Slashdot Mirror
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."
Cocaine makes you feel more powerful and important than you really are. Hookers always tell you you're doing the right thing.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
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?
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?
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.
We are all just people.
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.
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.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
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).
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
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.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
>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.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Are there any states where they are licensed to investigate?
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
I move for civil damages of $700,000 per IP. And damages against Comcast for "making available" those IP addresses.
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.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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.
We are all just people.
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.
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.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
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.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
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?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
"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.
"But this one goes to 11!"
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.
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
This space for rent.
So it wasn't used to good effect?
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
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.
Never confuse movement with action. --Hemingway
that MediaSentry is stonewalling on Marie Lindor's document subpoena. I guess it has some skeletons in its closet.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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."
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
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.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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.