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."
Lawyers and geeks (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Lawyers and geeks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Lawyers and geeks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Lawyers and geeks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Lawyers and geeks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Lawyers and geeks (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of sneaky wordplay put us in this situation in the first place.
That is so true. Referring to patents, trademarks, or copyrights as property is a huge mistake.
On the other hand, referring to Copyright Infringement as Theft is confusing two entirely different crimes, so it's not sneaky wordplay when you refer to it as theft, just stupidity.
Re: (Score:2)
This kind of sneaky wordplay put us in this situation in the first place.
That is so true. Referring to patents, trademarks, or copyrights as property is a huge mistake.
Doubly true in the use of the word "Piracy". Looks like we've lost that one though. By calling copyright infringement "piracy" we've added an emotional loading to the act that is guaranteed to polarise opinion in the general populace, who often base strong opinions on scanty understanding. Equating a copy to a romantic image of a pirate allows people to step-associate with armed attackers of ships off the African coast today, people who hold ships hostage and kill old people.
Magnificent psychological bin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This kind of sneaky wordplay put us in this situation in the first place.
Sneaky wordplay? OP merely pointed out that 'unlawful file-sharing' has little actual similarity to 'theft.' Which is obvious if you consider what theft actually is, ie basically the physical taking away of a thing (capable of being stolen) that you have no right to, with an intention permanently to deprive the rightful ownwer of said thing.
The sneaky wordplay here entirely the province of those who would have us believe that copyr
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I would have thought they do? How often do you hear a case getting tossed out on technicalities?
Re:Lawyers and geeks (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re:Lawyers and geeks (Score:4, Funny)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
I hope so, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:I hope so, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:I hope so, but... (Score:5, Informative)
in civil court, evidence obtained illegally is admissable so long as none of the parties or their counsel were involved in the crime
The fact pattern you posit would not be applicable here; both the parties and their counsel were involved.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Ah, but guilty of what? (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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)
Re:Ah, but guilty of what? (Score:5, 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.
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)
Re:I hope so, but... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because his instruction was that she'd have broken the law if she was found to be 'making available' copyrighted works, i.e. she was found sharing them, even if no-one had actually downloaded them from her.
He came to that instruction because the major label lawyers argued that that was the case. The judge himself had second thoughts over the correctness of that instruction to the jury, asked for additional briefing on the matter, and then changed his mind [blogspot.com] as 'making available' isn't in copyright law, and ba
Re:I hope so, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You mean you "could not" care less, meaning,..
Please, stop. We've heard that. You are correct on logic, fail on idiom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Re:I hope so, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
A denied motion to dismiss? (Score:2)
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.
Re:A denied motion to dismiss? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
dropping the case (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Never assume (Score:4, Interesting)
You realize that by criticizing the RIAA evidence you are implicitly agreeing that the defendant would be financially liable were better quality evidence produced.
What's the biggest word in that sentence? WERE.
If better evidence WERE to be produced, then maybe. But so far none has, and (so far at least) we have that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
And again, Mediasentry are not cops. They are not officers of the court. There are merely people with a story to tell. The defendant is another person with another story to tell.
So sure, IF better evidence were to have been collected, and IF she actually was guilty of something, and IF there was actual evidence to collect, and IF it was illegal to "make available", THEN maybe she'd be liable for some damages.
But that's a lot of IFs.
Re: (Score:2)
In civil cases, it's more like "innocent until someone can show you probably did it, and you can't prove you definately didn't." The onus of proof is still on the plaintiff, but not to the same degree as a criminal trial.
I was given the guestimate percentages for certainty of guilt by a magistrate, once; Criminal cases: 98% certain, Civil: 60%. It's not as clear cut, I'm afraid.
Disclaimer:- IANAL, IAALS in the UK.
Too bad it won't be streamed... (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
Re:Too bad it won't be streamed... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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?
Re:Thanks + question (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Thanks + question (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Intimidation is what these show trials are really (Score:3, Informative)
evidence was accepted (Score:4, Informative)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/thomas-judge-bars-fair-use-defense-oks-mediasentry-evidence.ars
Re:evidence was accepted (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:evidence was accepted (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I was almost expecting you to include "404 Evidence not found".
Re:evidence was accepted (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Damages case only. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
admissability of evidence a sideshow? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
[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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
NewYorkCountyLawyer is a well known lawyer and a respected expert in the area of RIAA legislation. When I read his summary, he tells, in neutral terms, about one of the obstacles the record companies have to overcome in this second trial. I can not say how the admissibility issue will pan out and I fully agree with Ray's "This should be interesting."
You are free to have your own opinions about the RIAA and file sharing, I have mine. I would certainly appreciate if you attacked the arguments instead of the writer, it makes for a more grown-up and polite discussion.
Now I'm off to wash my mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that you should wash your mouth.
Is that you, Matthew [p2pnet.net]?
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just being silly, but I prefer journalism to at least have a pretense of being unbiased.
You are, indeed, just being silly.
Would it kill NYCL to at least try to be a tad even-handed?
Probably not, but it would be phony. Isn't lying what people complain about when they talk about lawyers?
I'm not saying that's a deal breaker if it does, mind you...
I don't understand, it sounds almost like you want him to lie about how he feels even if it kills him.
