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."
Absolutely SHOCKED that the RIAA was bending the truth in order to justify its actions.
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?
Sounds to me more like lying, what with the two stances being exact opposites.
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
You rock.
Dear RIAA:
Haha. Self-pwnt.
Did Media Sentry, I'm sorry, SafeNet DDoS him, too?
Anybody want my mod points?
They gained experience from their previous ordeal, and can now claim to be "experts".
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.
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!
At a later trial when they once again need to be laymen, not experts, I assume they will claim to have respecced since this trial.
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
NewYorkCountryLawyer: the anti-Jack Thompson
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Michigan has an economy? I thought they ran everybody off?
They didn't run, they drove off in impressively made foreign cars.
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.
I thought lawyers made contradictory arguments all the time.
Here's a joke/story I heard years ago. This lawyer is in a courtroom, defending a client. The plaintiff claims the defendant borrowed a new pot and returned it in broken condition. The lawyer makes his opening statement: "There are three facts that prove my client is innocent. 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."
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
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
In Soviet Russia, "Lindor's legal team" is you!
No good deed goes unpunished. - Avon, Blake's 7
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.
I believe it's actually:
"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small".
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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."
Why they oughta be horsewhipped...I mean, elected to congress.
What?
I rather suspect you mean that the defendant is not prosecuted for lying, as such. This is usually the case in much of Europe. Criminals who plead not guilty do not receive extra sentences for having lied as well as having committed the original crime.
In fact Finland is a member of the EU, its judicial system must meet European standards, and a judicial system which permitted plaintiffs to lie would fail the European Union human rights test.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."