WSJ Confirms RIAA Fired MediaSentry

newtley writes "Two days ago we discussed the earlier p2pnet report that the RIAA had fired MediaSentry (now called SafeNet). Now the Wall Street Journal is confirming this report. MediaSentry has been 'invading the privacy of people,' the WSJ quotes Ray Beckerman; 'They've been doing very sloppy work.' Beckerman cites MediaSentry's practice of 'looking for available songs in people's filesharing folders, uploading them, and using those uploads in court as evidence of copyright violations.' MediaSentry 'couldn't prove defendants had shared their files with anyone other than MediaSentry investigators.' The WSJ notes, 'In place of MediaSentry, the RIAA says it will use Copenhagen-based DtecNet Software ApS. The music industry had worked with DtecNet previously both in the US and overseas, and liked its technology...' "

Comments

If by fired

[Dyinobal]

If by fired they mean their scam was found out and they got busted for it. Sure why not.

Re:If by fired

[skaet]

I've got nothing against the RIAA enforcing copyright for illegally shared media. This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders. What I do have a problem with is their methods such as MediaSentry's dirty little tricks like this, and the targeting of young teenagers and grandparents - which sets no real precedent and doesn't send a message to the real pirates except to say "we're a bunch of arseholes so go ahead and pirate some more."

If this switch to DtecNet can usher in an age of ethical copyright enforcement then go for it. Then at least their ego-fuelled air of self-rightousness might provide enough power to pay for the waste of legal fees they keep dumping into this pointless battle.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you've been paying attention to the news lately on the RIAA, they won't need Media Sentry anymore, they want to have the ISPs do the dirty work for them of finding file sharers and punishing them for transferring copyrighted content. If they aren't going to sue individual file sharers anymore, MediaSentry has no purpose to the RIAA. I am sure all the pseudo half-assed evidence and all the headaches MediaSentry deservedly gave the RIAA, it makes sense for them to move in this direction. Of course this doesn't fix the problem of the RIAA wanting a strangle hold on the internet and wanting to burn the forest (Internet) down to catch a few people in the act. So, this just represents a change in strategy for the RIAA members, not necessarily anything beneficial to the legitmate consumer or technology on a whole. If the RIAA has their way, the internet will be like the private cell phone networks we use in the States: High Premium, controlled, and locked down.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got nothing against the RIAA enforcing copyright for illegally shared media. This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders. What I do have a problem with is their methods such as MediaSentry's dirty little tricks like this, and the targeting of young teenagers and grandparents - which sets no real precedent and doesn't send a message to the real pirates except to say "we're a bunch of arseholes so go ahead and pirate some more."

So, what should they do? Should they subpoena the ISP and find out who the perpetrator is and then drop the case if they person is over or under a certain age? If they did that they would be right back on the front page of Slashdot for age discrimination, and for having selected arbitrary ages as being OK to pirate.

I'm not going to defend the RIAA's business model, but the type of criticism they get generally smacks of rationalizations. Their is no way for them to defend their media rights, realistically, but people blow way out of proportion the handful of cases that are incorrectly filed as if that negates all of the others.

I'll likely be modded troll for this, but I'd bet that 99+% of all of the cases even filed by the RIAA (let alone that actual led to decisions or settlements) were against people who were breaking the law and downloading / uploading illegally.

I don't want to defend the RIAA's methods, but it just seems like everyone who posts against the RIAA would be unwilling to accept ANY form of defensive action by them.

I don't like the RIAA, I don't like how they price music or run the business, but it isn't for me to dictate to them how they should run their business. And while I do download music illegally, I don't justify it by saying it is cause the RIAA sucks or that they shouldn't be able to defend their intellectual property rights.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

It really should be "jettisoned".

Re:If by fired

[Stoutlimb]

"This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders."

I would like to point out to you that usually this is not the case. The music company usually retains the copyright to songs created by the artists they employ.

Re:If by fired

[fwarren]

So, what should they do? Should they subpoena the ISP and find out who the perpetrator is and then drop the case if they person is over or under a certain age?

Lets call it like it is. This has always been about PR. Let those who download music know. If you share music for download...WE WILL FIND YOU.

While realisticly speaking, you have a better chance of winning a lottery than getting charged by the RIAA. Still the name of the game is image. In the long run. Going after 9 year old girls. Going after people who are seriously handicapped and on a fixed income. Going after old people who are even clueless about if they own a computer. May not be the best way to win the PR war.

I think their downfall was getting lawyers involved. They started running it like a protection racket. We get an IP address and someone says it was used by you. Pay us $5,000.00, say your a thief, a pirate and promise never download music again...even from iTunes. Then we will go away.

As a way for the RIAA to cap people for $5,00 weather they can afford it or not. So they can make a little dough. It worked well enough. As a way to stop actual file sharing...it failed. As a way to win the PR war in the public eye on file sharing. They went after two many of the wrong people.

Re:If by fired

[hairyfeet]

Actually I have a feeling that while many might look at the death of Mediasentry as a good thing, I think it will end up being a lot worse. Because before you could fight them in court and who knows, if you got lucky you might get some law school or even NYCLawyer to take the case. Now it looks like they are just going to bypass the courts and go straight to the ISPs, which in most places have a monopoly. So I have a feeling if you use BT or any other file sharing tool 3 times they will just get the ISP to bounce you and that is it. After all by going to the ISP you will have to PROVE you didn't do anything wrong, which as most know proving a negative is pretty much impossible. And most ISPs aren't going to do the kind of deep packet investigation to see what you are down/uploading, most will just take the *.A.As word for it. And sadly with so little competition in most of the USA you can be effectively cut off from the Internet thanks to the *.A.As if they manage to get the ISPs to join in(and since most have media services they want to sell you it wouldn't surprise me if they jumped on board).

And since the net is one of the last great ways we have to speak out and be heard I bet it won't take them long to figure out it makes a pretty effective SLAPP to boot. After all with a private ISP they don't have to PROVE anything, since most TOS gives the ISP a thousand out clauses. What we need is copyright reforms, not more craziness from the media cartels. Sadly with both the dems and repubs bought and sold I just don't see it happening in my lifetime.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got nothing against the RIAA enforcing copyright for illegally shared media. This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders.

It is not the RIAA's job to enforce anything - that's why we have police.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got nothing against the RIAA enforcing copyright for illegally shared media. This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders.

It is not the RIAA's job to enforce anything - that's why we have police.

Bah, semantics. Investigate, enforce = whatever.

Re:If by fired

[Ascagnel]

I'm going to go out on a limb, but... I think the RIAA might be better off if they dropped their "Settlement Center." Rather than hanging the threat of a lawsuit, they should actually file the lawsuit before going to the settlement center. Give everyone their day in court, and a chance to say right off the bat that the case is bull. Let a technically experienced judge rule on this. This idea could be extended to the whole filtering business, if it were to ever get written into law (*shudder*). This should clear the hurdle of dirty tricks (the judge should spot those). It doesn't age discriminate. Also, if someone can stick a hole in this, please do.

