Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media Your Rights Online

WSJ Confirms RIAA Fired MediaSentry 158

Posted by kdawson
from the meet-the-new-boss dept.
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...' "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WSJ Confirms RIAA Fired MediaSentry

Comments Filter:
  • If by fired (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal (1427207) on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:27PM (#26325703)
    If by fired they mean their scam was found out and they got busted for it. Sure why not.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by skaet (841938)

      I've got nothing against the RIAA enforcing copyright for illegally shared media. This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders. What I do have a problem with is their methods such as MediaSentry's dirty little tricks like this, and the targeting of young teenagers and grandparents - which sets no real precedent and doesn't send a message to the real pirates except to say "we're a bunch of arseholes so go ahead and pirate some more."

      If this switch to DtecNet can usher in an age of ethic

      • Re:If by fired (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05, 2009 @12:59AM (#26326303)

        I've got nothing against the RIAA enforcing copyright for illegally shared media. This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders. What I do have a problem with is their methods such as MediaSentry's dirty little tricks like this, and the targeting of young teenagers and grandparents - which sets no real precedent and doesn't send a message to the real pirates except to say "we're a bunch of arseholes so go ahead and pirate some more."

        So, what should they do? Should they subpoena the ISP and find out who the perpetrator is and then drop the case if they person is over or under a certain age? If they did that they would be right back on the front page of Slashdot for age discrimination, and for having selected arbitrary ages as being OK to pirate.

        I'm not going to defend the RIAA's business model, but the type of criticism they get generally smacks of rationalizations. Their is no way for them to defend their media rights, realistically, but people blow way out of proportion the handful of cases that are incorrectly filed as if that negates all of the others.

        I'll likely be modded troll for this, but I'd bet that 99+% of all of the cases even filed by the RIAA (let alone that actual led to decisions or settlements) were against people who were breaking the law and downloading / uploading illegally.

        I don't want to defend the RIAA's methods, but it just seems like everyone who posts against the RIAA would be unwilling to accept ANY form of defensive action by them.

        I don't like the RIAA, I don't like how they price music or run the business, but it isn't for me to dictate to them how they should run their business. And while I do download music illegally, I don't justify it by saying it is cause the RIAA sucks or that they shouldn't be able to defend their intellectual property rights.

        • Re:If by fired (Score:4, Insightful)

          by fwarren (579763) on Monday January 05, 2009 @01:25AM (#26326459) Homepage

          So, what should they do? Should they subpoena the ISP and find out who the perpetrator is and then drop the case if they person is over or under a certain age?

          Lets call it like it is. This has always been about PR. Let those who download music know. If you share music for download...WE WILL FIND YOU.

          While realisticly speaking, you have a better chance of winning a lottery than getting charged by the RIAA. Still the name of the game is image. In the long run. Going after 9 year old girls. Going after people who are seriously handicapped and on a fixed income. Going after old people who are even clueless about if they own a computer. May not be the best way to win the PR war.

          I think their downfall was getting lawyers involved. They started running it like a protection racket. We get an IP address and someone says it was used by you. Pay us $5,000.00, say your a thief, a pirate and promise never download music again...even from iTunes. Then we will go away.

          As a way for the RIAA to cap people for $5,00 weather they can afford it or not. So they can make a little dough. It worked well enough. As a way to stop actual file sharing...it failed. As a way to win the PR war in the public eye on file sharing. They went after two many of the wrong people.

        • by Ascagnel (826800)
          I'm going to go out on a limb, but... I think the RIAA might be better off if they dropped their "Settlement Center." Rather than hanging the threat of a lawsuit, they should actually file the lawsuit before going to the settlement center. Give everyone their day in court, and a chance to say right off the bat that the case is bull. Let a technically experienced judge rule on this. This idea could be extended to the whole filtering business, if it were to ever get written into law (*shudder*). This sh
          • by Shakrai (717556)

            Also, if someone can stick a hole in this, please do.

            Ok:

            Let a technically experienced judge rule on this

            What makes you think someone who spent a lifetime studying and practicing law is going to be "technically experienced" and able to discern the difference between an IP address and an MP3?

            • by conlaw (983784)

              What makes you think someone who spent a lifetime studying and practicing law is going to be "technically experienced" and able to discern the difference between an IP address and an MP3?

