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."

Comments

Is there such a thing...

[Overzeetop]

as perjury for corporations, and would it even apply to civil proceedings. It certainly seems willful in this case.

Oh, well, at least it's another potential arrow in the quiver of the defense for those targeted by the RIAA.

As a Michigan Resident...

[KookyMan]

...I may just have to make it my civic duty to ensure that the news gets spread around a bit.

I've seen this happen before

[techno-vampire]

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.

Re:I've seen this happen before

[Anonymous Cowpat]

hey NYCL,

Re: your second link
Oral argument was scheduled for 1st July, a week ago. Any news on the outcome? (Or do we have to wait a while?)
I don't know if, in your dilligent efforts to keep the /. crowd informed of developments, you have to pick & choose what you think is worth submitting, but if you do, can I pre-flag the outcome of this development for submission?

That the whole 'making available' theory, after having been accepted, could be subsequently chucked (presumably invalidating the entire outcome of the case), looks like it might be a significant nail in the coffin of the RIAA's war on the public.

Thanks

-AC

Re:I've seen this happen before

[slimjim8094]

In theory, there's a distinct upper bound on the number of cases they can bring without a radical change in tactics. There are only so many judges, and it seems like a large percentage (if not a majority) are unhappy/made aware about their tricks. They will be on the lookout the next time they have a case brought to them.

Or is the churn in judges enough that they can always take it to a new, fresh judge?

Even in that case, you have to figure that their acts get around. If it's on Slashdot, you can be sure the judges are talking to each other or something.

Re:I've seen this happen before

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

In theory, there's a distinct upper bound on the number of cases they can bring without a radical change in tactics. There are only so many judges, and it seems like a large percentage (if not a majority) are unhappy/made aware about their tricks. They will be on the lookout the next time they have a case brought to them. Or is the churn in judges enough that they can always take it to a new, fresh judge? Even in that case, you have to figure that their acts get around. If it's on Slashdot, you can be sure the judges are talking to each other or something.

I think the first wave is over. That was where the federal court system was caught off guard by the RIAA's litigation campaign. Big firms, fancy papers, high-faluting words, techno babble... it sounded and seemed legitimate, and no one was fighting back.

Now we're in phase 2. Some of the judges are starting to catch on that they've been taken for a ride.

Phase 3 will begin when most judges have become aware of the RIAA's lies. Phase 3 won't be pretty for the RIAA.

Re:I've seen this happen before

[techno-vampire]

Aside from the amusement factor and shooting their credibility in the foot, that isn't relevant.

In this case, the argument was one of the key claims of the suit. Showing that one of the plaintiff's attorneys had argued the exact opposite in another case made it look like even he didn't believe his own arguments. I might add that AFAICT nobody on the jury agreed with that argument anyway, but shooting it down that way was a nice touch.

Re:I've seen this happen before

[techno-vampire]

Who would object on the attorney's behalf?

Who would object? One of the other attorneys acting for the plaintiff. That's why I said, "...one of the attorneys..." And, he was only asked to testify about this one point, not the facts of the case itself. I might add that it was a rather weird case. It started out as a suit and countersuit. Then, the main suit was settled, leaving only the countersuit to be litigated, so that the defence was suing the plaintiffs but not (by now) the other way around.

Re:I've seen this happen before

[Anonymous Coward]

I moderated, so please excuse the AC. I used to work with a guy who was one of the brighter folks I know. We used to be able to tell that someone was about to get a drilling when Mike would start a comment with, "well, I'm just a simple country boy, but..."

Allow me to say again how much we appreciate your advocacy. You're a good citizen, Ray.

Re:I've seen this happen before

[bhima]

Am I missing something important? Why not contact every Judge who has a lawsuit from the RIAA on their docket and just tell them? Why not just mail the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth and tell them too?

Surely you lawyers have a fancy sounding name for such a document... and we don't just have to "hope the Judges find out"

One of the worst companies to work for....

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked for SafeNet in "quality assurance" when I was in high school (I'm 23 now) to test the quality of their hardware security solutions. And let me tell you, they are one of the worst companies on earth to work for. They treat their employees like crap, as they started laying off some of their best employees and brought in foreign help on H1B visas.

They really lost their way when they got out of the hardware based security business and became the cronies for the RIAA/MPAA. Contradiction is not a new thing to SafeNet. They claimed (and still claim) to be supporting the local economy in Harford County, Maryland, where their Corp HQ is, when all they were doing was outsourcing jobs and bringing in H1B workers to cut costs.

