Friday, November 10, 2006

Reply Papers Submitted by RIAA In Support of Motion to Declare MediaSentry Agreements Privileged

Plaintiffs have filed their reply papers in support of their motion for a protective order declaring their agreements with MediaSentry to be privileged. In them they claim that MediaSentry is not an expert since it did no more than any other individual on Kazaa could have done.

RIAA Reply Declaration*
RIAA Reply Memorandum*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

6 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

Ray,
repleymemo page 9 footnote 3
isn't that a plain lie by him?

if I recall correctly your posting of the transcript was AFTER he has made clear that they would not move for confidentiality of the depositon transcript.
I think I remember that I have read that in one of his emails that were filed regarding the harddrive expert issue.

Alter_Fritz said...

P.S.
"RIAA-Richard" claims that Media Sentry only did what every other Kazza user could do too.
Since I personly have never used it, I'm not sure about it, but according to my hearsay Internet information you could not see the IP address in kazza itself. So it seems to me that they must have done something different then any other "non expert"-kazza user out there.
Maybe someone else with knowledge about kazza can comment on that . Is it possible that "RIAA-Richard" lied again to the judge?

StephenH said...

I think that the statement about what any other KaZaa user could do is only partially true. I think that MediaSentry logs far more information (i.e. IP address, reverse DNS, etc), and that the process constanly searches and creates some sort of a database to supeona. I think that the RIAA is trying to keep this secret because people will know how not to be sued. However, I beleive the agreement is relevant to your defense.

Ray Beckerman said...

1. It is true that at a time when the deposition testimony was provisionally confidential, I made a letter motion which I filed with the Court about plaintiffs' failure to follow a previous court order, and that in this letter motion I mentioned that I learned of the plaintiffs' failure to follow the court order when I was at the deposition. I did not, and do not, consider that reference to the deposition a disclosure of confidential deposition testimony.

2. You are exactly right that Kazaa does not show the IP address, and that MediaSentry did have to take other steps. This is one of many misstatements in Mr. Gabriel's memorandum of law.

jaded said...

Wouldn't the manner in which the RIAA compensates/reimburses the employee of MediaSentry for their reasonable expenses to testify (lost work time, travel, living expenses while away, etc.) be completely germane to the issue of "fact witness" veracity? If the compensation is baked into the basic contract, with no indication of after the fact reimbursement of actual expenses, wouldn't that strongly suggest that there is an implied expectation of testifying in a certain manner (i.e., the firm profits from the testimony of the "fact witness" in a certain manner)? The RIAA had to have expected this situation to arise on more than one occasion and would/should have taken steps to account for it. I would think that how they did so should have direct relevancy on how the "fact witness'" testimony is viewed in court.

Ray Beckerman said...

jaded, you are of course correct, and I think Magistrate Levy will agree.