Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MediaSentry Defied Michigan Investigation For Months

Posted by timothy on from the pride-goeth-before-a-fall dept.

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."

22 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Makes sense by seeker_1us · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No reason to stop business as usual while he RIAA tries to buy, err make "campaign donations" to more politicians.

    Little things like questionable legality and ethics aside...

  2. IANAL, so...? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:IANAL, so...? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:IANAL, so...? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Informative

      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 believe the criminal penalties max out at $5,000 and two years. Multiply that by the number of incidents and it could be some money, but I doubt anyone will go to jail. The civil liabilities, however, might rack up some additional costs if all the people they testify against sue them and the RIAA for court fees and damages resulting from their illegal investigation.

    3. Re:IANAL, so...? by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Far less then the lives they are trying to ruin with non existent evidence.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    4. Re:IANAL, so...? by entrylevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it is more likely than one might think, but it won't help.

      How many people do you think are actually on MediaSentry's payroll? How much actual cash do they need on hand to troll P2P sites and the like?

      More to the point, how long do you think it will take after MediaDefender *ahem* I mean MediaSentry is completely dissolved before MediaProtector springs up?

      The problem is that the **AA hired these folks to do a job and can't be held accountable if MediaWhatever broke the law unless they explicitly instructed them to do so.

      --
      Karma: Incomprehensible (Mostly affected by posting at +5, reading at -1, and metamoderating everything unfair.)
    5. Re:IANAL, so...? by pxlmusic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they'll get away with it because they're fighting piracy and by extension something "for the children".

      --
      "If for any reason you're not satisfied with our service, I hate you."
    6. Re:IANAL, so...? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:IANAL, so...? by Original+Replica · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      When you have an amoral guiding principle such as "maximize profit" as the primary goal of your corporation, then there is little to no difference between a "shield from liability" and a carte blanc for white collar crime. I think that is the line that divides good corporations from evil corporations; the primacy of profit. A good corp might have profit as second in it's list of priorities after something like "make the best product we can" or "provide a low cost service" but a soon as profit overrules all other aspects of the company they crossover to the Dark Side. While a protection from liablity is a societially good thing when a good corporation has it, it is a societally bad thing when a evil corp has it. MediaDefender/Sentry/Thug is a tool of the RIAA which is purely based on profit maximization.

      --
      We are all just people.
    8. Re:IANAL, so...? by Lunarsight · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  3. What could happen? by Xelios · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:What could happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Remember the private investigators who got hired by HP's Dunn to spy on board members to try and find who was leaking stuff to the press? The PIs who used social engineering/pretexting to illegally obtain cellphone records from the phone companies? Remember what happened to those PIs? Yup, nothing. That's what will happen here.

    2. Re:What could happen? by daninspokane · · Score: 5, Insightful
      From another article:

      The prosecutor can prosecute these cases as felonies, with a maximum penalty of a $5,000 fine and/or up to four years in prison.

      Nothing too stiff compared to what you can get for pirating a movie... :/

      --
      Slashdot is too nerdy for me.
    3. Re:What could happen? by FooGoo · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm interested in knowing what's the worst that could happen to the people behind Mediasentry...

      Three words...
      Voracious Rectal Mites

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  5. As soon ... by daveime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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 ?

    1. Re:As soon ... by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd totally trust Silent Bob. The man's a visionary.

  6. Same company by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  7. Re:Can't blame them really by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  8. Re:MediaDefender and MediaSentry by daninspokane · · Score: 4, Informative

    They are 2 different companies. This is actually a pretty good read Worth the time.

    --
    Slashdot is too nerdy for me.
  9. Re:MediaSentry == SafeNet by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    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).

    Actually SafeNet is MediaSentry; MediaSentry just changed its name to SafeNet.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  10. Re:defied an investigation? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful