Is RIAA's MediaSentry Illegal in Your State?

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Is Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG 'investigator' MediaSentry operating illegally in your state?. The Massachusetts State police has already banned the company, and it's been accused of operating without a license in Oregon, Florida, Texas, and New York. Similar charges have now been leveled the organization in Michigan. Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth, in response to a complaint, has confirmed that MediaSentry is not licensed in Michigan, and referred the complainant to the local prosecutor."

Comments

Explaining RIAA Behavior

[spun]

Cocaine makes you feel more powerful and important than you really are. Hookers always tell you you're doing the right thing.

Re:Explaining RIAA Behavior

[BoomerSooner]

Elliot? Are you giving us more to go on?

Re:Explaining RIAA Behavior

[moderatorrater]

The Rick James excuse, "Cocaine's a powerful drug"

Re:Explaining RIAA Behavior

[Mister Whirly]

Actually, it's "Cocaine is a hell of a drug".

Re:Explaining RIAA Behavior

[tristian_was_here]

Cocaine never did Tony Montana (Scarface) any harm.

yes

[stoolpigeon]

according to the summary - yes it is.

Re:yes

[omeomi]

Though the summary is retarded. Police can't ban anything. Their job is to enforce existing law. They can't make new ones.

Re:yes

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop talking out your ass. Investigation is a police function. How do YOU know Massachusetts law hasn't given the police the exclusive authority to investigate or grant license to investigate? Did you research the issue? Are you cozy with Deval Patrick? Do you know someone on Beacon Hill? DID YOU EVEN **DO** THE READING?

To clarify

[downix]

Just in case someone does not know who Media Sentry is, here is a bit from their Wikipedia article (found here)

MediaSentry is an American company that provides services to the music recording, motion picture, television, and software industries for locating and identifying IP addresses that are engaged in the use of online networks to share material in a manner said organizations claim is in violation of copyright.

Re:To clarify

[Gordonjcp]

Do they operate outside the US? I've got *loads* of MP3s on my server, all of which are subject to copyright - they're mine, though. If Media Sentry want to come and poke through my server, I'll have them under the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

Re:To clarify

[number11]

Do they [the RIAA] operate outside the US? I've got *loads* of MP3s on my server

In the UK, they're the BPI. http://www.bpi.co.uk/ As you can see from their website, they're for "fair" copyright, that is, copyright that lasts a thousand years. Instead of having to sue people, they want your ISP to be their enforcement arm. Cheaper, easier, and if there's any flak, the ISP will be the one who catches it.

Freedom

[Hatta]

Why should someone need a license to investigate something? I have no love for the RIAA, but that law seems to be a much bigger threat to individual freedom than the RIAA itself.

Re:Freedom

[InsaneProcessor]

Because public investigation affects the public (hence the name). Just as a professional driver (IE: trucks, buses) must have a state issued license to practice their craft for hire, so must a public investigator who is hired. You don't need a license for forensics but you do for investigation because you work in the public and effect the public.

Re:Freedom

[plague3106]

So anyone should be able to walk off the street and present evidence in a court case while claiming they are an expert at gathering said evidence?

Re:Freedom

[Twisted Willie]

Anyone can investigate to their heart's content. You don't need a license, unless you want your results to be used as evidence in a court. Just as the police are bound by rules to insure they respect your basic freedoms, so are private companies/individuals.

Disclaimer: INALANEAA (I am not a lawyer and not even an american)

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm,
    Because the states are trying to ensure that any private investigator's (Read, people who can gather evidence and then present it in a court of law) meet a minimum level of ethical conduct & expertise. Anyone can investigate for themselves about something. What they can't do is open a business as a professional investigator. This covers several things, it ensures that the person doing the investigating actually knows what they are doing (understands the law, what is legally gathered evidence, what is not, etc), has a stake in behaving ethically (loss of license means loss of paycheck), and allows the investigator to meet the requirements of an expert witness in litigation.

    Without laws like these, you'd have more of the stereotypical investigators, you know, the ones in the 1950's movies who took pictures through bedroom windows and faked evidence if it didn't exist. Most of these laws were passed *because* of investigator's like this, and they did exist. They still do, but there are fewer of them and they are a lot more careful.

Re:Freedom

[Original Replica]

I believe that law is there to provide some parallel of fourth amendment rights in regard to investigation by non-government entities (like MediaSentry). With out this, any one with sufficient funds who disliked you could be constantly investigating you, waiting for you to make any kind of mistake that could be leveraged into a criminal charge. Having licensed investigators allow some standards to be maintained, and rules of conduct to be applied. MediaSentry's conduct is near perfect example of why this law does need to exist to protect individuals from constant investigation.

Re:Freedom

[poetmatt]

From a legal perspective if you are helping a company file claims in court saying XYZ action is illegal, you need to have a legal backing for that. If you are not licensed to do so then you can't. It's called expert witness and what the requirements are. This is why not everyone can be an expert witness on some topic just because (and why Daubert hearings remove expert witnesses).

Basically unlike a non expert who anything they say is not taken as fact (which is why complaining to a judge on a traffic ticket still gets you guilty if you don't use the proper legal terms such as object, lack of evidence, etc).

This in fact is a huge deal. Also operating illegally when it comes to spying can carry some hefty fines in the US especially when it can be proven (remember they're suing saying they have evidence, so that level of "proof" becomes very easy to show - its like self incrimination but not a kind you can plead 5th amendment on).

Re:Freedom

[spun]

Why should someone need a license to investigate something? I have no love for the RIAA, but that law seems to be a much bigger threat to individual freedom than the RIAA itself. I'm curious, in your political philosophy, is there any activity that should be licensed? Should it be by government or private group? I accept the necessity of licensing driving, practicing medicine, general contracting,plumbing, electrical work, architecture, and many other professions, and I don't see any difference in licensing investigators. We want to make sure they are following best practices so no one gets hurt.

Re:Freedom

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Why should someone need a license to investigate something? I have no love for the RIAA, but that law seems to be a much bigger threat to individual freedom than the RIAA itself. Often licenses are issued so that there is some power of somebody, i.e. something you can take away from them, which gives the state the ability to ensure that the person or entity is complying with law. In MediaSentry's case, its sloppy 'investigation' yields (a) more than 50% false positives in terms of identification alone, and (b) in 100% of the cases, no evidence that the individual pursued actually infringed a copyright. If you were being forced to pay someone $4500 to get them not to sue you, for something you hadn't done, I think it would be crystal clear why one needs a license to be an investigator. It's because lawsuits are being based on their work, and people's lives are being destroyed by their work. In such cases, if they had a license, the state would have regulatory authority over them by being able to threaten them with revocation of their license. Absent a license, the state's only authority is to pursue them criminally for having sidestepped the licensing law.

Re:Freedom

[jmnormand]

Its pretty simple profesionals need to be licensed to maintain a minimum standard of quality for the public good. PI's are no differnt than plumbers, architects, lawyers, real estate agents, ect. Yes you can do your own plumbing but to be a professional plumber you need a license. Media Sentry is a profesional investigation company thus needs to be licensed as such in the state they are working. Now if the RIAA companies where doing the work themselves it wouldnt be an issue assuming they dont do anything illegal to gain said information.

Re:Freedom

[Maximum Prophet]

You should be able to investigate for yourself all you want, but if you want to be able to sell services, you'd need a license.

Re:Freedom

[techpawn]

present evidence in a court case while claiming they are an expert at gathering said evidence

It's said that an expert is someone who knows more about a topic than anyone else in the room. So, if the evidence is a flash drive you found I'm betting that you're far more experience than anyone else in the courtroom with it.

You still need a license to be a private investigator in a given state and there are other rules about presenting evidence... Then again IANAL

Re:Freedom

[Sponge Bath]

Isn't that what SCO did?
Look how well that worked for them.

Re:Freedom

[Hatta]

I still don't understand why it should be illegal for them to investigate. You give good reasons why the results of their investigations should not be admitted into court, shouldn't that be enough?

Re:Freedom

[Himring]

Exactly. Or, better yet, perhaps the gp should peruse this:

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Check out A4

Sheesh!

Re:Freedom

[andphi]

"If you were being forced to pay someone $4500 to get them not to sue you, for something you hadn't done, I think it would be crystal clear why one needs a license to be an investigator. It's because lawsuits are being based on their work, and people's lives are being destroyed by their work. . . Absent a license, the state's only authority is to pursue them criminally for having sidestepped the licensing law."

I wonder: what differentiates MediaSentry's activities from racketeering (or extortion)?

Re:Freedom

[Kierthos]

No. Because, you see, if it's illegal, and they break the law, they can be punished for it.

If it's not illegal, but it's just shoddy work, they will continue to do whatever the RIAA requests with no real fear of legal ramifications.

The RIAA is not required to hire good investigators, but they are required to operate by the same code of laws that we do. Which, in this case, means their investigators have to be legally certified to operate in the jurisdictions that they are investigating in.

Re:Freedom

[TubeSteak]

I still don't understand why it should be illegal for them to investigate. You give good reasons why the results of their investigations should not be admitted into court, shouldn't that be enough? You want a really good reason why private investigators should be licensed?
Here it is: A large part of private investigating involves stalking.

Since private investigations are going to happen no matter what, it is good and proper to legalize and regulate the practice. This protects the PIs "hey officer, I'm just doing my job, I'm not stalking these people" and it protects the public from any wackjob who thinks he's the Steven Segal of investigating.

Licensing the practice also allows you to force the investigators to be bonded aka insured.
This is also a good thing.

Re:Freedom

[Original Replica]

You give good reasons why the results of their investigations should not be admitted into court, shouldn't that be enough?

