"Probable Cause" Hearing Against MediaSentry

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "RIAA sidekick MediaSentry's 'illegal investigation' problem, which surfaced the other day when it got caught in a lie in Michigan (or got caught telling the truth after having told 2 years worth of lies in Brooklyn), has taken another turn for the worse. We learned today from court papers filed in North Carolina, in one of the cases targeting NC State students in Raleigh, that the North Carolina Private Protective Services Board has scheduled a Grievance Committee hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to investigate an alleged violation of the law by SafeNet (formerly known as MediaSentry). Fortunately for MediaSentry, they won't have to testify under oath, according to the notice (PDF)."

Comments

Money Machine

[grolaw]

It appears that, finally, the tables are turning against the RIAA and their counsel. Now, if the counsel are disciplined I'll believe that the system might just work.

Re:Money Machine

[Confused]

Yes, but we still need a (fair) way of helping media creators to make a living from their work.

So how was it before copyright was invented? There the artists did for a good part commission work and had no claims to any further pay after delivering the work. And, surprise over surprise they could also make a living.

I gotta rolls royce, cause its good for my voice, [...]

-- T. Rex

So what will happen in case that whole media business collapses and artists can't get any money at all from that evil internet for their hard work?

First, it'll affect only the very few acts that make it into the charts of any kind. Most musicians across the world don't live off their royalties, they live from playing music. Some famous acts like the Grateful Dead have proven it works.

Well, Britney-darling and Christina will have a harder time to get that Roll Royce for their voices, but do you really think this would be a global cataclysm?

Re:Money Machine

[TheGratefulNet]

this poster has it right.

think back to a few hundred years ago. the king had a court jester. he was there to entertain the king. when the jester performed, he got to eat dinner with the rest. if he 'called in sick' he would not get paid.

if you perform, you get paid.

do you think the king would continue to bankroll a jester whose last performance was a few years ago?

so why does the concept of 'perform once; get paid many' work? THAT seems highly unfair. I don't get paid again and again when I wrote code. why should 'entertainers' have a different standard?

do football players get paid each time someone watches their past performance?

here's a hint: performing artists (note the magic word there) should get paid when they PERFORM.

kids today see thru this; that's one reason why they are rebelling. the system is unfair and so 'we' fight back to holding onto our cash and not giving it time and time again to the same old non-performing sitting-on-your-laurels artists.

if the entertainment industry wants to 'fix' the payment model, lets REALLY revamp it. small tweaks are bullshit; it needs a total re-do if its going to be at all acceptable to the kids (buying public) today.

Re:Money Machine

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't get paid again and again when I wrote code.

Really? I thought that was called selling software? Maybe everyone should just code until a project is done then give it away! Surely the big gains from giving years of effort away will cover the expense of paying for an engineering team. Otherwise, what are we supposed to do? Code nights & weekends for free while working at a gas station during the day?

Record companies essentially do the same thing everyone else does. They produce a product (music) that has demand. Nobody is obligated to buy music. Nobody needs music to live. People do buy it because they want to listen to it (because they like it). So, just stealing it and later saying "the system is broken" is some pretty strange logic. Ford makes cars. Should we just steal those too?

And don't say that record companies have no overhead (compared to Ford). Obviously they employ people (people like you & me, that have families, etc). They have studios. They have to buy hardware, etc. These things need to be paid for. So is there some reason why they can't charge for a product + take a profit off the top like every other business in the history of mankind has done?

And... last but not least, nobody is stopping indie bands from releasing their content online to everyone. They can do that if they want. Many do, many don't. Probably because record company promotions and distribution are still a better way for indie bands to make money than "posting stuff online for free".

Re:Money Machine

[grolaw]

Artists who make a living from their work are few and far between. When an artist does manage to find an audience the income is siphoned off by (now, entirely ancillary) distributors.

I buy all of my music - either as CD / DVD and I still have 5000 vinyl records.

I also use an iPod in the car - radio being in the terrible state that it is.

True fidelity only comes from uncompressed files or original sources and a fairly expensive home reproduction system. I have over $15k invested in my preamp/amp & speakers- and I bought them well over 20 years ago (kind of amusing that my computers and stereo have the same name).

At root, this is a market issue and the RIAA isn't doing anything to help the market. The people who are concerned about the sound of their music and the artists who create it will always pay. Those who don't care about the music aren't part of the market in the first place so there really is no "lost sale" - if anything it is possible that a "pirate" may come into the fold with the sample and the artist gains a new customer.

Moreover, where the media changes (for the better) the music lover will repurchase the same music - to hear more and to enjoy more.

Me? Oh, I've bought quite a few things from iTunes - albeit that I don't like the sound quality of AAC files. I have at least five copies of Dark Side of the Moon - two vinyl copies (one MFSL edition) two CD copies (again, one the MFSL) and it was the first thing I bought on iTunes. I well remember the Hirsch-Houck Labs tests of the first CDs - the "curves" were flat! The first DDD recordings were phenomenal - I have a copy of Jay Leonhart's Salamander Pie that I bought in the early 1980s on the DMP label - it was fantastic. Four years ago a remastered SACD was issued by DMP and it was even more nuanced and incredible.

I don't think that I'm unusual - the majority of my friends and associates have extensive music collections and many are professional musicians - albeit that they have day jobs.

The artist and the quality of the sound are what make me buy music. It is the same as it ever was and when lossless digital files start becoming the primary material "pirated" I'll be shocked and appalled - but, you see - those of us who love music won't steal from our artists.

Re:Money Machine

[Paradise Pete]

Yes, but we still need a (fair) way of helping media creators to make a living from their work.

And it has to start by having a reasonable copyright law. Things have to come into the public domain *much* more quickly. If holding a copyright became increasingly costly as it ages, most items would naturally fall into the public domain, and yet Disney could still keep Mickey. But a free, nearly perpetual monopoly is absurd.

Re:Money Machine

[Strix Varia]

That's a common view from a non-musician. If musicians made money solely from performances, it wouldn't be long before there were no more professional musicians left. None would be able to afford it. Touring and putting on shows and concerts costs money. It's that simple. Whether the costs are for gas, plane tickets, food, music equipment, or roadies, not to mention the cuts of ticket sales that go to the venues. Every band/artist has to start out at the bottom, and many bands that haven't yet "made it big" often come back from a tour with not that much more than they left with. Expecting people to live on just that income would mean the eventual death of your PERFORMING artist.