Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



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

RIAA Case, Capitol vs. Thomas #2, Starts Monday 166

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's first trial verdict having been tossed out last year, the RIAA is coming back for a second round starting Monday. This time the trial will be in Minneapolis, rather than Duluth, and the defendant will have a team of pro bono lawyers on her side. But perhaps the most important new development is that this time, the 'technical' evidence garnered by MediaSentry and 'explained' by the RIAA's expert witness Doug Jacobson, will not get the free pass it got the first time around. In the 2007 trial in Capitol Records v. Thomas, no objection was made by defendant's lawyer to the MediaSentry/Doug Jacobson 'evidence' upon which the RIAA relied, and the evidence was admitted without objection. This time there will be no free ride, as defendant's tech-savvy lawyers have already filed a list of objections to the RIAA's proposed exhibits. Most notably, they attack the 'technical' materials submitted by MediaSentry and Dr. Doug Jacobson under Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which requires evidence based on 'scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge' to be based on sufficient facts or data, to be the product of reliable principles and methods, and to be the result of those principles and methods having been applied reliably to the facts of the case. If the evidence fails to meet those standards, it is inadmissible. This judge has already shown acute awareness of these principles in deciding which subjects the defendant's expert could and could not address. This should be interesting."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Case, Capitol vs. Thomas #2, Starts Monday

Comments Filter:
  • Lawyers and geeks (Score:5, Informative)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @10:59AM (#28326865)

    I know it seems like an unlikely mix, but I've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one. Today it seems like this is the license to print money...

    But, when lawyers can't be tech savvy, why can't they hire tech people to explain to them where the (technical) holes in suits lie? They would save themselves a lot of work if they could basically say "your honor, my opponent based his suit on bollocks, and here's why". No judge on this planet wants to look stupid, that's why they can (at least here) call for expert witnesses (or counsels) themselves, without the need for either side to call one. Judges, though, are just like the average human: Overworked and sometimes lazy.

    So they usually don't.

    • by KiahZero ( 610862 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:02AM (#28326885)

      It's an issue of unknown unknowns... if you don't understand technical issues, you might not see why there's an issue in the RIAA suits that would call for a technology expert.

      • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:24AM (#28327063) Homepage Journal

        It's an issue of unknown unknowns... if you don't understand technical issues, you might not see why there's an issue in the RIAA suits that would call for a technology expert.

        It's obvious that we're dealing with computer technology and if you don't understand it you need to hire a computer technologist. If I'm driving my car and I hear it making a new noise that sounds like metal on metal or something, I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that I should take it to a mechanic, because it's a car, and that's where you take a car for an explanation. Actually, I am fortunate enough to be a mechanic ("fortunate" meaning I've learned by reading books, turning wrenches, and even taking some classes) and so I usually have some idea of what is happening before I actually take my vehicle somewhere, assuming I don't just fix it myself. (Some jobs are just too stinky for me to want to deal with them.) By the same token, a lawyer who is a technologist might have some idea of what the issues are. One that does not, but who is intelligent, should know enough to consult an expert, just as they would expect that same person to consult them on an issue of law instead of charging ignorantly ahead without them.

        • by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:33AM (#28327139) Homepage

          It's obvious that we're dealing with computer technology and if you don't understand it you need to hire a computer technologist

          Unfortunately, "it's obvious" is not actually a legal argument.

          You don't need to understand auto mechanics to know whether a car was stolen or not. The argument of whether, or what, you need to understand to understand whether a song was stolen or not is not, in fact, obvious.

          • by digitalunity ( 19107 ) <digitalunity @ y a h oo.com> on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:49AM (#28327225) Homepage

            When there is a huge disproportion of resources(time, money and legal counsel) between parties, sometimes judges need to take a more active role in ensuring the defendants rights are not being trampled and the plaintiff isn't blowing hot air up his ass to gloss over insufficiencies in their evidence.

            Face it-lawsuits between companies and individuals are typically imbalanced.

