If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(theinquirer.net)   RIAA hates independent experts. All your evidence are belong to us   (theinquirer.net) divider line 70
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

16240 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Sep 2006 at 10:41 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



70 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-09-04 05:03:30 PM  
Arellanes is not happy about turning over what could be her key evidence to the RIAA and is telling them to go forth and multiply.

I chuckled.
 
2006-09-04 05:09:33 PM  
You mean RIAA might not be allowed to make up evidence? Unpossible!

I refuse to believe that the court system will stand for that sort of injustice.
 
2006-09-04 06:43:25 PM  
The day will come forth when the Baby Jebus shall free us all from the evil that is the RIAA.


/or the Justice Department
//I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for either
 
2006-09-04 08:11:34 PM  
The court is thinking about it? How long could that kind of decision take? There shouldn't have been any hesitation in allowing it as soon as the motion was made.
 
2006-09-04 08:44:34 PM  
Well I would think that any exert asked to testify in any type of case should be of a neutral party that doesn't have any bias as to who wins. It should be obvious to the judge that he should allow a third-party expert to examine the data stored on the hard drive, if not for the obvious reasons then just because the RIAA doesn't want it to happen.
 
2006-09-04 10:44:25 PM  
For this RIAA, none of this is about copyright infringement. It is about retaining control over the market.

/that is all
//choke and die, RIAA
 
2006-09-04 10:46:39 PM  
Attn RIAA...the fight is over. You're like the Japanese soldiers found 10 years after the war is over
 
2006-09-04 10:47:47 PM  
RIAA, no less than any other party to a lawsuit, is entitled to have their own expert examine the hard drive.

However it appears all she is asking for is to have a "third party" expert look at the hard drive first. Interesting.
 
2006-09-04 10:49:21 PM  
I'm totally behind her motion. But wouldn't the RIAA's case be void if they held onto someone's hardrive? The chance for tampering is there....
 
2006-09-04 10:49:25 PM  
The RIAA can fark itself.

That is all.

/first time filter lovin'
 
2006-09-04 10:49:26 PM  
I can't believe I clicked on the link and "all your evidence are belong to us" actually appeared. teh intArnets are taking over.
 
2006-09-04 10:50:17 PM  
I love my interwebs
 
2006-09-04 10:50:17 PM  
Jebus Christ. They are thinking about it? What the hell are they thinking about?!

/Die in a fire, RIAA.
 
2006-09-04 10:50:35 PM  
Can you blame her? Who knows what the RIAA will stoop to.
 
2006-09-04 10:51:37 PM  
OUTRAGED STATEMENTS!
 
2006-09-04 10:51:51 PM  
Is the RIAA an arm of the executive branch? What the hell?
 
2006-09-04 10:54:05 PM  
Philbb

Arellanes is not happy about turning over what could be her key evidence to the RIAA and is telling them to go forth and multiply.

I chuckled.


As did I. TFA's author is evidently familiar with Woody Allen's old standup routines.
 
2006-09-04 10:57:13 PM  
I'm guessing ~300 comments just because this thread has RIAA int he headline.
 
2006-09-04 10:57:32 PM  
img361.imageshack.us
 
2006-09-04 10:58:51 PM  
In discovery in federal litigation and in most states, a party is entitled to conduct inspections of documents and things, including digital media. The RIAA is evil, but it probably has a right to take the hard drive--at least temporarily--to conduct its own inspection. That's your legal system at work. If you don't like it, write to your representatives in state & federal government.

/for great justice
 
2006-09-04 11:00:01 PM  
I particularly enjoyed the related article with additional information where it said another defendant used a secure erase program to delete files. The RIAA won a default judgement.

I realize it's not a criminal trial or anything (although the way the RIAA acts you'd wonder) but isn't there some sort of "innocent until proven guilty" in play here?
 
2006-09-04 11:02:35 PM  
Asperger Jones: As did I. TFA's author is evidently familiar with Woody Allen's old standup routines.

