you can share with us. (In case you haven't guessed, we are the attorneys for Ms. Lindor.)"
[+]
Technology: RIAA's 'Expert' Witness Testimony Now Online 512 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The online community now has an opportunity to see the fruits of its labor. Back in December, the Slashdot ('What Questions Would You Ask an RIAA Expert?') and Groklaw ('Another Lawyer Would Like to Pick Your Brain, Please') communities were asked for their input on possible questions to pose to the RIAA's 'expert'. Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University, was scheduled to be deposed in February in UMG v. Lindor, for the first time in any RIAA case. Ms. Lindor's lawyers were flooded with about 1400 responses. The deposition of Dr. Jacobson went forward on February 23, 2007, and the transcript is now available online (pdf) (ascii). Ray Beckerman, one of Ms. Lindor's attorneys, had this comment: 'We are deeply grateful to the community for reviewing our request, for giving us thoughts and ideas, and for reviewing other readers' responses. Now I ask the tech community to review this all-important transcript, and bear witness to the shoddy investigation and junk science upon which the RIAA has based its litigation war against the people. The computer scientists among you will be astounded that the RIAA has been permitted to burden our court system with cases based upon such arrant and careless nonsense.'"
[+]
FSF Files Amicus Brief In RIAA Case 73 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Free Software Foundation has requested permission to file
an amicus curiae brief in an RIAA case, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, defending the defendant's Due Process defense to the RIAA's claim for statutory damages. In the brief [PDF], FSF cites some of the leading authorities for the defense, including the 2003 decision of the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Parker v. Time Warner, which held that excessive statutory damages are subject to the same due process test applicable to punitive damage awards by juries. Additionally, the brief cites three district court decisions, including UMG v. Lindor, and two law review articles — all of which deal specifically with Copyright Act statutory damages applicable to infringement of an MP3 file — to like effect."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, he did put Web 2.0 in quotes, indicating that Wendy Davis used that term as if it meant something, while NYCL knew better.
Well let's be fair to Wendy too. I know her and she is one of the smartest and most savvy people I know. I think 'Web 2.0' can have meaning. E.g.:
"Web 1.0 = the internet prior to the end of the first internet boom; dominated by large web sites and attempts to monetize content. E.g. Google, eBay, yahoo!, Amazon".
"Web 2.0 = the internet subsequent to the end of the first boom; dominated by social networking sites and encouraging people to create their own content. E.g., MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter."
Using a Facebook page, or a blog, to do some grassroots organizing and join together with a community... is more Web 2.0 than Web 1.0.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a pretty vague distinction Ray. Personally I hate the Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 nonsense, but I guess if it makes sense to people that is the way things will travel. Before "the web" there were places called BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems). The BBSs were actually quite like "web 2.0" and communities were born around them. Also, back in the dark ages of Web 1.0 there were heaps of communities and community sites. Linux, for a start, evolved its community during the Web 1.0 era.
I'm not deliberately trying to b
Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a pretty vague distinction Ray. Personally I hate the Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 nonsense, but I guess if it makes sense to people that is the way things will travel. Before "the web" there were places called BBSs (Bulletin Board Systems). The BBSs were actually quite like "web 2.0" and communities were born around them. Also, back in the dark ages of Web 1.0 there were heaps of communities and community sites. Linux, for a start, evolved its community during the Web 1.0 era. I'm not deliberately trying to be critical Ray (your comments are way up in my respect-o-meter and I always value what you say). I just find this web 1.0 and web 2.0 thing difficult to grasp.
Yeah, well look... it's no big thing. I just think that some people use the phrase to differentiate the first time around, where business people were kind of trying to apply a classic top-down kind of approach, to the second time around, where the business people realized there was more of a future in just providing a playing field, and getting out of the way.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Use of the phrase "Web 2.0" is an interesting thing, both in lingual terms and in terms of perception. Pardon me while I now blather on for a few minutes.
Using a phrase like "new, loosely organized social groupings centered around 'virtual' meeting places accessed on the Internet, and the resulting community atmosphere" is not nearly as easy to use as 'Web 2.0'. On the other hand, 'Web 2.0' has been assigned several misleading meanings, from technical in nature, to cultural in nature. This follows on the heels of poor understanding and use of the word 'net'. It has been used as a short nic-name for "The Internet" as well as many other things. In general terms, it is most often used by laypersons when they really mean to reference "The World Wide Web". This has ruffled a few feathers in the past, and probably still does.
