Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

WSJ Confirms RIAA Fired MediaSentry

Posted by kdawson on from the meet-the-new-boss dept.

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...' "

27 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. If by fired by Dyinobal · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:If by fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:If by fired by Stoutlimb · · Score: 4, Informative

      "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.

    3. Re:If by fired by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. The Fall Man by nathan.fulton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

    1. Re:The Fall Man by binarylarry · · Score: 5, Funny

      Burma Shave

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  3. The question is though by falcon5768 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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."

  4. Bad summary: uploads != downloads by scdeimos · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.

    1. Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads by paimin · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Facebook is the new AOL
    2. Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads by corsec67 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      It depends on your point of view.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    3. Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Funny

      > 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...

  5. Ok guys... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

    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...

  6. Re:Does this mean... by neokushan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  7. They were evil... by wild_quinine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

    1. Re:They were evil... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    2. Re:They were evil... by tftp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...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.

  8. The plot thickens.... by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  9. DtecNet by troll8901 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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!)

    1. Re:DtecNet by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Funny

      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 ..."

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  10. My guess is by sleeponthemic · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    --
    I record my sleeptalking
  11. Tomorrow's news headline... by pikine · · Score: 5, Funny

    RIAA caught lying about firing MediaSentry.

    --
    I once had a signature.
  12. What of the jilted lover? by Cathoderoytube · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  13. Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? by NZheretic · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "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?

    1. Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? by Splab · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

  14. Well said, sir! by justinlee37 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You sir, are quite a well-articulated gentleman.

  15. Something is Rotten in Demark by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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...

  16. Not exactly, the copyright is typically _assigned_ by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > 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.