TorrentSpy Must Preserve Data In RAM For MPAA

Transient writes "Reaffirming a magistrate's earlier decision, a federal judge has ordered TorrentSpy to begin keeping server logs as it defends itself against an MPAA lawsuit. In her opinion, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper interpreted federal discovery rules broadly. ' Judge Cooper took issue with TorrentSpy's argument that data in RAM is not "stored." She noted RAM's function as primary storage and that the storage of data in RAM — even if not permanently archived — makes it electronically stored information governed by federal discovery rules.' Given that TorrentSpy has limited access for users in the US, the ruling may be moot. But it does set a precedent for other, similar cases. 'Under this interpretation, any data stored in RAM could be subject to a subpoena, as at a basic level it is a "medium from which information can be obtained" just like a hard drive. '"

Put down the crack pipe and pick up a book

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait for the ruling on l2 cache and registers. Seriously, can we not pay some money to have some people who understand technology available to the court?

If I understand correctly...

[make dev]

Wouldn't that apply to streams also? They're also stored in RAM, after all..

Evidence destruction ?

[Joebert]

Does this mean that turning a computer off could be considered destruction of, or tampering with, evidence ?

White Board

[pete-classic]

Does this mean they can subpoena the contents of the white board in conference nine at 7:23 AM on June the 13, 2005?

Why can't the court grasp the transient nature of the content of RAM?

-Peter

Silly

[stabiesoft]

Sort of like the uncertainty principle. In order to "store" RAM to a permanent medium, RAM will change to write itself to the medium. This reminds me of when I testified and tried to explain that from a programs perspective, VM looks just like RAM, just slower. I never managed to convince the prosecutor. Clearly the legal system hasn't a clue about tech.

Need more disk space now?

[weszz]

So... you have to be able to log everything that is in ram as well now

so we need faster processors and bigger hard drives to handle the extra load.

A normal log may not be that big, but when you get to a few months full of RAM logs for a busy server... I think this precedent will get overturned when they find out just what they are asking for.

I want to to write down every single thought you have for the next 10 weeks...

What about costs?

[www.sorehands.com]

I am surprised that the costs issue was not addressed. Generally, and if I recall, that if there are costs on on electronic discovery, that cost can be shifted on to the requesting party.

For this the costs would be expensive.

There are two ways to archive this:
    1. By snapshotting the ram.
    2. By rewriting the server code.

By snapshotting the ram, it would require a program with root access to snap this and lots of data to be archive.

By rewriting the server code, it would take months to rewrite it properly and test it. Then they would to license the IP2location database to perform lookups on the IP address filter out US addresses. I suspect that this filtering would require one or two more computers to perform this.

Not surprising

[Sunburnt]

'Under this interpretation, any data stored in RAM could be subject to a subpoena, as at a basic level it is a "medium from which information can be obtained" just like a hard drive. '"

Which makes sense. Imagine that I do all my shady accounting on some Post-Its, then turn their contents into a bunch of spreadsheets and a ledger that look legit. If my accounting documentation is subpoenaed and I don't produce those Post-Its, and the court finds out about their existence, I am in deep shit for destruction of evidence and/or failure to keep required records. I certainly wouldn't get far with a claim that the Post-Its were a "temporary storage medium" or something.

I believe the fact that TorrentSpy is being compelled to keep server logs by the MPAA is fucked up on a few levels. I just wanted to point out that the last part of the summary is not as profound or earth-shaking as it might seem.

Re:power failure

[OrangeTide]

There is little doubt in my mind that that is the case. It does not matter what you did, but if it was intentional then it is a very serious crime to deny or destroy evidence.

If you "forgot" to pay your colocation bill and they turned off your servers, that might work. You could claim you couldn't pay the bill because of all the money you are spending on lawyers. :)

Let's be clear

[71thumper]

What the judge is saying is that just because you keep a file in RAM and not on on disk, you can't claim you aren't "storing" that data.

Um, isn't this some pretty heavy spin???

