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...' "
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.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
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.
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.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
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!)
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.
I have nothing compelling to say
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)
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?
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.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
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...
> 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.