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:So, what now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Quelle horreur!
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:There is a way around that. (Score:4, Insightful)
Standard legal doctrine. By arguing that the defendant's system was pwned directly by hackers you have to prove such a claim, which requires significant access to the machine and forensic investigation. Remember, these are NOT criminal trials, there is no 'beyond reasonable doubt' criteria. In a civil trial one party need only establish a preponderence of evidence. If you are going to claim that the machine was pwned, establishing this will require a lot of evidence, especially since the jury will likely be 12 technologically clueless senior citizens that will never believe that people in russia are using their computers too.
Re:There is a way around that. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a problem with this whole proposition. I don't like dishonesty.
The RIAA suing select people for vastly more than they could reasonably claim in damages is dishonest. These select users lying to get otherwise reasonable justice is also dishonest.
The entire system needs to change, but in the meantime people should fight the good fight rather than lie and use technicalities they know are dishonest. We want to be the good guys here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So, what now? (Score:5, Funny)
This is slashdot. Nobody here gets fucked.
Re: (Score:2)
Aw.. don't be so negative. Some of us around here are even married. And busy making babies.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, not all of us are single geeks living in our parents' basement. Some of us are married and... hmmm... Nevermind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We wait to see what happens once the trail gets underway.
IANAL, but I did read the objection the first time around on Slashdot (something probably 99% of commenters didn't do) and I thought at the time that the RIAA's side was making some pretty good points, especially about the 14 different ways in which Dr. Kim *speculated* about what might have happened. Whether that's really what his deposition said or not, that's the way they phrased it in the objection, and I'm pretty sure that courts don't generally
Could be a victory (Score:5, Insightful)
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly, this trial may end abrutly, because the RIAA's only witnesses may both be precluded from testifying.
Re: (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, Informative)
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly
In your experience, is this generally the case?
Yes. If the judge says 'this is the rule we're going to play by' then that's the rule.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what Motions to Reconsider are for! And Motions to Reconsider Motions to Reconsider! And Motions to Reconsider Motions to Reconsider Motions to Reconsider for. THEN you give up.
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Could be a victory (Score:4, Funny)
You mean undercover cops lying in response to the "Are you a cop?" question that criminals inevitably ask doesn't protect them from prosecution???
I used to have mutual friends with a guy that was pretty cool when he wasn't being paranoid. This was with a coffee shop crowd, and I was typically the only one there in khakis and a polo and a short haircut. One night he asked me if I was a cop, and I laughed it off. He asked again, a little more seriously and I said the idea was ridiculous. The next time he asked, I told him to quit asking. For the rest of the time I knew him, he'd randomly hit me up with it, and I'd laugh and change the subject without ever directly saying "no". Poor guy. I would've answered if he hadn't been so nervous about it.
Re:Could be a victory (Score:4, Funny)
So, *are* you a cop?
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not too happy about the ruling that MediaSentry evidence was legally obtained.
Me neither. But I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw. I'm sure that with most state licensing statutes, the result would be otherwise.
Re:Could be a victory (Score:4, Funny)
Me neither. But I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw.
So... YANAML?
=)
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not familiar with the Minnesota statute and caselaw.
So... YANAML?
Certainly IANAML. IAANYCL. But it's not necessary to be AML in order to be familiar with a Minnesota statute and caselaw. I could research those from my desk. I just haven't.
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, the whole point of choice-of-venue is to pick the rules under which the case will be tried. If you want your private investigators licensed in a particular venue, you don't allow evidence from unlicensed investigators outside your venue.. it just undermines your regulation.
Re: (Score:2)
There are all kinds of needs in the various worlds of the police, detective agencies, spy agencies, supremacy groups, monitoring groups, pressure groups, political groups, etc, that would LOVE to have packet sniffing software installed 100% legally on the computers and/or modems of opponents and rivals.
Maybe the BBC can start by selling their software for injected targeted ads to US ISPs.
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This could be a victory for Jammie. The judge carefully lays out, at pages 13-14, the standards for admissibility of technical evidence.
I know for a fact that neither MediaSentry nor Doug Jacobson could satisfy those standards.
Assuming the judge applies those standards evenly, this trial may end abrutly, because the RIAA's only witnesses may both be precluded from testifying.