[BobMcD]

From TFA:

TorrentSpy fought the MPAA's request, arguing that privacy laws in the Netherlands--where the servers are physically located--prevented it from maintaining and disclosing the logs. The site also argued that the log data wasn't available, since it existed only in RAM, and as such, was never stored.

The magistrate judge didn't buy that argument, and in her opinion reaffirming the magistrate's order, neither did Judge Florence-Marie Cooper. Judge Cooper took issue with TorrentSpy's argument that data in RAM is not "stored." She noted RAM's function as primary storage and that the storage of data in RAM--even if not permanently archived--makes it electronically stored information governed by federal discovery rules.

TorrentSpy: "We could log that information, but we choose not to."

Judge: "Choose to do so from this point on."

RAM isn't exactly relevant. This isn't some kind of temporary storage situation. This is a deliberate decision on the part of the software author. Now if you want to claim rights are being trodden upon, be my guest. But claiming that all RAM is now state's evidence is a stretch.

Re:Evidence destruction ?

[HTH NE1]

For data to exist in RAM, does it not also have to exist on the hard drive in some fashion also?

No. Data can come from any source, not just hard drives. The data going into this text box from my keyboard exists in RAM, but does not yet exist on a hard drive. If I submit it, it arrives in that server's RAM before it even touches the server's hard drive.

Re:Legal asshats.

[weszz]

would you have to log what the program that is in RAM is doing?

I.E.

Process A is in RAM, writing to a log

Process B is writing to the log what process A is going through writing

Process A sees B and starts logging what B is doing

Re:Um, isn't this some pretty heavy spin???

[NeutronCowboy]

I agree that the intent may have been to force TorrentSpy to turn on logging. However, the judgment was written in a very broad fashion - broad to the point that nowhere is it mentioned to "just turn on the damn logging". Instead, it is a ruling that states that data in RAM is governed by federal discovery rules, and as a result, needs to be preserved.

While it is unlikely that always logging ALL data in RAM will become a federal requirement, it is quite possible that this will turn into one of those things that everybody has to violate in order to function. The result of this will be that someone, somewhere will be permanently fucked by a ruling based on this. Yes, the law might be changed after this, but only after someone's life has been permanently fucked with.

Remember the high-school senior who got a blowjob from a 15 year old? He's doing time, because a law designed to catch sex offenders was badly written. The law was changed in response to his conviction, but it was too late for him. He's still in jail, the football scholarship is now out of the question, and he will have a criminal record.

I'm paranoid because too many lawyers and politicians and people in general have abused bad laws for their own gain.

judges are not dumb

[czmax]

Folks, From TFA, we see the following, "[Torrentspy] argued that the log data wasn't available, since it existed only in RAM, and as such, was never stored". The judge, being nobodies dummy, accurately noted that this isn't an impediment to logging that data in the future and has ordered them to do so. Funny jokes about handing over DIMMs aside this is a totally reasonable concept. How many of you all think it's actually impossible to log a number that is in RAM? Are all you /. l33t programmers incapable of writing a variable out to a file?

Re:Soo....

[mark-t]

Basically the judge is telling them to log the IP addresses

Then the judge should have said that, and not obfuscated it to the point of making the judge sound incompetent to be making decisions in this field.

Of course, then the question becomes: where do you draw the line on what ephemeral data can a court require to be logged? If you don't draw the line somewhere, the storage requirements for even a week's worth of transactions and data for some places could well exceed the entire world's combined permanent storage.

