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."
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.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
...I may just have to make it my civic duty to ensure that the news gets spread around a bit.
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.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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.
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?
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"... 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?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
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...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
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.
"wahts woring iwth my tyoping?"