          • It's obvious that we're dealing with computer technology and if you don't understand it you need to hire a computer technologist

            Unfortunately, "it's obvious" is not actually a legal argument.

            1) Sometimes it is, like when we're talking about patents. 2) I'm not making a legal argument, I'm arguing that a lawyer who doesn't understand technology should be smart enough to consult one that is, because otherwise they will be embarrassed, so you're attacking a straw man anyway (and missing! you fail at logic, AND at failing at logic at the same time!)

            • It's obvious that we're dealing with computer technology and if you don't understand it you need to hire a computer technologist

              Unfortunately, "it's obvious" is not actually a legal argument.

              1) Sometimes it is, like when we're talking about patents.

              Unfortunately we're not talking about patents.

              Patents and copyrights are similar, but not the same. Whether an invention is obvious is a feature of patent law... but not copyright law.

        • by Tuoqui ( 1091447 )

          I don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that I should take it to a mechanic, because it's a car, and that's where you take a car for an explanation.

          Actually if you took it to a rocket scientist they might build you a seriously pimp ride that goes well over 300mph.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by nomadic ( 141991 )
      I know it seems like an unlikely mix, but I've actually pondered adding a law diploma to my IT one.

      Are you serious? Go visit jdunderground.com if you don't believe me, but there is a huge glut of lawyers, and finding a legal job is very, very difficult in this economy.

      But, when lawyers can't be tech savvy, why can't they hire tech people to explain to them where the (technical) holes in suits lie?

      Lawyers often do hire tech people to advise them on cases, but a lot of the times the cases hinge on
    • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:59AM (#28327293) Homepage

      I find more often than not that lawyers, especially older male lawyers, believe they are of superior intelligence and if someone needs to explain something to them, it is somehow insulting or demeaning. Perhaps this is not limited to lawyers, but I have to say, all of the male lawyers I have known seem to reflect this pattern of not being open to new information.

      But there are attorneys that specialize in certain areas. Malpractice lawyers tend to know a lot about medicine. There aren't many if any "technology" specialist lawyers and perhaps there should be.

      • In that case I should never ever hire a lawyer for my computer related lawsuits, because clearly, my superior intelligence and knowledge of things techincal should suffice.

        Hybris is only one step away from idiocy. I tend to pride myself that I'm smart enough to identify when I need help from someone else. Too bad the smartest lawyers (according to their own definition) ain't that smart...

        • by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @04:13PM (#28329293)

          Hybris

          I actually had to look up hybris to make sure it wasn't a simple misspelling of 'hubris'. Turns out it's a legit variation (although seemingly rarely used). I had already come up with a good joke definition for it too:

          Hybris - noun. Excessive arrogance or pride in more than one field of knowledge.

          Ah well...

          • by Thing 1 ( 178996 )
            Ahem. You just gave me the hiccups by laughing so hard, and (re: your sig), I demand an apology!!!! :)
            • Ahem. You just gave me the hiccups by laughing so hard, and (re: your sig), I demand an apology!!!! :)

              So sorry, Thing 1! ;-)

              Just do me a favor and don't accept the apology graciously, or you'll prove my pithy little sig wrong and I'll have to invent a new one, ok?

      • I find more often than not that lawyers, especially older male lawyers, believe they are of superior intelligence and if someone needs to explain something to them, it is somehow insulting or demeaning. Perhaps this is not limited to lawyers, but I have to say, all of the male lawyers I have known seem to reflect this pattern of not being open to new information.

        Generalization is *always* a bad thing. Being an older gentleman of considerable life experience, I think you should trust my judgment on this. And no, don't try telling me otherwise - you're just being contrary!

    • But, when lawyers can't be tech savvy, why can't they hire tech people to explain to them where the (technical) holes in suits lie?

      The civil jury simply weighs the probabilites.

      It is never enough to argue that anything is possible.

      The geek has to persuade the jury that his explanation is more beliveable than the plaintiff's.