NewYorkCountryLawyer also gave the reason why it shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place: "If you were being forced to pay someone $4500 to get them not to sue you, for something you hadn't done,". That means they are threatening you before you ever enter a court. It's more of a gamble than many people want to make to stand up to a big company with many lawyers and apparent "evidence" just because they are mostly sure that the "evidence" won't be admitted. If you haven't done anything wrong, you should have to face that level of threat in the first place, that is why the licensing is at the investigation level.

Re:Freedom

[boris111]

Enough people get screwed over by said contractor... the state takes they're license away. I realize it's not easy to do, but it does happen.

Re:Freedom

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Sounds like my personal cyber-stalker, Matthew Oppenheim.

Re:Freedom

[actiondan]

I don't know how it works in the states but over here in the UK, licensing works pretty well for all kinds of businesses.

For example, pubs have to have an license to serve alcohol. Too much trouble around a particular pub and they can lose their license.

Restaurants and cafes need a license to serve food. If the health inspectors find that the hygene standards are not adhered to, they lose their license.

Taxis and private hire cars have to licensed. They can lose their license if they drive unsafely.

I like the fact that if the pub down the road causes trouble on our street it will be closed down, bad restuarants lose their licenses before they give me food poisoning and I can get into a taxi knowing that the driver hasn't been in a whole load of crashes.

The only sensible alternative is for businesses to opt in to voluntary schemes. This does work well for some kinds of business but for some things, especially where people might be endangered, I'm happy that we have mandatory licensing.

Re:Freedom

[Archangel Michael]

Then they move to the next state over. Problem isn't solved.

Re:Freedom

[zehaeva]

so your saying that not winning any cases, or not taking any cases, in a certain period of time should be grounds for disbarment? does that mean all those law professors who don't practice any more should be disbarred? or maybe a lawyer who has been sick for a while? or what about a lawyer who works as legal aid and has a string of clients who are just plain guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt? i think that maybe one should think about the consequences of what is proposed before you propose it. at least then you can shake out all of the obvious problems before you let the rest of us pick through it.

Re:Freedom

[Wowsers]

So anyone should be able to walk off the street and present evidence in a court case while claiming they are an expert at gathering said evidence? It's worked for the RIAA so far.

Re:Freedom

[spun]

So, how would you solve the underlying problem? Obviously, you think government is incapable of doing the job. Do we need a market for verification and bonding companies? Or is it simply 'buyer beware,' and we all take our chances?

I disagree that government licensing and regulation of industry is primarily about creating a barrier to entry or taxation. But many industries do need a barrier to entry. Do you really want any Joe Stoner doing surgery on you? The barrier is there to protect the public, not to protect entrenched interests in industry. Do you disagree with the basic premise that people need or desire protection from negligent, unskilled, and or unscrupulous businesses, or do you disagree with the methods used? What might work better?

It seems you have a very cynical view of government, as if it exists only to cause problems. Government is made up of individuals, mostly trying to do the right thing, just like businesses are. But aside from the fact that all large organizations' main purpose is to perpetuate their own existence, businesses exist only to profit their shareholders through whatever means necessary, while governments exist to profit all citizens.

Re:Freedom

[pluther]

Here's a basic question, do you know of, or ever heard of, a licensed contractor who didn't know what he was doing?

No, I never have.

I have heard of licensed contractors who deliberately cut corners, making illegal modifications, and subverted the inspection process, but never of one who got a license with no training or proven skills at all.

When these people are caught, they can lose their licenses. Which makes them no longer able to work as a contractor. Which is both a powerful disincentive to break the rules as well as a fairly effective way of eliminating those who do.

Do some sometimes slip through? Sure, but just because the system isn't 100% effective 100% of the time doesn't mean it's totally worthless. There's quite a lot of room between those two extremes.

Yes, it's true that licenses are an artificial barrier to business. But you say that as if it is a bad thing. As someone who has lived a good part of my life inside buildings, some of them very large, and almost all of them built by other people, I am quite happy that there are artificial barriers like licenses, building codes, inspection processes, and so forth in place. Because of these, I've never had a building I've been in fall down on me.

Re:Freedom

[sm62704]

My hobby is not collecting stamps. Now to the actual topic rather than just commenting on a sig, do all states do this? Are there states you don't need a license to be a PI? Do you need one here in Illinois? And do you know that "effect" is a noun?

Re:Freedom

[Archangel Michael]

So, what does licensing do again? You don't need licenses for any of the prohibitive / punitive actions mentioned. This is the fallacy of licensing. Should a 9 year old have to get a license to serve lemonade on the street corner, as one recent over zealous health inspector declared?

Re:Freedom

[sm62704]

In states where they would, as you say, have to pursue them criminally, would it be just a fine or would someone be incarcerated? Seems to me that an entity like the RIAA would consider a fine to be just another cost of doing business. Could someone actually (I fervently hope) go to prison for this?

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the Steven Segal of lovemaking. Haven't had any ladies complain about me satisfying them without a license.

So there.

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

That last bit should read:

"while governments exist to profit their puppetmasters to the detriment of almost all of their citizens."

Re:Freedom

[poetmatt]

Beyond your slightly flameworthy "I love the UK regulations" humor (not meant to be ad hominem), I just wanted to say the US has the same idea. It's a three strikes rule for liquor, but it's a lot harsher out here. If someone has 2 strikes on a liquor license (where 3 = closed down), and you take over that bar, you just inherited 2 strikes.

To get a strike isn't as clearly defined but it's basically "being excessively negligable". A fight that breaks out in your bar that you take them outside will prevent a strike, but letting the bar explode into a brawl might not end up the same unless you did everything you could to break it up.
Someone with a fake trying to get the bar shut down claiming they got drinks inside but are underage will not get you a strike (as its pretty common and there are ways to disprove this easily).

It's basically up to the cops and the locals who live near your bar physically. This is why US bars do their best to cater to cops, not for corruption but so that the cop won't have a negative bias which is typical of busy locations and/or big cities where bars are.

I've been looking to open a bar in Chicago and have been research the regulations for about 12 months now. The issue has never been the regulations for industries such as bars and private investigation. The issue is the corporations running rampant abusing people's rights and not following the regulations that are already in place.

However, 7000$ or a 4 year penalty is nothing, especially since you can't jail a corporation either. 70k per infraction might start to get their attention though.

Re:Freedom

[moeinvt]

"So anyone should be able to walk off the street and present evidence in a court case while claiming they are an expert at gathering said evidence?"

IANAL, but I think that if a person is called upon to testify by the prosecution, defense, or one of the parties in a civil case, then "yes". You don't have to be an "expert" in gathering evidence to be able to present evidence and observations. Experts are there to evaluate and interpret. If the evidence has been obtained by illegal means as the article is suggesting, there are bound to be other implications.

Re:Freedom

[Archangel Michael]

"Do you really want any Joe Stoner doing surgery on you?"

I don't know about you, but I don't allow just anyone to cut me open. I usually check references and such. The fact that the doctor is licensed means nothing to me.

The public doesn't need protecting, it needs access to information to make informed decisions. Don't punish me for stupid people making stupid choices, like letting "Joe Stoner" operate on them.

"Do you disagree with the basic premise that people need or desire protection from negligent, unskilled, and or unscrupulous businesses, or do you disagree with the methods used? What might work better?"

Actually, I think there are already laws in place to protect people from these things. How does one stop a licensed person from being those things? You don't. Those kinds of people still exist even with licensing. Licensing doesn't check negligence, unscrupulousness. It barely checks for skill.

Take for instance automotive repair business, you need a license, but it doesn't say what you're qualified to repair. ASE on the other hand certifies (non-governmental) what a Tech has trained and tested for. However I just might want to take my car to the old guy down the road who's neither ASE or licensed because he's been doing car repairs longer than most people have been alive, and has a reputation money, licensing and certifications can't buy.

Tell me, what does license mean?

Re:Freedom

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

In states where they would, as you say, have to pursue them criminally, would it be just a fine or would someone be incarcerated? Seems to me that an entity like the RIAA would consider a fine to be just another cost of doing business. Could someone actually (I fervently hope) go to prison for this? According to the letter (pdf) from the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth, it could carry a prison sentence of up to four (4) years.

Re:Freedom

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Except if you're a journalist.

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they move to the next state over. Problem isn't solved.

It is for the people in his previous state. And it eventually will be for those in his new state once he loses that license as well and is forced to another state. Eventually he'll run out of states, or realize that maybe it's time for a career change.

Nobody's saying the system is perfect. But it's much better than not having any licensing at all, in which case your hypothetical contractor would just keep screwing customers with no repercussions. There would also be many more shoddy contractors like him -- as there were before licensing, which is exactly why licensing came into existence in the first place.

Re:Freedom

[the_womble]

The only sensible alternative is for businesses to opt in to voluntary schemes

The best alternative is for the people affected to sue. If a restaurant gives enough people food poisoning they will be sued into bankruptcy.

Licensing also causes other problems. Until very recently new pubs were refused licenses if the licensing authorities decided there were enough pubs in the area: reducing competition and preventing many who might have run a better pub from putting the existing ones out of business.

The restaurant rules are just silly: attend a course on food hygiene before you are allowed to make a sandwich!

Licensing does work fairly well for taxis.

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

And do you know that "effect" is a noun?

And a verb. Still, he did use it incorrectly.

Re:Freedom

[Archangel Michael]

why is this modded flamebait? Truth as flamebait? Slashdot mods amazes me sometimes.

Prove me wrong, don't call it flamebait because it hurts your political views. Perhaps it is the nine year old needing a license to sell lemonade? That too is true.

http://damienkatz.net/2005/08/child_labor_ope.html

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/08/03/when_life_hands_you_lemons/

My basic premise was that licensing was a barrier to entry into the market. The proof is often absurd as it is outrageous.

