Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Discovery schedule established in Atlantic v. Boyer

In Atlantic v. Boyer, the Tampa, Florida, case in which the legal sufficiency of defendant's counterclaim for civil conspiracy to commit crimes, and other counterclaims, has been upheld, the RIAA has filed its answer to the counterclaims, the parties have submitted a joint case management report, and a scheduling order has been entered calling for a pretrial statement to be filed in May, 2009.


Answer to counterclaims
Case management report
Scheduling order

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 portable music player

3 comments:

Ray Beckerman said...

Albert posted this under the wrong article:
***********************************
"The Middle District of Florida has not been a very good district for the RIAA.

Thus far, they have not had good results here, having had the Court order Severing of their case against Bright House Networks, our largest Cable provider. Even more funny was Bright House, who has a very short logging schedule was unable to provide them information on identity after all their effort. I am guessing this Defendant is NOT a Bright House customer.

Since the Counterclaims are not going anywhere, guess the RIAA's MO of dropping the case when the going gets tough is not going to work here.

The RIAA has admitted looking at files on the Defendant's computer in their complaint, wonder how they think they are going to defend against the unauthorized access charge? If they say that it must have been someone elses computer they were in, it kinda shoots all credibility out of all their other cases.....

When they get to examine the Defendants hard drive, and it contains NO evidence of file sharing, things will get more interesting. I say this because I think it is highly unlikely the Defendant's Council would have allowed the case to go forward in this form if in fact the Defendant actually was sharing files with the hard drive being turned over for examination.

I would love to see a Defendant give them a Apple OSx or Linux drive, as the filesharing apps they maintain was used only runs on the Windows platform. With Apple's share of the market running has high as 21 percent in some reports, Im surprized this has not yet happened.

Also, I think the requests for unused IP addresses needs to be looked into more. Since network traffic cannot come from an unused IP address, this clearly leads to a problem with MS identification of IP addresses, and a clear error with their processes.

Albert"
"

Albert said...

Sorry about that wrong article.
Guess I was in the wrong window, as I had a couple open here.

Was looking at the RIAA's Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims and noticed this is actually a College filesharing case, as the reported ISP is the University of South Florida in Tampa.

I noticed the IP address in this document only has 3 digits, and therefore is an error. A real IPv4 address has 4 digits of 0-255 in it.
Thus, the person preparing the motion has placed an incomplete IP address on page 4.

131.247 is the first 2 digits of ALL machines at USF. The next digit 210 is the subnet for the College of Arts and sciences. 211 is the subnet with the college of arts and sciences administrative machines, so something funny is going on here. I suspect it is the 3rd digit that has been omitted.

Do we have a copy of the original complaint? I would like to see exactly what the original IP address is.

If the Defendant is a Dorm Student, I can tell you that is quite common to plug in wireless routers into the single network jack provided in each room, so that the connection can be shared. Although the Defendant might be "on record" as the "owner" of the IP, this does not mean that it was the Defendant's computer was the one in use.

I also noticed the date of the MS investigation was 01-01-2007. Having attended this school, I can tell you that the campus is a ghosttown on holiday days such as New Years Day. I wonder if the defense will be in part based on alibi, as odds are the Defendant was NOT on campus that day.
Also, in this day and age most students use laptops ONLY and thus the Defendant may not have even had their computer on campus on New Years Day.

Of course if the Router was still in their room, any number of other wireless laptop users could have been connected at the time/date alleged.

Albert

Igor said...

The Washington Post has an excellent series about cyber criminals and how it's very easy to fake where a connection is coming from on the internet. In particular how cyber crooks for a low fee can pay to use hijacked computers to do whatever they want (even download music) while the computer user is unaware their computer is being used for anything. There are about 8 articles in the series there.