Re:If by fired

[ILuvRamen]

I think it was just their new year's resolution to dump em. If I worked at the RIAA *stops to go throw up just thinking about it* that would certainly be on my list!

Re:If by fired

[xeoron]

IANAL, so correct me if I am wrong: Downloading content is not illegal. What makes an action deemed copyright infringement is by making content available and actually sharing it beyond the extent the law allows.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders.

Do not mistake what the RIAA is doing as being for the benefit of anyone but themselves. The artists are NOT the copyright holders of these works nor do they benefit from these actions, the companies that comprise and support the RIAA are the copyright holders of the music and are the beneficiaries of these actions. The RIAA would love for you to believe that it is doing this for the "Artists" but the sad truth is that they wouldn't bother.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you about it being a PR battle, and having failed. My fear is that this will only push the RIAA to increase their efforts to mandate more invasive forms of DRM or additional protective legislation.

On the one hand, if they achieve their magical perfect DRM goals then maybe it would pave the way for better download services with complete libraries. On the other hand, they would probably just jack up prices and force you to download bundles with stuff you don't want.

I don't really see a solution for the RIAA other than the iTunes model of just making it easier than the alternatives, which still necessitates some form of legal action if only to shut down anyone who starts to make the piracy process too easy.

Re:If by fired

[commodore64_love]

RIAA says I'm not allowed to download off Itunes?

Wow; they've gone off their rocker.

Re:If by fired

[nabsltd]

This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders.

When the artists are the legal copyright holders, the RIAA won't do anything.

First, they aren't allowed to, because the artists have not authorized them to act in their name. Second, it's not the RIAA's job to look out for artists...it is their job to look out for the media companies.

If you check, every major label CD has the copyright assigned to the company that distributed it, and the recording artist actually has no right to distribute those recordings without permission of the record label.

Re:If by fired

[commodore64_love]

>>>Pay us $5,000.00, say your a thief, a pirate and promise never download music again...

The solution is to steal five thousand dollars worth of CDs from a RIAA-owned factory, sell them on ebay for cash, and then mail the tainted money to RIAA.

I'm just joking.

No I'm not!

Yes, yes, I am.

Or am I?

Re:If by fired

[Shakrai]

Also, if someone can stick a hole in this, please do.

Ok:

Let a technically experienced judge rule on this

What makes you think someone who spent a lifetime studying and practicing law is going to be "technically experienced" and able to discern the difference between an IP address and an MP3?

Re:If by fired

[Hordeking]

If this switch to DtecNet can usher in an age of ethical copyright enforcement then go for it. Then at least their ego-fuelled air of self-rightousness might provide enough power to pay for the waste of legal fees they keep dumping into this pointless battle.

I have a bridge for sale if you have $5.

Re:If by fired

[reebmmm]

You are wrong--sort of.

First, downloading copyrighted content without permission IS illegal. Downloading, in and of itself, is not. Downloading copyrighted content without permission violates one of exclusive rights of the author: the right to make copies.

Second, "making content available" is not actually one of the exclusive rights. However, distribution is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. One of the ongoing problems for the RIAA has been making the connection between "making available" and the distribution right. Most people tend to agree that "distribution" requires actual distribution (you need to actually send a file to someone). As a matter of proof, the RIAA had lots of evidence of "making available" but a lot less of "actual distribution." So to the extent by "share" you actually mean "distribute" and not just "make available," you are correct that this is ALSO illegal.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

They could focus on large scale infringers who are trying to PROFIT and if they really must try to punish nonprofit sharing, they should carefully research their facts and make damned sure they come to the courts with clean hands. There do not need to be bright line rules. They can pick and choose who they want to file suit against based on individual circumstances.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got nothing against the RIAA enforcing copyright for illegally shared media. This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders.

The artists are not the legal copyright holders. The RIAA does not represent artists.

I'm all for a fair and open-minded discussion, but let's start by getting the basic facts right. This is not about the artists. It is about the mega-billion dollar recording industry, and the five companies that try to control it.

The amount of money at stake may or may not affect our feelings about fair use and the proper role of copyright in a society. But I tend to think it matters that we aren't talking about the Paul Simons of the world who have made millions of dollars off their own work. We are talking about the Sonys of the world who have made many billions of dollars off other people's works.

I don't think that this rationalizes the violation of copyright. Copyright violations are still wrong. But it certainly calls into question the proper role of copyrights, and invites a serious discussion about copyright reform.

And, more to the point of this thread, it casts the criminal activity of MediaSentry and other RIAA agents in a worse light. These aren't innocent, unintended crimes. They are very calculated crimes in a very high dollar, high stakes business, perpetrated by multi-billion dollar behemoths.

Members of this organization are prosecuting thousands of people for copying music that most may have reasonably thought was ok to do. The average person certainly doesn't have a lawyer to consult about the legality of downloading a certain song off the internet. Yet, that organization has swarms of lawyers to consult during the prosecution to make sure that their investigation is done above board and within the law. I'm more forgiving of the 14 year old kid who violated copyright on several songs than I am of the multi-billion dollar global corporation whose legal team knowingly and repeatedly violated the law while pursuing the 14 year old kid.

I could see a judge giving the kid 20 hours of community service with no permanent record. I could see the judge giving the recording industry bully a million dollar fine and a permanent record to discourage future infractions.

Re:If by fired

[fwarren]

That part was actually hyperbole

Re:If by fired

[Jawn98685]

You are quite correct that it is not our place to dictate how they (the recording industry) run their business, beyond exercising our right to not patronize them, of course. But that is most certainly not the same thing as taking issue with legally indefensible procedures in gathering their "evidence". You claim that "99+% of all cases even filed by the RIAA... were against people who were breaking the law..." You may be right, but since when does that give license to anyone else to break the law? If the RIAA wants their "customers" to play by the rules, they should at least expect to be required to the same. That they have had their legal ass handed to them time after time is ample evidence that their expectations were not so reasonable.

RIAA members have bigger problems. They are quickly becoming a buggy-whip manufacturer. The value of their product is decreasing. The ease with recorded music can now be distributed (legally as well as illegally) is a large part of the reason, but their are other factors, not the least of which is the quality of their product. There is some hard evidence that people simply don't engage in listening to recorded music as a discrete activity anymore. I recently viewed a video of a collection of recording engineers and audiophiles discussing this. Their conclusion was that the digitization of music, and the almost inevitable decrease in quality that goes with the process, is largely to blame. If this is indeed the case, it follows that people are disinclined to pay traditional prices for what has become little more than background music. If they want to continue in the business of selling recorded music, RIAA's members should figure out how to produce something that people will pay for.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus. Learn to write.

