|
1st RIAA Jury Trial Begins Tuesday in Minnesota |
|
Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 06:50 PM EDT
|
Do you remember when Ray Beckerman asked to pick your brain about an upcoming deposition? Well, he tells me that a case (with the same expert who was deposed) is about to go to trial now, and he thought you'd like to know about it. If there are any folks in or near Duluth, Minnesota, who would like to attend the trial, it is set for Tuesday at 9 AM. I'll let Ray tell you about the details, but if anyone does go, please send us a report. This is history in the making, in that this is the very first RIAA jury trial to actually go to trial in all the years since the RIAA began to sue people four or so years ago. I gather they tried to get out of this one too, but now it's set and it will happen.
****************************
First RIAA Jury Trial to Begin Tuesday, October 2nd, in Duluth, Minnesota
~ by Ray Beckerman
One thing that has never happened during the RIAA's four and a half year litigation campaign
against consumers is a trial. In the past, when pressed to go to trial, the RIAA has dropped the
case. See, e.g., Elektra v. Santangelo, Atlantic v. Andersen, and Capitol v. Foster.
Now, after losing its eleventh hour motion for summary adjudication, the RIAA is now
scheduled to go forward with its very first jury trial on Tuesday, October, 2nd, in, of all places, Duluth, Minnesota.
The case does not appear to be one of the stronger cases the RIAA could have brought, since there is no indication of the defendant having committed a copyright infringement.
The plaintiff's witness list, submitted last week, includes such luminaries as the RIAA's president Cary Sherman and
the RIAA's "expert witness" Dr. Doug Jacobson, the Iowa State educator in whose deposition the Groklaw community
participated actively, both in formulating questions and in vetting the finished transcript.
The proceedings are of course open to the public. Details are as follows:
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
9:00 A.M.
US District Court, District of Minnesota
Duluth Division
Courtroom of Hon. Michael Davis
417 Federal Building
515 W. 1st Street
Duluth, Minnesota
Directions to the courthouse may be found here.
|
|
Authored by: russellphoto on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 06:52 PM EDT |
Please make links clickable
Russellphoto[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Excel bug explanation - Authored by: PolR on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 07:34 PM EDT
- Excel bug explanation - Authored by: gvc on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- No explanation at all - Authored by: cmc on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:23 PM EDT
- Similar bug 25 years ago - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 12:50 AM EDT
- Different Excel bug explanation - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 02:11 AM EDT
- Pathetic Excel bug explanation - Authored by: sciamiko on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 04:33 AM EDT
- Will they now revise the OOXML spec? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 05:41 AM EDT
- Excel bug explanation - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 07:27 AM EDT
- True Explanation of Bug. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 07:48 AM EDT
- Funny OOXML stuff from inquirer. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 07:54 AM EDT
- One word explanation - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 03:31 PM EDT
- Google and Doubleclick. - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 08:01 PM EDT
- The psychological side - Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 08:02 PM EDT
- Review of Ubuntu 7.10 (gutsy) new features and changes - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 08:03 PM EDT
- Dan Lyons admits mistake! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 08:42 PM EDT
- Who's he? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:11 PM EDT
- HP notebooks - no restore discs anymore? - Authored by: cmc on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 11:06 PM EDT
- HP notebooks - no restore discs anymore? - Authored by: MrCharon on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 11:20 PM EDT
- Clone the drive before you boot - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 11:20 PM EDT
- Dirty little secret: You CAN buy the restore disks from HP - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 11:23 PM EDT
- HP notebooks - no restore discs anymore? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 12:17 AM EDT
- HP notebooks - no restore discs anymore? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 12:45 AM EDT
- HP notebooks - no restore discs anymore? - Authored by: bakkerM on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 03:00 AM EDT
- HP notebooks - no restore discs anymore? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 03:48 AM EDT
- HP notebooks - no restore discs anymore? - Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 07:00 AM EDT
- HP notebooks - no restore discs anymore? - Authored by: jlp on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- HP notebooks - no restore discs anymore? - Authored by: JamesK on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 02:53 PM EDT
- HP notebooks - no restore discs anymore? - Authored by: Alan(UK) on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 02:59 PM EDT
- Making Linux Drivers Free To Companies - Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 11:31 PM EDT
- I would love to attend the trial but... - Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 12:03 AM EDT
- IBM becomes part of BIG brother in Chicago - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 01:31 AM EDT
- Part of US patriot act ruled LOL unconstitutional - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 01:34 AM EDT
- do you know where this leads - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 01:36 AM EDT
- Jack Thompson teaches exhibit filing 101 - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 02:05 AM EDT
- So sorry, but the wrong 'battle' - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 03:28 AM EDT
- [OT] Userfriendly hits the mark again! - Authored by: Piscador on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 04:30 AM EDT
- OT Here - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 10:09 AM EDT
- BSA statistics grate on my nerves -- PCMag quotes them - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 01:05 PM EDT
|
Authored by: russellphoto on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 06:54 PM EDT |
And don't you just wish you could correct the RIAA by slapping them now and
again?
