Slashdot Log In
RIAA's Oppenheim Tries To Protect MediaSentry
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Dec 06, 2008 05:38 PM
from the investigators-in-crosshairs dept.
from the investigators-in-crosshairs dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's 'Prince of Darkness,' Washington DC lawyer Matthew Jan Oppenheim of The Oppenheim Group, who controls and supervises all of the RIAA litigations against ordinary folks, has requested permission to intervene in the 'probable cause' hearing scheduled next week in Raleigh, North Carolina, against MediaSentry. The hearing was convened by North Carolina's Private Protective Services Board, after complaints were filed by a law firm representing a number of North Carolina State University students who had been targeted by the RIAA based on the unlicensed 'investigation' conducted by SafeNet (the new name for MediaSentry). I guess the RIAA is worried. They should be."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Fuck em (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck them and what the stand for. Legally sanctioned oppression. Fuck em.
Re:Fuck em (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe they should try changing the name again.
Parent
Re:Fuck em (Score:5, Funny)
what was the name of teh RIAA before?
mafia?
Parent
Re:Fuck em (Score:5, Interesting)
what was the name of teh RIAA before? mafia?
It should [blogspot.com] be.
They're certainly running a protection [blogspot.com] racket.
Parent
Re:Fuck em (Score:5, Funny)
They used to be called VAGINA.
Very Aggravating Generally Inconsiderate Nazi Assholes
Parent
Re:Fuck em (Score:4, Interesting)
Legally sanctioned oppression.
I think the jurry is still out on that one, after all, there are several RIAA cases pending that don't look good for the RIAA, and it looks like MediaSentry may be brought up on the unlicensed PI thing in several venues...
Parent
Re:Fuck em (Score:5, Interesting)
I quite agree with this sentiment, but I think there is more to say. The fact that someone is intervening on the behalf of the criminals formerly known as Media Sentry is indicative that they need help. Clearly, that is a good sign for those being persecuted by means of egregious use of the court systems.
It would be very nice to see Media Sentry or SafeNet (or whatever name they use) barred from courtrooms everywhere, and their 'evidence' be forbidden in the court room. That might just put an end to all of this business of using the courts to validate using the government resource to act as the investigative arm of the **AA and associated groups.
What we know is that Media Sentry used very shaky methods to insinuate that some people committed copyright infringement. Then they used this incredibly shaky evidence to cajole the courts into doing their work for them. This is wrong. Very wrong. Setting right this one problem would probably end all this bs. I hope so anyway.
Parent
Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)
The unfortunate reality is that in the real world, there are billions of illegal things that are a financial loss every year that the victims have no recourse on because the cost of the legal system is more than the value of what they lost. I see no reason that the RIAA should have any extra privileges above what the population has.
And this is only if you even think that copyright as it now stands is valid (morally), which is certainly a debatable subject.
Parent
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that wanton copyright infringement is occurring. As copyright holders, the RIAA does in fact have the right to go after the infringers.
Yes, they do. I don't think that we'd have had a problem with them if they followed the rules of the game. The problem is that they keep changing the rules in their favor to make money.
The U.S. Constitution empowered Congress to enact copyright laws, and in 1790 they did [wikipedia.org]. The original copyright term was 14 years with the right to renew for an additional 14 year term. So, at most, 28 years.
But in the last 200 years, the copyright has been extended 5 or 6 times to a point where it's flat-out ridiculous. Most artists who create a song (under the current terms) will be dead before their works enter the public domain.
Copyright is, in modern times, basically meant to protect content creators' works so they can exclusively make money from those works. This would ostensibly allow people in creative industries like writing, composing, etc. can have a livelihood since they do not produce tangible goods like machinists, farmers, etc. It's supposed to encourage content creators to create new works for the greater public good.
But they don't. Sure, people write new books and make new songs, but the incentive isn't really there anymore. Most copyrights nowadays are held by corporations, not people. I personally believe that this is one of the factors that contributed to the emerging anti-copyright movement (copyleft, creative commons, etc.)
For copyright to reform, changes need to be made. One day the system may be functionally obsolete if people continue to give up their copyrights as it, and its enforcers, is being viewed as a less palatable scheme more and more over time. A good start, in my opinion, would be:
1) Bring down copyright back to reasonable terms - something like 5-10 years. How often do books/music/etc. make money after the first few years? Certainly not enough to justify such a long copyright.
2) Make it so only people - not corporations - can hold copyrights. Copyright cartels literally sit on their duffs getting fat off of royalties and trying to protect that money. It's the very definition of protection money and most of the time it doesn't even go to the artists themselves anyway.
3) Make fines in the case of restitution more reasonable. A fine of hundreds of dollars for a song that can be bought for $0.99 is patently ridiculous. Restitution on fair market value with a 200%-300% penalty would be more than fair enough to make up any money lost.
