Prof. Johan Pouwelse To Take On RIAA Expert 184
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Marie Lindor has retained an expert witness of her own to fight the RIAA, and to debunk the testimony and reports of the RIAA's 'expert' Dr. Doug Jacobson, whose reliability has been challenged by Ms. Lindor in her Brooklyn federal court case, UMG v. Lindor. Ms. Lindor's expert is none other than Prof. Johan Pouwelse, Chairman of the Parallel and Distributed Systems Group of Delft University of Technology. It was Prof. Pouwelse's scathing analysis of the RIAA's MediaSentry 'investigations' (PDF) in a case in the Netherlands that caused the courts in that country to direct the ISPs there not to turn over their subscribers' information (PDF), thus nipping in the bud the RIAA's intended litigation juggernaut in that country."
It'll be interesting to see.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'll be keeping my fingers crossed that this is actually the candle in the darkness that the article author believes to be the case (and no, to those that'll accuse me of being a thief of property and a subversive, I don't download music or videos. I just think the **AA are just playing dictator, and now facing their just come uppance).
Re:It'll be interesting to see.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Whether or not the RIAA manage to drown out the technical side of the argument in legal noise.
I think that legal 'snow' effect usually works better from the defense's standpoint (moreso in criminal trials, but still effective). It seems that if the jury can't figure out what's going on, they might not be inclined to award a judgement.
Re:Jury of peers (Score:2, Interesting)
Thirdly because her jury won't be technical no matter what someone here thinks, the jury will likely be lost in technological talk that will seem foreign to them.
That may work in her favor. People who don't regularly use computers tend to be intimidated by them, and people who do regularly use computers tend to have more than a few stories about how their unreliability and mysteriousness has lead to them losing data, accumulating spyware, and discovering websites in their Favorites and on their home page that they definitely didn't set themselves.
If the people on the jury have even touched a computer in their lives they'll probably be sympathetic to this approach. That's not to say I haven't met people who aren't -- but they're typically know-it-alls who feel everybody should be able to account for everything on their computer if they simply pay attention to what they're doing (and in the past I've demonstrated to them why they're wrong by showing, for example, how easy it is for a malicious individual to link your computer behind-the-scenes to image files on websites you'd never visit (well, for demo purposes, I'd use gnu.org) by misusing comment areas on vulnerable websites.)
I beg to disagree with a couple of your points (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Criminalize "attempting" to infringe copyright.
2. Create a new crime of life imprisonment for using pirated software.
4. Increase penalties for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention regulations.
and my favorite,
6. Require Homeland Security to alert the Recording Industry Association of America.
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719339-7.html [com.com]
The Netherlands sez: America has no privacy. (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the reasons they didn't like MediaSentry was this: At least the rest of the world has figured out what most of us Americans haven't: America's right to privacy is a rapidly disappearing illusion.
Re:Jury of peers (Score:4, Interesting)
This is complete and utter hogwash, and it seems like you're all pissy because you lost (although I don't think you said one way or the other). Perhaps you got a "bad" jury. Did you know that jury selection is two-sided? Both the prosecuting and defense attorneys take part in the process. If you had a lame jury, blame your lawyer. Speaking from experience, and having participated in jury duty not too long ago, I can assure you that even though much of the case was boring, each and every one of us made our best attempt to stay alert and remember facts for deliberation. We tried very hard to put aside personal beliefs and make a decision based on the law and the evidence heard. At the beginning of deliberations, the jury was nearly equally divided between guilty and not-guilty verdicts. After hours of deliberation and going through the facts each of use remembered, and also asking for a read back of part of the transcript, we ended up with one guilty verdict and the rest not-guilty. Ultimately, we had a hung jury because the one person who wanted a guilty verdict was unable to set aside the fact that the alleged victim was a child, and refused to budge even though the prosecution had failed to even remotely prove their case. I think he was wrong. But I can say this about him: he was very passionate about his opinion, and was trying very hard (even with the rest of us in opposition) to do what he felt was right. So, if the defense attorney is worth anything, there will be a balanced jury that will give the case a fair shake.
Re:Jury of peers (Score:3, Interesting)
This is complete and utter hogwash
No, it's complete and utter truth. Consider yourself lucky that you were on a jury with a different experience. Consider yourself lucky that the judge let you get by with a hung jury. I know of a case where a jury deliberated for over 1 month because the judge refused to allow a hung jury and after 1 month the lone holdout finally gave in. Jury duty is often about who can outlast or outstubborn (if that's even a word) the others.
Jury duty isn't about right and wrong. It's about trying to get 12 people to agree on a verdict, whatever that might be. I have unfortunately served twice on a jury and neither was a great experience, although I'm grateful they only took a few days. It's also not about "a decision based on the law" as you state, but how the jury interprets the law, which is a gigantic distinction. Judges cannot under any circumstances tell juries what the law means. They can read the applicable law statues to the jury but it's up to the jury to decide what they think it means. What a jury thinks a law means and what judges and lawyers think a law means are 2 different things.