"Let's", not "Lets"

"Realistically", not "realisticly"

"In the long run." is not a sentence, it is a prepositional phrase. Please attach it to an appropriate sentence.

"who are even clueless about if they own" is just mangled.

"Say you're a thief", not "say your a thief"

"As a way to win the PR war in the public eye on file sharing." is also a fragment.

"too many of the wrong people", not "two many of the wrong people".

"How are babies made?", not "How is babby formed?"

Please, clean up the grammar to make reading your arguments palatable.

Re:If by fired

[conlaw]

What makes you think someone who spent a lifetime studying and practicing law is going to be "technically experienced" and able to discern the difference between an IP address and an MP3?

Actually, most attorneys spend their free time doing something other than reading law. Some of us even listen to music and use computers. In fact, I've owned and used computers since Kaypros were called "portable."

Re:If by fired

[ObiWanKenblowme]

Because your attorney clearly and patiently explained the relevant facts to him while presenting your case?

Of course this is the real world and that isn't always how it works, but by and large judges and attorneys aren't the incompetent jackasses they're made out to be on Slashdot.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll likely be modded troll for this,

You should be. Spouting the same tired nonsense.

but I'd bet that 99+% of all of the cases even filed by the RIAA (let alone that actual led to decisions or settlements) were against people who were breaking the law and downloading / uploading illegally.

Which law? Please be specific.

Re:If by fired

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the RIAA, I don't like how they price music or run the business, but it isn't for me to dictate to them how they should run their business.

I thought that's called the free market.

And while I do download music illegally, I don't justify it by saying it is cause the RIAA sucks or that they shouldn't be able to defend their intellectual property rights.

As you can see, you are exerting your free market capacity to choose how much to pay for the crap you are listening. You are willing to risk a fine in lieu of paying for a good because the good is far too expensive.

Re:If by fired

[kimgkimg]

Well this is business and nobody is doing anyone any favors unless it contributes to their bottomline. I think the ISPs will use this to their advantage to identify and boot off those people who are the most gross offenders (aka bandwidth hogs), that are adversely affecting their customer base. Otherwise, why have angry mobs of people who will no doubt hire lawyers and have you spending your money defending your policies in court? Seems like the RIAA has just pushed the potential litigation down one level.

Re:If by fired

[Theoboley]

Then get charged for Grand Larceny AND pirating music. WOO you goin to federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison

Re:If by fired

[AmberBlackCat]

If I knew without a doubt that they would not go after people under 18, I would have my three oldest daughters set up as seeders tonight. We'd live in a world where teens seed everything and the rest of us are leechers who pay our teens' internet bills.

Re:If by fired

[trewornan]

"In the long run." is not a sentence, it is a prepositional phrase. Please attach it to an appropriate sentence.

More importantly it's a sentence adverbial which is the real reason it needs to be attached to a sentence.

Re:If by fired

[worfking]

ok ill take your last staement first. it is up to us as consumers to demand better prices, business practices and so on. if your local supermarket has an issue with say the handicapped would you say something to them YES YOU WOULD! its your god given right to decide what you spend your money on,for or who. now down the list no they should have a set standard for all. newsflash!!! the RIAA doesnt own a SINGLE COPYWRITE! they are just spokes people for the record industry. no the riaa went after people who didnt downlaod anything. some didnt even have a computer yet the riaa demanded monies from them. i download music all the time for my own personal enjoyment did i break the law?? yes. do i realy care about what the riaa thinks of it..no!! here is the difference. i dont share or upload music or movies. i grab them watch/listen to them and delete it if its not worth keeeping. im not bashing you or your comments i just pointing out a few flaws. does the RIAA serve a legal purpose? that remains to be seen. now ill get labeled as a law breaker or pirate. but i have been doing the same thing for over 30 years and i wont change one bit for them. i do support the artist's and such. i do buy alot of music as well. but i cant see paying $17.99 for a CD with maybe one or two songs i like and the rest is junk.

Re:If by fired

[Bigjeff5]

Wait wait, you're going to have a cow about things like "who are even clueless about if they own" and "In the long run." but not the four incomplete sentances after that?

Maybe you should do some more proofreading? Bone up a little bit? I certainly wouldn't want you proofreading one of my reports, if you miss such obvious things. Half the crap you mentioned isn't even in his post. Lets go back to the incomplete sentances though. For example:

"In the long run. Going after 9 year old girls. Going after people who are seriously handicapped and on a fixed income. Going after old people who are even clueless about if they own a computer. May not be the best way to win the PR war."

Five fragments in a row. However, all he has done is used periods (probably for dramatic effect) improperly. Replace all the periods but the last one with commas and lower the case of the words immediately following said commas, and it works just fine.

Not everybody bothers with spell-checking either; it's a news forum for nerds, not a master's thesis.

Perhaps if you payed more attention to the context and content your criticisms would be more useful?

Re:If by fired

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I don't like the RIAA, I don't like how they price music or run the business, but it isn't for me to dictate to them how they should run their business.

I thought that's called the free market.

Actually... no it isn't. 'Free market' would be if the 4 companies competed against each other, rather than colluding together on everything behind the apron strings of the 'RIAA'.

The Fall Man

[nathan.fulton]

...And all the while the RIAA will be the innocent victim of firms like evil MediaSentry.

...And all the while the RIAA will continue to fight the good fight against down-right theft.

...And all the while the people will continue to believe every last word of it.

Re:The Fall Man

[binarylarry]

Burma Shave

Re:The Fall Man

[DigiShaman]

Ya, I thought it was obvious to me as well. I tagged it "Patsy". Though fallman and scapegoat will suffice too.

The question is though

[falcon5768]

ARE they legal investigators in other states? That was one of the whole points with Mediasentry, they where illegally doing what they where doing in a number of states the RIAA had cases in. If this new company does the same shit then guess what, nothing changes and the RIAA is again violating the law.

Re:The question is though

[mpe]

ARE they legal investigators in other states? That was one of the whole points with Mediasentry, they where illegally doing what they where doing in a number of states the RIAA had cases in. If this new company does the same shit then guess what, nothing changes and the RIAA is again violating the law.

But did anything happen to the RIAA over this? It's unlikely that a company in Denmark would be a certified PI anywhere in North America too.

Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[scdeimos]

The /. summary reports:

Beckerman cites MediaSentry's practice of 'looking for available songs in people's filesharing folders, uploading them, and using those uploads in court as evidence of copyright violations.

The MSN article reports:

Mr. Beckerman cites MediaSentry's practice of looking for available songs in people's file-sharing folders, downloading them, and using those downloads in court as evidence of copyright violations.

Whilst it's still a scummy thing to do, it's not as bad as uploading to peoples' filesharing folders and then taking them to court for copyright violations.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[paimin]

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[jps25]

Has kdawson ever disappointed?

