Slashdot Mirror
Mediasentry Violates Cease & Desist Order
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "On January 2, 2008, the Massachusetts State Police ordered MediaSentry, the RIAA's investigator, to cease and desist from conducting investigations in Massachusetts without a license. Based on what appears to be irrefutable proof that MediaSentry has been violating that order, the Boston University students who tentatively won, in London-Sire v. Doe 1, an order tentatively quashing the subpoena for their identities, have brought a new motion to vacate the RIAA's court papers altogether, on the ground that the RIAA's 'evidence' was procured by criminal behavior."
The Parent is, in fact, insightful. If you refute RIAA and their minions' claim that they should be allowed to (and is able to) pick out illegal file sharers based on IP address, you can't turn around and use IP address evidence to prove that MediaSentry defied the court order.
Yeah, it sucks, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It must be -- once we allow double standards, we're no better than them.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I think you have that backwards:
Either
a) IP addresses are not admissable, so the RIAA's "evidence" has no standing and the case should be dropped without prejudice,
or
b) IP addresses are admissable, so the RIAA's "evidence" has no standing and the case should be dropped WITH prejudice.
Not quite. You can't use an IP address to definitively identify an individual. But you can damn sure use one to identify a location. Which is what matters here - do the IP addresses show that MediaSentry acted illegally by doing their thing in a state where they were enjoined from doing their thing?
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
No, you can not. It is fully possible, however unlikely, that MediaSentry upon being blocked from doing investigations in Mass., rented out a VPN line to a company that was, in fact, allowed to do so. In which case MediaSentry is just a provider and carrier, much like the University that provides a student with an IP address is just a provider and carrier, and has no responsibility in what the student uses the line for. You simply can't tell from the IP address.
We must be very careful that we don't apply rules to the enemy that we don't want them to turn around and use against us.
I disagree that you can use one to identify a location. I can be anywhere in the world and, according to my IP, it will appear to you I'm in Fairbanks AK, due to this handy little VPN I use. Granted, I have to have been granted access to the VPN, but the fact remains that IP addresses do not NECESSARILY denote location, either. It's the same problem with claiming an IP denotes an individual. An IP address CAN tell you those things, but it does not NECESSARILY tell you those things. A rectangle CAN be a square, but it is not NECESSARILY a square.
-G
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
The problem is that with your (b), you set another precedent for IP addresses being admissible evidence, which allows that type of evidence to be used by RIAA and MediaSentry in the future. We do not want that.
The onus must never be on the defendant to prove his innocence. That's just like RIAA wants people to prove that it wasn't them that downloaded something.
No, no and NO; we must not allow this to happen. Ever.
Our whole justice system is based on the accuser having to provide evidence against the accused, and that the absence of evidence counts for the defendant, never the accuser.
IP addresses of smalltime users who connect dynamically via big ISPs or are behind NAT routers aren't too reliable.
IP addresses of corporations who buy blocks of addresses or entities who have machines inside server farms can be a very reliable form of identification.
I don't know the exact details of the case so I'm not judging. I'm just saying that reliability depends on circumstance.
No sig today...
Or RIAA pays MediaSentry to take a fall, admitting that yes, IP addresses irrefutably shows that they did a wrong thing. And by the way, y'rhonors, now that IP addresses have been shown to be good evidence, there's these 5000 cases that RIAA wants you to look at...
That would be a big win for RIAA, only made possible because the opponents of RIAA tried to apply double standards, and, by doing so, killed their own defense.
If an individual went around pretending to represent the law, then he would get into serious trouble right away.
Why aren't the police taking direct action against the RIAA's illegal operations instead of just sending them a cease-and-desist letter?
The problem with your analogy is that breaking and entering, growing pot, and kidnapping are all crimes provable through existing forensics.
An IP address may or may not be a person - it's still being decided. Therefore you're breaking into a home and discovering a crime - but somehow nobody knows who's home it is. That's where your analogy breaks down.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
And this surprises who? The RIAA and MediaSentry have repeatedly shown that they don't care about the law. Their gaming of the legal system is proof of that.
The problem is that our stupid courts don't put a stop to this illegal behavior right away and then, they continue to abuse the system. After a while, it becomes allowable behavior.
If our legal system would put a stop to this, it would stop. Since they continue to allow it, this behavior will also continue.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
IANAL.
There are 2 problems with this entire line of thinking:
1) This is not a double-standard.
In the first scenario, MediaSentry is submitting a dynamic IP address that cannot be linked to an individual. In this scenario, they are presenting what is probably a static IP address tied to MediaSentry's offices. That is much stronger evidence. Also, it sounds like the second scenario is being used as pre-trial evidence that MediaSentry violated the restraining order -- not as evidence to be admitted in a trial.
2) IP addresses should always be admissible evidence.
The value of an IP addresses varies. Sometimes it is a dynamic IP. Other times it is static, but not assigned to an individual port or desk. Other times it is tied to a specific computer that only a few people have access to. IP addresses should always be admissible - but the judge and jury must understand the difference. Making a blanket rule like "IP addresses are never admissible in court" is too limiting.
It would be like saying that scratch marks are never admissible as evidence because you cannot specifically tie that to an individual. The scratch marks still indicate that a struggle happened, and where it happened, and who might have been in that location when they were made. etc.
Actually, it sets up a far more interesting logical problem for RIAA and MediaSentry.
IP addresses are never personally identifying, but do indicate that someone on that network (authorized or not) was responsable.
For the typical home user, that means a freeloader on their WiFi, someone making unauthorized use of their PC, or someone on the same subnet at the less than secure ISP.
Home networks often have less than stellar security. That's neither crime nor tort. Since the typical use of a home network is unimpeded by such security issues, it's not even a real problem for the most part.
However, a would-be investigative agency (legal or not) has a real problem if THEIR network is insecure. If their computers and network are insecure, their 'evidence' is questionable at best.
Furthermore, the IP address being one of Mediasentry's means that either the information came from MediaSentry (and so is the result of an illegal act by Mediasentry) OR it came from some other agency that was making unauthorized use of Mediasentry's network (and so is also as the result of an illegal act). In the second (unlikely) case, the 'evidence' is in any event untrustworthy.
So, if Mediasentry would like to deny violating the C&D alleging someone hopped onto their network without permission, they may do so. Without further evidence to the contrary, we'll just have to accept their explaination and let it go. However, THEY will have to live with the implications of their claims. Their alternative is to maintain that their network remains uncompromised and own up to violating the C&D.
As you can see, there is no double standard. Consistantly applied reasoning with a single standard is all that is necessary to show that the Mediasentry IP showing up in the 'evidence' is damning to Mediasentry's position either way but is not adequate to find against a defendant in any of the RIAA's many lawsuits.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.