RIAA Backs Down On "Unlicensed Investigator"

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Texas grandmother Rhonda Crain got the RIAA to drop its monetary claims against her after she filed counterclaims against the record companies for using an investigator, MediaSentry, which is not licensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas. The RIAA elected to drop its claims rather than wait for the Judge to decide the validity of Ms. Crain's charges (PDF) that the plaintiff record companies were 'aware that the... private investigations company was unlicensed to conduct investigations in the State of Texas specifically, and in other states as well... and understood that unlicensed and unlawful investigations would take place in order to provide evidence for this lawsuit, as well as thousands of others as part of a mass litigation campaign.' Similar questions about MediaSentry's unlicensed investigations were raised recently by the State Attorney General of Oregon in Arista v. Does 1-17"

Comments

Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[davidwr]

I'd love to see the discovery on that one.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Doesn't matter. No one connected with the RIAA mob has any accountability. Ever.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[TheMeuge]

Someone should set up a fund for her to go after RIAA and MediaSentry over this.

Heck, I'd Paypal a few bucks over to see how this turns out. I figure another ten thousand people are with me. If we all chip in $20, that'd be enough to get this ball rolling.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[427_ci_505]

That'd still only be $200,000.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[jcr]

I agree.. I don't know if she has to drop her cross-complaint just because the RIAA's bailing.

-jcr

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Original Replica]

No one connected with the RIAA mob has any accountability.

Even if RIAA loses money on this, it doesn't matter much. Until some RIAA board members are facing real prison time, they will use whatever tactics the manage to get away with.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, sir math nerd

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm wondering the same thing? She filed a counterclaim, if she filed it, is it only contingent on the original claim still being there?

I mean, it sounds like it's like if you decided to sue someone, and they said "You know what, I'll just drop everything because I don't want the judge to pass a verdict." However, I thought the Defendant couldn't drop the suit, the Plaintiff who brought the suit, is the only one who could drop it???

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[A nonymous Coward]

Would that be Sir Mathsalot, the knight in summing armor?

After all, multiplication is just repeated additions ...

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[BlueParrot]

After all, multiplication is just repeated additions ...

Sure, and exponentiation is just repeated multiplication. Hence you should have no trouble calculating pi^(i*e) , right ?

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Blkdeath]

Doesn't matter. No one connected with the RIAA mob has any accountability. Ever.

And why should they? They're going after evil people who steal from the mouths of starving artists! If this keeps up, there will be no more music! Who'd want to produce if there's no money in it for them? After all, everybody knows the draw of the Rock Star lifestyle is what it's all about! And if they can't buy any Cristal Champagne and cocaine what will they do with their time between unpaid gigs?

Until we can get rid of the general public perception that "piracy == bad" and "recording industry == good" they aren't going to face penalties.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Mr. Freeman]

I think his point was that "only $200k" isn't very much when you take into account how expensive it would be to hire lawyers capable of fighting the RIAA. Considering the fact that the RIAA has an assload of money and in-house lawyers, it might take a lot more than $200k to beat them.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Tuoqui]

IANAL but I think both parties have to be in agreement to drop a suit. The RIAA gets away with dropping so many suits because the defendants simply do not want to continue the fight and just get back to their normal everyday lives so they go 'sure lets drop it'.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[A nonymous Coward]

Hence you should have no trouble calculating pi^(i*e) , right ?

Ask Sir Mathsalot, not me. I am but a knave.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Nossie]

ok how about ...

$200k in donations...
the support of the many indie labels out there
and a 100,000 strong class action... to finally prove that the *IAA are a cartel and extort money out of their customers akin to drug dealers?

One person with 1 or 2 lawyers w/ 200k is not going to go far with the mighty media mafiaa and their company sized legal departments... but if you also have the support of 100,000 other rather pissed off customers tied together with those two layers and 200k you could blow the lid right of the scam and the judge/jury would not be able to deny the show of public force.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[brouski]

Until we can get rid of the general public perception that "piracy == bad" and "recording industry == good" they aren't going to face penalties.

When is piracy not bad?

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[jmnormand]

Even if RIAA loses money on this, it doesn't matter much. Until some RIAA board members are facing real prison time, they will use whatever tactics the manage to get away with. It matters if the share holders and parent execs of the media companies actually have enough intelligence to realize they are wasting what will amount to billions on a losing battle rather than spending the money to innovate and become more profitable. Until then all we can do is fight, fortunately we out number them a million or so to one...

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[jmnormand]

when its perfectly legal fair use. which by the strict modern definition is still piracy. now if your talking the old school definition, well im not on a boat so...

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Scruffy Dan]

"If we all chip in $20, that'd be enough to get this ball rolling."

And that is the problem. Unless you have lots of money, many legitimate legal options are completely out of your reach.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[nomadic]

IANAL but I think both parties have to be in agreement to drop a suit. The RIAA gets away with dropping so many suits because the defendants simply do not want to continue the fight and just get back to their normal everyday lives so they go 'sure lets drop it'.

Generally a party can dismiss its own case. If the opposing party has filed counterclaims, however, the case still proceeds on those.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[lar3ry]

Um...

After doing the long way, I came up with -1.

No problem.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[SL Baur]

Nope. e ** (pi * i) is -1. I'm not sure what pi ** (e * i) is.

- Your friendly neighborhood pedantic, but not all-knowing math Nazi

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[VisceralLogic]

Nope. e ** (pi * i) is -1. I'm not sure what pi ** (e * i) is.

For the record, pi^(e*i) is approximately -0.99955 + 0.02989i

For the further record, I found that using some complex math software I wrote in high school. :) (Why yes, I am a nerd... why do you ask?)

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[ibbey]

When is piracy not bad?

The problem is the loaded term "piracy". Is it bad to download a few songs from an artist that you've heard of but never heard? I've done that several times. In the vast majority of those cases, I would not have bought the artists albums if I had not downloaded their songs first. In some cases, I didn't like what I heard & left it at that. In several other cases I have since bought albums by those artists, and in at least a few cases, I now own every CD available from the artist. So would you call my "piracy" in these cases a bad thing, even though they ended up resulting in more money in the artists pocket?

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Technician]

In item 4 of the settlement may make it impossible for her to persue Media Sentry.

Any challange of the validity either directly or otherwise may be in violation of the terms of the settlement. I think she is doing good to delete her files, cancel her internet account or prohibit anyone from using her connection including family members, and walk away.

Making a contribution to the EFF may even be in violation of the terms. That sucks!

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[sconeu]

So, after the flood, Noah tells all the animals to "be fruitful and multiply!"

He wanders around, and the rabbits are screwing like rabbits, the minks are screwing like minks, and the elephants are... well, doing whatever elephants do.

Then he comes and sees some snakes, and they're not doing the nasty. Noah asks them what's wrong, and they say "We're adders!"

So Noah goes away and thinks. He then comes back, cuts down a couple of trees, and makes picnic tables from the logs. He tells the snakes to hang out there, and goes away.

A few hours later, he comes back and sees that the snakes are getting it on, which just goes to prove...

Even adders can multiply using log tables!

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[QuietObserver]

Nope. e ** (pi * i) is -1. I'm not sure what pi ** (e * i) is.

For the record, pi^(e*i) is approximately -0.99955 + 0.02989i

For the further record, I found that using some complex math software I wrote in high school. :) (Why yes, I am a nerd... why do you ask?)

And e^(pi*i) is actually -1 + -0.000000000001267i, which is also not quite -1.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[KDR_11k]

When is P2P actually fair use?

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[KDR_11k]

If the plaintiff dismisses a case can he bring it again at a later date or is the matter considered settled then?

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[rubycodez]

...because IEEE finite precision floating specs supercede actual exact analytical mathematics in any slashdotter's reality

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[lazy_playboy]

"When is P2P actually fair use?"

When you use P2P to hear a demo of an album then go on to buy the whole back catalogue. It's not fair use in legal terms, but certainly is in moral term.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[QuietObserver]

Actually, I'd think my sig explained it all. That, and the fact my jokes tend to be somewhat complex in nature, which again, recursively points back to my sig.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Eivind Eklund]

If I've understood things correctly, that's the different of dismissing "with and without prejudice". If you dismiss without prejudice, you can bring the suit again later, while if you dismiss with prejudice, you admit that the case is moot and can't bring it again.

Eivind.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[GreatBunzinni]

When is piracy not bad?

Depends of your personal definition of "piracy". The term "piracy" was, right from the start, a new term intended to be as loaded as it could be to refer to the unauthorized commercialization of copyrighted works. In that time, no normal person could possibly consider that guy selling bootleg tapes/books to be a menace to society. After all, the only thing that that guy did was duplicate something and sell it cheaper than others. That couldn't possibly hurt society.

So, in order to fight that perceived source of lower profits, the companies that were in the business of selling authorized copies of those works decided to shut that down. As they weren't able to gather public support for that battle then they decided to start a public relations campaign against the unauthorized commercialization of copyrighted books (their competition). The first step was coining a negative image to the unauthorized sellers, which originated terms like "bootlegger" and "pirate", evil figures associated with violent, organized crime. It's easier to fight someone/something when they are evil. There was no surprise a while back when some american retarded record company spokesperson started associating "piracy" to terrorism.

Now those companies intend to include in that definition people who have absolutely nothing to do with the old definition of "piracy". Now the record companies, motivated by greed and the lust for control, want to label anyone who downloads anything remotely copyrighted as a "pirate". There is no commercialization of any copyrighted work. Now, instead of attempting to smear and fight the distributors, they are trying to attack the end consumer.