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

But we all knew what the intended meaning was.

Don't get your panties all untwisted over this.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[corsec67]

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

It depends on your point of view.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't. You also never change a citation.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

troll? for stating the obvious?

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[sgladfelter]

I think you were going for +1 funny (although how you got modded flamebait I don't get), but it really doesn't depend your point of view.

All that matters is who originated the file transfer, i.e. If I am downloading something, you wouldn't say "The server is uploading something to me." Nor would it make any sense to say "The server is downloading something from me." when I am in fact uploading.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Samah]

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

As soon as I read that I looked up at the summary and sure enough, kdawson.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I can tell, it's just clumsily worded. Because the thing that MediaSentry are trying to prosecute for is uploading, they're having to download (and thus have the peer upload) the file from them and using that transfer as evidence. Of course, that relies on the colloquial meaning of "upload" (relying solely on point-of-view, sort of like left vs right) rather than the literal meaning, which invokes classifying one machine as subordinate to/a peripheral of another.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Dun Malg]

c'mon, mods. A classic weasel-phrase from Obi Wan Kenobi is "-1, flamebait"?

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between uploading and downloading?

C'mon, it's not like this is a tech site or something... ... ...
yoink

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

But Ray had it right and the person writing the summary had it wrong. MediaSentry is downloading the music from the other person and using that as evidence the person is "sharing".

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[noidentity]

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

Agreed; the artist of this novel summarization should read his word manual more patiently so he doesn't misconceive his acronyms.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[mysidia]

Whilst it's still a scummy thing to do, it's not as bad as uploading to peoples' filesharing folders and then taking them to court for copyright violations.

Hrm.. As the RIAA's contractor, uploading the file to a known public file-sharing location without an agreement in place implies unlimited permission for the recipient to share through that folder, granted by the act of uploading.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Kleen13]

I know... It sounded like my sister talking about how she uploaded a new program on her pc and got "one of those virus things."

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Xenographic]

> All that matters is who originated the file transfer, i.e. If I am downloading something, you wouldn't say "The server is uploading something to me." Nor would it make any sense to say "The server is downloading something from me." when I am in fact uploading.

Actually, I know plenty of people who would say exactly that and think it made sense. I would go so far to say that it's going the way of the "hacker vs. cracker" distinction in that few people appear to care at this point. Best find some new terms, like they did with the white hat/black hat thing.

I mean, at this point, if you say that crackers broke into your website, people will be on the lookout for someone speaking with a southern drawl...

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

But we all knew what the intended meaning was.

Did we all?

First of all, that we may guess what the intended meaning was is no excuse for writing complete nonsense (or turning things upside-down). Second, there is a very big difference between whether you download something from somebody's shared folder or whether you're "uploading [... files to other peoples computers], and using those uploads in court as evidence of copyright violations."

And some of "us all" have it understood exactly as it was falsely stated in the summary.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[paimin]

Nonsense. It's like mixing up "to" and "from". It's not unclear at all, and we don't need new terms.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[cpicon92]

i think in this case upload and download means the same thing: a transfer. technically if one person is downloading something, the other person is uploading it

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[HTH NE1]

i think in this case upload and download means the same thing: a transfer. technically if one person is downloading something, the other person is uploading it

That is not the technical meaning.

There is only the one person. The other is a machine responding to instructions from that person, where in the absence of instruction the machine does nothing (and no crime is committed).

Who is doing the action and where he is are as important as the direction of transfer both in the definition and usage of the terms as well as the assigning of legal liability. It is important that the correct technical meanings be held and defended against misuse.

MediaSentry caused the file to be transferred from the server to their location, ergo they downloaded it. No person uploaded it.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

I could care less, or is it I couldn't care less...

Hmmm...

You've got a point.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[StikyPad]

Earlier today I black hatted some files on a private tracker, and now I'm trying to white hat them, at least until my ratio is grey.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[cpicon92]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but wouldn't someone have had to share (upload) the file before MediaSentry could download it?

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads

[HTH NE1]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but wouldn't someone have had to share (upload) the file before MediaSentry could download it?

Sharing isn't uploading.

Imagine needing to move a barge across a river (file across a network), but you can't be in the barge or traverse the river. Uploading is like pushing that barge to the other side with a long pole; downloading is lassoing that barge and pulling it to you. You don't need anyone to push what you're pulling, and you don't need to pull on what someone else is pushing; the barge moves by the effort of one person. One person involved, thus only one action being performed: an upload or a download. Never both.

Does this mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean there is a chance (hope) this will open the door for MediaSentry to get his ass sued (in particular for fabricating false evidence.) Will this also open the door for the RIAA to also get their asses handed down in court?

Shut up. I like to dream.

Re:Does this mean...

[neokushan]

I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine that the only people with a potential case against MediaSentry would be the RIAA themselves for "misrepresenting" them or something and I very much doubt the RIAA would sue their partners in crime, MediaSentry almost certainly has plenty of dirt on them.

I'm not sure how Privacy laws work with regards to P2P, but it's probably quite easy to show you willingly shared the contents of your Hard Drive with others, or you'd be able to sue every other P2P user out there who connects to you.

Then again, I sure as shit aren't a lawyer and in this Crazy, topsy turvy world we live in, anything is possible.

Re:Does this mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

For false evidence you're probably right. The RIAA would have contracted MediaSentry and used their evidence for DMCA takedowns and court cases. As the RIAA were presenting their evidence they would have most of the responsibility, but corporations rarely get anything other than fines and if they're smart the RIAA would have contracted the responsibility for their evidence to MediaSentry. Any victim would have to deal directly with the RIAA's faulty accusations because MediaSentry were a contractor of the RIAA.

There is good news though as the hysteria around hacking has caused unbalanced laws that say accessing a network resource without permission is illegal. Remember there are some legal opinions of these laws that say running nmap on a server is illegal, so while most Slashdot users would say "if it wasn't password protected don't complain" the law as written is typically much less reasonable and for once this is beneficial to the public.

I think that someone would have a good case against them (whether they have the resources to pursue the matter is another question)

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

Re:Does this mean...

[dangitman]

I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine that the only people with a potential case against MediaSentry would be the RIAA themselves

What about that (completely legitimate) media company that they did a DoS attack on, causing a very real disruption to their business? I'm also pretty confident that MediaSentry has also violated numerous other computer security laws, that would get an individual hacker sent to prison.

Ok guys...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Somebody needs to do a humiliating break-in to the RIAA's new jackbooted flunky and pull out some more email and phone records. It was hilarious when it happened to MediaSentry, I'm sure it'll be even funnier in Danish.

Now, I have neither the ability nor the intention; but I can dream...

Re:Ok guys...

[cheros]

Are you sure it's not the SWEDISH cook you're thinking of? :-)

Re:Ok guys...

