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."
Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Side issue is if the judge rules against the evidence, the judge immediately implies that criminal charges should be brought against media sentry for illegally gaining that evidence and the RIAA for conspiring with media sentry in those criminal endeavours.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it might be easy, but wouldn't every person involved in gathering the evidence require a PI Licence? So repeat that by however many employees they have.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
okay, so they'd save training costs, but they'd still lose time in actually needing to train whoever along the chain needs to be trained, plus costs of filing for a licence for each individual, since you can't get a licence for the overarching company, correct? Each person would still need a personal licence? I'm honestly not sure, since I've never really looked in to becoming a PI, since this isn't a 1920s pulp novel. Seems like it'd be a bit of a drain, then, but not a killer by any means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
*snerk* Yeah. Hardly a killing blow. So why didn't they do this in the FIRST place? Buncha lazy arses. Lazy and CHEAP.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alternately, one person in the department has the license and the others are working under his supervision and in accordance with approved practices. Which way it works seems to be dependent on the state.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I hope the RIAA learns its lesson and stops these frivolous lawsuits.
You're funny.
Re: (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 I
Re: (Score:2)
While investigator licensing is likely a bit of a revenue generator in some states, there's actually a decent justification for it, the same as for a contractor's license, etc.
The justification is that licensed is de facto regulated. Even if the original license is normally a formality (say a few hours' training and a fee, if even the training at all), as long as a record is kept of complaints registered per license and with a bit of cooperation between states even better, given a license, it's possible to
Re:Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Depending on the state you are in, the answer to that is yes. Some states requires all parties to be notified of recording on a telephone call, and some states only require one of parties involved in the conversation to be the one recording. I'm not sure what law applies if you go cross state, however. Is it the more restrictive of the two, or the state of the person initiating the call, or some Federal law? IANAL, so I only know based upon what a lawyer told me in my state when I asked based upon some shad
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I call someone from my residence and record the conversation without any consent I'll be commiting a crime?
In some states (such as Florida), yes. Both parties have to be aware of it.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I call someone from my residence and record the conversation without any consent I'll be commiting a crime?
In some states (such as Florida), yes. Both parties have to be aware of it.
But in all states you can't be charged with a crime. The recording won't be admissible in court but there's no state law forbidding recording conversations without consent.
Re:Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:5, Informative)
But in all states you can't be charged with a crime. The recording won't be admissible in court but there's no state law forbidding recording conversations without consent.
In Florida it's a felony to record people's voices in a private setting without their consent. Florida statue: 934.03
Re: (Score:2)
Also during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, didn't Maryland go after Lewinsky's "friend" that recorded their conversations without Lewinsky's knowledge?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I've always wondered what the Statue of limitations looked like. I mean is it a large hand in the universal "STOP" position?
Of course not. It's a tall lady with flowing robes with a book in one hand and her other hand in the universal "STOP" position.
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: (Score:2)
I do believe that this talented young lawyer will tear into RIAA's case with grace and much carnage. I know it sounds corny, but if he makes the RIAA squeal with pain, he's a bit of a modern-day hero.
Re: (Score:2)
Oblig. Raker Act scandal mention.
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I call someone from my residence and record the conversation without any consent I'll be commiting a crime?
You would be committing a crime if the recording unit does not provide the automatic beep tone every 5 seconds in the U.S.. Furthermore, in some states, if you don't indicate that you are recording a phone conversation, you could be liable for illegally wiretapping a conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course MediaSentry monitoring its own traffic in its own network is similar to wiretapping. Just the same as, say, filming myself having sex with my girlfriend is similar to voyeurism (BadAnalogyGuy, eat your heart out!). That doesn't make it illegal per se. What does (in my non-legally trained opinion) make it illegal is that "its own traffic in its own network" in this case also means you're eavesdropping on other people. Think a hidden camera my girlfriend isn't aware of.
And yes, recording a phone cal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, if I call someone from my residence and record the conversation without any consent I'll be commiting a crime?
It's not admissible as evidence if you live in a "two-party consent" state. That requires all parties to be made aware of any recordings which may be made of the conversation. If they don't consent, you can't use it, and you could be on the hook for various charges or civil suits for trying.