Does it make any sense to label as pirates people who bought unauthorized copies of copyrighted works? Obviously not. Yet, the record companies are trying to go the extra nonsense mile and pin that nasty, loaded label on people who access those works without ever exchanging any money.

So it isn't a question of "when is piracy not bad". As questionable as "piracy", the unauthorized commercialization of a copyrighted work, may be, the real question that must be placed here, and unfortunately you failed to understand, is why is non-"piracy" actions being labelled as "piracy" in the first place? If I download something for personal use after paying absolutely nothing for it then how exactly can you claim that I'm commercializing an unauthorized copy of some copyrighted work? Moreover, why should anyone be called a "pirate" if what that person is doing is perfectly included in their nation's fair use doctrine?

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Anonymous Coward]

> It's not fair use in legal terms, but certainly is in moral term.

So, not actually "fair use" then.
I doubt they would care about a "demo" being distributed by P2P. They would probably be laughing all the way to the bank.
But calling an album a "demo" does not make it so and to claim that only these demos are distributed is just laughable. Just more handwaving bollox to justify being a little thieving shit.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

None of the cases are about 'piracy'. In copyright parlance, 'piracy' means large scale commercial reproduction and resale of copies. Not a single case brought by the RIAA has involved 'piracy'. It is the MPAA/RIAA propagandists who have been trying to rewrite the definition of the term 'piracy'.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[kmac06]

No need to use complex math software, it's also equal to cos(e*ln(pi))+i*sin(e*ln(pi)) which you can get to with just a bit of algebra.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[jmnormand]

p2p and piracy are two different things. however i would argue downloading music you own the rights to but no longer have a working hard copy of is a perfectly legitimate use of p2p, and i suspect a court would find the same.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[klagermkii]

People seem to forget that the purpose of copyright is not to give the author ultimate control of their work, but rather to provide a way for them to make money and thereby encourage them to keep churning out more things. Copyright is a case of the ends justifying the means. Prohibiting others from duplicating, so as to allow the author to make money, is a "necessary evil" but not the real purpose of it.

The IP brigade have tried to turn this whole thing around so that what was just a necessary evil (i.e the prohibitation of duplication) becomes the real purpose of copyright.

We need to get back to the original spirit of copyright, where if it makes the author more money than they would have otherwise had (even if you've broken copyright law) then you're doing your part to help the cause of the arts and sciences.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[KDR_11k]

FAIK courts don't care that much about downloading but uploading is copyright infringement.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[nomadic]

If the plaintiff dismisses a case can he bring it again at a later date or is the matter considered settled then?

Generally you can bring it at a later date. However if it is dismissed again, whether by the court or voluntarily, then that ends the matter.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[ShiNoKaze]

You're missing the point. You see you're thinking logically and rationally, this is not conducive to you spending money. They pay for lots of press and hype and you buy hype. That's how it works. They tell you what to like, don't you understand? This thinking crap is getting in the way of their percentage return on investment numbers.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[ConceptJunkie]

Actually, it would be $200,020.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[jedidiah]

An entire album most certainly can be called a demo.

It's just a matter of the fans doing unauthorized promotion.

Such activities are probably FAR more likely to be effective
than conventional methods. This is especially true for acts
that aren't the darlings of the cartel and thus do not get
airtime in the payola system.

Once upon a time, before Clear Channel, old school radio
stations would play an entire album from start to finish.

p2p file sharing pales in comparison to that.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[Anonymous Coward]

The correct answer is chocolatecake.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[LWATCDR]

"In copyright parlance, 'piracy' means large scale commercial reproduction and resale of copies."
So piracy wouldn't be used to describe a TV station that broadcast a copy of a show and sold ads without the paying for that right?
As much as I don't like the RIAA and MPAA many web sites like Pirate's Bay do just that.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[redxxx]

when it helps raise awareness of a product, and does not compete with dvd sales. when it is used by IP owners to pre-screen pilots, to predict how popular a show will be. when the RIAA says that ripping your own CDs to MP3. when eventually morons who have drank corporate america's Kool Aid long enough, and finaly realize they don't share the same interests. when the IP industry has has most of the US Government in it's pocket, so no Copyright will ever expire. and of course, when I do it.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[jonbryce]

You've got it the wrong way round.

The purpose of copyright as stated in the US constitution is to encourage greater creation and distribution of creative works.

"The Congress shall have power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

"In copyright parlance, 'piracy' means large scale commercial reproduction and resale of copies." So piracy wouldn't be used to describe a TV station that broadcast a copy of a show and sold ads without the paying for that right? As much as I don't like the RIAA and MPAA many web sites like Pirate's Bay do just that. No it wouldn't, because the term was coined long before something like that would have been possible... in those dark days before the dawning of the digital age.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[klagermkii]

I totally agree with you in principle, but the battle in Congress over increasing the strength of copyright has already been perverted into a simple equation:

More Money For Creative People = Greater Progress

People like Lessig are going in with excellent arguments like yours, and are getting rebuffed because it is now entrenched in the minds of the majority of people that "Money = Progress". Even though you are technically correct, the concept that progress can be encouraged by any other means than money has already been lost (at least to the lawmakers). Thanks Disney!

Now they're moving to entrench the idea of "intellectual property", and we need to stop this before it takes hold. Their approach is try and prove "maximum control over information = maximum money for artists". We need to be proving that artists can actually make *more money* if there is a freer flow of information, even if that means sometimes people pirate stuff.

You can already see them winning the hearts and minds of people by looking on internet forums and seeing the reaction when someone says they pirated a CD to try it out. Even if that person then says they liked it and bought it afterwards people will start chiming in that what they did was evil.

We can and need to win this battle on the grounds of "what makes the most money for artists" not "limited time to promote arts and sciences", because Congress/Supreme Court/Joe Sixpack no longer cares about that. If we're not careful "intellectual property" will become the dominant meme that guides future copyright decisions.

That's the biggest reason why even though we do know the true meaning of copyright, we should be focusing on convincing people that artists can do better without "intellectual property".

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Yeah, but contributions strategically made to the right cases can lead to important precedents that will reverberate across the country.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[TheoMurpse]

In typical Slashdotter fashion, I didn't RTFA. However, one way the RIAA could have dropped its case is by moving for a nonsuit, or "voluntary dismissal" in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. I assume that the suit was in federal court in TX since copyright is federal subject matter; however, had it been filed in TX state court for some reason (yippie kie yay, I'm studying law in TX), a nonsuit is still the proper avenue for the plaintiff dropping its suit without prejudice. A nonsuit/voluntary dismissal results with the case being dismissed without prejudice, which means the plaintiff can bring his claim again in a new lawsuit. One point about voluntary dismissals in federal procedure is that you only get to dismiss once. Thus, if the RIAA brings this suit again later, they can't dismiss it a second time.

Finally, from my good ol' black letter outline on Federal Civil Procedure:

If the defendant pleads a counterclaim prior to the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the complaint, the action cannot be dismissed against the defendant's objection unless the counterclaim remains pending for independent adjudication by the court. . . . As a practical matter, it is possible for a plaintiff to have its complaint dismissed, but have to defend against a counterclaim.

And just to cite what deserves citation, here is the book from which I've cited. The author is one of the nation's foremost fed civ pro academics and practitioners, and I consider her words almost beyond question.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[LWATCDR]

"No it wouldn't, because the term was coined long before something like that would have been possible... in those dark days before the dawning of the digital age."
And a computer used to mean a person that did math for a living so what? What would you call it when you profit by providing access to copyrighted material that you don't have the rights too? Are we going to have to invent a new word for it? Will it have to be a different words if it is on CD-Rs, memory cards, websites, emails, and or FTP sites?
At this point you are playing games with semantics.

Re:Is she going to sue MediaSentry?

[ibbey]

You've got it the wrong way round.

Well, actually, that's exactly what he said. He said that the purpose of copyright was to encourage creators to "keep churning out more things" (or some such). While that might not be as eloquently worded as the constitution, it basically means the same thing.

It's also important to remember that under the original law, copyright terms were 14 years + one renewal. The current Life + 70 years term does nothing to encourage artists to create new works-- in fact they may have the opposite effect in some cases since both an artist and their children can now live on the royalties of a single work for more then a century in many cases (granted, most works won't be generating substantial royalties for that period, but it happens in isolated cases such as the famous "happy birthday" case). The only real benefactors of the copyright extensions are major corporations who want the royalties, but even more importantly, they want the control of the work. I have no problem with reasonable copyright terms (20 + 20 seems to serve the original intent of the law) but the current terms are a sham.

More important question

[bconway]

Is MediaSentry licensed to investigate in the state in which they actually performed the investigation? The location of the plaintiff's IP is irrelevant, it could be next door, it could be in Alaska.

Re:More important question

[stonemetal]

They filed the lawsuit in texas so the investigator has to be licensed in texas. See the connection there, Texas law equals need Texas license to conduct investigation.

Re:More important question

[Maxo-Texas]

Riaa probably doesn't feel it is fair to have to obey all these different licensing restrictions. They probably want to use the results of the investigations as they choose since they paid good money for the results. Fortunately, they can only legally use investigators the way we can use songs and other copyrighted materials.

Ah.. it is so nice when the worm turns.

