Thursday, February 21, 2008

Marie Lindor files expert witness report of Prof. Johan Pouwelse, concluding Jacobson work is "borderline incompetence"

In UMG v. Lindor, for the first time in any RIAA case of which we are aware, Marie Lindor has served an expert witness report critiquing the RIAA's expert witness, Dr. Doug Jacobson.

Prof. Johan Pouwelse, the same professor who provided the expert witness declaration in Foundation v. UPC Nederland in the Netherlands, which stopped the RIAA's attempt to mount a similar litigation campaign in that country, stated in his report that:

-there are certain procedures needed to be taken in order to establish if a certain computer is being used to make copyrighted works available for download, which steps were not taken;
-the RIAA's expert witness's work lacked "in-depth analysis" and "proper scientific scrutiny";
-the reports were "factually erroneous";
-statements in Jacobson's report were contradicted by his deposition testimony;
-numerous institutions have received false claims by MediaSentry;
-MediaSentry's techniques have never been properly tested, are overly simplistic, and fail the test for accurate peer to peer file sharing measurement;
-Verizon's response to the record companies' subpoena demonstrates that the subpoena used to identify Ms. Lindor's account was flawed;
-the lack of hard drive evidence corroborating the MediaSentry claim further demonstrates the unfounded nature of Jacobson's conclusions;
-no alternative explanations were investigated;
-no checks were conducted to determine a potential rate of error;
-no standards or controls exist;
-Jacobson's methods are "self-developed" and "unpublished";
-Jacobson's methods are not peer reviewed and not accepted by the scientific community; and
-Jacobson's investigative process was "unprofessional".

The report concluded that the Jacobson reports demonstrated "borderline incompetence" and that the "allegations of copyright violations are not proven".

The materials reviewed by Prof. Pouwelse are the February 23, 2007, deposition of Prof. Doug Jacobson, and exhibits and Dr. Jacobson's December 2007 supplemental report.

February 13, 2008, Expert Witness Report of Prof. Johan Pouwelse*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:
Tweakers (Dutch)
The Inquirer
IT Avisen (Norwegian)
Round Table Group


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

To contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense, see below.

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.


Anonymous said...

Can we sic this guy on that fraudulent Carlos Linares next?

-Dodge Magnum (or just DM)

Anonymous said...

This report by Dr. Pouwelse makes evident more documentation of RIAA/recording co.s/MS/MD activities is needed:

Documents pertaining to the deployment and success/efficacy of "interdiction", dummy or polluted files. I'd assume this would consist of email communications, internal reports, and powerpoint presentations about the success of such a program. It's imperative to show that the RIAA was distributing files on Kazaa.

I know you've requested, but have yet to receive, documents and testimony by the individual person who supposedly listened to the file. Considering the MD email previously posted, this document, and the testimony in the Canada case, one has good reason to believe a file "copied" by MS could be polluted. If the natural person only listened to the first 30 seconds of the file, there's no way to know which type it is, given the intent to make the beginning of the file a perfect copy.

Given the dual position of MS, as one of distributors of 'dummy files' and one as private investigators of 'infringement', their evidence must be held to higher standards than an "eyewitness." Especially considering the vested interest in a successful lawsuit.

It's also important to note the difference in the language of Dr. Pouwelse vs Dr. Doug. Dr. Pouwelse is a scientist, who phrases his words carefully to reflect the cautious interpretation of results. However, Dr. Doug overstates facts and details, and jumps to conclusions, which is not typical of a scientist.

Anonymous said...

Whoops, hit comment before I signed it.
The post above on subpoenaing more MS involvement in interdiction and dummy files was mine.


zi said...

Jayson Street, chief information security officer for Strategem 1 Solutions, has already discredited Carlos Linares' unscientific and erroneous statements. here is the article at Ars Technica

Anonymous said...

Ouch, that has to hurt.

Nice to see Ray's meticulous planning and research starting to ripen.

Of course, you can lead a jurist to water...

Anonymous said...

Hopefully they go after him on perjury. I still love how he said that he knew 100% for a fact that Kazza was run from an external drive to hide it, but he didn't find any traces of it in the registry.

Or how he claimed MS' methods were 100% legal and reliable, but he then said he wasn't familiar with them.

Anonymous said...

Are such strong statements typical for this kind of technical response?

Anonymous said...


Can't get your link to work.

If Jayson Street has well refuted the fraudulent Carlos Linares, then his expert opinion should be filed in opposition in every circumstance where the Linares document is used.


Anonymous said...

In addition, a large internet giant like Google thinks IP addresses aren't personally identifying:

See their blog


zi said...

Q: you are right. IP addresses are not personally identifiable. Anyone who is in IT and isn't being paid by the RIAA to make factually-erroneous statement knows that humans don't have IP addresses. Network connected devices do.

Tom Mizzone's own declaration (latest subpoena response) directly contradicts Dr Jacobson's statements.

Blogger cut off the URL. Let's try that again.

Ars Technica

if this doesn't work, google "Ars Technica Jayson Street". it's the first link.

Anonymous said...


Here's an Ars Technica article where Google themselves are arguing that IP addresses aren't personal information because they don't identify users. It's another blow against the RIAA's argument that infringers can be identified by IP addresses.


Anonymous said...

Only extortion victims can be identified by IP addresses.

XK-E (who hit the Publish button instead of the Preview button on her last post.)