In UMG v. Lindor, Ms. Lindor has filed reply papers refuting the arguments of the RIAA lawyer that the testimony of the RIAA's expert witness, Dr. Doug Jacobson, should be admissible at trial, despite Ms. Lindor's motion to exclude his testimony as inadmissible:
May 17,2007, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Judges David G. Trager and Robert M. Levy (In Limine Motion to Exclude Trial Testimony of RIAA expert)*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Commentary & discussion:
Slashdot It!
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:
I can say this in so many less words.
Dr. Jacobson, here's some data that you don't know were it came from, how it was collected, or if it was altered afterwards before you saw it. Now draw the conclusions we want, and claim to be an expert in this field.
Oh, and we insist that the people who collected this aren't experts at all, so they'll never have to testify to their collection methods, credentials, chain of custodity, or anything else that can be used to impeach their crediability. And don't ask if they actually used the real KaZaA, because that application loads all kinds of unpleasant things onto their computer.
You know, Ray, someone should be asking for a disk image of the Media Sentry person's computer who provided this "evidence" in order to determine if there are any programs on it -- or any files deleted from it -- any time since they claim to have "discovered" your client's IP address, that could have affected the veracity of their data collection. If they can't provide it in its unaltered form, all evidence claimed collected with it should be thrown out immediately.
Lol well given Dr. Jackobson is the ONLY on in is field I guess it is fair to say that "everyone" in his field does what he does. After all, how many RIAA talking heads are there in the realm of forensic examination?
We haven't gotten up to MediaSentry yet.
And we may not have to.
Someone sent me another good cartoon link at userfriendly.org
Regarding User Friendly, and all the rest, when you're becoming a joke in the cartoon world, it's indication #117 that you're really going down the wrong path.
Suing your customers isindication #63. It's only that high because it normally takes a long time of other stupid moves to get to that one.
Does the "evidence" provided by MediaSentry provide screen shots, or even better, running video capture, of each download of each alleged infringing file they show as downloaded evidence that the file is a copyrighted work, to ensure that it only came from the single source they claim?
Multi-sourced downloads can mean that although connected to other computers, as little as NOTHING was actually downloaded from any of the specific computers participating. This can include, but is not limited to, circumstances where a target computer has an incomplete version of the file in question. While in theory a computer with an incomplete version of a requested file can contribute it's part up to the point where it ends, that doesn't mean it has actually contributed anything to the multi-sourced download.
Actually, AMD, there is a much better form of proof that MediaSentry could come up with, but do we really want them to find out?
I, for one, enjoy watching the shoddy work knowing that it will ultimately be their downfall.
Here is some other information that Doug Jacobson objected on, as well as was Admitted by Gary Millin, president of MediaSentry. They actually ADMIT THAT THEIR OWN EVIDENCE IS UNRELIABLE!
I know from TCP/IP Networking, that an IP address and a time does not indentify people at all! Just do a simple test:
1) Start up a PC that is connected to the internet
2) Run a Command Prompt
3) Type IPCONFIG /ALL
4) Ask a friend or co-worker to come over to the PC and repeat Step #3 You will find that it has the same IP address.
This will prove IP address logs do not indentify people!
Another Test:
1) Find a home or office in which two PCs are connected via a wireless access point or broadband router via the same Cable or DSL Modem.
2) Type in http://www.hoaxbusters.org from each PC.
3) You will see the little Penguin on the Hoax Busters site show the same IP address on Both Computers.
This will prove that when a router or wireless access point that performs NAT Translation is used that there can be multiple computers with different owners sharing one IP address (actually the IP is assigned to the router).
4) Run an the IPCONFIG test above and you will see that the router has assigned PRIVATE IP addresses to the computers, often beginning with 10.0, 10.1, or 192.168. These ranges are private ranges reserved for Internal LANs.
Test #3
1) Find someone with an AOL Account
2) Connect to AOL using the AOL Software
3) open your browsers settings and put in the proxy server ie3.proxy.aol.com:80
4) Go to www.hoaxbusters.org and note the IP the penguin sees you are coming from
5) Run Steps #1 - #4 on another network. You should see the same IP address or one with close numbers as the result of using the proxy server.
This proves that traffic can be tunneled to look like it is coming from somewhere else, and that IP address logs do not prove ones home location, either!
Post a Comment