Slashdot Mirror
MediaSentry Defied Michigan Investigation For Months
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "You may recall that MediaSentry, the RIAA's unlicensed investigator, has been the subject of an investigation by Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth for its conduct of investigations without an investigator's license, an investigation in which it has made contradictory and false statements to the government's investigators. Well apparently this didn't deter MediaSentry from simply continuing its practice of conducting 'investigations' without a license. In Michigan, no less. We have learned from court papers (PDF) filed in Michigan that the practice continued for months after the DLEG had begun questioning the practice."
Little things like questionable legality and ethics aside...
What's the penalty for this kind of thing, in terms of the company and individuals? I hope there's some personal liability in there somewhere.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm interested in knowing what's the worst that could happen to the people behind Mediasentry if found guilty? What kind of fines are we talking about here? Could they face jail terms? Or will it just mean they have to dissolve the company and start again under a different name?
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
As soon as an investigation is instgated, any "evidence" submitted by the RIAA to the courts should immediately be recognized as non-admissible ...
Look at i this way ... would you trust the word of a homeless tramp, a drug dealer, a hippie, Jay OR Silent Bob ?
There are standards of conduct that the RIAA and it's investigators have broken time and time again ... and yet their "evidence" is STILL admissible in court ? WTF ?
There is no reason to stop unless ordered to stop. WHat if the investigation finds they are OK to proceed? Investigation !== guilt. ...Besides, its not like you guys have stopped pirating media even though you know its illegal.
They haven't had any injunctions against them or any court orders to stop... so why would they quit?
Because that's not an excuse for breaking the law?
People don't say "I'll go dump toxic waste because there's no injunction or court order telling me not to."
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I can see defying an order, or defying a subpoena, or defying a C&D, but it sounds to me like they thought that, until they were legally prevented from doing otherwise, they'd conduct business as usual.
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine No Posessions?'" -- Elvis Costello
This is the same company that admits to using illegal denial-of-service attacks. They have no regard for the law, and if they get busted, they'll close shop and reopen under another name.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
They haven't had any injunctions against them or any court orders to stop... so why would they quit? They may be a scummy company, but I can't really blame them for not stopping when they're just being investigated, but no one is forcing them to stop. However, my hope is that the investigation will make them have to pay fines for each infraction, and that any evidence found in every single case they help with will be thrown out.
They weren't exactly ordered to stop but they were gently reminded on February 22nd.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Are they really the same company, run by the same people, or two separate entities? They seem to be doing the same things....
Not only don't they have any reason to quit, they have two very good reasons to keep right on going with what they're doing. First, of course, the RIAA is still paying them to investigate and they don't want to lose that income. Second, they haven't been charged, yet, let alone convicted, so in the eyes of the Law, they're still considered innocent of any wrong-doing. Stopping now could easily be construed (and probably would be) as an admission of wrong doing and be very damaging in court.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
What?? They sure do go dump Toxic Waste because there aren't specific injunctions and court orders not telling them to...
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/11165
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/27/93622.shtml?s=ic
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Toxic_waste_dump_killing_children_in_Kenya_UN_report_999.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/06/MN2510MASF.DTL&type=printable
You think these companies waited until they were in trouble to start dumping their crap?
"I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
They weren't ordered to stop.
There, fixed that for you.
Just so people are aware, MediaSentry is owned by a greater company, SafeNet. SafeNet controls their operations and is headquartered in Belcamp, MD (1/2 mile from me, as it turns out). When attacks are lodged against one company, you should always be aware of that company's right hand operations that could go ignored.
Well, nearly everyone violates copyright law have never even been charged, so by the same reasoning there's no reason for them to quit either. Either there's an ethical/moral obligation to follow the law or there isn't. The record companies can't have it both ways.
Would be to abolish copyright altogether and get rid of this and the whole basket of related problems in one fell stroke.
It's more likely than you might think.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
As a Michigan resident, I know that our government people can be bought for cheap nowadays.
If you have money, they'll do anything you want.
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Any sane company would refrain from the act in question, in order to prevent more evidence from being used against them in criminal court, and possibly civil court.
Of course, this is RIAA's member companies and Media Sentry we're talking about. The only difference between these guys and the mob is that they have sanctioned lobbyists in Washington and abroad. Either that, or they've fooled all the politicians into thinking that they (the executives, not the artists, lyricists, arrangers, composers, etc.) are a sacred industry to be protected.
