Despite being receiving a subpoena ordering them to hand over vital evidence to a file-sharers defence team MediaSentry are doing their best to hide their "infallible" detection system that has so far been used to help extort thousands of people out of millions of dollars.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080305-battle-brewing-over-mediasentrys-subpoena-stonewalling.htmlUMG v. Lindor is a three-year-old case pitting the recording industry against a widowed New York woman in her mid-50s who has never used a computer; the PC in question was her late husband's. A forensic search of the PC in her home has turned up no evidence of the files, and the only evidence tying her to any copyright infringement is the username jrlindor@kazaa that was flagged by MediaSentry.
Given that the case is likely to hinge on the identify of jrlindor@kazaa, Lindor's attorney, Ray Beckerman, wants more insight into MediaSentry's investigative techniques. To that end, Lindor obtained a subpoena last November ordering MediaSentry to turn over materials related to its investigative techniques in general and the investigation of Lindor in particular.
The judge presiding over the case has also directed the record labels to cough up data on the actual losses incurred for each of the 38 songs that Lindor is accused of infringing. Beckerman hopes to use the information as part of his argument that the statutory damages sought by the RIAA are unconstitutionally excessive. If Lindor's legal team is able to get the data it's looking for from MediaSentry, it may be able to cast serious doubts on MediaSentry's investigative methods. If those methods can be shown to be substandard, incomplete, and inconsistent with industry-accepted best practices, they could lead a jury to look at the data collected by MediaSentry with a very skeptical eye.
Its standard legal practice to throw out evidence that cannot stand up to scrutiny, no one forced the recodring industry to bring this case and no one forced MediaSentry to provide "evidence" , I,m using that term loosely folks as it seems that if they call their screenshots "evidence" they are also breaking the law by not having a private investigators licence.
In any legal case if evidence is challenged its then the job of those providing that "evidence" who have a legal and moral responsibility to provide what the opposing party asks for, in this case its to ensure the IP collection methods have a reasonably safe technical base and that potential failings in the method are made clear to a judge or jury.
Its starting to look like MediaSentry have no specialist sofware or knowledge aside from a screen capture program, photoshop and a selection of beers to choose from.
