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."
It's not exactly lying, because they're not making statements that are false to fact. What they're doing, however is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They want to be considered experts in cases where that gives them special advantages and laymen in cases where they'd get in trouble pretending to be unlicensed experts.
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.
It's obvious which one is the lie. They certainly are NOT security experts, as was amply documented in their leaked email last year! Their amateur hour antics were hilarious, and there was no evidence that security was taking place in that organization.
Of course this doesn't help the ongoing RIAA litigation. But it should slow down the idiots who think that SafeNet is doing them some good. Oh, wait, that's the RIAA, too. Damn.
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.
Actually, a bit of googling reveals that the Kettle thing is called "pleading the alternative". It seems to often be allowed, but differs from what the RIAA/SafeNet are doing.
This article [bluestonelawfirm.com] discusses the distinction. In particular, paragraphs 2 and 3 provide a good summary:
"Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that protects the integrity of the judicial process. Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 387 (App. Div. 1996). It "preclud[es] a party from asserting a position in a case that contradicts or is inconsistent with a position previously asserted by the party in the case or a related legal proceeding." Tamburelli Prop. Ass'n v. Borough of Cresskill, 308 N.J. Super. 326, 335 (App. Div. 1998) (citation omitted).
Judicial estoppel does not prevent litigants from pleading alternative positions; rather, it "is designed to prevent litigants from playing fast and loose with the courts." Newell v. Hudson, 376 N.J. Super. 29, 38 (App. Div. 2005) (citation omitted). "[A] party must successfully assert a position in order to be estopped from asserting a contrary position in future proceedings." Cummings, supra, 295 N.J. Super. at 386. Prior success does not necessarily mean that the party benefited from the position taken, but only that a court allowed them to maintain that position and relied on it to make a judicial determination. Id. at 387.
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.
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.
The RIAA lying is quite routine in these cases. These people will say anything at all if they think it will help their case. Of course it's starting to catch up to them. In Maine, e.g., a Magistrate Judge suggested they be sanctioned for some lies they told [blogspot.com], and a judge in Minnesota has recently learned that he was misled [blogspot.com] by the RIAA liars -- er, lawyers. And I have a hunch the contradictory lies noted in the posted articles will come back to haunt them as well.
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.
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?)
If you're referring to Capitol v. Thomas, oral argument on the "making available" issue was rescheduled for August 4th [blogspot.com], 10 AM, Duluth, Minnesota, federal courthouse, Courtroom 1.
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,
I do pick and choose what I submit to Slashdot, and the Slashdot editors only select some of my submissions. The best way to stay on top of everything is to follow my blog.
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.
Absolutely that is one of the most important things going on, and I will definitely submit it to Slashdot when I learn of it. However, that will be covered by the mainstream press as well, and Ars Technica and Wired and everyone.... So if I happen to be in court or something the day the news breaks, I might well get scooped by people who are professional journalists. Me, I'm just a country lawyer.
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.
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.
No, no. Phase 3 will be when the RIAA succeed in bribing Congress into making copyright infringement a federal crime, and thus get to shuck off the whole lawyer expense off to the Department of Justice, who will immediately go whining to Congress to get more money to hire more agents in order to detect and prosecute more cases. And so that way our taxes will pay to defend the RIAA companies from any possible loss due to infringement, while they get to keep any profit.
I seriously hope I am wrong. But I fear I may be right.
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"
In Maine we don't really take kindly to that sort of crap. Sometimes I love Maine's judges. Anyhow, I write to ask you (specifically) what, if any, results do you think this will have in the scope of things? IANAL but it seems to me that this has seemingly large potential for future problems with the RIAA suits when we're looking at it with the slashdot perspective but, on the other hand, it seems more likely that this won't actually have a great deal of impact at all.
As a veteran of 34 years in the field of litigation I can tell you 2 things:
1. It is not foreseeable which lie will be the one to bring them down.
2. It is foreseeable that their lying will bring them down.
Really? That seems amazingly odd. The plaintiff attorney was/on the stand/? I wouldn't have even thought that was allowed. Conflict of interest, etc. Who would object on the attorney's behalf?
Were it even possible and my attorney did as you described, I'd come after him with a malpractice suit Really Rather Quickly. There's that whole other minor concept of "Attorney Client Privilege". What in the name of blue fuck was the attorney doing answering anything about the case he was defending?
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday July 09 2008, @08:04PM (#24127913)
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 [michigan.gov] page) to find the office or person you believe is the best one to notify. In your correspondence, please be clear, concise, and polite.
There is not a single word in Otter's "analysis" which comes from any of the cited documents. He appears not to have actually bothered to read them.
