Is RIAA's MediaSentry Illegal in Your State? 200
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Is Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG 'investigator' MediaSentry operating illegally in your state?. The Massachusetts State police has already banned the company, and it's been accused of operating without a license in Oregon, Florida, Texas, and New York. Similar charges have now been leveled the organization in Michigan. Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth, in response to a complaint, has confirmed that MediaSentry is not licensed in Michigan, and referred the complainant to the local prosecutor."
Explaining RIAA Behavior (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Explaining RIAA Behavior (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
yes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify (Score:5, Informative)
MediaSentry is an American company that provides services to the music recording, motion picture, television, and software industries for locating and identifying IP addresses that are engaged in the use of online networks to share material in a manner said organizations claim is in violation of copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:To clarify (Score:5, Interesting)
In the UK, they're the BPI. http://www.bpi.co.uk/ [bpi.co.uk] As you can see from their website, they're for "fair" copyright, that is, copyright that lasts a thousand years. Instead of having to sue people, they want your ISP to be their enforcement arm. Cheaper, easier, and if there's any flak, the ISP will be the one who catches it.
Prosecuter Doesn't Care (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it from your comment that you are an idiot who does not have basic reasoning skills. I don't do drugs myself and would not even if they were legalized. However, I don't consider it any of my business if someone wants to on their own. It's simply none of my concern how someone else wants to live their lives. And crime
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier to get evidence of drug possession; they only have to produce the drug in court. For prostitution they only have to have the cop who poses as a hooker to testify that he or she was solicited. For extortion they have to get the victim's consent, which may be hard to do if the victim is terrified by the attacker, which
hhmmmm. (Score:4, Informative)
how is jurisdiction defined in 'net terms? physical address of the "investigator"? physical address of the "guilty" party? location of all the 'net infrastructure? where the summons where served? seems like this is far from evident to me.
can they simply serve a warrant from a location where they are licensed?
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, YMMV.
Not banned in MA (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not banned in MA (Score:5, Insightful)
So they get a DBO type license (Score:2)
Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned? (Score:5, Interesting)
So much for the land of the free - it is the land of 'Get away with whatever you can, as fast as you can'. Imagine if the general population acted like the RIAA does?
Re:Abuse of Power, Government Sanctioned? (Score:4, Insightful)
They are just following the lead of our Executive Branch. [americanchronicle.com]
Before someone whines "why does everything have to turn into Bush bashing?" Let me say that this is completely relevant. When the most powerful executive of US law regularly shows contempt for the rule of law and gets away with it every time for years, it is only logical that other rich and powerful men would follow suit and begin to treat the law as if it only marginally applies to them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That system doesn't function anymore, ever since we allowed
Re: (Score:2)
Before someone whines "why does everything have to turn into Bush bashing?" Let me say that this is completely relevant. When the most powerful executive of US law regularly shows contempt for the rule of law and gets away with it every time for years, it is only logical that other rich and powerful men would follow suit and begin to treat the law as if it only marginally applies to them.
Anyone that thinks this behavior is started with the Bush administration is deluding themselves at best, and more likely engaging in political demagoguery.
Personally, I can't wait for January, 2009. But those of you that just started paying attention to the antics of the executive branch within the past 7 years need to stop playing computer games and open a history book.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The RIAA seems to be operating without any regard to the actual laws of the country. Doesn't this bother anyone?...So much for the land of the free
Nope, not a single person cares. Oh, yeah, except for a few lawyers in new york and most of the forums on the internet, including this one. But other than the thousands and/or millions those represent, nope, it doesn't bother anyone.
As for being the land of the free, this is a complicated legal process. The RIAA literally can't get the identity of the person that they're investigating without filing against them and then forcing the ISP to turn over the records. As despicable as it is, they're not the o
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, neither of us are moderating
Re: (Score:2)
Money will buy anything in America, including DAs, judges, and politicians. Here, they call bribery "campaign contribution". My ex-wife once had a lawyer who owned a T-shirt (there was a picture in his office of him wearing it) that said "a good lawyer knows the law. A great lawyer knows the judge."