Re:More important question

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Apparantly they aren't licensed to investigate in any state:

"The illegality of the private investigations is also known to defendants," says Lybeck in the court document.
Most states require licensing or registration of private investigators. In Oregon, unlicensed investigators are subject to civil and criminal penalties. These licensing laws are well known to reputable investigators. On information and belief, MediaSentry and his investigators are not and have not been licensed to conduct private investigations of private citizens in Oregon or any other state. Their investigations are illegal.
For years, the RIAA and its member companies have been using flawed and illegal private investigation information as part of their co-ordinated scheme and comment enterprise to threaten, intimidate and coerce payment from private citizens across the United States.

Re:More important question

[bigpicture]

The investigation took place inside the computer of the person they are suing. That would be in the State in which that person lives, irrespective of where MediaSentry is located or licensed. It will probably all be about where the information resides.

Re:More important question

[jmnormand]

yes but the physical location of the infringing hard drive, being the source of the copyrighted works, could be some what important. im no lawyer but i suspect that may play a role in such a case...

Re:More important question

[stanley232305]

This is a good example of the law not keeping up with (or addressing) issues brought on by technological advancement. Maybe providing the law will abate uninformed opinions:

  1702.101. Investigations Company License Required

Unless the person holds a license as an investigations company, a person may not:

(1) act as an investigations company;

(2) offer to perform the services of an investigations company; or

(3) engage in business activity for which a license is required under this chapter.

***

  1702.104. Investigations Company

(a) A person acts as an investigations company for the purposes of this chapter if the person:

(1) engages in the business of obtaining or furnishing, or accepts employment to obtain or furnish, information related to:

(A) crime or wrongs done or threatened against a state or the United States;

(B) the identity, habits, business, occupation, knowledge, efficiency, loyalty, movement, location, affiliations, associations, transactions, acts, reputation, or character of a person;

(C) the location, disposition, or recovery of lost or stolen property; or

(D) the cause or responsibility for a fire, libel, loss, accident, damage, or injury to a person or to property;

(2) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, evidence for use before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee;

(3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or

(4) engages in the business of protecting, or accepts employment to protect, an individual from bodily harm through the use of a personal protection officer.

(b) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), obtaining or furnishing information includes information obtained or furnished through the review and analysis of, and the investigation into the content of, computer-based data not available to the public.

***

  1702.381. Civil Penalty

(a) A person who is not licensed under this chapter, who does not have a license application pending, and who violates this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty to be paid to the state not to exceed $10,000 for each violation.

(b) A person who contracts with or employs a person who is required to hold a license, certificate of registration, or security officer commission under this chapter knowing that the person does not hold the required license, certificate, or commission or who otherwise, at the time of contract or employment, is in violation of this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty to be paid to the state in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each violation.

(c) A civil penalty under this section may be assessed against a person on proof that the person has received at least 30 days' notice of the requirements of this section.

  1702.382. Injunction

(a) An attorney for the department, the attorney general's office, or any criminal prosecutor in this state may institute an action against a person to enjoin a violation by the person of this chapter or an administrative rule.

(b) An injunction action instituted under this section does not require an allegation or proof that an adequate remedy at law does not exist or that substantial or irreparable damage would result from the continued violation to sustain an action under this section. A bond is not required for an injunction action instituted under this section.

  1702.383. Action for Civil Penalty or Injunction

If a person has violated a provision of this chapter for which a penalty is imposed under Section 1702.381, an attorney for the department, the attorney general's office, or any criminal prosecutor in this state may institute a civil suit in a Travis County district court or in a district court in the county in which the violation occurred for injunctive relief under Section 1702.382 or for assessment and recovery of the civil penalty.

Re:More important question

[Builder]

Wow! So if I read that right, anyone who is involved in providing evidence for a court has to be a licensed investigator in the state that they are working? What a complete PITA! No wonder it's close to impossible to find decent technical representation for court cases!

On another note, did anyone notice this:

(3) engages in the business of securing, or accepts employment to secure, the electronic tracking of the location of an individual or motor vehicle other than for criminal justice purposes by or on behalf of a governmental entity; or (emphasis mine)

So if you're doing nasty sneaking for a govt. entity, you just need low morals, no license :D

Re:More important question

[f1055man]

In many states, PI laws make googling a prospective employee a felony. In practice licensing only matters if you're planning on giving testimony or sitting outside someone's house all day (and need to give an officer a good explanation why).

Somebody needs to.

[Finallyjoined!!!]

And quick.

They should have dropped the suit entirely

[stox]

If I am reading this right, IANAL, blah, blah, blah, RIAA is simply dropping monetary damages. They have not dropped the suit. I don't see how this will effect the counter-claims. Hopefully, Grandma will ream their tail ends so bad that their heads will fall through.

Go Grandma! Go!

Re:They should have dropped the suit entirely

[whoever57]

If I am reading this right, IANAL, blah, blah, blah, RIAA is simply dropping monetary damages. They have not dropped the suit. I don't see how this will effect the counter-claims.

IANAL, but if you read the pdf document, it does not explicitly say that the RIAA is dropping its claim for damages either -- but I think that because both parties request entry of final judgment on the basis that there will be an injunction against the Granny, that ends the matter for both sides -- the RIAA can no longer claim money for past actions and the Granny can no longer claim compensation for anything done by the RIAA relating to this.

I wonder if she could start a new suit against MediaSentry though?

Re:They should have dropped the suit entirely

[Anonymous Coward]

affect, not effect

Re:They should have dropped the suit entirely

[Lord_of_the_nerf]

There could be an ongoing theme here. Has anyone looked into whether their ambulance chasers have been disbarred?

An effective weapon for now...

[Chabil Ha']

...but the Borg will adapt.

Re:An effective weapon for now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Development continues in the filing of metaphasic motions and randomized frequency objections.

direction is good though

[rubycodez]

things are changing, people are waking up to the danger and harm of these parasite cartels

What's the significance of a license

[slashqwerty]

I am curious what the significance of a license is. I assume a licensed investigator has to take a test and possibly be bonded. How does that affect their ability to collect evidence or impact their credibility in court? One would expect most states to have similar licensing requirements. If MediaSentry is licensed in some states certainly they must follow the general guidelines that Texas requires of licensed investigators. Also, since copyright infringement is a federal issue why does it matter what Texas law says?

Re:What's the significance of a license

[Ruke]

IANAL, but I'm thinking it probably has something to do with the legality of MediaSentry collecting evidence. I can't break into your house, take photos of you torrenting the new Linkin Park CD, and use that as evidence in court.

Re:What's the significance of a license

[DigitAl56K]

If MediaSentry is licensed in some states certainly they must follow the general guidelines that Texas requires of licensed investigators.

What if Texas applies rules to investigations that protect Texans, but not others, from certain practices, or if certain things are permitted under Texas regulations but prohibited elsewhere?

I think it would be unlikely for a judge to say "Okay, we'll accept agencies licensed in Texas", because you then loose the ability to enforce investigators operating in your state to conform to the guidelines of your state - anybody could go get licensed in the most lax state for the area of investigation that is their primary focus.

Re:What's the significance of a license

[ral8158]

It's all about how they collected the evidence; though. You can't just go around and stalk people or whatever and then ignore state law because you think they've violated a federal law.

Re:What's the significance of a license

[sjames]

I am curious what the significance of a license is. I assume a licensed investigator has to take a test and possibly be bonded. How does that affect their ability to collect evidence or impact their credibility in court?

It is considerably significant. If you are licensed, then you know that it could be revoked if you behave unethically or illegally. If you are licensed, it is an indication that as far as anyone knows, you haven't behaved unethically or illegally in the past. That DOES tend to enhance credibility in court.

The license needs to be in the particular state since otherwise, in addition to shopping for the most lax state, some might cheat by getting licenced in one state and doing all of their dirty deeds in another state outside the jurisdiction of the licensing board.

It matters in a federal case because you're not allowed to present illegally gathered evidence in court. Investigators are required to obey all relevant federal, state, and local laws.

Re:What's the significance of a license

[drmerope]

Do you realize that following someone is not 'stalking'. Stalking has a mens rea requirement in most states: to be guilty of stalking you must have the intention of inflicting emotional distress upon your target. Intention is the hardest mens rea to prove.

... and something a third party investigator can safely be clear of.

Re:What's the significance of a license

[ral8158]

I didn't necessarily mean to literally stalk, I just meant to say something like, "collect information about." "Investigate", even.

Re:What's the significance of a license

[entrigant]

Then that sucks for the person living in *that* state. There are strict rules for where one must prosecute, and since the defendant lives in Texas and committed the crime in Texas the case is tried in Texas with all applicable state and local laws in the city in Texas in which she lives.

Re:What's the significance of a license

[Duhavid]

"If you are licensed, it is an indication that as far as anyone knows, you haven't behaved unethically or illegally in the past. "

So, could the issue of MediaSentry performing an investigation of this sort
where they were not licensed to do so have any effect on their licensing
elsewhere?

Re:What's the significance of a license

[ScrewMaster]

If you are licensed, then you know that it could be revoked if you behave unethically or illegally. If you are licensed, it is an indication that as far as anyone knows, you haven't behaved unethically or illegally in the past. That DOES tend to enhance credibility in court.

Well, if that's the case maybe we should consider a license requirement for attorneys ... oh wait.

Re:What's the significance of a license

[civilizedINTENSITY]

They aren't licensed anywhere.

Re:What's the significance of a license

[sjames]

That would really depend on the particular rules in other places and if they hear about it or not.

Re:What's the significance of a license

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

So does this mean that the RIAA's past cases are subject to review if the defendant caved on the basis of MediaSentry evidence?