Tell me again what licensing does? What qualifications does it take to open a lemonade stand?

Re:Freedom

[Archangel Michael]

I'm not sure why this isn't done more often, but a state can revoke a corporate charter, essentially killing the artificially created entity. I honestly think if that happened more often, investors and board of directors would require better of the employees rather than looking at the bottom line only.

If a corporation is so shady, and despicable, why not revoke the charter? Let the state sell off the assets and keep the revenue.

Re:Freedom

[Archangel Michael]

"Because of these, I've never had a building I've been in fall down on me."

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/06/mit_sues_gehry_citing_leaks_in_300m_complex/

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

>You want a really good reason why private investigators should be licensed?
>Here it is: A large part of private investigating involves stalking.

If you are observing a person from a place where you have a legal right to be,
it's legal. License cannot grant or abridge your right to be there and observe,
because that is guaranteed by the First Amendment among other things.

Likewise you have no right to break in or trespass, to restrain anyone, or to
take their property. License cannot grant you this right, other than the very
precisely defined circumstances for law enforcement officers.

Re:Freedom

[spun]

Theoretically, licensing means a person has passed a test of some sort. Not everyone knows the reputation of all the people they need to do business with. I don't know that guy down the road. In fact, I don't know any mechanics. Is there any (existing or theoretical) way I can assure myself that a mechanic I pick will be at least marginally competent? Should there be? Or should I just have to take my chances?

I'm in a new location, I need a new doctor. Now, the AMA is a private association, not governmental at all. If they say a doctor is a doctor, I trust them. It sounds like you've made a blanket decision not to trust any governmental licensing boards. Do you trust the AMA? Are there any groups you do trust to give to evaluate the competence of any professions?

The laws you speak of do not protect people from things. They provide a method, for those that have the time and money to pursue it, for recouping losses and punishing those who are incompetent or negligent. The damage is already done, though. And what is to keep the person from going out and doing the same thing? Is it enough to punish after the fact, or should there be some method for attempting to preemptively protect people? A license can be revoked if the holder is negligent or unscrupulous.

I understand that you are critical of the current system, but you still haven't explained what you would do in its place.

Re:Freedom

[spun]

I don't understand the idea that we can solve all our problems by suing the offenders. Not everyone has the time or money to sue. Businesses know that.

Re:Freedom

[Mister Whirly]

"but I don't allow just anyone to cut me open. I usually check references and such.
Gee, if only there were some sort of qualified agency to do all the reference checking for me. Maybe they would check the doctor out, and if they pass the checks, and I don't know maybe give them something that proves they were checked out by a qualified agency. Hmm, what could they issue that would prove that? Maybe some sort of license?

"The public doesn't need protecting"
Yes, it does. Read your own signature if you really need to know the reason why.

"Actually, I think there are already laws in place to protect people from these things."
Yes, they are called licensing laws.

"How does one stop a licensed person from being those things?"
By taking away their license if they violate the rules, therby preventing them from doing business.

"Those kinds of people still exist even with licensing."
Look, licensing isn't going to solve every problem. We all know that. But your idea of throwing it out entirely will cause more of the problems you describe. Without licensing, ANYONE can operate any type of business. At least licensing will catch some of the problems. Even with licensing, you can still do all the things you describe - checking references, asking other people what they think, etc. Licensing isn't stopping you from doing any of those things. Your solution is the equivalent of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it affect the public, or does it effect the public? Make up your mind. Oh, and Athiesm is a religion like telling stamp collectors that they're idiots is a hobby.

Re:Freedom

[FinestLittleSpace]

You're just a troll.

Anecdotal evidence does not define something as useless.

I have anecdotal evidence of 99% of buildings not collapsing.

Licensing is there to protect the public. It may not catch the offender right away (I suppose you are proposing Tarot readers for that?) but when they slip up, they are screwed, totally screwed.

My driving license does not say I'm a great driver (even if I did pass with only 2 minors), but it does say if I do anything dangerous, I won't have a license, won't have a car and probably will go to prison. That is deterrant enough for most.

Of course why don't you bring out anecdotal evidence of a person driving without a license causing harm? THAT PROVES licenses SUCK!

Except they don't. They are a reasonable solution to a hugely complex problem in all areas of business and public life.

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

"why is this modded flamebait?"

Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it a true to anyone else. You site one stupid anecdote that makes licensing look bad when there are thousands of examples to prove the contrary. And you call it a "fact". That is flamebait, pure and simple.

One overzealous example does not make a collection of data. I operated lemonade stands as a kid, and even has some police stop by and purchase some. Most people have common sense when it comes to that sort of thing. Congratulations for finding the needle in the haystack that proves otherwise. It still doesn't support your theory that licensing does nothing at all.

P.S. I don't really think anyone's "political views" are being hurt by your statements. It is just really hard to see things from a different angle when you are so convinced you are right.

Re:Freedom

[The Only Druid]

That may be said, but it doesn't make it the law. The concept of "expert testimony" as a legally distinct thing from "non-expert testimony" is very important, and affects both the admissibility and applicability of evidence.

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm the Steven Segal of lovemaking. Haven't had any ladies complain about me satisfying them without a license. Does this mean you knock them on the back of the head first, or what?

Re:Freedom

[Mister Whirly]

You really should read the link you posted. No buildings fell down in it.

But that is beside the point. Finding a single example means nothing. Look around you, there are examples that prove the contrary all around you. In fact, I bet you are in one right now! All I need to site (or is it sight in this case?) my evidence is to look out the window at all the buildings standing. I can see at least 100 from here...

Re:Freedom

[sm62704]

One can only hope!

PS: Please keep up the good work.

Re:Freedom

[spun]

I'm detecting libertarian, no government is good government leanings in our pal Michael. I'm just guessing here, but I think perhaps he wants to get rid of the baby, and the bathwater is just a means to do so.

Re:Freedom

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah but your doctor says you had better cut out all that you-know-what or your hands will never release their kung-fu grips.

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are observing a person from a place where you have a legal right to be,
it's legal. License cannot grant or abridge your right to be there and observe,
because that is guaranteed by the First Amendment among other things. You, my anonymous friend, are a moron.
The First Amendment does not give you the right to harrass other people,
even if all of your activities are legal in and of themselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking
"Contrary to crimes that consist of a single act, stalking consists of a series of actions which in themselves can be legal, such as calling on the phone, sending gifts, or sending emails"

Anon0wned

Re:Freedom

[xtracto]

Shit, in the UK you even need a license to watch your TV

Those are some sick people.

Re:Freedom

[Hatta]

So anyone should be able to walk off the street and present evidence in a court case while claiming they are an expert at gathering said evidence?

That should be up to the judge.

Re:Freedom

[sm62704]

Yes, but it has to be used with an object (or so the dictionary says). You are also correct that the word he wanted was "affect".

Re:Freedom

[Shuntros]

This is true, however I'm happy to pay that so I don't have to watch mindless fucking commercials for total shit I don't want every 3 minutes. The TV license funds the BBC, which is so refreshing in the 21st century because it doesn't bombard you with adverts. After a few weeks in the USA on business with the gash excuse you guys have for TV, getting home to BBC is utter heaven.

Re:Freedom

[bellers]

Yes, anyone can claim anything they want. That's why the defense gets to cross-examine.

It's called Impeaching a Witness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment

Re:Freedom

[poetmatt]

Simple.

Hard to administer and think of what I just said about the police. Now apply that to any industry where it can be at risk and think of just how selectively entrenched (via influence) any large corrupt corporation would be? Plenty of times that influence goes both ways.

Not many people have the balls or the clout to get beyond that.

Re:Freedom

[geekboy642]

Nothing at all!

The Mafia probably wear better suits when they come to claim protection money, come to think of it.

Re:Freedom

[janrinok]

So it wasn't used to good effect?

Re:Freedom

[UncleTogie]

You don't need a license for forensics but you do for investigation because you work in the public and effect the public.

Actually, in Texas, you need a license for forensics, too...

Re:Freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but I don't allow just anyone to cut me open. I usually check references and such.

And just how much reference checking are you going to do in the emergency room after you've been in a car accident and are spewing blood everywhere? Wouldn't it be nice to have someone do the reference checking for you. A licensing body, perhaps?

Re:Freedom

[happyslayer]

(B) "Business of private investigation" means, except when performed by one excluded under division (H) of this section, the conducting, for hire, in person or through a partner or employees, of any investigation relevant to any crime or wrong done or threatened, or to obtain information on the identity, habits, conduct, movements, whereabouts, affiliations, transactions, reputation, credibility, or character of any person, or to locate and recover lost or stolen property, or to determine the cause of or responsibility for any libel or slander, or any fire, accident, or damage to property, or to secure evidence for use in any legislative, administrative, or judicial investigation or proceeding.

That is directly from the Ohio Revised Code, first section. Notice that the rest of the law says that you have to have a license to perform investigation work for hire. No, you don't need a license to look into things for yourself, but you do need a license to perform this kind of work for someone else for pay.

The distinction is important, because, as others have said, you do affect the public when you perform investigative work. You affect the target of the investigation, you affect your client, and you (can) directly affect the courts. That's the reasoning behind having a license in the first place.

Disclaimer/Notice/whatever...: IANAL, but I am a licensed private investigator in Ohio. I'm familiar with the laws governing my particular profession, and I (and my investigators) always work within those laws, both spirit and letter. It's much easier than going to jail.

Re:Freedom

[spun]

No, it is NOT illegal to know. It is illegal to hire yourself out to perform investigations without proper license. Just as it's not illegal to drive, it's just illegal to drive on a public road without a license. And mental states should be criminalized. Because there is a big difference between someone who accidentally kills someone, someone who kills someone in a fit of passion, and someone who deliberately plans and carries out a murder. Society has an interest in protecting its members, and those members arguably need greater protection from the last type of person than they do the other two.