Honestly, the best news source would be one that presents you with the biases of the authors of articles up front, and which provides you with competing articles with paragraph rebuttals to one another, so that you can get a feel for the different viewpoints. There are often more than two sides to a story, as well. Something like that might look a little bit like Slashdot, except with staff writers and professional editorship; personally, I often find the comments to be the most interesting and insightful part of a story (even when they're not mine.)
Re:Um, he is phony! (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually the problem is not that NYCL would be lying by being even-handed, the problem is that his lack of even-handedness makes him phony, as he is giving a false iimpression of the situation, with his biases quite evident.
The writer implies, but the reader infers, and in this case the reader (you) is inferring something that is not there. Since Slashdot is not a news source, but a news, blog, and random idle shit aggregator, there is no implication of competent editorship or journalistic integrity, and it is only your failing if you assume them. You are the only one who has this problem; it is either idiotic or disingenuous.
Looks like troll-feeding hour is over; I will stop here. I can't imagine you'd have another argument worth dismissing.
Re:Um, he is phony! (Score:5, Funny)
Damn. And here I was trying so hard to keep my "bias" a secret.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't care about your "bias." What I'm more worried about is this "perceived" overuse of your so called "quotes." What "evidence" do you have that people like having quotes to spruce up your "reporting?" By the way, punctuation goes inside the quote.
"Thanks" for your "constructive" criticism. But if you'd sat through a deposition of the RIAA's "expert", as I've had to do, you'd be using quotation marks too when referring to their "evidence".
Re: (Score:2)
Not always. Question marks go inside the quote only if the quote is asking a question (Rule 2 [grammarbook.com]). In this case, they were not, so his usage is correct.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not the only one who has ever said they'd like Slashdot better if it had a bit more integrity
Yes, you show a lot of integrity by hiding behind your "Anonymous Coward" status. Most Slashdotters have more integrity in their pinky fingers than you have in your whole body.
Re:Um, he is phony! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally I'm one of many who don't give a Monkeys about K Dawsons alleged poor editing or NYCL's alleged bias. Legions tend to be a bit larger in number than the regular handful of posts bitching about it. Theres somewhere in the order of 1-2 million registered slashdot users and most stories will attract less than 500 comments, with a handful of complaints.
complainers are probably out numbered by trolls and not necessarily a completely separate group.
Anything that can be used to wind up slashdot users ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Making available a list of file names isn't the same as offering copyrighted material. Emule for example will often respond with 1000's of file sharers having files named exactly what your looking for but usually the reported file size makes it obvious that the file is something else.
And that's the kind of thing that will make this trial "interesting". This time around there's an expert witness for the defendant, and there are seemingly very tech-savvy lawyers representing, who know and understand these things. The RIAA had a cakewalk last time; I don't think it's going to be quite so easy for them to bury the jurors and the judge in technobabble masquerading as evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
That AC stuff could very well be comical sarcasm.
Come on, he's human.
Do you expect him to not have a sense of humor just because he's a lawyer?
Re: (Score:2)
(sigh) Why do I feed the shills....
That's what I want to know. Why would you bother responding to an AC RIAA troll who deliberately misquoted the summary?
(sigh)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I want to know. Why would you bother responding to an AC RIAA troll who deliberately misquoted the summary?
Replies always feed trolls, but sometimes they also serve as a signpost to explain the situation to those who can't tell even an obvious plastic lure with protruding barbed hook from the genuine article. To assume he's an RIAA troll is just paranoid, though; maybe he's just doing it for his own amusement. Then again, maybe he's an RIAA employee, what do I know?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And why are you replying to someone who replied to a troll, giving more attention to this thread, and therefore to the original troll?
I never said I was the brightest light in the firmament.
(sigh)
Re: (Score:2)
So now you're responding to someone responding to someone ... responding to a troll?
God GOD man you'll make the universe explode!
Re: (Score:2)
trying whore some +Funny karma.
Irony or ignorance, it's a tough call.
Re: (Score:2)
> Sort of like how the 2nd amendment went from protecting the right of militias
> to possess and bear the weapons necessary to operate to enabling everybody to
> own machine guns.
In 1780, "militias" were the entire population.
There was no sort of artificial distinction between the militia and the population.
The original intent of the 2nd amendment is much closer to what you claim to
be the "wrong interpretation" than the current liberal favorites. The 2nd
Amendment was written to be much closer to some
Re:Translation: (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe that has to do with his contempt of **AA lawers and thier tactics.
I have more than enough of that to go around, but there is none of that in my summary. All I was saying in the summary was demonstrably factual. At the first trial the defendant did not have an expert witness of her own, and did not challenge the RIAA's technical evidence under Rule 702. This time she does have an expert of her own, and has already challenged the RIAA's technical evidence under Rule 702. From that I extrapolate that last time the RIAA's technical evidence got a "free ride" or a "free pass", and that this time it will not. How can anyone dispute the accuracy of those facts, or argue against the terminology "free ride" or "free pass". If the defendant does not challenge the evidence offered by the plaintiff, it goes in.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected :)
BTW, I like your blog, it's very interesting even to a legal layman such as myself. Glad to see that some lawers still fight the good fight.
Keep the bastards honest.
Re: (Score:2)
MosesJones - I was looking at your quote, and deciding it was interesting. However, I wonder, "What does Ghandi feel should be in place of eye for an eye?"
I once heard that the scriptural origin of that proverb was "no more than an eye for an eye". It didn't mandate the taking of an eye for an eye, it meant "do not escalate acts of revenge".