University of Michigan Student Wants SafeNet Prosecuted 393
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "An anonymous University of Michigan student, targeted by the RIAA as a 'John Doe,' is asking for the RIAA's investigator, SafeNet (formerly MediaSentry), to be prosecuted criminally for a pattern of felonies in Michigan. Known to Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth — the agency regulating private investigators in that state — only as 'Case Number 162983070,' the student has pointed out that the law has been clear in Michigan for years that computer forensics activities of the type practiced by Safenet require an investigator's license. This follows the submissions by other 'John Does' establishing that SafeNet's changing and inconsistent excuses fail to justify its conduct, and that Michigan's legislature and governor have backed the agency's position that an investigator's license was required."
SafeNet/MediaSentry defended their actions by claiming their company simply "records public information available to millions of users. If private investigator licenses were required to do what MediaSentry does, every user on Limewire and other illegal p2p networks would be required to have a license. Indeed, every search engine and Internet user would be required to have a private investigator license if MediaSentry needs one."
p2p != illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they insist on calling p2p itself illegal? Do they actually understand the law at all, or are they relying on public ignorance to keep them justified?
Wait....nevermind...
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Under the common law, it is only possible to sue for defamation of an individual or corporation, not an object or generic group. This is why it is perfectly safe for you to say things like: "Lawyers are all liars and thieves." Saying that about a particular lawyer would be defamatory, if false, but you cannot be sued for the same statement about lawyers as a group. It is only possible to sue for defamation of a generic group if a state has made specific provision for doing so. The only exception that I know of are the food defamation laws that the agricultural industry has persuaded about a dozen states to pass. These which create civil liability for claiming that a perishable food product or commodity is unsafe for human consumption.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless, of course, you're Oprah [wikipedia.org]
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
So long as critical thinking courses are conspicuously absent from public school curricula, people will not understand the concept of logical fallacy.
I recently had the "file-sharing is theft" discussion with a manager i'm on otherwise good terms with, and the guy doesn't understand how fallacious it is to compare this activity to shoplifting.
Trying to convey small but consequential logical differences to the common man is like trying to explain to a creationist why science is not diametrically opposed to their beliefs.
If they worked in the industry it's even harder. The idea that the crusade against file-sharing can conflict with the international declaration of human rights simply doesn't register with them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may have had a hard time explaining why file-sharing isn't theft because the two are pretty close.
It's true that file-sharing involves intangible goods with no loss to the other party. However, in both cases you get something you didn't pay for that belonged (or still belongs!) to someone else. The results for the "thief" are the same even if the means (and their side effects) are drastically different.
But, you know that. And, evidently, most people don't. But, I wouldn't trust those same people to
Re: (Score:2)
Necessary but not sufficient.
Learn the difference.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The only similarity is that at least one party is enriched in both cases.
By that standard, winning a contest and stealing the prize are "pretty close".
Theft: A takes an item from B without B's consent. B has been damaged by the cost to replace the item, A has been enriched
File-sharing of copyrighte
music sharing - almost theft (Score:3, Interesting)
B and C are the same parties, but nice try attempting to portray the **AA as "mean and bad" without appearing to demean the beloved [forbes.com] musicians [digg.com].
Some musicians sell the rights to their creations to others. Some choose to market them themselves. It does not matter — for this argument
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
potential earnings.
I know a few people who are pretty good at guitar. If they go into a bank and ask for a loan, based on their potential earnings, how do you think the bank will react? How about if they put their house down as collateral?
Ask yourself this. If I take a St
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
To most people, theft is taking what you didn't pay for. That's exactly what file sharing someone else's IP is - you have something you didn't pay for, even if nobody else "lost" it as a consequence. That's how they're "pretty close", even though the presence of intangible, non-rival goods is significant.
dirty air thieves (people who live), dastardly noise thieves (people with ears), horrific light thieves (photographers)
if you don't pay for it it's a sin, viva extremist capitalism!
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem with analogies. People don't know how far to take them. When people fight with dueling analogies, at best they could hope to do is find some midpoint determined by the relative artistic appeals of the analogies. Since that midpoint is not chosen in any way according the actual issue at hand, it's about as arbitrary as flipping a coin.
If we remove ALL the figurative language here, what we are talking about here are the following questions:
(1) Does making a copyrighted work available for somebody else to copy fall into any category of activities that the copyright holders have an exclusive right to do under the law? (Noting exceptions to each category in the law, of course)
(2) If the activity is an infringement, does it damage the interests of the copyright holder established by the law?
(3) If an infringing activity damages the copyright holder's interests, can (or should) we put a monetary value on that damage?
It seems to me that these are the relevant questions. All the figurative language, even the term "intellectual property" itself, only confuses the issue and invites an overly emotional response where a little cool judgment would suffice.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's funny is that an artist's work is his property, but my work is my boss' property.