Please, make up your mind and tell me how to properly react to this already. I feel like Philip J. Fry when he found out he was going to be snusnu'd to death [wikipedia.org]. Or is watching humans squirm precisely what lawyers just like to watch?!
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Informative)
Please, make up your mind and tell me how to properly react to this already.
eldavojohn, you're a cool guy, you can figure it out.
But seriously...
1. most of the rulings are totally right down the middle and easily anticipated
2. the ruling on the MediaSentry is bad, but it's not applicable to the other 49 states
3. the ruling on the expert is ok except for the part about NAT
4. if the judge applies the standards he described to MediaSentry and Jacobson, case closed, Jammie wins.
So it all boils down to whether he applies the same rule; and he appears to be a fairminded Judge, so I would say this portends a victory for the good guys.
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Funny)
eldavojohn, you're a cool guy, you can figure it out.
Cool -> cold -> frigid -> frigerator -> meat -> meat locker! Meat locker, that's it! Of course!
... FINGERS !!! Oh my god, how could I be so blind?!
Figure -> filter -> filler -> filbert -> finger
They're going to kill her, cut off her fingers and hang her in a meat locker! It's brilliant and evil all at the same time.
Ray, we have to warn her! I'll meet you at the comic book store down the street from my house in fifteen minutes! Our detective crime fighting team name will be the "The Extraordinary Super Aces!"
Re:Could be a victory (Score:4, Funny)
I'll just wait outside your office until morning and get an update from you.
[Posted via Slashdot Mobile.]
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Funny)
Ray, where are you Ray? It's been a half hour, Ray! Ray, we were going to stop the RIAA together, remember Ray? Remember? I'll just wait outside your office until morning and get an update from you.
I was there. Where were you?
Maybe you were waiting at the wrong comic book store.
I waited as long as I could, and then went drinking.
OK I'll expect you at my office bright and early. See you then. But if you miss that appointment too, then just forget it. I can't partner with someone unreliable.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Legal expertise....Technical understanding....Humor...Not Evil... I was right last time! You aren't human! Boy did you pick the wrong set of professions to try and blend in here on earth. *EVERYONE* knows that here on earth lawyers are pure evil and technical people are grumpy humorless bastards. Where are you from!? When does the invasion start?!...... Where do I sign up to be a minion to survive?
Just shut up and bring me to your leader.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Holy god is this funny or scary?
Yes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
if the judge applies the standards he described to MediaSentry and Jacobson, case closed, Jammie wins.
I am confused (and with a bit of a fever, actually), so forgive my possibly silly question: what standards do you actually mean? And: a few lines above you wrote that MediaSentry's evidence was ruled admissible, so how is now MediaSentry in trouble?
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Informative)
When considering the reliability and relevance of expert testimony, the
Court may examine "whether the theory or technique is subject to testing,
whether it has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and
publication, whether there is a high known or potential rate of error associated
with it, and whether it is generally accepted within the relevant community."
MediaSentry's evidence is admissible but their "expert" testimony w/re /.ers would say no
to the theory/techniques behind the evidence will never satisfy those requirements.
subject to testing: yes
been tested: yes*
peer review: afaik none*
publication: afaik none*
high known or potential rate of error: yes
generally accepted:
Obviously it is better to shut the door on MediaSentry completely,
but technical evidence with no expert testimony to support it is essentially useless.
*or at least none validating their method.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you very much!
I hope this won't get too technical for the judge or the jury.
Re:Could be a victory (Score:5, Informative)
if the judge applies the standards he described to MediaSentry and Jacobson, case closed, Jammie wins.
That is the second time you have said that. Provide proof of that statement or admit you are just making it up.
I think you would benefit from a course in logic. It is not a "statement", it is a "prediction" as to what in my "opinion" will occur "if the judge applies the standards he described". I don't know how you can "prove" something like that.
My basis for the opinion and prediction is (a) I have studied the law in this area, (b) I have examined Dr. Jacobson in a deposition in which he conceded that none of the Daubert reliability factors were met by himself, (c) he likewise conceded that none of the Daubert reliability factors were met by MediaSentry, (d) his opinion was admittedly based exclusively on the MediaSentry work product, and (e) he had no idea how MediaSentry had procured that work product.
