Slashdot Mirror


Has RIAA Fired MediaSentry?

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to a tantalizing 'unconfirmed' report, it appears that the RIAA has jettisoned MediaSentry (now known as SafeNet) as its 'investigator.' MediaSentry has come under heat in a number of different states for the fact that it was 'investigating' without an investigator's license and invading people's privacy. Earlier this year it was found to have made diametrically conflicting written statements to two different tribunals within 30 days of each other, in one denying that it was an 'expert witness,' in another claiming that it was an 'expert witness.' If the report is accurate, the termination comes at an interesting time, since MediaSentry's investigator is the plaintiffs' only fact witness to prove copyright infringement in Capitol Records v. Thomas, which is now headed for a retrial on March 9th. If he does take the stand, the reasons for his company's termination will be fair game for cross examination. One also has to wonder if it's in any way connected to the puzzling enigma of the New York Attorney General's alleged involvement in the RIAA's recent Wall Street Journal announcement that it would be reducing its p2p file sharing cases to a trickle."

16 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. So... by drakethegreat · · Score: 4, Funny

    They are putting all their eggs in the ISP enforcement basket. I'm sure that will do wonders.

  2. MediaSentry should get fired like in Futurama... by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...from a cannon, into the Sun!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  3. The market works. Finally. by spazdor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Eventually, companies must come to recognize their liabilities as liabilities, right?

    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    1. Re:The market works. Finally. by ionix5891 · · Score: 4, Funny

      companies must come to recognize their liabilities as liabilities

      not in soviet USA where $700billion checks don't bounce

  4. Big deal. by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If MediaSentry blinked out of existence tomorrow because of [lawsuit,lack of business,elvis], it wouldn't change anything. It's a company with perhaps fifty grunts, another 20 or so management personnel, and another thirty or so doing support or paralegal. It's a shell company, created by the recording industry for the recording industry. If MediaSentry implodes, they'll just setup another shell company and new personnel. To have any lasting impact, it's not MediaSentry that needs to go away, but the monentary incentive for it to exist in the first place.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  5. History lessons by Aphoxema · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It looks like the RIAA really are letting go of their epic battlez against the (probably more average than most people admit) consumer, but everyone knew they would have to give up on the litigation eventually. The fact is the RIAA succeeded in getting what they wanted; they made more people aware of the significance in copyright.

    They might also have engineered the destruction for themselves, the MPAA and the BSA and SPA and all the other copyright alliances and associations. Now that people are aware of the threat of getting caught, they've improved on encryption, decentralization, legal disclaimers, and just good old fighting back.

    This will be another lesson of history, the Trojan invasion taught us to not trust 30 foot horses (just 30 meg software), World War II taught us that it only takes a couple of nuclear explosions to end a war (that was already decided), and this has taught us that you shouldn't underestimate the enemy even when it doesn't involves swords and guns.

    --
    "Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
  6. No Doubt Walkaway by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No doubt the RIAA hopes that when they walk away from MediaSentry that somehow all their problems with them will be left behind. Seldom is life so simple.

    Now all we need is a disgruntled ex-MediaSentry employee to spill the beans on their entire Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain operation while we start picking apart MS's replacement.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  7. Quality for Your Dollar by mfh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I predict that the ISPs who get smart and offer superior anonymity for their customers, will thrive in 2009 and beyond.

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Quality for Your Dollar by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...assuming the big ISPs would allow such a thing within the bounds of their natural monoplies...

      They may not have any choice. It's possible that the RIAA got a heads-up from the NY AG on plans to pass legislation to force ISPs to become copyright enforcers or otherwise assist Big Media in policing the 'net. We've got both houses of Congress and the Presidency in the Democrats' hands now, and they've had a history of taking large contributions from, and attempting to pass legislation friendly to, Hollywood and the music industry so something like this should be no surprise to anyone. Get ready for DMCA/PIRATE/PRO-IP Act Part Deaux?

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Quality for Your Dollar by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That might be true in isolated cases. More likely, customers will acquire superior anonymity on their own. Keep in mind that during all this time the RIAA has won one (1) case (which I believe is under appeal) and meanwhile a million geeks at a million terminals have had all that time to code and test the means to make detection and prevention more difficult. In technical issues, geeks tend to win over suits in the long run, and it seems to me that the suits are lagging far behind this time.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  8. Too early to get happy about it by Weaselmancer · · Score: 4, Informative

    For two reasons.

    Reason the first, it's an unconfirmed report. Could be as valid as a release date for Duke Nukem Forever.

    Reason the second. The RIAA isn't going to give up. If they are ditching MediaSentry that just means they have some other idea that they think will net them better results. What replaces it might be worse. So celebrating at this point would be a lot like the people of Hiroshima in WWII rejoicing that the US has stated they have halted their conventional bombing campaign.

