It does sound stupid on the surface, but when you read a little more about the case, which is against TorrentSpy for infringement of copyright (ie: hordes of people illegally downloading movies, which is exactly what people do with TorrentSpy) you can understand the judge's reasoning, even if the burden will become overwhelming.
QUOTE
Six movie studios filed suit against TorrentSpy for alleged copyright infringement in February 2006. While TorrentSpy does not directly offer copyrighted video files to people who come to the site, it acts as a search engine that speeds users to those files. The Motion Picture Association of America believes such sites contribute to, encourage and profit from piracy.
So the plaintiffs are seeking the RAM data to find out more about the kinds of files visitors to the site are seeking. Jenner & Block and Loeb & Loeb are representing the studios and referred questions to the MPAA.
Computers store data in RAM so it can be quickly accessed while the computer is carrying out relevant processes. When the process is complete or the computer is shut down, the data in RAM is overwritten or deleted.
The RAM data would be relevant because it would show TorrentSpy "is used overwhelmingly for infringement," said Elizabeth Kaltman, an MPAA spokeswoman.
"The data would show the number of requests for torrent files corresponding to the studios' works, and the dates and times of such requests which demonstrates exactly how TorrentSpy is used to facilitate massive copyright infringement," she said, adding that Chooljian's order required the RAM data be encrypted so that customers' names would not be revealed.
http://www.technologylawupdate.com/http://www.technologylawupdate.com/There are actually other privacy concerns here that are probably just as serious as any concerns about the feasibility of saving RAM data. A bit of a hornet's nest indeed.