This isn't about RAM, folks

[Timogen]

Oh, I'm sure, many of you are going off on this whole RAM thing as if that was the point. What you are missing is that this ruling was meant not really believing that RAM is the key, but the fact of the matter that, for torrentspy transactions, they do not, for just the exact reason this lawsuit began, log connection information, even though that information does pass through the RAM of the system. They focused on RAM as it is, in this case, the only memory device that is realistically capturing any connection information. That connection information is what the prosecution wants. Ergo, this order is, for all intents and purposes, forcing torrentspy to adjust their software to capture the connection information. That's really all it is. The courts, I'm sure, are aware of the transitory nature of RAM, and, through this order, are only addressing that the memory in RAM be captured. The reason they bring this up is because torrentspy, all along, claimed they have no logs that capture connection information, so potential downtheroad supoena's of torrentspy users cannot occur, plsu an audit trail of abuses cannot be captured. This ruling basically says 'Nice try guys, but you now need to close up that loophole'. Seriously, you all go off on the nature of RAM and stupidity of non-technites, but you fail to grasp what this ruling is really about, enforced logging of details that should be captured but the fact that it isn't is 100% an attempt to cover up any illegal activity going on with their servers/services abd leaving no trail to trace. If this was read for what it really means 'Court orders torrentspy to modify software to capture all connection info', which would be more outside the realm of the court to order, it wouldn't even raise an eyebrow save for the tinfoil hat privacy types. But that is outside the mandate of the court, so they just said what they need and now it's up to Torrentspy to figure out how to do it.

I can see a different problem.

[janrinok]

The ruling is that TorrentSpy must, in future, maintain records of IP information. How is that meant to help prove or disprove the case that the MPAA are trying to prosecute, which must, by definition, have already occurred? This is not discovery - but an imposition on the way the software is to be re-written. Or can the MPAA say that they think that TorrentSpy will commit an offence sometime in the future and they now want to have the means to prove it?

SSL Keys

[Alain Williams]

OK: lots of fun about having to provide copies of L1 cache, etc, but what the judge is saying is:

you know that the information in RAM is likely be of interest for an X, Y, Z investigation, so keep it

What is worrying me is this: I visit some website at a HTTPS url or I login somewhere using ssh. Later the cops say "give us the SSL keys for that exchange". Currently I can say "firefox/ssh generates these keys on the fly, I never knew what they were.". But because I ought to know that the SSL keys might be of interest - I should have kept them, I should run a browser/ssh_client that keeps this info, and perhaps the server ought to do the same thing as well.

I fear that the above scenario is not that far off.

Re:Put down the crack pipe and pick up a book

[Anonymous Coward]

(a) Copyright here has little to do with whether it's sensible to consider dynamic RAM a permanent record of information, which is the issue at hand - by its very nature, RAM is transient. Yet we now have precedent saying it's to be considered be permanent for legal purposes, and you're guilty if you let it lose information.

(b) Copyright is wrong. Illegal does not mean wrong. TOTAL FREEDOM OF INFORMATION. I will distribute (or not distribute) information as I see fit. I pledge to shoot anyone who tries to stop me, as my ancestors shot the british.

Re:White Board

[Kelz]

But this white board erases itself when you turn off the lights.

Summary sucks

[WPIDalamar]

The summary of this article sucks, most of the comments here are nothing more than ravings based on a bad summary.

The judge wants them to start logging IP addresses. But a judge can't just order anyone to do anything they feel like, there has to be some precedent or law saying they can. This judge said in legal terms, stuff in RAM is stored data. Then he applied rules based on law that covers stored data.

It's like if a company has a policy to burn documents every night, but the judge orders them not to burn documents until the end of the case. There's no expectation that burnt documents can magically be unburnt.

Re:Not surprising

[rtechie]

If my accounting documentation is subpoenaed and I don't produce those Post-Its, and the court finds out about their existence, I am in deep shit for destruction of evidence and/or failure to keep required records.

Completely wrong. "Accidental" destruction of records is EXTREMELY common during the discovery process. I'd wager that in any complex case some records are ALWAYS lost. Saying "sorry I tossed those post-its, but it's all in the ledger" really is good enough unless the court has a lot of evidence to prove you're deceiving them. Basically, in this case it would consist of witnesses saying you were doing a dual accounting system with the post-its. And even then, so what? It's still a tough case to push for destruction of evidence unless you can PROVE that the didn't replicate the post-it into in the leger.