      The geek thinks of himself as the smartest guy in the room - and, man, does it show!

      He is two strikes down before he even comes to bat.

      The geek constructs overly-complex and increasingl

    • I'm doing a Law degree for exactly this reason.

      A decade of IT experience looks like it will prove very lucrative within Law, at least for a good few years (enough to get to a very safe financial position).
  • I hope so, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:00AM (#28326873)

    This should be interesting.

    This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague. Any time any of their methods are subjected to any serious scrutiny, they drop the case and run. They know any serious discovery will kill their racket.

    So what's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one? It would be nice if the case went on long enough for this Rule 702 thing to kill Mediasentry gathered evidence - which could hopefully be used as a precedent for other cases or requests for retrial. But at this point I'm not counting on the RIAA staying with this one long enough for even that much good to come from it.

    Hopefully I'm missing something.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by davmoo ( 63521 )

      What you're missing is that she's already been found guilty once. And even though Media Sentry and the RIAA suck and I hate to see them win, a lot of tech savvy people, myself included, thinks the evidence shows she's guilty.

      Maybe I'll be surprised and her new defense will pull a rabbit out of the hat and something good will come out of this trial. But this is not the ideal case for everyone to rally around.

      • by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:21AM (#28327047)

        Well if the evidence was collected incorrectly or illegally - then perhaps she's not guilty? Maybe that is an ideal thing to rally around. Due process. I'm terribly fond of it, myself.

        Maybe it's for the best that only the police get to be the police, and not some corporate funded entity with a personal stake in the matter like Mediasoft. It would be nice for a court to make that point.

        • Not exactly. IAANAL but my understanding has been that in civil court, evidence obtained illegally is admissable so long as none of the parties or their counsel were involved in the crime.

          So if I steal evidence from you showing you committed a crime and you get sued in civil court, the evidence I stole is admissable.

          Criminal court is another matter entirely AFAIK.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Maybe that is an ideal thing to rally around. Due process. I'm terribly fond of it, myself.

          The problem is that if the conviction is overturned on due process ground, then you merely uphold due process (which is good in and of itself), but do not really counter RIAA's anti-piracy propaganda itself. For the latter, you really need to have people win cases against RIAA not on technicalities.

      • > a lot of tech savvy people, myself included, thinks the evidence shows she's guilty.

        I can understand that, but you do realize that AFAIK the evidence merely shows she was (possibly) guilty of "making available" and doesn't really show that she did actual distribution (or if you want to assume that putting up the files for sharing means at least some distribution occurred, it at least doesn't show that significant numbers of copies of the works in question were distributed)?

        Or am I missing something her

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          The evidence shows that somebody at her usual IP address "made available". IP addresses are spoofable, often temporary computer IDs. They do not identify individuals.
          • by tsstahl ( 812393 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @12:28PM (#28327463)

            The evidence shows that somebody at her usual IP address "made available". IP addresses are spoofable, often temporary computer IDs. They do not identify individuals.

            Standard IANAL. The legal response to 'making available' is so what? My reading of the statutes and support of armchair litigators around the net conclude that you actually have to distribute copyrighted material to run afoul of the law. If memory serves, the whole 'making available' jury instruction is what caused the mis-trial to begin with.

            I printed a manual for a Grizzly table saw this morning. It is available on my end table. If that copy disappears, I'll have to print another one; woe is me. Should I be fined a gazillion dollars(US) for the disappearing printed PDF?

            You can argue that there is a fundamental disconnect between the law and the way things work on the 'net today, but you can't send somebody of the civil river because of that disconnect. Granted, the past 8+ years have seen a serious erosion of the rule of law, but I least like to pay nostalgic lip service to it.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            She wasn't on dialup, she was using cable (or dsl), with a (non-wifi) router keeping that dhcp address leased.
      • Re:I hope so, but... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:36AM (#28327155) Homepage

        What you're missing is that she's already been found guilty once. And even though Media Sentry and the RIAA suck and I hate to see them win, a lot of tech savvy people, myself included, thinks the evidence shows she's guilty.

