Quote:
MediaSentry's statements in Michigan administrative case contradicted by prior statements in UMG v. Lindor
You may recall that several days ago we posted some correspondence between MediaSentry's lawyer and Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth, in connection with administrative proceedings in Michigan over MediaSentry's being engaged in investigation without a license.
MediaSentry's lawyer replied that
SafeNet's activities fall squarely within the 1989 Opinion of the Michigan Attorney General, Frank J. Kelly, which excepts persons who are providing testimony in a lawsuit based on factual information gathered by application of technical knowledge. See 1989-1990 Mich. Op. Atty. Gen. . 263 1989 WL 445979 (Mich.A.G.) (the "Opinion"). The Opinion expressly cites the example of a chemical engineer who took photographs of, and samples from, the scene of a fire and from them prepared exhibits for use in Court. See id. The Opinion also included physicians, geologists and surveyors in the category of those who ought to enjoy the exception. SafeNet utilizes technical expertise in gathering factual evidence for use in just the same way as those other professionals, and thus enjoys the same exception.
Just for the heck of it we dug up some of their statements, and the RIAA's statements, from UMG v. Lindor, directly contradicting those representations, and representing to the Lindor court the exact opposite: saying that MediaSentry didn't rely on its technical expertise at all, but was just doing what any other Kazaa user does.
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogsp ... higan.htmlThanks to Ray Beckerman for picking up on this, nice one Ray!
Its just typical of this Cartel driven company, they will say anything to anyone if they feel it will help them dodge the law. Lets hope the courts nail them to the wall for this.
