Just in case someone does not know who Media Sentry is, here is a bit from their Wikipedia article (found here [wikipedia.org])
MediaSentry is an American company that provides services to the music recording, motion picture, television, and software industries for locating and identifying IP addresses that are engaged in the use of online networks to share material in a manner said organizations claim is in violation of copyright.
Do they operate outside the US? I've got *loads* of MP3s on my server, all of which are subject to copyright - they're mine, though. If Media Sentry want to come and poke through my server, I'll have them under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 [opsi.gov.uk].
Do they [the RIAA] operate outside the US? I've got *loads* of MP3s on my server
In the UK, they're the BPI. http://www.bpi.co.uk/ [bpi.co.uk] As you can see from their website, they're for "fair" copyright, that is, copyright that lasts a thousand years. Instead of having to sue people, they want your ISP to be their enforcement arm. Cheaper, easier, and if there's any flak, the ISP will be the one who catches it.
Prosecutors would rather send someone to jail for victimless crimes like drug posession than for extortion and racketeering which the RIAA and MPAA regularly engage in.
whereas I derive a lot of pleasure about hearing the **AA and their cronies getting hosed I'm a little confused here.
how is jurisdiction defined in 'net terms? physical address of the "investigator"? physical address of the "guilty" party? location of all the 'net infrastructure? where the summons where served? seems like this is far from evident to me.
can they simply serve a warrant from a location where they are licensed?
They aren't banned in MA, the state police sent the ma cease and desist letter, but I know, here in Boston, kids are still getting sued and I believe that they filed a complaint in court indicating the the state police told them to stop. But as far as I know the RIAA told them to fuck off, because I believe MediaSentry is still up to their old tricks here.
The RIAA seems to be operating without any regard to the actual laws of the country. Doesn't this bother anyone? It isn't a few isolated cases, the RIAA operates as if it IS the law and the government does nothing to stop it, UNLESS the RIAA is challenged.
So much for the land of the free - it is the land of 'Get away with whatever you can, as fast as you can'. Imagine if the general population acted like the RIAA does?
So much for the land of the free - it is the land of 'Get away with whatever you can, as fast as you can'.
They are just following the lead of our Executive Branch. [americanchronicle.com]
Before someone whines "why does everything have to turn into Bush bashing?" Let me say that this is completely relevant. When the most powerful executive of US law regularly shows contempt for the rule of law and gets away with it every time for years, it is only logical that other rich and powerful men would follow suit and begin to treat the law as if it only marginally applies to them.
In theory, the balances and checks in the american system are designed to prevent this sort of abuse at the top. So, in theory, the american system should prevent all problems like this... and in reality, well - you decide if it is working.
The RIAA seems to be operating without any regard to the actual laws of the country. Doesn't this bother anyone?...So much for the land of the free
Nope, not a single person cares. Oh, yeah, except for a few lawyers in new york and most of the forums on the internet, including this one. But other than the thousands and/or millions those represent, nope, it doesn't bother anyone.
As for being the land of the free, this is a complicated legal process. The RIAA literally can't get the identity of the person that they're investigating without filing against them and then forcing the ISP to turn over the records. As despicable as it is, they're not the o
Big corporations think that people are too afraid to seek justice even if law is not on the firm's side. Awareness and cheaper legal services for citizen would help. Corporations surely do not want the customers to be aware of their rights.
RIAA employing companies working illegally. Suing the wrong person. Screwing the artists they are supposed to protect. Screwing the consumers. So what else it new?
In Canada we have the CRIA (Same basic entity) that admitted to collecting more media tax than they were supposed to from customers, and what did they do with this extra money they shouldn't have had? Pocketed it themselves of course. As I understand it, to get money from the CRIA you have to apply to get a portion of it and again, if people don't apply for it, they pocket the money meant for the artists themselves.
Each blank CD, or tape we buy there's a media tax. The money from this goes to the CRIA to distribute to the artists in compensation for people using the blank media for piracy. How the law works here in Canada is when you "buy a CD" you are actually buying a license to that listen to that performance of the song privately. Canadian corporate law is based off of when you pay money, you have to get something in return. This is what makes downloading songs, or transferring them to another media for your own use legal in Canada.