A friend's brother went to federal prison for loaning money to a
Americans and their rights. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
RIAA Operating Illegally. Now there's a shock! (Score:4, Informative)
In Canada we have the CRIA (Same basic entity) that admitted to collecting more media tax than they were supposed to from customers, and what did they do with this extra money they shouldn't have had? Pocketed it themselves of course. As I understand it, to get money from the CRIA you have to apply to get a portion of it and again, if people don't apply for it, they pocket the money meant for the artists themselves.
Each blank CD, or tape we buy there's a media tax. The money from this goes to the CRIA to distribute to the artists in compensation for people using the blank media for piracy. How the law works here in Canada is when you "buy a CD" you are actually buying a license to that listen to that performance of the song privately. Canadian corporate law is based off of when you pay money, you have to get something in return. This is what makes downloading songs, or transferring them to another media for your own use legal in Canada.
It is legal to download songs in Canada, but it is not legal to download a song and listen to it that you don't have a license to.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds bad. Until you realize that this 'tax' basically legalizes downloading (but not using) of this media.
And that is good, because the law only goes after people who play music without the proper license, and not the regular guys on the street.
And this is good, because downloaded music doesn't equal lost sales - and the people who should be paying for music (Broadcast companies, etc) actually DO (in theory).
Also... the law punishes pe
Re: (Score:2)
If the CRIA sues me and they lose, they have to pay not only their own legal fees, but all of my fees. This includes, but is not limited to, my:
1. lawyer's fees.
2. filing costs.
3. lost wages for showing up in court when I could have been at work making money.
4. extra expenses incurred while defending myself.
If they drop the charges against someone who has a defence (like the RIAA does in the states) they still have to
time for class action lawsuit (Score:2)
They are unlawfully scanning our computers looking for files. We give open access to people that want to download them, but if you are going to use that information for any other purpose it considered an invasion of our network. hacking if you will.
Why hasnt any thing been done about that? it is unauthorised computer access.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick is (and std. disclaimers apply, 'cause I ain't a lawyer), that you opened your computer shares for public consumption, so anyone can "scan" those public shares for whatever they like (in reality, they're making a copy and scanning the copy - the only 'scanning' they do is to look through a list of what you have, like everyone else accessing those shares do).
Now if you password-protected the shared directory
Re: (Score:2)
themselves- but they can't comment on or share info about any infringements of anything other than the stuff they have rights for.
And there's some limitations on what is and isn't legit for them to do.
MediaSentry's not allowed to do this on behalf of RIAA and RIAA isn't allowed to do it on behalf of the member labels because they're
not licensed to do so in pretty much all the St
Re: (Score:2)
INO (I'm no lawyer, but I'm not I-ANAL) but I would guess it's for the same reason that Sony's executives weren't incarcerated for their XCP rootkit trojan [wikipedia.org] they placed on music CDs. We are, after all, talking about the same corporation here. The RIAA represents Sony-BMG, who is one of the "Big Four".
They are above the law. The law only applies to the working class and the poor in America.
California (Score:3, Informative)
>Is Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG 'investigator' MediaSentry operating illegally in your state?.
They do not appear to be licensed in California. A check with the Department of Consumer Affairs [ca.gov] license search does not show a license for MediaSentry. Searching on "Media" shows a delinquent license for Media Center Investigations in Kern County. It is, of course, possible that they are licensed under some other corporate identity.
Easier question (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Easier question (Score:4, Informative)
They are not licensed in any state, according to what I remember from a past article. Your question then becomes: in how many states are licenses required? As well as, in how many states has MediaSentry conducted investigations?
Frankly, I'm going to be disappointed if there aren't any sanctions against them when this is all over. I know that they expunged a few things from their website, but I somehow doubt that they've actually stopped investigating.
Re:Easier question (Score:4, Interesting)
Guilty as charged. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like an answer (Score:2)
Maybe They Won't Show Up? (Score:2)
Pennsylvania? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Leveled or levied? (Score:2)
1. To make horizontal, flat, or even: leveled the driveway with a roller; leveled off the hedges with the clippers.
2. To tear down; raze.
3. To knock down with or as if with a blow: The challenger leveled the champion with a mighty uppercut.
4. To place on the same level; equalize.
5. To aim along a horizontal plane: leveled the gun at the target.
6. To direct emphatically or forcefully toward someone: leveled charges of dishonesty.
7. To measure the different el
Regarding RIAA, MPAA, DMCA and all other xxxAs (Score:2)
Dear ...
