Slashdot Mirror
MediaDefender Buys MediaSentry For $136,000 (Not $20M)
newtley writes "SafeNet paid $20 million for MediaSentry in 2005, but has just sold it to rival MediaDefender for a paltry $136,000, with a promise of more later. MediaSentry's new owner says the combination will allow it to 'dramatically expand its effectiveness.' Is it time for an official government inquiry into MediaSentry and the RIAA? A Chicago student said she was planning on killing herself because the RIAA promised her she'd land in court unless she paid almost $10,000 to 'settle' an alleged copyright infringement. She 'couldn't sleep, couldn't study, couldn't live a normal life because of the worry.' The RIAA 'evidence' came from MediaSentry, accused of operating illegally."
Are just a bunch of href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105
... timothy failed the Turing Test because the script couldn't figure out there was a problem with the other story before posting this one.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Why kill yourself when you can flee the country? It's not like she's in jail or something. Talk about keeping things in perspective...
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Will this allow the RIAA to say "MediaSentry? No we don't use them any more. We use the much more trutsed MediaDefender these days."?
Emerald Astrology
... than is within reason if you're waiting for a government investigation of the record companies and/or their cronies. The party of Hollywood is in charge of the government, and the RIAA/MPAA are all paid up in their contributions.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
Seriously, who didn't think that the plan all along was for the gov't to seize control of the financial sector and dictate wages? The writing's on the wall, folks. Liberty is almost dead.
I always end up confusing them, so I'll ascribe something to MediaSentry only to be corrected that no, the company involved was MediaDefender, or vice versa. Every time I wanted to complain to my alma mater about Randy Saaf being on their board of trustees (fortunately no longer the case), I had to go look up which of the two he was associated with.
So, I would like to thank the companies for kindly removing this frequent source of error.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
When will people just give up and find new ways to entertain themselves? By this time, who hasn't heard of what the RIAA is doing?
Apparently, a lot of people I suppose. With every attempt to expose what the RIAA is doing, the RIAA attempts to keep it quiet. Perhaps Southpark needs to revisit the issue.
The girl needs to get a grip. Just wait till she gets older, screws up, buys a house bigger than she can afford, runs up 30k in credit cards that gets ramped up to 100k because the overlimit charges are just enough to wipe payments out, bringing on more overlimit charges... sooner or later, you learn to just pay what you can, unplug the phone, and move on with life.
This is my sig.
Facilities, Equipment, Data: $20,000,000
Goodwill: -$19,000,000
"Losing" the email server: -$864,000
---
Balance: $136,000
Not that there is much of their email we haven't already seen.
I think you are confusing two entirely different things;
1/ Killing yourself. Generally a bad thing. Messy and definitely adversely affects your lifestyle and ability to pursue happiness.
2/ Saying you're going to kill yourself. Gets you attention and sympathy without tying yourself to any future obligations or inconveniences. Tends to get old if used to excess though.
This Chicago student has a healthy understanding of the difference between the two. Although she did chicken out by saying she was planning, past tense. Real hard-core usage would make it clear that it was still very much an option.
is that what you're suggesting?
I am not a stock analyst, but I wonder what effect this will have on the share price of Safenet. Are they smart guys making a really clever acquisition, or are they idiots that are buying a bunch legal headaches and poor publicity. Companies often get to put a value on their goodwill. When you buy a nasty company do you loose your goodwill?
I guess if I committed a crime (even a crime that the slashdot community thinks should *not* be a crime) and was being sued for it, I'd expect to have trouble sleeping, studying and living.
Flame away, but there is one point you cannot make: That she did not steal.
Maybe it should be legal, but it isn't, she knew it, she did it anyway.
Yeah, so the next time your Congress passes a law which mandates you to suck the rich people's dicks, you'll do it. Because, you know, it's the law.
This highlights that downloading media does have this potential consequence.
While it's sad that this student feels this way, and I've done the same activities myself, anyone considering taking up p2p should consider the small risk of being put under this much pressure to the point that you feel like committing suicide.
I have sympathy for this anonymous student for feeling like killing herself- but you are responsible for your actions and their consequences. It would be different if this was one of the many, many people who a) were dead, b) didn't have computers, c) were under 8 years old, etc. that RIAA has sued over the years (I mean seriously- how could they screw up so badly so many times-- I have to think it is because they were clueless about technology and also that they hired idiots who talked a good show).
I think most agree the artists deserve some compensation. I think most know there are legal ways you can get free songs. And there are numerous safe illegal ways you can get free/extremely inexpensive songs if you are poor (for example, if 15 of you band together, your cost per song is about 10 cents and the artists get some money). (yea-- I do condone poor people taking advantage of the system to have a little pleasure- I think the wealthy rip off everyone to the point that it is justified).
I personally think the cost for songs is way too high and reflects the reality of 1959, not 2009.
Artists do not deserve to be paid forever less one day (I think 28 years is plenty).
So resisting the greedy bastards at RIAA is warranted.
But ghandi knew he would be punished and accepted his punishment. If you p2p songs and you are dumb (most likely) or unlucky (shit happens) then suck it up. No wimps in the paint. If you do commit suicide, go somewhere and make it count. Call the media and off yourself at a music headquarters. Don't just die as an anonymous statistic.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The funny thing is, as spoiled and weak is this new generation supposedly is, they have been one of the best military generations this country has had. They seem to have held unit cohesion and pretty much won a counter-insurgency in Iraq, all the while at a tempo and rate of enemy contact that is pretty far above that of many other wars.
This is my sig.
You should have said lick rich people's assholes. Rich women want some stimulation too.
I like how you have decided her guilt before hand. That seems fair.
What if MediaSentry presents an employee, who can't sleep, study, or "live a normal life" because of the worry (over the accusations of operating illegally)? Would that absolve MediaSentry of all responsibility and make us all sympathize with the poor guys?
No? Then why are we all in pieces over the girl in legal trouble (of her own making)?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
No, she did not commit a crime. She allegedly infringed copyright. This is not a crime. It's a civil action, decided in a civil court. If it was a crime, she would be entitled to
- have access to counsel, and if she can't afford it, to have the State pay for counsel
- right of habeas corpus (to see the evidence being arrayed against her at an early stage)
- her day in court, in front of a jury of her peers (civil cases aren't necessarily seen before a full jury, this varies by jurisdiction)
- the other side would have the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt (instead of on a balance of the evidence).
- protection against self-incrimination (civil defendants can be compelled under oath to make admissions against their own interests, criminal defendants cannot be so compelled).
People who infringe copyright are not entitled to these benefits, and I'm sure the RIAA likes it that way.
Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
"Could it be SafeNet, with important US government connections and contracts, could no longer afford to be even loosely associated with a company which apart from anything else, stands every chance of being prosecuted across America for practising illegally as a private investigator?"
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/19711
If you want to kill yourself, it's your problem. The stressor will come at some point. It must.
We can't go campaigning to remove all stress from life because some people have a predilection for suicide. It is up to the suicidally inclined to remove pressure from their life through their actions. Doing something illegal will, in sufficient quantity, provide stress. It is just that lack of conscience will eventually produce stress.
I'm not a media sentry fan, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the woman, but her mental illness is irrelevant to the issue. The anecdote is syrupy bathos designed to provoke an emotional response.
I'm not biting. She needs to get some Prozac and that fact does not change the fact that the RIAA needs to be investigated, and charged under RICO. Big deal. (*shrug*)
--
Toro