But, play nice and correct any and all items in teh article as necesary and when
spiled wrang.
Russellphoto
:-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Corrections here - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2007 @ 04:00 PM EDT
|
Authored by: rc on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 06:58 PM EDT |
Yah, here please. And please reference the pick with a url, or at LEAST the
correct title!
Thnaks!
--- rc [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Holocene Epoch on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 06:59 PM EDT |
My question is, would a loss by RIAA have any effect on the prior settlements?
Or, once you have settled or paid up, its done, nothing you can go back and do
anything about. Fini.
- wb -[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 1st RIAA Jury Trial Begins Tuesday in Minnesota - Authored by: webster on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 07:09 PM EDT
- Possibly some recourse (PJ -- Please comment?) - Authored by: MDT on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 07:37 PM EDT
- Possibly some recourse (PJ -- Please comment?) - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- Possibly some recourse (PJ -- Please comment?) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 07:53 PM EDT
- Respectfully disagree - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:14 PM EDT
- Possibly some recourse (PJ -- Please comment?) - Authored by: tknarr on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:32 PM EDT
- Possibly some recourse (PJ -- Please comment?) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:55 PM EDT
- shame on all y'all - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 03:29 AM EDT
- Possibly some recourse (PJ -- Please comment?) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- Possibly some recourse (PJ -- Please comment?) - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 11:53 AM EDT
- Possibly some recourse (PJ -- Please comment?) - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 30 2007 @ 11:01 AM EDT
- A contract, made thru intimidation, is not a valid (read: Legal) contract n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2007 @ 02:33 PM EDT
- Prior settlements - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 08:35 PM EDT
- but your honor i was coerced and "TERRORISED" into settling - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 01:44 AM EDT
- Extortion is not a valid way to collect - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 08:30 AM EDT
|
Authored by: The Mad Hatter r on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 07:47 PM EDT |
Thanks for the update, I wish I could be there but I'll be in Ann Arbour that
day.
Still I'm looking forward to seeing the report.
---
Wayne
http://sourceforge.net/projects/twgs-toolkit/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: foulis on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 08:14 PM EDT |
I live 6 hours and a border crossing away. Would be very interesting to go and
watch the RIAA two-step in court. I will have to ask the boss to see if I can
get a few days off. If I can get the days off, I'll send PJ an email looking for
instructions on note taking.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 08:34 PM EDT |
I recall when the questions were put to Groklaw readers. From what I remember
the RIAA has a strong circumstantial case against the defendant. Obviously they
cannot prove that the defendant was the one on-line at the time, but they can
prove that somebody was, and that there is a strong chance that it was indeed
the defendant. In a civil case, all it takes is "a preponderance of the
evidence" and a majority of the jury.
