Slashdot Log In
Has RIAA Fired MediaSentry?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Jan 02, 2009 03:11 PM
from the good-riddance dept.
from the good-riddance dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "According to a tantalizing 'unconfirmed' report, it appears that the RIAA has jettisoned MediaSentry (now known as SafeNet) as its 'investigator.' MediaSentry has come under heat in a number of different states for the fact that it was 'investigating' without an investigator's license and invading people's privacy. Earlier this year it was found to have made diametrically conflicting written statements to two different tribunals within 30 days of each other, in one denying that it was an 'expert witness,' in another claiming that it was an 'expert witness.' If the report is accurate, the termination comes at an interesting time, since MediaSentry's investigator is the plaintiffs' only fact witness to prove copyright infringement in Capitol Records v. Thomas, which is now headed for a retrial on March 9th. If he does take the stand, the reasons for his company's termination will be fair game for cross examination. One also has to wonder if it's in any way connected to the puzzling enigma of the New York Attorney General's alleged involvement in the RIAA's recent Wall Street Journal announcement that it would be reducing its p2p file sharing cases to a trickle."
Related Stories
[+]
Is RIAA's MediaSentry Illegal in Your State? 200 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Is Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG 'investigator' MediaSentry operating illegally in your state?. The Massachusetts State police has already banned the company, and it's been accused of operating without a license in Oregon, Florida, Texas, and New York. Similar charges have now been leveled the organization in Michigan. Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth, in response to a complaint, has confirmed that MediaSentry is not licensed in Michigan, and referred the complainant to the local prosecutor."
[+]
RIAA's SafeNet Caught In a Lie 242 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "For the past 2 years, the RIAA and its attack dog SafeNet (formerly known as MediaSentry) have been trying to avoid disclosure in UMG v. Lindor by telling the judge that MediaSentry is NOT an expert, that it does not use any technical expertise to get the 'evidence', and that it does only 'what any other Kazaa user does'. We have just discovered that in administrative proceedings in Michigan, attacking it for engaging in the business of investigation without a license, MediaSentry has taken the exact opposite position, comparing itself to chemical engineers, surveyors, physicians, geologists, and other expert witnesses who rely on their technical expertise. Today we went public with some of the contradictions. Now let's hope Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth finds out about it."
[+]
RIAA Wants Its $222,000 Verdict Back 203 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA, unhappy with the Court's decision setting aside its $222,000 jury verdict over $23.76 worth of song files, and throwing out the legal theory on which it was based, has made a motion for permission to file an appeal from the Judge's order, in Capitol v. Thomas. Normally, only final judgments are appealable, and appeals are not permissible in federal court from 'interlocutory' orders of that nature."
[+]
RIAA's Request For Appeal Denied In Thomas Case 197 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA's request for permission to appeal from the decision setting aside its $222,000 jury verdict has been denied by District Court Judge Michael J. Davis. In a brief, 6-page decision (PDF) the Judge dismissed the RIAA's arguments that there is a 'substantial ground for a difference of opinion' on the question of law presented, whether the Judge had erred in accepting the RIAA's proposed jury instruction that merely 'making files available' could constitute an infringement of the plaintiffs' distribution rights. He likewise dismissed their argument that granting permission for the appeal would 'materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation,' since (a) depending on the outcome of the trial, plaintiffs might not wish to appeal from the judgment, and (b) no matter how the appeals court rules on the 'making available' issue, the case will still have to continue in the lower court, since even if the RIAA wins on the 'making available' issue, the Court will still have to address the constitutionality of the large jury verdict, which may result in a new trial."
[+]
WSJ Confirms RIAA Fired MediaSentry 158 comments
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...' "
[+]
Appeals Court Stays RIAA Subpoena Vs. Students 266 comments
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The procedures used by the RIAA the past 5 years in suing 'John Does' without their knowing about it have never been subjected to scrutiny by an appeals court, since most of the 'John Does' never learn about the 'ex parte' proceeding until it's too late to do anything about it. That is about to change. In Arista Records v. Does 1-16, a case targeting students at the Albany Campus of the State University of New York, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has decided to put things on hold while it takes a careful look at what transpired in the lower court. The way it came to this is that a few 'John Does' filed a broad-based challenge to a number of the RIAA's procedures, citing the defendant's constitutional rights, the insufficiency of the complaint, the lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants, improper misjoinder of the defendants, and the RIAA's illegal procurement of its 'evidence' through the use of an unlicensed investigator, MediaSentry. The lower court judges gave short shrift to 'John Doe #3,' but he promptly filed an appeal, and asked for a stay of the subpoena and lower court proceedings during the pendency of the appeal. The RIAA opposed the motion, arguing that John Doe's appeal had no chance of success. The Appeals Court disagreed and granted the motion, freezing the subpoena and putting the entire case on hold until the appeal is finally determined. As one commentator said, 'this news has been a long time coming, but is welcomed.'"