[minvaren]

"RIAA hires new Swedish company, hints that filesharers are now bork-bork-borked!"

They were evil...

[wild_quinine]

...but we can assume that they were fired for being incompetent, not for being evil. All this proves is that there is a baseline level of incompetence which is unacceptable even for the RIAA. I wondered how low they'd be able to go.

Re:They were evil...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

there is a baseline level of incompetence which is unacceptable even for the RIAA

On that I beg to differ. The incompetence was something the RIAA was at all times aware of, and condoned. They didn't care if they got 20,000 or so 'false positives'. This was about creating a climate of terror. They were interested in getting something done cheaply, and it creating widespread fear. As it turns out the only people who ever came to fear the RIAA were the people who were not computer savvy and were not big file sharers.

And if you think the level of competence at the RIAA is better than MediaSentry's, why don't you take a survey of the record company shareholders and ask them how competent the RIAA was in administering this campaign.

Re:They were evil...

[schon]

They didn't care if they got 20,000 or so 'false positives'

... because they still made thousands of dollars from each of those 'false positives' by threatening them with a lawsuit.

Re:They were evil...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lawsuits are not cheap. As Ray intimated, the RIAA has actually lost money on this litigation campaign. That just the direct effect -- settlements minus legal fees. They were presumably really interested in an indirect effect -- scaring people into not sharing music online. (They were presumably not interested in the indirect effect of making lots of people realize that they're evil jackasses.)

Re:They were evil...

[tftp]

...but we can assume that they were fired for being incompetent, not for being evil.

We should assume that they were fired for becoming a worn out tool, a liability. In politics the term is "throw them under the bus."

The reasons for that are obvious - they lied too much, they broke the law several times, they were shown to be incompetent, use unproven, arbitrary methods, and so on. RIAA simply couldn't use them any more, since every witness from MediaSentry would be immediately confronted with their own earlier contradictory statements, and RIAA would lose the case.

Re:They were evil...

[Fluffeh]

And if you think the level of competence at the RIAA is better than MediaSentry's, why don't you take a survey of the record company shareholders

I don't know if it's just me getting angrier as I get older, but I find that the level of competence is slipping everywhere and in everything. I only have to look around my office to see around half the people that are less than competent, and it seems that it was eons ago that I got above satisfactory customer service during a transaction of some sort.

Re:They were evil...

[jimicus]

On that I beg to differ. The incompetence was something the RIAA was at all times aware of, and condoned. They didn't care if they got 20,000 or so 'false positives'. This was about creating a climate of terror. They were interested in getting something done cheaply, and it creating widespread fear.

Does that mean you could in theory dob them into the authorities for being terrorists?

Re:They were evil...

[Anonymous Coward]

The reasons for that are obvious - they were caught lying too much, breaking the law several times, and were publicly shown to be incompetent, use unproven, arbitrary methods, and so on

there ... fixed it for you

Re:They were evil...

[commodore64_love]

I don't see how they could lose money. Sounds like an easy way to scam victims to me.

Dear Sir:

I am RIAA, and I am representing you with a proposal. We have detected you acquired illegal musics from the webs. Please be remitting $5000 to our adddress so we might let you go free and clear. Else we will be seaking recompense in a law court with punishments upto 20 years in prison, or 5 million dollar. You may avoid this outcome by being faithful and mailing a check of $5000 to:

1 Scam Way
Nigeria

Re:They were evil...

[_LMark]

Mr. Beckerman, I frequently enjoy your coverage of legal battles around copyright and the RIAA, but please take care with your superlatives so that your important message remains strong. "creating a climate of *terror*" seems over-the-top. Maybe sticking with "fear" is more appropriate in this case. (Hope this is taken as the constructive criticism that it is intended. I want your message of sensibility to prevail!)

Re:They were evil...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Mr. Beckerman, I frequently enjoy your coverage of legal battles around copyright and the RIAA, but please take care with your superlatives so that your important message remains strong. "creating a climate of *terror*" seems over-the-top. Maybe sticking with "fear" is more appropriate in this case. (Hope this is taken as the constructive criticism that it is intended. I want your message of sensibility to prevail!)

I don't worry about what people think. I tell the truth as I perceive it to be. If you'd spoken to the victims of this on a daily basis for the past 4 years, as I have, I think you'd wish there were a stronger word to describe the terror, anxiety, humiliation, and degradation to which Matthew Oppenheim and his gang of thugs have subjected them.

It wouldn't terrorize you, no doubt, and it wouldn't terrorize me, either. But not every RIAA defendant is like you or me.

Re:They were evil...

[StikyPad]

I think it's just that our expectations increase as the years go by. Pretty much every company I've ever had a problem with has taken steps to make things right, with the possible exception of Comcast. When we got charged wrong, we get a gift certificate for free pizza. When I called to find out why I wasn't getting some channels in HD (the idiot who signed me up failed to mention that the "HD Package" didn't include the Sunday Ticket channels), they upgraded me for free. (Sure, it should be included in the first place, but it's my responsibility to know what I'm buying, and their responsibility to explain it. They screwed up, they made it right). Microsoft lost the 360 I had to send in for warranty repair.. I couldn't prove anything beyond "I shipped a box to you, which may not have had anything in it, but it was delivered," but they still made good.

Now granted, all of these things were sparked by some sort of product defect or incompetence, but in general, things are much more reliable and cheaper than they used to be (which is masked somewhat by inflation). I can't remember the last time I saw an LCD with a dead pixel, the last time I had a power outage that wasn't due to a natural disaster, the last time my removable media "wore out" with proper handling. Think about how often floppy disks used to just fail. Or tapes.

For the most part, we're victims of our own success. We take more things for granted, and ever smaller anomalies take up a disproportionate part of our attention. What it actually means is that things are better -- much better -- than they used to be, but thanks to the rapid acclimatization of the human psyche, we just see more and more problems everywhere. They're problems that have always existed, we just never noticed them before because we had more important things to worry about.

Re:They were evil...

[Actually, I do RTFA]

And if you think the level of competence at the RIAA is better than MediaSentry's, why don't you take a survey of the record company shareholders and ask them how competent the RIAA was in administering this campaign.

Why would I abrogate my opinion of their competence in favor of a large group? The shareholders have no unique access to information (as a group, no doubt some officers, etc. do). They have no unique education which makes them qualified to render judgement.

Only two things would differentate shareholders in RIAA member companies from Slashdot. The sample of humanity itself and the percentages drawn from people with various ethnic/religious/philisophical/educational backgrounds within the sample differ; as a reserve opining about competence as my unilateral perogative, this is meaningless. Second, would be that the shareholders, collectively, are in a position to enact change. While important, this seems irrelevent to accuracy of opinion.

I'm sorry to hop off on such a triviality, but I'm really in a "shareholders are messing up my day" place right now.