People have come up with excellent examples like chalkboards and etch-a-sketches as examples of "transient media" like computer RAM. There is already case on this in regards to "cocktail napkins" or informal notes. This particualr judge is just an idiot. Since her ruling is literally impossible to enforce, she'll probably swiftly withdraw it.

BTW, Many people don't seem to grasp that TorrentSpy is basically fighting this for fun. The actual company "Torrentspy" has no assets to speak of, and they can't go after the owners. They could just walk off and start a new company "Torrentsearch" next week doing exactly the same thing and wait to get sued again. This whole strategy by the RIAA/MPAA is retarded for this reason. They need to convince the ISPs to help them, which is pretty fucking unlikely since the ISPs make billions redistributing their content.

Re:Bah, move the servers offshore.

[hax0r_this]

So if my artificial island can't become a nation, then how can I possibly give my consent to be governed by the United "Nations"? And if I can't then why should I care what the UN has to say?

Re:Put down the crack pipe and pick up a book

[PlusFiveTroll]

When the crime of copyright infringement carries a higher penalty for breaking in to other computers, it will be far smarter for the 'criminals' to hack your computer and use it to share files. Now you have to prove you didn't do it. :)

Re:Bah, move the servers offshore.

[KDR_11k]

Becasue someone just might be willing to provide the firepower to back it up?

Re:Oh, sure, no problem

[dwlovell]

If you shut your servers down, then you are no longer offering any service and the prosecution has already won.

The decision does not mean that past RAM contents must somehow magically be retained, it merely rejects the defense that because IP addresses are currently only stored in RAM, that they are not possible to save. So basically in this case, they must start logging from RAM into a file. If they disobey that order, it is essentially destroying evidence from that point forward. This is no different from a corporate email system that under normal circumstances destroys email older than x days, and due to a court order is required to no longer destroy email until the case is resolved. The judge wouldn't be saying the normal policy of destroying email is in conflict with the order, but if they disobey or fail to comply going forward, they would be a seriou problem.

-David

Re:Soo....

[Xtravar]

My company got in a FUD lawsuit with another company maybe 10 years ago. As the legend goes, the judge ordered us to give them our source code but did not specify a means of transfer... so apparently we gave them a truck load of printed out disassembly.

Re:White Board

[HTH NE1]

Does this mean they can subpoena the contents of the white board in conference nine at 7:23 AM on June the 13, 2005?

More like an order that the white board be placed under constant surveillance creating a continuous, timestamped, and legible video record from now on.

Could have an entirely different effect, though...

[Sasquatch6]

OK, so it is now required that they log the contents of the RAM for future analysis. That means the data must be read from RAM and stored somewhere.
Now, the odd thing here is that, apart from being impractical, the logging company may run into legal issues if they aren't careful of exactly *what* data they're pulling out of the RAM and storing. What if they pull out the wrong section of memory, end up with an AACS decryption key, and get sued for circumvention of a copy-protection mechanism under the DMCA? They were just ordered to by the court, sure, but it's got to complicate matters. After all, the MPAA and co. are already looking at anyone who visits the website; do you really think they'd overlook the opening that would give them?

Re:A problem of understanding

[MontyApollo]

I think basically the judges knows that it is easy to log IP addresses, and he just didn't buy their argument.

IANAL, but the legal argument I believe is that RAM is a physical representation of information, even if temporary, and therefore it is subject to discovery.

I could be wrong though, because IANAL like most people here. It is funny that a lot of people are calling the judge an idiot for not understanding the technology when this is more of a legal issue (which supposedly the judge is an expert in.)

(I think corrupting the IP addresses like you mention would probably be contempt. The true IP address would be stored in RAM at a point before you corrupted it, and you be responsible for providing these, not something you later obfuscated.)

You CAN Preserve a White Board

[Steve Hamlin]

Does this mean they can subpoena the contents of the white board in conference nine at 7:23 AM on June the 13, 2005?

YES, if the court gives you notice that you must preserve everything that is written on the whiteboards in all conference rooms, then they will expect you to have it preserved, and produce it when ordered.

