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

Entire Transcript of RIAA's Only Trial Now Online 315

Posted by timothy
from the give-us-this-day-our-daily-fix dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The entire transcript of the RIAA's 'perfect storm,' its first and only trial, which resulted in a $222,000 verdict in a case involving 24 MP3's having a retail value of $23.76, is now available online. After over a year of trying, we have finally obtained the transcript of the Duluth, Minnesota, jury trial which took place October 2, 2007, to October 4, 2007, in Capitol Records v. Thomas. Its 643 pages represent a treasure trove for (a) lawyers representing defendants in other RIAA cases, (b) technologists anxious to see how a MediaSentry investigator and the RIAA's expert witness combined to convince the jurors that the RIAA had proved its case, and (c) anybody interested in finding out about such things as the early-morning October 4th argument in which the RIAA lawyer convinced the judge to make the mistake which forced him to eventually vacate the jury's verdict, and the testimony of SONY BMG's Jennifer Pariser in which she 'misspoke' according to the RIAA's Cary Sherman when she testified under oath that making a copy from one's CD to one's computer is 'stealing.' The transcript was a gift from the 'Joel Fights Back Against RIAA' team defending SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston, Massachusetts. I have the transcript in 3 segments: October 2nd (278 pages(PDF), October 3rd (263 pages)(PDF), and October 4th (100 pages)(PDF)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Entire Transcript of RIAA's Only Trial Now Online

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    is going to RTFETRIAAOT.
  • Cue - no, Clue... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by capnkr (1153623) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @07:18PM (#26252899)

    Cue the DMCA takedown notice in 5, 4, 3... ;)

    Thanks, NYCL. I hope that making this transcript available does something to help make the **AA strategists have to adjust to this "new" internet technology in a way more beneficent to all, instead of just trying to sue the pants off anyone who they think might have crossed their rather arbitrary lines...

    • Re:Cue - no, Clue... (Score:4, Informative)

      by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld&gmail,com> on Sunday December 28, 2008 @07:40PM (#26253065) Homepage
      Court transcripts can't be copyrighted.
    • Re:Cue - no, Clue... (Score:5, Informative)

      by pha7boy (1242512) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @07:56PM (#26253189)

      the transcript is public domain. as such, it should be easily available from any law clerk at the courthouse unless the judge orders the court case closed. now the RIAA could file a motion to close the court proceedings - but they would have to have a decent argument as to why that is necessary.

      I wonder if this came out now because the RIAA decided to stop suing individuals and work via the ISPs.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        The leads us back to a story earlier about the attempts to broadcast the RIAA trial coming up (ongoing??). I do not remember the details, but the basics is that the RIAA claims that they want to educate consumers, while at the same time a group of lawyers for the defendants wants to broadcast the trial and the RIAA is trying to stop them. The defendants lawyers are claiming that broadcasting the trial would be education on the legalities of downloading music...

        Sort of a catch 22 there...

      • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday December 28, 2008 @09:10PM (#26253617) Homepage Journal

        Yeah. The RIAA is like:

        * We need new laws to make this illegal, hey Congress, can you hook us up? DENIED.
        * Ahh, the problem is public perception.. we need to vilify file sharing. Marketing moguls, can you hook us up? DENIED.
        * Ok, well maybe we can just scare people into our way of thinking. Lawyers, can you hook us up? DENIED.
        * Maybe we can use impossible technology to force everyone into forgetting how to copy. Cryptographers, can you hook us up? DENIED.
        * Ok, how about just crazy ass rootkit technology? That's doable. Hey Sony scumbags, can you hook us up? DENIED.
        * Boy oh boy, this is harder than making water not wet, we need an international conspiracy of ISPs to give us unaccounted power over all their customers. PENDING.

        What other crazy schemes will they come up with?

        * Maybe they'll start putting poison in cases of blank media (cause they obviously have this stupid idea that people still burn the music they download - look at the tax on blank media in Canada).
        * What ever happened to that lawsuit against Apple? Are they making so much money from the iTunes store that they've forgotten their water tight argument that an 80 gig iPod would take $79,200 to fill? I guess math never was their strong suite.
        * Direct hacking attacks on file sharers? They have your IP, I wouldn't put it past them.
        * What about voodoo? That shit works right? We just need everyone in the world to submit some of their hair or skin so the witch doctor can make a voodoo doll, then we can jab em whenever they share files.. how will we know when they share files? EVERYONE shares files, we just have to jab everyone equally, that's easy!

