Krell
March 5th, 2008, 08:30 AM
p2pnet news | RIAA News:-
When several years ago Marie Lindor found the RIAA camped on her metaphorical doorstep, blood in its eye, she could have had no idea what was to come.
A home health aide from Brooklyn, New York, she quite literally barely knew how to even switch a computer on.
She didn’t know what the RIAA meant, either. But that changed, and quickly, because there were Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG and their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), publicly accusing her of being a massive online distributor of copyrighted music.
Nothing could have been more ridiculous. Except, perhaps, similar accusations levelled at Rae-Jay Schwartz, bound to her wheelchair by the deadly disease of the central nervous system, multiple sclerosis.
Or Larry Scantlebury, an ex-Vietnam helicopter pilot who died of a brain aneurysm before the RIAA could really get down to blackening him and his name.
Or disabled mother Tanya Andersen and her 10-year-old daughter, Kylee, both harried relentlessly from pillar to post by the RIAA.
Or Debbie Foster. Or Patti Santangelo. Or any of the other approximately 30,000 innocent people falsely and wrongly accused of the non-existent crime of file sharing.
Tens of millions of Americans share music with each other online every minute of every an hour of every day. The RIAA and the Big 4 angrily declare that shouldn’t be happening. When someone shares with someone else, it costs one or other or all of Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG sales, they claim, calling people who do this criminals and thieves.
File sharers should be paying an extortionate $1 at the least for each corporate music industry file, worth only worth a few cents, they say.
Instead, ninety nine percent of online music lovers are completely ignoring the likes of iTunes and other corporate download pages supplied by the Big 4, instead getting their fixes from the independent sites or services, or simply downloading their music for free from the P2P networks.
And Lindor is one of the people who’s facilitating —- helping to make this happen, says the RIAA, using spurious MediaSentry evidence as ‘evidence’.
‘Railroad innocent men, women, children’
Central to the RIAA’s case against many of the RIAA victims, including Lindor, who’s now 57, is MediaSentry, a so-called ‘expert’ investigative company used by the Big 4 and their RIAA to dredge up supposed evidence against alleged file sharers.
The Massachusetts state police recently banned MediaSentry, and its evidence has been called into question repeatedly, and yet the RIAA is still touting it and using its dubious, to be charitable, conclusions to help railroad innocent men, women, children and students across America.
Now Lindor’s lawyer, Ray Beckerman, is trying to force the company to produced .txt printouts he needs as part of the material which will finally, and indisputably, show MediaSentry up, owned by SafeNet, for what it is.
“MediaSentry must 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 other side,” says Beckerman on his Slashdot Journal.
But SafeNet, MediaSentry and the RIAA say No —- the information is “proprietary” and “confidential”.
Because the very last thing they want is for the MediaSentry material to be held up for expert and critical examination in the full light of day.
Here’s what Beckerman is demanding on Recording Industry vs The People >>>
All documents containing, evidencing or otherwise concerning (a) methods and procedures to be used and protocols to be followed for investigating, detecting and monitoring the activity alleged in the complaint, including, but not limited to validation methodology, testing procedures, failure rates and work flow methods, (b) procedures, if any, followed by MediaSentry, during its investigation of the activity alleged in the complaint, for mitigating the misidentification of IP addresses caused by IP address spoofing, (c) procedures followed by MediaSentry, during its investigation of the activity alleged in the complaint, for mitigating the effect and consequences of virus and malware infections, and/or (d) procedures followed by MediaSentry, during its investigation of the activity alleged in the complaint, for ensuring the validity and integrity of information returned by superpeers.
All documents evidencing, reflecting, explaining, referring to or otherwise concerning the setting, synchronization, and maintenance of clock time on the computers and servers that MediaSentry used in the investigation and detection of the activity alleged in the complaint.
All documents evidencing, reflecting, or otherwise concerning the amount of time that MediaSentry and its employees and agents were engaged in investigating, detecting and reporting the activity alleged in the complaint.
Complete digital copies of all packet logs of traffic sent to and from the measurement infrastructure and the P2P network in connection with the investigation and detection of the activity alleged in the complaint, including all packet logs of traffic sent to and from the Kazaa bootstrap superpeer and Kazaa session superpeer.
All documents sufficient to identify the software(s), hardware systems and other tools and devices that were used to detect and monitor the activity alleged in the complaint.
Digital copy of the source code of the software(s) used to detect and monitor the activity alleged in the complaint.
Manuals for the software(s) used to detect and monitor the activity alleged in the complaint.