Take a picture, log the contents, don't erase it - whatever you need to do to preserve the information. Saying "But I erased it!" isn't going to fly when you are subject to a prior order to NOT erase it.

Why can't the court grasp the transient nature of the content of RAM?

It sounds like the company was saying "But I really don't have it, it's just in RAM". That doesn't mean you don't have the information.

Note that this is a prospective discovery order - YOU WILL HAVE THE INFORMATION IN YOUR POSSESION, I REALIZE IT'S TRANSITORY AND YOU NORMALLY DON"T PRESERVE IT, BUT YOU CAN PRESERVE IT, AND I'M ORDERING YOU TO PRESERVE IT.

What's so hard about that?

Now try a whiteboard

[SmallFurryCreature]

Do they too fall under this ruling? After all, they do "store" information, for a while, and then it gets wiped. Do you think that companies should preserve ALL whiteboard writings.

What about errors, if I write something and make a spelling error, I erase it and retype it. Should that too be recorded?

What about the information of time. A whiteboard is changed over time as you add new data to it, this timeline could be important, WHEN was the information on the whiteboard added, the time the line "Make sure the brakes work" is added to a car design discussion is important if it turns out the brakes failed on the production version.

So to truly and fully comply with discovery rules EVERY tiny bit of data, now matter how fleeting, has to be recorded, that means video cameras everywhere. Not exactly practical is it?

Torrentspy doesn't log IP's for a reason, there are too many and it just doesn't need them. So their entire setup just uses the IP information as temperory data, like a scrawl on a whiteboard or even a mental note, and discards it when it doesn't need them.

In theory they could offcourse log it, but because something is possible in theory, doesn't mean it is possible in practice.

Lets turn it around, the MPAA is a business and therefore all its business discussions should be recorded, but who is to say they do not talk business at home with their spouses? I say the only way to be sure is to video-tape them 24/7, just to be sure EVERY business related data is recorded as required by law.

Your Post-Its would be closer to a tmp file.

Re:Um, isn't this some pretty heavy spin???

[Shadowlore]

Remember the high-school senior who got a blowjob from a 15 year old? He's doing time, because a law designed to catch sex offenders was badly written. The law was changed in response to his conviction, but it was too late for him. He's still in jail, the football scholarship is now out of the question, and he will have a criminal record.

The first and last one of those can be alleviated by a Governor, and a good one would do it. These kinds of cases are what Presidential and Gubernatorial pardons are made for. The criminal record can be altered by such acts, and in cases like this should be.

Re:What I want to know...

[3vi1]

I'm not sure, but how can she order them to do this? Firstly, she's asking them to start manufacturing evidence against themselves. Isn't that, like, against their 5th amendment rights or something?

More important, what law is it exactly that give the MPAA the right to force others to change the way in which they conduct business. Maybe she can order them to quarter foreign soldiers, er hire MPAA sysops, too, just in case someone starts sharing movies.

Can I order a breathalyser be installed in her car because I find it likely that someone might drive it while drunk? Or, do only large corporations get to tell judges what is and is not in public interest?

Re:Soo....

[maxwell demon]

That depends. The following is source code in assembler (encoded in base64, because that's the only way I could get it through the lame(ness) filter; sorry for that, but that filter is just too lame to accept disassembly!):

