Court Asked To Strike All MediaSentry Evidence 204
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In Capitol v. Thomas, the RIAA's Minnesota case scheduled for trial on June 15th, the defendant's new attorneys have filed a motion to suppress all of the evidence procured by MediaSentry, on the ground that it was obtained in violation of state and federal criminal statutes. The defendant's brief (PDF) accuses MediaSentry of violations of the Minnesota Private Detectives Act, the federal Pen Register and Trap and Trace Devices Act, and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. The motion is scheduled to be argued on June 10th."
Evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's lovely to see that illegally obtained evidence is still illegitimate in the courts. Kinda gives you a warm feeling inside.
Agreed. Well from the letter of the law [state.mn.us], it does sound like MediaSentry operated as an unlicensed Private Detective and regardless of whether she's guilty or not, I hope they uphold the law. It kind of saddens me that this may vary state to state, do other states have these sort of protections in place to stop a completely biased party (oh, like your ISP or MediaSentry) from gathering evidence against you for a trial?
I'm not a lawyer but it sounds like this lawyer finally did his homework and will probably stop the trial altogether due to lack of any evidence at all. I hope the RIAA learns its lesson and stops these frivolous lawsuits.
Nice Briefs! (Score:3, Interesting)
TCPdump? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nice Briefs! (Score:4, Interesting)
That motion looks really well researched and backed with a lot of precedent. And if the judge shuts down MediaSentry, well then there are a whole lot of settlements that might get resettled!
It's a nice thought, but unless there is a class action or something, most likely the settled stuff will remain as it is. If you have a current case with the RIAA, you may request a delay with the settlement center pending the outcome of this case. If you settle and later attempt to get a refund, it probably won't happen unless you fight for it. It's best to not pay them in the first place.
I simply don't use their product anymore. It's liability issues are excessive to consider the risk. Even online video I post don't have any music in the background. It'l remain that way until the legal landscape for using the product changes.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:TCPdump? (Score:1, Interesting)
let's hope not or that could mean alot of trouble for enforcing TOS violations.
Re:Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:5, Interesting)
Large white letters on a black T-shirt does not make you the FBI. You have to play by the rules, or eventually you will get caught out. No matter how big you are, you will always be out-gunned by the courts.
Re:Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to agree even though I hate to see silly technicalities (esp to do with "licensing" which is just a tax with another name) being used to suppress evidence, regardless of the strength of evidence itself. But then this is RIAA who have never been shy of using dirty tactics themselves so it serves them right.
It kind of saddens me that this may vary state to state, do other states have these sort of protections in place to stop a completely biased party (oh, like your ISP or MediaSentry) from gathering evidence against you for a trial?
Of course a biased party (such as a "licenced" private detective hired by your opponent) is able to gather evidence against you. As for your ISP, that's a different issue, but what are you saying, that ISPs falsify evidence to help RIAA win lawsuits?
Re:Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly--a lot of people go on about Constitutional protections, but forget that they actually (mostly) only apply to government actions.
As I understand it, even in a criminal case, the prosecutor can bring in evidence brought in by criminal action, as long as it isn't done by a government agent--police, informants, "helpful" citizens, etc. For example: I break into a guys house (a felony) and steal all his DVDs, including (to my surprise) videos of him molesting kids and shooting old ladies. If they catch me, they can still use those videos against him. ("Sure, officer, I stole them from Joe at 1337 Torchwood.") I'll still go to jail, but "Joe" will most likely be up on the docket right before or right after me.
Since this is a civil action, it's up to the court to decide....and therein lies the rub. If the evidence was collected by criminal means, then introducing in court means that Media Sentry has just made an official record of there actions...to be used later in a criminal case against them.
*sigh* we can only hope.
Usual disclaimer...I am not a lawyer, I am not law enforcement, I am not completely rational at all times...
Re:You can ask for the world (Score:4, Interesting)
You can make a really good argument that you should get the world though. The defendant's brief is a good one, and the evidence the attorneys give is sound. There are only a few possible outcomes from this.
One outcome is that the judge grants the motion, which would effectively negate MediaSentry evidence in this and other cases. Attorneys in other RIAA cases would be able to show that the same circumstances apply to their cases.
Another outcome is that the RIAA drops the case, which implies that they don't want to question the validity of MediaSentry evidence, which would also put attorneys on other cases on notice that MediaSentry evidence is available to challenge.
Other possible outcomes include the motion being denied, which I can't see happening because of the arguments the attorneys are making. The attorneys are arguing that MediaSentry violated at least three laws. One law is the MN state Private Detectives Act, which says that in order to conduct a private investigation in MN, you need a license. It's a fact that MediaSentry doesn't have a license, that's not debatable. The act defines private investigating as consisting of at least one of nine acts, four of which demonstrably apply to MediaSentry's behavior. Therefore, MediaSentry committed a misdemeanor under MN law in doing their investigation.
Another law is the Pen Register Act, which makes it a crime to record IP addresses using a pen register device. The PATRIOT Act amended the Pen Register Act to expand the definition of a pen register device to include the type of software that MediaSentry used to collect IP addresses. A violation of the Pen Register Act is a federal crime, not a state crime like the above law.
The other law is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which prohibits wiretapping. The attorneys show that MediaSentry's behavior is in the scope of wiretapping as defined by the act, and that none of the exemptions apply to MediaSentry. Among other things, they use Kazaa's EULA against MediaSentry because the EULA forbids the kind of data collection that was performed. The purpose of that is to argue that Kazaa is not available to the general public, but only to people who agree to the terms.
Then they go one step further and charge that the liability for MedaSentry's actions rests with the RIAA attorneys, and they show why that applies also.
They site precedents, specific sections offering exemptions and show why they don't apply, specific definitions of behavior and show why they do apply, it's pretty hard to think that the judge would disagree with the brief. It starts off a little preachy, but they turn it around. It's only a 20-page PDF, Ray was kind enough to link to it in the summary.
Re:Nice Briefs! (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of the music is licensed Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial Share-Alike [creativecommons.org], meaning you can make derivative works using the music, but must include a reference to the original author, and only for non-commercial purposes (free to access, no advertisments, no remuneration for works). Make sure to check with the applicable license for that particular artist / track, though (Six license types under CC [creativecommons.org]).
What is interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
No get-out-jail-free card this time for RIAA (Score:3, Interesting)
The 5th Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, or even in any other particular case, in which mediasentry is being used as evidence, yes - you are correct that the point being argued is that the evidence is inadmissable.
However, in the broader picture, those who have pried into private lives using mediasentry without being duly licensed to do so would be liable in criminal court. All that is needed is for one or more citizens to press charges and/or one or more prosecuting attorneys to get a bee in their bonnet regarding the violation of law.
There is the potential here for EACH of the 50 states to collect millions from the *iaa's for damages, not to mention penalties. Those corporations and front organizations who have employed this and similar data mining measures could conceivable be put out of business. IF, that is, the 50 states and the Disctrict of Columbia were to coordinate their attacks - which I don't see happening. To many politicians have been bought and paid for using the ill gotten gains of RIAA and associates.