Re:What's the significance of a license

[DigitAl56K]

Yes, but the point is that MediaSentry is not licensed to investigate in Texas. If you want to prosecute someone there are certain standards you have to meet in collecting evidence. Being a licensed investigator is probably one of them.

Maybe we're both saying the same thing? I'm not sure what your point is.

Re:What's the significance of a license

[civilizedINTENSITY]

IANAL (but wouldn't it be fun?) so take me with a large grain of salt, but it seems like most cases I hear about settle out of court. I suspect the settlement screws you in terms of "review", because you can't appeal a case that didn't occur. Right?

Re:What's the significance of a license

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Good question; I'd love to hear from an IAAL-positive individual on this.

What does one do when they find that the legal threat that scared them into submission might have been a load of crap after all?

Re:What's the significance of a license

[MightyYar]

Prosecution? Who committed a crime? I thought this was a civil trial?

Re:What's the significance of a license

[TheoMurpse]

I can't break into your house, take photos of you torrenting the new Linkin Park CD, and use that as evidence in court.

I haven't taken Evidence yet (next semester), but I think you can use that as evidence. If I understand correctly, the prohibition on evidence acquired through unlawful search and seizure is a constraint upon the State, not upon the private individual.

Would a lawyer care to chime in and correct me if I'm wrong? I can't find relevant information in the Federal Rules of Evidence, so I suspect the prohibition comes from the Bill of Rights itself and needs no provision in the FRE.

House of Cards

[Cpt_Kirks]

Their whole house of cards is coming down.

Actually, it is more like one of those building implosions. It starts slow, then...

The RIAA is getting hit more and more lately. More judges are finding against them. More people fighting back. More states and schools refusing to play along. 2008 may be the year they give it up.

Maybe.

Re:House of Cards

[Malevolyn]

Old ladies are pwning noobs better than I can, these days.

Re:House of Cards

[kcbanner]

Why would they give up, their still getting paid.

Re:House of Cards

[Nossie]

are they? when large media conglomerates are already suggesting the amount of funding they give the RIAA?

Re:House of Cards

[pheco]

wat

Re:House of Cards

[Vr6dub]

In America, only old ladies pwn noobs.

Not surprising

[Stanislav_J]

They probably thought it was better to drop one case than to risk a precedent-setting decision that would have invalidated hundreds of other similar "investigations" and perhaps result in some sort of class-action suit.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

bah, civil litigators should not be free to choose their battles. Why? Because the people who they sue aren't free to choose their battle when they get sued - people should either be free to turn down a law suit or all litigators should be expected to go after all other potential cases that have the same or greater prima facie evidence of the same or similar infringement, and if the plaintiff wants to drop the case, they need the permission of the defendant.

Re:Not surprising

[LiENUS]

I'm sure the defendant was all too happy to have the RIAA drop the case. The RIAA picks targets who just want to get the case done, they aren't going to go after someone with ideals and any form of solid ground to stand on any time soon.

Re:Not surprising

[Stradivarius]

IANAL, but from what I read they did not actually *drop* the case. What happened is that the RIAA and the defendant agreed to a judgment being entered against the defendant, in which the sole penalty was that the defendant agreed not to infringe on the RIAA copyrights in the future, and to delete any improperly obtained files from her system.

Escaping a RIAA lawsuit with no monetary damages is no small accomplishment. But it's not quite the same as having the suit dismissed, since a judgment against you means you were found guilty (well, "liable" I guess since it's a civil rather than criminal matter). If you're innocent, as the article claims she is, this is still a loss. It's just not nearly as painful as it could have been.

Re:Not surprising

[TubeSteak]

They probably thought it was better to drop one case than to risk a precedent-setting decision that would have invalidated hundreds of other similar "investigations" and perhaps result in some sort of class-action suit. The RIAA is counting on the defendant to not sue for a declaratory judgement.

You don't even have to be sued to do this. If you think someone is going to sue you over something, you can premptively ask the court to decide [some issue]. This allows potential defendants to take the initiative.

Anyone in Texas (or any other state for that matter) who has received one of the RIAA's form letters should sue for a declaratory judgement that MediaSentry is not licensed for private investigations in [Your State Here].

Re:Not surprising

[dpninerSLASH]

Exactly. The fact that an organization the size of the RIAA, with its nearly unlimited resources, would effectively throw up their hands and walk away should speak volumes to other victims and consumers in general, and I'm certain the brightest legal minds in the US are reviewing this case with a fine-toothed comb to discover exactly what the perceived weaknesses were.

Re:Not surprising

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

They probably thought it was better to drop one case than to risk a precedent-setting decision that would have invalidated hundreds of other similar "investigations" and perhaps result in some sort of class-action suit. I agree with you, Stanislav_J. That is why they decided to cut and run. They were hoping for a nice, quiet settlement that no one would notice. They have a very big problem with this issue, as ALL of their cases are based upon this illegal investigation. It has already gotten the curiosity of Oregon's Attorney General.

Re:Not surprising

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The fact that an organization the size of the RIAA, with its nearly unlimited resources, would effectively throw up their hands and walk away should speak volumes to other victims and consumers in general, and I'm certain the brightest legal minds in the US are reviewing this case with a fine-toothed comb to discover exactly what the perceived weaknesses were. Well I don't know about the "brightest legal minds" but I'm certainly "reviewing it" and don't think I need a "fine-toothed comb" to discover the weakness. It's the fact that their entire house of cards is built on something that's inadmissible in evidence.

Re:it gets worse :(

[BlueParrot]

That wouldn't cover myself, but I can ensure you that I am quite gay...

Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ray is definitely fighting the good fight in taking a lead on all the RIAA nonsense, but one thing miffs me quite a bit. Why is it that every time he writes about someone who got sued, it's always "Texas grandmother So-and-So" or "Mother-of-two Blah Blah" or "Penniless, Starving Immigrant Family With Two Unwell Cats" or whatever? What difference does it make in this case that she's a grandmother? I see nothing in the summary of the TFA that explains why this is in any way relevant.

I mean sure, it's useful to keep in mind that there are human beings involved here, but any more than that is a fairly obvious attempt at clouding objective discussion by appealing to sympathy. It annoys me constantly, and I would think any semi-intelligent person would see right through this. If the facts are so firmly on the defendants' sides as Ray would have us all believe, why is it necessary to resort to such blatantly manipulative appeal to emotion? /CF

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[Tuoqui]

And yet every time a big faceless corporation tries to dehumanize someone in order to win a case by preemptively labeling someone as guilty of copyright infringement.

If the RIAA was so sure about their cases as they would have you believe then they would take each and every case to court instead of offering these $3000 get out of jail free cards and backing out of any and all cases where they may look like they will lose.

But hey its fine for them, its just not fine for the grandmother/disabled person/single mother of two to try to shame the RIAA into dropping their case by giving them some bad publicity.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[QuantumG]

You make a good point, but you did it anonymously, therefore you will be modded into the ground. Step up.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[hey!]

Emotion is relevant in some decisions, and irrelevant in others.

For example, it is irrelevant in the decision of whether the RIAA should be allowed to use unlicensed PIs. It is irrelevant to the question of whether Rhonda Crain is guilty of violating the RIAA's members copyrights.

It is relevant to whether you think the RIAA is contemptible for taking small fry it thinks are too poor or unsophisticated to put up a good fight and trying to make an example of them.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess it's because Ray wants us to know who the targets of the RIAA attack dogs are, and also to point out that some of the people they accuse often don't know anything about piracy, sometimes don't have P2P software and even occasionally don't own computers. This illustrates how shoddy the investigative work leading up to these lawsuits is, and how they continue to push on with their attacks even against innocent but defenseless defendants, forcing them to settle for what often appears to be extortion money.

If you think it's partly for the sympathy vote, however, you might be correct. On the other hand, the RIAA their counterparts in the movie industry routinely tell us how piracy hurts the poor artists, sound engineers, grips, and buffet table assistants - I'm sure they do that for the same reason. People would probably have less sympathy if they instead thought piracy was hurting only people like Michael Eisner, who (according to Forbes in 2005) was making $95,576,000 over 5 years. In fact, they might even think that instead of laying off the "best boy", he could personally part with a few dollars to cover the $60,000 salaries of a few of them.

You can say it's an obvious attempt at clouding objective discussion, but is it any different than the propaganda coming from the plaintiffs in these actions?

Oh, and the last, and probably most influential reason why these stories are titled like this is because it gets people to read them. And lets face it, that's really what Ray and the Slashdot editors want!

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Emotion is relevant in some decisions, and irrelevant in others. For example, it is irrelevant in the decision of whether the RIAA should be allowed to use unlicensed PIs. It is irrelevant to the question of whether Rhonda Crain is guilty of violating the RIAA's members copyrights. There's no "emotion" in this equation: no license = evidence upon which case is based is inadmissible = no case.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

What I want is for the truth to get out there, and I want this reign of terror to end. The most important single factor in almost all of these cases is the huge economic imbalance in each and every case. In an ideal world that would not be relevant to the outcome, but is there anyone out there who thinks we are in an ideal world?......

Raise your hands.

I don't see any hands.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[Registered Coward v2]

Because court is about winning and losing; not objective reviews of fact.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[MacWiz]

a fairly obvious attempt at clouding objective discussion by appealing to sympathy. It annoys me constantly, and I would think any semi-intelligent person would see right through this.

At least it's an actual fact, in contrast to the RIAA's fiction-based pleas for sympathy -- "they're stealing our stuff," "downloading is theft," and the most recently added, "ripping a CD to mp3 is copyright infringement."