Now please understand, I am an anarchist. That means I believe in no rulers, no government by coercion. Government agreed to, supported, and enacted by the people is a different matter. All groups of people face the same sorts of problems, and many different solutions have been tried in the past. I'd be interested to hear your proposed solution to the problem of verifying someone's suitability to perform a job, as well as your views on how best to handle different types of motivations as they relate to crime.

I do hope it boils down to something more workable than "Sue them after you have been wronged, if you have the time and money."

Re:Freedom

[element-o.p.]

Please excuse the stupid question, but how, exactly, is MediaSentry conducting their investigations? I always assumed (yes, I know that's dangerous...) that RIAA and their bloodhounds sat in some dark office somewhere surfing all the p2p networks looking for uploads. Anything they found, they attempted to download. Anything they successfully downloaded, they logged, then sent C&D notices to the ISP and/or obtained a subpoena or warrant and requested subscriber information from the ISP.

If this is, in fact, how MediaSentry et. al. works, then are they actually "conducting an investigation" in those states? If not, then this is (in my non-lawyer, non-expert opinion) a non-issue.

Re:Freedom

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Please excuse the stupid question, but how, exactly, is MediaSentry conducting their investigations? It's not a stupid question. Even the RIAA's expert witness doesn't know. (See transcript, p. 32, li. 20 - p. 33, li. 6):

20 Q. Do you know what processes and
21 procedures MediaSentry employed?
22 A. I do not know the inner works of
23 MediaSentry processes and procedures.
24 Q. Do you know what software they used?
25 A. No.
2 Q. Do you know if it was well known
3 off-the-shelf software or if it was proprietary
4 software?
5 A. Again, I do not know the inner
6 workings of MediaSentry's operations.

Re:Freedom

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I wonder: what differentiates MediaSentry's activities from racketeering (or extortion)? Me too.

Re:Freedom

[plague3106]

You don't see a conflict between the expert saying the evidence was gather properly being the same as the person that actually gathered the evidence? If you're not licensed, you may not know the rules required for evidence gathering. At least, that's what the states may be saying.

Re:Freedom

[Larryish]

Thoss who give up a littl libertys for safety cant have neither!!!!11!

Re:Freedom

[smokeslikeapoet]

In the state of TN industry insiders write licensing statues and then lobby to get them passed under the guise of public protection. In reality this just prevents new entry to the market by competitors. Often the licensing schools are run by the big corporations that government supposedly protects us from.

For example if my spouse owned a pyrotechnics company, I could go to the capital and lobby for fireworks safety. After that my spouse could make thousands by running a certification school in the off seasons. After the licensing goes into effect we'll see absolutely no change in the number of fireworks related incidents. Come to think of it, the numbers were really low anyway because most people like to keep living and don't want to blow themselves up, and they don't want to have their pants sued off either.

1 Become an expert
2 Lobby congress to make sure that everyone has to come through you to become an expert too.
3 There is no step 3
4 Profit

Licensing protects corporations, not consumers.

Re:Freedom

[spun]

So your thesis, supported by fictional anecdote, is that licensing does not protect consumers, only corporations. What is your solution to the problem of verifying reputation and suitability to perform a desired task, or do you not think there is a problem? I mean, it's certainly okay to merely criticize, I do it all the time. But perhaps what you are criticizing really is the best possible solution. Without presenting some alternatives, you aren't really making a case. It would also be helpful if you could show how your proposed solution does not fall prey to the same problems you criticize other solutions for having.

I certainly hope your proposed solution is more thought out than "Government is always bad, let's do away with it completely and let the individual do whatever they damn well please," because that doesn't work in the real world.

Re:Freedom

[greensoap]

While saying doesn't make it law, American jurisprudence and the Federal Rules of Evidence does. Case Law United States v. Johnson, 575 F.2d 1347, 1360-61 (5th Cir. 1978)(where an experienced marijuana user was qualified to testify that a specific batch of marijuana came from Columbia). FRE 702 ". . . a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. . ." Advisory Notes "Thus within the scope of the rule are not only experts in the strictest sense of the word, e.g., physicians, physicists, and architects, but also the large group sometimes called "skilled" witnesses, such as bankers or landowners testifying to land values."

Re:Freedom

[AK Marc]

The best alternative is for the people affected to sue. If a restaurant gives enough people food poisoning they will be sued into bankruptcy.

Great, so not only will you have food poisoning (hopefully not fatal), but you will have a judgement against someone that won't pay. That's so useful I hope it never happens.

Re:Freedom

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

So, what does licensing do again?

Licensing enforces standards among the community in a far more efficient way than suing or prosecuting could. It forces businesses to know the requirements for their business, and often(mostly) to meet them at least initially. Now that they've met the standards once, there's no cost barrier, and they might as well keep meeting those standards, for fear of being shut down. Car licences ensure that practically everyone on the road knows the road rules, and that practically everyone on the road is accountable for their actions. Without licenses, you can't possibly revoke someone's driving privileges, which is a welcome result after repeat offences.

Re:Freedom

[Archangel Michael]

Not trolling. There are plenty of examples I could use, like in the city I live in, a major developer was sued by multiple people because all the houses he build were flawed in some way. While no building collapsed, people had almost worthless houses that they couldn't sell.

If it were truly anecdotal, I'd apologize. I picked a recent and well known example that shows licensing doesn't mean a thing. And the architect didn't have his license revoked either. I'm sure he's still designing something, somewhere.

Next.

Re:Freedom

[actiondan]

So, what does licensing do again?

Licensing is a barrier to entry to the market but I think that it is good to have barriers to entry for some markets.

If someone opens a new restaurant, I want them to have to let the relevent authorities know, so they can come and do a hygiene check before they start serving food.

If someone wants to be a taxi driver, I want them to have to be on a list and have an ID tag so that if I have a problem with a driver I can take down their number and complain about them.

If you just let anyone enter these markets whenever they like, you end up with lots of fly-by-night operations that are here today and gone tomorrow. Licensing ensures people are serious about their business before they open their doors.

Re:Freedom

[xtracto]

This is true, however I'm happy to pay that so I don't have to watch mindless fucking commercials for total shit I don't want every 3 minutes. The TV license funds the BBC, which is so refreshing in the 21st century because it doesn't bombard you with adverts. After a few weeks in the USA on business with the gash excuse you guys have for TV, getting home to BBC is utter heaven

Yeah, I love how itv, channel 4, channel five and all the other non-bbc channels have zero commercials... And I also love the letters they send you like if they were the fucking police. They really got you scared to shit dont they? Fortunately for me, I am not from the USA, although I agree the TV there is utter shit. In Mexico I got all the good quality TV I need from cable, which I can *choose* (choice, do you know what is it?) to pay if I want. Here in the UK? even if you want to watch cable or skype channels only you must pay your diezmo to the TV License "authority". LMFAO

Re:Freedom

[pluther]

If it were truly anecdotal, I'd apologize. I picked a recent and well known example that shows licensing doesn't mean a thing.

"Anecdotal" doesn't mean it didn't happen, or that it's unverified hear-say. It means that it's just individual examples that don't show anything about the overall pattern. In other words, exactly what you posted.

If you think a few exceptions show that "licensing doesn't mean a thing" you need to re-read the second to last paragraph of my earlier reply.

Prosecuter Doesn't Care

[Anonymous Coward]

Prosecutors would rather send someone to jail for victimless crimes like drug posession than for extortion and racketeering which the RIAA and MPAA regularly engage in.

Re:Prosecuter Doesn't Care

[Foobar of Borg]

I take it from your comment that you are a drug user yourself. Drugs are not a victemless crime. Do you have any idea the number of other crimes are committed to support drug habits?

I take it from your comment that you are an idiot who does not have basic reasoning skills. I don't do drugs myself and would not even if they were legalized. However, I don't consider it any of my business if someone wants to on their own. It's simply none of my concern how someone else wants to live their lives. And crimes to support drug habits wouldn't exist if (some) drugs weren't illegal. You don't see alcoholics knocking over convenience stores so they can buy a fifth of vodka, do you?

Re:Prosecuter Doesn't Care

[sm62704]

From the GP: Prosecutors would rather send someone to jail for victimless crimes like drug posession than for extortion and racketeering which the RIAA and MPAA regularly engage in.

It's easier to get evidence of drug possession; they only have to produce the drug in court. For prostitution they only have to have the cop who poses as a hooker to testify that he or she was solicited. For extortion they have to get the victim's consent, which may be hard to do if the victim is terrified by the attacker, which is, after all, the only reason extortion works. DAs get reelected based on their wins/losses.

As to your incredibly ignorant comment: Drugs are not a victemless crime. Do you have any idea the number of other crimes are committed to support drug habits?

I've smoked pot since 1971 and I don't steal, extort, become violent (unlike many drinkers, whose drug is entirely legal), and have been gainfully employed for all that time. In fact, I'm eligible to retire in a couple of years.

Most of my friends also use this drug, and they are also gainfully employed. many are businesspeople.

I agree that marijuana should be kept away from minors, like any other drug (alcohol and tobacco included) but the laws do exactly the opposite. If you want proof, find a teenager and ask if (s)he can buy pot at school, and ask if (s)he can buy beer at school.

IMO the most vehement opponents of drug legalization must be the drug dealers themselves, as they stand to lose a whole lot of profit and perhaps even their livlihood should their illicit goods become legal.

What's worse, passage of victimless crimes lead to the erosion of civil liberies. Are you a lawmaker? That would explein your anonymity, Mr. Coward.

