RIAA to examine Joel’s hard drive
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- Tanya Andersen, the Oregon mother who was among the first to force the Big Music Goliath to a standstill, tried to get Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music’s RIAA to check her hard-drive as proof she was completely innocent of allegations that she was a massive online distributor of copyrighted corporate music.
Despite repeated requests from Tanya, the RIAA flatly refused —- until suddenly, out of the blue, “it decided it did, after all, require access to her hard-drive – to all of it,” said p2pnet at the time.
However, a judge ruled Andersen could choose her own investigator who’d search only for specific files.
Now, in the contentious Sony BMG Music Entertainment v Tenenbaumn, the court has ruled RIAA lawyers can ferret through the hard drive on one of Joel Tenenbaum’s two computers, says Recording Industry vs The People.
But unlike the Andersen vs the RIAA case, the ‘forensic investigator’ who’ll be making the examination will be selected by the RIAA, even in the face of the fact it was forced to fire MediaSentry another of its ‘experts,’ which’d provided much of the ‘evidence’ used in the Big 4 sue ‘em all campaign.
Says RIvTH »»»
The Court also granted a protective order controlling the procedure for the hard drive inspection, which provided as follows:
1. Plaintiffs shall select a computer forensic expert of their choosing to produce a mirror-image of the Gateway computer’s hard-drive.
2. The Expert and any assistants assigned to the computer inspection shall execute a Confidentiality Agreement agreed to by the parties and shall sign a copy of and abide by the Protective Order in place in this action.
3. The Defendant shall make the Gateway computer available to the Plaintiffs’ Expert at his counsel’s office at a mutually agreeable time within 10 business days of the approved Protective Order. The Expert shall make a mirror-image of the Gateway computer’s hard-drive, a process which should require no more thanseveral hours. He or she may not remove the Defendant’s computer from the premises.
4. Only the Expert and his or her assistants assigned to this project are authorized to inspect, or otherwise handle the Defendant’s computer or the mirror-image generated. No employee of the Plaintiffs, or their counsel, will inspect or otherwise handle the mirror-image produced. The Expert will also maintain all information in the strictest confidence. Furthermore, the Expert will maintain a copy of the mirror images and all recovered data and documents until 60 days after the conclusion of this litigation.
5. The Expert shall examine any recoverable file-sharing data on the mirror-image, including electronic records generated by file-sharing software and “metadata” associated with music files. Recoverable data includes ‘deleted’ files that no longer appear in the operating system’s directory.
6. The Expert shall not examine any non-relevant files or data, including those belonging to the following categories: emails, word-processing documents, PDF documents, spreadsheet documents, image files, video files, or stored web-pages.
On their face, none of these types of electronic files appear to have any established relevance to Tenenbaum’s use of file-sharing software or allegedly infringing activities. As an added precaution, the Defendant shall also be permitted to designate any attorney-client communications or privileged workproduct files in a Privilege Log provided to both the Expert and the Plaintiffs’ counsel prior to inspection. These files shall be immediately deleted from the mirror-image by the Expert and, under no circumstances, may they be opened or their contents examined by the Expert.
7. Based on this inspection of the mirror-image, the Expert shall produce a report which describes the music files found on the computer and any file-sharing information associated with each one, as well as any other records of file-sharing activity. The report may also address any evidence that the hard-drive has been “wiped” or erased since the initiation of this litigation.
8. The Expert shall disclose this report only to the Defendant’s counsel, who will have five business days to lodge any objections to the report based on privilege. Any such objections shall first be communicated in writing to Plaintiffs’ counsel. If the parties cannot resolve any dispute themselves, the Plaintiffs shall file a Motion to Compel the production of the Expert’s report. If there is no dispute, or the parties reach an agreement themselves, the Defendant shall promptly disclose the Expert’s report to the Plaintiffs.
9. In resolving any Motion to Compel, the Court may require the Defendant to submit the Expert’s report for review in camera.