Re:Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:5, Informative)
It depends on your state. California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Washington require both parties knowledge, many of these states such it's not just inadmissible it's also illegal.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Most states have same law, that you need a state license to have evidence in a be admissible in court. They can investigate all they want but states like Michigan to use such information in court they have to license in Michigan which should be same thing here. Most lawyers don't think about this when case happens so RIAA & mediasentry win the case a lot of times.
Re: (Score:2)
Any lawyer pretending to be competent to defend this case should have known about it, too.
Re:Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:5, Informative)
That's not really an automatic rule, and it's not clear how the judge will rule here. Except where a statute specifically says that evidence must or cannot be excluded, courts generally decide whether to exclude evidence by balancing: 1) the undesirability of excluding evidence that is truthful (even if illegally obtained) and does actually relate to the case at hand (the infamous "letting someone off on a technicality"); with 2) the desire to provide a disincentive to law-breaking by prohibiting the law-breaker the benefit of their illegally obtained evidence.
In criminal cases, the Supreme Court has done that balancing once and for all in some cases, and issued exclusionary rules [wikipedia.org] that all lower courts must follow, designed to protect certain fundamental Constitutional rights. But when the illegally collected evidence is merely in violation of a statute (rather than Constitutional rights), or in a civil case (as here), the courts have more discretion in determining what remedy is in the public interest and the interest of justice. The courts have been somewhat split [google.com] on when, if ever, illegally obtained evidence can be admitted, or what other remedies the court could impose.
That's one reason, I think, why the motion here isn't phrased as a demand---that the law requires the evidence to be excluded---but as a request for the court to use its discretionary power to exclude evidence as a remedy in this case: "We respectfully request that this Court remedy this violation by suppressing all MediaSentry evidence in this case." The brief goes on about that at greater length in section II., arguing that the court has the authority to exclude the evidence, and in this case should choose to do so, especially because the brief alleges plaintiffs' counsel supervised the illegal collection of evidence, which is a worse ethical violation than counsel entering into evidence illegally obtained evidence where they had nothing to do with obtaining it (pages 15-17 as numbered; pp. 20-22 of the PDF).
Re:Where's the sting, oh thy sword? (Score:5, Informative)
To qualify, the very end of the brief does seem to coyly hint at a possible Constitutional issue, citing an 1886 US Supreme Court case that applied an exclusionary rule in a civil case because its damages were such that it could be considered quasi-criminal. The brief helpfully suggests that the Court could avoid that mess of an issue by simply using its discretionary power to exclude the evidence, without having to consider the Constitutional issue.
Re: (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 cat
Re: (Score:2)
The problem in your breaking and entering example is that the police would collect evidence against Joe as a by-product of capturing you. What the MediaSentry guys are doing is more akin to deliberately breaking and entering, and submitting the results of their little forays as evidence. Wilful illegal behaviour on the part of those collecting evidence and with the objective of collecting said evidence should be more than enough to get anything they produce tossed out with extreme prejudice.
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, if the laws in question were violated by MediaSentry (they were...), then the law DOES require exclusion on the spot for the evidence in question.
In her state, the stuff's explicitly inadmissable- you can't enter evidence of this nature gathered by anyone other than a licensed PI into a case.
In the case of the Federal statutes, the same applies. It's not info that they can actually allow in court.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, if that's the case. I wasn't aware that any Private Investigator statutes actually included an explicit provision that evidence obtained in violation of the statute must be excluded from all proceedings, as opposed to merely criminal or civil liability for the violator themselves.
But if the statutes did contain an explicit provision of that sort, wouldn't the brief here argue that? The brief seems to acknowledge that exclusion is discretionary rather than required as a matter of law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that depends. If they'd obtained the information by waterboarding, then it probably would have been okay.
Evidence? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that anything MediaSentry has brought into court was anywhere near something we'd call evidence. Vague screenshots, unverifyable logs?
It really isn't. But we need defense lawyers to be in there challenging it, and explaining that to the Judges.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just glad she *has* a lawyer. Am I horribly mistaken, or didn't her former lawyer withdraw from the case? Unless I have my cases confused, Jammie Thomas was in a bind having no lawyer and the RIAA opposing any continuance of the case (i.e. let's not give her any time to find a new lawyer).
Who is this guy that he could jump in and go after them like this? Legal research takes time...
Re: (Score:2)
Who is this guy that he could jump in and go after them like this? Legal research takes time..
They're young and they're tech savvy. And I was quite surprised that they didn't ask for a modest adjournment, which I'm sure the judge would have granted them.
Maybe that's the thing about being young.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is really nice to have as a fallback position if this motion fails. But this motion could cut the time spent at trial (and the costs to Thomas) if they don't have to go through the whole argument about the evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't aware that anything MediaSentry has brought into court was anywhere near something we'd call evidence. Vague screenshots, unverifyable logs?
It was enough to get Mrs. Thomas convicted the first time round. Or lets say to convince the jury that she did what she was accused of doing; the other part was convincing the jury that what she was accused of doing was actually illegal; the judge figured out later that he instructed the jury incorrectly on that part. So their "evidence" is still accepted as evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
their "evidence" is still accepted as evidence
Not so. Their phony "evidence" is fully subject to challenge in the second trial. My impression of the new legal team is that they are above average in tech-savvy... so I expect them to vigorously challenge the RIAA's junk evidence, and get most or all of it excluded.
Nice Briefs! (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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Point well taken. I just checked the link. It is simply not clear on the page if the FREE tracks are licensed for private home use only. Many sites do not have a way to contact the copyright owner directly to "Make a deal" for a use other than for private home use only.
A song attached to a posted video should be a technical issue, not a legal reasearch issue. Would ASCAP want to get involved? Is there a label involved? Is BMI involved? Unless I have it in writing someplace that the track comes with p
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. If I want to use the music in the example given, I now have to add some kind of "Credits" page to credit the artist. I'll keep that in mind.
Re: (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]).
Re: (Score:2)
I think some enterprising person will start one in light of this. Any info used for these "settlements" was illegally obtained in pretty much every State in the Union. Moreover, it's very defective at best if it WAS
obtained legally- it doesn't do anything of what the RIAA claims in court that it does. They knew or should have known that the stuff was explicitly inadmissable and that they had no case at that point. They pursued a campaign of threats of the sort of litigation that we've seen, knowing that
Re: (Score:2)
Won't they just change their name?
You can ask for the world (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't mean you'll get it handed to you. Speculation for nerds, Wishes for Fishes.
Wake me up when the Judge files a ruling either way, that's what I call news.
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: (Score:3, Funny)
TCPdump? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:TCPdump? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:TCPdump? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Explain to me how an eavesdropper is proper party to a communication?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a very narrow range of things for which it's legal to do so. Unfortunately for MediaSentry, that range does not apply because they're NOT the RIAA or one of the Member Labels.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, the evidence wasn't legally gathered and could not be without a PI license. In MI it's a misdemeanor. In Texas, it's actually a Felony. :-D
I don't know if it's hard for one to obtain it in MI, but it's not at all easy for one to obtain one in Texas- and MediaSentry would have a fun time obtaining
one or getting a licensed PI to do and oversee the investigation there.
Re:TCPdump? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about freaking time. Too bad Media Sentry has shifted it's primary focus overseas. Would be nice if they end up being found to be criminally responsable though.
Sometimes I wonder about NYCL. (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously I want him on our side, but it'd be good to know the truth about his motivations.
Re:Sometimes I wonder about NYCL. (Score:5, Funny)
Are we sure he didn't become a lawyer -- or at least didn't start taking (and reporting) on these sorts of cases -- solely to get modded up? Obviously I want him on our side, but it'd be good to know the truth about his motivations.
I did it all for the karma.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently not, you got modded +5 Funny this time :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are we sure he didn't become a lawyer -- or at least didn't start taking (and reporting) on these sorts of cases -- solely to get modded up? Obviously I want him on our side, but it'd be good to know the truth about his motivations.
I did it all for the karma.
Getting a law degree, passing the bar, taking on the RIAA all for Karma? NYCL, I love you man, the fight against the MAFIA wouldn't be the same without you, but WOW, that takes Karma whoring to a whole new level...
Yes I think it is arguable that I have taken Karma whoring to a whole new level. Back in 1974, 20-odd years before Slashdot had even been born, I had it all planned out. Cmdr Taco was placed on this earth in order to enable me to fulfill my destiny.
And now, all I have to do is sit back and reap the many rewards of my accumulated Slashdot karma, such as....... er....... er.......
Well let's put it this way:
1. Go to Bronx High School of Science, wear pocket protectors, establish nerd credentials.
2. Go to
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sometimes I wonder about NYCL. (Score:4, Insightful)
And how does it feel now, that your master plan has finally come to fruition and you have karma to burn?
