In UMG v. Lindor, the RIAA has filed papers opposing Ms. Lindor's reconsideration motion regarding the Magistrate Judge's preliminary order denying her motion to compel MediaSentry to respond to the subpoena duces tecum that was served upon it.
Letter of Victor B. Kao to Hon. Robert M. Levy*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property
The above donation button links to a PayPal account established by Marie Lindor's family for people who may wish to make financial contributions to Ms. Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. Lindor. Contributions are not tax deductible.
8 comments:
Hmm...essentially "Media Sentry need not release details of its investigation and remuneration for Lindor because they use the same methods and remuneration for other cases." So the RIAA still claims that they are exempt from proving the validity of their investigation methods because they, well, because they say so.
This travesty has to stop. The RIAA needs to play by the fundamental rules of evidence. They need to prove that their investigator and their procedures are sound to prove their case. Supplying RB with **derivative** electronic files rather than the verifiable originals and claiming secrecy on all other aspects is anathema to the basic rule of law.
RIAA: "The magic box says she did it!"
RB:"How does it work?"
RIAA:"It's a secret, but it is 100% accurate. Trust us. Now pay up."
RB: "How do you explain all these supeonas for non-existant IP addresses?
RIAA: "The magic box never lies. Now pay up."
One cannot have a fair hearing on that basis.
lets see if I understand Mr. Kaos argument right
Media Sentry handles all their "catching of dolphins" the sameway with the same procedures i.e. Tanja Andersen was "catched" exactly like Mrs. Lindor and therefor because they do their work indiscriminately to one specific defendant, that defendant has no right to challenge the work in one specific case and is not allowed to get the responses needed for the defense/the empeachment of the plaintiffs witness.
If that argument that "we do it all times the same way, so NO single one is allowed to see what we did in any case" holds water, that would be a cool argument for criminals/plaintiffs to shield them from liability!
Totally overdriven example with criminal law so that even people utmost sympathic to the record industries behaviour can see how wrong their arguemnts are:
A massmurder is catched after he killed his 25th victim and he refused to confess, but FBI has all the evidence needed that a reasonable judge would sentence him guilty.
Now this criminal after reading Mr. Kaos reasoning in the Lindor case would argue "Your honor my modus operandi was in all the cases the same So your honor is not allowed to see the evidence how I did it to this specific victim!"
And the judge would follow Mr. Kaos reasoning and would say:
"Yes Mr. Massmurder, since you did always the same, I'm not allowed to see into your procedures in that specific case the FBI brought before me in this one out of 25 cases and the FBI is not allowed to challenge my doubts I have with the evidence so you are free to go, have a nice day!"
I hope even Judge L. can after that absurd example here see how stupid Mr. Kaos argument is.
Can someone explain to me how you can just ignore a sepina in the first place?
I don't understand why you would even have to file a motion to get someone to comply in the first place.
1. "Defendant has not cited a single authority". Ray, of course you made strong general arguments, but was the lack of appeal to specific precedent an oversight? Obviously the data collection methods and payment to MediaSentry are of paramount importance and should be examined. Is it obvious enough?
2. "Defendant's requests ... would have required production of documents and information relating to MediaSentry's entire program." Of course the defendant had no way of knowing this (if it's even true), and defendant doesn't care. Other defendants in other cases care. If that information goes public and is damaging, it could knock MediaSentry out.
3. My favorite is the following. "This information [MediaSentry's pricing, strategies, operations, and technical processes (specific to The Defendant)] has no relevance to the parties' claims and defenses."
4. It remains to be seen how the methods used in identifying the file sharer are "highly proprietary and confidential".
-dp
I didn't know that RIAA held the copyright for a group called smoke and mirrors?
Nobody answered me in a previous post. Does anyone know if the right to confront your accuser applies to civil cases, or only to criminal ones?
@Robert M. Levy
Quote:
While our experiments focus on BitTorrent only, our findings imply the need for increased transparency in the monitoring and enforcement process for all P2P networks to both address the known deficiencies we have exposed as well as to identify lurking unknown deficiencies.
Source:
"http://dmca.cs.washington.edu/"
So if it is true what therobingroom.com states about your honour, your honour might seriously reconsider some of your previous rulings!
Trust me, It does not hurt and even other judges have done so too. One example was the judge that is "much more famous" positively for hsi sua sponte suggestion then you yourself are sofar for your rulings since he was the Judge presiding over the first RIAA vs. People case that has gone to actual trial.
So Your Honorable Judge Levy you might become famous in a positive way too if you act more reasonable so that the Lindor case goes forward with a trial date setup in the near future.
Maybe being the second judge that ever handled such a case is gratifying enough too though ?!
Post a Comment