        Nope. The judge gave the jury the wrong instructions, so she's not guilty-- the verdict was thrown out-- and it doesn't matter what you think the evidence shows, since you're not on the jury.

      • by Daniel_Staal ( 609844 ) <DStaal@usa.net> on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:38AM (#28327175)

        Even if she is found guilty again, if she's found guilty on good evidence while bad evidence is thrown out that will be a win: It will set some precedent for what is good and bad evidence. (Especially if the RIAA gets some egg on their face for some of the bad evidence.)

        It might not help her, but it would help the next person, who can refer to this case and say: 'This judge found these pieces of evidence inadmissible for these reasons', and tell that to their judge when the RIAA tries it again.

        • Exactly. I could care less if she wins or loses, but without cases reaching trial, there haven't been any tests to MediaSentry's evidence admissability. Certainly, one case won't mean much outside that jurisdiction, but other defendants are still free to refer to it if their own jurisdiction doesn't have applicable case law and judges can take that into consideration.

        • Even if she is found guilty again, if she's found guilty on good evidence while bad evidence is thrown out that will be a win: It will set some precedent for what is good and bad evidence. (Especially if the RIAA gets some egg on their face for some of the bad evidence.)

          Because suing those who will be emotionally and financially hurt the most by such lawsuits just doesn't have the same oomph as fudging legal technicalities most people need to have explained first...

          Right-o...

        • by arkhan_jg ( 618674 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @03:52PM (#28329103)

          I would hope that she is found liable only on good evidence. Due process is important not least because some day I might find myself in that chair for some reason.

          I hope that if that day comes, the evidence against me will be scrutinised for correctness, and that the conclusions the prosecution draw from it are valid, not just an unquestioned piece of paper that my accusers' expert say proves my guilt.

          I would also hope that when the judge instructs the jury on the actual law, and what is needed to find me liable, he actually gives the correct instructions. Kudos to the original judge for at least realising he'd made a mistake in what the law is, and corrected it somewhat by calling for a retrial.

          I would also hope my punishment if found liable would be proportional to my offence, and be focused of making good my accusers losses, rather than an incredibly excessive fine in order to discourage others.

          To draw the inevitable car parallel; if I was accused of speeding, I'd hope they would have some evidence that I'd actually been speeding, that I'd be allowed to examine it, that the judge wouldn't decide that merely sitting in a car capable of doing that speed would make me guilty, and if found guilty, they wouldn't fine me $222,000 for it.

          • Kudos to the original judge for at least realising he'd made a mistake in what the law is, and corrected it somewhat by calling for a retrial.

            I wonder if the judge wasn't quite well informed on the public perception of this and thought privately "Thank The Pasta I can duck this ruling!"

    • Re:I hope so, but... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by schon ( 31600 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:38AM (#28327173)

      So what's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one?

      Ethics. /me ducks

    • Conceivably, the RIAA could move to dismiss, this is true. But it's just a motion and the court may decide that a motion to dismiss should be denied, requiring the RIAA to go through with. Sort of like saying "finish what you started."

      Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems rather plausible that a judge could deny a motion to dismiss for the prosecution just as much as for the defendant. That could make for a very interesting discussion in open court.

      Just my $0.02.
      • Conceivably, the RIAA could move to dismiss, this is true. But it's just a motion and the court may decide that a motion to dismiss should be denied, requiring the RIAA to go through with. Sort of like saying "finish what you started."

        The Court would deny a motion to dismiss "without prejudice" but would grant a motion to dismiss "with prejudice". So yes the RIAA could drop this. That would perhaps be the smart play for them, but smart doesn't seem to be their game.

        • by Andy_R ( 114137 )

          Can the prosecution really dismiss the defendant's appeal case? I had assumed that the court would allow the defendant a chance to clear their name and that's why this case was going to actually look at the evidence properly rather than simply being dropped because the RIAA got scared.