It is legal to download songs in Canada, but it is not legal to download a song and listen to it that you don't have a license to.
>Is Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG 'investigator' MediaSentry operating illegally in your state?.
They do not appear to be licensed in California. A check with the Department of Consumer Affairs [ca.gov] license search does not show a license for MediaSentry. Searching on "Media" shows a delinquent license for Media Center Investigations in Kern County. It is, of course, possible that they are licensed under some other corporate identity.
> Are there any states where they are licensed to investigate?
They are not licensed in any state, according to what I remember from a past article. Your question then becomes: in how many states are licenses required? As well as, in how many states has MediaSentry conducted investigations?
Frankly, I'm going to be disappointed if there aren't any sanctions against them when this is all over. I know that they expunged a few things from their website, but I somehow doubt that they've actually stopped investigating.
AFAIK, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Dakota have no statewide requirement for private investigators to be licensed.
No, Comcast can file a lawsuit as well. Remember, since they send packets out to p2p apps, it is possible MediaSentry is actually communicating with Comcast instead of you. This is the beauty of Comcast impersonating people online, they get to sue too.
Because public investigation affects the public (hence the name). Just as a professional driver (IE: trucks, buses) must have a state issued license to practice their craft for hire, so must a public investigator who is hired. You don't need a license for forensics but you do for investigation because you work in the public and effect the public.
I believe that law is there to provide some parallel of fourth amendment rights in regard to investigation by non-government entities (like MediaSentry). With out this, any one with sufficient funds who disliked you could be constantly investigating you, waiting for you to make any kind of mistake that could be leveraged into a criminal charge. Having licensed investigators allow some standards to be maintained, and rules of conduct to be applied. MediaSentry's conduct is near perfect example of why this law does need to exist to protect individuals from constant investigation.
From a legal perspective if you are helping a company file claims in court saying XYZ action is illegal, you need to have a legal backing for that. If you are not licensed to do so then you can't. It's called expert witness [lectlaw.com] and what the requirements are. This is why not everyone can be an expert witness on some topic just because (and why Daubert hearings [groklaw.net] remove expert witnesses).
Basically unlike a non expert who anything they say is not taken as fact (which is why complaining to a judge on a traffic ticket still gets you guilty if you don't use the proper legal terms such as object, lack of evidence, etc).
This in fact is a huge deal. Also operating illegally when it comes to spying can carry some hefty fines in the US especially when it can be proven (remember they're suing saying they have evidence, so that level of "proof" becomes very easy to show - its like self incrimination but not a kind you can plead 5th amendment on).
Why should someone need a license to investigate something? I have no love for the RIAA, but that law seems to be a much bigger threat to individual freedom than the RIAA itself.
I'm curious, in your political philosophy, is there any activity that should be licensed? Should it be by government or private group? I accept the necessity of licensing driving, practicing medicine, general contracting,plumbing, electrical work, architecture, and many other professions, and I don't see any difference in licensing investigators. We want to make sure they are following best practices so no one gets hurt.
I don't know how it works in the states but over here in the UK, licensing works pretty well for all kinds of businesses.
For example, pubs have to have an license to serve alcohol. Too much trouble around a particular pub and they can lose their license.
Restaurants and cafes need a license to serve food. If the health inspectors find that the hygene standards are not adhered to, they lose their license.
Taxis and private hire cars have to licensed. They can lose their license if they drive unsafely.
I like the fact that if the pub down the road causes trouble on our street it will be closed down, bad restuarants lose their licenses before they give me food poisoning and I can get into a taxi knowing that the driver hasn't been in a whole load of crashes.
The only sensible alternative is for businesses to opt in to voluntary schemes. This does work well for some kinds of business but for some things, especially where people might be endangered, I'm happy that we have mandatory licensing.
So, what does licensing do again? You don't need licenses for any of the prohibitive / punitive actions mentioned. This is the fallacy of licensing. Should a 9 year old have to get a license to serve lemonade on the street corner, as one recent over zealous health inspector declared?
why is this modded flamebait? Truth as flamebait? Slashdot mods amazes me sometimes. Prove me wrong, don't call it flamebait because it hurts your political views. Perhaps it is the nine year old needing a license to sell lemonade? That too is true.