              Actually, most attorneys spend their free time doing something other than reading law. Some of us even listen to music and use computers. In fact, I've owned and used computers since Kaypros were called "portable."

            • Because your attorney clearly and patiently explained the relevant facts to him while presenting your case?

              Of course this is the real world and that isn't always how it works, but by and large judges and attorneys aren't the incompetent jackasses they're made out to be on Slashdot.

        • by xeoron (639412)
          IANAL, so correct me if I am wrong: Downloading content is not illegal. What makes an action deemed copyright infringement is by making content available and actually sharing it beyond the extent the law allows.
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by reebmmm (939463)

            You are wrong--sort of.

            First, downloading copyrighted content without permission IS illegal. Downloading, in and of itself, is not. Downloading copyrighted content without permission violates one of exclusive rights of the author: the right to make copies.

            Second, "making content available" is not actually one of the exclusive rights. However, distribution is an exclusive right of the copyright owner. One of the ongoing problems for the RIAA has been making the connection between "making available" and the d

        • If I knew without a doubt that they would not go after people under 18, I would have my three oldest daughters set up as seeders tonight. We'd live in a world where teens seed everything and the rest of us are leechers who pay our teens' internet bills.
      • Re:If by fired (Score:5, Informative)

        by Stoutlimb (143245) on Monday January 05, 2009 @01:16AM (#26326399)

        "This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders."

        I would like to point out to you that usually this is not the case. The music company usually retains the copyright to songs created by the artists they employ.

      • Re:If by fired (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Monday January 05, 2009 @01:41AM (#26326561) Journal

        Actually I have a feeling that while many might look at the death of Mediasentry as a good thing, I think it will end up being a lot worse. Because before you could fight them in court and who knows, if you got lucky you might get some law school or even NYCLawyer to take the case. Now it looks like they are just going to bypass the courts and go straight to the ISPs, which in most places have a monopoly. So I have a feeling if you use BT or any other file sharing tool 3 times they will just get the ISP to bounce you and that is it. After all by going to the ISP you will have to PROVE you didn't do anything wrong, which as most know proving a negative is pretty much impossible. And most ISPs aren't going to do the kind of deep packet investigation to see what you are down/uploading, most will just take the *.A.As word for it. And sadly with so little competition in most of the USA you can be effectively cut off from the Internet thanks to the *.A.As if they manage to get the ISPs to join in(and since most have media services they want to sell you it wouldn't surprise me if they jumped on board).

        And since the net is one of the last great ways we have to speak out and be heard I bet it won't take them long to figure out it makes a pretty effective SLAPP to boot. After all with a private ISP they don't have to PROVE anything, since most TOS gives the ISP a thousand out clauses. What we need is copyright reforms, not more craziness from the media cartels. Sadly with both the dems and repubs bought and sold I just don't see it happening in my lifetime.

        • The business-model of ISPs is to sell internet-access to people. So if someone wants them to disconnect someone there will be a price-tag on this customer including the money spent on acquiring a customer in the first place and the amount of money the ISP expects to earn with this customer.

          As it is a network industry there will be almost nil cost-reduction due to having a customer less (it ought to only effect peering-fees that can be attributed to this specific customer).
          If a customer is not profitable due

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by nabsltd (1313397)

        This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders.

        When the artists are the legal copyright holders, the RIAA won't do anything.

        First, they aren't allowed to, because the artists have not authorized them to act in their name. Second, it's not the RIAA's job to look out for artists...it is their job to look out for the media companies.

        If you check, every major label CD has the copyright assigned to the company that distributed it, and the recording artist actually has no right to distribute those recordings without permission of the record label.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by ILuvRamen (1026668)
      I think it was just their new year's resolution to dump em. If I worked at the RIAA *stops to go throw up just thinking about it* that would certainly be on my list!
  • The Fall Man (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nathan.fulton (1160807) on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:27PM (#26325707) Journal
    ...And all the while the RIAA will be the innocent victim of firms like evil MediaSentry.

    ...And all the while the RIAA will continue to fight the good fight against down-right theft.

