This is where I draw a line…
Juries have an awful habit of NOT ignoring irrelevant material after it has been presented.
The juries in these cases all seem to suffer from both propaganda conditioning and a certain amount of technical ignorance (thanks to the jury selection process). All these cartel lawyers need to do (and they’ve demonstrated this quite openly) is “plant that seed” in the jurors’ minds about the “criminal” before them, and the seed just “grows”.

That “one-party-consent” is all that is required to record a communication (in the traditional form, a phone call) means that Mediasentry had legal right to record the transmission of information, in this case the IP address.

Interstate laws regarding PI licensing I am not debating – they either need or don’t need to be licensed. But it is not an invasion of privacy to view the shared folder of a peer user – that is the point of sharing – to make public your shared files and file list. That Joel may have shared it accidently is maybe Kazaa’s fault, or maybe his own, but not tha MAFIAA’s or Mediasentry’s. IF any law has been broken by Joel, then he was doing it in full view of the parties involved via the IP address.

Finally, whether or not IP info is accurate within the Kazaa program is relevant only in so much as one could prove spoofing or a multi-user IP address situation – if I can see your IP, and it really is your IP, and if further investigation proves you are, in fact, sharing copyrighted material, then the only question which remains is, ARE YOU AUTHORIZED TO SHARE, or have you committed an offense (criminal or civil).

I am a prolific downloader and file-sharer – I don’t purport to suggest that my choice is a legal one, only that it is something I BELIEVE IN. If I was caught via my IP address popping up on the MAFIAA’s copy of uTorrent, then it wouldn’t be hard to prove I was sharing. The question is, IS IT A CRIME? Should they be allowed to “see” my IP via the same software I use (or even a modified version of it)? Does it violate my privacy when I have voluntarily shared a file by my actions (intentional or not)?

I do not believe Joel is guilty of any crime. I also do not believe MediaSentry should be investigating without a license, nor that IP address alone is enough to convict someone (of a non existent crime!) – I do believe that facts are facts, and if the facts are irrelevant they will be ignored – if they are accurate and not collected in an unlawful manner, they still may be irrelevant, but should still be allowed to be presented. This was the judge’s decision to make – and it will be on the judge and jury to decide if the facts are relevant or not.

Wait a dog gone minute…. So Mediasentry didn’t have a presence in the state so it isn’t liable to the state laws?

Then why the bloody hell is Gary McKinnok being dragged through hell for extradition to America when he didn’t not have a presence in the US at the time but was sat at home in the UK? What he did was illegal in the UK, he should be tried in the UK.

I was under the (clearly incorrect) impression that offences that crossed state lines were more severe, not just discarded. Or should Joel’s lawyers be filing cases in Mediasentry’s home state, or should the FBI be taking up the case if it crosses states?

In fact, it does not seem “reasonable” that if someone’s files are exposed by “accident” that anyone should be allowed to download them.

And anyone cannot view your IP address. People can only view the Kazaa screen and it is not proven reliable in displaying the correct IP address. Each version of the software has to be verified reliable separately and iirc MediaSentry was using a modified copy. Maybe they messed something up! When police use breathalyzers to convict drunk drivers they have to prove the device is operating properly.

While, I agree with this, I still think it’s only logical from a “user” standpoint.

Submitting records of this activity has requirements. US law states that, in order to compile IP address lists and the like, for the purpose of presenting as evidence in a court case, the individual or party must have a valid PI license in the state affected by such investigation.

For some reason, the MAFIAA gets away with not only hiring MediaSentry with these conditions not being met, but also using their evidence acquired without meeting the same conditions, even after having fired MediaSentry. That’s where I have the problem – Why is a clearly-written law being ignored by the courts?!

Not that I approve of MediaSentry, but come on!? If ANYONE can view your IP address and file list, then there is no reason they couldn’t do the same without special permission. By sharing your files you offer permission to any connected user to view and download.