    • This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague. Any time any of their methods are subjected to any serious scrutiny, they drop the case and run. They know any serious discovery will kill their racket.

      So what's to keep them from dropping this like a radioactive potato when the bevy of tech savvy pro bono lawyers start to tear Mediasentry a new one?

      I may be wrong but I think the defendant can file a counter lawsuit, which is what I'd do if I could. Not only would I do it but I'd

    • This case seems like the exact type of case the RIAA avoids like the plague.

      Why should they?

      They won the first round.

      The defendant came gift-wrapped to the stand for cross-examination.

      If you were the plaintiff's attorney, every word, every gesture - coined pure gold.

      The plaintiff only needs only enough evidence to come in for the jury to belive their side of the story.

      The plaintiff has a much simpler story to tell - and simpler usually wins.

  • After following more and more of these cases, I regret that I haven't been able to actually see what goes on in the courtroom. (That's my curiosity talking. I also have a feeling that after seeing the first one, I won't be so regretful if I don't see a second one. :-) )

    Any chance that at least a transcript or audio recording will become available, eventually?

    • Any chance that at least a transcript or audio recording will become available, eventually?

      Undoubtedly a transcript will become available eventually. Here [blogspot.com] is the transcript of the first trial.

      • Thanks + question (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Mathinker ( 909784 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:39AM (#28327177) Journal

        Thanks, Ray, now I have plenty of bedtime reading!

        BTW, I notice that those transcripts were posted on your blog more than a year after the trial itself. We Slashdotters are used to practically instant access to everything, so I'm curious: what takes so long for such transcripts to become available? Could the transparency of the court system improve in the future because of technological advances, or are there lots of legal issues involved which impede this?

        • I notice that those transcripts were posted on your blog more than a year after the trial itself. We Slashdotters are used to practically instant access to everything, so I'm curious: what takes so long for such transcripts to become available?

          Regrettably, trial transcripts are not public. Someone has to buy one. In this particular case the transcript cost more than $2000. I got some friends to contribute the money, and ordered it, but the court reporter went on maternity leave, and then there were other delays, I know not why. Eventually I returned the money to the friends. Subsequently, someone else bought the transcript, and provided me with a copy.

          • Why are transcripts not "freely" available to the public? (I have no objection to a reasonable fee for printing.) After all, public money was spent on the case.
            • Why are transcripts not "freely" available to the public?

              It's the system that has evolved; the court reporters and/or court reporting agencies make their living from selling the transcripts, in order to spare taxpayers the expense. Now that, with the advent of electronic filing of litigation documents, we have seen the importance of public access, maybe the system will change for transcripts one of these days. I certainly hope it does.

            • Re:Thanks + question (Score:5, Informative)

              by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer.alum@mit@edu> on Sunday June 14, 2009 @12:44PM (#28327579) Homepage

              Transcripts are not free because they are not automatically produced as part of the trial process. The usual process is for a court reporter to type into a special device called a stenotype, like a typewriter but designed for greater speed. The output of this device is not normal text but a sort of mechanical equivalent of shorthand. To produce a transcript, the court reporter has to manually convert from the stenotype record to normal text. The upshot is that producing a transcript is a time-consuming and expensive process. Since most cases are not appealed, there is no reason in most cases to produce a transcript. Whoever wants a transcript, most commonly a loser wishing to appeal, has to pay (usually the court reporter - most are independent contractors, not employees of the court).

              There are some alternative systems, including "voicewriting", in which the court reporter speaks into a microphone (within a mask so that she will not interfere with the proceedings) and the resulting audio is run through a speech recognition system.