    ...And all the while the people will continue to believe every last word of it.
  • by falcon5768 (629591) <Falcon5768@ c o mcast.net> on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:29PM (#26325721) Journal
    ARE they legal investigators in other states? That was one of the whole points with Mediasentry, they where illegally doing what they where doing in a number of states the RIAA had cases in. If this new company does the same shit then guess what, nothing changes and the RIAA is again violating the law.
    • by mpe (36238)
      ARE they legal investigators in other states? That was one of the whole points with Mediasentry, they where illegally doing what they where doing in a number of states the RIAA had cases in. If this new company does the same shit then guess what, nothing changes and the RIAA is again violating the law.

      But did anything happen to the RIAA over this? It's unlikely that a company in Denmark would be a certified PI anywhere in North America too.
  • by scdeimos (632778) on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:30PM (#26325731)
    The /. summary reports:

    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.

    The MSN article reports:

    Mr. Beckerman cites MediaSentry's practice of looking for available songs in people's file-sharing folders, downloading them, and using those downloads in court as evidence of copyright violations.

    Whilst it's still a scummy thing to do, it's not as bad as uploading to peoples' filesharing folders and then taking them to court for copyright violations.

    • by paimin (656338) on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:55PM (#26325885)

      Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jps25 (1286898)

        Has kdawson ever disappointed?

      • by corsec67 (627446) on Monday January 05, 2009 @12:40AM (#26326191) Homepage Journal

        Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

        It depends on your point of view.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by sgladfelter (889576)
          I think you were going for +1 funny (although how you got modded flamebait I don't get), but it really doesn't depend your point of view.

          All that matters is who originated the file transfer, i.e. If I am downloading something, you wouldn't say "The server is uploading something to me." Nor would it make any sense to say "The server is downloading something from me." when I am in fact uploading.
          • by Xenographic (557057) on Monday January 05, 2009 @03:12AM (#26326995) Homepage Journal

            > All that matters is who originated the file transfer, i.e. If I am downloading something, you wouldn't say "The server is uploading something to me." Nor would it make any sense to say "The server is downloading something from me." when I am in fact uploading.

            Actually, I know plenty of people who would say exactly that and think it made sense. I would go so far to say that it's going the way of the "hacker vs. cracker" distinction in that few people appear to care at this point. Best find some new terms, like they did with the white hat/black hat thing.

            I mean, at this point, if you say that crackers broke into your website, people will be on the lookout for someone speaking with a southern drawl...

            • by paimin (656338)
              Nonsense. It's like mixing up "to" and "from". It's not unclear at all, and we don't need new terms.
            • by StikyPad (445176)

              Earlier today I black hatted some files on a private tracker, and now I'm trying to white hat them, at least until my ratio is grey.

        • by Dun Malg (230075)
          c'mon, mods. A classic weasel-phrase from Obi Wan Kenobi is "-1, flamebait"?
      • by Samah (729132)

        Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

        As soon as I read that I looked up at the summary and sure enough, kdawson.

      • Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

        Agreed; the artist of this novel summarization should read his word manual more patiently so he doesn't misconceive his acronyms.

      • by Kleen13 (1006327)
        I know... It sounded like my sister talking about how she uploaded a new program on her pc and got "one of those virus things."
    • by mysidia (191772)

      Whilst it's still a scummy thing to do, it's not as bad as uploading to peoples' filesharing folders and then taking them to court for copyright violations.

      Hrm.. As the RIAA's contractor, uploading the file to a known public file-sharing location without an agreement in place implies unlimited permission for the recipient to share through that folder, granted by the act of uploading.

  • Does this mean... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Does this mean there is a chance (hope) this will open the door for MediaSentry to get his ass sued (in particular for fabricating false evidence.) Will this also open the door for the RIAA to also get their asses handed down in court?

    Shut up. I like to dream.

    • Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by neokushan (932374) on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:38PM (#26325771)

      I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine that the only people with a potential case against MediaSentry would be the RIAA themselves for "misrepresenting" them or something and I very much doubt the RIAA would sue their partners in crime, MediaSentry almost certainly has plenty of dirt on them.

      I'm not sure how Privacy laws work with regards to P2P, but it's probably quite easy to show you willingly shared the contents of your Hard Drive with others, or you'd be able to sue every other P2P user out there who connects to you.