Before the discovery proceeds, “a Protective Order consistent with these terms must be submitted for the Court’s approval by the Plaintiffs,” says the post, adding:
“After that approval, the parties shall promptly meet and confer to determine the contents of the confidentiality agreement and an appropriate time, within ten business days, for the Expert to access the Gateway computer for mirror-imaging.”
p2pnet – p2pnet talks to Tanya Andersen, March 21, 2006
forced to fire MediaSentry – MediaSentry and RIAA: government probe?, April 5, 2009
Recording Industry vs The People – Court issues protective order governing hard drive inspection in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, May6, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
May 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
these sharks need to learn to stop with this BS, all they are doing is wrecking their already so called garbage standing with the rest of the world. Also I believe that future business courses should use the history of the RIAA’s operations as examples of “how not to run a business”
May 7th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
While I admire people fighting the good fight, this is EXACTLY what makes court so dicey. If you get some judge with his head up the RIAA’s ass and you are going to lose no matter how good your case is. The PROPER thing to do in a case like this is to have both parties agree on who examines the drive.
One more thing, five days doesn’t seem like a lot of time to examine a tech report for improprieties.
May 7th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
While I agree with both of you, I have to point out this one fact. If Joel in fact DID NOT download/upload as he claims, then he has absolutley nothing to worry about when they check that hard drive. Personaly I believe his claim of inocence, but if the examination proves otherwise, well sorry Joel but, may the force be with you, youre screwed!
May 7th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
“The report may also address any evidence that the hard-drive has been âwipedâ or erased since the initiation of this litigation”
Uh… Since I do not know when the litigation toward the plaintiff, I know that it is very hard to speculate, but IF the files were deleted, and the computer was “USED AFTER” the files were deleted( i.e. new files placed on the hard disk or the hard disk was defragmented) then it should be very hard to find anything.
Anyone who has accidentally deleted important documents, or photos, only to notice it several days later, are lucky if the can even find the file names, much less file Hash information.
The only way this would have worked, is if the cloning of the disk occurred, right after the litigation was filed. What a waste of time, and an invasion of privacy.
Just my two cents
May 8th, 2009 at 1:06 am
Just curious (and maybe this was covered some other time): was Joel using Kazaa?
Seems like Kazaa exists primarily to serve as an RIAA boobytrap (”Download billions of songs absolutely free — until we rat your asses out to the RIAA!”)
May 8th, 2009 at 7:46 am
“Seems like Kazaa exists primarily to serve as an RIAA boobytrap”
It do, don’t it? http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17331
Cheers!
May 8th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
“If Joel in fact DID NOT download/upload as he claims, then he has absolutley nothing to worry about when they check that hard drive.”
Really? And would you put “fabrication of evidence” as something beyond the scope of the RIAA’s alleged “experts?”
May 9th, 2009 at 3:22 am
NO. I absolutely would not. BUT – the fact that it is an image that they will be examining instead of the sole original, it seems that anything they find would have to be reproducable on the drive that is not in their possession as well, right? (I think that is the primary failsafe for such a likelyhood)
On the other hand, the barring of certain files which are still going to exist on the mirror image DOES raise some concern in my eyes; Even if they cannot enter such as evidence, since they are going to be examining everything privately, what is to prevent them from looking? It seems to me that the only true way to be fair would be to allow the examination under direct supervision by a neutral party or an appointee of the court who has no bearing on the outcome.
That aside, it says Andersenl had previously volunteered inspection which leads me to believe a fair amount of confidence that nothing will be found due to innocence or the fact that it has been wiped. If it proves that something was deleted, that only proves exactly that – and with all the paranoia about ID theft, I would find it unfair to use that as damning evidence of anything criminal at all.
These assholes really need to stop, but there doesn’t seem to be anything motivating them to do so. It seems like they haven’t even been putting out their usual drivel for consumption they are so busy suing everybody. I move that we find a way to make it cost more for them to attack people and maybe they will find a better use for their energy. Any ideas on what might be a deterrent? (Besides electro-shock therapy…)