MDAwMDAwMDAgIDIzNjk2RSAgICAgICAgICAgIGFuZCBicCxbYn grZGkrMHg2ZV0KMDAwMDAwMDMg
IDYzNkM3NSAgICAgICAgIC AgIGFycGwgW3NpKzB4NzVdLGJwCjAwMDAwMDA2ICA2NDY1MjAz QyAg
ICAgICAgICBhbmQgW2dzOnNpXSxiaAowMDAwMDAwQSAg NjM2RDYxICAgICAgICAgICAgYXJwbCBb
ZGkrMHg2MV0sYnAK MDAwMDAwMEQgIDc0NjggICAgICAgICAgICAgIGp6IDB4NzcKMD AwMDAwMEYg
IDNFMEEyMyAgICAgICAgICAgIG9yIGFoLFtkcz picCtkaV0KMDAwMDAwMTIgIDY5NkU2MzZDNzUg
ICAgICAgIG ltdWwgYnAsW2JwKzB4NjNdLHdvcmQgMHg3NTZjCjAwMDAwMDE3 ICA2NDY1MjAzQyAg
ICAgICAgICBhbmQgW2dzOnNpXSxiaAow MDAwMDAxQiAgNjk2RjczNzQ3MiAgICAgICAgaW11bCBi
cCxb YngrMHg3M10sd29yZCAweDcyNzQKMDAwMDAwMjAgIDY1NjEgIC AgICAgICAgICAgIGdzIHBv
cGEKMDAwMDAwMjIgIDZEICAgIC AgICAgICAgICAgIGluc3cKMDAwMDAwMjMgIDNFMEEwQSAgICAg
ICAgICAgIG9yIGNsLFtkczpicCtzaV0KMDAwMDAwMjYgIDY5 NkU3NDIwNkQgICAgICAgIGltdWwg
YnAsW2JwKzB4NzRdLHdv cmQgMHg2ZDIwCjAwMDAwMDJCICA2MSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIC Bwb3Bh
CjAwMDAwMDJDICA2OTZFMjgyOTBBICAgICAgICBpbX VsIGJwLFticCsweDI4XSx3b3JkIDB4YTI5
CjAwMDAwMDMxIC A3QjBBICAgICAgICAgICAgICBqcG8gMHgzZAowMDAwMDAzMyAg MjAyMCAgICAg
ICAgICAgICAgYW5kIFtieCtzaV0sYWgKMDAw MDAwMzUgIDczNzQgICAgICAgICAgICAgIGpuYyAw
eGFiCjAw MDAwMDM3ICA2NDNBM0EgICAgICAgICAgICBjbXAgYmgsW2ZzOm JwK3NpXQowMDAwMDAz
QSAgNjM2Rjc1ICAgICAgICAgICAgYX JwbCBbYngrMHg3NV0sYnAKMDAwMDAwM0QgIDc0MjAgICAg
IC AgICAgICAgIGp6IDB4NWYKMDAwMDAwM0YgIDNDM0MgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIGNtcCBhbCwweDNj
CjAwMDAwMDQxICAyMDYxNzQg ICAgICAgICAgICBhbmQgW2J4K2RpKzB4NzRdLGFoCjAwMDAwMD Q0
ICA2MSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBwb3BhCjAwMDAwMDQ1IC A2RSAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICBvdXRz
YgowMDAwMDA0NiAgMz IyOCAgICAgICAgICAgICAgeG9yIGNoLFtieCtzaV0KMDAwMDAw NDggIDMw
MkMgICAgICAgICAgICAgIHhvciBbc2ldLGNoCjAw MDAwMDRBICAzMDI5ICAgICAgICAgICAgICB4
b3IgW2J4K2Rp XSxjaAowMDAwMDA0QyAgMjAzQyAgICAgICAgICAgICAgYW5kIF tzaV0sYmgKMDAw
MDAwNEUgIDNDMjAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIG NtcCBhbCwweDIwCjAwMDAwMDUwICAyMjVDNkUgICAg
ICAgIC AgICBhbmQgYmwsW3NpKzB4NmVdCjAwMDAwMDUzICAyMjNCICAg ICAgICAgICAgICBhbmQg
YmgsW2JwK2RpXQowMDAwMDA1NSAg MEE3RDBBICAgICAgICAgICAgb3IgYmgsW2RpKzB4YV0K

Note that I got that from disassembling a real (but pointless) C++ source file which compiles and runs fine. Unfortunately the instructions alone don't seem to be sufficient to re-create the file correctly; while most of it was recovered, there were some differences. You definitely wouldn't get the result through the compiler, although you could still guess what the program did.

