RIAA Foiled In Hard Drive Fishing Expedition

[GhostShip]

Looks like even the judge has no trust in the RIAA's "fishing expedition" on this harddrive.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/03/oregon-district-judge-denies-recording.html

We've received a report that in Atlantic v. Andersen, where the RIAA made a motion to compel complete access to Ms Andersen's computer to make a "mirror image" of her hard drive, federal judge Donald Ashmanskas declined to allow that, and instead granted Ms. Andersen's request to appoint a neutral expert who would be given a specific list of files and an identified protocol to review her computer.

The RIAA had proposed using "specialized tools and methods" along with "licensed software" and a "special device" to accomplish their review by private forensic expert. The judge did not feel that both parties interests were adequately protected with this process.

I wonder why this order had to be made, after all its common practice in most courts to appoint a neutral third party and not either vested interest,, perhaps the RIAA are desperate and though a copy of this persons hardrive may find something else besides the disputed material they could use to force a settlement of their claims.
After all a few snippets of most peopls emails or private affairs can be quiet embarassing if made public.

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

Looks like even the judge has no trust in the RIAA's "fishing expedition" on this harddrive.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/03/oregon-district-judge-denies-recording.html

We've received a report that in Atlantic v. Andersen, where the RIAA made a motion to compel complete access to Ms Andersen's computer to make a "mirror image" of her hard drive, federal judge Donald Ashmanskas declined to allow that, and instead granted Ms. Andersen's request to appoint a neutral expert who would be given a specific list of files and an identified protocol to review her computer.

The RIAA had proposed using "specialized tools and methods" along with "licensed software" and a "special device" to accomplish their review by private forensic expert. The judge did not feel that both parties interests were adequately protected with this process.

I wonder why this order had to be made, after all its common practice in most courts to appoint a neutral third party and not either vested interest,, perhaps the RIAA are desperate and though a copy of this persons hardrive may find something else besides the disputed material they could use to force a settlement of their claims.
After all a few snippets of most peopls emails or private affairs can be quiet embarassing if made public.

I find this to be very interesting, would be nice to be updated on it in the future