Licensing is a barrier to entry to the market but I think that it is good to have barriers to entry for some markets.
If someone opens a new restaurant, I want them to have to let the relevent authorities know, so they can come and do a hygiene check before they start serving food.
If someone wants to be a taxi driver, I want them to have to be on a list and have an ID tag so that if I have a problem with a driver I can take down their number and complain about them.
I'm not sure why this isn't done more often, but a state can revoke a corporate charter, essentially killing the artificially created entity. I honestly think if that happened more often, investors and board of directors would require better of the employees rather than looking at the bottom line only.
If a corporation is so shady, and despicable, why not revoke the charter? Let the state sell off the assets and keep the revenue.
I don't understand the idea that we can solve all our problems by suing the offenders. Not everyone has the time or money to sue. Businesses know that.
The best alternative is for the people affected to sue. If a restaurant gives enough people food poisoning they will be sued into bankruptcy.
Great, so not only will you have food poisoning (hopefully not fatal), but you will have a judgement against someone that won't pay. That's so useful I hope it never happens.
Here's a basic question, do you know of, or ever heard of, a licensed contractor who didn't know what he was doing?
No, I never have.
I have heard of licensed contractors who deliberately cut corners, making illegal modifications, and subverted the inspection process, but never of one who got a license with no training or proven skills at all.
When these people are caught, they can lose their licenses. Which makes them no longer able to work as a contractor. Which is both a powerful disincentive to break
You're just a troll. Anecdotal evidence does not define something as useless.
I have anecdotal evidence of 99% of buildings not collapsing.
Licensing is there to protect the public. It may not catch the offender right away (I suppose you are proposing Tarot readers for that?) but when they slip up, they are screwed, totally screwed.
My driving license does not say I'm a great driver (even if I did pass with only 2 minors), but it does say if I do anything dangerous, I won't have a license, won't have a car and
Theoretically, licensing means a person has passed a test of some sort. Not everyone knows the reputation of all the people they need to do business with. I don't know that guy down the road. In fact, I don't know any mechanics. Is there any (existing or theoretical) way I can assure myself that a mechanic I pick will be at least marginally competent? Should there be? Or should I just have to take my chances? I'm in a new location, I need a new doctor. Now, the AMA is a private association, not governmental
"but I don't allow just anyone to cut me open. I usually check references and such.
Gee, if only there were some sort of qualified agency to do all the reference checking for me. Maybe they would check the doctor out, and if they pass the checks, and I don't know maybe give them something that proves they were checked out by a qualified agency. Hmm, what could they issue that would prove that? Maybe some sort of license?
"The public doesn't need protecting"
Yes, it does. Read your own signature if you really need to know the reason why.
"Actually, I think there are already laws in place to protect people from these things."
Yes, they are called licensing laws.
"How does one stop a licensed person from being those things?"
By taking away their license if they violate the rules, therby preventing them from doing business.
"Those kinds of people still exist even with licensing."
Look, licensing isn't going to solve every problem. We all know that. But your idea of throwing it out entirely will cause more of the problems you describe. Without licensing, ANYONE can operate any type of business. At least licensing will catch some of the problems. Even with licensing, you can still do all the things you describe - checking references, asking other people what they think, etc. Licensing isn't stopping you from doing any of those things. Your solution is the equivalent of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
No, it is NOT illegal to know. It is illegal to hire yourself out to perform investigations without proper license. Just as it's not illegal to drive, it's just illegal to drive on a public road without a license. And mental states should be criminalized. Because there is a big difference between someone who accidentally kills someone, someone who kills someone in a fit of passion, and someone who deliberately plans and carries out a murder. Society has an interest in protecting its members, and those membe
Why should someone need a license to investigate something? I have no love for the RIAA, but that law seems to be a much bigger threat to individual freedom than the RIAA itself.