      Then again, I sure as shit aren't a lawyer and in this Crazy, topsy turvy world we live in, anything is possible.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        For false evidence you're probably right. The RIAA would have contracted MediaSentry and used their evidence for DMCA takedowns and court cases. As the RIAA were presenting their evidence they would have most of the responsibility, but corporations rarely get anything other than fines and if they're smart the RIAA would have contracted the responsibility for their evidence to MediaSentry. Any victim would have to deal directly with the RIAA's faulty accusations because MediaSentry were a contractor of the R

      • by dangitman (862676)

        I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine that the only people with a potential case against MediaSentry would be the RIAA themselves

        What about that (completely legitimate) media company that they did a DoS attack on, causing a very real disruption to their business? I'm also pretty confident that MediaSentry has also violated numerous other computer security laws, that would get an individual hacker sent to prison.

  • Ok guys... (Score:5, Funny)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:37PM (#26325767) Journal
    Somebody needs to do a humiliating break-in to the RIAA's new jackbooted flunky and pull out some more email and phone records. It was hilarious when it happened to MediaSentry, I'm sure it'll be even funnier in Danish.

    Now, I have neither the ability nor the intention; but I can dream...
  • They were evil... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wild_quinine (998562) on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:44PM (#26325803) Homepage
    ...but we can assume that they were fired for being incompetent, not for being evil. All this proves is that there is a baseline level of incompetence which is unacceptable even for the RIAA. I wondered how low they'd be able to go.
    • by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <rayNO@SPAMbeckermanlegal.com> on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:49PM (#26325843) Homepage Journal

      there is a baseline level of incompetence which is unacceptable even for the RIAA

      On that I beg to differ. The incompetence was something the RIAA was at all times aware of, and condoned. They didn't care if they got 20,000 or so 'false positives'. This was about creating a climate of terror. They were interested in getting something done cheaply, and it creating widespread fear. As it turns out the only people who ever came to fear the RIAA were the people who were not computer savvy and were not big file sharers.

      And if you think the level of competence at the RIAA is better than MediaSentry's, why don't you take a survey of the record company shareholders and ask them how competent the RIAA was in administering this campaign.

      • by schon (31600) on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:56PM (#26325891)

        They didn't care if they got 20,000 or so 'false positives'

        ... because they still made thousands of dollars from each of those 'false positives' by threatening them with a lawsuit.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Lawsuits are not cheap. As Ray intimated, the RIAA has actually lost money on this litigation campaign. That just the direct effect -- settlements minus legal fees. They were presumably really interested in an indirect effect -- scaring people into not sharing music online. (They were presumably not interested in the indirect effect of making lots of people realize that they're evil jackasses.)

      • Re:They were evil... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Fluffeh (1273756) on Monday January 05, 2009 @02:01AM (#26326687)

        And if you think the level of competence at the RIAA is better than MediaSentry's, why don't you take a survey of the record company shareholders

        I don't know if it's just me getting angrier as I get older, but I find that the level of competence is slipping everywhere and in everything. I only have to look around my office to see around half the people that are less than competent, and it seems that it was eons ago that I got above satisfactory customer service during a transaction of some sort.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by StikyPad (445176)

          I think it's just that our expectations increase as the years go by. Pretty much every company I've ever had a problem with has taken steps to make things right, with the possible exception of Comcast. When we got charged wrong, we get a gift certificate for free pizza. When I called to find out why I wasn't getting some channels in HD (the idiot who signed me up failed to mention that the "HD Package" didn't include the Sunday Ticket channels), they upgraded me for free. (Sure, it should be included in

      • by jimicus (737525)

        On that I beg to differ. The incompetence was something the RIAA was at all times aware of, and condoned. They didn't care if they got 20,000 or so 'false positives'. This was about creating a climate of terror. They were interested in getting something done cheaply, and it creating widespread fear.

        Does that mean you could in theory dob them into the authorities for being terrorists?

      • And if you think the level of competence at the RIAA is better than MediaSentry's, why don't you take a survey of the record company shareholders and ask them how competent the RIAA was in administering this campaign.

        Why would I abrogate my opinion of their competence in favor of a large group? The shareholders have no unique access to information (as a group, no doubt some officers, etc. do). They have no unique education which makes them qualified to render judgement.

        Only two things would differentate s

        • And if you think the level of competence at the RIAA is better than MediaSentry's, why don't you take a survey of the record company shareholders and ask them how competent the RIAA was in administering this campaign.

          Why would I abrogate my opinion of their competence in favor of a large group? The shareholders have no unique access to information (as a group, no doubt some officers, etc. do). They have no unique education which makes them qualified to render judgement.

