Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Discovery Dispute in Brooklyn in Maverick v. Becker; RIAA Resists SONY v. Arellanes protective order for hard drive inspection

In a case which we have not previously covered, Maverick v. Becker, in Brooklyn, the RIAA is strenuously opposing the imposition of a protective order similar to that imposed in SONY v. Arellanes. Letters from Ms. Becker's lawyer, Anthony J. Genovesi, Jr., of Whitestone, Queens, New York, and the RIAA's lawyers, are as follows:

November 22, 2006, Letter of Anthony J. Genovesi, Jr.*
December 14, 2006, Letter of Anthony J. Genovesi, Jr.*
December 20, 2006, Letter of Brian E. Moran*

* 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


Alter_Fritz said...

Oh the irony!

in another case before the same judge the RIAA is saying that the fact that a HDD just shows very few user created files is a sign that the HDD they already have (lindor) is not the HDD they want.
And now in this case here a RIAA lawyer is saying that most of the RAW data consists NOT of user created files but raw data of operating system and programming codes!

logicly both can't be true at the same time!
If judge Levy is smart he would NOW stop this RIAA lying!

AMD FanBoi said...

In Moran's final letter he claims that the burden is far lighter and less expensive than the defendant's lawyer claims.

Mr. Moran,

If this inspection is so light, easy, and inexpensive, THEN WHY DON'T YOU JUST PAY THE DAMN THING YOURSELF AND SHUT-UP ABOUT IT?

Alter_Fritz said...

amd fanboi

The price is not the real item at issue here.

I haven't read the initial order -that the defendant want's to be reconsidered- yet, but the problem is also the privacy issue I would assume!

The RIAA's own expert already has proved that he will not respect the privacy of a defendant and that he will look at every information on a harddrive if the RIAA is granted unrestricted access to a HDD. Even data that has nothing to do with music, filesharing programms or findings with regards to the alledged conduct of defendant .

The lawyer explained in easy to understand words why a harddrive is not like a physical filecabinet where he simply can not look at those few files in that cabinet to designate which are private that are not the concern of the RIAA or that might even be priviledged attorney-client communication.
Because the files that are not any longer there and can therefore not be easily named by defendant for a priviledged log would be still readable for the RIAA if the RIAA gets access to the HDD before secure wiping of the "deleted but still existing"-private and confidential and maybe attorney-client protected data that has nothing to do with the allegations.

And I repeat myself: The RIAA's own expert has already proven with his own words that he WILL view and interpret ALL this Private Data.

So the only possible fair solution would be: that a neutral expert does all the searching and analysing that the RIAA wants to have performed, that the findings of this searches will then by defendants counsel reviewed for protected data and then the remaining data will go to the RIAA where RIAA can have their own expert interpret the findings they are provided with! (And if the RIAA does not trust the neutral expert the judge can review the found data that the defendant wants to be priviledged and private "in camera")