Slashdot Mirror
RIAA's SafeNet Caught In a Lie
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "For the past 2 years, the RIAA and its attack dog SafeNet (formerly known as MediaSentry) have been trying to avoid disclosure in UMG v. Lindor by telling the judge that MediaSentry is NOT an expert, that it does not use any technical expertise to get the 'evidence', and that it does only 'what any other Kazaa user does'. We have just discovered that in administrative proceedings in Michigan, attacking it for engaging in the business of investigation without a license, MediaSentry has taken the exact opposite position, comparing itself to chemical engineers, surveyors, physicians, geologists, and other expert witnesses who rely on their technical expertise. Today we went public with some of the contradictions. Now let's hope Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth finds out about it."
FISA vs. Jack Thompson and SafeNet... I'm not sure whether to cry or laugh...
Sounds to me more like lying, what with the two stances being exact opposites.
The Bible has many contradictions. There are two *different* Creation stories, right off the bat!
But you know what? People still consider it the "infallible Word of God" and believe that there are no mistakes in the Bible. They base their whole religious view based on this faith. They try to live their lives according to the book's teachings.
You think your little contradiction means anything?
Years ago I was a juror on a civil trial. At one point, the defence counsel had one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs on the stand. He read off one of the claims that attorney had made in the case and asked him if he'd ever argued anything contrary to it. "No, of course not." Then, the defence attorney read into the record part of a brief from another case where the witness had argued the exact opposite of what he now claimed. I won't say it's common, but it's not exactly unheard of.
The RIAA lying is quite routine in these cases. These people will say anything at all if they think it will help their case. Of course it's starting to catch up to them. In Maine, e.g., a Magistrate Judge suggested they be sanctioned for some lies they told, and a judge in Minnesota has recently learned that he was misled by the RIAA liars -- er, lawyers. And I have a hunch the contradictory lies noted in the posted articles will come back to haunt them as well.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Instead of merely hoping that Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth finds out about it, why not let them know? If dishonesty was involved in the Michigan proceedings, they SHOULD know about it. Us geeks from Slashdot should write to them and POLITELY let them know about the aforementioned contradiction and why it is of importance. Look through their contacts page (link located at center top of Department of Labor and Economic Growth page) to find the office or person you believe is the best one to notify. In your correspondence, please be clear, concise, and polite.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
Were it even possible and my attorney did as you described, I'd come after him with a malpractice suit Really Rather Quickly. There's that whole other minor concept of "Attorney Client Privilege". What in the name of blue fuck was the attorney doing answering anything about the case he was defending?
Having evidence is one thing, interpreting it for a court of law is another.
Money is the root of all evil?
RIAA is just following the example set by the white house... which is:
1. Say whatever you have to say, in order to do whatever you want to do. ... that the commies/soviets/canadians are actually manipulating things behind the scenes
2.Do it
3. Claim that it isn't your fault that your explanation isn't entirely true
4. force your new laws which were based on false assumptions on everything. Including those who you technically can't force your restrictions on.
5. Call everyone who doesn't comply a pirate / ninja / terrorist.
They can be experts, or they can be amateurs, but they cannot be both at the same time. So one of those (and we know which one) is a LIE.
Unless it is in reference to oral sex... then it's taken VERY seriously.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
The point is (in case you honestly missed it), that each of the defendants arguments disproves another of their arguments. The prosecution just needs to point out the defense itself has blown it's own case.
Me, I'm just a country lawyer.
You and Sam Ervin. (grin)
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
In Maine we don't really take kindly to that sort of crap. Sometimes I love Maine's judges. Anyhow, I write to ask you (specifically) what, if any, results do you think this will have in the scope of things? IANAL but it seems to me that this has seemingly large potential for future problems with the RIAA suits when we're looking at it with the slashdot perspective but, on the other hand, it seems more likely that this won't actually have a great deal of impact at all.
As a veteran of 34 years in the field of litigation I can tell you 2 things:
1. It is not foreseeable which lie will be the one to bring them down.
2. It is foreseeable that their lying will bring them down.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
No, no. Phase 3 will be when the RIAA succeed in bribing Congress into making copyright infringement a federal crime, and thus get to shuck off the whole lawyer expense off to the Department of Justice, who will immediately go whining to Congress to get more money to hire more agents in order to detect and prosecute more cases. And so that way our taxes will pay to defend the RIAA companies from any possible loss due to infringement, while they get to keep any profit.
I seriously hope I am wrong. But I fear I may be right.
Phase 3 will begin when most judges have become aware of the RIAA's lies. Phase 3 won't be pretty for the RIAA.
Presumably phase 4 is when they get a new law passed which sets up a federal bureau of copyright investigation?