Normally in a federal court such "evidence" would be ruled inadmissible.
If Judge Davis applies the standards enumerated at pages 13-14 of his decision to MediaSentry and Jacobson, they will not even be permitted to take the stand in the jury's presence.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Is it possible to file some sort of hosticus curiae brief? Can I troll the judge?
Bah, well here's to hoping that MediaSentry is held to the same standards as the defense witness.
Re: (Score:2)
So, how about a hypothetical? I live in a state where both parties must be informed before a telephone conversation can be recorded. But not all states are that way. In some, only ONE party need kno
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Please provide, in detail, proof of your statement above as it pertains to this case, complete with references.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Two! Two non-testifying witnesses! Haa haa haa!
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a motion before the court on this point, or time to put such a motion forward before the trial?
Unleash the hounds! (Score:2)
Whoa. I smell a business opportunity writ large.
Re:Unleash the hounds! (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, you have no clue as to the law. Licensing of Private Investigators takes place on the state, and some times even lower, level. The judge ruled that MediaSentry did not break the Minnesota law because they never entered the state, have no employees in the state, never engaged in PI behavior in the state, etc.
In other words, Minnesota law does not apply to people OUTSIDE of Minnesota.
Also, MediaSentry argued that the data they did gather was provided by the respondent's computer during the normal course of downloading the data. In other words, they looked at the IP address of requesting computer. Or, do you contend that Slashdot is being a private investigator by logging the IP address your post from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unleash the hounds! (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. Because of the joys of the internet, they never had to physically go into Minnesota. They didn't even have to access the computer in Minnesota because Kazaa provides identifying information about the source of the files, including the IP address.
Here is the judges determination:
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am uncomfortable with this because Mediasentry sent requests to Minnesota to instigate that sending to Mediasentry. Further, downloads began only after Mediasentry requested them. It seems to me that such requests, which had to go to a specific IP address that plaintiffs allege to have been in Minnesota, constitute activities in Minnesota.
I agree with you, and I feel that Judge Davis missed the boat on this issue.
Re: (Score:2)
MediaSentry argued that the data they did gather was provided by the respondent's computer during the normal course of downloading the data.
But was MediaSentry "Making Available" the data themselves, or were they operating a hacked client that would never serve a valid block?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Read the judge's decision, complete with case law. If the data collection did not occur in , the company has no agents in, and the investigators never entered Minnesota, why should Minnesota have any say, especially when Minnesota law does not apply outside of Minnesota?
Under your theory, you don't need to move to, live in, or even be in, Minnesota to fall under Minnesota law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Read the judge's decision, complete with case law. If the data collection did not occur in , the company has no agents in, and the investigators never entered Minnesota, why should Minnesota have any say, especially when Minnesota law does not apply outside of Minnesota?
Your reasoning is entirely circular. We are discussing whether the Judge erred his decision, and in order to defend the decision, you are citing the decision itself. That makes no sense.
IMO, the judge erred in concluding that Minnesota's licensing statute can be circumvented by an unlicensed investigator conducting an investigation in Minnesota of a Minnesota resident to gather evidence to be used against that Minnesota resident in a Minnesota courtroom, merely by reason of the fact that his viewing pla
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, you don't. But you do need to pay any use tax in your home state, which is usually equal to its sales tax. In the states I'm aware of, you're legally required to self-report these sales to the state and pay along with your income tax at the end of the year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What you keep failing to see is that it also matters where the data was collected. It was not collected in Minnesota, therefore Minnesota law does not apply.
MediaSentry was not in Minnesota, did not enter Minnesota, and has no agents in Minnesota. Minnesota law does not cover people and/or companies that are not in Minnesota. The respondent knowingly used a freely available program that reported all the information that MediaSentry collected. All MediaSentry did was take her up on her offer to download the
Re: (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 i
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What the court is saying is that if you're a person in California sitting behind a computer in California and decide to look up some information on another person, and the information you find is located on a public webserver that happens to be in Minnesota, you are not required to apply for and receive a private investigator's license from the State of Minnesota before reading the web page.
In this case, the server was a Kazaa server, but it makes no difference if it's a Kazaa server or an FTP server or an
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:really stupid question (sorry) (Score:5, Informative)
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?