Terrible company, and I'm not surprised that they finally got caught in the web of their pathological lies.

Re:A PI license?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

MediaSentry isn't licensed to perform PI work in, for example, Oregon. This bit them in the ass in a relatively well-known case. Ask NYCL for details -- he covered it on slashdot.

You think the Oregon Attorney General hurt their feelings?

Pleading the alternative.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

"... First, he never borrowed that pot. Second, it was already broken when he borrowed it. Third, when he returned it, it was in perfect condition."

That's called "pleading the alternative" and is totally legit - at least in criminal proceedings.
  - The prosecution has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
  - The defense only has to poke holes, raising reasonable doubt.
  - So if the prosecution fails to disprove even one counter-theory it's a win for the defense.

Not sure how that goes over in civil proceedings, where the sides are on an even footing and the standard is "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". NYCL, can you tell us?

Re:Bending the truth may be light

[TechForensics]

Ironically, the law expressly allows inconsistent pleadings, exemplified in the King's Bench "Case of the Kettle", in which it was held competent, in a case in which the Defendant was said to have borrowed a kettle and returned it with a crack, to plead:

1. That he never borrowed the kettle.
2. That the kettle was never cracked.
3. That the kettle was cracked when he borrowed it.

These are legal fictions, and legal fictions, as we know, are solemn things. :-> On a more serious note, I doubt the RIAA or SafeNet will be put to pillory for their inconsistency.

AFAIK, yes.

[OmniGeek]

A court is definitely empowered to take "judicial notice" of a litigant's public statements, and can certainly take judicial notice of documents filed by a litigant in other court cases, as those are public records.

IIRC, statements filed in court pleadings are made under oath, subject to penalties for perjury. Don't get too excited about that aspect, actual prosecution is rare; however, getting caught telling contradictory stories to two different courts WILL have Bad Consequences.

Judges purely hate to be gamed or lied to by litigants, and they tend to be very unsympathetic to folks who get caught trying it. It tends to destroy all prospect of either winning or coming out with a whole skin...

Re:Funny . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Engineers specifically need the second-tier "professional engineer" license.

Ummm, what is the other tier? There are licensed professional engineers (P.Eng) which are legally required for certain things, and then there is everyone else.

There are no grades of professional engineers AFAIK.

Re:Bending the truth may be light

[tpheiska]

Intrestingly enough, in Finland, the plaintiff is allowed to lie. Actually, he is allowed to say nothing, to tell the truth, or to lie. Witnesses are held under oath to tell the truth and we don't have the jury system. All of this would make Finland very unsuitable to court drama series' but believe it or not, it actually works.

Re:Bending the truth may be light

[Dan541]

Instead of settling lawsuits we should have high profile members of the RIAA assassinated.

It would be the more cost effective solution in the long run.

Re:Bending the truth may be light

[houghi]

And for those who think neither is usefull: http://www.gillian.co.za/images/blogposts/HatAndScarf.jpg

Re:What a mixed day...

[sm62704]

There was a news item about that a couple of days ago. I <:quote:>

Fed Announces New Lending Plan
8 July 2008
WASHINGTON - In an effort to prolong and worsen our economic woes, U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Tuesday that the Fed will issue new rules next week aimed at ensuring they have a monopoly on shady lending practices. "People can't be trusted to spend their money poorly on their own," Bernanke said today at a press conference on Capitol Hill. "We want to spend it badly for them."

The sweeping plan would include strict new rules against private lenders giving money to people with "subprime credit," - people with a low likelihood of being able to pay back their loans. "Frankly, this is a market only the government should have access to," he said. "We plan on spending money we do not have to bail out companies on Wall Street who have squandered their own money already, and enable them to squander tax dollars as well."

After debriefing the press on what is to come, he congratulated Congress and the President for their accomplishment of sustaining a deep deficit and therefore increasing the effect of the Federal Reserve's lending practices. "Our tactics wouldn't be half as destructive to our nation without the cooperation of Congress, and for this they have my eternal gratitude." In a question and answer session with the press afterwards, one reporter pointedly criticized the Fed for not doing enough, prompting Bernanke to state that the Federal Reserve "still had tricks up it's sleeve," and that the current plan by no means exhausts the options at their disposal. "Interest rates are still at 3.5%, for instance, and that leaves a whole lot of room for future devasting cuts."