          I'm not saying the shareholders are any wiser than you or I (Indeed, the fact that they are shareholders in such mismanaged companies might even tend to indicate otherwise.). I'm just saying that (a) they are the group for whose benefit the companies are supposedly being managed; and (b) they have not benefitted.

    • by tftp (111690) on Monday January 05, 2009 @01:14AM (#26326383) Homepage

      ...but we can assume that they were fired for being incompetent, not for being evil.

      We should assume that they were fired for becoming a worn out tool, a liability. In politics the term is "throw them under the bus."

      The reasons for that are obvious - they lied too much, they broke the law several times, they were shown to be incompetent, use unproven, arbitrary methods, and so on. RIAA simply couldn't use them any more, since every witness from MediaSentry would be immediately confronted with their own earlier contradictory statements, and RIAA would lose the case.

  • by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <rayNO@SPAMbeckermanlegal.com> on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:45PM (#26325817) Homepage Journal
    I really wonder what relation this had to the RIAA's big fake 'announcement' last month. I hope the WSJ and other journalists are asking the right questions.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by 1 a bee (817783)
      And how does Murdoch figure in all of this? I wonder. Besides being the new owner of the WSJ, he apparently has his fingers in the music industry also.
    • Any ideas where they go from here? The only thing that strikes me is that they're using a non-US firm. I have to believe that's part of some plot to use international boundaries to keep courts from taking a good look at what, exactly, this firm is doing on the RIAA's behalf.

      Oh, and lest I forget, we should keep reminding people that the RIAA = EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group & Warner Music Group [wikipedia.org]. I'd hate for the labels to evade a little bad press by hiding behind the RIAA name.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        Any ideas where they go from here?

        I don't know. Chapter 11?

        • by Shakrai (717556)

          I don't know. Chapter 11?

          Chapter 11 would imply that they have a business plan waiting in the wings that will make them profitable again. Maybe Chapter 7 would be a better bet for them? ;)

  • DtecNet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by troll8901 (1397145) <troll8901@gmail.com> on Sunday January 04, 2009 @11:52PM (#26325859) Journal

    From their web site [dtecnet.com]:

    "The evidence generated by DtecNet has been used and approved by criminal and civil courts alike across Europe."

    I know it's too early to tell, but assuming if their claims were true...
    If their evidence can satisfy the European courts, which are more protective of the individual (my POV, barring history), then what trouble would they have in the US courts?

    "By only targeting content positively identified as illegal, the system avoids the problems of targeting P2P protocols indiscriminately securing maximum bandwidth for legal traffic."

    Interesting, how would they know - they'll have to download a copy, right? If I record my own karaoke and share it out, does it count?

    Also, won't they fall into the same "couldn't prove defendants had shared their files with anyone other than investigators" situation? (Imagine if they say that my <insert lousy movie here> episode is downloaded 50,000 times!)

    • Re:DtecNet (Score:5, Funny)

      by Nefarious Wheel (628136) on Monday January 05, 2009 @12:08AM (#26325993) Journal

      Also, won't they fall into the same "couldn't prove defendants had shared their files with anyone other than investigators" situation? (Imagine if they say that my episode is downloaded 50,000 times!)

      "Which was, your Honour, the number of downloads we expect the defendant to have made over the term of infringement, three months, via defendant's Internet connection which I believe Your Honour can be shown to be from defendant's laptop using it's built-in fifty-six thousand bit per second (scowls and raises eyebrow significantly at jury) Modulator-Demodulator unit over a known telephone line identified as belonging to ..."

    • by psnyder (1326089)

      If I record my own karaoke and share it out, does it count?

      I believe it does actually, technically, yes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you're the copyright holder, you can karaoke for personal use, but you're not allowed to distribute. You could claim "parody" and "fare use" depending on the situation, but if they deem it to go beyond that, it could be treated as a "cover" of the song. And you must get permission to do a cover. Not to mention the fact that the background music you are singing over is most definitely under copyright.

      But in reality,

  • My guess is (Score:5, Funny)

    by sleeponthemic (1253494) on Monday January 05, 2009 @12:01AM (#26325939) Homepage
    The new company, "Yrtnesaidem Inc" will be much better.
    • by mjwx (966435)

      The new company, "Yrtnesaidem Inc" will be much better.

      My bet is on MediaSentinel or MediaProtector. Coincidentally it will be made up of exactly the same staff members and management.

