Has RIAA Fired MediaSentry?

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."

Big deal.

[girlintraining]

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?

[slugtastic]

MediaSentry was in deep pile of shit for a long time. Every news about MediaSentry was about how much they fail. I have no idea how they were able to exist for so long. I dont even need to look far [torrentfreak.com] to find something bad about MediaSentry. Although, come to think of it, MediaSentry helped the pirate community alot by giving a bad name to all the companies that tried to "kill" piracy.

I'm confused, should I love or hate them?

History lessons

[Aphoxema]

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.

No Doubt Walkaway

[Nom du Keyboard]

No doubt the RIAA hopes that when they walk away from MediaSentry that somehow all their problems with them will be left behind. Seldom is life so simple.

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.

Quality for Your Dollar

[mfh]

I predict that the ISPs who get smart and offer superior anonymity for their customers, will thrive in 2009 and beyond.

Re:Big deal.

[Paradise Pete]

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.

No doubt the tools will survive, but it is going to be mighty tricky to have them testify in any current cases, as the dirty laundry will come to light.

quick, Watson, the game is up!

[swschrad]

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.

Re:Quality for Your Dollar

[BlueStrat]

...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

Highway Patrol

[Ohio Calvinist]

I figure if it works for the Highway Patrol, it can work for the RIAA. Their business model is to harass the states consumers (citizens) to achieve the kind of behavior that they want. Which is exactly what the RIAA gets though MediaSentry or any other company they hire to do their dirty work. The reality is that their direct activity stops maybe very very few violators a year per capita; but the fear they create due to the fallout of getting caught does 100 or 1000 fold. The CHP costs California $1.9 billion annually [ca.gov], which funds 11,195 positions, which is 1 trooper for every 3000 or so citizens. (2007 est 36,553,215) so your chances of getting caught are rather slim, but the risk (fines, harassment, taking off work for court) is enough to detur some from speeding, and most from recklessly speeding (20+ over the limit).

That being said, the only two differences I see, is that consumers have a little bit (though not much more than) citizens of a government; and secondly, that public opinion could really harm the recording industry... well, the CHP has guns and everyone already hates them.

That being said, since they've instilled enough fear, and no amount of press is going to convince the technical illiterate that they don't still have that one guy doing his computer voodoo that causes them to figure out who you are and take your house away; there really is no purpose in keeping them around. If the state didn't have the ability to demand taxation, I can sure bet they'd try to find a way to instill the maximum amount of fear for the customer for the least amount of postions they could.

Re:Ad Banner Humor

[Dishevel]

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.

Re:Private investigator license

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point behind the licensing is make sure those investigators follow state laws and are held accountable when they fail to do so. It also prevents you from hiring your friend to stalk your ex-wife.

No state requires PIs to carry a firearm, thats just silly. In fact, most states discourage PIs from carrying. CCWs don't go hand and hand with investigator licenses, they are applied for separately.

Requiring a company like them to be a licensed PI makes total sense. They are investigating private citizens without a search warrant. Half of what they have done violates many state PI laws as it is.

Now, if you are talking about law enforcement .. yes, they are required to have firearms training. Just like they have to have training in arresting, self defense and the laws in general. After all, they do carry a badge.

Re:Private investigator license

[sumdumass]

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.

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.

Read Bando v. Gates - it is all over the Internet. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.