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[hedwards]

Mainly because it's a much more open and shut deal than a 20 something geek gets sued for downloading Celine Dion. Granted that should be illegal just on taste grounds, the later case is much more reasonable to bring to court than somebody that's barely computer literate and less likely to be able to fight back.

The grandmothers, deceased, teens and such are much better examples of the unreasonable nature of the lawsuits. A teenager is going to have to cough up his college money to pay, if he even have that to pay. And filing a counter suit/fighting it is unlikely to be a realistic option for them.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well, I guess it's because Ray wants us to know who the targets of the RIAA attack dogs are, and also to point out that some of the people they accuse often don't know anything about piracy, sometimes don't have P2P software and even occasionally don't own computers. This illustrates how shoddy the investigative work leading up to these lawsuits is, and how they continue to push on with their attacks even against innocent but defenseless defendants, forcing them to settle for what often appears to be extortion money. Plus it is relevant that their victims are almost always defenseless.

Plus it is relevant what impact the RIAA's terror tactics is having on every day people.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taste issues notwithstanding, a "20 something geek downloading Celine Dion" case has prima-facie credibility problems to begin with.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[SL Baur]

There's no "emotion" in this equation: no license = evidence upon which case is based is inadmissible = no case. I think I see where you're headed. If the "evidence" they are using is either illegally obtained, or legally obtained from dubious "experts" as we've seen you prove, then their cases are all weak at best. Sooner or later they have to be hit hard for flooding the court system with frivolous lawsuits.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[hyades1]

I think you're missing the point. It's the RIAA that chooses these cases, and they're choosing them precisely because of the publicity they generate. They want the average, non-tech-oriented person to think, "My God, if they'll even take the rent money from a blind, crippled child, what would they do to me if it turns out they have some problem with those CD's I copied for the cottage? I know it's supposed to be legal for me to do that, but what if they come after me anyway? It will cost me a lot less than $3,000 to just buy more CD's, and maybe buy another set for the car, too." The RIAA needs you to police yourself, because that's their only hope of getting you and the millions like you back under their thumb.

It's also important for people who care about civil liberties to highlight these cases because in addition to their terror factor, they also point out very clearly that the RIAA may not be able to win a case on its merits. That could be an important thing for you to know if you're ever targeted by the pricks. You might decide that you won't meekly fork over the three grand, and if you're particularly bloody-minded, you might decide to force a case to its conclusion and put a really serious dent in their operations.

Let me put it this way: You don't judge the abilities of an average healthy adult antelope by looking at the one the wild dogs manage to pull down. That's the mistake the RIAA wants you to make.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[Penguinisto]

Well... yes and no.

Yes, they can get a whole lot of intimidation of of suing like some soulless steamroller of a litigation machine, but it comes at a high risk and even higher strategic costs.

You simply cannot scare people into buying compact discs. If Joe Sixpack sees the lawsuits and gets scared, odds are good that he's already hit up a not-so-legit download or two. This still means that he has alternatives for free music... he can eschew the Internet route and simply record his music quite legally off of HD Radio, streaming radio, or some other legit means... for free. He can copy/rip his buddies' CD collections, and they can rip off of his. Also, he can buy used music.

Long-term, he starts seeking alternatives... spending his money on indie, non-RIAA music (this whole lawsuit crap made me seek indie music out of sheer indignation a long time ago).

To top all that off, folks who feel threatened tend to band together... like Ray's site for instance, or lots of others like it, where people start pooling information (and the legal profession's equivalent of defensive weaponry).

For instance, if the RIAA came knocking at my door? Well, I live in Oregon. I know there's sites like Ray's up there. I know my state's AG is starting to chafe at the idea that his ultimate employers (the citizens of Oregon) are getting shafted, and apparently he doesn't like it. I now have a nice handful of different and solid strategies for defeating the RIAA thugocracy without even setting foot in a courtroom, or paying them protection money... with TFA being the most effective I've seen so far. The RIAA is likely in a crash program to get MediaSentry licensed in as many states as possible right now, I'm sure of it. But... until that happens (it'll take time), they can't do squat... I figure it'll be about 6-8 months before they can get themselves back up and running as they were. Meanwhile, their empire crumbles away just that much more.

I won't say it's a panacea yet, but TFA (at least IMHO) provides a very effective means of rendering the RIAA toothless in a hurry. As it stands now, they're already avoiding areas where they see the most risk: Harvard (because of the rather defiant stand their law school has taken), Oregon (because we seem to be giving them a shedload of headaches and gumming up their works in the courtroom), and I suspect they'll be withdrawing from Texas pretty soon after this one.

As for pointing out these cases, the logic works the same way as you had presented, but in reverse: If an old lady can kick the RIAA square in the cojones and make it hurt, then surely you and I, with a healthier sense of technology and access to mountains of info on these asshats' moves and motives, can kick those same 'nads clear up into their eyeballs. It provides some things the RIAA would never want you to have: Hope, Inspiration to fight back, and at least some Knowledge as to how you can do so. Their armor isn't as shiny and thick as they want you to believe, and we can see that now.

Of course this isn't carte blanche to go violating copyright left right and sideways, but at least the innocent and the occasional blindsided single mother can stand a decent chance now.

/P

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[Builder]

What irks me about these stories is that Ray is actively helping the record labels hide behind the RIAA!

The RIAA didn't back down on squat here... Sony is the company suing Crain and Sony is the company who have withdrawn that part of their claims.

By not naming the actual labels in these stories, Ray is letting them hide behind the RIAA. This is the whole purpose of the RIAA and exactly what the RIAA and the lables want. Why not start the stories more along the lines of:

"Texas grandmother Rhonda Crain got Sony, the label behind Lemar, Britney Spears and Westlife to drop its monetary claims against her. Sony is a member of the RIAA."

This way you start to bring together the bands that are financing this terrorism in readers' minds, rather than hoping they will go away and put this together by themselves. If the average Jane or John reads about the RIAA suing someone over music piracy, they think 'Oh well, big company at it again'. If they read that the label behind Britney Spears is suing a grandmother, they're going to be that much more opposed to Britney Spears.

Until this action hurts the artists, the artists won't pressure the labels to stop. Until the labels feel pressure from this, they will continue to let the RIAA guide them and organise these lawsuits for them. So we HAVE to make the artists hurt.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[hey!]

Which is just my point.

Keep up the good work, Ray.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what the OP was uncomfortable with - and, for that matter, what I am uncomfortable with - is that too much of an emphasis seems to be placed on irrelevant facts, such as people being grandmothers, poor, single mothers and so on. Would the RIAA's behaviour be any more acceptable if they only sued white upper-class college students with rich parents? Of course not; but that also means that their behaviour isn't any less acceptable *solely* because they're suing grandmothers.

It's a different issue when you're talking about people who've never used computers, dead people and the like: that's a sign of sloppiness. But a Texas grandmother can infringe on copyrights just like a rich white college kid, and a rich white college kid can be just as innocent as a Texas grandmother.

Put another way: the RIAA is evil because they're suing people based on flimsy evidence, using shady (if not outright illegal) tactics and methods, and because they generally lie, misrepresent and hold the courts and the judicial system in contempt. They are NOT evil because they sue people who happen to be grandmothers, or single mothers, or poor. And while you may say that a poor single mother might be tempted to just settle for 3000 bucks instead of risking an even more expensive, stressful, drawn-out lawsuit - something that the RIAA is no doubt counting on -, the same is also true for anyone else, including the rich white college kid. It's their behaviour and all that's unacceptable, but it's ALWAYS so, no matter who's at the receiving end.

That being said, thanks for fighting the good fight, Ray. You're one of the damn finest examples of a lawyer I've ever heard of, ranking right up there with Eben Moglen, Larry Lessig and so on.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[MightyYar]

What difference does it make in this case that she's a grandmother? There is certainly some amount of spin associated with pointing out that it is a grandmother - appealing to emotion and all. But it also is important to point out just how ridiculous these cases are. Not all that many people have spent their entire lives obeying copyright. You'd have a very hard time pointing out someone who never made a mix tape for a friend (or received one). The technology has changed, but the concept is the same. It is important to point out that these people didn't really do much "wrong", even if what they did is technically illegal. The music companies are being complete dicks, and if you ask me the answer is to abolish non-commercial copyright.

We simply shouldn't have to deal with this kind of nonsense. Go after people who are actually making money using other people's work (actual pirates) and leave the masses alone. Chalk up the "loss" to file sharing as the cost of doing business. Somehow I doubt that music will disappear, and all this silliness will go away.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[russotto]

Know what happens in court when a 35 year old mother of three runs a red light, slamming her minivan into a 18 year old travelling the speed limit through a green light in a street-legal but riced-up Honda Civic? The answer is the 18 year old loses. There is no justice. There is only technical legal wrangling, sympathy ploys, out-and-out graft, appearance of authority and the like. Why shouldn't Ray use them?

Defending e.g. a 30-year-old geek living in his parent's basement against the record companies is a losing proposition no matter what the facts.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[hyades1]

Now if only there was a way to get major news outlets to pay more attention to the chinks in the armour, we'd be building up a good lead on points. The media are great at picking up on boo-hoo stories, not so good at follow-up.

Thanks for an informative and interesting view on the matter. I'm Canadian, and we're struggling to stop our Bush-wannabe Prime Minister from selling us down the river with a copyright bill that's almost certainly written by the pricks in the industry. Your remarks on Oregon are extremely interesting in that context.