While these are examples of people who are technically using words and phrases incorrectly, it is unfortunately how society as a whole communicates, e.g. "hand me a kleenex please" is often heard despite the fact that there are no actual Kleenex facial tissues within 3 miles of the speaker. Most common folk need a simple moniker to refer to that amorphous and highly technical thing that connects what seems like the entire world together. The do not know the technical ramifications of what they say, they simply want to refer to that big technical thingy that gives them email in a simple manner.
They will talk about traveling by road to some destination. Technically, they should probably say travel by highway, or some technically correct term, but they will still simply say road.
While I agree that "Web 2.0" is vague enough to annoy many, it is simple enough for the majority to use when they are referring to all the new fangled, socially oriented, and flashy features of the Internet.
I try to use terms correctly because it helps to create clear communication, but I also can understand that "Web 2.0" probably won't go away for the same reasons that people will always tell mechanics that 'the car is making a funny noise' rather than give them a detailed and somewhat technical description of "a bearing rattle that only happens at 2700 rpm and only when in 3rd gear."
It is for these reasons that I don't think it is wrong for even very smart people to use the term. The common sense of the phrase is what is being conveyed usually, and no matter how awful that is, it IS what common folk understand.
Complaining about it won't stop it's use. Sorry, I don't have a skydiving analogy to go with this one.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Still sounds like a lot of nonsense. In the 80s I had my own personal BBS which I used to keep in touch with friends. In 1995 I converted that to a personal website to keep in touch with friends. Now in 2008 I have both the website and a facebook for keeping in touch with friends.
Where's the change that justifies a version number alternation from 1.0 to 2.0???
I'm not seeing it.
Re: BBS era (Score:2)
I'd call that the Beta era. It was out there, and "smarter than average" users were laying the groundwork.
Your choice of what the Alpha era was. (University nets?)
I believe I intuitively feel the change between 1.0 and 2.0. Web 1.0's frontline mascot was Pets.com and friends. "Let's nationally advertise a national website connected to a warehouse . Our business model consists of saving BrickStore rents."
The problem became that without local community integration the customer base was too volatile.
Web 2.0 im
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still not seeing it.
I don't see any difference between the web of 1998 versus the web of 2008. Same underlying protocols, same tendency for people to create personal websites or waste a lot of time in chats/forums, and the same favorite website (scifi.com). Things are faster (750k versus 50k) but otherwise my experience is the same for the so-called Web 1.0 versus 2.0
Re: (Score:1)
I've seen this work quite well (Score:5, Interesting)
...in another case that interests me a great deal, that of a blogger in the UK who received a rather heavy-handed "cease and desist" notice last July from a pair of American religious fanatics. For a few short days, this pair (who happen to be lawyers) attempted to "cease and desist" anyone who mentioned the initial notice or reposted the material they objected to. It soon became a game of legal whack-a-mole, and they apparently realized that desistance was futile. This hasn't stopped them from undertaking all kinds of other actions of questionable legality in the UK and in the US as well.
A Facebook group was formed, and interested people are able to keep in touch with what is going on. It enables group members to post to their own blogs, to sign petitions or send correspondence, and generally to assist in whatever ways they can to provide support to and to secure justice for the victims.
I had absolutely no need for, or interest in, Facebook until all this came about. Now I realize just how useful it can be for circumstances such as these.
NYCL, I hope you will continue to vex the RIAA. They deserve it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
wiktionary.org, and therefore google's "Define" function have it.
google's search [google.com]
Wiktionary [wiktionary.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So... care to share a link or two on the subject?
In other news, I heard a great story the other day.
Re:I've seen this work quite well (Score:4, Insightful)
NYCL, I hope you will continue to vex the RIAA.
Yeah well the truth can be vexatious to a liar.
Parent
must be REALLY in the right (Score:2)
You're giving up much to the enemy when they can read your ideas. Those ideas had better be useful, or this won't be worth the damage.
The expert was remarkably expert (Score:2)
Far better than I expected for an RIAA expert.
If you know anything about networking, network security and P2P, this deposition is hilarious. It's like a Monty Python skit. If you don't you can probably skip it.
Thanks to NYCL for a good read.
Re:The expert was remarkably expert (Score:5, Insightful)
If you know anything about networking, network security and P2P, this deposition is hilarious. It's like a Monty Python skit. If you don't you can probably skip it. Thanks to NYCL for a good read.
