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.
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
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!
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
"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!"
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