I know that many folks who are against the RIAA's sue-'em-all strategy have played up the idea that MediaSentry (the company the RIAA used
to use to collect its flimsy "evidence") isn't a "licensed private investigator" in various states that require PI licenses. To be honest, I've always found this argument rather silly
and distracting from the main point. The whole "PI license" thing is focusing on a loophole, rather than the merits of the case. And, yes, the RIAA plays dirty and uses any loophole it can find against people at times, but that doesn't mean it's worth stooping to the RIAA's level. Claiming that anyone
needs a PI's license to see what IP address you have opens up a can of worms that we're better off leaving shut.
So, I actually think it's a good thing that a court has rejected this argument
in one case where it was raised. That doesn't mean that the evidence is strong or actually indicative of copyright infringement, but it hopefully gets the case focused on those actual issues, rather than a distracting side issue.