-mcgrew

Re:Prosecuter Doesn't Care

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I used to grow my own marijuana. Please tell me how cultivating a plant in my own home, not buying/selling anything on the black market, and only using it for my own personal consumption made anyone else a victim.

Re:Prosecuter Doesn't Care

[rkanodia]

I think a better tack would be to note that there are already laws against breaking and entering, robbery, and so forth.

hhmmmm.

[apodyopsis]

whereas I derive a lot of pleasure about hearing the **AA and their cronies getting hosed I'm a little confused here.

how is jurisdiction defined in 'net terms? physical address of the "investigator"? physical address of the "guilty" party? location of all the 'net infrastructure? where the summons where served? seems like this is far from evident to me.

can they simply serve a warrant from a location where they are licensed?

Re:hhmmmm.

[InsaneProcessor]

If you are investigating someone in a given state, you must be licensed in that state.

Re:hhmmmm.

[geminidomino]

In this sort of case, it would appear to be the state in which the suit is filed and they wish to be able to provide evidence for.

IANAL, YMMV.

Re:hhmmmm.

[BillGod]

I think it would have to be in the state that the person being investigated is in. A contractor has to be licensed in the state they are working in. So do Dr's and anyone else in the medical field. The only one I know of that gets out of that standard are truck drivers. It only makes sense. Your local laws are made to protect you. If someone outside your area can do things that harm you. Your local laws take effect.. RIGHT???

Not banned in MA

[diewlasing]

They aren't banned in MA, the state police sent the ma cease and desist letter, but I know, here in Boston, kids are still getting sued and I believe that they filed a complaint in court indicating the the state police told them to stop. But as far as I know the RIAA told them to fuck off, because I believe MediaSentry is still up to their old tricks here.

Re:Not banned in MA

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Legally they've been told to "cease and desist". If they're violating the "cease and desist" letter, well that's a whole new crime, isn't it?

Re:Not banned in MA

[zentinal]

Wow, seems like a few arrests are in order. You know, real high profile stuff, with the media alerted, full on perp walk (coat thrown tastefully over the head), screaming Boston Herald headlines like 'RIAA Snoops Cuffed!', the whole nine yards. Anybody know anybody at the Herald? How can we make this happen?

So they get a DBO type license

[nurb432]

Problem solved.

bleh

[zerodown]

and are we the least bit surprised that they're operating illegally? It's the RIAA, they're above the law when it comes to recuperating losses suffered by artists, when said artists are still waiting for their original paychecks.

Re:bleh

[Shados]

They're doing things the vigilante way... "If no one is going to stop people from infringing copyright, we will!!!". Which is obviously illegal and bad in so many ways... However, aside for the vast difference in budget and power, the idea isn't too different from people (and they're common on this site) going: "If no one will change the law, I will simply ignore it!!! Come on the free downloads!! GOOOO PIRATE BAY!" or whatsnot... Both sides are overzealous people wanting to take the law into their own hand.

And its not a matter of people vs corporation either...as both sides are just people wanting to handle their money the way they wish... Also interesting to note that the second group from my example started before the former...

In the end, MOST people think they're above the law and that their own moral, judgement, and wallet is above everyone else's.

Re:bleh

[zerodown]

My chagrin and disappointment stems from they're modus operandi. They clearly stated that "we're persuing these illegal downloaders to provide reparations to the artists who are losing out." Really? Then why is it the artists have yet to see a cent from the these lawsuits? Because we all know in actuality the RIAA isn't concerned with artists but with the record labels. At least be clear of your purposes and don't try to spin this in a way that makes you feel you can sleep at night.

Re:bleh

[Shados]

I completly agree with you. Then again, its little different from, let say, people who talk about abolishing copyright in the name of "freedom of speech", when all they care about is "free as in beer".

Of course, we can't generalise, for a large chunk of people thats not true, but forthe majority....

Seriously, everyone's the same... the thing that makes the RIAA worse is that they do it on such a large scale fueled by millions.

Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

The RIAA seems to be operating without any regard to the actual laws of the country. Doesn't this bother anyone? It isn't a few isolated cases, the RIAA operates as if it IS the law and the government does nothing to stop it, UNLESS the RIAA is challenged.

So much for the land of the free - it is the land of 'Get away with whatever you can, as fast as you can'. Imagine if the general population acted like the RIAA does?

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[Original Replica]

So much for the land of the free - it is the land of 'Get away with whatever you can, as fast as you can'.

They are just following the lead of our Executive Branch.

Before someone whines "why does everything have to turn into Bush bashing?" Let me say that this is completely relevant. When the most powerful executive of US law regularly shows contempt for the rule of law and gets away with it every time for years, it is only logical that other rich and powerful men would follow suit and begin to treat the law as if it only marginally applies to them.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

In theory, the balances and checks in the american system are designed to prevent this sort of abuse at the top. So, in theory, the american system should prevent all problems like this... and in reality, well - you decide if it is working.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[moderatorrater]

The RIAA seems to be operating without any regard to the actual laws of the country. Doesn't this bother anyone?...So much for the land of the free Nope, not a single person cares. Oh, yeah, except for a few lawyers in new york and most of the forums on the internet, including this one. But other than the thousands and/or millions those represent, nope, it doesn't bother anyone.

As for being the land of the free, this is a complicated legal process. The RIAA literally can't get the identity of the person that they're investigating without filing against them and then forcing the ISP to turn over the records. As despicable as it is, they're not the ones who created that problem (even if they're exploiting it for all they're worth). In addition, they have the right to defend their property from being abused, so the judges can't just throw these cases out without giving the RIAA a chance to prove what they're doing. To use the cliche, they should get their days in court.

Finally, the tide seems to be turning as more and more judges are punishing them for their abusive actions. MediaSentry is getting slammed from nearly every direction, many colleges are standing up, and court cases are being won. Your comment is dumb in the extreme, and maybe even what I would consider a troll.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

You might think it is a troll comment. I might think you're a troll.

Either way, neither of us are moderating ;)

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[ptbarnett]

Before someone whines "why does everything have to turn into Bush bashing?" Let me say that this is completely relevant. When the most powerful executive of US law regularly shows contempt for the rule of law and gets away with it every time for years, it is only logical that other rich and powerful men would follow suit and begin to treat the law as if it only marginally applies to them.

Anyone that thinks this behavior is started with the Bush administration is deluding themselves at best, and more likely engaging in political demagoguery.

Personally, I can't wait for January, 2009. But those of you that just started paying attention to the antics of the executive branch within the past 7 years need to stop playing computer games and open a history book.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[barzok]

I really wish I could live in the magical land of Theory.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[Russ Nelson]

The checks and balances don't exist anymore. The theory behind the US government is that the federal government was going to have a STRICTLY limited set of functions. A VERY SMALL set of functions. Read the Constitution. Everything else was to be done by the states, with the citizens controlling the state governments by voting, and if necessary, the ultimate freedom of exit. A state government that misbehaves would find itself with no citizens.

That system doesn't function anymore, ever since we allowed the federal government to expand beyond its remit. The "checks and balances" of splitting power between three branches of government were a backup system. Defense in depth. They were never meant to be the primary protection against corruption and tyranny.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[sm62704]

We live in a plutocracy, where a rich and powerful man only goes to jail if a richer, more powerful man wants him there. Ever hear of O.J. Simpson?

Money will buy anything in America, including DAs, judges, and politicians. Here, they call bribery "campaign contribution". My ex-wife once had a lawyer who owned a T-shirt (there was a picture in his office of him wearing it) that said "a good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge."

A friend's brother went to federal prison for loaning money to a drug dealer - he'd gone to high school with the dope dealer, and the dealer called him up one day with an offer he couldn't refuse: loan him a thousand dollars and a week later he would pay him two thousand back.

The dealer spent two years, but my friend's brother had nobody to rat out. Their entire graduating class went to prison. AFAIK my friend's brother had never touched a drug in his life. He does now!

Yes, I'm cynical. You couldn't live in the US for a half century without becoming cynical.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[Mister Whirly]

Correct. I am pretty sure every administration in the past has also tried to expand their power. The current administration just seems to be very effective at doing so without anyone raising much of a clamor.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

I guess all I'm saying is that the US governmental system is THE problem for the USA. Come on, a TWO party electoral system? How does that qualify for a democracy? /end troll.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[greensoap]

The general population does behave like the RIAA. RIAA tactics aside, uploading & downloading copyrighted materials violates US law. Okay, there is a whole debate as to whether you are entitled to download a copy of something you own for archive or to transfer to another media. But let's be honest about what is really happening, these are cases where people are usually downloading something they have never purchased and the general population is trying to "get away with whatever [it] care, as fast as [it] can."

The RIAA may not be in the right, but let's not pretend all the bitTorrent user's out there downloading the newest song by whoever the hell or the latest episode of whatever show they want are in right. Just because a segment of society feels that information should be free and shared openly doesn't make it legal. In the very least, people downloading copies of media they do not own are getting away with whatever they can, as fast as they can.