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.
So... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's what it seems, yes. This move totally fits in with everything else, including the ISP enforcement stuff.
This is interesting, though, because I think it means they've found a way to force (or at least entice) ISPs to comply with their demands.
Quality for Your Dollar (Score:4, Insightful)
I predict that the ISPs who get smart and offer superior anonymity for their customers, will thrive in 2009 and beyond.
Parent
Re:Quality for Your Dollar (Score:5, Interesting)
That might be true in isolated cases. More likely, customers will acquire superior anonymity on their own. Keep in mind that during all this time the RIAA has won one (1) case (which I believe is under appeal) and meanwhile a million geeks at a million terminals have had all that time to code and test the means to make detection and prevention more difficult. In technical issues, geeks tend to win over suits in the long run, and it seems to me that the suits are lagging far behind this time.
Parent
Re:Quality for Your Dollar (Score:5, Insightful)
...assuming the big ISPs would allow such a thing within the bounds of their natural monoplies...
They may not have any choice. It's possible that the RIAA got a heads-up from the NY AG on plans to pass legislation to force ISPs to become copyright enforcers or otherwise assist Big Media in policing the 'net. We've got both houses of Congress and the Presidency in the Democrats' hands now, and they've had a history of taking large contributions from, and attempting to pass legislation friendly to, Hollywood and the music industry so something like this should be no surprise to anyone. Get ready for DMCA/PIRATE/PRO-IP Act Part Deaux?
Cheers!
Strat
Parent
MediaSentry should get fired like in Futurama... (Score:5, Funny)
...from a cannon, into the Sun!
Re:MediaSentry should get fired like in Futurama.. (Score:4, Funny)
I'd like to put the little bastard in a sack, and toss the sack in a river, and hurl the river into space.
Parent
Re:MediaSentry should get fired like in Futurama.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
The market works. Finally. (Score:5, Funny)
Eventually, companies must come to recognize their liabilities as liabilities, right?
Re:The market works. Finally. (Score:5, Funny)
companies must come to recognize their liabilities as liabilities
not in soviet USA where $700billion checks don't bounce
Parent
Big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
If MediaSentry blinked out of existence tomorrow because of [lawsuit,lack of business,elvis], it wouldn't change anything. It's a company with perhaps fifty grunts, another 20 or so management personnel, and another thirty or so doing support or paralegal. It's a shell company, created by the recording industry for the recording industry. If MediaSentry implodes, they'll just setup another shell company and new personnel. To have any lasting impact, it's not MediaSentry that needs to go away, but the monentary incentive for it to exist in the first place.
Anybody surprised? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm confused, should I love or hate them?
History lessons (Score:5, Insightful)
It looks like the RIAA really are letting go of their epic battlez against the (probably more average than most people admit) consumer, but everyone knew they would have to give up on the litigation eventually. The fact is the RIAA succeeded in getting what they wanted; they made more people aware of the significance in copyright.
They might also have engineered the destruction for themselves, the MPAA and the BSA and SPA and all the other copyright alliances and associations. Now that people are aware of the threat of getting caught, they've improved on encryption, decentralization, legal disclaimers, and just good old fighting back.
This will be another lesson of history, the Trojan invasion taught us to not trust 30 foot horses (just 30 meg software), World War II taught us that it only takes a couple of nuclear explosions to end a war (that was already decided), and this has taught us that you shouldn't underestimate the enemy even when it doesn't involves swords and guns.
Highway Patrol (Score:3, Insightful)
No Doubt Walkaway (Score:5, Insightful)
Now all we need is a disgruntled ex-MediaSentry employee to spill the beans on their entire Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain operation while we start picking apart MS's replacement.
Too early to get happy about it (Score:5, Informative)
For two reasons.
Reason the first, it's an unconfirmed report. Could be as valid as a release date for Duke Nukem Forever.
Reason the second. The RIAA isn't going to give up. If they are ditching MediaSentry that just means they have some other idea that they think will net them better results. What replaces it might be worse. So celebrating at this point would be a lot like the people of Hiroshima in WWII rejoicing that the US has stated they have halted their conventional bombing campaign.
