University of Michigan Student Wants SafeNet Prosecuted

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "An anonymous University of Michigan student, targeted by the RIAA as a 'John Doe,' is asking for the RIAA's investigator, SafeNet (formerly MediaSentry), to be prosecuted criminally for a pattern of felonies in Michigan. Known to Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth — the agency regulating private investigators in that state — only as 'Case Number 162983070,' the student has pointed out that the law has been clear in Michigan for years that computer forensics activities of the type practiced by Safenet require an investigator's license. This follows the submissions by other 'John Does' establishing that SafeNet's changing and inconsistent excuses fail to justify its conduct, and that Michigan's legislature and governor have backed the agency's position that an investigator's license was required." SafeNet/MediaSentry defended their actions by claiming their company simply "records public information available to millions of users. If private investigator licenses were required to do what MediaSentry does, every user on Limewire and other illegal p2p networks would be required to have a license. Indeed, every search engine and Internet user would be required to have a private investigator license if MediaSentry needs one."

Comments

Let's see...

[gnick]

On one side we have a massive industry with an unlimited supply of lawyers (and public officials) and on the other side we have somebody who's obviously right.

Let's see which way this one swings.

[Although the phrase "Michigan's legislature and governor have backed the agency's position that an investigator's license was required" does make me cautiously optimistic - Let's get this one right, Michigan!]

Re:p2p != illegal

[plasmacutter]

So long as critical thinking courses are conspicuously absent from public school curricula, people will not understand the concept of logical fallacy.

I recently had the "file-sharing is theft" discussion with a manager i'm on otherwise good terms with, and the guy doesn't understand how fallacious it is to compare this activity to shoplifting.

Trying to convey small but consequential logical differences to the common man is like trying to explain to a creationist why science is not diametrically opposed to their beliefs.

If they worked in the industry it's even harder. The idea that the crusade against file-sharing can conflict with the international declaration of human rights simply doesn't register with them.

Re:SafeNet is acting as an investigator

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Most of the information investigators collect comes from 'publicly available sources'. Safenet's argument is totally meaningless; there is no exemption for evidence gathered from 'publicly available sources'. They're just blowing smoke.

Re:Let's see what happens....

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The RIAA has shown that they are adamantly determined to see this particular gambit through to the bitter end

I have not seen that kind of resolve.

... short of the execs responsible for it going to jail (which I doubt will happen)

I would not be surprised to see criminal culpability for aiding and abetting MediaSentry's felonies and misdemeanors.

... they'll keep pushing forward, just slightly altering their tactics as each old tactic fails them

If your SOLE witness has to take the Fifth, your cases are gone.

I would love to be proven wrong and, gawd knows you know more about the law and its processes than I do, but I just put more faith in the RIAA's pig-headed-ness than their common sense and willingness to play by the rules.

I wasn't suggesting that they have a shred of either common sense or willingness to play by the rules. I believe they will be shut down by (a) their shareholders, or (b) the judges.

Re:p2p != illegal

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

These cases are about copyright law, not logic. You cannot get the answer to legal questions by engaging in logic. But if you are going to do so, you should at least get your assumptions right before you start trying to develop formulas.

There are 6 "rights" included in a "copyright". They are enumerated in 17 USC 106. You will not find any mention there of 'sharing', and the 'distributing' mentioned there is narrowly defined.

There is no prohibition against 'sharing' copyrighted material, and there are hundreds of ways of 'sharing' copyrighted materials which do not infringe a copyright owner's rights.

So if you want to play this game, my advice is to develop some premises that are real, rather than fallacious, to start out with.

"Theft" is a slur in this case.

[plasmacutter]

I've mentioned it elsewhere in this thread, but the ubiquitous use of the word "theft" in the context of p2p file-sharing is a slur, not unlike the use of the "n word" in reference to african americans.

It is used to denigrate the practice and practicers of p2p file-sharing (more often than not no matter what the material shared is).

Is there not some basis for a suit in that?

I would imagine there must be a legal reason why more partisan news sources don't use the term "towel head" in reference to people of arabic descent or "kike" in reference to people of jewish descent.