Thursday, November 15, 2007

MediaSentry Documents and Data Subpoenaed in UMG v. Lindor

The defendant has served MediaSentry with a subpoena calling for the production of documents and digital data in UMG v. Lindor.

November 14, 2007, Subpoena to Safenet, Inc. ("MediaSentry") for Deposition and for Production of Documents and Things*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Keywords: digital copyright online law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs

To contribute to Marie Lindor's legal defense, see below.

















The above donation button links to a PayPal account established by Marie Lindor's family for people who may wish to make financial contributions to Ms. Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. Lindor. Contributions are not tax deductible.




10 comments:

mhoyes62 said...

The one concern I have with the Subpoenae is that all the requests for digital data do not include a stipulation of what type of media to receive the results on, so what happens if they provide a LTO tape, or even some off brand backup format that you don't have?

Personally, I am hoping you get all that you are requesting as I think it will show just how slipshod the data is that they are relying on. I do expect a hugh outcry from the RIAA lawyers however.

Ray Beckerman said...

One question.... did you raise that point before, or are you raising it now for the first time?

mhoyes62 said...

No, I have not raised it before. While reading the Subpoena, it just came to mind.

Ray Beckerman said...

By the way, they would be violating the instructions were they to do what you suggest:

"With respect to digital data, you are instructed (a) to produce same on a CD-ROM, DVD or similar media.....

mhoyes62 said...

I took that in a more narrow view of just the section that stated that, rather than look at it for all of the subpoena.

Given how much the RIAA doesn't want that information to get out, I expect you to have a fight on your hands to get it released. Also, will this information be available to the public, or is it likely to be restricted if they are forced to provide this information?

Anonymous said...

Ray, in addition to the specific IP address you list, you should also be asking for any other times that they even suspect that they may have identified the same filesharer, regardless of the IP address in use at that time. This goes to the allegation of "continuous and ongoing infringement" that is at the heart of every RIAA case I've seen filed so far. If they have no indication of seeing what they believe to be the same account over a broad period of time, it brings into question the very idea of continuous and ongoing infringement, and how they could have ever truthfully made that charge. You do touch on this at the very end, almost casually.

You also need a disc image of every computer involved in gathering the data in question, taken as close to the moment(s) of data collection as possible. The RIAA has no problem demanding hard drive images, and neither should you.

Make sure that any software that they used during this time that in any way relates to the data collection perform is properly licensed to that particular computer(s).

Also, misidentification of IP addresses due to proxy use.

Also, all IP addresses and MAC addresses used my MediaSentry/SafeNet employees while conducting these investigations. Explain the use of any IP addresses not owned by SafeNet or any subsidiary.

Don't let them get away with not supplying source code with the old ruse that this code belongs to someone else, and we don't have the rights to it. If they contracted with a hacker to crack a version of KaZaA or its work-alikes to make their job easier, you need to see the contracts and payments made to that person, and do your best to get that source code. And if the source code is truly not available, contest the validity of any and all results produced with that program.

And by the way, has the RIAA yet shown up with proper copyright documents proving that the chain of ownership from the original filing to them is complete and accurate?

Pay careful attention to every file date/time. Especially downloaded MP3 files.

Btw, it's fascinating that they could even name a file "Lindor Marie-UserLog". They had to have gone back and renamed it after they discovered the ISP account holder's name.

Anonymous said...

"mhoyes62 said...
The one concern I have with the Subpoenae is that all the requests for digital data do not include a stipulation of what type of media to receive the results on,"


That isn't the main issue, I should think. The RIAA likes to be the only party entitled to substantive discovery. Ray has asked for all the right documents, including their presumably non-existent PI license ( :-) ). One can expect the RIAA use its bag of questionably ethical discovery dodging tricks to the uttermost.

So, the issue isn't format. The issue is getting the docs from Media Sentry in the first place.

One would hope that discovery dodging tricks that seem so obvious to us as outsiders would be even more obvious to veteran jurists, but some seem content to let the RIAA create their own version of rules of evidence--a situation which I find baffling. While I doubt Ray would like being a judge, I have no doubt that if he was he'd have zero tolerance for such nonsense...

StephenH said...

This supoena is very powerful, and could break MediaSentry's credibility and the inaccuracy of their investigations wide open. If this data is turned over, I feel that this could lead the way for more people to defend against the RIAA, as well as give legal fuel for the Tanya Andersen class action down the road.

Anonymous said...

Would you really expect to get all of that information? It would be fantastic if you could but can MS go back to the judge and say, "look, this is ridiculous - they can have x and y, but z is not relevant and too time consuming and xx not available" etc etc?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, should have said, the name's pat.