RIAA's Oppenheim Tries To Protect MediaSentry

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's 'Prince of Darkness,' Washington DC lawyer Matthew Jan Oppenheim of The Oppenheim Group, who controls and supervises all of the RIAA litigations against ordinary folks, has requested permission to intervene in the 'probable cause' hearing scheduled next week in Raleigh, North Carolina, against MediaSentry. The hearing was convened by North Carolina's Private Protective Services Board, after complaints were filed by a law firm representing a number of North Carolina State University students who had been targeted by the RIAA based on the unlicensed 'investigation' conducted by SafeNet (the new name for MediaSentry). I guess the RIAA is worried. They should be."

Comments

Fuck em

[WilyCoder]

Fuck them and what the stand for. Legally sanctioned oppression. Fuck em.

Re:Fuck em

[causality]

Yeah, because what the other guy does always excuses your own unethical behavior and abuse (in my opinion) of the legal system. You want to be sanctimonious and talk about how other people should behave ethically? Try leading by example first, and try convincing the RIAA to do something like that (though apologists like you with your "ends justify the means" pronouncements are not much better and are quite possibly worse).

Again this is an exhibit of what I call fanboyism. I call it that having no certainty as to whether this is what other people mean when they use the word, but it seems to apply. Most Microsoft apologists fit this pattern as well, and it's one of the few viable explanations of why any average person would want to defend and advocate for a company with a marketing budget that could purchase a few small countries. It's the typical "us against them" bullshit where you envision two competing "teams" and you root for your favorite "team" and take their losses personally and celebrate their victories personally. It's pretty nice, except for that little fact that you yourself have done nothing to contribute to either "team" and have never participated in either faction's activities, so really it's your own need to live vicariously and maybe also a need to feel like part of something greater than yourself. It's a shame that with a whole unknown Universe out there, people settle for petty sports teams or corporations/brands or legal contests to fulfill this need to be a part of something greater, but I digress. It's like football fans when they say "we won" instead of "they won" or "my team won" even though I didn't see said fan out there in the field playing the game. I know that the difference may sound like minor semantics but it's actually a reflection of the mentality.

The remedy to this self-limiting mentality is to consider the morality (for lack of a better word) of the long-term consequences and how the implications could affect everyone. From this perspective, the reality is that if the RIAA/MPAA went bankrupt and its leadership decided to disband it tomorrow, life would go on with little or no impact to anyone else and in all likelihood they would not be missed; in this sense they are expendable. Meanwhile, if these kinds of legal tactics and the intimidation/extortion (in my opinion) that they create become more acceptable, it could adversely impact many people including those who have nothing to do with the entertainment industry. It's the kind of thing that could be a detriment to the legal system and the rule of law as a whole; these are things which are not expendable. In the face of these questions, the "evils" of copyright infringement in and of itself are barely a footnote when compared to the damage that can be caused by not correctly reacting to them.

Re:Fuck em

[theaveng]

P.S.

To elaborate: "Fuck em" is what Harriet Tubman & the owners of safety houses probably said when she stolen slaves from southern masters and led them to the north. It's what Ghandi said when he arranged protests against the British oppression. It's what Rosa Parks probably thought when she illegally sat in the white section of the bus - "fuck the law; it's wrong; I will do as we please".

"Fuck em" is an effective method of protest against unjust laws.

It's only going to get tougher...

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

As the internet matures more and more, questionable legal methods are only going to get more and more defined. Remember in the bad old days (7-8 years ago) when there were legal threats being brought for things like "deep linking"? Back when the technology was new (compared to the legal system's understanding of it) I can see where the RIAA might have been able to strongarm people just by saying "we know you're doing it" but that's getting harder and harder to do. Thank heavens for progress.

"Tries to protect" is crazy overblown

[Wrath0fb0b]

The only thing that he's asked for is the (entirely reasonable, IMHO) chance to give specific testimony because he believes that the complaint is factually incorrect. Given his history of prevarication, I don't believe his claims but I cannot fathom why anyone would deny him the right to go in front of the board and say his piece. It's not like the board will somehow be in a worse position to sanction MediaSentry/SafeNet for whatever violations they have committed.

