Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Gone, But Not Forgotten: Evidence from the Archived Internet
The maxim that “what goes on the Internet, stays on the Internet” is not necessarily accurate. Online content from 20 years ago — even two days ago — may not be available in the same form today. Organizations such as the Internet Archive collect and preserve prior versions of Web pages that have since been edited or removed from the Internet entirely. This information is accessible to the public through a tool known as the Wayback Machine, which houses an ever-expanding “digital library” of over 400 billion archived Web pages, dating back to 1996.
As useful as evidence from the archived Internet can be in many white collar trials, admitting it into evidence is not always a straightforward proposition, as a number of recent cases show. Because evidence obtained from tools like the Wayback Machine is collected, stored and accessed through a third-party source, trial adversaries often challenge whether such evidence accurately represents what appeared on a website on a given date. Some courts will take judicial notice of the authenticity of material obtained from the archived Internet; more often, however, the proponent must lay a foundation with testimony from an employee of the archive about how its data is collected, recorded and made accessible.
For litigants looking to offer evidence that exists only on the archived Internet, such as a since-deleted Web page, the Wayback Machine is a useful tool indeed. In many white collar cases, evidence from the archived Internet can be of particular relevance. For instance, in United States v. Bansal, 663 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2011), the defendants were accused of running several websites that purported to be online pharmacies, but in fact allegedly advertised and sold controlled substances without prescriptions. Through the websites, customers could select the type, strength and quantity of a drug, place an order and make the payment. Using the Wayback Machine, the government obtained screenshots of the websites as they existed during the period when the crimes were said to have been committed and offered them into evidence. After hearing testimony from an employee of the Internet Archive, the district court found that the screenshots were sufficiently authenticated and admitted them into evidence. The jury convicted the defendants on all counts. On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed that the screenshots were properly authenticated.
Authenticating Digital Evidence
Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) sets a relatively low bar for authenticating evidence: The proponent must simply lay a foundation sufficient to support a finding that the offered evidence is what the proponent claims it to be. If this bar is cleared, and the evidence admitted, the fact finder is tasked with evaluating the reliability of the evidence.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?