Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government The Internet News Your Rights Online

RIAA Vs. Web 2.0? Social Media and Litigation 41

Posted by Soulskill
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Vs. Web 2.0? Social Media and Litigation

Comments Filter:
  • Oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Warll (1211492) on Friday December 05, 2008 @11:22PM (#26010601) Homepage
    I'm troubled! On one had we have an article by NewYorkCountryLawyer our layer superhero. On the other hand "Web 2.0" is used as if it meant something!
    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by Warll (1211492)
      Oh man, when will I learn. Proof read you fool!
  • by beadfulthings (975812) on Saturday December 06, 2008 @12:17AM (#26010823) Journal

    ...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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    • 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.

      • by symbolset (646467) on Saturday December 06, 2008 @03:09AM (#26011449) Journal

        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: (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.

          • 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)

    by carlzum (832868) on Saturday December 06, 2008 @01:09AM (#26011013)

    When a judge in Boston recently quashed a subpoena for the names associated with IP addresses, Beckerman publicized that relatively obscure decision and advised lawyers to call it to other judges' attention. None of this has been lost on the record industry, which has asked a judge to sanction Beckerman for his "vexatious" conduct in maintaining the blog.

    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)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <ray@@@beckermanlegal...com> on Saturday December 06, 2008 @01:55AM (#26011221) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • The __PROBLEM__ with the US Civil System is there is really no downside to filing really dumb ie frivolous and vexatious motions since costs are each party or in cause so people like the RIAA file to play to the main stream media who, puppy like quote the motion but ignore its dismissal.

      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)

    by prndll (1425091)
    This is an interesting sorta question in a way. Where as I see absolutely nothing about what's called "web2.0" to be ANYTHING special or unique, I find it rather puzzling and somewhat funny that so many seemingly smart people fall for this lie so easily. Many people refer to web2.0 as a new higher level of interactivity that users can achieve with a website. Personally, I see nothing that indicates any higher level of interactivity than that which existed before the web2.0 term came into existence. It is in

If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law. -- Roy Santoro

Working...