To me this is basically a non-story. Aside from the involvement of the RIAA, you could reduce it to:
Corporation asks to give testimony in regulatory hearing that directly impacts its business. Truly shocking.

Re:why are used cd's allowed, though?

[ScrewMaster]

This has not a few people in the the games industry pissed off beyond the capacity for rational thought.

True, but hey ... I'll bet most leeches get pissed off when you cover them with salt and pull them off their prey before they're finished.

Re:Question

[Ihmhi]

The fact is that wanton copyright infringement is occurring. As copyright holders, the RIAA does in fact have the right to go after the infringers.

Yes, they do. I don't think that we'd have had a problem with them if they followed the rules of the game. The problem is that they keep changing the rules in their favor to make money.

The U.S. Constitution empowered Congress to enact copyright laws, and in 1790 they did. The original copyright term was 14 years with the right to renew for an additional 14 year term. So, at most, 28 years.

But in the last 200 years, the copyright has been extended 5 or 6 times to a point where it's flat-out ridiculous. Most artists who create a song (under the current terms) will be dead before their works enter the public domain.

Copyright is, in modern times, basically meant to protect content creators' works so they can exclusively make money from those works. This would ostensibly allow people in creative industries like writing, composing, etc. can have a livelihood since they do not produce tangible goods like machinists, farmers, etc. It's supposed to encourage content creators to create new works for the greater public good.

But they don't. Sure, people write new books and make new songs, but the incentive isn't really there anymore. Most copyrights nowadays are held by corporations, not people. I personally believe that this is one of the factors that contributed to the emerging anti-copyright movement (copyleft, creative commons, etc.)

For copyright to reform, changes need to be made. One day the system may be functionally obsolete if people continue to give up their copyrights as it, and its enforcers, is being viewed as a less palatable scheme more and more over time. A good start, in my opinion, would be:

1) Bring down copyright back to reasonable terms - something like 5-10 years. How often do books/music/etc. make money after the first few years? Certainly not enough to justify such a long copyright.

2) Make it so only people - not corporations - can hold copyrights. Copyright cartels literally sit on their duffs getting fat off of royalties and trying to protect that money. It's the very definition of protection money and most of the time it doesn't even go to the artists themselves anyway.

3) Make fines in the case of restitution more reasonable. A fine of hundreds of dollars for a song that can be bought for $0.99 is patently ridiculous. Restitution on fair market value with a 200%-300% penalty would be more than fair enough to make up any money lost.

Ultimately, reforms like these will help unclog the courts and make it much more likely that money actually gets into the artist's hands - where it's intended. The RIAA is necessary in some ways - like a union for artists. But rather than working for the artists, the artists work for them. Put the power back in the hands of the creators.

Re:Question

[schon]

First, it's not a decided fact that there is rampant copyright infringement. Copying for personal use may or may not be infringement depending on your jurisdiction (where I am, for example, it's explicitly allowed.)

Second, what the RIAA should be doing is performing real investigations (instead of just pulling IP addresses seemingly at random), going after the alleged infringers individually (instead of trying to join hundreds of unrelated people) and not treating the court system like a revenue center.

For the obligatory car analogy, it's like traffic laws being enforced by private companies, someone pulls you over, and says "oh, here's your ticket for $3500.00 for failing to stop at a stop sign. You can call our dispatch to arrange payment options." You say "I stopped at the sign - I am 100% certain." The cop says "well, you can try to fight it in court, but it's your word against mine, and if you lose, that $3500 will turn into millions of dollars, plus the two years in legal fees it will cost even if you win."

If you ask "well, what should the cops be doing?" the answer is pretty obvious: they should be presenting evidence of infringement, and giving people a fair chance to defend themselves.

The answer is the same for the RIAA.

Re:Prince of Darkness, hah!

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

What alternative legal means can the RIAA/MPAA use to protect copyright and copyrighted content?

That's easy.
1. Do a competent technological investigation.
2. Hire competent and honorable lawyers.
3. If you obtain evidence of someone actually infringing your copyrights, send them a cease and desist letter and ask them to enter into an appropriate cease and desist agreement.
4. If a proven infringer refuses to enter into a cease and desist agreement, sue him or her, in a lawsuit supported by actual evidence, based upon actual legal theories.