Slashdot Mirror
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...' "
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.