Ultimately, reforms like these will help unclog the courts and make it much more likely that money actually gets into the artist's hands - where it's intended. The RIAA is necessary in some ways - like a union for artists. But rather than working for the artists, the artists work for them. Put the power back in the hands of the creators.
Parent
Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)
Most artists who create a song (under the current terms) will be dead before their works enter the public domain.
That's a given. It's life of the author + 75 years, IIRC. The irony is that Disney, one of the prime backers of each new extension, wouldn't have been able to make a lot of their classic movies if current copyright terms had been in effect at the time, like Jungle Book. And the neat factoid that every content industry, with the exception of software, was itself founded on piracy [wired.com]. For example, Hollywood didn't just settle in California for the nice weather - studios set up shop on the west coast to avoid having to make patent payments on cameras to Thomas Edison.
Content industries don't have a problem with violations of the law - they have a problem when the violations of the law don't make them money.
Parent
Re:Question (Score:5, Insightful)
First, it's not a decided fact that there is rampant copyright infringement. Copying for personal use may or may not be infringement depending on your jurisdiction (where I am, for example, it's explicitly allowed.)
Second, what the RIAA should be doing is performing real investigations (instead of just pulling IP addresses seemingly at random), going after the alleged infringers individually (instead of trying to join hundreds of unrelated people) and not treating the court system like a revenue center.
For the obligatory car analogy, it's like traffic laws being enforced by private companies, someone pulls you over, and says "oh, here's your ticket for $3500.00 for failing to stop at a stop sign. You can call our dispatch to arrange payment options." You say "I stopped at the sign - I am 100% certain." The cop says "well, you can try to fight it in court, but it's your word against mine, and if you lose, that $3500 will turn into millions of dollars, plus the two years in legal fees it will cost even if you win."
If you ask "well, what should the cops be doing?" the answer is pretty obvious: they should be presenting evidence of infringement, and giving people a fair chance to defend themselves.
The answer is the same for the RIAA.
Parent
Re:Fuck em (Score:5, Insightful)
Again this is an exhibit of what I call fanboyism. I call it that having no certainty as to whether this is what other people mean when they use the word, but it seems to apply. Most Microsoft apologists fit this pattern as well, and it's one of the few viable explanations of why any average person would want to defend and advocate for a company with a marketing budget that could purchase a few small countries. It's the typical "us against them" bullshit where you envision two competing "teams" and you root for your favorite "team" and take their losses personally and celebrate their victories personally. It's pretty nice, except for that little fact that you yourself have done nothing to contribute to either "team" and have never participated in either faction's activities, so really it's your own need to live vicariously and maybe also a need to feel like part of something greater than yourself. It's a shame that with a whole unknown Universe out there, people settle for petty sports teams or corporations/brands or legal contests to fulfill this need to be a part of something greater, but I digress. It's like football fans when they say "we won" instead of "they won" or "my team won" even though I didn't see said fan out there in the field playing the game. I know that the difference may sound like minor semantics but it's actually a reflection of the mentality.
The remedy to this self-limiting mentality is to consider the morality (for lack of a better word) of the long-term consequences and how the implications could affect everyone. From this perspective, the reality is that if the RIAA/MPAA went bankrupt and its leadership decided to disband it tomorrow, life would go on with little or no impact to anyone else and in all likelihood they would not be missed; in this sense they are expendable. Meanwhile, if these kinds of legal tactics and the intimidation/extortion (in my opinion) that they create become more acceptable, it could adversely impact many people including those who have nothing to do with the entertainment industry. It's the kind of thing that could be a detriment to the legal system and the rule of law as a whole; these are things which are not expendable. In the face of these questions, the "evils" of copyright infringement in and of itself are barely a footnote when compared to the damage that can be caused by not correctly reacting to them.
Parent
Re:Fuck em (Score:5, Insightful)
P.S.
To elaborate: "Fuck em" is what Harriet Tubman & the owners of safety houses probably said when she stolen slaves from southern masters and led them to the north. It's what Ghandi said when he arranged protests against the British oppression. It's what Rosa Parks probably thought when she illegally sat in the white section of the bus - "fuck the law; it's wrong; I will do as we please".
"Fuck em" is an effective method of protest against unjust laws.
Parent
It's only going to get tougher... (Score:5, Insightful)
why are used cd's allowed, though? (Score:5, Interesting)
this has been a logical flaw in the 'the artists must get paid' argument.
I just bought some used cd's from amazon. some are sold from stores, some from net-only businesses and some from regular old individuals.
in NO case (that I'm aware of) is anyone required to pay any additional amount to any artist or association. yet used cd (and book) sales on amazon are 100% legal.
how come downloading bits on the net (which causes no revenue to return to riaa or artists) is 'illegal' yet used media sales are legal?