        Ok, now I'm just being silly.

        • 79.2K to fill an 80gig ipod? I thought they sued people for that much per song...

          • by QuantumG (50515) *

            They worked out each song cost about $3 and each song goes for about 3 minutes, and the typical compression is about 1mb/minute. Most of that is still accurate, except the price, so divide by 3. Still, no-one is spending $24k to fill their 80 gig iPod. I believe Apple's solution to this was to say "hey, you can use it for video too!!" and that just invited the MPAA to join the party.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by tlhIngan (30335)

              They worked out each song cost about $3 and each song goes for about 3 minutes, and the typical compression is about 1mb/minute. Most of that is still accurate, except the price, so divide by 3. Still, no-one is spending $24k to fill their 80 gig iPod. I believe Apple's solution to this was to say "hey, you can use it for video too!!" and that just invited the MPAA to join the party.

              Actually, Apple quotes an 80Gig iPod as holding 24,000 songs. At iTunes' price of about $1/song, that is slightly less than $2

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by QuantumG (50515) *

                The RIAA complaint about the iPod was before iTunes.. or at least that was my recollection. They estimated the cost of the songs from the cost of CDs.. and, of course, they did it poorly.. saying that people would pay $15 for a CD and only take 5 songs off each CD. Few $15 CDs have 15 tracks on them.. so you're not likely to reduce the cost per song down to less than $1 each.. so saying you're going to rip your CDs instead of using the iTunes store doesn't reduce that $24k to fill an 80 gig iPod. And yea

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by davester666 (731373)

        The raw text of the transcript may be in the public domain, but the header, footer, line and page numbers may not be (I believe this was the reasoning in Oregon I think, for them asking some site to take down the listing of state laws, it might be somewhere else).

        And yes, this is part of the set of things that are so ridiculous, they must be true.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by dissy (172727)

        Cue the DMCA takedown notice in 5, 4, 3... ;)

        the transcript is public domain. as such, it should be easily available from any law clerk at the courthouse unless the judge orders the court case closed. now the RIAA could file a motion to close the court proceedings - but they would have to have a decent argument as to why that is necessary.

        My, you say that as if they would still not go ahead and file a DMCA takedown notice anyway, and later just say 'oops, our bad' instead of taking them to court.
        It would cause some aggravation, and piss off the website owners, for next to no cost (lawyers on staff anyway), so why not?
        That is their thinking.

        As all of their other court cases except this one show, not having a case at all is no reason not to move forward with one.

    • by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Monday December 29, 2008 @12:22AM (#26254645)
      We should all take some time once in a while to thank NYCL and people like him for putting up the good fight and making this kind of information -- which is absolutely crucial to free markets and free people -- available to us all.

      I am also going to take a little time this holiday season to go donate a few bucks to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org) and the Electronic Privacy Information Center (epic.org).

      Please help support all of these people, without whom we would all be royally screwed by now.
  • by Adult film producer (866485) <van@i2pmail.org> on Sunday December 28, 2008 @07:19PM (#26252903)
    Just think... The computer that you're using might be worth a million dollars, maybe 20 millions dollars if you download a lot of music. How does it feel to have a million dollars worth of product sitting next to you? Probably not as nice as if a solid gold bar were sitting there, but still, it's the same.. You are a millionaire. Go tell your friends that you're computer is worth 7 figures... cherish it, stroke it... oil it down and rub it for comfort.. until it glistens and shimmers like diamonds.
    • by Kandenshi (832555) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @08:01PM (#26253221)

      If one assumes that all the music on my computer is stuff that the RIAA can sue over(some isn't, not sure the %), and ignores that some of the stuff that I have comes from legal purchases and my own rips(some, but not all that much to be honest), and if one uses the $9,250 per song figure from the summary:

      My computer has a value of approximately $207,900,000.

      For perspective, the current price of gold is $871.20 USD per troy oz. Alternatively, about $28,000 per kilogram of gold.
      $207,900,000 / $28,000/kg = 7425 kg of gold
      A Ford F150 truck comes in with a weight of 2,197kg.

      My computer is worth almost as much as three and a half Ford F150 trucks made of solid gold

      You're right Adult film producer... I feel rich, powerful! Excuse me, I'm going to go buy a bigger basement and a new family now.

    • I think that is a bit over the top, millions. A 1TB drive, will be about 930GB when formatted. That is 930.000MB. Say your average MP3/AAC is 5MB and costs about 1 dollar, you could stuff 186.000 dollars worth of music on it. Still a lot though.

      Question: Can you insure a harddrive based on the price/value of it content?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Zironic (1112127)

        The point is to use the $9,250 figure that the RIAA uses to sue so your 186.000 dollars of MP3's would get you sued for 1,720,500,000. One harddrive worth almost 2 billion, so cute 3

    • by Kjella (173770) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @08:08PM (#26253277) Homepage

      Just think... The computer that you're using might be worth a million dollars, maybe 20 millions dollars if you download a lot of music.

      Don't be modest, at "a lot of music" like say 1000 CDs * 15 songs and $10000/song as in this case you're ranked 178th on countries by GDP ahead of "Kiribati" and "São Tomé and Príncipe". Is it really any wonder this sort of thing threatens the world economy?

    • The computer that you're using might be worth a million dollars, maybe 20 millions dollars if you download a lot of music

      At $9,250 per song, I have the feeling there are people out there whose computers would be worth far more than 20 mil.

    • Following this logic, we're in for some serious inflation! How much music has been copied? $10 trillion worth? $100 trillion worth? It's probably greater than the GDP of America. Wait till everyone starts spending their new found wealth, America will become the next Zimbabwe!
  • Honestly... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by G0rAk (809217) <jamieNO@SPAMpracticaluseful.com> on Sunday December 28, 2008 @07:31PM (#26252989) Homepage
    PJ takes one week off, and everybody moves back to Slashdot.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Dear Mr Beckerman,

    This trial transcirpt is an absolutely fascinating resource. As a lawyer myself, it provides me with plenty of things to think about.

    I was simply hoping to ask you what you think of the Plaintiffs' lawyers. In England (where I practise) there is no concept of lawyers (or barristers, anyway) identifying with the case they seek to advance. On Slashdot, I have seen your disregard, to put it mildy, for the lawyers representing the RIAA.

    My questions are these. To what extent do you think that t

    • Re:To Mr Beckerman (Score:5, Informative)

      by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <ray@beckermanleg ... m minus language> on Sunday December 28, 2008 @08:56PM (#26253529) Homepage Journal

      To what extent do you think that the RIAA's representatives believe the case that they advance?

      I don't know.

      To what extent do you think that matters?

      I think it matters.

      Do you think that they are bad people

      Yes.

      or poor counsel for advancing that case?

      Yes that too. I think they are a disgrace to my profession.

      And then on a different tack, when one is dealing with litigants in person in a case that might have national repercussions, how can one deal effectively with those defendants if you have no confidence in their willingness to abide by confidentiality agreements and every fear that they will post the details on the internet?

      I have no idea what you are referring to.

  • by Timesprout (579035) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @07:49PM (#26253141)
    Its way too long for me. Can someone sumarize please using the medium of dance.
  • by crazybit (918023) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @07:51PM (#26253153)
    is being widely used in my country (Peru), not only referring music "piracy" but also movie "piracy".

    This includes commercials which are screened just before your favorite movie and printed ads in mainstream newspapers (which says "Piracy is stealing").

    I have explained my son that this is a lie, because "piracy" and stealing are two different concepts, but many thousands of peruvians don't know this difference.

    did I mention that the "Piracy is stealing" commercial showed before movies had the MPAA logo at the end?
    • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday December 28, 2008 @08:05PM (#26253251) Homepage Journal

      It's not just you, the rest of the world is also subjected to this bullshit.