In fact, the RIAA and MediaSentry have consistently taken the position in UMG v. Lindor [blogspot.com] for 2 years that MediaSentry is NOT an expert and did NOT use technical expertise, but did "what any Kazaa user can do". They did not make this statement once or twice, but probably in the neighborhood of a dozen times. I culled just 3 of them.
Within weeks of making that statement in Lindor, Mr. Mullaney had made the exact opposite statement in the Michigan proceedings, saying MediaSentry was a technical expert which utilized its technical expertise in obtaining the evidence, just like a physician, a surveyor, a geologist, or a chemical engineer.... (all of which are clearly expert witnesses who would be subject to expert witness disclosure in federal litigations).
Any person who actually read (a) Mr. Mullaney's letter in the Michigan case, and (b) the three documents in the Lindor case, would have to agree with that statement.
Apparently Mr. Otter has some kind of grudge against me, and -- like his soulmates in the RIAA -- is willing to fabricate facts in order to 'make his case'. Mr. Otter please read the documents, and then please apologize.
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."
"... 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?
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.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday July 09 2008, @09:00PM (#24128353)
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. 2.Do it 3. Claim that it isn't your fault that your explanation isn't entirely true... that the commies/soviets/canadians are actually manipulating things behind the scenes 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.
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...
Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Insightful)
It might not exactly be lying, but it's the kind of thing that would really piss a federal judge off!
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Funny)
And we all know that the cake is a lie.
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Funny)
Or at least "undead".
Parent
Yes, it IS lying (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Yes, it IS lying (Score:5, Insightful)
It's obvious which one is the lie. They certainly are NOT security experts, as was amply documented in their leaked email last year! Their amateur hour antics were hilarious, and there was no evidence that security was taking place in that organization.
Of course this doesn't help the ongoing RIAA litigation. But it should slow down the idiots who think that SafeNet is doing them some good. Oh, wait, that's the RIAA, too. Damn.
Parent
Re:Yes, it IS lying (Score:5, Funny)
Why do you want to pollute a perfectly good star? It's not as if we are in a binary system and thus have a "backup".
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, a bit of googling reveals that the Kettle thing is called "pleading the alternative". It seems to often be allowed, but differs from what the RIAA/SafeNet are doing.
This article [bluestonelawfirm.com] discusses the distinction. In particular, paragraphs 2 and 3 provide a good summary:
"Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that protects the integrity of the judicial process. Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374, 387 (App. Div. 1996). It "preclud[es] a party from asserting a position in a case that contradicts or is inconsistent with a position previously asserted by the party in the case or a related legal proceeding." Tamburelli Prop. Ass'n v. Borough of Cresskill, 308 N.J. Super. 326, 335 (App. Div. 1998) (citation omitted).
Judicial estoppel does not prevent litigants from pleading alternative positions; rather, it "is designed to prevent litigants from playing fast and loose with the courts." Newell v. Hudson, 376 N.J. Super. 29, 38 (App. Div. 2005) (citation omitted). "[A] party must successfully assert a position in order to be estopped from asserting a contrary position in future proceedings." Cummings, supra, 295 N.J. Super. at 386. Prior success does not necessarily mean that the party benefited from the position taken, but only that a court allowed them to maintain that position and relied on it to make a judicial determination. Id. at 387.
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Funny)
You can eat your cake and still have it, it just takes a little patience. Although the cake will look different, and it'll smell bad.
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! Here on Slashdot, every day is Be Pedantic Day!
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Funny)
No, it isn't lying.
It's just bending the truth all the way around.
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Funny)
THe Moebius strip of truth only has one side. This is more like the Klein bottle of truth: everything fits inside, all at the same time.
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Insightful)
I congratulate you for making a nerdy joke even more nerdy. More importantly, one that's technically correct ... the best kind of correct.
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Funny)
But, like the RIAA's cases, it doesn't hold water.
Parent
Re:Bending the truth may be light (Score:5, Funny)
They weren't lying, they were just saying a lot of things they wish were true or thought were true. Like many bloggers do as well. :)
Parent
Is there such a thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I've seen this happen before (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I've seen this happen before (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
The RIAA lying is quite routine in these cases. These people will say anything at all if they think it will help their case. Of course it's starting to catch up to them. In Maine, e.g., a Magistrate Judge suggested they be sanctioned for some lies they told [blogspot.com], and a judge in Minnesota has recently learned that he was misled [blogspot.com] by the RIAA liars -- er, lawyers. And I have a hunch the contradictory lies noted in the posted articles will come back to haunt them as well.
Parent
Re:I've seen this happen before (Score:5, Interesting)
hey NYCL,
Re: your second link /. 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?