      It that a man in a Armani suit waving his hand and saying "these aren't the investigators you're looking for"?

  • by pikine (771084) on Monday January 05, 2009 @12:07AM (#26325989) Journal
    RIAA caught lying [slashdot.org] about firing MediaSentry.
  • by Cathoderoytube (1088737) on Monday January 05, 2009 @12:08AM (#26325997)

    So what're the odds of some sort of memo surfacing from a jilted SafeNet from the RIAA saying something to the effect of 'Use any means possible! We have good lawyers! Don't worry about breaking the law! These fools can't fight us, this is America!! And in this country the laws are written by the people with the most money! Namely US! The RIAA, and all our members! Wahahaha!'?
    Aside from the obvious self incrimination I mean.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 05, 2009 @12:23AM (#26326077)

    Just because past experience has shown that the guys at MediaSentry tend to read all the online articles about themselves, I'd like to insert this comment here:

    * Fuck you guys *

    Thanks! That is all.

  • by NZheretic (23872) on Monday January 05, 2009 @12:38AM (#26326183) Homepage Journal
    "In place of MusicSentry, the RIAA says it will use Copenhagen-based DtecNet Software ApS. The music industry had worked with DtecNet previously both in the U.S. and overseas, and liked its technology, said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy."

    So the RIAA is already paying a foreign company to spy on Americans internet usage in the USA? Isn't that in violation of some state or federal privacy/computer intrusion legislation?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So the RIAA is already paying a foreign company to spy on Americans internet usage in the USA? Isn't that in violation of some state or federal privacy/computer intrusion legislation?

      Spying? Looking at the files that SOFTWARE YOU INSTALLED on YOUR COMPUTER makes available to ANYONE on the internet isn't spying.

      The RIAA may be scummy, but this isn't spying.

    • by Splab (574204) on Monday January 05, 2009 @03:43AM (#26327149)

      I think quite a lot of misunderstood what DtecNet does, they are a software provider and can help with technical things during proceedings. They create software for eavesdropping on torrent etc. - the people who is going to use it are very much American.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        They create software for eavesdropping on torrent etc. - the people who is going to use it are very much American.

        DtecNet happens to share offices with the Danish counterpart to RIAA, AntiPiratGruppen, and AFAIK DtecNet is responsible for the entire process of "securing evidence" here.

    • by Xest (935314)

      It's also interesting to see that the RIAA admits it's poking it's nose in abroad.

      Anyone know how this works? Do they have any jurisdiction to bring cases in a foreign country? What if they're sticking their nose in in a country that prohibits them from doing so due to privacy laws etc., can people in that country then sue back?

  • MediaSentry disbands, everyone who worked for MediaSentry* gets a new job in a brand new company called MediaSentinel. RIAA hires MediaSentinel, judges are oblivious.

    *Except for the "blahbob" guy, if he hasn't been fired already.
  • by man_ls (248470)

    I had no idea our friend Mr. Beckerman was such a big deal beyond Slashdot, and the people he represents. Mainly because the general public is so woefully uninformed on matters such as this.

    Kudos!

  • WSJ??? Surely you mean "Netcraft confirms ..."
  • Shocked! (Score:4, Funny)

    by otter42 (190544) on Monday January 05, 2009 @05:41AM (#26327643) Homepage Journal

    Shocked and astonished I am! Scandalous! That a company should do exactly what we pay them to and report to us exactly what they are doing, and that somehow we would still be ignorant of the exact nature of their activities! Those responsible should be fired, obviously!

    Err... why's everyone looking at me like that?

  • the RIAA says it will use Copenhagen-based DtecNet Software ApS

    I thought they were ceasing their litigation campaign?

    • ...Copenhagen-based DtecNet Software ApS

      I thought DtecNet was VMS based. I can't read that company name without wanting to add a "::" suffix...

  • So the heat is on and the RIAA find themselves in a less than desirable position - e.g. their "respondant superior" entity, aka SafeNet was breaking the law by "invading peoples privacy" (by their own admission) . So the RIAA and their members throw SafeNet under the bus and exclaim their amazement as to the unsavory tactics that their "employee" has been conducting. Like they had no clue that this was going on??? Ya Right, that's the ticket.
    Tell it to the judge!

"Turn on, tune up, rock out." -- Billy Gibbons

Working...