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...' "
Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:If by fired (Score:5, Informative)
"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:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:If by fired (Score:3, Informative)
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:If by fired (Score:3, Informative)
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 distribution right. Most people tend to agree that "distribution" requires actual distribution (you need to actually send a file to someone). As a matter of proof, the RIAA had lots of evidence of "making available" but a lot less of "actual distribution." So to the extent by "share" you actually mean "distribute" and not just "make available," you are correct that this is ALSO illegal.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)