Or, possibly, has read Genesis. Woody had to get his material from somewhere, given that he was mostly a hack.

/drunk
 
2006-09-04 11:03:35 PM  
the court may be thinking about just who is going to pay for this extra examination. i'm guessing that if the court orders it the court pays. she does have a good point about not letting them look at her porn.
 
2006-09-04 11:07:09 PM  
Well that is a new phrase I shall be using...oh and multiply the RIAA...
 
2006-09-04 11:07:52 PM  
The "Go forth and multiply" line was worth the price of admission.

\Wrote it down, will use it often.
 
2006-09-04 11:08:17 PM  
Guy Named Ed

Standard for a civil case is preponderance of evidence, or if you do not show up to defend yourself a default judgment can be entered against you.

It is also possible that the judge allowed evidence regarding the erasure of the harddrive and the finder of fact (judge or jury) determined that it indicated guilt.
 
2006-09-04 11:08:37 PM  
Add one to the "Go die in a fire, RIAA bastiges" crowd...

/Get offa my la...er, I mean hard drive!
 
2006-09-04 11:12:39 PM  
I'd clone the drive, have an auditor agree that the clone is identical to the original, and let RIAA have one of them. This is digital media, that works fine, and should meet the needs of discovery, as well as CYA against tampering.
 
2006-09-04 11:14:16 PM  
This seems like a good thread to mention TrueCrypt just in case anyone hasn't heard of it yet.

/Hard drive encryption with very good speed and transparency
//Also includes plausible deniability considerations
///And runs in Windows/Linux/Others
 
2006-09-04 11:17:31 PM  
Any musician who still submits to the RIAA's tactics doesn't deserve to ahve their crummy music bought. It's a digital world, asshats....either adapt or prepare to be outdated.
 
2006-09-04 11:18:05 PM  
Yes canusa, that line is priceless. If I say that to my boss tomorrow He'll take it as a compliment.

/Yes, he's that thick
 
2006-09-04 11:18:39 PM  
Zagloba

Way to miss the point.

/Imagines some indignant nightclub goers back in the '60s after Allen's performance: "Can you believe he stole that line from Genesis???"
//Besides, Peter Gabriel could never come up with something so pithy.
 
2006-09-04 11:19:41 PM  
PIRACY! YAR!
 
2006-09-04 11:23:06 PM  
The RIAA has every right to request a HD examination as the HD is a critical piece of information. This is especially relevant if the defendant intends to use the HD as evidence that they were not involved in the copyright infringement. That being said the defendant has a strong interest in protecting sensitive information on the HD and ensuring that the data remain in its unaltered state. The court should appoint a neutral party to clone the HD to provide the evidence or examine the HD and provide an analysis to both sides.

Just because you hate the RIAA doesn't mean they would engage in inappropriate and illegal conduct. They have a right to evidence for discovery so the court has to come up with a way to allow for a method of distribution. Don't let your hatred cloud your judgment and an organization, however evil, is entitled to the same judicial consideration as any other party before the court.
 
2006-09-04 11:26:05 PM  
riaa you suck.
 
2006-09-04 11:30:43 PM  
If it were up to the RIAA, we'd still be buying everything on vinyl.
 
2006-09-04 11:31:58 PM  
The nice thing about disk drives is you can make a copy. Regardless of who gets the disk drive, I'm sure a copy will be made first to ensure there is no tampering. RIAA just wants access to the drive because they believe their guys are better at finding what they're looking for than the independents.
 
2006-09-04 11:33:56 PM  
I was lead to this website yesterday: albumbase.com. I don't think I'm ever going to buy a CD ever again...
 
2006-09-04 11:37:57 PM  
Daedalus27:

How does one redact parts of a hardrive? I'm assuming they're looking for items that have been deleted, but not overwritten. I'm thinking that your last suggestion is best, which is what the defendant is asking for anyway.
 
2006-09-04 11:50:37 PM  
2006-09-04 11:00:01 PM Guy Named Ed
I particularly enjoyed the related article with additional information where it said another defendant used a secure erase program to delete files. The RIAA won a default judgement.