    The good news is that maybe the "better idea" referenced above is the RIAA is shifting focus to cooperation with ISPs. Granted, it's another doomed idea but at least this way they won't be sending subpoenas to printers and deaf grandmothers. Hopefully.

    Another good thing that may come of it is maybe someone will finally bring suit against MediaSentry for privacy violation and investigating without a license. If the RIAA cuts them loose they won't have the financial backing necessary to defend. And if we're really lucky, they'll get nailed for it. And if we're really really lucky, their employer will be found liable as well. Just because you cut ties with someone doesn't mean that your legal responsibilities are cut as well. IANAL though, so take that with a grain of salt.

    Still though it's an interesting development and one I hope turns out to be true.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  9. In Other News... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news, a new company (name yet to be decided upon) has sprung up. This new company offers big media corporations investigative services for online "crimes". Applications for employment are being reviewed but, at this time, this new company is not looking to hire staff as all positions will be filled by experienced individuals who have conducted similar work for "another" company in the same field.

    Totally new company. Honest. New name to be announced real soon. New. Completely new. Totally different.

    Would we lie to you?

  10. Re:MediaSentry should get fired like in Futurama.. by nameendingwith · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd like to put the little bastard in a sack, and toss the sack in a river, and hurl the river into space.

  11. Re:Ad Banner Humor by Dishevel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone else get the hilariously ironic "Report Software Piracy" ad banner? Apparently the potential earnings are up to $1,000,000. And I thought it capped out at $100,000 only a year ago...

    There are ads on /. ? Strange. I have never seen one.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  12. Re:MediaSentry should get fired like in Futurama.. by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 4, Funny

    I say we copyright a recording of repeated agonizing screams, get a woolly mammoth to stomp them in the balls, and sue them for copyright infringement.

  13. Re:Private investigator license by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Requiring some sort of private investigator's license to perform any sort of "investigation" of computers is a really, really bad idea. This has been implemented in a few states and I don't think it is having the desired outcome.

    The requirement fixes problems were evidence is tainted or misapplied and innocent people look guilty because of it. It's desired outcome is that innocent people aren't being wrongly accused and facing jail terms for stuff they didn't commit.

    Read Bando v. Gates - it is all over the Internet. It is a very interesting read about someone completely unqualified performing an digital forensic investigation. This is what the "licensing" is supposed to prevent. It also virtually eliminates the possibility of someone being able to perform investigations in multiple states because of the absurd licensing requirements. You see, this is done on a state-by-state basis. Texas may require firearms traning for all licensed investigators while some other state does not. This doesn't help the quality of digital investigations. It only hurts.

    No, the licensing is supposed to prevent mishandling of evidence and incorrect statements about people. The guy can be a complete idiot and be licenses. The license only means you know how to handle the chain of evidence and how to communicate it properly.

    I would consider the possibility of someone actually being prosecuted for an unlicensed investigation when they never set foot in the state to be very low. Having their expert witness status rejected is another matter but not one to be taken lightly. If expert witnesses must be licensed, then do not expect to be allowed to testify about your own computer in a licensing-required state.

    You can testify about your own computers all you want. The licensing happens to matter when your tracking other people and making statements about them. Imagine getting fired because the IT guy saw porn on your computer and it turns out to be because it was infected with something that should have been removed by the AV software that he hasn't updated in 2 years. There has been more then one case of this, one was a school teacher who through an error of the IT department, ended up with an infection that showed pornographic pop ups to children and she was facing 40 years in prison.

    What this sort of licensing is supposed to do is increase accountability of computer forensic examiners. What it in fact does is restrict the pool of such examiners to a very small group and says nothing about the quality or abilities of those people. Other than their ability to put up with completely unrelated requirements, such as firearms training for a computer investigator. The result of this is certainly going to be that you are not qualified to provide any information about your own computer in any sort of legal matter without such a license. Sure, the license may only be required to perform an investigation when it is a paid service, but that says nothing about expert witness qualification.

    The license requirements say nothing about the quality of the forensic investigators. It's sort of like driving, a Drivers license says nothing about someone's ability to drive, just that they knew the rules of the road enough and was able to drive well enough at one time to pass the tests. The Licensing requirements or more for the chain of evidence and how it can be used along with what can or can't be said or done about it. The license is of little difference then a regular PI license in most states, some have a little more laxed rules but it is on the same levels.

    I think your expecting the license to be something like an A+ or MCSE certification (which is a joke too) when it isn't. It's more like a fishing license so they can say you know what your limit and size slot is and can find out who you are when they decide to harass you.