My pleasure. Going into it, I didn't anticipate it would be as entertaining as it turned out to be. I was really shocked at how bad this guy was. On the other hand, he's laughing all the way to the bank, with the wheelbarrows of money he's getting from peddling his "Audible Magic" software to the LAN operators he's going around threatening. He's running a protection racket. When Ohio University coughed up $60,000, plus $16,000 a year [blogspot.com], suddenly the letters stopped. So he may not be much of a technology expert, but he's a good strong arm man.
Parent
We laugh because we dare not cry (Score:4, Insightful)
An element of painful truth is what makes us laugh. The RIAA story has it.
So he may not be much of a technology expert, but he's a good strong arm man.
I think he is expert. His skills might not be current, but some of his answers seem to rely on an expected lack of knowledge from you. They misdirect in various ways. He was hard put by depth of knowledge of your questioning, and that's why later questions were more forthcoming. At some point he plumbed the depth of your understanding and so at the end he mostly had his feet. under him again - IPV6 was a red herring to tell you he knew you were out of your depth at that point - but it was too late by then to take back the most damaging admissions, though he did try and muddy the water a little.
Don't underestimate him. He really is a smart guy and understands how little the best judge and juror understand about this stuff. I don't doubt they select venue and jurors for that lack of understanding if they can. He probably does have the skills to do this investigation as well as can be done with available technology, and knows how fallible his data is. Your questioning just revealed that he didn't take the trouble to do that, not that he can't. It wasn't necessary before to take the trouble. Now he knows it is, and so his customers will actually have to pay him more for the more thorough effort.
Whether the current tech makes the job possible in the narrow scope of this case is debatable, bordering on dubious, but that's not the point. The funny part is both that this quality of expert testimony is almost always good enough and that people faced with this quality of evidence most often settle, and that PHBs consider the products from this quality of engineer to be more than the snake oil they are.
Anyway, this wasn't his "A" game. If you see him again be ready for a better challenge.
I was surprised to see you not ask about clock calibration, time zones and such. I was expecting that. Maybe next time. When comparing logs from two systems an understanding of how the clocks relate to each other is important.
Completely unrelated: You are reading this from "behind a router". From your point of view all of the Internet is "behind" that router. The practical limit of how many devices can be behind that router is "all of them except your PC and the router itself". The theoretical limit is as many devices as could be constructed from the available mass. That's what he meant by "limited".
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are reading this from "behind a router". From your point of view all of the Internet is "behind" that router. The practical limit of how many devices can be behind that router is "all of them except your PC and the router itself". The theoretical limit is as many devices as could be constructed from the available mass. That's what he meant by "limited".
Now if only we can get the judges to understand this stuff.
judges to understand (Score:2)
I'm going to question the utility of that. A judge can learn. A juror can learn. You cannot drag up the average judge and jury and you should not hope for that. It's neither a judge nor juror's job to understand technology, nor should it be. It's the job of experts to make the utility of technology available to the common man, without the need to understand its underlying complexity. It's no more beneficial to the common person to teach him the principles of network architecture than to teach him to b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Don't underestimate him. He really is a smart guy and understands how little the best judge and juror understand about this stuff. I don't doubt they select venue and jurors for that lack of understanding if they can.
They seem to have done that here [blogspot.com]. They even managed to find some jurors who had never used the internet. Of course the judge recognized [blogspot.com] that the trial had been a farce and set the verdict aside.
Vexatious Blog (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm speechless... the RIAA has the audacity to accuse a defense lawyer of inappropriate harassment because he brought legal precedents to the attention of his peers? They should be reprimanded for making such an outrageous request. I despise the term "Web 2.0", but blogs and social networking site provide a way for out-funded groups to organize and spread information. You won't beat the RIAA through traditional media and lobbying if you can't outspend them.
PS I admit I had to look up vexatious (intended to harass).
Re:Vexatious Blog (Score:5, Informative)
I'm speechless... the RIAA has the audacity to accuse a defense lawyer of inappropriate harassment because he brought legal precedents to the attention of his peers? They should be reprimanded for making such an outrageous request.
Agreed. Which is why I made a Rule 11 motion for sanctions against them [blogspot.com]. It appears that they find the truth to be "vexatious", too.
Parent
The __PROBLEM__ with the US Civil System (Score:2)
Since, except that it is filed in court, the actual allegation is defamatory (it is in fact privilidged by reason of its forum) and un-constitutional if it were dismissed with an order for costs in any event, this nonsense
RIAA vs. web2.0? (Score:2, Interesting)