If we are going to criticize the RIAA, we should at least be honest about the activities of both sides of the game.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[monxrtr]

Sorry, but you are incorrect. There is no legitimate Constitutional copyright law. The law is unconstitutional for excessive fines and non contemporary limited term length. Just because some politicians vote for something doesn't mean it actually matters. It's a factual impossibility for any individual or any corporation to legitimately copyright any material whatsoever, given the current unconstitutional USA copyright statutes.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[greensoap]

The fines being unconstitutional does not make the copyright unconstitutional. That is a faulty argument. Many people say that the death penalty is unconstitutional. If they are right, does that mean a criminal charge of murder is constitutional. Okay, that was very slippery slope. The point being, infringement, punishment, and the right to copyright are all separate. You cannot say that punishment is unjust therefore the right does not exist. Now, you can chose to practice civil disobedience because you feel that the punishment is unjust and therefore you choose to disregard the law. But that does not make the copyright unconstitutional.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[monxrtr]

Uh, yes it does make the copyright itself wholly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court can't line item veto the section laying out fines nor the section laying out the length of the copyright term. They can merely rule the Copyright Statute, in whole, is unconstitutional. Abusive greed has netted an effectual copyright protection of nothing. Yes, this is irony of the highest degree. You can't go to the Copyright Office and decide to register for your own personal Constitutional version of copyright protection. You just have what protection [racket] laws the Copyright Office can offer, or nothing. Unfortunately (for those wishing to secure "legitimate" copyright protection), both possibilities are nothing.

Unconstitutional claims, unconstitutional actions, are simply that, unconstitutional. And thus all copyright claims, as currently registered under existing copyright law, are nothing but losing lottery ticket pieces of paper.

If you want Constitutional Copyright protection, try writing a constitutional copyright law in the first place.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[greensoap]

What? First off, copyrights originate in the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8. The bulk of copyright is found under the United States Code Title 17. The copyright laws are broken into many separate laws, not just one law. If the Supreme Court were to decide that the punishments imposed by courts in copyright cases were unconstitutional, it could do that without invalidating every law in the title 17. The punishments for infringement are found in 17 USC Chapter 5. The $150,000 statutory damage is 17 USC Section 504(c)(2). The S.Ct. very well could find this unconstitutional own its own, separate from the rest of the copyright laws. These laws are divisible, and it wouldn't be a line item veto (that is something the president does). Now on to your second point, an individual is free to get a copyright and enforce it however they see fit. Of course, the stated relief is limited to the options you are given. But, nobody is obligated to seek statutory damages, an individual can seek actual damages and lost profits if they wish. Further, an individual could seek injunctive relief. Lastly, (and this is the kicker) an individual may chose not to enforce the copyright at all. What relief is it that valid copyright holder wishes to have that is being denied to him? Sorry, fail.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[monxrtr]

Nope, all you would have to do is challenge a particular copyright that was say 100 years old and get it invalidated. Goodbye United States Code Title 17. The Supreme Court would be wholly unable to itself *modify* the Law such that copyright protection remained for copyrights filed before Date X and was eliminated for copyrights filed after Date X. The entirety of all copyrights granted under the prior ruled unconstitutional version of US Code Title 17 would be invalidated. By definition the moment they were granted, they were granted in an unconstitutional manner, an unconstitutional form. The only possible redress would be instant public domain for all unconstitutionally granted copyrights, everything which is copyrighted becomes public domain. The monopoly distribution grant is unconstitutional from the moment it was granted precisely because the grant was given in an unconstitutional manner. The terms can't be amended by the Supreme Court; they are ruled unconstitutional and the copyright grant is by definition stripped. Every copyright grant is granted on the exact same specified terms.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[cpt kangarooski]

The Supreme Court can't line item veto the section laying out fines nor the section laying out the length of the copyright term. They can merely rule the Copyright Statute, in whole, is unconstitutional.

It's not a veto, but yes, they can find parts of a law unconstitutional and other parts not unconstitutional. Happens all the time, in fact. Also, it's called the Copyright Act, or if you need to distinguish the current one from prior ones, it is the 1976 Copyright Act.

Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned?

[ClamIAm]

The RIAA seems to be operating without any regard to the actual laws of the country. Doesn't this bother anyone?

You must be new here.

Whoa

[w.p.richardson]

I'm sure this technicality will give the RIAA pause, which will lead to a reconsideration of their tactics.

Or not.

Yeah, probably not.

Americans and their rights.

[muxecoid]

Big corporations think that people are too afraid to seek justice even if law is not on the firm's side. Awareness and cheaper legal services for citizen would help. Corporations surely do not want the customers to be aware of their rights.

Re:Americans and their rights.

[CSMatt]

I think the need for cheaper legal services is more critical. The sheer amount of "Injured in an accident?" and other similar ads seem to have awareness covered, at least in a general sense.

Re:Americans and their rights.

[pxlmusic]

because the corporations have ensured through the lobbying and purchase of "our" lawmakers that we as consumers have no say in these matters. it may sound cliche, but what the f*ck can we do in the face of a corporation with deep pockets and such formidable legal representation as they typically have? america is a plutocracy.

RIAA Operating Illegally. Now there's a shock!

[HannethCom]

RIAA employing companies working illegally. Suing the wrong person. Screwing the artists they are supposed to protect. Screwing the consumers. So what else it new?

In Canada we have the CRIA (Same basic entity) that admitted to collecting more media tax than they were supposed to from customers, and what did they do with this extra money they shouldn't have had? Pocketed it themselves of course. As I understand it, to get money from the CRIA you have to apply to get a portion of it and again, if people don't apply for it, they pocket the money meant for the artists themselves.

Each blank CD, or tape we buy there's a media tax. The money from this goes to the CRIA to distribute to the artists in compensation for people using the blank media for piracy. How the law works here in Canada is when you "buy a CD" you are actually buying a license to that listen to that performance of the song privately. Canadian corporate law is based off of when you pay money, you have to get something in return. This is what makes downloading songs, or transferring them to another media for your own use legal in Canada.

It is legal to download songs in Canada, but it is not legal to download a song and listen to it that you don't have a license to.

Re:RIAA Operating Illegally. Now there's a shock!

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

So, in canada, you pay a small amount on every blank cd you buy.
This sounds bad. Until you realize that this 'tax' basically legalizes downloading (but not using) of this media.
And that is good, because the law only goes after people who play music without the proper license, and not the regular guys on the street.
And this is good, because downloaded music doesn't equal lost sales - and the people who should be paying for music (Broadcast companies, etc) actually DO (in theory).
Also... the law punishes people who profit illegally from music distribution, but if it isn't costing anyone money ... than it doesn't seem to matter to them.

Also, we don't have 7 year olds getting charged with piracy - which makes the RIAA, and the USA by extension, look like a big bully, I might add.

Re:RIAA Operating Illegally. Now there's a shock!

[Beardo the Bearded]

The other critical factor is that in Canada, the loser automatically pays all court costs.

If the CRIA sues me and they lose, they have to pay not only their own legal fees, but all of my fees. This includes, but is not limited to, my:

1. lawyer's fees.
2. filing costs.
3. lost wages for showing up in court when I could have been at work making money.
4. extra expenses incurred while defending myself.

If they drop the charges against someone who has a defence (like the RIAA does in the states) they still have to pay those fees. That's why we'll never get RIAA-style litigation here.

If you adopted the same idea in the US, you'd end legal threatening. "Well, we've got millions. You're a student. Your money will run out first. You'll be bankrupted... ...unless you settle."

Technically, the distinction here in Canada is that you can download music, but you can't upload it. I'm sure if you kept 35% Canadian content on your shared drive, you could argue that you're an unlicenced broadcaster, not a music pirate.

IANAL.

Re:RIAA Operating Illegally. Now there's a shock!

[cpt kangarooski]

If you adopted the same idea in the US, you'd end legal threatening. "Well, we've got millions. You're a student. Your money will run out first. You'll be bankrupted... ...unless you settle."

No, not really. The courts are not perfect. It is entirely possible to be in the right and still lose. Think about toxic tort cases, where a small plaintiff goes up against a big polluter; even if you have a plaintiff's attorney who is willing to take the case on contingency, costs do mount up, and you may ultimately lose simply for lack of money to pay for scientific evidence to counter the other side. Loser pays merely amplifies the danger of going to court against anyone bigger than you. So long as you only pay your own expenses (and damages, if you're a defendant) you can control your exposure better.

Of course, your argument is also invalidated by the fact that copyright suits in the US do have a loser-pays statute, but it hasn't deterred the MPAA, RIAA, etc. Nor should it, since, to be honest, even though they have a lousy track record, most of the people they pursue really are liable!

Re:Ep..?

[Dragon By Proxy]

Why yes, there is a gaping hole in all of this.

Not that one, though.

time for class action lawsuit

[KevMar]

or criminal charges.

They are unlawfully scanning our computers looking for files. We give open access to people that want to download them, but if you are going to use that information for any other purpose it considered an invasion of our network. hacking if you will.

Why hasnt any thing been done about that? it is unauthorised computer access.

Re:time for class action lawsuit

[Penguinisto]

Sorry, but unless you password-protect your public services, you can't have it that way.

The trick is (and std. disclaimers apply, 'cause I ain't a lawyer), that you opened your computer shares for public consumption, so anyone can "scan" those public shares for whatever they like (in reality, they're making a copy and scanning the copy - the only 'scanning' they do is to look through a list of what you have, like everyone else accessing those shares do).

Now if you password-protected the shared directory, and they got in without you giving them the password, then they'd be violating/hacking/etc. But - you can't go after 'em for doing exactly what you've set up the shared directory to do - allow anyone to download its contents.

I'm not defending the RIAA or anything but - like a vampire - the RIAA will only stay dead if we kill it the right way.

/P

Re:time for class action lawsuit

[Svartalf]

The problem with this line of thinking is that the representative Labels for RIAA can do the investigations themselves and ONLY for
themselves- but they can't comment on or share info about any infringements of anything other than the stuff they have rights for.

And there's some limitations on what is and isn't legit for them to do.

MediaSentry's not allowed to do this on behalf of RIAA and RIAA isn't allowed to do it on behalf of the member labels because they're
not licensed to do so in pretty much all the States requiring licensing to be had for Investigative services of ANY kind.

Doesn't matter if you offered the stuff up or not. It's inadmissible in Court. It can land the people doing the investigation
the way they've done it in jail.