Re:They were evil...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

And if you think the level of competence at the RIAA is better than MediaSentry's, why don't you take a survey of the record company shareholders and ask them how competent the RIAA was in administering this campaign.

Why would I abrogate my opinion of their competence in favor of a large group? The shareholders have no unique access to information (as a group, no doubt some officers, etc. do). They have no unique education which makes them qualified to render judgement.

I'm not saying the shareholders are any wiser than you or I (Indeed, the fact that they are shareholders in such mismanaged companies might even tend to indicate otherwise.). I'm just saying that (a) they are the group for whose benefit the companies are supposedly being managed; and (b) they have not benefitted.

The plot thickens....

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I really wonder what relation this had to the RIAA's big fake 'announcement' last month. I hope the WSJ and other journalists are asking the right questions.

Re:The plot thickens....

[1 a bee]

And how does Murdoch figure in all of this? I wonder. Besides being the new owner of the WSJ, he apparently has his fingers in the music industry also.

DtecNet

[troll8901]

From their web site:

"The evidence generated by DtecNet has been used and approved by criminal and civil courts alike across Europe."

I know it's too early to tell, but assuming if their claims were true...
If their evidence can satisfy the European courts, which are more protective of the individual (my POV, barring history), then what trouble would they have in the US courts?

"By only targeting content positively identified as illegal, the system avoids the problems of targeting P2P protocols indiscriminately securing maximum bandwidth for legal traffic."

Interesting, how would they know - they'll have to download a copy, right? If I record my own karaoke and share it out, does it count?

Also, won't they fall into the same "couldn't prove defendants had shared their files with anyone other than investigators" situation? (Imagine if they say that my <insert lousy movie here> episode is downloaded 50,000 times!)

Re:DtecNet

[Nefarious Wheel]

Also, won't they fall into the same "couldn't prove defendants had shared their files with anyone other than investigators" situation? (Imagine if they say that my episode is downloaded 50,000 times!)

"Which was, your Honour, the number of downloads we expect the defendant to have made over the term of infringement, three months, via defendant's Internet connection which I believe Your Honour can be shown to be from defendant's laptop using it's built-in fifty-six thousand bit per second (scowls and raises eyebrow significantly at jury) Modulator-Demodulator unit over a known telephone line identified as belonging to ..."

Re:DtecNet

[psnyder]

If I record my own karaoke and share it out, does it count?

I believe it does actually, technically, yes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you're the copyright holder, you can karaoke for personal use, but you're not allowed to distribute. You could claim "parody" and "fare use" depending on the situation, but if they deem it to go beyond that, it could be treated as a "cover" of the song. And you must get permission to do a cover. Not to mention the fact that the background music you are singing over is most definitely under copyright.

But in reality, it's very doubtful they'd go after a fan distributing bad karaoke.

Re:DtecNet

[Anonymous Coward]

"If their evidence can satisfy the European courts, which are more protective of the individual (my POV, barring history), then what trouble would they have in the US courts?"

Well... the US Courts have very different laws in many odd ways concerning the admissibility of evidence.

But, as others have mentioned, I imagine the same "unlicensed investigators" may prove a problem if they ever decide to operate within a state jurisdiction physically. Of course, since a transaction on a computer server legally occurs in the physical location of that server, and since downloading from a p2p site would make that "transaction" have a physical location on the alleged infringer's computer, wouldn't that count as operating in the jurisdiction of the state the infringer's system physically resides?

(NYCL probably knows far better than I can guess. But the jurisdictional tangle of the US Court system may be what kills the new company, too. Or not, depending on precedent. There are times I really dislike that our adversarial legal system means "whoever argues best must be true" despite what any facts may directly say. But it has worked, more or less, for awhile now...)

Re:DtecNet

[Muad'Dave]

You could claim "parody" and "fare use"...

You can't charge people to ride your song.

Re:DtecNet

[phorm]

If their evidence can satisfy the European courts, which are more protective of the individual (my POV, barring history), then what trouble would they have in the US courts?

Well, for one thing they still likely wouldn't be licensed investigators in various US states, which was one of the points where MediaSentry also got in trouble with the courts...

My guess is

[sleeponthemic]

The new company, "Yrtnesaidem Inc" will be much better.

Re:My guess is

[mjwx]

The new company, "Yrtnesaidem Inc" will be much better.

My bet is on MediaSentinel or MediaProtector. Coincidentally it will be made up of exactly the same staff members and management.

It that a man in a Armani suit waving his hand and saying "these aren't the investigators you're looking for"?

Re:My guess is

[Mister Liberty]

LOL, Ynnuf!

Tomorrow's news headline...

[pikine]

RIAA caught lying about firing MediaSentry.

What of the jilted lover?

[Cathoderoytube]

So what're the odds of some sort of memo surfacing from a jilted SafeNet from the RIAA saying something to the effect of 'Use any means possible! We have good lawyers! Don't worry about breaking the law! These fools can't fight us, this is America!! And in this country the laws are written by the people with the most money! Namely US! The RIAA, and all our members! Wahahaha!'?
Aside from the obvious self incrimination I mean.

Re:What of the jilted lover?

[commodore64_love]

>>>the laws are written by the people with the most money

Yes but all legitimate power comes from the bottom - from the People - and the American people are armed to the teeth. It is unwise to piss them off.

Re:What of the jilted lover?

[PReDiToR]

Unfortunately the American people have been cowed by the .GOV and the media too much to actually decide upon the time to use those arms.

Someone got onto the Whitehouse lawn and started waving a gun around? OMG! Thank the tooth fairy that the police caught/shot them!
But why was that person there? Were they attempting to assassinate a political figure, or were they shouting "If you think censorship is wrong come stand with me!"?

Re:What of the jilted lover?

[Cathoderoytube]

Legitimate power may come from the bottom, but all the people capable of changing things are stuck in the middle.

Slashdot had an article a few days ago about the insane cheapness of text messages. Something to the effect of your monthly cellphone bill could pay for all the text messages ever transmitted world wide since the advent of text messages. Something like that is so appalling you'd think people would be crucifying the cell providers. But no, they don't. No riots, nobody particularly cares.

Just in case, you're reading, MediaSentry

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because past experience has shown that the guys at MediaSentry tend to read all the online articles about themselves, I'd like to insert this comment here:

* Fuck you guys *

Thanks! That is all.

Re:Awwww. Poor babies

[Anonymous Coward]

I would bet even more than that have done no such thing.

