RIAA MediaSentry, Dead In US, Is Alive In Australia 305
newtley writes "Disgraced and discredited 'private investigator' MediaSentry, fired by former patrons Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music, and Sony Music and their RIAA, may be dead and buried in America, but it's alive and well, resurfacing in Australia where it's once again plying its trade, probably under new management. 'I currently (but not for long) reside at a student dormitory... in Brisbane, Australia,' says a p2pnet reader, continuing: 'Yesterday I got called into the Managers office because the network manager had been contacted by MediaSentry and emailed one of the generic copyright infringement emails as a result of me downloading Angels and Demons. Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).'"
Not that sympathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
You chose to break the law and were punished for it.
What's the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
Exactly what is the student's complaint?
If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebut the accusation.
Boo hoo.... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).'""
Wah?
I mean come on, you're paying the price for doing what you knew would get in hot water at school. you DID read the acceptable use policy before you signed it right?
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
He choose to break the RIAA rules and got judged in a kangaroo court.
Or was that extortion?
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn, you could at least lose your dormitory for a movie worth watching.
Even worse result:
<RIAA> See? Illegal file sharing is why Angels and Demons did poorly at the box office and got an average rating of 38% [rottentomatoes.com]! It isn't the economy or quality, folks, our formula has never failed therefore it must be the file sharers! </RIAA>
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Oy (Score:3, Insightful)
"Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments "
It seems to me that if you were really concerned about studying, you'd have done it before downloading Angels & Demons.
Yeah right (Score:2, Insightful)
Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009)
Yeah right, that's what I used to say when I was in college too. If you had actually been studying for your exams and working on your final assignments instead of watching movies, you wouldn't be in this situation, would you?
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
They will have plenty of customers left. There are millions of people who are willing to pay money to watch movies; which took a lot of time and money to create.
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really see too much room for debate when the accused states the matter as simply as "...a result of me downloading Angels and Demons". I don't read this and feel that the person is genuinely feeling remorse for what was done, only for getting caught.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah the illegallity of sharing movies is a gros affront to human dignity. Downloading free movies is exactly like what Rosa Parks did. Shithead.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, don't (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, don't do it.
Words to live by.
Stupid replies ignoring the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
As expected, there are a large number of replies by people who didn't even bother to read the summary. (Or, have poor reading comprehension, or even both, I guess.)
The submitter is not the same as the student.
Anyway, the point is, MediaSentry is still "alive", and still sending out automated messages.
Now it seems that the student admitted to downloading the file ("as a result of me downloading Angels and Demons"), which sort of screws over any real complaint they may have had.
Personally, I think it's disgusting that the manager paid any attention to the "generic copyright infringement email" at all. Seriously, if I were in that situation, I would delete the email and forget about it.
I wonder, who is MediaSentry acting for in this situation? Does that company know that MediaSentry is doing this? Do MediaSentry have the right to sue on behalf of that company?
And, is MediaSentry keeping track of these emails and watching for responses?
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly what is the student's complaint?
If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebut the accusation.
I believe his complaint is that, for stealing ~$10 worth of books, he is now being punished by losing his house and possibly an academic year.
Some of us still believe that crime and punishment need to be in balance somehow, and that simply isn't the case here.
let the punishment fit the crime (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
+1 on this sentiment.
He was punished based on an accusation, not on being found guilty.. that's skipping over an incredibly vital step in the justice system.
Really that's only a small step away from how 'justice' was administered during the 'Dark Ages'. I thought we had left that behind us, but apparently having lawyers and money means you don't have to bother with such pesky details anymore. More so because we're not talking of a fine or something small, but of evicting someone!
Oh while we're at it: What if someone accused you of having *something* illegal on your computer, be it a non licensed picture, an bit of software you didn't obtain legally, or some content you've downloaded. Would you be so happy to instantly loose your home without any independent parties being involved in judging what's true and appropriate ?
Punishment does not fit the 'crime' (Score:5, Insightful)
I put crime in quotes, because I believe it's only a civil infraction (although, I don't know much about Australian copyright law). In any case, getting kicked out of a dorm room for one 'count' of copyright infringement seems a little harsh, no? I mean, they could have started by just cutting his Internet access for a couple days or a week or something.
I mean, I really fail to see how it is even *legal* to kick someone out of a dorm room/apartment/etc for copyright infringement. Don't you guys have any tennants' rights laws in Australia?
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
That was the result of a contract he willingly entered into between himself and the university about behaviour. He admits he did as described in the letter, and as a result, the university is asking him to leave the dorms.
Should have considered, perhaps, that they might actually have desired and expected that he adhere to the contract that he as an adult signed.
Admit stuff much? (Score:3, Insightful)
Haven't you learned anything? ..."