I realize it's not a criminal trial or anything (although the way the RIAA acts you'd wonder) but isn't there some sort of "innocent until proven guilty" in play here?


Well, the presumption of innocence is a rule of evidence in criminal cases; but in civil cases, of course you are not liable until the other side proves its case. HOWEVER, if you engage in misconduct during discovery of the lawsuit, the trial judge has wide latitude to impose sanctions on you-- these can be monetary, or evidentiary, as when they allow certain presumptions against you or foreclose certain claims or defenses because you deliberately engaged in misconduct. The most extreme, nuclear option if you will, is default judgment because of willful misconduct by the defendant. The article you are referring to says this:

Recently, RIAA target Delina Tschirhart found herself in a mess of hot water when she disobeyed a judge's orders and used a secure file deletion utility to wipe potentially incriminating files off her hard drive. In this case, the RIAA obtained a mirrored copy of her hard drive, on which its forensics expert found the incriminating evidence. The result was a default judgment in the RIAA's favor.

Disobeying a court order, and tampering with evidence, fits well within the zone of misconduct that will result in judgment entered against you. It doesn't get more egregious than that.

And she is damn lucky if all that happened to her was a default judgment. She could have been held in contempt of court; and more seriously she could have been prosecuted for obstruction of justice. You don't just go around destroying evidence, even in civil cases; it is a serious felony.
 
2006-09-04 11:59:51 PM  
Daedalus27: The RIAA has every right to request a HD examination as the HD is a critical piece of information.

Back in '96 I made a crude desktop wallpaper by saving a Red Wings logo from the NHL website and tiling it.

If someone from the NHL reads this post do you believe that they now have the right to force me to surrender my hardware to be examined by their experts only?
 
2006-09-05 12:03:13 AM  
2006-09-04 11:59:51 PM KingSizeLite

if they sue you for copyright infringement and allege you used your computer to do it, they certainly do have the right to have their own expert examine your hard drive. They have no right to have their expert "only" examine it-- they have no control over what you may do. You can go hire your own expert if you choose.
 
2006-09-05 12:06:43 AM  
Dear RIAA,

Feel free to eat a bucketfull of cocks and choke

Love,
Me
 
2006-09-05 12:17:07 AM  
From TFA: THE RIAA IS fighting against a woman who wants an independent expert to examine her hard drive to prove that she was not involved in any illegal downloading.

I find it suspicious that the RIAA is fighting against independant examination. Anyone that thinks that is acceptable either works for the RIAA or has completely lost their mind.
 
2006-09-05 12:25:50 AM  
I have often entertained thoughts of leaving a file sharing program open on my machine downloading files. So I would get caught. But disable sharing with others.

I'd love to enter into evidence my collection of 3500+ compact discs as evidence that I do purchase and otherwise legally obtain my music library. And defy them to find the tracks that I do not own a factory pressed copy of, or iTunes reciept for, or any other legal means of procuring my recreational listening.

I'd probably call the ACLU and the EFF and ask if they'd like to help me with my case.

"Well, yes, your honor. I do have 50 bootleg concerts from Artist X. But, I also own all of their albums, DVDs, T-Shirts, and a fine assortment of shot glasses."

"No, sir, I do not have a copy of that one. But it is not available for sale in the US because the major labels did not deem it worthy of wasting resources on. So I downloaded the European/Japanese/Aussie edition".
 
2006-09-05 12:37:43 AM  
Thank god our Canuck Supreme Court told our equivalent of the RIAA to go DIAF. They've got no special rights, and up here, making a copy of any media for personal use is completely and utterly legal, regardless of the media in question. Distributing, not so much, so if you've got a big library you're sharing, you could potentially be sued.

Canadian law; protecting citizens' freedoms first and foremost.
 