Re:time for class action lawsuit

[sm62704]

Why hasnt any thing been done about that? it is unauthorised computer access.

INO (I'm no lawyer, but I'm not I-ANAL) but I would guess it's for the same reason that Sony's executives weren't incarcerated for their XCP rootkit trojan they placed on music CDs. We are, after all, talking about the same corporation here. The RIAA represents Sony-BMG, who is one of the "Big Four".

They are above the law. The law only applies to the working class and the poor in America.

Re:time for class action lawsuit

[monxrtr]

Not to mention, I.P. addresses are not persons. Every settlement letter ever mailed to every person is a violation of a multitude of RICO predicates. Not to mention every error made in the past shows a pattern of incompetence to be admitted as counter evidence to any and all future claims.

Really, though, if you want to win the war against the RIAA overnight, you hold an academic legal conference at an Elite Law School, and brainstorm for 40-50 RICO predicate counts, and then forward the results to a politically connected prosecutor to initiate subpoenas and charges. Publicize and open the conference for $99 attendance fees. Many of those RIAA lawyers, MediaSentry investigators, and music industry executives will end up facing 30 year prison terms, and confiscation of corporate and personal assets. It's that simple. And many mid level fish will turn and rat out the higher ups before you can say "Jack Robinson".

I would gather names of those who are provably falsely accused and contact the FBI, to see what if any additional domestic terrorism charges can be brought.

And of course, the icing on the cake is Sarbanes-Oxley to get them on Hollywood Accounting violations, along with tax evasion and IRS resources.

You combine this, and the RIAA is literally fucked up the creek without a paddle. We just need a little bit of national organization activism to combine disparate academic entities, individuals, government agencies, and groups like the EFF et al.

And as bonus, no politicians will seriously touch their future lobbying efforts with a ten foot pole for decades to come. Eliot Spitzer is going down now; the RIAA can go down 50 times harder with just as much, if not much more, ease.

Re:time for class action lawsuit

[Svartalf]

Heh... You certainly don't think small, do you? I like what you're proposing.

Unfortunately, I don't know if Harvard, Yale, etc. would be interested in holding such a fun-fest or allowing one to occur.
While I'm not a lawyer, I would definitely love to chip in ~$100 to help 'em brainstorm and ferret out the fun stuff on the
RIAA and their members. It's a long time in the coming, I suspect.

That raises a Question...

[Penguinisto]

They seem pretty arrogant, but if their tactic fails consistently, then even the dullest legal type in the RIAA would want to change tactics. Nobody (esp. the RIAA) like to lose, y'know?

If enough folks know about this (e.g. I live in Oregon, so say they somehow decide to sue me...), then any relevant case goes 'splat' in a heartbeat, for a minimum of fuss and cost (prolly even cheaper than the "settlement" offered). I'm sure that it wouldn't take too much convincing to show the judge that the RIAA has no right to sue, based on a sole bit of evidence gathered illegally within the jurisdiction.

The only unknown would be how it affects a civil case as opposed to a criminal one. I believe that if your one bit of evidence was gathered illegally in a criminal investigation, it would pretty much obliterate any hope of prosecution, but I'm not 100% sure of civil cases.

Any lawyers in the house that can confirm/deny that?

/P

Re:That raises a Question...

[MttJocy]

Depends on how essential the piece of evidence itself was and the same for any evidence which was derived from it either directly or that lead from the illegal discovery (fruit of the poisoned tree) example, in a murder investigation the police search your car without a warrant, in the process of doing so they discover a knife which carries forensic evidence (fingerprints, blood other trace evidence etc) then all of that is inadmissible in court because from the moment the police illegally searched your car any discovery coming from that car or it's contents were all products of that illegal act (thus what the term fruit of the poisoned tree comes from). Other evidence which was discovered beforehand through legitimate rules of evidence would still be admissible however, as would any evidence discovered completely independently of the search of the car so it is possible that there would be some other way to make the case (perhaps such as physical evidence found on a carpet or similar that was used to move the body, which was found for instance with the victim or in the home of the suspect/victim or some other location). It certainly would not do the prosecution's case any favors though. By the way I am not a lawyer so this is just my understanding of it but I believe it to be correct, of course if the knife was your only piece of physical evidence you would be in somewhat of a mess unless you could somehow pull together a very strong circumstantial case somewhere.

California

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

>Is Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG 'investigator' MediaSentry operating illegally in your state?.

They do not appear to be licensed in California. A check with the Department of Consumer Affairs license search does not show a license for MediaSentry. Searching on "Media" shows a delinquent license for Media Center Investigations in Kern County. It is, of course, possible that they are licensed under some other corporate identity.

Re:California

[rozthepimp]

Not licensed as Safenet either. The California Department of Consumer Affairs makes it real easy to file a complaint online... http://www.dca.ca.gov/online_services/complaints/complfrm.shtml

Re:California

[paddbear]

Not licensed in Vermont, after a search of the Sec. of State's databases.

Easier question

[Shagg]

Are there any states where they are licensed to investigate?

Re:Easier question

[Xenographic]

> Are there any states where they are licensed to investigate?

They are not licensed in any state, according to what I remember from a past article. Your question then becomes: in how many states are licenses required? As well as, in how many states has MediaSentry conducted investigations?

Frankly, I'm going to be disappointed if there aren't any sanctions against them when this is all over. I know that they expunged a few things from their website, but I somehow doubt that they've actually stopped investigating.

Re:Easier question

[compro01]

AFAIK, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Dakota have no statewide requirement for private investigators to be licensed.

Guilty as charged.

[RandoX]

I move for civil damages of $700,000 per IP. And damages against Comcast for "making available" those IP addresses.

Re:Guilty as charged.

[laffer1]

No, Comcast can file a lawsuit as well. Remember, since they send packets out to p2p apps, it is possible MediaSentry is actually communicating with Comcast instead of you. This is the beauty of Comcast impersonating people online, they get to sue too.

I'd like an answer

[BCW2]

Sadly with the gutless/bought off coward we have as the Attorney General in North Carolina I will never know. This clown takes no chances and rarely goes against corporations of any size.

hrm

[arbiter1]

To address a few points, in terms of being licensed it does make them show their method's of collecting info on ppl is valid and not bogus stuff they might make up. Most the riaa's wins in court, mostly none of the artists haven't even seed 1 cent of it so its not pirates f'in them its more so now the riaa. as for fileing suit in a state they have a license in for someone that lives in a state they don't, i think they have to go to the state were the crime is committed, for fact its not other states problem to do this and it would cost that state $$$ to get person from another state.

Maybe They Won't Show Up?

[Nom du Keyboard]

If MediaSentry is illegal in your state, maybe they won't show up to be deposed, or testify at trial. Could be a bit of an RIAA problem if you can't cross-examine the "witnesses" against you.

Pennsylvania?

[scubamage]

anyone know if they're licensed in PA? If not I've got a few hundred friends who will be contacting the state attorney general's office.

Re:Pennsylvania?

[scubamage]

I don't like being spied on. And, the MPAA/RIAA have avoided the rules of due process by a) refusing to disclose methods used to apprehend defendants, b) refusing to identify particular defendants, instead choosing to attack John Does. So,m basically they could point at anyone, say "We know you're guilty, but we won't show how, and we won't really identify you. So you, person we haven't identified, give us 200,000$." We have rights, and I'm tired of the members of our government yielding them to corporations. So anyone who aids these cartels, exactly what the RIAA and MPAA are, will go down in flames. Capische?

Re:Pennsylvania?

[scubamage]

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/theoffice.aspx?id=71 Please contact the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office about this. I know at least 10 people who have so far. Remember, phone calls and handwritten letters are taken more seriously than emails.

Leveled or levied?

[0100010001010011]

leveled or levelled, leveling or levelling, levels
1. To make horizontal, flat, or even: leveled the driveway with a roller; leveled off the hedges with the clippers.
2. To tear down; raze.
3. To knock down with or as if with a blow: The challenger leveled the champion with a mighty uppercut.
4. To place on the same level; equalize.
5. To aim along a horizontal plane: leveled the gun at the target.
6. To direct emphatically or forcefully toward someone: leveled charges of dishonesty.
7. To measure the different elevations of (a tract of land) with a level.

levy
1. an imposing or collecting, as of a tax, by authority or force.
2. the amount owed or collected.
3. the conscription of troops.
4. the troops conscripted.
5. to impose (a tax): to levy a duty on imports.
6. to conscript (troops).
7. to start or wage (war).
8. to seize or attach property by judicial order.

You gotta ask ourselves one question: Is our children learning?

Re:Leveled or levied?

[cube135]

leveled or levelled, leveling or levelling, levels
6. To direct emphatically or forcefully toward someone: leveled charges of dishonesty.
Looks about right...

Re:Leveled or levied?

[Cyko_01]

Troll
1. One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

Re:Leveled or levied?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Troll 1. One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument There are other uses of the term "troll" on the internet. See this article, e.g. I always use it more in this sense:

people who pretend to be someone that they are not - they create personae that you think are real, but they know is fictitious. I believe there are "trolls" of this sort who are in the employ of the RIAA who are working on Slashdot

Re:Leveled or levied?

[argel]

That kind of trolling is usually called astroturfing.

Regarding RIAA, MPAA, DMCA and all other xxxAs

[roman_mir]

Got an interesting email today

Dear ...

Rogers Cable (Rogers) has received a notice stating that activities associated with your IP address are infringing copyright in material(s) owned or exclusively licensed by others.

The full notice is appended to this e-mail below.