The RIAA Against Slashdot (Score:3, Interesting)
Qualifications aren't the point! (Score:1, Interesting)
The problem here is that the RIAA's expert is testifying that, although they use secret methods to identify infringers, ones with unknown reliability, he's sure they're accurate. What, if anything, he bases this conclusion on, however, is apparently not something he wants to talk about. I mean, he examined her computer and found nothing infringing on it. His main argument that she must be the infringer is that their secret programs work perfectly, and the ISP could never misidentify someone (even though ISP identifications have frequently been wrong in other cases).
Although he was offered by the RIAA to testify as to how Media Sentry works, he apparently doesn't know much, if anything, about that. He dodged all of those questions. He's not sure how reliable his programs actually are, because they've never bothered to try and find out (never mind that being a legal requirement under Daubert). Now they're arguing that because no one has challenged his previous depositions, they must be good enough.
Forgive me for not buying that. "Yes, our secret program identifies infringers without fail! No, we won't tell the Court how it works, even though I was sent by the RIAA as a witness for that exact purpose. No, I don't know anything about the business, or whether we get paid per infringer caught. I'm sure that our secret program doesn't have any flaws, but I'm not going to tell you why! I'm an expert, you should just swallow whatever tripe I spew without questioning me!"
Honestly, I haven't seen an "expert" so feeble since SCO had one of their own executives testify. They had to backpedal, claiming he was a "fact" witness because they knew his "expert" analysis and ridiculous legal conclusions (he's not a lawyer) were so absurd they couldn't make any use of his testimony otherwise! Never mind he was originally submitted as some kind of "expert" until they had to change their story (even they can't keep their stories straight any more; I don't even think they try).
Were I ever to see this from an expert as a juror (and I assure you, I do _NOT_ try to get out of jury duty), you had better believe that I would take it as evidence of duplicity and hold it very strongly against whichever side offered me such a pathetic "expert."
It's worse than that... (Score:1, Interesting)
However, with respect to this:
> Do you know this definition?
> http://www.webster.com/dictionary/slander [webster.com]
You should've asked him the definition of libel. Slander is spoken, libel is written, and defamation covers both. Just like evidence that exculpates someone shows them to be not guilty (or not responsible, this being a civil case), with evidence that inculpates someone being the exact opposite (showing them to be guilty or responsible for some offense).
And I'm no lawyer, just some average guy with a BS in math from a "party school" who barely obtained it. Yet, strangely, I seem to know more than our friendly Ph.D from the RIAA, given that I know the basic legal terms, I have plenty of ideas about what he could've done to make his case more reliable, and I wouldn't have been afraid to say "I see no evidence of infringement" if that's what the facts of the case supported. Although, I guess you don't get to submit hundreds of unchallenged declarations on behalf of the RIAA if you do that, because I sure don't know any other witnesses who always give testimony on behalf of one party, inevitably supporting their case. Even claiming that you still think they're guilty although you can't find any evidence on their PC and didn't bother to save your Encase logs because of that.
The RIAA expert, IMHO, should be barred from testifying until and unless he can establish the reliability of his methods. But don't take my word for it. Read Dr. Pouwelse's findings on the unreliability of MediaSentry evidence [ilrweb.com] for yourself and realize that that evidence is being used in this case:
Re:Jury of peers (Score:4, Interesting)
In my work in statistics (in education), validity has to be shown every time analysis is done. It's never a once and for all thing. This is a real drag for research, but it helps to show that what you say has a degree of validity. In my field, any expert witness offering evidence-based testimony would be required to complete the task of showing validity right from the start, otherwise the results and conclusion are not worth paying attention to.
Re:Being on slashdot (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll never forget the first time I discovered it. I'd checked my sitemeter and found some referrals from "slashdot.org". I went there and found what appeared to be a "forum" or "discussion board", but one which was unlike anything I'd seen before. There was an incredible, highly intelligent, debate going on over a post on the Elektra v. Santangelo [blogspot.com] case.
People were debating over issues -- sort of like a Talmudic debate -- citing to different portions of the transcript, and to different portions of different legal documents, for support of various points. They seemed to be quite scholarly, and not unlike lawyers, but I didn't think it was a lawyer's site, so I asked my youngest son, who is a techie, if he'd ever heard of Slashdot. And of course he said "of course" and proceeded to tell me what it was. And my life hasn't been quite the same since.
One of my most memorable experiences was the "honor" of being roasted and villified by some, and defended by others, in my Slashdot interview [slashdot.org], and the ensuing comment period, over my abruptness with some of the questioners and commenters whom I considered a bit troll-like.
I am proud to be part of this robust, questioning, diverse community, and would be overlooking a valuable resource were I not to seek the input of its members.