              What is missing from the current system is posting of transcripts once made. If, say, the loser at trial pays for a transcript, that gets her a transcript but doesn't necessarily make it available to anyone else. If you are a third party interested in the case and would also like a transcript, you may have to purchase it, at full cost, from the court reporter, unless you can get a copy from the losing party. It would be good if there was a system such that, once somebody paid to have a transcript made, it was posted for everyone to use, as well, perhaps, as a system whereby people could subscribe to a transcript, that is, where interested parties could say: "I'd like a transcript and am willing to put up to so many dollars into the kitty."

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                I appreciate all these answers, and they do clarify the situation, somewhat.

                However, I still have a problem with the whole process.

                Being an advocate of open government, I believe that every word spoken in Congressional session should be recorded, unmodified, and made available to the public. (Current tradition allows for modifying of the Congressional Record after the fact, which I believe is very, very wrong.)

                In the same vein, I believe that with the occasional very rare exception, all court cases
          • I'd be interested in reading the transcript of the current case, once it's available. If you could post on your site when it is available, I'd be more than happy to donate towards it.
  • by Dr_Ken ( 1163339 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @11:59AM (#28327303) Journal
    about. While nearly everyone wishes the defedent well we're also secretly thinking "I'm sure glad this isn't me in the dock" as well. So just by having the trial (win or lose) the RIAA /MPAA and their ilk keep their scare factor alive and paranoid in the public mind. And that was their intention in the first place too, eh? FUD.
  • by socsoc ( 1116769 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @12:12PM (#28327369)
    Ars posted a story days ago with better information than what the summary contains. The judge has already allowed the MediaSentry evidence and isn't buying most of the defense's excuses. I like NYCL a lot, but I am surprised he wasn't aware of that.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-judge-bars-fair-use-defense-oks-mediasentry-evidence.ars

    • by k10quaint ( 1344115 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @12:28PM (#28327461)
      The ars article talks about MediaSentry needing a Minnesota license, fair use defense, expectation of privacy, and wiretapping laws. This summary talks about rules of evidence;
      402 Irrelevance
      403 Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time
      602 Lack of Personal Knowledge
      702 "Testimony by experts" (fact testimony or opinion testimony based upon "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" must be based on sufficient facts or data, must be product of reliable principles and methods, and principles and methods must have been applied reliably to the facts of the case")
      802 Hearsay
      IANAL, but those seem quite different.
      • The ars article talks about MediaSentry needing a Minnesota license, fair use defense, expectation of privacy, and wiretapping laws. This summary talks about rules of evidence; 402 Irrelevance 403 Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time 602 Lack of Personal Knowledge 702 "Testimony by experts" (fact testimony or opinion testimony based upon "scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge" must be based on sufficient facts or data, must be product of reliable principles and methods, and principles and methods must have been applied reliably to the facts of the case") 802 Hearsay IANAL, but those seem quite different.

        Yes those are quite different. The Ars article refers to this ruling [blogspot.com], which deals only with the motion to suppress on the ground of illegality, and has nothing to do with the evidentiary objections that defendant filed.

      • by MooUK ( 905450 )

        I was almost expecting you to include "404 Evidence not found".

    • Ars posted a story days ago with better information than what the summary contains. The judge has already allowed the MediaSentry evidence and isn't buying most of the defense's excuses. I like NYCL a lot, but I am surprised he wasn't aware of that. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-judge-bars-fair-use-defense-oks-mediasentry-evidence.ars [arstechnica.com]

      I was aware of the article and, more importantly, of the ruling [blogspot.com] to which it refers. That related solely to the motion to suppress on the ground of illegality; it had nothing to do with the Rule 702 objection.

  • The defendant has got zip for assets. The RIAA won't collect anything. This case, therefore, only has symbolic value to the RIAA. The RIAA knows that it would be very stupid to lose a case of symbolic value. They obviously perceive that their case is strong. After all, they won the case the first time.

    The defendant's lawyer probably hasn't devised a super-duper strategy in the mere three weeks that he has had the case. He has the same basic cards that his predecessor had. He's just going to put on a

    • The defendant's lawyer probably hasn't devised a super-duper strategy in the mere three weeks that he has had the case.