Very surprising

[Generic Guy]

I believe the fact that TorrentSpy is being compelled to keep server logs by the MPAA is fucked up on a few levels.

What's really fucked up is how this U.S. court magistrate, and now Federal Judge Cooper, think they can order new evidence to be created after-the-fact. Not to mention how fucked up it is that a U.S. court thinks it can give any order outside their jurisdiction to TorrentSpy located in the Netherlands. And how further fucked up they must think TorrentSpy must be to violate European privacy laws which prevent them from keeping such logs against their published policy, which carry much harsher penalties than some token U.S. ruling.

Truly you are correct, the most fucked up thing about this whole case is how one company (MPAA) can force a change in I.T. policy on someone else (TorrentSpy) all the way in another country!

Re:I can see a different problem.

[surprise_audit]

That's probably the smartest comment I've seen so far in this discussion. The MPAA is prosecuting a past offence, for which the relevant information disappeared *before* the lawsuit was even filed. It shouldn't be possible to charge them with destroying subpoenaed evidence if non-logging is a normal business practice for them and there was no suit in progress.

Re:Bah, move the servers offshore.

[Original Replica]

The real definition of sovereignty could very well be "has the ability to successfully defend from outside powers". Superman would be a sovereign individual, not bound to the laws of any country, because no country could enforce those laws upon him. Darfur is not sovereign because they cannot secure the land they claim as there own. So yes you are quite right that the world is divided into two groups, the sovereign countries and the countries who do as they are told. In that light, how could you blame Iran for wanting to have nukes?

Re:Bah, move the servers offshore.

[gordgekko]

Given the United Nation's history of failing to honour its own resolutions, I doubt anyone should be too worried about them. The five permanent members of the Security Council maybe, but certainly not the UN as a whole...

Re:Um, isn't this some pretty heavy spin???

[DerangedAlchemist]

I think the judge said this ruling only applied to this particular instance and had no precedence.

Part of the problem was that his supporters were trying to portray him as a straight-A, all American boy, but then it was revealed that he participated in a sex tape party where he had sex with one girl and got a blow job from a 15 year old, and probably said or did other things on the tape that didn't put him in a too favorable light. Again, I think he got a bad deal, but it is possible that there was something on the tape that really bothered the jury.

Yeah, black kid having sex with a white girl.

From interviews with the jury, the problem was only that technically, he was very obviously committed the 'crime' as it is worded. That's it. The jury did not understand that lawyers are lying; they could have used their common sense and found the kid not guilty given it was a manditory 10 years. This is the reason juries are made up of common people, not judges and lawyers, who would be better at judging law.

Don't defend bad laws. Some day you may offend someone with the power to abuse them.

Mod parent up

[dlanod]

All jokes about RAM aside, this is the root of what's being said here - the addresses are in RAM, therefore it can be logged (and should be under the directions of the court in this case). They aren't telling them to record all data in RAM all the name, nor are they telling them RAM is a persistent medium.

Re:You CAN Preserve a White Board

[Toonol]

"Because it's a wink saying "I know you computer guys have it there somewhere! Cough it up!"."

And she was right. The judge knows the technology better than you know law.

Piratebay must now log IP addresses. Is that possible? Yes. Is it reasonable to preserve that evidence during a court case? Yes.

Is this equivalent to saving every bit of ram every nanosecond? No. Will giving a core dump, when her instructions were clear, get you in contempt and thrown in jail? Very possibly. And you'd deserve it.

Re:so hand them a stick of RAM

[Technician]

Make sure the system responds with an error message that explains all this if you try to login as one of the protected accounts...that to login you have to reboot the server.

It might be easer to explain to the judge that sound is a moving pressure wave stored in air for a very short time from the time he says something to the time someone hears it. I need him to preserve the sound waves in his house from yesterday for permanent record. It may contain evidence of a copyright violation.