Rogers Cable (Rogers) has received a notice stating that activities associated with your IP address are infringing copyright in material(s) owned or exclusively licensed by others.
The full notice is appended to this e-mail below.
Under section 4(d) of the Rogers Yahoo! Hi-Speed Internet End User Agreement (EUA) and Acceptable Use Policy (AUP), you are prohibited from using the Rogers Yahoo! Hi-Speed Internet service to engage in illegal activities, including activities that infringe copyright. Copies of our EUA and AUP are available at:
http://na.edit.client.yahoo.com/rogers/show_static?.form=terms&.intl=ca [yahoo.com]
Where there has been a violation of our EUA and/or AUP, including the unauthorized distribution of copyright-protected material, Rogers has the right to take appropriate action against you.
If you have any questions about the attached copyright notice, please contact the sender of the notice using the contact information provided in the notice. Please do not reply to this e-mail.
We trust you will comply with our policies and all applicable laws in using the Rogers Yahoo! Hi-Speed Internet service.
Rogers EUA Management Team Sincerely,
EUA Management Team Rogers Yahoo Hi-Speed Internet
http://na.edit.client.yahoo.com/rogers/show_static?.form=terms [yahoo.com]
Tuesday, March 11, 2008 Rogers Cable Inc. 1 Mount Pleasant Road Toronto, M4Y-2Y5 CA
RE: Unauthorized Distribution of the Copyrighted Motion Picture Entitled Vantage Point
Dear Rogers High-Speed Internet:
We are writing this letter on behalf of Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., ("Columbia Pictures").
As you may know, Columbia Pictures is the owner of copyright and exclusive distribution rights in and to the motion picture entitled Vantage Point.
No one is authorized to perform, exhibit, reproduce, transmit, or otherwise distribute the above-mentioned work without the express written permission of Columbia Pictures, which permission Columbia Pictures has not granted to (the IP address)
We have received information that an individual has utilized the above-referenced IP address at the noted date and time to offer downloads of the above-mentioned work through a "peer-to-peer" service.
The attached documentation specifies the location on your network where the infringement occurred, the number of repeat violations recorded at this specific location, as well as any available identifying information.
The distribution of unauthorized copies of copyrighted motion pictures constitutes copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 106(3). This conduct may also violate the laws of other countries, international law, and/or treaty obligations.
Since you own this IP address, we request that you immediately do the following:
1) Disable access to the individual who has engaged in the conduct described above; and
2) Terminate any and all accounts that this individual has through you.
On behalf of Columbia Pictures, owner of the exclusive rights to the copyrighted material at issue in this notice, we hereby state, pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512, that we have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by Columbia Pictures, its respective agents, or the law.
Also pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we hereby state that we believe the information in this notification is accurate, and, under penalty of perjury, that MediaSentry is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the exclusive rights being infringed as set forth in this notification.
Please contact us at the above listed address or by replying to this email should you have any questions.
We appreciate your assistance and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. In your future correspondence with us, please refer to Case ID XXX.
Your prompt response is requested.
Respectfully,
A Kempe
Enforcement Coordinator
SafeNet, Inc.
-
INFRINGEMENT DETAIL
-
Infringing Work: Vantage Point
First Found: (time)
Last Found: (time)
IP Address: (the IP address)
Protocol: BitTorrent
Torrent InfoHash: (hash)
Containing file(s):
Vantage Point CAM BLaZE (Kingdom-KvCD by BLaZeKVCD).bin (number of bytes)
Rogers Cable Inc. 1 Mount Pleasant Road Toronto, M4Y-2Y5 CA
RE: Unauthorized Distribution of the Copyrighted Motion Picture Entitled Vantage Point
Dear Rogers High-Speed Internet:
We are writing this letter on behalf of Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., ("Columbia Pictures").
As you may know, Columbia Pictures is the owner of copyright and exclusive distribution rights in and to the motion picture entitled Vantage Point.
I don't know, sounds terrible. So I replied:
Dear Sir/Madam, regardless of any activity that may or may not have taken place it is my right to not be subjected to intimidation based on other government's policies. This particular section: "Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17 United States Code Section 512" does not apply to any Canadian citizen especially while the citizen is within Canadian borders when the alleged activity may or may not have taken place. I am not a US citizen.
