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"
I'd love to see the discovery on that one.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
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!
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
...but the Borg will adapt.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
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.
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:
There's probably more, but I haven't been paying attention.
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.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
They aren't licensed anywhere.
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.