Wednesday, May 30, 2007

More Argument on Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims in Maverick v. Chowdhury

In Maverick v. Chowdhury, the RIAA claims that Judge Brieant's decision in Lava Amurao was incorrectly transcribed:

May 29, 2007, Letter of Richard J. Guida (Re Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Conference Request)*
May 30, 2007, Letter of Ray Beckerman (Re Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims Conference Request)*
Exhibit A, Capitol v. Foster, October 5, 2005*
Exhibit B, Warner v. Stubbs, March 13, 2007)*

* 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

12 comments:

jupiter said...

Links #1 (May 29) and #3 (Exhibit A) are broken.

Art said...

Ray, the first link (May 29th letter) is broken.

Art said...

Sorry, the third link is also broken. It has "maverick_chowdhury" twice.

Regards,
Art

AMD FanBoi said...

Ray,

The first and third links here don't work. Not sure exactly what the error is.

Cameron said...

The first link is invalid. The filename to show is a link to this site, rather than the PDF of the letter.

sacker said...

First link appears broken... Always look forward to your updates, Ray.

Alter_Fritz said...

In alter_fritz v NYCL plaintiff claims that Mr Beckerman's link to Mr. Guida's May29th letter was incorrectly transcribed.

Mr. B. is guilty as charged!

evidence:
Server.MapPath() error 'ASP 0173 : 80004005'
Invalid Path Character
viewILRPDF.asp, line 61
An invalid character was specified in the Path parameter for the MapPath method.


;-)

bbsux said...

Ray,
Just to let you know - the first pdf shows an error.

mhoyes62 said...

Ray,

The link to the letter from Richard Guido appears to be broken.

meh

Ray Beckerman said...

Fixed the links.

Sorry about that.

Thanks for the help!

Best regards,
Ray

AMD FanBoi said...

Ray,

Regarding Exhibit A, Capitol v. Foster, October 5, 2005* can you make a explicit counter-claim for extortion based on Plaintiffs standard, and now well-known, modus operandi in these boilerplate suits? I got the impression that the judge felt such a claim by the Defendant was possible, but wasn't being made, and hence he wouldn't address it here.

It seems to me that a goal of the Defense is to keep the counterclaims alive in the face of Plaintiff's motions to dismiss, because this will limit Plaintiff's ability to simply walk away at the time of their choosing otherwise, without paying Defendant's costs or immunizing them from future suits on identical grounds.

AMD FanBoi said...

Ray,

Here's an interesting article on why computer forensic examinations are so unreliable. They're unreliable because there are so many ways to change them in ways that cannot either be detected, or if detected (e.g. unreasonable file timestamps), ever reconstruct that the original data might have been. It's called "antiforensics". From a prevention of self-incrimination standpoint, I would think everyone should be using such tools. And the discussion of them is completely mainstream now.

A money quote from the article: "the evidence exists that we can’t rely on forensic tools anymore."

Another one: "There’s nothing on the disk that can’t be messed with."

And you've got to love: "It’s nearly a declaration that, when it comes to digital information, there’s no such thing as truth. Legally anyway. As Henry likes to put it, 'Antiforensic tools have rendered file systems as no longer being an accurate log of malicious system activity.'"

The RIAA is very naïve in their forensic examinations so far.