2006-09-05 12:38:15 AM  
daedalus27
Just because you hate the RIAA doesn't mean they would engage in inappropriate and illegal conduct. They have a right to evidence for discovery so the court has to come up with a way to allow for a method of distribution. Don't let your hatred cloud your judgment and an organization, however evil, is entitled to the same judicial consideration as any other party before the court.

Oh goody, Lars Ulrich is on Fark!

Actually, the reason most people hate the RIAA is because they engage in questionable practices in obtaining your IP address in the first place.

Do they need a court order to get it like everyone else? No. They file a "John Doe" lawsuit on behalf of well-paid lawyers to take to the ISPs. If Cox or Verizon or Comcast would actually protect the privacy expected from a customer instead of cowering to these two-bit lawyers paid to "protect" a billion dollar industry SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP in WASHINGTON, we wouldn't even be discussing this.

Interesting. My neighbor has wireless internet access. So if I downloaded music, HE would be liable. Lucky me. I'm still on dial-up.

That's justice, right? When I hear my neighbor yelling and beating his kids, I'll turn off my wireless node and just use my Netzero dial-up for a few months. Or until another neighbor doesn't secure his IP address.

So does the RIAA send a nice letter and say, "Hey, we believe there is some illegal activity happening on your account"? No, they send you a bill for $1500.00 per song that THEY THINK you downloaded.

Do you think it would be "illegal" or "inappropriate" if I went to your ISP, got your name and address (scary in itself!) and put a frivilous lawsuit against you for something you may or may NOT have done?

Or better yet, if I broke into YOUR computer to see if you have an illegal copy of, say a book I wrote, to actually accuse you in the first place? Would you be cool with that?

Hatred for an organization that makes criminals out of regular people, and many cases of obviously innocent elderly and young people, is intolerable. Never mind that CD sales went UP in the heyday of "cool" Napster, not down. The RIAA deserves all the hatred they get.

And that's why I buy all my mp3s from Russian websites like mp3sugar.com and allofmp3.com

2 bucks an album, and none of the lawyers get their dinner.

And just for the record, I'm logging into MY neighbors IP address for this post so that HE gets sued, and not me.

/suck it RIAA
//and the Schills
 
2006-09-05 01:07:54 AM  
KingSizeLite, I did not suggest that the NHL would have the right to force you to turn over your HD to their experts. I did suggest they would have a right to examine the HD as a result of the discovery process which may require the use of outside experts to provide the information required in the course of litigation. If the NHL wants to come after you for copyright infringement, then thats their business but I doubt they would do so for a non-commerical use by a fan. They aren't stupid like the RIAA alienating their customers.

DoesItReallyMatter, the RIAA follows the DMCA which allows them to utilize those tactics. The law allows them to engage in those procedures legally. The RIAA supported by the major media companies pushed through favorable legislation just like any other lobbying group and now utilize the DMCA in the course of their anti-piracy tactics. If you don't like it, contact your congress critter and try and get them to stand up to the bully's at the RIAA and their stormtrooper tactics. It is not my fault the RIAA can do this, it is the RIAA that pushed through the legislation. It is Congress that passed the law allowing the RIAA to engage in their practices. It is the ISPs that unsuccessfully challenged the legislation. It is the Courts that upheld such a bad piece of legislation. Direct your anger at those individuals, not someone who points out the system the RIAA operates in.
 
2006-09-05 01:35:57 AM  
RIAARadar.com

Before buying any CD or iTunes download, go here first.
 
2006-09-05 01:51:47 AM  
Okay, Daed...

Perhaps you are right. But which one of those groups is going to stand up to a group of well paid, and... well... well paid group of lawyers?

Congress?
The high speed internet companies?
I don't think the courts interpret the Constitution as it should be anyway, so the judges who love to make new laws are worthless.

Besides, who is going to listen to the small educated group that yells "Repeal the DCMA?"

Most of the people who SHOULD be screaming are too busy buying their 99 cent downloads of Eminem and Brittney, and wouldn't know life any other way.

/cue "The Last DJ"
//then "You don't know how it feels"
///likes Tom Petty
 
Displayed 50 of 70 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report