Judges Flawed Conclusion

[GhostShip]

It would seem some people overstep the limits of their knowledge, judges are no exception.

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2005/10/puzzle-for-techies-did-metadata-and.html

In an RIAA case a federal judge said that a screen shot of defendant John Doe Number 7's Kazaa shared files folder was enough to show copyright infringement because

"[RIAA] obtained "metadata" about the files that Doe No. 7 was disseminating, which often reveal who originally copied a particular sound recording from a CD to a computer disk (a process called "ripping") and provide a type of digital fingerprint, called a "hash," that can show whether two users obtained a file from the same source.... Using the metadata associated with the music filed that Doe No. 7 was offering for distribution on Kazaa, plaintiffs have determined that many sound recordings were ripped by different people using different brands of ripping software. Such information creates a strong inference that Doe No. 7 was not simply copying his or her own lawfully purchased CDs onto a computer, but had downloaded those files from other P2P users."
Was the judge right or wrong?

Well the question if based on facts is that he was wrong not to accept technicaly competent testimony and wrong to draw his flawed conclusion, just goes to show that even with the best will in the world justice is blind.

Just so all of you understand what is being said in this article the judge has the idea that if you and I both have a copy of a file with the same hash we must have swapped it rather than ripped it ourselves with the same program and disk..  :roll:

[KM]

also if 2 files have different hashes then it isn't possible that perhaps they have different content, they must have been ripped by different people... the hash isn't based on the file contents at all but just who ripped it... what an idiot, lol