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."

Comments

Re:Mediasentry's repsonse

[arth1]

Criminal investigations are done by the police, not companies. That's a MAJOR difference.

How is any of this 'irrefutable proof'?

[Swift Kick]

I don't understand how NewYorkCountryLawyer claims that the Exhibits (Cease & desist order, printouts) constitute 'irrefutable proof'.

Assuming he's referring to the lists of recordings found on that Boston U. IP address, I don't think Mediasentry would have to 'be' in Massachusetts to get those lists.
Whoever was making those files available was 'advertising' their availability to the whole world when he/she is on a P2P network, so Mediasentry
could conceivably never step foot in Massachusetts to obtain this data.

I'm in the West Coast, but I could easily get a listing for MP3 files available on publicly-accessible webservers on Boston U.'s network if I spent 10 minutes looking for them, and I wouldn't have to be a 'private investigator' in MA to get them After all, these 'precious snowflakes' are advertising that they have this stuff available to everyone.

Re:Mediasentry's repsonse

[LordEd]

To be honest, I see no evidence that it was MediaSentry that used the IP addresses belonging to MediaSentry. The article had a correction on it at some time. The posted evidence showed previous offenses, not current. This is still a good theoretical argument though.

Allowing the IP address as evidence here is either saying that you want IP addresses to be permissible evidence in general, or you use double standards. I am not implying a double standard. Quick google search for an example bring up a statement very similar to what I am attempting to argue (but probably better phrased).

While there are indeed problems with mapping IPs to people, in this instance there was no doubt as to who occupied the IP in question (namely, the Fosters). There was considerable doubt, however, that it could be convincingly argued that it was in fact Ms. Foster or her daughter who downloaded the material in question. The RIAA backed off of the case, but without specifying why. An IP address points to a network. It can not point to a person. I believe it would have a better chance to be successful against a business than an individual. The IP address is a narrowing evidence, not the end evidence. It can prove that somebody in __ network (yes, vpn is another technical potential argument, but has security locks on it) did something inappropriate. Now, if that inappropriate action is a core property of your business, I think it would require some explaining by the defendant.

I believe there was another case that the RIAA was successful because the person used a username that they use everywhere on the internet in addition to the source being on their network.

And it must never be up to the defendant to prove who used something -- the burden of proof must always fall on the accuser I do not believe it is unreasonable to ask for an explanation if a network owned by a company whose core business is to perform that action is directed where it shouldn't be.

If a building explodes for no apparent reason, but there is a small smoke trail leading from a local missile developer, is it unreasonable to ask for an explanation because they might use a contractor or lease space?