Tuesday, July 07, 2009

RIAA opposes defendant's motion objecting to admissibility of MediaSentry materials in SONY v Tenenbaum

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA has filed papers opposing defendant's motion objecting to the admissibility of the MediaSentry materials.

Plaintiffs' opposition to defendant's motion to suppress MediaSentry materials

Keywords: lawyer 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 portable music player


Anonymous said...

Tenenbaum's focus on the Massachusett's private detective law seems to have been a mistake. I wasn't aware that none of the parties were in Massachusetts at the time. Then again, Rhode Island's law seems to have a narrower definition of private detective, so maybe the focus on Massachusetts law was intentional.

The "interception" argument always seemed a bit specious to me. How does B intercept a communication between A and B?

IMO, the RIAA get the better of this one. I'm guessing Tenenbaum's motion gets rejected.


Anonymous said...

Odd, no a single mention of gathering information for use in a court of law? Or of advertising as an investigative business or of being paid a bounty. Do these not define the private investigator?

Anonymous said...

Every time I attempt to view the motions or court orders my firewall blocks the access because it claims that a spam-ware site is being contacted. The site in question is "win-spyware.com". (Google it for clarification/explanation).

Even my work (different firewall) will not display the contents, albeit without explanation.

Could you please contact the blog host about this anomaly and attempt to get it resolved?

I'm missing a great deal by not being able to read the court orders, filings, et al.

Obviously, this is not necessarily for public distribution, though, it may be interesting if others are having the same problems.


Anonymous said...

Frank, I dunno, but maybe the problem is on your end? If so, try one of the following.

1. Contact your firewall maintainer.
2. Use anonymizing software, like Tor.
3. Use anonymizing websites, like proxify or stupidcensorship.com, if those are unblocked.
4. Make sure you don't have spyware installed on your own machine.


Anonymous said...

For me, it seems to be a misdirection to go after them as a private investigator. The first problem I have is that the methods have never been vetted and there is no proof that they were even looking at the machine they purport was sharing the media. All of these lawsuits with Kazza do not take into account that the Kazza network allowed multiple users to have the same user name. Also, it is made so that downloads were performed from multiple providers. So, where is the record of every packet received showing that each one was from the purported IP address? This can not be a massaged sample listing, but an appropriate capture with checksums using a software package that meets forensic needs. So far, the Media Sentry evidence would appear to be just hearsay.


Albert said...

Defense: Wrong Venue

In this response, the Plaintiffs suggest they should not be responsible for violation of the Massachuetts Private Detective Act because neither MediaSentry nor the Defendant was in Massachuetts. Quote from page 7:

"First, Defendant has stated that his computer which was connected to his Internet account with Cox Communications, Inc. on August 10, 2004 was located in Rhode Island, not in

Of course, leads the question, WHY IS THIS CASE IN MASSACHUSETTS, if the Defendant was in Rhode Island????


Anonymous said...

Anonymous 7/7 9:54:
You seem to be impliedly basing your determination of whether someone is a private investigator on Massachusetts law, and I'm not sure why that would apply to this case. Based on only a snippet of Tenenbaum's initital brief, it looks like Rhode Island has a much narrower definition.

I'm also surprised no one has jumped on Tenenbaum's apparent classification of copyright infringement as stealing. See objection at page 8 (impliedly arguing that the R.I. statute applies because MediaSentry was investigating "lost or stolen property").


The Common Man Speaking said...

Defendant’s unsupported and unsubstantiated (and unprofessional) attacks on Plaintiffs (and their counsel) are simply unfounded.

That's a lot of un-s.

specifically excludes Defendant from protection because he placed the sound recordings in a shared folder designed to be accessed by the general public.

Actually that is not true at all. Only specific people running an exact program in a defined manner would have access to these files. And only then after they accepted terms and conditions unique to that program. To argue otherwise is to say that any file on any computer that can be accessed in any manner by any program available to any member of the general public has no legal protection at all under the law.

If simply recording an IP address and metadata sent to someone over the Internet was illegal, copyright holders would be unable to protect their content on the Internet.

It is quite possible that content cannot be protected on the Internet under current laws. That does not entitle Plaintiffs to write their own laws to fill in these perceived gaps.

Buck said...

"Of course, leads the question, WHY IS THIS CASE IN MASSACHUSETTS, if the Defendant was in Rhode Island????"

Because the defendant is a resident of Mass., therefore the courts of the state have general jurisdiction over him, meaning he can be sued there (in his home state) for anything that happened anywhere.

Albert said...


Was not aware Defendant was in MA.

In any case, According to the rules, this case was twice dismissed, and thus there should be a Judgment in Defendant's favor.

Case # 1
The John Doe case to find out who had the IP. I could not find the exhibit A info on the IP address, but this was likely filed in whatever district his ISP has its main office. We all know from past experence that this case was vol. dismissed as soon as they had the info they desired.

Case # 2 03-CV-11661-NG in the District of Rhode Island. I am guessing that process was invalid, since they served Judith Tenenbaum, and the Defendant was not living at that location, because the Defendant was in fact living in MA.

Thus this case is Vol Dismissal # 2, so they can attempt to sue him in MA. However, under the rule this clearly was the second Vol Dismissal based upon the same set of facts and should have acted as a Judgment against the Plaintiffs

Instead, they filed case # 3 1:08-mc-00104-T-LDA in Mass. This case is the third, and should not be permitted under the rules.