Good luck.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Rob M on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
How the heck did they find an impartial jury after all the baloney the RIAA has
pulled
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Jury? - Authored by: Ray Beckerman on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:25 PM EDT
- Jury? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:52 PM EDT
- Shouldn't matter - Authored by: cmc on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 11:33 PM EDT
- Jury? - Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 11:45 PM EDT
- Jury? - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 11:49 PM EDT
- Jury? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 02:43 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Ray Beckerman on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:23 PM EDT |
1. It's not the same case as the one in which the deposition was taken.
That
was UMG v. Lindor. But it's the
same all-purpose
"expert". And it's the same fake
"investigation".
2. It would be cool if
people can be there and report back. --- Best regards,
Ray
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ray Beckerman on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:45 PM EDT |
There's no guarantee it will happen. I'm guessing the RIAA will chicken out.
---
Best regards,
Ray
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- What ? - Authored by: Erwan on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 01:43 AM EDT
- No guarantees - Authored by: Wol on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 02:17 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 10:49 PM EDT |
I had two words come to mind: Jury Nullification. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DodgeRules on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 11:39 PM EDT |
RIAA files for bankruptcy the day before the trial is to begin. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Answer: - Authored by: Rann on Thursday, September 27 2007 @ 11:56 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 12:47 AM EDT |
Some people may remember an earlier math bug mentioned here (search for "divide").
Typing "PRINT 0.1/10" an an early IBM PC yielded 0.001, which was wrong by a
factor of 10. The error was in Microsoft code, and as with this bug it was not
really an error in the math, but in printing the resultant value.
This was a
hardware problem, since the IBM PC BASIC was in ROM. BASIC in ROM was an
exclusive which IBM had; no other PC manufacturer could offer Microsoft BASIC in
ROM. But after the "PRINT 0.1/10" bug ROM BASIC didn't seem like much of an
advantage. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oops - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 12:52 AM EDT
|
Authored by: moz1959 on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 02:08 AM EDT |
The RIAA could always file for chapter 11 couldn't they?
After all, they would seem to be morally bankrupt already, so probably nobody
would dispute the claim.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 02:48 AM EDT |
Consider the RIAA.
Before the internet, before the advent of digital
media, the only way for a recording artist to make a successful and profitable
career would be to sign a deal with a large record label and then watch a large
portion of the revenue generated by their work go to line the pockets of the
company executives. Pressing vinyl was expensive. Getting airplay on radio
stations was difficult. The environment created the monopoly position for the
record companies.
The problem is, the RIAA would like you to believe
that this previous business model - a model that required the presence of a
"record label" - is still not just a valid argument in the 21st century,
but the only one. Simply: it isn't.
With modern PCs and software
like QBase it is possible for any halfway competent artists to record, mix and
edit their own material. With a domestic PC they can put out that content as MP3
or CD, as they wish. The only thing that a record company provides above that is
widespread marketing and advertising, funded from their profits. Not
distribution, not anything.
By all means let the RIAA and others bleat
on about their precious copyrights. It's misdirection and noise. And last time I
checked copyrights belonged to the original author unless sold.
Just as
Richard Stallman's work with the Free Software Foundation showed the world that
it was possible to write and distribute free software that was better than
commercial equivalent products, so it is inevitable that we will see a music
industry equivalent, a paradigm shift in which the music world wakes up to the
realisation that the record companies have become a leach, a drain, sucking the
life out of creative artists.
Think about it. What's to stop an
artist or band from recording 10 tracks in a studio, then offering them directly
to iTunes for a cut of the profits? Nothing.
The RIAA would like you to
believe that their tax on recording artists is mandated by Heaven.
It
isn't.
The music industry as we knew it in the 20th century is
dead.
They just don't know it yet.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Guil Rarey on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 09:54 AM EDT |
Something caught my eye when I read the order about why the order was issued.
Three years ago, this wouldn't have impressed me. Today, the first thing I did
was check to find out that Mr. Reynolds was admitted pro hac vice and
realized that out-of-town counsel just point-blank lied to a judge.
