Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA's Watchdog Affidavits For Your Reading Pleasure

Posted by kdawson on from the fact-based-witness dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "MediaSentry, in an attempt to stonewall discovery in UMG v. Lindor, has turned over nothing other than a collection, apparently a complete collection, of its publicly filed affidavits. However, these do make interesting reading indeed, and as comments started trickling in on my blog, I realized that for the technically minded among you there are probably a number of good laughs in these materials. So in keeping with the Slashdot community's analysis of the RIAA's not very expert, 'expert' witness, I thought you might like to take a shot at its not very factual, 'fact' witness."

3 of 22 comments (clear)

  1. Re:They need to prove their methods. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 3, Informative

    MediaSentry does have a PI license, right? Not according to this guy.

    And there's nothing in the affidavits about them having licenses, which would normally be included if they had a license.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  2. Re:It's like deja vu. Again. by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Methinks thou doth protest too much. You seem to show up on every RIAA litigation thread, seeking to fan the flames of disinterest.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  3. They can spot their own fakes... by Xenographic · · Score: 2, Informative

    Beware of that. They have a special way of spotting their own spoofs that we know about thanks to the Media Defender leaks. Specifically, Media-Defender spoofs had hashes that were divisible by 137, while MediaSentry had file sizes that were divisible by some large prime (for multi-file archives, though, only the last file was made divisible). I'm sure that they've changed some parts of their scheme after the leak (it's been very well known for a long time now and I've seen all this info brought up before), but I don't doubt that they still have sneaky tricks they use to identify their own fakes.

    Still, you have a point that they haven't tested the files very well. Especially because of the way MediaSentry/SafeNet modified only the LAST file of multiple file sets, well, who knows? But they probably do have a database with all the hashes of all the spoofs they ever made. What would be more fun, though, would be to ask them how they know they're not someone *else's* spoofs. After all, that same archive I linked to mentions that SafeNet & MediaDefender had trouble interfering with each other at times...