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

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

[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.

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: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.