By Eric Bangeman
April 11, 2008 - 11:03AM CT

Is MediaSentry violating a cease-and-desist order prohibiting it from conducting private investigations in the state of Massachusetts? That's what it looks like at first glance.

On January 2, 2008, the Massachusetts State Police Certification Unit sent a letter to MediaSentry's corporate parent SafeNet informing the company that an investigation revealed that it is "advertising and operating a Private Detective company" and that review of state records indicates that the company is "not licensed to conduct investigations" in the state.

Ray Beckerman over at Recording Industry vs. The People has unearthed an exhibit (PDF) in LaFace v. Does 1-17 that shows that MediaSentry has continued to catch Massachusetts residents in its investigatory driftnet. The exhibit, which is a standard part of all of the file-sharing lawsuits filed by the RIAA, lists the IP addresses, dates, and times that the 17 Does were observed on a P2P network by MediaSentry employees.

Does 15 through 17, who were on the GnutellaUS network, were spotted by MediaSentry on January 22, January 31, and February 4, 2008, respectively. In the case of Doe 17, that's over a month after the cease-and-desist letter was sent. Earlier this week, we noted an RIAA filing in another case in which it argued that MediaSentry shouldn't be subject to state laws in part because MediaSentry "can have no way of knowing... the location from where [the files] are being distributed."