      Did he hear of the case and take it on the same day, or had he heard of the case previously, and already had ideas on how to fight it?

      Is a super-duper strategy even necessary? Was the prior lawyer simply incompetent, or behaving as if he was?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by vivaelamor ( 1418031 )

      You must have missed the whole Pirate Bay trial [torrentfreak.com] in Sweden where the record industry guys completely failed to do basic homework on the relevant technology by submitting flawed screen shots [torrentfreak.com] as evidence. Yes, they won the trial but seemingly on the say so of an allegedly biased judge [torrentfreak.com] rather than on the merits of the case they put before the court.

      So, if the plaintiffs can't manage to submit evidence of an actual infringement to a trial which was covered by media across the world, what makes you think their co

    • by petrus4 ( 213815 )

      The RIAA knows that it would be very stupid to lose a case of symbolic
      value. They obviously perceive that their case is strong. After all, they won
      the case the first time.

      The only way the RIAA ever accomplish anything is by intimidating people.
      They don't have the technical means to stop piracy, and they know it, but they
      can massively reduce it by scaring people sufficiently that the
      majority no longer pirate.

      eMule is a good example. While it hasn't died completely, it is a pale shadow
      of its' former self. T

  • It's my impression (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maroberts ( 15852 ) on Sunday June 14, 2009 @02:24PM (#28328301) Homepage Journal
    ..that this case is not a matter of whether Jammie Thomas is guilty or innocent (because I quite frankly have a negative opinion on this), but what legal standards should determine guilt or innocence, and I certainly feel the current standards fall short of high quality. I feel it's a little like Miranda, who was a thoroughly disreputable guy, but who got off in the wider interests of setting up future evidence and policing standards.
    • Well put. It's a shame people tend towards the established arguments for which they already know the words like an oft-recited song, rather than debating the issue at hand. I know I'm guilty of it. Regardless, I don't think her guilt is all that much of an issue for people like me who are at odds with the law she is being found guilty under.

      The damages and lack of evidence are points that I would hope have more consensus. The Pirate Bay trial was frightening in the respect of not only did the prosecution su

  • I'm glad the evidence is being given a hard look. And I'm fine with the case being tossed because the evidence is garbage. Jacobson deserves that.

    But I think the main issue should boil down to this: "Ok, maybe she shared a few songs on the Internet. So what? Anyone can do that. Millions do." Which is the more serious infraction, sharing files, or speeding? I would say speeding is a more serious offense. Even the lowly parking offense might be considered more serious. Therefore the penalty for fi

    • by cdrguru ( 88047 )

      What this case is about is not downloading files, it is uploading files to others.

      The astonishing concept that most fail to understand is the idea that anything digital can be charged for it a fleeting thing, like a bird flying towards an open window. The bird is just about at he window now, and once it leaves it isn't coming back, no matter how safe and well-fed it might have been in the cage.

      What this means is that anything that be reduced to digital form will have zero cost. Microsoft Windows. All mus

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      I'm glad the evidence is being given a hard look. And I'm fine with the case being tossed because the evidence is garbage. Jacobson deserves that. But I think the main issue should boil down to this: "Ok, maybe she shared a few songs on the Internet. So what? Anyone can do that. Millions do."

      Well there are probably many issues in this particular case. There is no single "main" issue. A legal case is like a chain; it is as strong as its weakest link. From what I have seen these past 4 years, there are a number of weak links in the RIAA's chain.

    • [citation needed]

      I do hope your case is true though, I just have a hard time having faith in the odds of people beating the man.

      • No cite, sorry. And I can blame the lack of a cite on copyright law!

        I heard of that case 16 years ago, from the defendant. That's ancient history by Internet standards, and the Internet isn't much good for older material. As a society, we ought to digitize everything much faster than we are now. Old court cases, medical research, scientific findings... all that should be easily searchable. One reason we aren't is copyright law. I cringe to think of all this great research and other material that is

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman

Working...