Judge OK's MediaSentry Evidence, Limits Defendant's Expert 283
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the judge has denied the defendant's motion to suppress the MediaSentry evidence for illegality, holding that MediaSentry's conduct did not violate any of the three laws cited by the defendant. The judge also dismissed most of the RIAA's objections to testimony by the defendant's expert, Prof. Yongdae Kim, but did sustain some of them. In his 27-page decision (PDF), Judge Davis ruled that Prof. Kim could testify about the 'possible scenarios,' but could not opine as to what he thinks 'probably' occurred. The court also ruled that, 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case, the Court excludes Kim's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant's Internet account through an unprotected wireless access point. Similarly, because Kim explicitly testified that this case
does not involve any "black IP space," or any "temporarily unused" IP space ...., he is not permitted to opine at trial that hijacking of black IP space or temporary unused IP is a possible explanation in this case.' Dr. Kim was also precluded from testifying as to whether song files were conspicuously placed in a shared files folder or were wilfully offered for distribution. The judge also precluded him from testifying about Kazaa's functioning, but it was unclear to me what the judge was precluding him from saying, because the offered testimony seemed to relate only to the question of whether the Kazaa-reported IP address precluded the possibility of the device having been run behind a NAT device."
So, what now? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Could be a victory (Score:3, Interesting)
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly,
In your experience, is this generally the case?
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Interesting)
really stupid question (sorry) (Score:5, Interesting)
Is there a jury involved in a situation like this, or is a judge looking at possible testimony and then deciding which of that testimony he (himself) is allowed to hear vs which he (himself) isn't?
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Interesting)
assuming otherwise is as silly as the "if you are a cop you are not allowed to enter this site" disclaimers that used to be all over the internet
Moral of this story: (Score:4, Interesting)
"no wireless router involved in this case".. so be sure you have one, just in case...
Re:Could be a victory (Score:3, Interesting)
What do you make of the judge's decision on pages 6-7 that the MPDA doesn't apply because MediaSentry isn't based in MN? If the company is investigating someone who lives in MN, and they were in MN when they were being investigated, why is it relevant where the investigation was conducted from? If I go a few hours down to Mexico and start hacking computers in the US, am I no longer liable under US laws just because I'm in Mexico when I did it? I don't understand that decision, I really thought that claim above all the others had the most merit.
I know it's probably not considered great practice, but can Camara argue with the judge that the decision was incorrect?
There is a way around that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple. Change this:
The court also ruled that, 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case, the Court excludes Kim's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant's Internet account through an unprotected wireless access point.
To this:
The court also ruled that, 'given the evidence that there is no wireless router involved in this case, the Court excludes Kim's opinion that it is possible that someone could have spoofed or hijacked Defendant's Internet account.
Then a demonstration. Take a PC into the courtroom and hook it to a cablemodem. Then tell the guys at Defcon [defcon.org] to give the judge a live demonstration of pwnage.
Re:Get over it (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally I:
Wish that the ethical definition of copyright violation were more important than the "definition" of theft as they are ethically the same.
Theft deprives the owner of the original, non-commercial copyright infringement is very much akin to YOU humming something and ME deciding to hum the same thing. Oh wait, did you pay for the privilege to hum something someone else created?
Wish that non commercial copyright had the same ethical weight as commercial copyright violations (it actually does but not here apparently)
You're one of those fuckers who wants to charge kids for singing "Happy Birthday" aren't you?
Wish that the straw man of "non-commercial copying has no measurable impact on the sale" would be seen as the smoke and mirrors that it is.
Commercial copyright infringement seeks to illicitly sell a product in direct competition to the authentic item, non-commercial DOESN'T.
I have GB's of music I would otherwise have not paid a dime for. Why you ask? Well let's see, a) I owned(licensed) it before on vinyl/tape/or scratched CD, b) I could have taped it from the radio/a friend, c) I only liked one track and $20 for an album for ONE SONG is robbery, d) its out of print and even if I beg the label they refuse to sell it to me, e)if you are going to assume I'm a thief, don't be surprised if I decide to fuck you over. REMEMBER, this was/is OUR world, if you want your bullshit music not to play by OUR rules, keep it OUT of OUR fucking world.
Wish that people would start taking responsibility for their actions and stop rationalizing their ethical lapses into a 'cause celebre'.
OK right there, that shit is what pisses me off the MOST. It is the heads of companies and the politicians who have been leading the charge into "not taking responsibility for our actions" for entirely too fucking long now. SO until I start seeing heads on fucking pikes for THOSE miserable, lying, scheming, corrupt, law-breaking FUCKERS, then AND ONLY THEN, does anyone get to start preaching to everyday people about ETHICS. Either lead by example or eat a fucking bullet.
Wish that the idiots that post these things had the cojones to use their own names and not hide behind "AC" like a sniveling little girl hiding behind her mothers skirts.
I wish things were like the old days and only a very few folks had Internet access so I wasn't always waist deep in poop-flinging imbeciles, guess we all can't get what we want.
Re:Get over it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Unleash the hounds! (Score:3, Interesting)
It was not collected in Minnesota, therefore Minnesota law does not apply.
Much, maybe most, private investigation occurs over the internet today. If one can investigate in Minnesota, and use the 'fruit' of the investigation in a Minnesota courtroom against a Minnesota resident, it is unlikely that the State of Minnesota is powerless to regulate such conduct. I'm skeptical that that part of the Judge's rule would stand up to scrutiny.
Interestly it may become a moot point, because if the Judge correctly applies the Daubert standards to MediaSentry, its materials will be excluded in any event.
Re:MediaSentry is legal now (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't need a Minneosta PI license to read a web page from your computer in another state,
You apparently do not know anything about the facts. There was no web page, nor was MediaSentry reading a web page.
Re:Get over it (Score:4, Interesting)
If the RIAA were asking for $5 to offer a token gesture of restitution for having done wrong, I'd agree.
If the RIAA were asking for $50 per song to offer a significant deterrant from offence by others, I'd agree.
The RIAA were asking for $150,000 per song [thespacelab.tv] which I cannot agree with on any level. They were awarded $9,250 by the jury in the original case, which again I cannot begin to comprehend.
You tell me how that is in any way just. The law is, after all, about justice.