I think we're 100% in agreement about the RIAA and all the associated leeches. A minor difference might be in precisely how far up their bodies we'd like to kick their 'nads. It's the kind of thing I'd be willing to put in some serious training for. and it would be a win/win competition. And yes, steel-toed boots would be allowed.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[Cowclops]

You know, in reality it would pretty much be an open and shut case against the person who ran the red light and t-boned/rear ended the person who was driving the speed limit, no matter how riced out either car is. Getting hit in the side or the rear is pretty much always going to be a win for the person who got hit, no matter what the circumstances are.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[Shadowlore]

You wanna know why? Do you really wanna know why? Do you? Huh? I'll tell you why.

The same reason that when someone is shot or killed in an accident, friends, family, and passersby will describe the victim in every possibly positive manner.

You'll never see a report on a shooting at the mall where people say "Old Jack was killed. He was a sorry excuse for a man with a disposition that would make Satan's toes curl. Oh and he killed puppies. A lot." Even if it is all true.

No, "journalists" of today, by and large, did not go into journalism to report events. They went into it to "change the world" or "make a difference" - the two dead giveaways that person should not be in journalism. So they spin the report in whatever direction they feel helps their intended desire.

A supporting factor is an increasing lack of ability to actually write. This is the reason you see stuff like: "Joe Blacke (31) was hit by a van while riding his bicycle today".

Truthfully, many "news stories" aren't actually newsworthy or there is very little to them. So "journalists" feel they have to "add facts" to pad it out. yes, often they are told that by their early editors and it becomes habit. It is like giving a speech and deliberately writing in "uhh"s and "Uhhhmmm"s.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

As you know I use the word "RIAA" as shorthand for the 4 largest record companies -- EMI, SONY BMG, Warner Bros., and Vivendi/Universal -- and their affiliates. I link to the actual legal documents where the actual names of the record companies in any given case are enumerated.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[Builder]

Ray,

I'm quite aware that you use RIAA as shorthand for these companies, but I'm still saying you're wrong. I also know that you link to documents showing the actual plaintiffs and I _still_ say that you're wrong.

You're a lawyer, and by all accounts a good one. I wouldn't dream of telling you how to practice law. But you honestly could use some help in how you publicize this work and that's all I've been trying to point out.

You're preaching to the choir here on Slashdot. It's nice to get these updates, but I don't think there is anyone that you have left to convince that the labels and their representatives are evil scum sucking swine. But even despite the fact that most people on here have been following this for quite a long time, you will still find people on this discussion forum who believe that the RIAA, a legally registered company, is the one bringing these lawsuits. This is in part because of your publicity and how you have chosen to present it.

With regards to linking to the documents that show the plaintiffs, I'm not sure if you're aware of a tradition here on /., but many people never actually read the articles. Look at any moderately complex story and you'll see people saying RTFA (Read the Fucking Article), or "I know this is /., but I read the article anyway". By burying the plaintiffs behind a link, you're really NOT getting through to a vast majority of your readers.

At the same time, you don't make it easy for us to use your stories to warn OTHER people who have no existing knowledge of these cases and get them on-side. You seem to put a lot of work into your publicity, so don't you think that it's a great shame that you actively limit how useful it can be ?

All I've been suggesting (and still am!) is that you make a very minor change to your wording which would make your stories useful to a wider audience and clear up confusion that already exists. You could still bash on the RIAA if you have a personal issue with that organisation, but you'd be creating publicity that would

A) Do far more damage to the labels, the actual groups responsible for this terrorism
B) Allow more people to understand the issues and patterns
C) Build a better image of label collusion and racketeering in people's minds
D) Resolve any confusion that already exists over the participants in this pantomime

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

How would you suggest I do it? Slashdot only allows very small headlines. The case names are listed here. The plaintiffs are the bad guys.

There is nothing inaccurate by saying the cases are run by the RIAA. The cases, including settlement negotiations, are completely managed by the RIAA cartel.

If you're suggesting that I add a list of 5 to 8 record company names to every post, I don't agree... it would be a bunch of extra work on my part, to produce a very boring sentence.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

By the way, I removed your "Foe" designation the other day.

Re:Why try so hard to appeal to emotion?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Thank you. The thing is, I learned the other day, when I tried to designate someone as a "Friend" and couldn't, that we have a limit on Slashdot -- 400 "Friends" and "Foes". That forced me to think how I feel about this whole "Foe" thing. And I was thinking it's more important to have "Friends" than "Foes". Then when I got named to Slashdot's "Hall of Fame" I said to myself, "what the heck", and declared a general amnesty on all my "Foes". Now that I've done that, I'm now free to call you a "Friend", which you clearly are. So I'm adding you to my list of "Friends", twitter. Thanks again.

well

[Anonymous Coward]

I have always questioned RIAA's methods of collecting data to sue people, most of their info is just Circumstantial evidence. Most people settle cause they don't want to fight a company that has money to tie this sham up in court for month's. Even with their army of lawyers it was only a madder of time before one of the defendant would get a lawyer that would find a crack in their case and blow it open with C-4. I knew their case's were a flop when they would avoid Harvard.

Not only emotion...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Part of this is to show the sheer innaccuracy of the RIAA lawsuits in the first place.

I'm making a list. To my knowledge, they've sued:

• Several pre-teen girls, who could not possibly afford either to buy the music legitimately or to pay the settlement.
• Several grandmothers, who are unlikely to even know what P2P is.
• At least one dead person.
• At least one person who has never, in her life, touched a computer.

There's probably more, but I haven't been paying attention.

If the facts are so firmly on the defendants' sides as Ray would have us all believe, why is it necessary to resort to such blatantly manipulative appeal to emotion?

If the facts are so firmly on the defendants' sides, why not appeal to emotion?

Just understand, pointing out the people involved -- especially when those people are unlikely to be capable of piracy, much less want to -- is not always an appeal to emotion. Sometimes, it's simply an appeal to common sense -- which is why you will occasionally see articles tagged "suddenbreakoutofcommonsense", for when the RIAA/MPAA is losing.

Re:Not only emotion...

[Achromatic1978]

who could not possibly afford either to buy the music legitimately

Apropos of anything else, apropos of your beliefs on this subject, do you really want this to be allowed as an acceptable reasoning? "Your Honor, I move to have the case dismissed on the grounds that I only obtained it illegally because I couldn't possibly afford to purchase it legitimately".

Re:Not only emotion...

[civilizedINTENSITY]

In terms of damages, it should be considered. The assumption is that if they hadn't downloaded it, they would have bought it. Sometimes that assumption makes sense and other times its ridiculous.

Re:Not only emotion...

[Dahamma]

Several grandmothers, who are unlikely to even know what P2P is.

I don't understand why being a "grandmother" (defined as having a child who has a child) automatically makes you a complete luddite around here. Probably because most /. posters would have to actually have kids (implying they actually had sex with a real, live woman) for their moms to become grandmothers...

My mother - who also happens to be a grandmother - understands P2P perfectly well. *My* grandmother on the other hand - who is 87 - probably does not.

Re:Not only emotion...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

This particular grandmother had never heard of filesharing.

Just wait:

[Lost Penguin]

RIAA has a bill in the pipeline to become law;
FBI would investigate copyright violations, or possible a new federal copyright cop squad.
Your tax dollars at work....

Re:Just wait:

[Joe The Dragon]

Criminal courts have higher standards and the right to a jury.

Re:Just wait:

[compro01]

Criminal courts have higher standards and the right to a jury. they have the right to a jury in any civil suit with damages above $20 IIRC.

though the standards for the jury are different. IIRC, it has to be unanimous in a criminal trial vs. a mere majority in a civil trial.

also the fact that you have the right to a lawyer in a criminal trial.

A word to the wise

[Anonymous Coward]

Never enter in litigation against a stubborn senior citizen with too much time on his or her hands.

Case closed

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

In response to several questions that have been raised:

1. The case is now closed, counterclaims and all.

2. I have a hunch MediaSentry is not licensed anywhere.

3. The injunction is a consent decree. It doesn't carry with it any implied finding of liability at all. It's merely a promise, by a 70-something lady who never heard of filesharing, that she will not in the future engage in unauthorized filesharing of plaintiffs' recordings.

Re:Case closed

[CodeBuster]

How is it that the RIAA is always allowed to withdraw from a case, in order to avoid setting a disadvantageous precedent, without consequences? Does the casino let you take your chips of the table in the middle of the game because the hand is going badly for you? You can fold your hand, but you cannot withdraw without consequences (i.e. loosing your chips). The difference here is that the accused is forced to play the legal game by the accuser (i.e. the RIAA) and so there should be no privilege for the accuser to withdraw without consequences. Perhaps, for the benefit us laypeople, you can explain this one for us. Thank you.

Re:Case closed

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

How is it that the RIAA is always allowed to withdraw from a case, in order to avoid setting a disadvantageous precedent, without consequences? Does the casino let you take your chips of the table in the middle of the game because the hand is going badly for you? You can fold your hand, but you cannot withdraw without consequences (i.e. loosing your chips). The difference here is that the accused is forced to play the legal game by the accuser (i.e. the RIAA) and so there should be no privilege for the accuser to withdraw without consequences. Perhaps, for the benefit us laypeople, you can explain this one for us. Thank you. The defendants have neither the money nor the stomach for going to war with a multinational cartel of 4 huge record companies.