      "Disingenuous" is what some people call it. I think that's too polite.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mgiuca (1040724)

        The worst is when I pay for a DVD and am forced to watch this shit. I'm talking about the 1-minute "piracy is stealing" commercials which play at the start of the disc, and cannot be skipped due to DRM.

        It is offensive to me, to think that I have paid good money for this, only to be forced to listen to this shit every time I watch my movie. The pirated discs don't have this defect.

    • by mixmatch (957776) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @08:29PM (#26253405) Homepage
      I always cheer loudly when these commercials are played at the movie theatres. I think it provides some comic relief and lets everybody know that not everybody believes the bullshit.
      • by WiiVault (1039946)
        Not to a jerk, but the problem is that you are in the theater at all. I myself sometimes fall prey to giving money to people who will use it against me (MPAA, RIAA) but whenever I can I try to remind myself and others of the ills of even doing business with these bastards
        • by Tacvek (948259)

          He sneaks into the theater, you insensitive clod! (Paying the theater by means of buying concessions instead.) ;-D

      • by Zarhan (415465)

        I heard stories that they don't even show these in Sweden anymore since Pirate Bay and The Pirate Party have succeeded in making everyone just laugh at them. Can someone confirm?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by MorePower (581188)
        I don't go to theaters much anymore, but I've promised myself that if I ever do see one of these commercials I'm going to loudly sing "Yo Ho! Yo Ho! A pirate's life for me!" which is both on-topic and as a public performance is a copyright violation in and of itself.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Bloater (12932)

      Is it okay if your camcorder recording includes the anti-piracy notice?

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by t0y (700664)
      Like this one?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d82Lq2rVB_4 [youtube.com]
    • by Fluffeh (1273756)

      commercials which are screened just before your favorite movie

      Oh man, nothing shits me more (well, that's not completely utterly true) than buying a DVD, slotting into my player and having to sit through a minute long "You would not steal a handbag, you would not steal a car..." spammercial. How about this, I bought the fucking DVD, doesn't that mean I am NOT a target audience for spamming me with this ad that I can't skip, can't fast forward through and generally does nothing apart from pissing me off?

      A small light int he darkness though, I recently worked out t

      • And that goes back to one of the premises that pirates (me included) use to download whatever we like.

        Pirate products are usually better quality, less malware and user harassment, and cheaper to boot. Why pay for worse quality when free is better quality?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They do it here in america too, and the stupidest part is they come to the conclusion:
      "Buying pirated movies is stealing"
      Uh, no. Not only are pirated movies not stolen, but buying black market goods is not stealing either. Sure, it might be illegal, and sure, the cops can confiscate it w/ out compensation, but last I checked it's not stealing.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Daengbo (523424)

      Here in Korea, they go one step beyond that. "Loaning a disk to a friend is stealing." People at work probably think I'm stealing since I install my own OS and Free software.

      I also download music at work. Shock! It's legal because it's CC'ed ( Jamendo [jamendo.com]). When I tried to help a coworker out with some teaching material, she said she needed a license for it. I tried to point out the author's license allowed non-commercial use, but she refused to believe it.

      They have these giant publicity campaigns but don't both

  • Document Mirror (Score:2, Informative)

    by lithron (88998)

    Mirror [pikhost.com] of the files. My webhost claims I have unlimited bandwidth.. :-)

  • file share (Score:5, Funny)

    by binaryseraph (955557) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @08:05PM (#26253249)
    Wonder what they would have to say if I started seeding this on a bit torrent client.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rhizome (115711)

      Wonder what they would have to say if I started seeding this on a bit torrent client.

      Nothing. Court records are not subject to copyright (Westlaw and their ilk aside).

  • by plasmacutter (901737) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @08:14PM (#26253311)

    Given the technical knowledge of your average joe...

    media sentry guy and expert witness come in and bandy about as much technical jargon as possible while connecting it with vicious invective to nefarious terms like "theft".

    defense asks them questions, which they answer in the same language, which may as well be fluent korean to the jurors.

    In the end, jurors make decision based on the repeated misinformation from the media of the past 10 years equating downloading to theft, which was repeated amongst the foreign language the "witnesses" happened to be speaking.

    The end.

    • by westlake (615356)
      The jury in the case only has to decide whether it is more likely than not that the defendant infringed on the plaintiff's copyright.