My
experience as a son of a lawyer is that representing your client's
position in such a way that it amounts to bald-face lying or fraud is regarded
as "zealous advocacy" or at any rate as matters of fact for the trial process to
sort out. The social cost and consequence of such outrages probably gets
insufficient consideration, but that's another matter.
However, lying about
inter-lawyer procedural matters, mis-representing the conduct of lawyers - that
sort of stuff - will get everyone - judges, other lawyers - everyone - riled up
at you in a hurry.
So thanks to PJ for teaching me to speak enough Judge to
understand just how much trouble Mr. Reynolds is in. See for yourself....
At the Hearing, the Plaintiffs argued that they were prepared
to submit a Declaration of Timothy M. Reynolds (“Reynolds”), who is counsel for
the Plaintiffs, to the effect that he had received authorization, from the
Defendant’s counsel, to electronically sign the proposed Stipulation. On inquiry
by the Court, however, defense counsel categorically denied that assertion, and
advised the Court that he had never authorized the Plaintiffs to sign his name
to any of the draft Stipulations. The Defendant’s counsel is an officer of this
Court, has frequently appeared before this Court with distinction, and we are
presented with no reason to doubt his direct representation that he never
authorized the Plaintiffs’ counsel to sign any proposed Stipulation on his
behalf. On this limited Record, we find no reason to credit the position of one
party over the other. Had the Plaintiffs submitted a signed document, or
competent evidence that an agreement had been reached, we might be presented
with a different issue, but we are not at liberty to find an agreement, where
the Record fails to support one. --- If the only way you can
value something is with money, you have no idea what it's worth. If you try to
make money by making money, you won't. You might con so [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 11:04 AM EDT |
Hey all,
I live in Duluth and will be attending the trial. I'll be sure to post and let
you know how it goes... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 12:38 PM EDT |
I have used Encase extensively over several years, it's my day job.
Some things struck me:
- He kept referring to examining the hard disk. It sounds like he was previewing
the drive rather than imaging the drive and examining the image.
- Was the disk imaged at the time of the investigation and if so has the defence
got a copy of the images? If I was the defence I would want a competent forensic
examiner to look at that drive image.
- I would also want to know how it could be proved I was looking at the correct
drive.
- Some of the data that he asserts is not stored on the disk is in fact saved in
the registry - there are a lot of artifacts in the registry.
- I wouldn't characterize what was done as a forensic investigation, 45 minutes
isn't even long enough to run a decent keyword search in Encase if the disk is
any size.
This was a sloppy piece of work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 28 2007 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
Anyone think that the MediaDefender email leak might come into play in this
trial (assuming they don't chicken out)?
From the leaked emails, MD was definitely hired by RIAA labels, and they
cooperated with MediaSentry on at least one occasion (so as not to interdict
each others' torrents).
Whether or not they actually provide evidence that someone was a downloader is
less clear. The MiiVi site seems to have had both child pornography and
copyright infringement in mind, but the details are less than clear. They
talked about gathering lots of statistics for business intelligence, but the
purpose was not always clear (although much of the time, it was to see how
popular some album was).
There were a couple of indications that they might have or might have been
considering gathering evidence for prosecution, but most of that was connected
to the derailed MiiVi site and there's no clear evidence showing that they
provided any of the logs the RIAA uses.
The leaked source code might be more clear, but I haven't seen any public
analysis yet and I haven't downloaded any of the torrents, personally.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ray Beckerman on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
News?
---
Best regards,
Ray
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- News? - Authored by: ewilts on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 10:48 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Ray Beckerman on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
6-woman, 6-man jury selected; opening statements scheduled for 11 am.
---
Best regards,
Ray
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 02 2007 @ 05:04 PM EDT |
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/ (registration required) seems to have fairly
reasonable coverage of the trial.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2007 @ 03:08 AM EDT |
According to NYTimes RIAA won the case.
Sad. Just sad.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|