Sincerely.
Ask for proof and disclosure of method (Score:2)
(a) the item described is indeed a copyrighted item. This includes submitting a checksum of the original under oath (i.e. they don't just checksum yours, which could be difficult if you're on DHCP and hop IP addresses).
(b) the alleged activities uniquely identify your system, and you as user. This includes disclosure of method for purposes of scientific evaluation, no get out
Small wonder..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html [usconstitution.net]
Check out A4
Sheesh!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You still need a license to be a private investigator in a given state and there are other rules about presenting evidence... Then again IANAL
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that what SCO did?
Look how well that worked for them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but I think that if a person is called upon to testify by the prosecution, defense, or one of the parties in a civil case, then "yes". You don't have to be an "expert" in gathering evidence to be able to present evidence and observations. Experts are there to evaluate and interpret. If the evidence has been obtained by illegal means as the article is s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's called Impeaching a Witness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness_impeachment [wikipedia.org]
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically unlike a non expert who anything they say is not taken as fact (which is why complaining to a judge on a traffic ticket still gets you guilty if you don't use the proper legal terms such as object, lack of evidence, etc).
This in fact is a huge deal. Also operating illegally when it comes to spying can carry some hefty fines in the US especially when it can be proven (remember they're suing saying they have evidence, so that level of "proof" becomes very easy to show - its like self incrimination but not a kind you can plead 5th amendment on).
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, pubs have to have an license to serve alcohol. Too much trouble around a particular pub and they can lose their license.
Restaurants and cafes need a license to serve food. If the health inspectors find that the hygene standards are not adhered to, they lose their license.
Taxis and private hire cars have to licensed. They can lose their license if they drive unsafely.
I like the fact that if the pub down the road causes trouble on our street it will be closed down, bad restuarants lose their licenses before they give me food poisoning and I can get into a taxi knowing that the driver hasn't been in a whole load of crashes.
The only sensible alternative is for businesses to opt in to voluntary schemes. This does work well for some kinds of business but for some things, especially where people might be endangered, I'm happy that we have mandatory licensing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Prove me wrong, don't call it flamebait because it hurts your political views. Perhaps it is the nine year old needing a license to sell lemonade? That too is true.
http://damienkatz.net/2005/08/child_labor_ope.html [damienkatz.net]
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/08/03/when_life_hands_you_lemons/ [boston.com]
My basic premise was that licensing was a barrier to entry into the market. The proof is often absurd as it is outrageou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Licensing is a barrier to entry to the market but I think that it is good to have barriers to entry for some markets.
If someone opens a new restaurant, I want them to have to let the relevent authorities know, so they can come and do a hygiene check before they start serving food.
If someone wants to be a taxi driver, I want them to have to be on a list and have an ID tag so that if I have a problem with a driver I can take down their number and complain about them.
If you ju
Re: (Score:2)
To get a strike isn't as clearly defined but it's basically "being excessively negligable". A fight that breaks out in your bar that you take them outside will prevent a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If a corporation is so shady, and despicable, why not revoke the charter? Let the state sell off the assets and keep the revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
The best alternative is for the people affected to sue. If a restaurant gives enough people food poisoning they will be sued into bankruptcy.
Licensing also causes other problems. Until very recently new pubs were refused licenses if the licensing authorities decided there were enough pubs in the area: reducing competition and preventing many who might have run a better pub from putting the existing ones out of business.
The restaur
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, so not only will you have food poisoning (hopefully not fatal), but you will have a judgement against someone that won't pay. That's so useful I hope it never happens.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree that government licensing and regulation of industry is primarily about creating a barrier to entry or taxation. But many industries do need a barrier to entry. Do you really want any Joe Stoner doing surgery on you? The barrier is there to protect the public, not to pr
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about you, but I don't allow just anyone to cut me open. I usually check references and such. The fact that the doctor is licensed means nothing to me.
The public doesn't need protecting, it needs access to information to make informed decisions. Don't punish me for stupid people making stupid choices, like letting "Joe Stoner" operate on them.
