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...' "
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Bad summary: uploads != downloads (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Does this mean... (Score:1, Interesting)
Shut up. I like to dream.
Re:Does this mean... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
DtecNet (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (Score:3, Interesting)
Has kdawson ever disappointed?
What of the jilted lover? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:If by fired (Score:2, Interesting)
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 ethical copyright enforcement then go for it. Then at least their ego-fuelled air of self-rightousness might provide enough power to pay for the waste of legal fees they keep dumping into this pointless battle.
Re:Does this mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
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 RIAA.
There is good news though as the hysteria around hacking has caused unbalanced laws that say accessing a network resource without permission is illegal. Remember there are some legal opinions of these laws that say running nmap on a server is illegal, so while most Slashdot users would say "if it wasn't password protected don't complain" the law as written is typically much less reasonable and for once this is beneficial to the public.
I think that someone would have a good case against them (whether they have the resources to pursue the matter is another question)
(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)
Re:They were evil... (Score:2, Interesting)
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:The plot thickens.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:They were evil... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Something is Rotten in Demark (Score:5, Interesting)
Am I the only one who wonders about the legal implications of hiring a firm based in Copenhagen? Do they suppose that that will protect them from the consequences of using investigators who are not licensed in the USA? Or do they plan to poison more torrents and release more spoof files rather than suing people?
The only thing I can think of when I read this is that they plan to cheat the system somehow and I can only wonder what they plan to do next...
Not exactly, the copyright is typically _assigned_ (Score:5, Interesting)
> The music company usually retains the copyright
Not exactly, in most cases the artist(s) assign their copyrights to the labels, and this means that soon, starting around 2013, there will be an interesting battle in the Federal courts whether or not the artists can terminate these assignments as stipulated in the 1976 Copyright Act [usc.edu].
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Exactly right (Score:2, Interesting)
You had a good point a year ago. But now ISPs like Comcast are metering services and charging fees to purchase extra gigabytes. If they have customers willing to pay $100 to download 1000 gig per month, the ISPs will be hurting themselves when they let these customers go.
As for dialup:
I have that service for $7 a month, and yes it's a cheap alternative, however the drawback of dialup is that you cannot watch "live" videos at nbc.com or hulu.com, because they don't support speeds slower than ~200 kbit/s. You would have to limit yourself to only bittorrent downloads.
Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (Score:1, Interesting)
******** One of there products?
Digital File Check Released across Europe!
Digital File Check is a simple educational tool that aims to guide computer users, many of whom might be new to the world of online music. DFC helps to show how they, or their families, colleagues and friends, can enjoy music and film legally and responsibly without risking legal action by copyright holders.
Digital File Check helps to remove or block off any of the unwanted âoefile-sharingâ programs commonly used to distribute copyrighted files illegally. It also allows the user to delete copyrighted music and video files from the âoeshared foldersâ of the computer from where they are commonly swapped illegally on the internet.
Digital File Check has been developed in corporation with MPA and IFPI, representing the motion picture and recording industry worldwide. DFC is available online and on CD in countries including Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Poland, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, USA and the UK.
***********************
You have go to be KIDDING ME?!
Re:When it reaches large numbers there will be a b (Score:3, Interesting)
The kind of people the RIAA tends to go after are file share[r]s, people who use a lot of bandwidth.
Actually they do not go after the heavier file sharers, most of whom use BitTorrent, and have been for years. Every single case I've seen has been based on either the Gnutella protocol or the FastTrack protocol. I have never seen a case from the RIAA based on BitTorrent. The kind of people the RIAA has been going after are (a) people who never did any file sharing at all, but have enough money to pay a settlement, and (b) kids who did a modest amount of file sharing. All of which explains why their 'terror' campaign hasn't worked; the people they would like to deter are actually laughing at them.