Great anti-DRM idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of bothering around with all kinds of DRM solutions, all the governments of the world should get together and pass laws requiring every human being to have an implant that monitors every sound coming into the ear. Whenever the sounds match any portion of a copyrighted song, the person's bank account is automatically debited the pay-per-hear price of that song. This makes irrelevant the need to have any other copyright law on music. In fact, the music publishers will encourage file sharing, public performance, copying, etc., because all of these things will mean that more people will hear the music, and therefore more money will flow to the music publishers. The automatic debit should take place regardless of the reason that a song was heard. That means if you pull up next to someone at the stoplight and they are playing loud music, you will pay for the privilege of having heard that music. If you're walking down the street and someone with a boom box is playing loud music, you will pay for the pleasure of hearing that music. Therefore the music publishers will encourage people to listen to music at high volumes. By the way, you will have to pay whether you hear the entire song or any portion thereof. I think this is a much better plan than having to burden both the publishers and the customers with DRM.

Re:Great anti-DRM idea.

[Zarquil]

That'll be GREAT.

Finally I'll be able to use the voices in my head that drown out everything else for the forces of GOOD, not EVIL.

Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans?

[NZheretic]

"In place of MusicSentry, the RIAA says it will use Copenhagen-based DtecNet Software ApS. The music industry had worked with DtecNet previously both in the U.S. and overseas, and liked its technology, said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy."

So the RIAA is already paying a foreign company to spy on Americans internet usage in the USA? Isn't that in violation of some state or federal privacy/computer intrusion legislation?

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans?

[pfarber]

A company is trying to keep deadbeats from stealing their legal property. Its freaking music. You would not shoplift a CD yet putting it in a publicly accessed folder for all to copy is ok? I support the **AA's 100% for protecting their assets. If you don't like it.. change the laws. But done cry when you get caught by legal means and convicted by a jury of your peers.

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

So the RIAA is already paying a foreign company to spy on Americans internet usage in the USA? Isn't that in violation of some state or federal privacy/computer intrusion legislation?

Spying? Looking at the files that SOFTWARE YOU INSTALLED on YOUR COMPUTER makes available to ANYONE on the internet isn't spying.

The RIAA may be scummy, but this isn't spying.

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans?

[Buzz_Light]

You wouldn't hire an international team to spy on American citizens so that you could sue them on questionable grounds, would you? ... oh wait...

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans?

[pacificleo]

Safenet is based out of India , in my office building .

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans?

[Splab]

I think quite a lot of misunderstood what DtecNet does, they are a software provider and can help with technical things during proceedings. They create software for eavesdropping on torrent etc. - the people who is going to use it are very much American.

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

They create software for eavesdropping on torrent etc. - the people who is going to use it are very much American.

DtecNet happens to share offices with the Danish counterpart to RIAA, AntiPiratGruppen, and AFAIK DtecNet is responsible for the entire process of "securing evidence" here.

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans?

[Xest]

It's also interesting to see that the RIAA admits it's poking it's nose in abroad.

Anyone know how this works? Do they have any jurisdiction to bring cases in a foreign country? What if they're sticking their nose in in a country that prohibits them from doing so due to privacy laws etc., can people in that country then sue back?

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans?

[Anonymous Coward]

******** One of there products?
Digital File Check Released across Europe!
Digital File Check is a simple educational tool that aims to guide computer users, many of whom might be new to the world of online music. DFC helps to show how they, or their families, colleagues and friends, can enjoy music and film legally and responsibly without risking legal action by copyright holders.

Digital File Check helps to remove or block off any of the unwanted âoefile-sharingâ programs commonly used to distribute copyrighted files illegally. It also allows the user to delete copyrighted music and video files from the âoeshared foldersâ of the computer from where they are commonly swapped illegally on the internet.

Digital File Check has been developed in corporation with MPA and IFPI, representing the motion picture and recording industry worldwide. DFC is available online and on CD in countries including Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Poland, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, USA and the UK.
***********************

You have go to be KIDDING ME?!

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans?

[dangitman]

So, you're OK with companies breaking criminal laws to enforce civil copyright laws? I think you might need to increase the dosage on your medication.

In other news

[mjwx]

MediaSentry disbands, everyone who worked for MediaSentry* gets a new job in a brand new company called MediaSentinel. RIAA hires MediaSentinel, judges are oblivious.

*Except for the "blahbob" guy, if he hasn't been fired already.

Well said, sir!

[justinlee37]

You sir, are quite a well-articulated gentleman.

Neat.

[man_ls]

I had no idea our friend Mr. Beckerman was such a big deal beyond Slashdot, and the people he represents. Mainly because the general public is so woefully uninformed on matters such as this.

Kudos!

Something is Rotten in Demark

[Xenographic]

Am I the only one who wonders about the legal implications of hiring a firm based in Copenhagen? Do they suppose that that will protect them from the consequences of using investigators who are not licensed in the USA? Or do they plan to poison more torrents and release more spoof files rather than suing people?

The only thing I can think of when I read this is that they plan to cheat the system somehow and I can only wonder what they plan to do next...

Re:Something is Rotten in Demark

[kenp2002]

This will not end well because of one word:

Espionage.

A foreign nation becoming involved, one breach of security, this doesn't look good on paper, why the hell would it look any better in real life? Opps that was a military laptop with illegal mp3s... oh crap..

Re:Something is Rotten in Demark

[fuego451]

Dtecnet's website states that they have offices in Los Angeles, Paris and Vilnius but all contact is directed to Copenhagen. The site is pretty much void of details.

I guess we'll have to wait for the next court case to get an idea of how their online investigations work.

Any idea what they're up to?

[Xenographic]

Any ideas where they go from here? The only thing that strikes me is that they're using a non-US firm. I have to believe that's part of some plot to use international boundaries to keep courts from taking a good look at what, exactly, this firm is doing on the RIAA's behalf.

Oh, and lest I forget, we should keep reminding people that the RIAA = EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group & Warner Music Group. I'd hate for the labels to evade a little bad press by hiding behind the RIAA name.

Re:Any idea what they're up to?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Any ideas where they go from here?

I don't know. Chapter 11?

Re:Any idea what they're up to?

[Shakrai]

I don't know. Chapter 11?

Chapter 11 would imply that they have a business plan waiting in the wings that will make them profitable again. Maybe Chapter 7 would be a better bet for them? ;)

Re:Any idea what they're up to?

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't know. Chapter 11?

We can only hope. We can only hope...

WSJ???

[traabil]

WSJ??? Surely you mean "Netcraft confirms ..."

Not exactly, the copyright is typically _assigned_

[Mathinker]

> The music company usually retains the copyright

Not exactly, in most cases the artist(s) assign their copyrights to the labels, and this means that soon, starting around 2013, there will be an interesting battle in the Federal courts whether or not the artists can terminate these assignments as stipulated in the 1976 Copyright Act.

Shocked!

[otter42]

Shocked and astonished I am! Scandalous! That a company should do exactly what we pay them to and report to us exactly what they are doing, and that somehow we would still be ignorant of the exact nature of their activities! Those responsible should be fired, obviously!

Err... why's everyone looking at me like that?