Re:Case closed

[CodeBuster]

Well, so much for equal justice under the civil law (I guess that only applies to criminal cases and even there money makes some people more equal than others). Isn't this precisely the sort of abuse that class action was designed to prevent? Perhaps some enteprising lawyers will find a way to collect from the RIAA on behalf of this class of defendants, well we can hope anyway. Thank you NewYorkCountryLawyer for answering my question.

Re:Case closed

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well, so much for equal justice under the civil law (I guess that only applies to criminal cases and even there money makes some people more equal than others). Isn't this precisely the sort of abuse that class action was designed to prevent? Perhaps some enteprising lawyers will find a way to collect from the RIAA on behalf of this class of defendants, well we can hope anyway. Thank you NewYorkCountryLawyer for answering my question. There is a class action going on. Andersen v. Atlantic.

Re:Case closed

[Rudisaurus]

3. The injunction is a consent decree. It doesn't carry with it any implied finding of liability at all. It's merely a promise, by a 70-something lady who never heard of filesharing, that she will not in the future engage in unauthorized filesharing of plaintiffs' recordings.

I bet Glen Miller, Artie Shaw, Louis Armstrong, et al. are all greatly relieved at this news ...

Re:Case closed

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

3. The injunction is a consent decree. It doesn't carry with it any implied finding of liability at all. It's merely a promise, by a 70-something lady who never heard of filesharing, that she will not in the future engage in unauthorized filesharing of plaintiffs' recordings. I bet Glen Miller, Artie Shaw, Louis Armstrong, et al. are all greatly relieved at this news ... :)

Well their estates are, anyway.

There's a sting about to happen

[Ralph Spoilsport]

for a while I was thinking of working as a private investigator. More than one PI agency is wildly looking for digital investigators to do copyright investigation.

I have a job, but I'm "on a certain list" so these kinds of job offers come across my desk.

It's not good, and it's not pretty. Someone with Serious Pockets is looking to screw a Lot Of People over copyright re: file trading.

It's all coming out of the "heartland USA". I moved out of the states a while ago. But "people know me" so I get rumblings/job offers before others do. If this investigation goes down as it seems, it will be ugly.

For whom? Well teh music industry of course. They're a bunch of fucking morons with a business model that bears no resemblance to what the market is requiring. So rather than grow a lobe for profit (vis the Ferengi) they would rather do the American Thing and sue everyone into the dirt. Morons.

So: word up: the morons are on the march...

RS

Re:There's a sting about to happen

[Anonymous Coward]

So: word up: the morons are on the march...

Have been for seven years...and from the looks of things, it ain't gonna stop anytime soon.

Well, gee, doesn't Louise count?
Only to ten, Mudhead

Re:There's a sting about to happen

[Creepy Crawler]

As far as I can tell, they dont watch Sneakernet, nor do they use WASTE.

10 minute trip at 500GB per drive, 3 drives...

WASTE for when we NEED on-band communications/transfer.

Anonymous high speed WIFI for torrent leach, along with IRC/FTP downloads.

10 minutes to 2hours from a college town: can arrange meets for goods. We could encrypt the drives in that the key is given later out of band... No being caught red-handed with "illegal" files.

Whatever they may try, we'll be there to stop them. Good luck stopping human interaction and sharing.

Re:There's a sting about to happen

[Atario]

Then you're in a rare position to do something about this. Using the formula now:

1. Get hired by MAFIAA to look for teh evil pie-rates
2. Hand over a list of the IP addresses of a bunch of US Senators, Representatives, MAFIAA member companies' executives, other very rich and/or powerful people
3. ??? *
4. Profit! Er, Justice!

* stands for "MAFIAA gets massively ass-reamed from 354 directions at once"

Re:There's a sting about to happen

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Well, if I were still living in the USA, I'd actually consider such, as I would likely need the paycheck.

However, I left the Empire in June. I only expect to return for family holidays and obligations.

The TRULY funny and interesting thing is: I'M NOT A QUALIFIED OR LICENSED P.I.

They're really desperate for people with even a modicum of software experience, and if you have, like I do, all of a few weeks of experience doing data forensics, you're like totally golden to these idiots.

It would be a killer thing to do - mole into the MAFIAA and then spin them into the abyss. But: I got a real job and more important things to do with my time.

But the thought DID cross my mind.

cheers.

RS

Don't mess with...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Texas Grandmothers!!!

No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[mi]

Is it bad to download a few songs from an artist that you've heard of but never heard? I've done that several times.

I've also done "several" investigations of the spammers — using tools like whois and nslookup. I was not licensed to perform the investigations — in any state.

According to this grandma's counter-suit and — more importantly — to all the kudos she got from the Slashdot crowd, all of those spammers should have a good case against me...

I may understand (and even accept) the desire to keep tabs on gun-wielding private detectives like Dr. Watson or "Maltese Falcon"'s main character, but MediaSentry, no doubt, has never even set foot in Texas, all their "investigations" being limited to the Internet. Twisting the law in this fashion should be troubling... But hey, it is RIAA, so whoever sticks whatever up theirs is our hero...

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[Attila Dimedici]

Is it bad to download a few songs from an artist that you've heard of but never heard? I've done that several times.

I've also done "several" investigations of the spammers — using tools like whois and nslookup. I was not licensed to perform the investigations — in any state.

According to this grandma's counter-suit and — more importantly — to all the kudos she got from the Slashdot crowd, all of those spammers should have a good case against me...

I may understand (and even accept) the desire to keep tabs on gun-wielding private detectives like Dr. Watson or "Maltese Falcon"'s main character, but MediaSentry, no doubt, has never even set foot in Texas, all their "investigations" being limited to the Internet. Twisting the law in this fashion should be troubling... But hey, it is RIAA, so whoever sticks whatever up theirs is our hero...

What have you done with the information you got from your investigations? Did someone pay you to make those investigations? I don't know the Texas law on private investigators, but I believe the requirement for a license comes in when someone pays you to do the investigation on their behalf.

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[mi]

What have you done with the information you got from your investigations?

I filed complaints with the ISPs and — in a few cases — with the government.

Did someone pay you to make those investigations? I don't know the Texas law on private investigators, but I believe the requirement for a license comes in when someone pays you to do the investigation on their behalf.

Me, no. But the guy, who posts the entertaining accounts of his suing the spammers in small courts here, can well be construed as conducting investigations for profit. Next time he loses in court, it may well be due to the spammer complaining to the judge, that they were subject of an "unlicensed investigation". Slashdot will call the judge an idiot — hypocritically...

Technically you may be right — the licensing law may, indeed, not apply to the volunteer vigilantes. But it is a bogus defense regardless, and we should not be cheering it.

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[scuba0]

You have reported unlawfull activity, you have not gained any money for doing so or hired someone else.

But then again, I think it is perfectly legal to obtain proof legally if you do it yourself or without profit.

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[spun]

I don't think "profit" is the criterion here. You can sue people in court after investigating them yourself, but if someone else pays you, you need a license. Think lawyers: you can always defend yourself, but you need a license to defend others.

And no, this is not a "bogus defense" and we should be cheering it. It may seem like legal wrangling, but that is exaqctly what the other side is doing, and what it takes to win in our legal system. Advocate for simplifying the legal system, I'll support you, but deny to the average persons the legal tools that corporations will always use, well, that's just not fair.

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[Anonymous Coward]

You are technically wiretapping. Even *paid* private investigators can't tap your phone (the cell in the basement, federal agents mad cause I'm flagrant), sorry about that XD. When they are recording your private property, they better be licensed to do so. And who gave them permission to take screenshots of your folders, screenshots of your desktop? If that is truly your desktop, your folders, (which they wish to hold you legally liable for) they are violating your copyright by taking photographs of it without police permission or the owner's permission. You must be notified that some private party is recording your conversation, whether it's verbal converted data bits or whether it's written file converted data bits. This is still information being communicated across state lines. How would the Judge like it if the RIAA taped courtroom proceedings without the Judge's permission and then included those files as "evidence" for future appeals? Just like you can't Watergate style break in to RIAA headquarters and take photographs of documents to build a RICO case against the RIAA. You need a warrant.

--monxrtr

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[TheoMurpse]

I've also done "several" investigations of the spammers using tools like whois and nslookup. I was not licensed to perform the investigations in any state.

According to this grandma's counter-suit and more importantly to all the kudos she got from the Slashdot crowd, all of those spammers should have a good case against me...

Please, just get off your idiot horse unless you've done due diligence and researched what the law says. This isn't the common law we're talking about; this is the Texas Occupations Code. It's written down, and your sort of reductio ad absurdum argument doesn't work here.

An "investigations company" in TX is defined by the Occupations Code Sec. 1702.104 as a person engages in the business . . . or accepts employment to [do various things]. Clearly doing some research for yourself and then reporting spam companies to your ISP fails both of these avenues.

In TX, you didn't have to be licensed to perform these actions. And you know how long it took me to verify that you didn't know what you were talking about? Five minutes on the Texas Department of Public Safety's website.

And, while cyberlaw is far from settled, the defendant was in TX, and Media Sentry spied on her. Where, other than TX, did they spy on her? Basically this all comes down to the old question: if you stand just east of the Nevada-California border and shoot someone in California, did you commit murder in California or Nevada?

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[mi]

You can sue people in court after investigating them yourself, but if someone else pays you, you need a license. Think lawyers: you can always defend yourself, but you need a license to defend others.

Bad analogy. Lawyers are licensed to ensure quality representation to their clients. Whether they are licensed or not, is not the other side's business (and no, you don't need a license to represent anyone in a civil suit anyway)

The grandmother is not a MediaSentry's client.

