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."

Comments

IANAL, so...?

[serviscope_minor]

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.

Re:IANAL, so...?

[betterunixthanunix]

Personally, the penalty I would like to see is for Mediasentry's corporate charter and registration to be revoked. That would teach their directors right and quick.

Oh well, we don't live in a country where citizens come first.

Re:IANAL, so...?

[John Hasler]

Much better would be for at least some of the judges with jurisdiction over some of the "settlements" extorted using MediaSentry's illegal investigations were to reopen the cases sua sponte, void the settlements on the basis of fraud and unclean hands, disallow all MediaSentry evidence, and invite the defendants to move for legal fees and malicious prosecution damages. Say, two or three thousand cases at perhaps $50,000 each, with the RIAA, its member publishers, MediaSentry, and the law firms jointly and severally liable.

Re:IANAL, so...?

[Kaenneth]

How about $5000/2 years per employee, per day, per per person illegally investigated.

the more factors you can toss in for damages the better, like per infringment times per person shared with, times per person sharing, times punitive damages...

Re:IANAL, so...?

[Lunarsight]

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.

I hope there's a penalty too, but going after MediaSentry itself is pointless. They're just a disposable face.

The court should take out its judicial fury on the corporations pulling MediaSentry's strings. I'm not talking about the RIAA either. Keep going even further back. Follow the money. Make the real people calling the shots accountable.

Re:IANAL, so...?

[mpe]

Corporations exist to shield people from liability, not to allow people to indirectly commit crimes.

The original idea was to shield people from financial liability so as to encourage people to invest money into a businesses. If the business failed an investor would only be liable for the amount they'd out in, unlike with sole ownership, partnership, etc, where an owner would be liable for all debts.
Somehow this has mutated into the idea of protecting executives and employees from the consequences of their actions, even breaking the law. Together with the idea of corporate entities being "people" without the necessary infrastructure to enforce criminal laws against them.

What could happen?

[Xelios]

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?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

As soon ...

[daveime]

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 ?

Re:defied an investigation?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Michigan *law* prohibited unlicensed investigations without the need for a court order to explicitly stop each occurrence, which should have been as much legal proscription as these bozos needed. Similarly, burglars generally aren't sent subpoenas or C&Ds in connection with breaking into people's houses.

What makes me feel good is that these additional instances of violating the law, after they were informed by the DLEG that they need a license, will weigh against them at their sentencing.

Re:defied an investigation?

[NormalVisual]

Let's hope so. Also, I just noticed your new tagline URL - best of luck with the new practice!

Re:Four more letters: RICO

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:MediaSentry == SafeNet

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The information comes from MediaSentry's lawyer. If it's neither "informative" or "true" that is par for the course. MediaSentry is known for making contradictory statements.