When it reaches large numbers there will be a bill

[Kaukomieli]

The business-model of ISPs is to sell internet-access to people. So if someone wants them to disconnect someone there will be a price-tag on this customer including the money spent on acquiring a customer in the first place and the amount of money the ISP expects to earn with this customer.

As it is a network industry there will be almost nil cost-reduction due to having a customer less (it ought to only effect peering-fees that can be attributed to this specific customer).
If a customer is not profitable due to exceeding the calculated traffic (extremely heavy users) the ISP will try to get out of the contract in some way anyhow, as is known from the discussions regarding "flat rates".

Disconnecting a handful of customers will not be a problem for a big ISP, but as soon as this gets an automated process regarding a significant part of the customer-base the ISPs will demand compensation.

Exactly right

[Doghouse Riley]

If you take away BT and Giganews, my desire for broadband drops to the point where a $10/month dialup account becomes a realistic possibility.

And I'm sure I am not the only one.

How many customers have to make that decision before my cable company decides not to be the RIAA'a buttboy?

Re:Exactly right

[hairyfeet]

But you are missing the upside to greedy ISPs. If you get rid of everyone that actually USES the amount they paid for then they can keep overselling like mad and never need to pay for any infrastructure upgrades. We have heard time and time again that it is these "granny" users that are nothing but profit for the ISPs since they use so little bandwidth compared to what they pay for. So by becoming the *.A.As buttmonkey they can cut off their "costly" users while having a great excuse that will keep 99% of them from saying anything about it in the press.

After all they were just getting rid of those "law breaking filthy thieves" and not just propping up their profit margins by not giving the customer what they paid for. Perfect spin while not actually needing to anything with their profits but stuff them in their pockets. And when you figure in the costs of actually upgrading your aging infrastructure I'm sure losing those BT and other file sharing app users will be negligible when compared to the upgrade, at least in the short term. And as we have seen time and time again in this country corporations have lost the ability to think past the quarterly earnings reports.

Re:Exactly right

[commodore64_love]

You had a good point a year ago. But now ISPs like Comcast are metering services and charging fees to purchase extra gigabytes. If they have customers willing to pay $100 to download 1000 gig per month, the ISPs will be hurting themselves when they let these customers go.

As for dialup:

I have that service for $7 a month, and yes it's a cheap alternative, however the drawback of dialup is that you cannot watch "live" videos at nbc.com or hulu.com, because they don't support speeds slower than ~200 kbit/s. You would have to limit yourself to only bittorrent downloads.

Re:Exactly right

[hairyfeet]

While on the surface it SOUNDS like you SHOULD be right, you have to think like a corporate bean counter. When you figure in the cost of an infrastructure upgrade(because even the lamest home users have heard of Hulu and Youtube) then I'm willing to bet it is FAR cheaper to simply toss all those that use file sharing apps than it is to run the huge amounts of fiber and extra switching equipment and server upgrades required to keep up. Even if you charge them $1.50 a GB they will still cost you more. After all the Hulu and Youtube watcher is using bandwidth in relatively short bursts, whereas the file sharing app user is using their bandwidth 24/7/365.

As notorious as our ISPs are for overselling and under building I wouldn't be surprised if they have had bean counters running these very same scenarios and are probably coming to the same conclusion. It is simply cheaper to toss than to build. Especially when tossing doesn't require a huge outlay of capital that will show up in the quarterly earnings report. But I hope you are right. But if there is anything I have learned in the past 15 years is NEVER underestimate the sheer greed of a large corporation, even if that greed ultimately destroys the business, like what we have seen with corporations off shoring everything causing the products to become shoddy and the lousy service to run off their customers. They just don't think past the quarterly earnings report anymore.

Testimony

[phorm]

One question I have would be how well testimony from an entity stations in another country would stand up in a US court, not that MediaSentry's was very good either.

So what if you get a letter?

[mahsah]

You'll just get a letter from your ISP telling you to stop. Much better then a letter from a lawyer telling you to pay up.

Besides, if you get caught you can always just start encrypting your traffic or such.

Re:So what if you get a letter?

[roc97007]

> Besides, if you get caught you can always just start encrypting your traffic or such.

What? You aren't encrypting your traffic already?

Re:Not exactly, the copyright is typically _assign

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA already has a plan to deal with this, and we'll find out what it is on December 23, 2012.

Re:When it reaches large numbers there will be a b

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think the ISPs will have a problem with cutting off the vast bulk of the people the RIAA will ask them to cut off.

The kind of people the RIAA tends to go after are file shares, people who use a lot of bandwidth. The same people the ISPs hate having as customers.

File sharers use many times the bandwidth of the average user and pay the same amount. This will give them the excuse to fire these customers.

Is this a smart thing for the ISPs to do? No, then again when has a American ISP ever been accused of being smart?

Re:When it reaches large numbers there will be a b

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The kind of people the RIAA tends to go after are file share[r]s, people who use a lot of bandwidth.

Actually they do not go after the heavier file sharers, most of whom use BitTorrent, and have been for years. Every single case I've seen has been based on either the Gnutella protocol or the FastTrack protocol. I have never seen a case from the RIAA based on BitTorrent. The kind of people the RIAA has been going after are (a) people who never did any file sharing at all, but have enough money to pay a settlement, and (b) kids who did a modest amount of file sharing. All of which explains why their 'terror' campaign hasn't worked; the people they would like to deter are actually laughing at them.

So RIAA will continue the suits?

[TechForensics]

the RIAA says it will use Copenhagen-based DtecNet Software ApS

I thought they were ceasing their litigation campaign?

Re:So RIAA will continue the suits?

[Nefarious Wheel]

...Copenhagen-based DtecNet Software ApS

I thought DtecNet was VMS based. I can't read that company name without wanting to add a "::" suffix...

WSJ Confirms RIAA Fired MediaSentry

[Anonymous Coward]

How can one find MediaSentry tracks on a system?

How do we know if the MediaSentry has been invading the privacy of my system and privacy, and how do I collect data for a potential law suite against them?

Mod parent up!!!!

[bornagainpenguin]

JUST DO IT! You know how many of us are thinking it...

--bornagainpenguin

Re:What? A puppet for NYCL?

[statemachine]

Oh wow. Moderators new here?

    . <----- joke

          <----- whoosh

    O <----- moderators

+5 for the opposite puppet joke last year. :P At least NYCL will get it.

Typical

[crusher-1]

So the heat is on and the RIAA find themselves in a less than desirable position - e.g. their "respondant superior" entity, aka SafeNet was breaking the law by "invading peoples privacy" (by their own admission) . So the RIAA and their members throw SafeNet under the bus and exclaim their amazement as to the unsavory tactics that their "employee" has been conducting. Like they had no clue that this was going on??? Ya Right, that's the ticket.
Tell it to the judge!