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."

18 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. Explaining RIAA Behavior by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    1. Re:Explaining RIAA Behavior by BoomerSooner · · Score: 4, Funny

      Elliot? Are you giving us more to go on?

  2. To clarify by downix · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:To clarify by number11 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  3. Not banned in MA by diewlasing · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Not banned in MA by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  4. Re:Freedom by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  5. Re:Freedom by plague3106 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  6. Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned? by PC+and+Sony+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  7. Re:Freedom by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  8. Americans and their rights. by muxecoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  9. RIAA Operating Illegally. Now there's a shock! by HannethCom · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.
  10. Re:Freedom by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  11. Re:Freedom by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  12. Guilty as charged. by RandoX · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  13. Re:Freedom by Kierthos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:Freedom by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  15. Re:Freedom by actiondan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.