Tuesday, February 19, 2008

MediaSentry removes terms "investigation" and "gathering evidence for litigation" from its web sites in attempt to cover up

A reader sent us some interesting "screen shots"..... before-and-after shots of MediaSentry's web site, showing that -- in response to the various investigations and litigations over its illegal investigations -- it has removed the terms "investigation services" and "gathering evidence for civil/criminal litigation". Our reader writes:

Ray, I am sending you a PDF file printed from MediaSentry's web page on 2/3/08. In the fine print on the left hand side of each of the pages, MediaSentry claims that it [provides] "Investigative Services", and that "Safenet has extensive experience gathering evidence for civil/criminal litigation and prosecution against those who engage in unauthorized online content distribution".

When I checked the web page again yesterday, 2/18/08, The page had been completely changed. Gone from the web page are the terms investigation, and information gathering, and they are replaced with terms like "intelligence services" and "Globally detect, track and deter the unauthorized distribution".

Looks like a MediaSentry is trying to cover its tracks.
It does indeed, doesn't it?

Good thing our reader was astute enough to make an historic record, as this *pdf should be useful to many prosecutors and other lawyers who are now trying to disprove MediaSentry's lies that it wasn't involved in 'investigation' at all, just gathering statistics for a 'nonprofit organization'.

[Ed. note: For those of you who like looking at old litigation documents made under penalty of perjury, you might want to try some of Richard Gabriel's declarations about MediaSentry's role: September 27, 2006, Declaration*; November 9, 2006, Declaration*. If you get into any litigation over whether MediaSentry was an "investigator" or not, just subpoena Mr. Gabriel as your lead witness.]

MediaSentry web pages*

* 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


Anonymous said...

Good thing our reader was astute enough to make an historic record,

While I commend your reader, the Wayback Machine, also known as The Internet Archives, attempts to maintain copies of all web pages and their versions since the beginning of the web. This has proven devastating in court for more than one litigant who felt that the moment they changed their web-page, all previous evidence of what it once was went away forever. Furthermore, unlike just a "screen snapshot" open to alteration ala SafeNet's usual evidence, this comes with an audit trail of when and how it was captured.

Your astute reader has performed an invaluable service by pointing you to exactly where to look in the event that his provided .PDF file is challenged by those liars that we all know them to be now.


Anonymous said...

Isn't that the very definition of 'spoliation'?

TwoCents (or maybe just one)

Anonymous said...

Since they now seem to not offer officially their "interdiction services" any more does that mean that they silently stipulate that up until now in all the past and also still pending case EVERY filename on those screenshots, that RIAA provides to judges where RIAA can not provide a digital copy of the alleged song with complete chain of evidence, is infact one of their "fake files" and thus no copyrightinfringement of plaintiffs' copyrights?!

James said...

So now they are going to completely claim to be something they're not? How is this not going to be perjury once this subterfuge finds its way to the courtroom?

Oh wait...too late.

But all in all, the good guys are surely on a roll right now. Thank you, R.B., along with any other lawyers like him reading this.


StephenH said...

Maybe they are afraid of being guilty of investigating without a license in three states. If they are guilty, the RIAA cases using them are in danger of the defendant winning.

Anonymous said...

Alter Fritz,

Don't mix up SafeNet/MediaSentry with Media Defender, a separate outfit who is dedicated (for a significant fee) to pushing out fakes of music files on all specified P2P networks, and recently suffered an embarrassing 700MB e-mail file leak. They are two different companies, both of whom the recording industry contracts for some services.

That e-mail leak, btw, showed that internally Media Defender knew how lame and ineffective their services were, and how they illegally used IP addresses not their own to bypass blocklists. They actually made fun of the ignorance of their very own customers on occasion.


Anonymous said...

I guess archive.org won't be helping after all. They blocked it from copying their site with a robots.txt file...

Anonymous said...

Mediasentry is acting like a kid that was caught with their hand in the cookie jar.


The question is, will they get away with it?


Anonymous said...


I am aware about Media-Defender and that the guys in the record companies instructed them to put out fakes. *

I just thought from the old webpage of MediaSentry that "interdiction services" is the same kind of service. Maybe thats not the case, Probably worth asking one of the MS guys what exactly "interdiction services" do involve next time one of them is commanded to appear at a depo.

* google cache result

raybeckerman said...

MediaSentry is in the business of sending out millions of fake corrupted song files. See deposition of its president.