I guess I feel.... pretty stupid.
Ramifications if motion is allowed (Score:2)
My question is what will happen next, if this motion is allowed.
The implication of such a finding is that MediaSentry broke the law. As I understand it, state and federal laws.
I would assume law enforcement agencies would be forced to act against MediaSentry.
Would that mean the organisation packs up and moves to Russia (or some other less restrictive country) to conduct their operation, or would it continue operating in the USA with a different brief?
Would any money MediaSentry has gathered from its clients
Re: (Score:2)
My question is what will happen next, if this motion is allowed.
The implication of such a finding is that MediaSentry broke the law. As I understand it, state and federal laws.
I would assume law enforcement agencies would be forced to act against MediaSentry.
Sort of. They could go to a grand jury, and present a very weak case on purpose, in order to get a no-bill.
Would that mean the organisation packs up and moves to Russia (or some other less restrictive country) to conduct their operation, or would it continue operating in the USA with a different brief?
I can't see a Russian company being allowed to testify in US procedures without needing to still follow US laws, so a move wouldn't help. It'd be more likely they'd "close the company," then resurface as someone else.
Would any money MediaSentry has gathered from its clients be confiscated as proceeds of crime?
If they were actually charged and convicted, it could be. There's a number of punishments available to a corporation.
Would any previous law suits agreed to be overturned by such evidence?
If a case was finished, it would be up to the defendant to push for
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What I wonder about is how, under these circumstances, the MediaSentry guy can take the stand and not take the 5th Amendment.
How is that going to affect anything though? Isn't it already well established what MediaSentry did? For what purpose would they be asked to take the stand at all? It seems like they've already taken care (according to the brief) to document and explain the methods they use (as well as they can anyway), so why would it be necessary to call them to the stand?
If we know what they did, and we know they did it without a required license (the irony of which is not lost on me), what else do we need to know?
Re:RIAA still douchebags (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RIAA still douchebags (Score:5, Funny)
That's not true at all. Stop spreading this shit.
Even a cockroach can't survive a lawyer attack. Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I love it when moderation is actually funnier than the comments.
In case it changes, right now it reads
"Cockroaches survive nuclear explosions" = +5 Funny
- "and lawyers" = -1 Redundant
Re: (Score:2)
Also:
That's not true at all. Stop spreading this shit.
Even a cockroach can't survive a lawyer attack. Sheesh.
--
Is +3 Insightful
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ya, sure.
I like this new lawyer. He understands the issues and isn't afraid to grab the bull by the horns. Hopefully, he'll be successful and provide models for other lawyers to follow. And if he is, he'll deserve all the bragging rights he can get.
I'm a little dubious about the wiretap stuff, since MediaSentry was a party to the communication and not an outside snooper. I'm not sure I like the argument that MediaSentry violated the KaZaA TOS, but that's mostly because I'm not convinced TOS are enforcea
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL. Establishing bias is a side matter to keeping evidence out because it was obtained illegally, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because how do you determine if the illegally obtained evidence is real, or faked?
Let's say you're accused of having gone out and killed somebody. The only evidence against you is illegally obtained. It might be real, it might be faked - either way, the evidence was criminally obtained.
These people who the RIAA are accusing are innocent, until proven guilty. Let me repeat that - they are /innocent/, unless guilt can be proven.
The evidence against them, was obtained criminally - again, they are innocent, unl
Re:Illegally obtained evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that, but if illegally obtained evidence was admissible, people could be "raided" purely because certain people in power (politicians, police, etc) didn't like them. Suppose your city's mayor is corrupt and decides that you were a threat to him. He orders the police chief (his best buddy in corruption) to arrest you under some trumped up charge. Doesn't matter what, that charge isn't meant to stick. However, after arresting you, they fish through all of your stuff searching for something illegal to pin to you. They don't have a warrant to do this and so it is illegal, but it doesn't matter to them. They uncover something (everyone's broken some law at some point) and switch charges to the one with the (illegally obtained) evidence.
Now, if the court accepts the illegally obtained evidence, they are validating a corrupt mayor's abuse of power. This is likely a bigger crime than the charges that the illegally obtained evidence supports. If they toss out the illegally obtained evidence, they're letting someone guilty of what is likely a minor crime go free, but they are dealing a blow against abuse of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is a straw-man fallacy.
