Should RIAA Investigators Have To Disclose Evidence? 216
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "A technology battle is raging in UMG v. Lindor, a court case in Brooklyn. The issue at hand is whether the RIAA's investigator SafeNet (the company that acquired MediaSentry) now needs to disclose its digital files, validation methodology, testing procedures, failure rates, software manuals, protocols, packet logs, source code, and other materials, so that the validity of its methods can be evaluated by the defense. SafeNet and the RIAA say no, claiming that the information is 'proprietary and confidential'. Ms. Lindor says yes, if you're going to testify in federal court the other side has a right to test your evidence. A list of what is being sought (pdf) is available online. MediaSentry has produced 'none of the above'. 'Put up or shut up' says one commentator to SafeNet."
Yes. (Score:1, Informative)
For the amount they're pursuing... (Score:2, Informative)
...relative to the income and and standards of living of the people they're pursuing, I feel it would be an outrage if they didn't have to provide more.
Then again, civil cases just require a preponderance of the evidence to be in favor of one party or another. If the defense does its job in establishing doubts as to the RIAA's methodology, it would probably behoove the RIAA to disclose its methodologies in great detail to back up its claims of investigative accuracy, which would then subject them to more scrutiny and attempts to find fault. Does evidence really count for much of anything if it can't be substantiated? I think that any competent judge would, in weighing the evidence presented, be compelled to largely discount the RIAA's evidence when confronted with all the times they've been documented to have been dead-wrong, if they don't demonstrate how their evidence holds water.
Backwards! (Score:0, Informative)
Mind you, that's changed somewhat because people felt that was very wrong. But they still don't have the sweeping discovery powers that you can get in a civil case. In a civil case, you basically have to argue that it's equally available to the other side (e.g. public information anyone can look up without you having to do it for them), unduly burdensome (i.e. waste of time and money, unlikely to lead to usable evidence), or a protected communication (e.g. communication with your lawyer).
Because this is an issue in basically every civil case, it's even more complex than that. So talk to a lawyer if you want to understand something about it, because it's pretty screwball and rather expensive if you goof up.
Re:Of course, how else can the evid. be valid? (Score:4, Informative)
This argument is really just claiming that the same rigorous standards of evidence should be applied to technology as well.
Re:Similar to Drunk Driving defense... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is standard civil procedure (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What I don't get (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Extortion (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What I don't get (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=atlantic_dangler_071023DecisionDenyDefaultJudgmentMotion [ilrweb.com]
I am not sure how useful, but hopefully this ruling may be relevant.
Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (Score:5, Informative)
On the other hand, there is now precedent that you can't hide behind "proprietary methods"; I think there was the case of a manufacturer of breathalyzer equipment that ran into this problem. Of course they can refuse to open up their "proprietary methods", but then any evidence based on these proprietary methods would be invalid. In case of the breathalyzer equipment, nobody could actually force them to open up their code, but in practice every case based on their equipment would have been dropped, and the police would never again have bought their equipment.
Re:Disclose to defence at least (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No, they shouldn't (Score:3, Informative)
It seems to me that the *AA groups are confusing their own morality (and profits) with the laws of their country.. Even if it's just a linguistic liberty (equating 'sharing' or 'copying' with 'stealing'), they need to remember that the laws apply to them too, even if they're a 'legitimate business', and the people they're suing are 'criminals'.
Re:Disclose to defence at least (Score:3, Informative)
A 35mm camera, and the process of taking photos is not criminal when not in the hands of a private investigator, but in the hands of someone CONDUCTING AN INVESTIGATION for pay, under contract from a company or a law firm CAN be criminal. It's not the tool, it's the use to which the tool is put.
Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Similar to Drunk Driving defense... (Score:3, Informative)
The RIAA isn't using an "approved" device - that is a big difference, and why they are being asked to provide details of the device.