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
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
Parent
Re:I've seen this happen before (Score:5, Informative)
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?)
If you're referring to Capitol v. Thomas, oral argument on the "making available" issue was rescheduled for August 4th [blogspot.com], 10 AM, Duluth, Minnesota, federal courthouse, Courtroom 1.
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,
I do pick and choose what I submit to Slashdot, and the Slashdot editors only select some of my submissions. The best way to stay on top of everything is to follow my blog.
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.
Absolutely that is one of the most important things going on, and I will definitely submit it to Slashdot when I learn of it. However, that will be covered by the mainstream press as well, and Ars Technica and Wired and everyone.... So if I happen to be in court or something the day the news breaks, I might well get scooped by people who are professional journalists. Me, I'm just a country lawyer.
Parent
Re:I've seen this happen before (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:I've seen this happen before (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:I've seen this happen before (Score:5, Insightful)
No, no. Phase 3 will be when the RIAA succeed in bribing Congress into making copyright infringement a federal crime, and thus get to shuck off the whole lawyer expense off to the Department of Justice, who will immediately go whining to Congress to get more money to hire more agents in order to detect and prosecute more cases. And so that way our taxes will pay to defend the RIAA companies from any possible loss due to infringement, while they get to keep any profit.
I seriously hope I am wrong. But I fear I may be right.
Parent
Re:I've seen this happen before (Score:5, Interesting)
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"
Parent
Re:I've seen this happen before (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if the statements from Michigan can be sent to Lindor's legal team?
I am "Lindor's legal team".
Parent
can't resist . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I've seen this happen before (Score:5, Insightful)
In Maine we don't really take kindly to that sort of crap. Sometimes I love Maine's judges. Anyhow, I write to ask you (specifically) what, if any, results do you think this will have in the scope of things? IANAL but it seems to me that this has seemingly large potential for future problems with the RIAA suits when we're looking at it with the slashdot perspective but, on the other hand, it seems more likely that this won't actually have a great deal of impact at all.
As a veteran of 34 years in the field of litigation I can tell you 2 things:
1. It is not foreseeable which lie will be the one to bring them down.
2. It is foreseeable that their lying will bring them down.
Parent
Re:I've seen this happen before (Score:5, Insightful)
Were it even possible and my attorney did as you described, I'd come after him with a malpractice suit Really Rather Quickly. There's that whole other minor concept of "Attorney Client Privilege". What in the name of blue fuck was the attorney doing answering anything about the case he was defending?
Parent
Dear NewYorkCountryLawyer: (Score:5, Funny)
Dear RIAA:
Haha. Self-pwnt.
Re:Dear NewYorkCountryLawyer: (Score:5, Funny)
Dear NewYorkCountryLawyer: You rock. Dear RIAA: Haha. Self-pwnt.
Why thank you, The Master.
Parent
NYCL's Web Site Down. (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Funny)
They gained experience from their previous ordeal, and can now claim to be "experts".
Ding? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Parent
One of the worst companies to work for.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Let them know about it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let them know about it! (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, the RIAA and MediaSentry have consistently taken the position in UMG v. Lindor [blogspot.com] for 2 years that MediaSentry is NOT an expert and did NOT use technical expertise, but did "what any Kazaa user can do". They did not make this statement once or twice, but probably in the neighborhood of a dozen times. I culled just 3 of them.
Within weeks of making that statement in Lindor, Mr. Mullaney had made the exact opposite statement in the Michigan proceedings, saying MediaSentry was a technical expert which utilized its technical expertise in obtaining the evidence, just like a physician, a surveyor, a geologist, or a chemical engineer.... (all of which are clearly expert witnesses who would be subject to expert witness disclosure in federal litigations).
Any person who actually read (a) Mr. Mullaney's letter in the Michigan case, and (b) the three documents in the Lindor case, would have to agree with that statement.
Apparently Mr. Otter has some kind of grudge against me, and -- like his soulmates in the RIAA -- is willing to fabricate facts in order to 'make his case'. Mr. Otter please read the documents, and then please apologize.
Parent
dude your rock (Score:5, Funny)
NewYorkCountryLawyer: the anti-Jack Thompson
Is this really surprising? (Score:5, Funny)
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
Pleading the alternative. (Score:5, Interesting)
"... 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?
Parent
Re:Economy (Score:5, Funny)
Michigan has an economy? I thought they ran everybody off?
They didn't run, they drove off in impressively made foreign cars.
Parent
Re:A PI license? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:A PI license? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [blogspot.com]?
Parent
There are WMDs in Iraq... somewhere... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:What a mixed day... (Score:5, Informative)
"Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small [theotherpages.org]".
Parent
AFAIK, yes. (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Parent