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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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: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: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.