      .
      Let us say that the files in dispute were downloads from the net - something that no one ever really disputed - downloads that weren't purchased through iTunes or any other legitimate source

      - and that the jury wasn't buying the argument that she was not the responsible party.

      She was the head of household. It was her account with the ISP. Her P2P nickname. Her machine.

      That

  • by Soulshift (1044432) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @08:22PM (#26253365)
    FTFA:

    Capitol Records, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Sony BMG Music Entertainment, a Delaware general partnership; Arista Records, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Interscope Records, a California general partnership; Warner Bros. Records, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and UMG Recordings, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
    Plaintiffs,

    vs.

    Jammie Thomas,
    Defendant.

    I rest my case.

    • I'm surprised they didn't challenge them on misrepresentation.

      If any of those companies are from delaware i'll eat my hat, and my dram chips.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        Lots of companies incorporate in Delaware because their laws are sweet.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delaware_corporation

        http://corp.delaware.gov/faqs.shtml#numcorps

        Also, see the question right below.

    • by WiiVault (1039946)
      I honestly don't get it. Could you explain. I think you are referring to them all being from Delaware, which I have heard is where a lot of credit card and debt collectors are located. Is this the home of scummy corps?
    • by KwKSilver (857599)
      Yep. Justice-if you can call it that-favors these corporations who have bought the law from corrupt lawmakers, and can exploit the law with unlimited legal budgets. Justice-if you care to call it that-does not favor single mothers with negligible financial resources and no Congressional suck-buddies.
  • by whoever57 (658626) on Sunday December 28, 2008 @09:07PM (#26253597) Journal
    I thought court proceedings were public records -- why did it take a year for the transcript to be available?
    • I thought court proceedings were public records -- why did it take a year for the transcript to be available?

      1. The transcripts aren't free. I think this one cost around $2500.

      2. For awhile the court reporter was on maternity leave. I don't know about other delays.

      3. This was a gift from the Joel Fights Back" [facebook.com] legal team. If they hadn't gotten me one, I don't know if I'd ever have seen it, because the RIAA lawyers do not have the courtesy to share transcripts with their adversaries.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        1. The transcripts aren't free. I think this one cost around $2500.

        You must have missed the irony and analogy here. An electronic court transcript is just a bunch of bits on a hard drive somewhere, whose creation price has been (arbitarily) set at $2500. Since the electronic document is now in the ether of the Internet, no one will ever again pay $2500 for it, they will pay $0. Does this remind you of anything?

        Of course this isn't actually a good example, because the creation cost (the court reporter's time and equipment) is probably already paid for by the time the tra

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      the court reporter sells those. they get paid per page or something like that as far as i know.
      so since "RIAA-Richard" is not a nice man, he did not provided nycl with a courtesy copy back those days.
      Oh, ianl so better trust nycl then me on that one

      --
      A_F

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        the court reporter sells those. they get paid per page or something like that as far as i know. so since "RIAA-Richard" is not a nice man, he did not provided nycl with a courtesy copy back those days. Oh, ianl so better trust nycl then me on that one

        You got it right.

    • by Fluffeh (1273756)
      Did you see the bit where it was around 650 pages? Typing all that takes time you ninny!

      Personally, I would be happy to punch out that many pages in a year.
  • ...to make sure the relevant parts of this transcript are summarized and made so widely known that the RIAA will be perpetually afraid that no matter where they go, they're probably going to run into one or more jurors who will be determined not to be played for fools.

    A catchy name for the Duluth jurors and/or decision might also help. I hate to label them "The Doughheads From Duluth", but if it helps prevent a similar miscarriage of justice...

  • ...that making a copy from one's CD to one's computer is 'stealing'."

    That one baffled me. I am neither a lawyer nor an American. However, I would assume that a witness' opinion of the legality of a given action is completely irrelevant. Establishing the legality of a given action is a task for the court, not a task for the witness.

    So why was a witness asked about the legality of copying a CD?

    And why was she breaking her oath (as NYCL is somehow implying) when she did not know the correct answer?

    • "when she testified under oath that making a copy from one's CD to one's computer is 'stealing'."