And no, this is not a "bogus defense" and we should be cheering it.

Well, of course it is "wrangling" and thus bogus, no matter who — a corporation (acting corporationy) or a person — is doing it.

is exactly what the other side is doing

How is it the same? RIAA is trying to collect and present the proof, that the grandma has violated the licensing terms. The grandma is claiming, that the methods used to collect the evidence are somehow invalid. Regardless of who is "right", there is no similarity whatsoever...

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[mi]

a person engages in the business . . . or accepts employment

So, if somebody paid me to investigate the source of spam they were getting, I would need a license to do the work, otherwise the spamming victim would not be able to use my results to go after the spammers? Wonderful logic...

Texas (and other states) may have a requirement, that all such investigators be licensed. But — as the subject of the thread still says — the requirement should be bothersome, if it is deemed to apply to the kind of harmless investigation performed over the Internet.

I repeat, there may be a legitimate need to regulate the traditional investigators (think Dr. Watson or "Maltese Falcon"), who may sometimes hurt or otherwise unduly interfere with the subject of the investigation.

But to apply the same regulation to MediaSentry or, indeed, to (paid) spam-fighters, whose investigations are limited to the virtual world entirely, is completely bogus.

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[spun]

Okay, think commercial trucking then. They are licensed to ensure all of our safety, and quite frankly, I want private investigators to be licensed, too. And bonded. I don't want a bunch of fly-by-night yahoos creeping about my property taking pictures. Licensing protects clients and subjects from potentially dangerous, illegal, or dangerous operations.

The fact is, one party didn't play by the rules, and they should be shut down in court for not playing by the rules. I like the rules. If I break into your house to collect evidence, that's not valid. If I use an unlicensed investigator in a state that requires licensing, that's not valid either. You can't just overturn another group of people's decision as to how they want to run their state.

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[TheoMurpse]

I repeat, there may be a legitimate need to regulate the traditional investigators (think Dr. Watson or "Maltese Falcon"), who may sometimes hurt or otherwise unduly interfere with the subject of the investigation.

But to apply the same regulation to MediaSentry or, indeed, to (paid) spam-fighters, whose investigations are limited to the virtual world entirely, is completely bogus.

So it's impossible to hurt or unduly interfere with the subject of investigation over the internet? I forgot that DOSes and hacks were impossible over the net. Granted, direct physical harm is not possible, but if you DOS someone who only has VOIP, they can't call 911.

So, if somebody paid me to investigate the source of spam they were getting, I would need a license to do the work, otherwise the spamming victim would not be able to use my results to go after the spammers? Wonderful logic...

Yes, it makes perfect sense that a government would want to regulate a profession. Similarly, a person cannot practice law over the internet because one must be licensed to do so. By "practice law," I mean that one cannot do video chats as a legal representative who does not appear in court. This is just as logical as regulating the practice of law in meatspace.

I'm not saying there's a legitimate reason to regulate any business; I'm merely saying that there is just as legitimate a reason to regulate professionals who operate only in the virtual world (which exists in copper and fiber optic wiring in the real world) and professionals who operate in the non-internet world.

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[ibbey]

So, if somebody paid me to investigate the source of spam they were getting, I would need a license to do the work, otherwise the spamming victim would not be able to use my results to go after the spammers? Wonderful logic...

Yes, it is actually. Your arguing that it isn't just shows that you understand neither the law nor what being a "private investigator" entails. If you are a licensed computer consultant (IE, you have a business license and pay taxes in Texas) then the situation that you suggest is perfectly legal. As long as you are using only publicly available tools, and you provide the information to law enforcement so they can pursue the legal options, then no PI license is required. When you use tools that are not available to an ordinary citizen, and you are providing information directly to the client who presents that info as fact in a court of law, then a new set of rules applies and you need to be properly licensed. IANAL, so I can't tell you exactly where that line is, but there is a line, and it's very reasonable that that line exists.

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[ibbey]

I was going to reply that you are an idiot, but others have done so much more eloquently than I could ever be ("Idiot horse"! Brilliant!).

I'll just point out that you clearly don't understand the law in question. Regulating people whose statements will be admitted into court as fact (and whose allegations are the basis for the lawsuit in the first place) is by no means "twisting the law". Oh, and I'll also point out that your response has absolutely nothing to do with my post that you responded to. I answered someone's question about piracy, and you swung it around to spam & PI's. Granted, that is the subject of the thread as a whole, but it's not relevant to the specific post that you're responding to.

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[ibbey]

You are technically wiretapping.

Umm... No. nslookup & whois don't count as wiretapping, no more so then having caller ID on your phone does.

Re:No one bothered by the need for a license?..

[Reziac]

The difference is that you were acting in a private capacity. Your investigation was not intended to be used by law enforcement, nor in a major civil suit. The RIAA's investigations *were* so intented, which brings them under the more-stringent rules applying to paid investigators.

It's kind of like construction contractor license rules: in general, you can do such work on a very small scale, or for your own personal benefit, without a license. But the moment you do it commercially (ie. in a capacity parallel to a professional investigator), you're required to be licensed.

Her lawyer? Denny Crane

[mianbao]

Her lawyer? Denny Crane

This is not a good thing

[herbierobinson]

They are just going to hire PIs that ARE licensed in all 50 states (who are going to be VERY EXPENSIVE) and use that to inflate the damages they claim...

Re:This is not a good thing

[Evets]

This would be a problem considering that the bulk of their lawsuits are based on MediaSentry downloads via Kazaa. Kazaa is around no more, which means that there is no investigation to be made.

What they didn't want is for their suit to be thrown out with the Kitchen sink because of their reliance on information provided by unlicensed investigators. If that happens, they lose anybody in the state who is looking to settle anytime soon.

As it stands, it will take some time before another defendant even has the chance to bring this subject to light again and when they do, the RIAA will have had a much longer time to come up with a good argument for the judge - or even perhaps engineer the argument to be presented to a judge who would be receptive to their arguments.

They bought time. The grandma closed the door on the case. We'll see what happens with the next guy.

Re:This is not a good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Nah, this is yet another of a growing list of RICO predicates against the RIAA. If they were to be sued by a federal prosecutor, the music industry executives are going to jail for mafia length sentences of 20-50 year terms, forking over all their civil assets, and Sony and the other record companies will be declaring bankruptcy from the class action settlements. And you double the predicate for just this interstate trafficking in unlicensed investigations ($10,000 per event, which means per *download*) with a conspiracy in front of it.

--monxrtr

Oh, the Joy!

[Smordnys s'regrepsA]

I'm not sure what is more topical...

Effect an Effect or Eggs

What about those that have settled?

[Anonymous Coward]

So for those that settled, to see this new turn of events, what does this entitle them to, if anything?

Afterall, lots of people have been coerced into settling out of court on the basis of information gained through potentially illegal means.

Are you allowed to counter-sue the RIAA here?

I suspect there are some really smelly fish hiding here (for the RIAA), if only someone knows the correct place to find them...

Final Judgment

[stanley232305]

The court order states "Plaintiffs and Defendant hereby stipulate to the following terms, and that the Court may enter a final judgment and Permanent Injunction in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant . . ."

This means the lawsuit is over. While technically a legal victory for the record companies, it is a bona fide triumph for the defendant. The lawsuit is over, the plaintiffs do not get a dime, and the use of unlicensed investigators will likely swell into the biggest legal downfall for the record companies in this campaign.

I hope the AP picks it up.

When was (old school) piracy good?

[Chrisq]

Risking an offtopic mod I will answer the question talking the old school definition: Piracy was seen as good when the pirates restricted themselves to pirating from "the enemy". These privateers were licensed to attack foreign ships and keep the spoils.

RIAA Commeted a crime

[thorkyl]

In the use of knowingly hiring an unlicensed investigator to investigate the case
in its self is a crime and if they used the same firm to investigate multiple cases then it is a standard practice which means that it is a RICO act violation and should be prosecuted as such.

How many times were they used?

[phorm]

I like this part...

(a) A person who is not licensed under this chapter, who does not have a license application pending, and who violates this chapter may be assessed a civil penalty to be paid to the state not to exceed $10,000 for each violation.

Now, assuming that they got something like on average have the max, say about $5000. If they're using the same (unlicensed) investigators to sue about 5000 people... 5000 x 5000 = $25,000,000


And I doubt that the state would have a big problem with charging and collection on this... since it is: a civil penalty to be paid to the state

Well, let the counter-lawsuits begin. Hell, the states should be the ones charging them for easy cash!

So $220,500 then?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not like they are getting reasonable figures in the first place, is it.

When are sloppy semantics good for communication?

[j_w_d]

When is piracy not bad?

There is a profound and very serious distinction between piracy and the petty theft that the RIAA calls "piracy." Try sailing through Indonesia, or along the east coast of Africa in an unarmed merchant man or a small vessel, THEN talk about piracy. Pirates cause crews to disappear, or if they're lucky will hold them for ransom. The RIAA claims a smaller profit - not a loss - and certainly not a loss of life.

So, in answer to your question, when it is petty theft described by histrionic maroons.

it looks like a settlement basically

[Trepidity]

I'm not a lawyer so I could be misreading this, but it looks like they've basically agreed to a settlement, in which the grandmother will be enjoined from any future piracy but not assessed monetary damages.

That's actually better for the RIAA than dropping the suit, because it pretty definitively resolves the matter if she agrees to a settlement.