Re:Hippie FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh.. Here lies proof that if you shovel enough blatant bullshit, some ass-clown will mod you informative. Tree farms are another way to say scrub land. It's cheaper to plant the trees and get the government tax benefit, then ignore the crap that grows and harvest elsewhere. It is trees that are growing, but scrub pine and poplar trees, useless for anything but pulp mills, and conning jackasses who want to believe things are better then they are.

Re:Bah, move the servers offshore.

[oostevo]

Iran has invaded fewer countries that we have in, oh, forever.

Umm ... unless I'm missing something ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_Empire [wikipedia.org]

Re:Silly

[westlake]

Really all they need to do is submit a random string of 0's and 1's. That is all memory contains, and it doesn't say anything about having to be readable by humans nor anything explaining how those 0's and 1's are segmented.

Unless as the IT guy you want an intimate knowledge of life behind bars, you preserve and present the data to the court in meaningful way. It's your ass that on the line, not your boss's.

Re:so hand them a stick of RAM

[delinear]

That's assuming that the MPAA care about sifting that data - it's equally likely they just want to make the process of collecting the data so prohibitivley expensive that TorrentSpy can't continue, or to spread fear in their users that the noose is tightening. If they can achieve either of those aims they won't even need to use the data.

Re:You CAN Preserve a White Board

[R2.0]

Because the discovery process is a means by which EXISTING evidence is gathered, not a means to CREATE evidence. Records that are created in the normal course of business are subject to discovery, but one is typically not compelled to create records for use solely by your opponents in a trial.

Let's say you own a small take-out restaurant. People order, your cashier takes the order and calls the order out to the chef. The cash register is an older model that is basically a glorified adding machine - it provides a record of the cash transactions, but not of what was ordered. You make a lot of money selling a sandwich called "identity0 Hoagies" ((if you aren't from the SE PA region, google it)

Now you are being sued by your competitor for ilicitly using his secret formula for hoagies . As part of discovery, he wants to know your revenue from hoagie sales. You respond that you can show him gross revenue from the cash register receipts, but you don't know how much you make from those hoagies per se, because you don't keep specific records of those sorts, and the cash register receipts contain revenue from otehr sandwiches, soda, pretzels, etc.

In a conventional trial, the plaintiff could get the receipts, invoices for the various supplies you purchased, and testimony from the cashier, from which maybe he could reconstruct the data he wants. But the judge decides that isn't enough, since she doesn't know anything about how small businesses work. She decides that, since the information existed at one point, in the form of verbal communication, then it is subject to discovery. But since that information is, by it's very nature, transient, there is no way to transmit it to the plaintiff. So the judge orders you to install a recording system to capture those transient orders in a permanent format so the plaintiff can get his information so he can better sue you. You don't need a recording system, won't use it in the normal course of business, and it's an added expense to you, but it's only purpose is to serve in a lawsuit.

This judges order would get bounced on appeal in a heartbeat, but the same thing is happening in this case. The judge is ordering TorrentSpy to install a system, at their own expense, to record the contents of RAM on a running basis, which is transient data which is of no use to them and which they don't use in the normal course of business.

And you are proposing that they also be required to sift through that data and find the info that their opponent's need, or translate it into info that they can easily understand. That's like a German suing someone in the US and demanding that all documents turned over be translated first into German so he doesn't need to hire a translator.

But hey, since this involves computers, none of the old rules apply, right?

Re:Evidence destruction ?

[dfgchgfxrjtdhgh.jjhv]

c is a high level language.

Re:You CAN Preserve a White Board

[Orii]

Note that this is a prospective discovery order - YOU WILL HAVE THE INFORMATION IN YOUR POSSESION, I REALIZE IT'S TRANSITORY AND YOU NORMALLY DON"T PRESERVE IT, BUT YOU CAN PRESERVE IT, AND I'M ORDERING YOU TO PRESERVE IT. What's so hard about that?

What's hard is suddenly having to write the code to retrieve those, organize them, record them, and make them available for reporting later, without interfering with normal business. Hardware assets need reapportioning to accommodate the new data. What kind of timeframe is given to put this in place? It doesn't happen by itself or overnight.