Analysis of MediaSentry Wins Music-Download Suit

An anonymous reader writes "A Dartmouth professor's analysis of MediaSentry problems helped win a New Hampshire woman's RIAA music-download lawsuit. 'Since all of Plaintiffs' claims are based on the assumption that MediaSentry's software and computer configuration are trustworthy and free of errors, and this log clearly represents a failure of the MediaSentry software to perform the operation it claims to describe, the reliability and validity of the MediaSentry method should be questioned,' wrote professor Sergey Bratus in his report, dated May 30. 'In my opinion, these materials leave critical aspects of MediaSentry's evidence collection process undocumented. In my opinion, they express unwarranted assumptions regarding both software and network technologies involved, and attempt to create an illusion of evidence-supported certainty where it does not exist.'" The full report (PDF) is available online. It's worth noting that this victory was not the outcome of a court ruling; rather, a settlement was reached that did not require the defendant, Mavis Roy, to pay anything to the RIAA.

Comments

Of course a settlement was reached

[RichMan]

Do you think the RIAA wants to get a Judge to rule on that evidence?

What would happen to the other cases/business model if media sentry's data collection was ruled not a secure chain of evidence path?

Cockroaches fear the light.

Legalese shenanigans always a mess

[h00manist]

Well, so now either the RIAA starts arguments that it needs to gain access to the address where the IP is registered to search the computer before the case, or everyone starts arguing they never had a computer, or that they had an open wifi access point, or other legal hairsplitting on either side. I'm all for beating the riaa in court, but I'd prefer that it _somehow_ led to a debate of the copyright and patent laws themselves, like the Pirate Party winning a seat on the European Parliament, or a debate on proper amount of punitive damages the US law allows for, the RIAA reputation, etc. The Jammie Thomas-Rasset case is being pretty helpful.

Re:Legalese shenanigans always a mess

[the_humeister]

The Jammie Thomas-Rasset case is being pretty helpful.

It's helpful for everyone but Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Seriously, when you get a case brought upon you by the RIAA, you'd rather win and get on with your life rather than have to pay those bastards $1.9 million in installments until you die.

Re:Legalese shenanigans always a mess

[Runaway1956]

I tend to agree with you. But, it is necessary to destroy the credibility that RIAA enjoys in court, as well as arguing the more fundamental aspects of "fair use" and "First sale", and more. I read the PDF, and it thoroughly destroys Media Sentry as a "forensics" tool, or even as a data gathering tool. More, the paper demonstrates that the people using Media Sentry to gather data don't even understand the data they are gathering, nor how to verify that data. In short, it makes idiots of everyone at RIAA, starting with the talking suits who brag their software up, right down to the "technicians" who are busting people on the web. Credibility and/or the lack thereof, means an awful lot in any court. When was the last time a judge took your word over that of a cop? This is the problem we have right now. RIAA presents itself in court as a freind of the court, and as an enforcer. It's all entirely improper, of course, but they currently get away with it.

Finally!

[rahvin112]

The professor brings up the clear point I advocated in the first question to slashdot. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mediasentry had atomic calibrated clock information and the ISP did as well. All this evidence is based on a time stamp that could be anything, not to mention the role of Timezones. Without calibrated times at both the ISP and MediaSentry there is no validity to the evidence.