Digital copies of all electronic files, including metadata, downloaded or accessed by MediaSentry relating to The Account.
Digital copies of the Kazaa or other peer to peer software program installed on the computers or servers that MediaSentry used in connection with its investigating, detecting and monitoring the activity alleged in the complaint.
(A) All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit A. (B) All documents identifying, evidencing or otherwise concerning (i) the natural person or persons, if any, who generated, or caused to be generated, Exhibit A hereto, and/or (ii) the hardware used to generate, or cause to be generated, said exhibit. (C) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit A was printed. (D) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file.
(A) All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit B. (B) All documents identifying, evidencing or otherwise concerning (i) the natural person or persons, if any, who generated, or caused to be generated, the document annexed hereto as Exhibit B, and/or (ii) the hardware used to generate, or cause to be generated, said exhibit. (C) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit B was printed. (D) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file. (E) A printout of the .txt file from which Exhibit B was printed, which sets forth all of the data in said file, including text that was cut off on the right margin of Exhibit B. (F) All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning (i) ‘Rule Name: Hubcap’ as referred to on the second line of page 1 of Exhibit B, (ii) “agent ID 194″ as referred to on the fourth line of page 1 of Exhibit B, and/or (iii) ‘Scanner Name: DAYSC17″ as referred to on the fourth line of page 1 of Exhibit B. (G) Digital copies of the eleven (11) files allegedly downloaded on 8/7/2004 from 6:41:26 AM to 7:08:33 AM, as set forth in Exhibit B. (H) Digital copies of the eleven (11) files for which downloads were logged on 8/7/2004 from 7:09:40 AM to 7:09:43 AM, as set forth in Exhibit B.
All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning (A) the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit C, (B) the algorithm and procedures used to generate the data in Exhibit C, (C) the natural person or persons who generated, or caused to be generated, Exhibit C and the digital version of same.
(A) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit C was printed. (B) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file. (C) All documents defining or containing the definition of the term ‘Distinct Matches’ as used in Exhibit C. (D) All documents reflecting, evidencing or otherwise concerning how the .txt file in Exhibit C came to be named ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog-6190165.txt’. (E) All documents identifying, evidencing or otherwise concerning the person or persons who named the .txt file, from which the document annexed hereto as Exhibit C was printed, ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog-6190165.txt’. (F) All documents reflecting, evidencing or otherwise concerning how the IP address 141.155.57.198 came to be included in the .txt file from which Exhibit C was printed.
Digital copies of the file(s) from which the document annexed hereto as Exhibit D was printed.
All other screenshots, user activity logs, and reports ever generated by MediaSentry in connection with The Account.
All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning (A) the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit E, (B) the algorithm and procedures used to generate the data in Exhibit E, and (C) the natural person or persons who generated exhibit E, or caused it to be generated.
(A) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit E was printed. (B) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file. (C) All documents defining or containing the definition of the term ‘Distinct Matches’ as used in Exhibit E. (D) All documents reflecting, evidencing or otherwise concerning (i) how the .txt file, from which Exhibit E was printed, came to be named ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog(Compressed)-6190165.txt’, (ii) the natural person or persons who named the .txt file, from which Exhibit E was printed, ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog(Compressed)-6190165.txt’, (iii) how the IP address 141.155.57.198 came to be included in the .txt file from which Exhibit E was printed. (E) All documents identifying, evidencing, referring to, or otherwise concerning the natural person at MediaSentry who on August 7, 2004 at 6:15 a.m. ‘detected an individual who was engaged in the distribution of Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings using the screen name jrlindor@kazaa and Internet Protocol (”IP”) address 141.155.57.198,’as alleged on page 5 of Exhibit F. In the event no such documents are produced indicate whether it is because the documents are unavailable, or whether it is because there was no ‘detection of an individual’.
All documents identifying, evidencing, referring to, or otherwise concerning the date, time and location that downloaded files with respect to The Account were listened to.
All documents relating to any attempts by MediaSentry, or any other person or entity, to verify the accuracy of Verizon’s subpoena response, and all documents relating to the accuracy and/or synchronization of server clocks and logging instruments at Verizon, and the actual DHCP logs for that day.
All documents relating to any attempts by MediaSentry, or any other person or entity, to verify that any person was using an ‘online media distribution system’ through defendant’s internet access account after August 7, 2004.
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15131
.
When several years ago Marie Lindor found the RIAA camped on her metaphorical doorstep, blood in its eye, she could have had no idea what was to come.