Often licenses are issued so that there is some power of somebody, i.e. something you can take away from them, which gives the state the ability to ensure that the person or entity is complying with law. In MediaSentry's case, its sloppy 'investigation' yields (a) more than 50% false positives in terms of identification alone, and (b) in 100% of the cases, no evidence that the individual pursued actually infringed a copyright. If you were being forced to pay someone $4500 to get them not to sue you, for something you hadn't done, I think it would be crystal clear why one needs a license to be an investigator. It's because lawsuits are being based on their work, and people's lives are being destroyed by their work. In such cases, if they had a license, the state would have regulatory authority over them by being able to threaten them with revocation of their license. Absent a license, the state's only authority is to pursue them criminally for having sidestepped the licensing law.
No. Because, you see, if it's illegal, and they break the law, they can be punished for it.
If it's not illegal, but it's just shoddy work, they will continue to do whatever the RIAA requests with no real fear of legal ramifications.
The RIAA is not required to hire good investigators, but they are required to operate by the same code of laws that we do. Which, in this case, means their investigators have to be legally certified to operate in the jurisdictions that they are investigating in.
Please excuse the stupid question, but how, exactly, is MediaSentry conducting their investigations?
It's not a stupid question. Even the RIAA's expert witness doesn't know [blogspot.com]. (See transcript, p. 32, li. 20 - p. 33, li. 6):
20 Q. Do you know what processes and
21 procedures MediaSentry employed?
22 A. I do not know the inner works of
23 MediaSentry processes and procedures.
24 Q. Do you know what software they used?
25 A. No.
2 Q. Do you know if it was well known
3 off-the-shelf software or if it was proprietary
4 software?
5 A. Again, I do not know the inner
6 workings of MediaSentry's operations.
I still don't understand why it should be illegal for them to investigate. You give good reasons why the results of their investigations should not be admitted into court, shouldn't that be enough?
You want a really good reason why private investigators should be licensed? Here it is: A large part of private investigating involves stalking.
Since private investigations are going to happen no matter what, it is good and proper to legalize and regulate the practice. This protects the PIs "hey officer, I'm just doing my job, I'm not stalking these people" and it protects the public from any wackjob who thinks he's the Steven Segal of investigating.
Licensing the practice also allows you to force the investigators to be bonded aka insured. This is also a good thing.
You give good reasons why the results of their investigations should not be admitted into court, shouldn't that be enough?
NewYorkCountryLawyer also gave the reason why it shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place: "If you were being forced to pay someone $4500 to get them not to sue you, for something you hadn't done,". That means they are threatening you before you ever enter a court. It's more of a gamble than many people want to make to stand up to a big company with many lawyers and apparent "
In states where they would, as you say, have to pursue them criminally, would it be just a fine or would someone be incarcerated? Seems to me that an entity like the RIAA would consider a fine to be just another cost of doing business. Could someone actually (I fervently hope) go to prison for this?
According to the letter [ilrweb.com] (pdf) from the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth, it could carry a prison sentence of up to four (4) years.
Explaining RIAA Behavior (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Explaining RIAA Behavior (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
yes (Score:2)
To clarify (Score:5, Informative)
MediaSentry is an American company that provides services to the music recording, motion picture, television, and software industries for locating and identifying IP addresses that are engaged in the use of online networks to share material in a manner said organizations claim is in violation of copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To clarify (Score:5, Interesting)
In the UK, they're the BPI. http://www.bpi.co.uk/ [bpi.co.uk] As you can see from their website, they're for "fair" copyright, that is, copyright that lasts a thousand years. Instead of having to sue people, they want your ISP to be their enforcement arm. Cheaper, easier, and if there's any flak, the ISP will be the one who catches it.
Parent
Prosecuter Doesn't Care (Score:2, Interesting)
hhmmmm. (Score:4, Informative)
how is jurisdiction defined in 'net terms? physical address of the "investigator"? physical address of the "guilty" party? location of all the 'net infrastructure? where the summons where served? seems like this is far from evident to me.
can they simply serve a warrant from a location where they are licensed?
Not banned in MA (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not banned in MA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned? (Score:5, Interesting)
So much for the land of the free - it is the land of 'Get away with whatever you can, as fast as you can'. Imagine if the general population acted like the RIAA does?
Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are just following the lead of our Executive Branch. [americanchronicle.com]
Before someone whines "why does everything have to turn into Bush bashing?" Let me say that this is completely relevant. When the most powerful executive of US law regularly shows contempt for the rule of law and gets away with it every time for years, it is only logical that other rich and powerful men would follow suit and begin to treat the law as if it only marginally applies to them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA seems to be operating without any regard to the actual laws of the country. Doesn't this bother anyone?...So much for the land of the free
Nope, not a single person cares. Oh, yeah, except for a few lawyers in new york and most of the forums on the internet, including this one. But other than the thousands and/or millions those represent, nope, it doesn't bother anyone.
As for being the land of the free, this is a complicated legal process. The RIAA literally can't get the identity of the person that they're investigating without filing against them and then forcing the ISP to turn over the records. As despicable as it is, they're not the o
Americans and their rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA Operating Illegally. Now there's a shock! (Score:4, Informative)
In Canada we have the CRIA (Same basic entity) that admitted to collecting more media tax than they were supposed to from customers, and what did they do with this extra money they shouldn't have had? Pocketed it themselves of course. As I understand it, to get money from the CRIA you have to apply to get a portion of it and again, if people don't apply for it, they pocket the money meant for the artists themselves.
Each blank CD, or tape we buy there's a media tax. The money from this goes to the CRIA to distribute to the artists in compensation for people using the blank media for piracy. How the law works here in Canada is when you "buy a CD" you are actually buying a license to that listen to that performance of the song privately. Canadian corporate law is based off of when you pay money, you have to get something in return. This is what makes downloading songs, or transferring them to another media for your own use legal in Canada.
It is legal to download songs in Canada, but it is not legal to download a song and listen to it that you don't have a license to.
California (Score:3, Informative)
>Is Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG 'investigator' MediaSentry operating illegally in your state?.
They do not appear to be licensed in California. A check with the Department of Consumer Affairs [ca.gov] license search does not show a license for MediaSentry. Searching on "Media" shows a delinquent license for Media Center Investigations in Kern County. It is, of course, possible that they are licensed under some other corporate identity.
Easier question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Easier question (Score:4, Informative)
They are not licensed in any state, according to what I remember from a past article. Your question then becomes: in how many states are licenses required? As well as, in how many states has MediaSentry conducted investigations?
Frankly, I'm going to be disappointed if there aren't any sanctions against them when this is all over. I know that they expunged a few things from their website, but I somehow doubt that they've actually stopped investigating.
Parent
Re:Easier question (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Guilty as charged. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pennsylvania? (Score:4, Interesting)
Small wonder..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's called Impeaching a Witness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment [wikipedia.org]
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically unlike a non expert who anything they say is not taken as fact (which is why complaining to a judge on a traffic ticket still gets you guilty if you don't use the proper legal terms such as object, lack of evidence, etc).
This in fact is a huge deal. Also operating illegally when it comes to spying can carry some hefty fines in the US especially when it can be proven (remember they're suing saying they have evidence, so that level of "proof" becomes very easy to show - its like self incrimination but not a kind you can plead 5th amendment on).
Parent
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, pubs have to have an license to serve alcohol. Too much trouble around a particular pub and they can lose their license.
Restaurants and cafes need a license to serve food. If the health inspectors find that the hygene standards are not adhered to, they lose their license.
Taxis and private hire cars have to licensed. They can lose their license if they drive unsafely.
I like the fact that if the pub down the road causes trouble on our street it will be closed down, bad restuarants lose their licenses before they give me food poisoning and I can get into a taxi knowing that the driver hasn't been in a whole load of crashes.
The only sensible alternative is for businesses to opt in to voluntary schemes. This does work well for some kinds of business but for some things, especially where people might be endangered, I'm happy that we have mandatory licensing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prove me wrong, don't call it flamebait because it hurts your political views. Perhaps it is the nine year old needing a license to sell lemonade? That too is true.
http://damienkatz.net/2005/08/child_labor_ope.html [damienkatz.net]
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/08/03/when_life_hands_you_lemons/ [boston.com]
My basic premise was that licensing was a barrier to entry into the market. The proof is often absurd as it is outrageou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Licensing is a barrier to entry to the market but I think that it is good to have barriers to entry for some markets.