Your correct phrase should be: "... me allegedly downloading
Re:let the punishment fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
No, not in this case. If the dorm manager had evicted him for scratching the paint, it's a direct issue betwene the manager and the student. This, on the other hand, is the student bringing issues down on the dorm via legal issues with a third party. It looks like the dorm doesn't want to deal with fighting legal battles that aren't it's problem. The student likely signed an acceptable use policy, and so long as the student admitted fault or there was acceptable level of evidence, there shouldn't be a problem. The only issue would be blindly evicting based on every letter sent to the dorm management. It doesn't look like that's the case given the admission of downloading the film.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true. Likewise, just because laws can be broken doesn't mean that every crime is a protest.
What Ms Parks did was absolutely, positively, NOT in the same league as what this student did.
To claim so diminishes both Civil Rights and the arguments against Intellectual Property.
There are things in the IP realm to protest, but the 'right' to download Angels and Demons is NOT among them.
Re:Boo hoo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
you DID read the acceptable use policy before you signed it right?
He must have missed the part in the AUP where it said dorm management would evict you for violating network policies based on the accusation of a private third party.
Seriously, WTF /. Half the comments are along the lines of "you deserve this." Sure, he was downloading infringing material and violating the AUP - cut off his internet access. But throwing someone out of a dorm?
Hint: what's to stop a creative student who is pissed at someone from spoofing an e-mail from MediaSentry to the management, and having someone else thrown out?
The real ire should be directed at the management for throwing someone out of housing for violating network policies. What next - run an open access point, and you get expelled? Download a song, and your landlord throws you out of your apartment?
Re:A new low (Score:3, Insightful)
They sent an email informing the college as owners of the IP address of the infringement. He admitted to it, and while looking over the agreement for use of his dorm, which almost certainly included a clause along the lines of "not using your ethernet port in your dorm for ...", they decided to terminate his residency.
Stop looking for a way to spin this into "the new lows that RIAA will go to". It ain't.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:1, Insightful)
no just today's mods
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems there's more to it, I suspect.
Due Process (Score:5, Insightful)
"Now instead of studying for my exams and working on my final assignments I must take time to find a place to live before the 29th of May (2009).'""
Wah?
I mean come on, you're paying the price for doing what you knew would get in hot water at school. you DID read the acceptable use policy before you signed it right?
Um ... where's the due process. A third party, which has been discredited in another country and fired by the copyright cartels there because their ability to track offenders has been so abysmal and inaccurate, has made an accusation. One that, based on their track record in the United States, should be taken with a mountain of salt.
Based on that accusation, someone has been evicted from their home at a time when they should be studying for exams. As far as I can tell, there's been no disciplinary due process, no hearings, no opportunities for appeal, just a summary eviction with no opportunity for the student to put their case forward. Maybe s/he is guilty. Maybe his/her roommate is a prick and used his equipment to do something stupid so they wouldn't pay the price. Maybe someone else did it entirely, and spoofed his IP address. Or maybe, like in so many cases in the US that the company had to close their doors, no one in the dorm was involved at all, and they're barking up the wrong tree completely.
Doesn't matter. Summary punishment has been meted out, on the barest of accusations. That is a problem, the student's guilt or innocence not withstanding, and if I were considering sending a kid to university, that's one school I would avoid quite possibly wasting my hard earned money on.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
If he did break the law, he needs to accept the consequences. If he didn't break the law, he should rebut the accusation.
Let me help you understand: the problem is that the consequences are inappropriate to the conduct. Your line of reasoning would have everyone accept whatever consequences are in place, no matter how draconian.
There, now, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that a commons, a public library by and for everyone is a better model for creation and distribution of content than one that is limited by an unnatural monopoly. That everyone stands on the shoulders of giants and no man is an island of information.
The student that got kicked out of their dorm is not Rosa Parks. They are likely not oppressed in their day to day lives, just the victim of an IP scheme that has outlived it's usefulness.
Re:Boo hoo.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it's an analogy, or simile, but that doesn't make it a good one. Sorry, but comparing some kid wanting to watch Angels and Demons for free to a Civil Rights leader taking a stand against legalized overt racism is complete BS.
A better analogy (simile) would be something like :comparing Rosa Parks to file sharers is like comparing apples to tentacle rape.
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Millions of people break the law every day; this particular issue of law, specifically. Copyright infringement. Why do all of those people deserve no punishment at all, while this guy deserves to lose his home?
My issue is not that he should be allowed to do what he did, but that the punishment is:
a) Extremely excessive, even for a habitual, repeat offender. We allow rapists to keep their homes (and even provide them with a new one!); is this worse than rape?
b) Extremely sporatically enforced. Would you support a law that said you stood a one in a million chance of being executed for jaywalking?
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you people know he didn't get due process? How can you even assume that? Considering the fact that he confessed to this on a public website, I'm thinking his conversation with the manager went something like this:
Manager: Hey, kid. I got this letter here from a company called MediaSentry claiming that they traced a download of Angels and Demons to your PC. Is that true?
Kid: Yes.
Manager: GTFO.
That's due process, right there. The kid decided to use his study time to search for, download, and presumably watch a movie which he wasn't entitled to download, and now he's crying because he has to use his study time to find a new place to live.