A home health aide from Brooklyn, New York, she quite literally barely knew how to even switch a computer on.
She didn’t know what the RIAA meant, either. But that changed, and quickly, because there were Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG and their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), publicly accusing her of being a massive online distributor of copyrighted music.
Nothing could have been more ridiculous. Except, perhaps, similar accusations levelled at Rae-Jay Schwartz, bound to her wheelchair by the deadly disease of the central nervous system, multiple sclerosis.
Or Larry Scantlebury, an ex-Vietnam helicopter pilot who died of a brain aneurysm before the RIAA could really get down to blackening him and his name.
Or disabled mother Tanya Andersen and her 10-year-old daughter, Kylee, both harried relentlessly from pillar to post by the RIAA.
Or Debbie Foster. Or Patti Santangelo. Or any of the other approximately 30,000 innocent people falsely and wrongly accused of the non-existent crime of file sharing.
Tens of millions of Americans share music with each other online every minute of every an hour of every day. The RIAA and the Big 4 angrily declare that shouldn’t be happening. When someone shares with someone else, it costs one or other or all of Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG sales, they claim, calling people who do this criminals and thieves.
File sharers should be paying an extortionate $1 at the least for each corporate music industry file, worth only worth a few cents, they say.
Instead, ninety nine percent of online music lovers are completely ignoring the likes of iTunes and other corporate download pages supplied by the Big 4, instead getting their fixes from the independent sites or services, or simply downloading their music for free from the P2P networks.
And Lindor is one of the people who’s facilitating —- helping to make this happen, says the RIAA, using spurious MediaSentry evidence as ‘evidence’.
‘Railroad innocent men, women, children’
Central to the RIAA’s case against many of the RIAA victims, including Lindor, who’s now 57, is MediaSentry, a so-called ‘expert’ investigative company used by the Big 4 and their RIAA to dredge up supposed evidence against alleged file sharers.
The Massachusetts state police recently banned MediaSentry, and its evidence has been called into question repeatedly, and yet the RIAA is still touting it and using its dubious, to be charitable, conclusions to help railroad innocent men, women, children and students across America.
Now Lindor’s lawyer, Ray Beckerman, is trying to force the company to produced .txt printouts he needs as part of the material which will finally, and indisputably, show MediaSentry up, owned by SafeNet, for what it is.
“MediaSentry must 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 other side,” says Beckerman on his Slashdot Journal.
But SafeNet, MediaSentry and the RIAA say No —- the information is “proprietary” and “confidential”.
Because the very last thing they want is for the MediaSentry material to be held up for expert and critical examination in the full light of day.
Here’s what Beckerman is demanding on Recording Industry vs The People >>>
All documents containing, evidencing or otherwise concerning (a) methods and procedures to be used and protocols to be followed for investigating, detecting and monitoring the activity alleged in the complaint, including, but not limited to validation methodology, testing procedures, failure rates and work flow methods, (b) procedures, if any, followed by MediaSentry, during its investigation of the activity alleged in the complaint, for mitigating the misidentification of IP addresses caused by IP address spoofing, (c) procedures followed by MediaSentry, during its investigation of the activity alleged in the complaint, for mitigating the effect and consequences of virus and malware infections, and/or (d) procedures followed by MediaSentry, during its investigation of the activity alleged in the complaint, for ensuring the validity and integrity of information returned by superpeers.
All documents evidencing, reflecting, explaining, referring to or otherwise concerning the setting, synchronization, and maintenance of clock time on the computers and servers that MediaSentry used in the investigation and detection of the activity alleged in the complaint.
All documents evidencing, reflecting, or otherwise concerning the amount of time that MediaSentry and its employees and agents were engaged in investigating, detecting and reporting the activity alleged in the complaint.
Complete digital copies of all packet logs of traffic sent to and from the measurement infrastructure and the P2P network in connection with the investigation and detection of the activity alleged in the complaint, including all packet logs of traffic sent to and from the Kazaa bootstrap superpeer and Kazaa session superpeer.
All documents sufficient to identify the software(s), hardware systems and other tools and devices that were used to detect and monitor the activity alleged in the complaint.
Digital copy of the source code of the software(s) used to detect and monitor the activity alleged in the complaint.
Manuals for the software(s) used to detect and monitor the activity alleged in the complaint.
Digital copies of all electronic files, including metadata, downloaded or accessed by MediaSentry relating to The Account.