You should be modded +5 for asking one of the best questions I've ever received on Slashdot.
Answer: the preliminary questioning of the expert is done before the judge, out of the presence of the jury, and is called a 'voir dire' [same term that's used for jury questioning]; if the judge rules his testimony is totally inadmissible, he never gets to testify before the jury; if the judge rules it is admissible, then he gets to testify in the presence of the jury.
Re:really stupid question (sorry) (Score:5, Funny)
But... but... My Cousin Vinnie told me that voir dire occurs right in front of the jury! Now what am I supposed to base my entire knowledge of the judicial system on?!
Re:really stupid question (sorry) (Score:5, Funny)
/.
Careful what you pray for (Score:3, Insightful)
Who's Up? (Score:2)
We're hearing a lot of concern about whether a nominee for Supreme Court justice has a bias in favor of the people on the lower social levels in this country.
I think the obvious bias that our judges have in favor of corporate interests is much more worrisome.
In the US, justice is something you buy.
Moral of this story: (Score:4, Interesting)
"no wireless router involved in this case".. so be sure you have one, just in case...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Moral of this story: (Score:5, Insightful)
The alternative...
"Are you in possession of an open Wireless Access Point, which allowed any client within range to connect, if its operator so chose?"
"I am."
"On the day in question, was this Wireless Access Point connected to your internet connection through ABC ISP Inc?"
"Uhhh...."
Re: (Score:2)
"I don't recall"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It worked out OK for Alberto Gonzales. Then again, he was fooling Congress, which as I understand is nothing special.
Re: (Score:2)
I have set up my home wireless so that it only has access to the Internet and other machines on the wireless network. Machines that need to be secure are on a separate wired network.
If I want to access the protected network from a "wireless" machine, I do this though a VPN.
Through the magic of stateful firewall (Netfilter/iptables), the protected machines can access the wireless machines.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got 2, just in case. Leave one configured for open access, but don't connect it to your network, and you can truthfully say "But I was running a open access point... anybody could have connected to it!"
Not sure why everyone persists in believing all lawyers are stupid. Some are, but most aren't. Good luck with your strategy.
Get over it (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting up copyrighted files for anyone to download (which is what Kazaa does) is willful copyright infringement. Does anyone actually think that's not what the defendant actually did? Why do we need a ten-sentence story about what the judge did or didn't exclude? It sounds to me like a pretty fair trial so far.
Wishing that it wasn't illegal to willfully and blatantly violate copyright doesn't make it so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
+1, Harsh But True.
The interest here isn't in justice, or even the law, it's in whether we can get away getting something for nothing.
Re:Get over it (Score:4, Insightful)
I've made similar comments to this case in the past, as recently as yesterday. While I despise the RIAA and think they are a perfect example of how not to conduct business, at the same time its obvious from the evidence of the first trial that Jamie [what ever her last name is this week] did in fact infringe copyright. Thus I have a very hard time wanting to root for her side. I wish the Slashdot community could have found a better case to rally around.
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there would be a lot less sympathy for her if a guilty verdict wasn't going to destory her life. No act of copying/sharing a few MB should end up costing you your life savings (and then some) unless it's treason (and in that case you had it coming).
I think most of us would be fine with all of these cases if the defendants involved had to pay a reasonably amount of money but clearly that isn't the way it's going.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I certainly agree that the punishment does not fit the crime, the overwhelming majority of people on Slashdot aren't taking that stance. Instead, they are insisting that the RIAA can't prove it, or hoping for legal loopholes to get her off. They aren't interested in the system being fair, only in their side winning.
What it comes down to is that people on this site believe themselves to possess a God-given right to enjoy other people's work without paying, and they'll demand that "right" be defended
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that the punishment does not fit the crime, and I hope for legal loopholes to get her off. (there's just no way that doesn't sound dirty though) :/
On the other hand, I don't necessarily think that the creator should necessarily have sole rights over all their creations. I don't advocate killing anybody over it, but I suspect that the actions of certain record company execs have caused plenty of unnecessary death. They should at least be stopped.
Re:Get over it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Get over it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, they're bad.