The good news is that maybe the "better idea" referenced above is the RIAA is shifting focus to cooperation with ISPs. Granted, it's another doomed idea but at least this way they won't be sending subpoenas to printers and deaf grandmothers. Hopefully.
Another good thing that may come of it is maybe someone will finally bring suit against MediaSentry for privacy violation and investigating without a license. If the RIAA cuts them loose they won't have the financial backing necessary to defend. And if we're really lucky, they'll get nailed for it. And if we're really really lucky, their employer will be found liable as well. Just because you cut ties with someone doesn't mean that your legal responsibilities are cut as well. IANAL though, so take that with a grain of salt.
Still though it's an interesting development and one I hope turns out to be true.
quick, Watson, the game is up! (Score:3, Insightful)
as long as the mafiaa continues to use illegal investigative techniques, they can't get a clean case to try. that's why they want to try and make the ISPs squealers, try and get out from under the stain.
won't work, we see the shoes behind the curtain clearly now.
In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
Totally new company. Honest. New name to be announced real soon. New. Completely new. Totally different.
Would we lie to you?
Re:In Other News... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Private investigator license (Score:4, Interesting)
Requiring some sort of private investigator's license to perform any sort of "investigation" of computers is a really, really bad idea. This has been implemented in a few states and I don't think it is having the desired outcome.
Read Bando v. Gates - it is all over the Internet [harvard.edu]. It is a very interesting read about someone completely unqualified performing an digital forensic investigation. This is what the "licensing" is supposed to prevent. It also virtually eliminates the possibility of someone being able to perform investigations in multiple states because of the absurd licensing requirements. You see, this is done on a state-by-state basis. Texas may require firearms traning for all licensed investigators while some other state does not. This doesn't help the quality of digital investigations. It only hurts.
I would consider the possibility of someone actually being prosecuted for an unlicensed investigation when they never set foot in the state to be very low. Having their expert witness status rejected is another matter but not one to be taken lightly. If expert witnesses must be licensed, then do not expect to be allowed to testify about your own computer in a licensing-required state.
What this sort of licensing is supposed to do is increase accountability of computer forensic examiners. What it in fact does is restrict the pool of such examiners to a very small group and says nothing about the quality or abilities of those people. Other than their ability to put up with completely unrelated requirements, such as firearms training for a computer investigator. The result of this is certainly going to be that you are not qualified to provide any information about your own computer in any sort of legal matter without such a license. Sure, the license may only be required to perform an investigation when it is a paid service, but that says nothing about expert witness qualification.
Re:Private investigator license (Score:5, Insightful)
The requirement fixes problems were evidence is tainted or misapplied and innocent people look guilty because of it. It's desired outcome is that innocent people aren't being wrongly accused and facing jail terms for stuff they didn't commit.
No, the licensing is supposed to prevent mishandling of evidence and incorrect statements about people. The guy can be a complete idiot and be licenses. The license only means you know how to handle the chain of evidence and how to communicate it properly.
You can testify about your own computers all you want. The licensing happens to matter when your tracking other people and making statements about them. Imagine getting fired because the IT guy saw porn on your computer and it turns out to be because it was infected with something that should have been removed by the AV software that he hasn't updated in 2 years. There has been more then one case of this, one was a school teacher who through an error of the IT department, ended up with an infection that showed pornographic pop ups to children and she was facing 40 years in prison.
The license requirements say nothing about the quality of the forensic investigators. It's sort of like driving, a Drivers license says nothing about someone's ability to drive, just that they knew the rules of the road enough and was able to drive well enough at one time to pass the tests. The Licensing requirements or more for the chain of evidence and how it can be used along with what can or can't be said or done about it. The license is of little difference then a regular PI license in most states, some have a little more laxed rules but it is on the same levels.
I think your expecting the license to be something like an A+ or MCSE certification (which is a joke too) when it isn't. It's more like a fishing license so they can say you know what your limit and size slot is and can find out who you are when they decide to harass you.
Parent
Ad Banner Humor (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ad Banner Humor (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone else get the hilariously ironic "Report Software Piracy" ad banner? Apparently the potential earnings are up to $1,000,000. And I thought it capped out at $100,000 only a year ago...
There are ads on /. ? Strange. I have never seen one.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not bloody likely that... Safenet produces a big chunk of crypto hardware for the government, focusing on Type 1 encryption solutions.
How Safenet got involved with Mediasentry has got to be the weirdest story of the decade IMHO.
Re:Wow. (Score:4, Interesting)
So, has the "content" industry's strategy of enforcement through oppression, FUD, and deception finally developed enough cracks to let the real light in?
I think so, Jane.
Parent