I certainly didn't see a straw man fallacy in his post.
But then again it's become in fashion to include everything under the sun as a straw man these days. I think I'm going to introduce the "Logical Accusation Fallacy". It states the invalidity of an argument due to referencing random and inappropriate logical fallacies ;).
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the strawman argument goes thusly:
No one likes to see murderers go free.
The only evidence to prove a murderer guilty was illegally obtained.
Thus, illegally obtained evidence should be admissible.
Seems almost reasonable, until you remember that the case at hand is a civil suit, so breaking the law to win a civil suit is hardly on the level of any kind of criminal trial. QED.
Re: (Score:2)
My kingdom for an edit.
I just realized:
I think I'm going to introduce the "Logical Accusation Fallacy". It states the invalidity of an argument due to referencing random and inappropriate logical fallacies ;).
Appeal to ridicule! "Look how silly this person is! They actually think this! How can you possibly believe anything they say?!"
Re:Illegally obtained evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's say I'm really really offended at your post. So offended that I decide to plant a terabyte drive full of child porn in your house, then break into your house and "uncover" it. I admit to everything except planting the drive ("The guy wanted to sell me a drive full of kiddy porn, so I broke in to see if it was real so I could take my information to the police"). I face a fine/misdemeanor for burglary (or nothing and get lauded as a hero), you face at best a lengthy court battle along with the social stigma of being accused of being a pedophile, and at worst registration on the sex offenders list and possibly decades in prison.
And let's not get into what might happen to multi-billion dollar corporations who can pay any "gathered evidence illegally fine" without any trouble (even if it's millions). Do you really want a situation where any big company could send you to prison on a whim?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I the only one who find the whole issue about illegally obtained evidence not being admissible in court preposterous?
Let's say I go out and kill somebody, but the only evidence against me it is an illegally obtained wire-tapping. It doesn't make me any less guilty. And the people who obtained it illegally obviously need to be prosecuted but it still shouldn't change anything in terms of me. Obviously in this case most people would argue that making me walk on a technicality is not in everybody's best interest. Without going into special cases, can anybody tell me why illegally obtained evidence should not be accepted? Evidence is evidence and it carries its weight irrespectively of how it came about.
For the record, I like the RIAA's actions as little as the next guy, but that's not what we're discussing here.
The suppression of the illegally obtained evidence is a deterrent. If you know that illegally obtained evidence isn't admissible, then you won't go out and commit a crime in order to obtain such evidence. Without such a restriction, the use of illegally obtained evidence would become commonplace (especially in cases such as your murder scenario, where the tapper would be considered a hero by the community, and probably never punished or given a token punishment for the criminal act).
Also note that illegal
Re:Illegally obtained evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I the only one who find the whole issue about illegally obtained evidence not being admissible in court preposterous?
Yes. You are the only one who finds it preposterous.
There are laws in place that try to discourage illegal behavior. One way to discourage illegal behavior is to make sure that you cannot gain advantage by illegal behavior. It would do no good if bank robbery was punished with a $100 fine. In this case, trying to find evidence by illegal means is discouraged by making any evidence found that way inadmissible.
There are more reasons. Evidence has to be trusted. If evidence has been "found" by illegal means, how can you possibly trust that evidence? If MediaSentry did some illegal wiretapping, how can you trust them that they didn't do some even more illegal to "improve" the evidence they found? Like faking a few screen shots and so on.
Next reason: There are things like client-attorney privilege, rights of no self incrimination, privacy rights. These rights basically guarantee that to some degree you can "get away" with things. The RIAA bosses and their lawyers rely on this to a huge degree themselves (or how many of them would be put away for drug abuse otherwise? ). Destroying this right would destroy the fabric of human social life. Do you want to live as a monk (and they probably do things in the night that they shouldn't)?
Next reason: Wiretapping wasn't only done against the guilty, it was done against everybody. Making illegally obtained evidence inadmissible makes sure that nobody breaks the law in an attempt to find evidence, especially when the victim of the illegal activity hasn't done anything wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The fun thing about the US is she could sue no matter what. If this motion *passes* she would have good grounds to sue, thus making a settlement a likelyhood. I could see her getting legal fees back, *if* the entire case goes her way. If the case goes against her, any suit would be seen as spurrious at best.