Digital copies of the Kazaa or other peer to peer software program installed on the computers or servers that MediaSentry used in connection with its investigating, detecting and monitoring the activity alleged in the complaint.
(A) All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit A. (B) All documents identifying, evidencing or otherwise concerning (i) the natural person or persons, if any, who generated, or caused to be generated, Exhibit A hereto, and/or (ii) the hardware used to generate, or cause to be generated, said exhibit. (C) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit A was printed. (D) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file.
(A) All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit B. (B) All documents identifying, evidencing or otherwise concerning (i) the natural person or persons, if any, who generated, or caused to be generated, the document annexed hereto as Exhibit B, and/or (ii) the hardware used to generate, or cause to be generated, said exhibit. (C) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit B was printed. (D) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file. (E) A printout of the .txt file from which Exhibit B was printed, which sets forth all of the data in said file, including text that was cut off on the right margin of Exhibit B. (F) All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning (i) ‘Rule Name: Hubcap’ as referred to on the second line of page 1 of Exhibit B, (ii) “agent ID 194″ as referred to on the fourth line of page 1 of Exhibit B, and/or (iii) ‘Scanner Name: DAYSC17″ as referred to on the fourth line of page 1 of Exhibit B. (G) Digital copies of the eleven (11) files allegedly downloaded on 8/7/2004 from 6:41:26 AM to 7:08:33 AM, as set forth in Exhibit B. (H) Digital copies of the eleven (11) files for which downloads were logged on 8/7/2004 from 7:09:40 AM to 7:09:43 AM, as set forth in Exhibit B.
All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning (A) the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit C, (B) the algorithm and procedures used to generate the data in Exhibit C, (C) the natural person or persons who generated, or caused to be generated, Exhibit C and the digital version of same.
(A) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit C was printed. (B) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file. (C) All documents defining or containing the definition of the term ‘Distinct Matches’ as used in Exhibit C. (D) All documents reflecting, evidencing or otherwise concerning how the .txt file in Exhibit C came to be named ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog-6190165.txt’. (E) All documents identifying, evidencing or otherwise concerning the person or persons who named the .txt file, from which the document annexed hereto as Exhibit C was printed, ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog-6190165.txt’. (F) All documents reflecting, evidencing or otherwise concerning how the IP address 141.155.57.198 came to be included in the .txt file from which Exhibit C was printed.
Digital copies of the file(s) from which the document annexed hereto as Exhibit D was printed.
All other screenshots, user activity logs, and reports ever generated by MediaSentry in connection with The Account.
All documents identifying, evidencing, reflecting or otherwise concerning (A) the software that was used to generate the data in Exhibit E, (B) the algorithm and procedures used to generate the data in Exhibit E, and (C) the natural person or persons who generated exhibit E, or caused it to be generated.
(A) Digital copy of the .txt file from which Exhibit E was printed. (B) Digital copies of all files whose data was used in the creation of, or incorporated into, said .txt file. (C) All documents defining or containing the definition of the term ‘Distinct Matches’ as used in Exhibit E. (D) All documents reflecting, evidencing or otherwise concerning (i) how the .txt file, from which Exhibit E was printed, came to be named ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog(Compressed)-6190165.txt’, (ii) the natural person or persons who named the .txt file, from which Exhibit E was printed, ‘Lindor Marie-UserLog(Compressed)-6190165.txt’, (iii) how the IP address 141.155.57.198 came to be included in the .txt file from which Exhibit E was printed. (E) All documents identifying, evidencing, referring to, or otherwise concerning the natural person at MediaSentry who on August 7, 2004 at 6:15 a.m. ‘detected an individual who was engaged in the distribution of Plaintiff’s copyrighted sound recordings using the screen name jrlindor@kazaa and Internet Protocol (”IP”) address 141.155.57.198,’as alleged on page 5 of Exhibit F. In the event no such documents are produced indicate whether it is because the documents are unavailable, or whether it is because there was no ‘detection of an individual’.
All documents identifying, evidencing, referring to, or otherwise concerning the date, time and location that downloaded files with respect to The Account were listened to.
All documents relating to any attempts by MediaSentry, or any other person or entity, to verify the accuracy of Verizon’s subpoena response, and all documents relating to the accuracy and/or synchronization of server clocks and logging instruments at Verizon, and the actual DHCP logs for that day.
All documents relating to any attempts by MediaSentry, or any other person or entity, to verify that any person was using an ‘online media distribution system’ through defendant’s internet access account after August 7, 2004.
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/15131
.