Under section 4(d) of the Rogers Yahoo! Hi-Speed Internet End User Agreement (EUA) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), you are prohibited from using the Rogers Yahoo! Hi-Speed Internet service to engage in illegal activities, including activities that infringe copyright. Copies of our EUA and AUP are available at:

http://na.edit.client.yahoo.com/rogers/show_static?.form=terms&.intl=ca

Where there has been a violation of our EUA and/or AUP, including the unauthorized distribution of copyright-protected material, Rogers has the right to take appropriate action against you.

If you have any questions about the attached copyright notice, please contact the sender of the notice using the contact information provided in the notice. Please do not reply to this e-mail.

We trust you will comply with our policies and all applicable laws in using the Rogers Yahoo! Hi-Speed Internet service.

Rogers EUA Management Team Sincerely,

EUA Management Team Rogers Yahoo Hi-Speed Internet

http://na.edit.client.yahoo.com/rogers/show_static?.form=terms

Tuesday, March 11, 2008 Rogers Cable Inc. 1 Mount Pleasant Road Toronto, M4Y-2Y5 CA

RE: Unauthorized Distribution of the Copyrighted Motion Picture Entitled Vantage Point

Dear Rogers High-Speed Internet:

We are writing this letter on behalf of Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., ("Columbia Pictures").

As you may know, Columbia Pictures is the owner of copyright and exclusive distribution rights in and to the motion picture entitled Vantage Point.

No one is authorized to perform, exhibit, reproduce, transmit, or otherwise distribute the above-mentioned work without the express written permission of Columbia Pictures, which permission Columbia Pictures has not granted to (the IP address)

We have received information that an individual has utilized the above-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of the above-mentioned work through a "peer-to-peer" service.

The attached documentation specifies the location on your network where the infringement occurred, the number of repeat violations recorded at this specific location, as well as any available identifying information.

The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.

Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:

1) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and
2) Terminate any and all accounts that this individual has through you.

On behalf of Columbia Pictures, owner of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by Columbia Pictures, its respective agents, or the law.

Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state that we believe the information in this notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that MediaSentry is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights being infringed as se

UK / Computer Misuse Act

[Kryptic Knight]

I'm guessing that the Computer Misuse Act (1990) would take any results of the RIIA tools and kick them out of court. Not withstanding any attempts to utilise USA legislative actions on British Citizens (even if our govt lets us be treated like the 51st state).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Misuse_Act

Re:Ep..?

[sm62704]

Never have I seen a comment more worthy of being modded "funny!" Thank you for that!

Not licensed in Minnesota

[mounthood]

RE: Is MediaSentry licensed in Minnesota?

No, we have no such investigative licensed in Minnesota.

Sincerely,

Marie Ohman, Executive Director
MN Private Detective & Protective Agent Services Board

http://www.pdpaboard.state.mn.us/

Re:Not licensed in Minnesota

[jskline]

Since this is the case then, the fact is that the recently won argument against a Duluth woman of supposedly sharing songs on her computer; now is technically void, and should be fully and completely overturned.

In fact, all the cases brought should be overturned except in the states where this company is technically licensed.

Ask for proof and disclosure of method

[cheros]

As they are publicly alleging you have engaged in illegal activity you could always ask them to provide incontrovertible proof that

(a) the item described is indeed a copyrighted item. This includes submitting a checksum of the original under oath (i.e. they don't just checksum yours, which could be difficult if you're on DHCP and hop IP addresses).
(b) the alleged activities uniquely identify your system, and you as user. This includes disclosure of method for purposes of scientific evaluation, no get out clause if it's a 3rd party
(c) they are aware that a failure to prove the allegation turns the allegation into libel as it was publicly disclosed to a 3rd party
(d) they have a clue about geography by identifying how they 1. traced your IP address and 2. made US laws apply to Canada. Point 2. appears to be really a problem for them..

IANAL, but you could have some fun with them. OTOH, why bother. An alternative approach is to tell them to print it on ragged edge cardboard and then insert it rectally with a sharpened poker using a sand-and-chili based lubricant.

not licensed in nc

[OrochimaruVoldemort]

now i can download my mp3s without the riaa annoying me (i recommend naruto music).

The aren't licensed in FL

[DragonTHC]

how do I prevent them from attacking my computer over the Internet.

What state agency do I contact about making a complaint?

Re:The aren't licensed in FL

[freedom_india]

Sarcastic answer? None.
They are a corporation, and as everybody knows corporates are above law because they can't be imprisoned.
Hence in short, buy kaspersky, crack it up the highest notch and pray.
BTW, if you wrote a software to crack MediaSentry or even stop it, you would be busted tomorrow by gun-wielding FBI agents who would act on behalf of corporate agents and in addition had you over for rendition to a nice East Europe prison.

Nebraska

[Spleen]

They don't appear to be licensed in Nebraska.

You better believe it!

[ToxicBanjo]

Is RIAA's MediaSentry Illegal in Your State?

You bet... I'm in a state of denial and that shit just plain ain't allowed here.... respect my Authoriton!

Small wonder.....

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

that MediaSentry is stonewalling on Marie Lindor's document subpoena. I guess it has some skeletons in its closet.

As the only real PI to post so far,

[spun]

I want to know, do you support licensing of private investigators? Was obtaining your license a sizable barrier to your entering the profession? What do you feel are the primary reasons, if any, for requiring licensing of your profession?

Re:As the only real PI to post so far,

[happyslayer]

Fair question, and I'll try to give a fair answer:

While difficult to ferret out, the Section 4749 basically boils down to this: You have to have about 2 years experience (more or less) in paid investigation, paid security, or both to apply for a license. Add on liability insurance, take a test, and you too can be a private investigator ("Work from your own home!!!!" :-)

The Dept. of Homeland Security reviews the application for the test, certifies that the experience counts, and sets you up for a test. Pass the test, and you're in.

As for my thoughts, it's not actually too onerous or a sizable barrier. Ideally, it is a profession where you (attorney or client) would want someone to make sure that you don't get taken or permanently damaged (financially, legally, or publicly) by the work done. A good example is the HP case; licensed or not, the clients got (deservedly) screwed by the actions of the investigators.

Cynically, there is a lot of room on both sides of the argument. Does a test and a piece of paper make you a good investigator? What about manned/monitored network security services? The requirements seem biased toward former police officers; is this fair? What about South Carolina, requiring a license to even present evidence in court?

Overall, I think having a requirement is a Good Thing(tm), and Ohio is not too bad.

This is just my opinion. I might be suffering from "beaten child syndrome" ("That's how I was brought up, so it's good enough for them!") or simple greed ("I got my license now...raise the standards! We don't need no competition.")

IANAL, your mileage may vary.

Virginia

[davide marney]

In Virginia, it appears that the Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) is responsible for licensing private investigators. They provide a Private Security Services Business Directory Search form at http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/ps/directory/businessSearch.cfm. In my search, I could not find "Media Sentry" anywhere in their database.

According to the Private Investigators Association of Virginia ( http://www.piava.org/directory_info.shtml ), Consumers should always:

      1. Ask for the company's DCJS license number or request a copy of the DCJS license.
      2. Verify the validity of a DCJS license for their own protection.
      3. Be provided with a written agreement that includes scope and cost of services.
      4. Report possible unlicensed activity to DCJS. Anonymous complaints are accepted.
      5. Contact the DCJS to obtain complaint information @ http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/privatesecurity

However, I do not know if Media Sentry has operated in Virginia. If someone can show me that they have done so, I will be more than happy to issue a complaint.

Okay, here's awareness.

[sixtyeight]

Agreed. For example, American corporations were originally granted charters in order to accomplish large goals for the public good, that individual citizens would never have the resources to accomplish. Like constructing the Panama Canal. But corporations could only be "incorporated" as entities when they served the public good. When they don't - or when they completely pillage the public good - they're supposed to have their corporate charter yanked, and thereby be banished screaming back into the void from whence they came. People have forgotten that. They have forgotten most of the important stuff. For example, how many people would sit around whining about Bush if everybody knew this? Or this? I've researched the facts in law behind this stuff and it's rock-solid. The folks at SuiJuris.net are researching more on it every day.

Re:Okay, here's awareness.

[muxecoid]

Even if ordinary person knows about CLS would he have enough courage to do the trick?

It's a cultural thing indeed. In China if stuff is broken before the expiration of warranty no-one is surprised when the firm denies to repair or replace the item. I heard that sometimes the reason for it is clearly stated as "even if you refuse we can do nothing".

Re:Okay, here's awareness.

[sixtyeight]

It depends on the person. Some people do - the first part of creating change is generating awareness and interest. When you say it's a cultural thing, I think you're partially correct. America has become an audience disguised as a culture. What an audience needs is worthwhile content. Having a community of active participants researching, keeping tabs on governments and corporations, sharing insight, accumulating funds and creating a supportive environment is a big part. People need some kind of community like that, which is why I'm currently building a website to create one. We're geeks - we just need to use our powers for good.

Re:Okay, here's awareness.

[muxecoid]

Do you plan to create a legal wiki or something? Do you expect it to be practically useful?

Re:Okay, here's awareness.

[sixtyeight]

It'll be a site where people can share information keeping tabs on their politicians and corporations around the world, and in their own region - like craigslist does with user-selectable local areas. It'll have an area where users can share tools and methods they've discovered for dealing with corruption, and ChipIn-style funding for implementing them on a per-case basis. Slashdot _should_ be a place where people can take action on the news items they see as well as read about them, but it isn't at the moment. If enough people want something strongly enough, it will happen. I think that's practically useful, don't you?

Just got a mail from scammers.

[muxecoid]

Just got a mail from a scammer who pretends to be my ISP's representative. He attempts to make me believe that my illegal downloading was logged and I need to bribe him personally to avoid further disclosure. Woot! Are there many people illiterate enough to believe this?