The only thing newsworthy about this story is the fact that MediaSentry is operating in Australia, the kid who got what he deserved is not the story.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:1, Insightful)
Sorry, not theft.
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
You chose to break the law and were punished for it.
As opposed to the people that break unjust laws and were punished for it?
I mean Aung San Suu Kyi [bbc.co.uk] has my sympathy even though she has indeed broke the "law" of her nation. She's probably going to suffer a long time because it.
I'm not saying that what the file sharer did in anywhere in comparison with what she is trying to accomplish in Burma, but make a blanket statement that because you break a law means you don't get sympathy is foolish indeed.
Hell. Legally, the American Revolutions broke the law when they revolted.
Remember...
Sometimes following a law is not always the right thing to do because sometimes a law is written in an unethical or immoral way.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:1, Insightful)
So in your world no one gets paid for their content. There's a reason not everyone is a content creator...not everyone's good at creating content. If the thing you did best in life (i.e., had the most talent at) was creating content, would you want to get paid for it? If you don't believe professionals that create content should get paid, then get ready to watch YouTube crap the rest of your lives...the truly talented creators will not have the spare time or energy to devote to their creations because they'll be spending all their time and energy in another career in order to survive. World, if you want to go the "commons" route, get ready to lower your standards for creative content.
Re:Boo hoo.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to go all Les Miserables on people but he did steal the loaf of bread and he readily admits it.
If you've read Les Mis, you'll remember that Jean Valjean is thrown in prison for five years after stealing a loaf of bread. I.e., an unreasonable penalty for a crime that he did commit. So yeah, your analogy is more apt than you seem to realize :-)
It's true that we only have his half of the story. On the other hand, I have a really hard time concocting any other side of the story that would warrant throwing someone out of housing for violating network policies. If he came crying to /. about how his network access got cut off, I'd have no sympathy. But being thrown out of housing just doesn't make sense at all.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:1, Insightful)
You're an idiot. There is no argument for freely viewing or downloading IP that cost it's developers hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. Go back to sleep and your dreamworld that's free of any IP. To me it sounds like you disagree with having an economy. Once again you're a fool. It sounds like you live your life in a video game like Second Life - that's how out of touch with reality you are. So in your life I suppose you could take everything for free from culture like you spouted in your post. Flame off.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:3, Insightful)
So you think that movie studios should spend $100+million on a movie and then give it away? They may not be handling the situation well, but that doesn't mean it's right to steal their content.
Re:Not that sympathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
The RIAA didn't demand that he be kicked out of student dorms. His school did that.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:3, Insightful)
So because the system is imperfect and the content creators don't get the bulk of the money, you would support cheating the system so that not even content creators get any of it?
Fine logic there.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:1, Insightful)
So, in your perfect little world, who pays for the creation of the content (a.k.a. IP)? Do the actors work for free? What about the camera men, gaffers, builders, editors, musicians, fx artists, and dozens if not hundreds of other people involved? It doesn't matter if you're talking about a crappy, over priced Hollywood blockbuster or that great little indy flick put together on a shoestring budget. Money is required.
Don't get me wrong, altruism is a great thing, but the truth is this utopia of yours does not work until _everything_ is free. I agree with your statement that, "a commons, a public library by and for everyone is a better model for creation" and I would love to create for the pure pleasure of it. But I need to pay rent, pay to turn on my lights, pay for gas and food and even pay my taxes (yes, I like having functioning public works, clean, drinkable water is a really nice thing!)
The simple fact is someone has to pay the bills. So, my question is, where exactly does this "right to read, listen, watch", something I may have created, come from?
What gives you the right to take freely from other people?
The rights of fair use, to "remix, rebuild, modify, reverse engineer," etc, are something we need to protect with vigilance, but freeloading and stealing shouldn't be tolerated!
That begin said, vigilance is also needed to protect the rights of the student, on the assumption that he didn't do anything wrong and is being wrongfully accused. That, however, is a different issue from your statement above.
Maybe (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should have been studying for your exams & working on your final assignments instead of downloading movies illegally.
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:2, Insightful)
WTF? Hers was a Human Rights Issue. Downloading of a movie is Theft. I may not like the costs to see a movie or listen to music, BUT Its whats funding thousands of jobs. My wife loses hers soon because the Movie Industry is laying off heavily.
Basically Human Rights vs theft. How can you even compare them?
Maybe the Movie and TV industry should start taking paycuts like the rest of us we complain about CEO's taking home far in excess in proportion to their contribution however actors are the same a small select group take home a disproportionate amount along with many fringe benefits. Then to be worse than the CEO's often expect to get paid over and over through royalties not just 1-5 years (as in bonuses) or even 17 years for a patent on something that saves lives, but 90 years.
just a thought imagine if your bricklayer asked to get paid because our using the house you paid him to build
Re:Angels and Demons (Score:3, Insightful)