Slashdot Log In
Should RIAA Investigators Have To Disclose Evidence?
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Mar 04, 2008 06:22 PM
from the special-rules-for-special-people dept.
from the special-rules-for-special-people dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Disclose Evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclose to defence at least (Score:5, Interesting)
Extortion (Score:5, Insightful)
'proprietary and confidential' (Score:5, Insightful)
Well I'm innocent and i have a video to show it but its...
I cant disclose what guns i had in my possession at the time of the murder as my guns are...
Theres no way something is too 'proprietary and confidential' to show a court of law!
No, they shouldn't (Score:5, Insightful)
Similar to Drunk Driving defense... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I remember right the judge in the case (Florida AFAIK) ruled in favor of the defendent. If the Breath-a-lizer company didn't turn over the requested documents, the defendent was off the hook. Don't know if the case has been overturned though.
Re:Similar to Drunk Driving defense... (Score:5, Interesting)
In any event, proprietary software shouldn't be when people's lives are on the line. That includes losing judgments on the order of a quarter million dollars (as happened in a recent RIAA case.)
Parent
Re:Similar to Drunk Driving defense... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Of course, how else can the evid. be valid? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this was anything except technology, the judge would laugh them out of the court.
Policeman: "He was going 11MPH above the speed limit."
Judge: "How were you able to do that?"
Policeman: "Sorry, but that's proprietary information. If leaked, it would damage our ability to catch speeders.
This has been tested on a slightly different case. Florida police can't use breathalyzers without providing the source [news.com]. Unless you can show that there is no trickery in your technology, it shouldn't be held admissible in a court of law.
Re:Of course, how else can the evid. be valid? (Score:5, Funny)
Me:
Physicist in audience: Sorry, can you explain your methods?
Me: No
[5 seconds of silence]
Entire conference hall bursts into laughter
Parent
What do you think? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What do you think? (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't have any prior examples of this specific niche technology at work. There's no baseline of acceptable "industry standard" out there - every bit of information about these products is held so closely to the chest of these businesses that we just do not know where the hell this data comes from and, more specifically, we don't know how this data is corroborated with ISPs to find these people who are supposedly committing the infringements. Plus, we have no idea of what the failure rate of this entire process has been. On top of all of that, there is no independent analysis of this method.
If the RIAA litigation team was an inventor, this whole ordeal would be nothing short of them running around screaming about how they've invented perpetual motion, and then not letting anyone independently verify that the machine works.
Parent
Re:What do you think? (Score:5, Interesting)
It turns out that between the time when the alleged sharing occured, and when I got the letter, the company had changed names 3 times (or there were a large number of dummy companies that had contracted eachother out or something, it is really hard to tell the difference in these situations). When I finally tracked down a phone number for the building that these guys were supposedly working in, I called it. A machine picked up (customized with the name of the company and everything), but no one was in and the voicemailboxes on every extension were full.
Just take a look at the Media Defender leaks. These companies are often engaged in illegal activity, from fraud to extortion. They are not an industry that you want to trust to give you accurate information. These people have nothing to gain by making their scanners have more accurate results, they just want to see more results, so of course you should be able to assess their techniques (especially their source code) to make sure everything is in order.
Parent
Just like the Breathalyzer cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember when it started getting around that people were beating DUI charges by requesting the source code of the machine? If that was reasonable, this is a slam-dunk. The basic right to confront your accuser is one of the most important of the rights we have. If the defendant doesn't have the right to attack the evidence presented against him, he is effectively denied due process.
It's your case, RIAA. Put up or shut up.
Discovery of this type happens all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not new terrain. The evidence can be examined under restrictions so the "proprietary and confidential" information doesn't make its way out of the confines of the case. Frankly, this is just standard legal maneuvering for a case like this. The test is whether the discovery methods will be considered germaine to the validity of the RIAA's case. If so, the court will likely allow discovery of these techniques.
This is standard civil procedure (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but I have been an expert witness in many legal proceedings in Federal courts. As a part of discovery, you *have* to give the other side your raw data and details of your methodology. Otherwise, the judge is almost certain to throw out your testimony, as the other side has no way of discovering the weak spots in your case. I was involved with one case where the judge sanctioned one of the opposing experts and it took us three tries to get a decent set of data and models out of them. This had a very negative effect on the credibility of the other side's expert, which pretty well torpedoed their case. (They won as a matter of law, but damages were negligible.) Mind you, the data and models are generally covered by a protective order to maintain confidentiality, but it's so common that the wording is almost boilerplate. SafeNet and the RIAA don't have a leg to stand on here, and I can't imagine why they're bothering to oppose this unless they're pulling an SCO -- in which case, the judge should slap them down HARD.
--Paul
Re:This is standard civil procedure (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (Score:5, Insightful)
How far does judicial credulousness stretch these days?
Parent
Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (Score:5, Insightful)
"We have the smoking gun on Iraq, but we can't show you until after we go to war."
"We have the evidence to prove these guys are terrorists but we can't show it to you. disregard the canadian."
"We aren't doing anything wrong. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Parent
Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope, the amount of discovery in civil cases often dwarfs that of even the largest, most complex criminal cases, and the rules are similar. You can refuse to produce documents on certain bases, including that it involves proprietary information or business secrets, but you have to convince the judge of this, which can be tough. A lot of times the parties will enter into confidentiality agreements, where only the lawyers (and possibly expert witnesses) will gain access to the produced information, not the clients. I think it would be tough to convince the judge that a confidentiality agreement wouldn't protect them.
Parent
Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (Score:5, Interesting)
We take all kinds of care to document everything about these systems and their reliability, and we have retention schedules for everything and we follow them. While in a court case we might attempt to limit the scope of discovery we ultimately would be prepared to defend our data. Otherwise a computer log isn't evidence any more than a piece of paper typed up on a typewriter 10 minutes before the trial.
Looking at the laundry list, I saw one or two items that might have been a little broad, but most of this stuff is directly limited to the scope of the issues at hand and the reliability of the evidence. If there were 25 precedents that this particular software was bulletproof the plaintiffs might get the scope of discovery narrowed down a little further (maybe just to demonstrate that the software is the software that is considered reliable), but as things currently stand I'd be surprised if the judge didn't order the plaintiff to produce the supporting evidence or have their documentation ruled inadmissible (which would pretty-much gut their case).
IANAL though...
Parent
Re:Discovery rules in Civil vs. Criminal cases? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:New Era of digital proof (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but they'd reasonably ask to see the actual footage... not the result of a face recognition system and a copy of the suspect's driver's license. And if photography were only a decade or three old, and had been known to photograph the wrong person?
I suspect that the demands are probably more than they need, and I suspect they don't expect to get all they're asking for, but I don't think it's unreasonable to demand more details than you would of a videotape.
Parent