That doesn't mean we should be too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a bully punches you in the face for sitting in his seat, you don't hope that next time he will ask nicely, you hope he will get kicked out of the class.
Same is true for RIAA, we don't hope the punishment will be reduced to a reasonable level, we hope the RIAA will have it;s life ruining lawsuits rammed up someplace uncomfortable.
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
While I certainly agree that the punishment does not fit the crime, the overwhelming majority of people on Slashdot aren't taking that stance. Instead, they are insisting that the RIAA can't prove it, or hoping for legal loopholes to get her off. They aren't interested in the system being fair, only in their side winning.
I would hazard to guess that these people don't see the option for a fair system. So failing that, they want to see the entire system fail. I've been infringing copyright in one way or another for well over 20 years. Sometimes it is by accident. Sometimes it is debatable (depending if you're an industry group and your views on fair use). Sometimes it has been entirely willful with full knowledge of my actions. And in this way, these acts tend to be along the lines of when I've gone faster than the posted speed limit (which I've been doing on occasion for less time than I've infringed copyrights). I don't ever expect to have my financial life destroyed because a cop caught me speeding. Of course, I'm not going a hundred miles over the posted speed limit but then I'm also not running a black market DVD manufacturing facility.
What it comes down to is that people on this site believe themselves to possess a God-given right to enjoy other people's work without paying, and they'll demand that "right" be defended by any means necessary. I can't even count how many times I've seen people advocate the murder of record company execs as an appropriate response.
That's an awful broad brush you're using there. I agree that there are definitely a large number from the something-for-nothing crowd. But you're being willfully ignorant by claiming that is the entire breadth of the issue and ignoring the complexity and diversity of arguments that are made on this site. Copyright is a complex little beast and is being made more complex over the years by the very people who claim to have the creator's interests in mind.
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
While I certainly agree that the punishment does not fit the crime, the overwhelming majority of people on Slashdot aren't taking that stance. Instead, they are insisting that the RIAA can't prove it, or hoping for legal loopholes to get her off. They aren't interested in the system being fair, only in their side winning.
What it comes down to is that people on this site believe themselves to possess a God-given right to enjoy other people's work without paying, and they'll demand that "right" be defended by any means necessary. I can't even count how many times I've seen people advocate the murder of record company execs as an appropriate response.
No, I think you're exaggerating pretty substantially (I'm sure other replies will correlate this). Almost everyone outside of the "IP is immoral, man, dude, bro... you can't OWN an IDEA, man!" crowd accept that torrenting is, basically, wrong. It's just the degree of 'wrongness' that's at question, along with how much people should be punished for doing it.
I believe jaywalking is wrong. I jaywalk frequently and I sleep perfectly well, because I believe it to be a very, very minor wrong. If I was caught jaywalking, I would just shrug and pay the $50 fine or whatever, because I acknowledge what I did was wrong and accept that I should be lightly punished for it.
I believe torrenting stuff is wrong too. I bittorrent frequently and I sleep perfectly well, because I believe it to be a very, very minor wrong. If I was caught bittorrenting, I would either pay the exorbitant settlement ($3,100 or so) OR (far more likely) refuse and get dragged through court, paying many times this amount in court fees, legal fees, lost wages etc.
This is the big difference. That copyright infringement is considered by most people to be a minor offense, much akin to jaywalking. The problem is that the MPAA/RIAA/etc believe copyright infringement to be in some cases worse than murder- so I would counter your argument that "people advocate the murder of record company execs as an appropriate response" by saying that the RIAA/MPAA do also believe that utterly destroying someone's life/life savings (and if they had their way serious jail time and felony status) is an appropriate response to downloading a CD. But instead of just talking about it, they *actually go out and do it*.
Who are the real zealots?
Re: (Score:2)
As the saying goes, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
She made her choice, and now she has to face the consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they can't PROVE she did the crime though, then she shouldn't do the time.
This is a civil matter, not criminal. They don't have to prove she did the crime. They only have to prove that it's more likely than not that she did. It's a big difference.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
1) it may or may not be willful. I know plenty of people who didn't realize what they were getting into with file sharing apps. As a matter of fact, most people I know who aren't fairly computer savvy thought the whole illegal internet music thing was about downloading, not uploading.