"Do you disagree with the basic premise that people need or desire protection from negligent, uns
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm in a new location, I need a new doctor. Now, the AMA is a private association, not governmental
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
Gee, if only there were some sort of qualified agency to do all the reference checking for me. Maybe they would check the doctor out, and if they pass the checks, and I don't know maybe give them something that proves they were checked out by a qualified agency. Hmm, what could they issue that would prove that? Maybe some sort of license?
"The public doesn't need protecting"
Yes, it does. Read your own signature if you really need to know the reason why.
"Actually, I think there are already laws in place to protect people from these things."
Yes, they are called licensing laws.
"How does one stop a licensed person from being those things?"
By taking away their license if they violate the rules, therby preventing them from doing business.
"Those kinds of people still exist even with licensing."
Look, licensing isn't going to solve every problem. We all know that. But your idea of throwing it out entirely will cause more of the problems you describe. Without licensing, ANYONE can operate any type of business. At least licensing will catch some of the problems. Even with licensing, you can still do all the things you describe - checking references, asking other people what they think, etc. Licensing isn't stopping you from doing any of those things. Your solution is the equivalent of throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, I never have.
I have heard of licensed contractors who deliberately cut corners, making illegal modifications, and subverted the inspection process, but never of one who got a license with no training or proven skills at all.
When these people are caught, they can lose their licenses. Which makes them no longer able to work as a contractor. Which is both a powerful disincentive to break
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/06/mit_sues_gehry_citing_leaks_in_300m_complex/ [boston.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anecdotal evidence does not define something as useless.
I have anecdotal evidence of 99% of buildings not collapsing.
Licensing is there to protect the public. It may not catch the offender right away (I suppose you are proposing Tarot readers for that?) but when they slip up, they are screwed, totally screwed.
My driving license does not say I'm a great driver (even if I did pass with only 2 minors), but it does say if I do anything dangerous, I won't have a license, won't have a car and
Re: (Score:2)
But that is beside the point. Finding a single example means nothing. Look around you, there are examples that prove the contrary all around you. In fact, I bet you are in one right now! All I need to site (or is it sight in this case?) my evidence is to look out the window at all the buildings standing. I can see at least 100 from here...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's not illegal, but it's just shoddy work, they will continue to do whatever the RIAA requests with no real fear of legal ramifications.
The RIAA is not required to hire good investigators, but they are required to operate by the same code of laws that we do. Which, in this case, means their investigators have to be legally certified to operate in the jurisdictions that they are investigating in.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please excuse the stupid question, but how, exactly, is MediaSentry conducting their investigations?
It's not a stupid question. Even the RIAA's expert witness doesn't know [blogspot.com]. (See transcript, p. 32, li. 20 - p. 33, li. 6):
20 Q. Do you know what processes and
21 procedures MediaSentry employed?
22 A. I do not know the inner works of
23 MediaSentry processes and procedures.
24 Q. Do you know what software they used?
25 A. No.
2 Q. Do you know if it was well known
3 off-the-shelf software or if it was proprietary
4 software?
5 A. Again, I do not know the inner
6 workings of MediaSentry's operations.
Re:Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Here it is: A large part of private investigating involves stalking.
Since private investigations are going to happen no matter what, it is good and proper to legalize and regulate the practice. This protects the PIs "hey officer, I'm just doing my job, I'm not stalking these people" and it protects the public from any wackjob who thinks he's the Steven Segal of investigating.
Licensing the practice also allows you to force the investigators to be bonded aka insured.
This is also a good thing.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
NewYorkCountryLawyer also gave the reason why it shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place: "If you were being forced to pay someone $4500 to get them not to sue you, for something you hadn't done,". That means they are threatening you before you ever enter a court. It's more of a gamble than many people want to make to stand up to a big company with many lawyers and apparent "
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder: what differentiates MediaSentry's activities from racketeering (or extortion)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Freedom (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
PS: Please keep up the good work.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, we can't generalise, for a large chunk of people thats not true, but forthe majority....
Seriously, everyone's the same... the thing that makes the RIAA worse is that they do it on such a large scale fueled by millions.
That raises a Question... (Score:2)
If enough folks know about this (e.g. I live in Oregon, so say they somehow decide to sue me...), then any relevant case goes 'splat' in a heartbeat, for a minimum of fuss and cost (prolly even cheaper than the "settlement" offered). I'm sure that it wouldn't take too much convincing to show the judge that the RIAA has no
Re: (Score:2)