Thursday, April 10, 2008

New Massachusetts case LaFace v. Does 1-17 shows MediaSentry violated cease and desist order

In a new Massachusetts case, LaFace v. Does 1-17, the RIAA's submissions include a printout showing capture dates in January and February 2008, subsequent to the date of the cease and desist order.

Printouts including capture dates subsequent to January 2, 2008, cease and desist order*

* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation

Commentary & discussion:

Ars Technica




Keywords: digital copyright law online internet 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 intellectual property

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just because you say you didn't know you were violating the law (i.e. investigations before the C&D letter), does that make those prior investigations legal? I would think not!

You could be sitting in California with your hands over your ears singing "La la la la la" to not hear that you're operating illegally in the other 49 states – and probably in California as well, considering I haven't heard of MS/SN having a PI license in their home state either. That doesn't make what you do legal in court.

-DM

Jadeic said...

I am reminded of the phraseology beloved of period detective fiction "OK, guv', I'll come quietly. You got me bang to rights!"

Dave

Russell said...

Now they should be in trouble.

Prior to the letter, they could claim ignorance but after the letter they are clearly violating Mass law.

The defense that they don't know where these IP addresses are (IMHO BS but for arguments sake) should protect them only up to the point they can identify the location. Certainly, after they figured out that the location was Mass, they should have ceased and desisted further legal actions.

Before I considered it an issue between MS and the state, Most likely to be left at that letter. Now they should be open to sanctions for submitting evidence which they should know to be collected in violation of that letter.

Anonymous said...

Also DM,
By that logic, all filesharers cannot be responsible for copyright infringement as well. I'd like to see someone turn that on the RIAA.

Q

Jadeic said...

C&D Letter: "If further inquiries prove that etc."

I presume someone has forwarded this proof to Sergeant Chester Bishop.

Dave

Douglas Perkins said...

Breaking the law after the police tell you specifically to stop is just amusing.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/147-22.htm

StephenH said...

They should report this document to the State Police. Maybe the Police could then contact the Attorney General of Massachetts to stop MediaSentry or fine them, or possibly force them to get an investigations license. Also, all evidence from them violating this order, a judge should strike.

Anonymous said...

Certainly, if one was to believe the typical Linares affidavit, that these defendants are huge music pirates, it should be no trouble for MS/SN to get bonded/licensed and go after these people again. Especially since they clearly identified an individual.

As I see it, they have 2 options:
- The RIAA doesn't really care about piracy, and just want to get paid. They continue lawsuits on flawed evidence (likely).
- The RIAA really did identify individuals, who are huge pirates doing millions of dollars of damage daily. Thus, they obtain the proper licenses and proceed to re-try the same infringers (unlikely, since MS/SN didn't identify individuals).


Q