Saturday, March 03, 2007

Jacobson Deposition Exhibits Now Online

Just to let everyone know that the exhibits to the Jacobson deposition, including the MediaSentry text files, are now online, along with the transcript.

Commentary & discussion:

McGrew Security

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.

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...

maybe you should send those guys at /. and groklaw a "thanks guys, thats what i got from him" posting?!

raybeckerman said...

There's no maybe about it. I did submit posts at Slashdot and Groklaw the same day I got the transcript... but they haven't been published (yet). Here's what I wrote:
"The online community now has an opportunity to see the fruits of its labor. Back in December, the Slashdot ("What Questions Would You Ask an RIAA "Expert"?") and Groklaw ("Another Lawyer Would Like to Pick Your Brain, Please") communities were asked for their input on possible questions to pose to the RIAA's "expert", Dr. Doug Jacobson of Iowa State University, who was scheduled to be deposed in February in UMG v. Lindor, for the first time in any RIAA case. Ms. Lindor's lawyers were flooded with about 1400 responses. The deposition of Dr. Jacobson went forward on February 23, 2007, and the transcript is now available online (pdf). For those who would like an ASCII text version they can cut and paste, go here. Ray Beckerman, one of Ms. Lindor's attorneys, had this comment: "We are deeply grateful to the community for reviewing our request, for giving us thoughts and ideas, and for reviewing other readers' responses. Now I ask the tech community to review this all-important transcript, and bear witness to the shoddy "investigation" and 'junk science' upon which the RIAA has based its litigation war against the people. The computer scientists among you will be astounded that the RIAA has been permitted to burden our court system with cases based upon such arrant and careless nonsense.""

raybeckerman said...

Thanks, dave.

rufus and scott: this isn't about HRO or Richard Gabriel or Colorado. The RIAA will dump them just like it dumped Mitchell Silbergerg & Knupp and Shook Hardy & Bacon. There are always attack dogs available for hire.

It doesn't help to make this personal.

John Newlin said...

Good stuff Ray.

It must be frustrating getting the same canned answer over and over:

"I know that the computer associated with that address was used."

Hopefully the judge can make him answer the question...

Anonymous said...

I would like to point out a few things that might be useful. I am posting this here to avoid the signal-to-noise ratio problems that tend to arise on /.

1. The Windows registry keeps a record of MAC address of each network adapter installed in the host machine.

2. The windows registry keeps a record of the most recent DHCP assigned IP address for each DHCP configured network adapter in the host machine.

3. In a DHCP configured network, it is possible through DHCP server error conditions that more than one host may have the same IP address, even without any intentional spoofing.

4. Spoofing is possible in any network, DHCP or not.

5. In the event of IP address duplication (either intentional or accidental), the host most likely to receive packets addressed to the IP address is the one that has used it most recently.

6. A host that configures it's IP address with DHCP has no IP address at the time of the request, configuration information is returned to it's MAC address.

7. I don't know what Verizon's DHCP logs look like, but it seems reasonable that MAC address of lease requestor would be available.

8. If the MAC address is available from Verizon's logs, then it can be compared to the MAC address(es) present in the windows registry.

9. The assumption that the logged "source IP" and "Kazaa IP" being the same proves no NAT device is not well founded.
9.1 The client application could discover it's external IP address and provide that address in the payload.
9.2 The client application could allow the user to provide the Kazaa IP value used in the payload.

10. There is no requirement that private IP addresses be used behind a NAT device, it is only a recommended best practice.

These are just a few things that jumped out at me while reading the deposition. In my opinion, the expert witness was either biased in his investigation, or totally incompetent to perform such work. The testimony also suggests an utter disregard for scientific process.

EagleEye said...

DHCP Addresses are stored in Windows registry. Run program "regedit" and do search for "DhcpIPAddress" or, if it was static, look in same pane for "IPAddress" key. ;)

raybeckerman said...


do you want me to email you back your comment so you can edit it to take out the personal stuff

if so send me your email address

i'm at

raybeckerman said...

by the way, slashdot did publish my post

it's at

Anonymous said...

ja, groklaw did it too ;-)

raybeckerman said...

john, i wasn't frustrated... you've got to be kidding... i was thrilled...

dear anonymous, thanks for your detailed take on things... we'll look at it closely...

thanks,'re right... both Groklaw and Slashdot have the followup stories now....