I should really concentrate on the small victories in IP law to keep myself from turning into a bad Lewis Black impersonation, like Jack Thompson getting the hammer from the Florida Bar, the Thomas ruling in reconsideration, Andersen getting a major win and clearance to pursue a countersuit, SCO literally on life support after an Enron-esque scam by Darl McBride.
Now if the backward dolts in Washington would repeal the inane Sonny Bono Act, drop Pro-IP and its House counterpart, and revise the DMCA*...
* It was misused often, but some important provisions are a part of the bill, like the counter-takedown notice and definitions of safe harbor for ISPs.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
OK, its a bit extreme. But let's at least waterboard them.
GOD DAMN IT, Mod this MoFo UP!
+5 Informative/Insightful doesn't even BEGIN to cover it!
If I had points, you Sir would be getting them in droves.
Why lie so blatantly when the truth is easy to find?
Kill them. Put them in and let them die by the numbers.
Just a few of them, and all senior.
There will be a massive change in the entire US executive actions after it happens.
Maybe someone should phone up the real mafia to leave a few horse heads in their beds... Or firebomb their offices... That might send them a message. Today MediaDefender, tomorrow the RIAA's offices.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
What is it with /., that you all side with the government on the very need for licenses for something like investigation?
We aren't even talking about standing in a rain (with a gun under the coat) next to a suspect's house, chatting up their neighbors, and bribing their butler kind of investigation — every time you perform a whois-query to figure out, which country is hosting the IP-address, that tried to hack into your box, you are performing "an investigation" of the MediaSentry's kind... Do you want to be required to apply for (and periodically renew!) a license to do that? A license, that the Executive Branch will be issuing and be able to withdraw on their own, without bothering with the Judicial?
Regardless of whether you agree with *AA, how do you justify a license-requirement here? It is bad enough, that one can't change plumbing in their own house without obtaining a permit — now I need a license to do traceroute?!
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I had some shreds of sympathy for the record companies; I didn't (still don't) think piracy by itself is OK; but having paid these pathetic losers to illegally hassle people destroys that remaining sympathy. They can't claim any ethical or moral high ground if they use these kinds of tactics.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
Or in establishing the case and penalties in a RICO countersuit... It seems to me that this lawlessness qualifies for RICO counteraction, against both MediaSentry and RIAA. (and could it be a class action??)
"My opinions are my own, and I've got *lots* of them!"
Or in establishing the case and penalties in a RICO countersuit... It seems to me that this lawlessness qualifies for RICO counteraction, against both MediaSentry and RIAA. (and could it be a class action??)
Very technical question. It's all quite new. American judicial history has never seen a litigation campaign like this one before, all based upon conduct which violates various states' licensing laws, some of which make violation a felony, some of which make violation a misdemeanor. Probably you should follow Andersen v. Atlantic and Atlantic v. Raleigh for some specific instances of RICO litigation, and UMG v. Del Cid and Atlantic v. Boyer, on civil conspiracy to commit crime of unlicensed investigation, but nothing is definitive at this point. It will be years before we know the answer to your question.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
So why exactly doesn't the commerce clause in the US constitution prevent states from licensing Internet investigators? One would assume this is a right reserved for the US Government.
The commerce clause prevents the states from doing things like taxing the Internet, why should they be able require licenses from Internet investigators? If they could do that, they could also do things like try to license web designers from other states. This could turn into a really slippery slope.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
There is a real problem with classifying what MediaSentry did as an "investigation". They are performing a service that involves tracking down IP addresses based on information gathered through connecting to various computers on the Internet.
An equivalent "investigation" occurs if you have a contractor examine logs for unwanted SSH traffic and reporting back the IP addresses, as well as the ISP to which they are connected. Is this something that requires licensing to do? If so, we better make sure that every single admin is licensed in this manner.
Of course, all of what MediaSentry does can be automated. Every last little bit of it. Who then, exactly, is performing this "investigation"? The author of the software or the person using it? This is an important question because obviously a defense of the person using it would be that they have no knowledge of what the program does - they are just a user.
I would say that searching public records is far more intrusive than this. Should a license be required to search on behalf of another? In some states today this is loosely interpreted as "Yes". As many public records are no on Google, might we see this expanded to needing a license to use Google on behalf of another? How about needing a license to use Google at all? After all, there is no telling what you might find on someone and publishing it could cause them significant harm, both legally and financially.
My dear innocent:
WHO do you think owns & has owned the music industry for years? Where do you think the RIAA gets its thuggish tactics from?
---dragoness