      That one baffled me. I am neither a lawyer nor an American. However, I would assume that a witness' opinion of the legality of a given action is completely irrelevant. Establishing the legality of a given action is a task for the court, not a task for the witness.

      Agreed.

      So why was a witness asked about the legality of copying a CD?

      Beats me.

      And why was she breaking her oath (as NYCL is somehow implying) when she did not know the correct answer?

      She knew the correct answer. She was deliberately misstating the law in order to improperly inflame the jury against Ms. Thomas, convincing the jurors that even had Ms. Thomas done nothing but copy some CD's onto her hard drive, that in and of itself was a copyright infringement.

      • by Gnavpot (708731)

        She knew the correct answer. She was deliberately misstating the law in order to improperly inflame the jury against Ms. Thomas, convincing the jurors that even had Ms. Thomas done nothing but copy some CD's onto her hard drive, that in and of itself was a copyright infringement.

        Sorry to play the devil's advocate, but was that wrong of her, even if she was deliberately lying?

        Given that we have witnesses to establish facts, not legality, does a witness commit perjury when she lies about legality?

        If this wa

        • by belmolis (702863) <billposer@a l u m . m i t .edu> on Sunday December 28, 2008 @11:14PM (#26254345) Homepage

          Ms. Pariser is a lawyer and therefore an officer of the court even when she acts as a witness rather than as counsel for a party. Knowing misrepresentation of the law by an officer of the court is unethical and a potential cause for disciplinary action.

        • by Fluffeh (1273756)

          witness commit perjury when she lies about legality

          *ahem*

          Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Eskarel (565631)
          Lying under oath about anything whatsoever is purjury. Note that it's not lying if you believe you are telling the truth but are mistaken. Remember the oath is "The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

          There does admitedly appear to be some wiggle room within the "the whole truth" thing, which is to say you are only required to completely answer the question put to you as opposed to telling truths you know but haven't been asked, but lying under oath is still illegal as far as I know no matter

          • by guruevi (827432)

            Violating copyright is (in the US) breaking some type of law (because you're not allowed to do it). It's however not stealing. It would be like arresting somebody that's speeding for "theft of speed" or something like that. Theft is making somebody else goods disappear, depriving somebody else from a tangible object or the use of a non-tangible object. When you're breaking copyright, every/anybody you 'stole' it from can still 'use' their own copy so they're not deprived of anything but a small (if any) par

  • Short of a revolution in the US or a major civil Rights movement on the part of consumers where millions of people march in protest of IP laws on the corporate headquarters of these IP giants and the capitol, I don't see any changes coming from this. The current generation of USians lacks the motivation for any sort of anti-monopoly revolution. If real change were to occur, it would take at least a vietnam level uprising against US IP policy.

    The problem is that IP Policy is very nebulous and difficult to un

  • MAC address (Score:2, Informative)

    by GeorgeS (11440)

    I'm hardly an expert but, I have been reading the pdf's a bit from the beginning and so far one glaring problem I see is that the MAC address referred to in the opening statements was the MAC of the cable modem and nobody had the MAC address of the actual computer.
    I shall keep reading now. I suggest anyone that may be sharing copyrighted material also read it. The more you know the better off you will be if the RIAA ever comes knocking on your door.

    Thanks again Ray! great stuff!

    • Of course. Why would it be otherwise?

      On the other hand, one of the big criticisms of the RIAA cases (and a good reason to secure your wifi) is the fact that it's irrelevant to them who actually committed the infringement. They just get the guy paying for the 'net access.

      So you can cost somebody >$4000 by hopping on their WiFi and torrenting a few songs. Sucks.

  • by mdmkolbe (944892) on Monday December 29, 2008 @12:54AM (#26254849)

    Would anyone care to make an audio book out of this?

    I'm curious about the content (I like learning how things work), but don't want to wade through that many pages. On the other hand, if I could listen to it in the background while I'm doing something else ...

  • Has anybody been reading the testimony of the RIAA's investigator and of its expert witness? It would be interesting to get some discussion of that going on here, like the one that's started on my blog.

Help me, I'm a prisoner in a Fortune cookie file!

Working...