2) it's not what we think happened. It's if there are other PLAUSIBLE things that could have happened.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't disagree, though your assumed wish.
Personally, I:
Wish that copyright law followed the constitutional purpose and limited duration.
Wish that non-commercial copying was recognized as the minor act that it is, and not one having consequences comparable with armed robbery.
Wish that a hunt of non-commercial copying was not a legal excuse of private wiretaps and invasion of privacy.
Wish that there was a balance between protecting the public interest and protecting corporate
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:5, Insightful)
Personally, I:
Let's go bit by bit here.
Wish that the ethical definition of copyright violation were more important than the "definition" of theft as they are ethically the same.
A lot of people disagree with you. I know plenty of people who would never dream of stealing but have no issue with copying something. Stealing something is like me sneaking into your house and taking away your favorite shirt. Now (important point follows) you no longer have it, and I do. In that case, it's pretty clear I did something ethically wrong that did harm to you.
Copying, on the other hand, is like me making myself one that looks the exact same. It might annoy you that your favorite shirt is now less unique, and it might annoy the manufacturer that I made it myself rather than paying them for one, but you still have it, I didn't take one they made, and there's a much weaker case that I did anyone wrong in an ethical sense.
The copyright aspect doesn't change that here. A computer, in our analogy here, is like an extremely fast sewing machine that can make about any type of clothing at near zero marginal cost. Yes, in that world, you're going to have to be very inventive to sell clothing. It doesn't mean it's impossible, but doing it the way it was done before (packing millions of identical ones up and shipping them out to stores) isn't likely to work as well. Do custom design, or value added stuff the machine (or computer) cannot copy at zero cost. Invent, don't try to push the genie back in the bottle.
Laws that seem nonsensical and overly harsh lessen respect for all laws, even those which are fair and necessary. If Congress passed a law against rain, it would just make them seem foolish, even when they next pass a law to help stop murders. The weather's already rolled in, and the people have spoken-noncommercial copying is largely considered acceptable. It really always was. No one considered it wrong to videotape a TV show (or a movie on TV), copy a tape to a blank for a friend, or buy one copy of a book to pass around. It's on a larger scale now, but this isn't anything new. The only reason people are alarmed now is that they're being told they can't do something that they widely don't believe to be wrong. That's not a good recipe.
Wish that the ethical definition of copyright violation were more important than the "definition" of theft as they are ethically the same.
I wish people wouldn't state their opinion as fact, and then proceed as though it were so. I acknowledge your opinion that it is an "ethical lapse" to engage in noncommercial copying, and that this lapse is on par with stealing something. I do, however, disagree with it. I am not the only person who does.
Regardless, even if we presume you're right, the penalty for downloading a few CDs certainly should not be orders of magnitude more than walking out of a store with the physical copies would be.
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.
Let's look at some possible scenarios here:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Get over it (Score:5, Insightful)
She does not have to go through any of it. She didn't have to violate their copyright. She could have settled.
How do you know she had enough money to settle with them. And how do you know she "violated their copyright"? You seem very partisan.
Instead, she decided to fight it out
If she was innocent why should she not "fight it out"? And how do you know she "decided" anything; the RIAA asked for a settlement she couldn't afford.
and it was that decision that let to years of court cases, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, etc.
So you're blaming her because the RIAA sued her? That is ridiculous. It was the RIAA's decision to bring a lawsuit and to pursue that lawsuit; she had no control over it.
You are blaming those whose rights were violated for protecting those rights while absolving her of all responsibility for the position she is in.
How do you know the plaintiffs' rights were violated? And how do you know, if they were violated, that they were violated by her?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Whether it's the prosecution, or a plaintiff, they still need to prove their case. Whereas with trial by DaveV1.0, it seems you just need to be accused.
Correct. Even when a defendant defaults, the plaintiff is required to submit competent evidence to support its right to a judgment.
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.
Judge OK (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually. When changing an acronym to another part of speech, you always include the apostrophe. You append the 's' directly when changing the acronym to a plural.
"OK's" is a verb
"OKs" is the plural of "OK"
The apostrophe can also be used in the plural form if lower case letters are used in the acronym.
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:Tor Operator (Score:4, Insightful)