RIAA Vs. Web 2.0? Social Media and Litigation 41
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."
Re:Oh no! (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 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.
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.
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.
Re:Oh no! (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.
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".
Re:We laugh because we dare not cry (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.
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.