I'll even go further than that - lets talk about libraries and how they loan out (for free) books and also cd's.
with all this non-money media stuff changing hands, how come riaa isn't bothering the used sellers and libraries?
answer: their arguments about 'stealing' are less than paper thin...
Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (Score:5, Informative)
The first sale doctrine exhausts the copyright owner's ability to collect further revenue from that copy of the purchased CD. When the first owner sells that copy to another person, they are selling the purchased copy. However, if you make 5 copies of the CD and sell them, you are no longer selling the CD that you purchased (in which the copyright holder's right have been exhausted), you are selling illegal copies that you made (in which the copyright holder's right have not been exhausted).
Downloading bits on the internet is "illegal" because you are creating unlicensed copies. Libraries lending books is okay because a single copy of the media exists at all times. Prior to you taking the book out, the library is in possession of a single copy. When you take it out, the library is no longer in possession, you are. Return the book, the library is back in possession. The library would be in trouble if they gave you a photocopy of the book, and left the original on the shelf.
Under this same logical framework, we should be able to resell legally purchased MP3s, if you certify that you are not retaining a copy for yourself. I'm not holding my breath on it though.
Parent
Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (Score:5, Informative)
Under this same logical framework, we should be able to resell legally purchased MP3s, if you certify that you are not retaining a copy for yourself. I'm not holding my breath on it though.
Your remark is oddly (perhaps not coincidentally) timely. There is now -- for the time being -- an online second-hand MP3 [bopaboo.com] shop, hosted in the US. News item [guardian.co.uk] here. As far as I'm aware it's very new. It's still online at the time of writing.
Parent
Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (Score:5, Informative)
As you know, GameStop makes a tidy sum reselling used games, and the game developers don't see a penny of it. This has not a few people in the the games industry pissed off beyond the capacity for rational thought. No matter how much irrefutable logic or facts you throw at them, they're absolutely convinced they're "losing money" to this, and want to re-structure the market to prevent it, or at least get a cut of the action.
Schwab
Parent
Re:why are used cd's allowed, though? (Score:5, Insightful)
This has not a few people in the the games industry pissed off beyond the capacity for rational thought.
True, but hey ... I'll bet most leeches get pissed off when you cover them with salt and pull them off their prey before they're finished.
Parent
I help... (Score:5, Funny)
"Tries to protect" is crazy overblown (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing that he's asked for is the (entirely reasonable, IMHO) chance to give specific testimony because he believes that the complaint is factually incorrect. Given his history of prevarication, I don't believe his claims but I cannot fathom why anyone would deny him the right to go in front of the board and say his piece. It's not like the board will somehow be in a worse position to sanction MediaSentry/SafeNet for whatever violations they have committed.
To me this is basically a non-story. Aside from the involvement of the RIAA, you could reduce it to:
Corporation asks to give testimony in regulatory hearing that directly impacts its business. Truly shocking.
Re:"Tries to protect" is crazy overblown (Score:5, Interesting)
Well... I am not that familiar with the US legal system, but I really don't see how he can claim standing.
Indeed, he could be a witness (for either side) -- but if that doesn't happen, I don't see it.
So, it seems important for him to PREVENT the case from proceeding, even (or because) of his potential testimony. Indeed, what would he say? Pre-trial, "I am sorry, there are inaccuracies...", at trial "Yes, Media Sentry was engaged for investigations...".
I believe that the strategy is to supply the desired answer, while never getting into the position of being asked the "wrong" question. I further believe that the idea is to attempt to keep the issue in the "copyright infringement" domain, and out of the "unlicensed investigation" domain.
Parent
Re:Goog Grief! (Score:5, Funny)
Could someone please introduce Ray Beckerman to a decent CMS and donate some design work so his site doesn't hurt the eyes?
Why thank you.
Parent
Re:Dear Slashdot Mods, (Score:5, Funny)
Look, this is Slashdot, not a courtroom. Just relax, contribute to the conversation, and don't worry about mods (unfair or otherwise) to other posters. Besides, this is a new thread and odds are his post will be taken down a notch or two anyway. Personally, I'd have given it a Funny mod.
I would have liked that. "Funny" mods are hard for me to come by; my sense of humor has never been one of my strong points.
Parent
Re:Prince of Darkness, hah! (Score:5, Insightful)
What alternative legal means can the RIAA/MPAA use to protect copyright and copyrighted content?
That's easy.
1. Do a competent technological investigation.
2. Hire competent and honorable lawyers.
3. If you obtain evidence of someone actually infringing your copyrights, send them a cease and desist letter and ask them to enter into an appropriate cease and desist agreement.
4. If a proven infringer refuses to enter into a cease and desist agreement, sue him or her, in a lawsuit supported by actual evidence, based upon actual legal theories.
Parent