You say you're not a troll, but you're arguing pretty hard for a "disinterested observer". And your arguments are pure bunk.
And I'm a disinterested observer in this case only in this that I'm no party to the case, however considering I engage in P2P activities, I like to know where I would stand, so in that sense I'm interested.
And that's why I seldom argue :-) It's too time consuming when you want, for a change, to try and defend [part of] an unpopular idea (in this case, that the RIAA may be partially right).
I'm not arguing for the RIAA itself for a number of reasons, the first of which is that they're a bunch of extortionist putting out low-value junk music to the point where (until recently) there was nothing else to listen. However, I'm trying to discuss the arguments made in the case, individually, and not as a bundle. Of the 5 presented, the RIAA vs Does thing should have been thrown out based on one (the bundling of Does), if only that. Does that means that I should accept at face value all the other arguments the defence presents? Not at all...
Of the other 4, the only one anyone ever replied to was the use of MediaSentry. Their methodology and their "expert" (great transcript of your bashing him btw ;-) ) are junk and does not prove anything (you can't tell who's sitting at a computer at a given time, IP adress or not). If, however, a copyright holder were to file a suit against a single Doe, does the fact that the evidence was obtained illegally through an unlicensed investigator mean the case should be thrown out? That's what I'm asking and all the elements I could see initially lead me to think otherwise.
The case used as a reference (about the quasi-criminal illegal evidence thing) is way too technical for me to properly comprehend. Which is why I stopped trying to understand it (I'll come back to it when I have a law degree, in another life :p). As such, I don't feel qualified at all to discuss the technicality, which is why I stopped discussing it technically. All I'm left with arguing on that point is wether it's "right" to prevent one from trying to obtain proof based on non-proof/inadmissible/unlicensed/whatever, which is debatable (stricto sensu), and what that last post was about.
You say my arguments are bunk, I take that as your expert opinion on the matter. I now know for a fact that illegally obtained evidence, by non-government agents, is inadmissible in court, even in a civil trial. Case closed for that point as far as I'm concerned. I still think that it shouldn't be the case in this instance, as a matter of opinion.
Truth be told, I'd rather have noone else to defend me in a lawsuit against the RIAA should it ever happen (unlikely, I'm not a US citizen), I thought however that the comment section was for discussing, not just for chest-beating and rooting for the team. The fact that you've been winning case after case (or have them dismissed) means I'm most likely wrong, but does that means I should suspend any thinking ability I may possess and take everything said by the side I favor as truth? That would be the equivalent of an "appeal to authority" fallacy and that of division as well, and I just can't do that.
I'm away for the week-end, so I'll stop the discussion here. I'll just end this post with thanking you for your contribution, to the thread, to the news section in general and to my personal enlightenment :-)
Also, thanks for defending those people as you do, and for making the documents/discussions public, that's a lot of food for thought and interesting reads.