Saturday, December 23, 2006

Ms. Lindor's Son Moves to Strike RIAA's Use of "Expert Witness" Declaration in Motion to Compel

In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA, in support of its motion to compel the production by Ms. Lindor's son of his computer and music listening device, produced a declaration of their "expert":

Declaration of Doug Jacobson*

Ms. Lindor's son's attorney has objected to the use of that declaration on a number of grounds, including the fact that it opines on Ms. Lindor's hard drive even though the RIAA has for four and a half months been withholding its analysis of Ms. Lindor's hard drive:

December 22, 2006, Letter of Richard A. Altman to Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy*

* 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

8 comments:

Alter_Fritz said...

Mr. Altman wrote: "I must respond to the motion by January 16. But I cannot be expected in fairness to do so without now retaining an expert witness on Mr. Raymond’s behalf, so as to challenge Dr. Jacobson’s testimony and conclusions.[...]Accordingly, I am respectfully asking that Your Honor either strike Mr. Jacobson’s declaration from plaintiff’s motion papers, or in the alternative, extend my time to respond to the motion for 90 days from the original deadline of January 16. [...] I also request a ruling in the alternative, if the declaration is not stricken, that I may hire my own expert witness and that plaintiff be required to pay in advance all of the expenses for that witness."

This Request (and the alternative solution) sound fair to me.

Ray Beckerman said...

They are very fair. This is good guy Richard, not RIAA Richard.

Alter_Fritz said...

Ray wrote "This is good guy Richard, not RIAA Richard.

;-)

P.S. In case we don't read from each other again so soon: Peacefull (and RIAAmusic free) holidays to you and "Guten Rutsch"!

Ray Beckerman said...

Alter_Fritz said..."In case we don't read from each other again so soon: Peacefull (and RIAAmusic free) holidays to you and "Guten Rutsch"!"

Thank you and "frohe Weihnachten".

(did I say that right?)

Alter_Fritz said...

ja, that was ok.

Ray Beckerman said...

Then I wish you a gl├╝ckliches neues Jahr.

virtualchoirboy said...

One thing that struck me as odd and maybe you can clear it up for me Ray. The final statement of the "expert witness" indicates that they examined a copy of a resume that was stored on the hard drive. How is the examination of a resume and retention of facts contained therein pertinent to the forensic examination to search for evidence of P2P activity? To me, this just provides proof that they are "snooping" through the hard drives to find more people to sue.

I also take exception to his comment in point #5: "Based on how IP addresses are assigned, it is not difficult to determine whether a computer was connected to the Internet via a wireless router"


I am a geek. I have 7 functional computers in my house, and all connected to the Internet. 4 are connected via wireless router, and 3 are connected via physical ethernet cables. All 7 get their IP addresses from the same DHCP server on my network and you could NOT determine their method of connection from their IP address. All 7 have "private" IP addresses on my network which gets "translated" to the public IP address that MediaSentry would be able to see as the Internet traffic leaves my house over my DSL connection. Unless they are inspecting the TCP packets individually AND have access to my router logs, there would be no way of determining which computer behind my router was actually sending information out over the 'Net. For a guy that is supposed to be such an expert, this is a pretty basic fact to overlook.

Alter_Fritz said...

i just guess here:
he is making this conclusion because there is no LAN IP in the registry values he claims to have inspected if i understand his statement correctly

He just referes to wireless because that was a defence if i remember correctly earlier courtpapers.

of course you can't distinguish if wireless router or wired, but you can distuingish if LAN setup at all with router at all.