If someone opens a new restaurant, I want them to have to let the relevent authorities know, so they can come and do a hygiene check before they start serving food.
If someone wants to be a taxi driver, I want them to have to be on a list and have an ID tag so that if I have a problem with a driver I can take down their number and complain about them.
If you ju
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If a corporation is so shady, and despicable, why not revoke the charter? Let the state sell off the assets and keep the revenue.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, so not only will you have food poisoning (hopefully not fatal), but you will have a judgement against someone that won't pay. That's so useful I hope it never happens.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I never have.
I have heard of licensed contractors who deliberately cut corners, making illegal modifications, and subverted the inspection process, but never of one who got a license with no training or proven skills at all.
When these people are caught, they can lose their licenses. Which makes them no longer able to work as a contractor. Which is both a powerful disincentive to break
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anecdotal evidence does not define something as useless.
I have anecdotal evidence of 99% of buildings not collapsing.
Licensing is there to protect the public. It may not catch the offender right away (I suppose you are proposing Tarot readers for that?) but when they slip up, they are screwed, totally screwed.
My driving license does not say I'm a great driver (even if I did pass with only 2 minors), but it does say if I do anything dangerous, I won't have a license, won't have a car and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in a new location, I need a new doctor. Now, the AMA is a private association, not governmental
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, if only there were some sort of qualified agency to do all the reference checking for me. Maybe they would check the doctor out, and if they pass the checks, and I don't know maybe give them something that proves they were checked out by a qualified agency. Hmm, what could they issue that would prove that? Maybe some sort of license?
"The public doesn't need protecting"
Yes, it does. Read your own signature if you really need to know the reason why.
"Actually, I think there are already laws in place to protect people from these things."
Yes, they are called licensing laws.
"How does one stop a licensed person from being those things?"
By taking away their license if they violate the rules, therby preventing them from doing business.
"Those kinds of people still exist even with licensing."
Look, licensing isn't going to solve every problem. We all know that. But your idea of throwing it out entirely will cause more of the problems you describe. Without licensing, ANYONE can operate any type of business. At least licensing will catch some of the problems. Even with licensing, you can still do all the things you describe - checking references, asking other people what they think, etc. Licensing isn't stopping you from doing any of those things. Your solution is the equivalent of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's not illegal, but it's just shoddy work, they will continue to do whatever the RIAA requests with no real fear of legal ramifications.
The RIAA is not required to hire good investigators, but they are required to operate by the same code of laws that we do. Which, in this case, means their investigators have to be legally certified to operate in the jurisdictions that they are investigating in.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please excuse the stupid question, but how, exactly, is MediaSentry conducting their investigations?
It's not a stupid question. Even the RIAA's expert witness doesn't know [blogspot.com]. (See transcript, p. 32, li. 20 - p. 33, li. 6):
20 Q. Do you know what processes and
21 procedures MediaSentry employed?
22 A. I do not know the inner works of
23 MediaSentry processes and procedures.
24 Q. Do you know what software they used?
25 A. No.
2 Q. Do you know if it was well known
3 off-the-shelf software or if it was proprietary
4 software?
5 A. Again, I do not know the inner
6 workings of MediaSentry's operations.
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Here it is: A large part of private investigating involves stalking.
Since private investigations are going to happen no matter what, it is good and proper to legalize and regulate the practice. This protects the PIs "hey officer, I'm just doing my job, I'm not stalking these people" and it protects the public from any wackjob who thinks he's the Steven Segal of investigating.
Licensing the practice also allows you to force the investigators to be bonded aka insured.
This is also a good thing.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NewYorkCountryLawyer also gave the reason why it shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place: "If you were being forced to pay someone $4500 to get them not to sue you, for something you hadn't done,". That means they are threatening you before you ever enter a court. It's more of a gamble than many people want to make to stand up to a big company with many lawyers and apparent "
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)