WSJ Confirms RIAA Fired MediaSentry 158
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...' "
Ok guys... (Score:5, Funny)
Now, I have neither the ability nor the intention; but I can dream...
My guess is (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The Fall Man (Score:5, Funny)
Burma Shave
Tomorrow's news headline... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DtecNet (Score:5, Funny)
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 ..."
Just in case, you're reading, MediaSentry (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Awwww. Poor babies (Score:1, Funny)
I would bet even more than that have done no such thing.
Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (Score:5, Funny)
It depends on your point of view.
Well said, sir! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (Score:5, Funny)
> 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...
Re:If by fired (Score:2, Funny)
Shocked! (Score:4, Funny)
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?
Re:Any idea what they're up to? (Score:3, Funny)
Any ideas where they go from here?
I don't know. Chapter 11?