Slashdot Mirror
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."
Maybe they should try changing the name again.
Most of the stuff on
Legally sanctioned oppression.
I think the jurry is still out on that one, after all, there are several RIAA cases pending that don't look good for the RIAA, and it looks like MediaSentry may be brought up on the unlicensed PI thing in several venues...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
I quite agree with this sentiment, but I think there is more to say. The fact that someone is intervening on the behalf of the criminals formerly known as Media Sentry is indicative that they need help. Clearly, that is a good sign for those being persecuted by means of egregious use of the court systems.
It would be very nice to see Media Sentry or SafeNet (or whatever name they use) barred from courtrooms everywhere, and their 'evidence' be forbidden in the court room. That might just put an end to all of this business of using the courts to validate using the government resource to act as the investigative arm of the **AA and associated groups.
What we know is that Media Sentry used very shaky methods to insinuate that some people committed copyright infringement. Then they used this incredibly shaky evidence to cajole the courts into doing their work for them. This is wrong. Very wrong. Setting right this one problem would probably end all this bs. I hope so anyway.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
what was the name of teh RIAA before? mafia?
It should be.
They're certainly running a protection racket.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
this has been a logical flaw in the 'the artists must get paid' argument.
I just bought some used cd's from amazon. some are sold from stores, some from net-only businesses and some from regular old individuals.
in NO case (that I'm aware of) is anyone required to pay any additional amount to any artist or association. yet used cd (and book) sales on amazon are 100% legal.
how come downloading bits on the net (which causes no revenue to return to riaa or artists) is 'illegal' yet used media sales are legal?
I'll even go further than that - lets talk about libraries and how they loan out (for free) books and also cd's.
with all this non-money media stuff changing hands, how come riaa isn't bothering the used sellers and libraries?
answer: their arguments about 'stealing' are less than paper thin...
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Well... I am not that familiar with the US legal system, but I really don't see how he can claim standing.
Indeed, he could be a witness (for either side) -- but if that doesn't happen, I don't see it.
So, it seems important for him to PREVENT the case from proceeding, even (or because) of his potential testimony. Indeed, what would he say? Pre-trial, "I am sorry, there are inaccuracies...", at trial "Yes, Media Sentry was engaged for investigations...".
I believe that the strategy is to supply the desired answer, while never getting into the position of being asked the "wrong" question. I further believe that the idea is to attempt to keep the issue in the "copyright infringement" domain, and out of the "unlicensed investigation" domain.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
"If you have a point commander, PLEASE make it." - Ambassador G'Kar
I didn't really understand what you were saying. To me saying "Fuck em" is a perfectly valid to thing to say when dealing with a tyrant or tyrannical oligarchy. It makes clear exactly what you think of the oppression you are experiencing & what you'd like to do to said tyrant.
Yeah, I probably should have quoted the AC to whom I was responding, especially since he/she was modded down to -1. I apologize if that caused any confusion. This is the verbatim text of the AC:
In other words, the AC was saying that because people infringe on the copyrights of others, they bring all of the RIAA's tactics upon themselves, as though that makes the RIAA's tactics good and acceptable. I agree with the "fuck 'em" idea. In my opinion the *AA organizations and their tactics are reprehensible. It was the AC and his/her attempt at an "ends justify the means" rationalization that I was addressing. When I pointed out that I believe this to be an instance of fanboyism, it was an attempt at an explanation for why this AC is so upset over the whole thing and unwilling to participate in anything resembling constructive discussion.
The AC's post is the kind of post that I would normally write off as a troll and would therefore be less inclined to respond to, except that there really are plenty of people who have such shallow black-and-white views on what are actually complex issues that don't have such easily defined "good guys" and "bad guys". I don't feel like I'm going out on a limb at all when I say that people who immediately take such a narrow black-and-white view on the subject of copyright, in spite of evidence to the contrary, are quite likely to use similar decision-making on other subjects (I would speculate that they're more interested in feeling "right", implying someone else was wrong, than they are in deciding what is true, making this a sort of ego-induced tunnel vision). Therefore, copyright is only one example of such an issue and happened to be the subject of discussion, but it's really the mentality behind such viewpoints that I was trying to describe.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
What we know is that Media Sentry used very shaky methods to insinuate that some people committed copyright infringement. Then they used this incredibly shaky evidence to cajole the courts into doing their work for them. This is wrong. Very wrong.
While I completely agree that their methods are abhorrent, I'm left wondering what legal means the RIAA had of pursuing their case. 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. Their methods under the guise of Media Sentry are obviously less than ideal (both morally and legally), so what *should* they have done? Getting a PI license is obvious, but the evidence gained this way is still shaky. Getting warrants for each and every individual infringer? Probably, but as I understand it, the evidence necessary to justify a warrant needs to be a little more significant than just a name attached to an IP address. I suppose they could pay ISPs to monitor their traffic and get the same results they did with Media Sentry, but can ISPs legally monitor their own traffic that way (and report the results to a third party)?
I'm not trying to be an RIAA apologist. I'm just wondering if there's any course of action they could taken whereby their IP was protected and they weren't demonized by all of us.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
They can use the same method that hundreds of thousands of renters use when their landlords illegally keep $50 or $100 of their cleaning deposit. They either take a legal route that costs more to prosecute than it is worth, or they write it off as the inevitable screwing that you get when you are dealing with values too low to warrant a lawyer.
The unfortunate reality is that in the real world, there are billions of illegal things that are a financial loss every year that the victims have no recourse on because the cost of the legal system is more than the value of what they lost. I see no reason that the RIAA should have any extra privileges above what the population has.
And this is only if you even think that copyright as it now stands is valid (morally), which is certainly a debatable subject.
I've heard that before... Music And Film Industry Associations of America... MAFIAA! I think we've found a new name for MediaDefender!
I was in the middle of reading the deposition record of Dr. Jacobsen when I saw this. I did not know about this part.
Man... are they digging their own graves? Or is the system so corrupt that even this will fly?