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
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
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.