Seriously, the elephant in the room here is that copyright as it exists now is grossly unfair, with copyright terms expanding 50 years or so beyond the life of the copyright holder. Why do you need to be paid for your artistic creation after you're dead? There is a fundamental injustice at the heart of copyright law in America. This matters, you know. It isn't enough to say that unjust laws are laws, and must be obeyed
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
To most people, theft is taking what you didn't pay for.
You're right about "to most people"... However, that just means that those most people need to be educated...
From good ol' wikipedia:
In English law, theft was codified into a statutory offence in the Theft Act 1968 which defines it as:
"A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it". (Section 1)
Hence, permanently depriving the "other" of the item being stolen is a key component in defining theft.
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
the mintuiae are quite relevant.
one is morally reprehensible because it denies people property.
the other is not because only a "potential sale" is lost.
Under that level of reasoning, we should call competition theft too.
Theft is to copyright infringement what "nigger" is to african american. It's a slur designed specifically to denigrate the practice and those who engage in it.
We don't call people on anti-depressants "druggies".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But being illegal, doesn't make them the same thing - and very specifically all the people who insist 'piracy is theft' are entirely incorrect. It's no more theft than it is murder.
We grade our legal system, because we do recognise there's a difference between killing someone, sexually assaulting his children and then burning his house to the ground, and freeloading off his wireless broadband.
It's a question o
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't see file sharing as "taking" anything though - and that's a sentiment that is common far beyond computer geekdom. I'm the only Slashdot/computer nerd type that I know of. My other friends are more the drinking/partying/fantasy football type crowd that uses a computer for stuff like Myspace and the like but not seriously. HOWEVER, they all grab music off of some P2P service or another. The thing is, they know people get sued for it, but they don't really understand why. To them music is free anyways, so who would pay?
This attitude stems from the fact, I think, that music HAS been free for God knows how long on the radio. It might not come on exactly when you want it to, but you've always been able to listen to your fill of the latest one hit wonder simply by tuning in each day. If if you felt like it you could pop in a cassette and record those songs. Sure you could always buy the CD, but that was seen as just a way to get a "good copy" of it. The music was still seen as freely available in some form or another.
The same is true for TV shows. They come on every week and nobody pays to watch them. They are paid for by the commercials, but the average person, at doesn't understand that. They just see that TV shows are free to watch. Even most movies eventually make it to the major networks. When I was really young my family was pretty poor (my father managed to work hard and improve our situation by the time I was 10 or 12, but prior to that we were pretty bad off), and the only exposure I had to movies at all was whatever come on the local broadcast networks - and I saw a TON of movies. I remember seeing the entire Star Wars trilogy on broadcast television. We didn't have a VCR yet (early to mid 80's here) so there wasn't even a means TO buy a movie. Movies to me were free things that came on the TV.
So, what you have with those are two industries that have created an entire empire BASED on giving their stuff away anyways. Now when they come in and try to explain that "yeah the music is free on the radio, but it's not free on the internet", no normal person understands that. And hence you get the enormous numbers of file sharers on the net today. They're not hurting anyone directly (because they're not depriving of physical property) and they're merely shifting a behavior that they perceive as normal into a higher tech area.
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Again - your average person doesn't understand that nor care. They download a song to listen to.
Put it this way - that damned Kid Rock "Sweet Home Alabama" rip-off for a while there was playing almost constantly. I was driving home from a nearby town after dinner and in that 30 minute drive it came on once on one station, I turned it to another station (because I hate that song), it then came onto the station that I had switched to, so I switched BACK, and right before I got home it started playing AGAIN on the original station I had it one. They played that song TWICE within 30 minutes.
Now, lets thing about your average American. The type of person who just doesn't give a damn about copyright law or it's semantics. The analogies and such are not going to change the fact that a major company will sue them for downloading a songs that you can barely turn on the radio without hearing multiple times per hour for free (and legally).
With my own weird-assed analogy: you're in a room in a hotel. There is a TV screen on the wall showing ads, but every 5 minutes a waitress runs in throwing free food and goodies at you. A sandwich this time, next a steak, now some popcorn, now sushi, oops, another sandwich. Day in, day out, they give you all the food you want. You can't really order what you want specifically (you hate the spinach dip they sometimes bring), but it's constant food being delivered free. Unbeknown to the rest of the world, this hotel happens to have a Star Trek style replicator in the basement and can effectively make all the food they want for practically nothing. Now, assume that you need to run to the bathroom down the hall. There's a big table outside your room full of fried chicken. A lot of other guys are grabbing a piece as they walk by. Some even offering to share. You figure "what the hell" and grab a wing. The same waitress that has been shoveling food into your mouth forever (including identical style fried chicken) rounds the corner and exclaims "Oh. My. God!!! Call the cops! This bastard just stole a chicken wing!!!!!".
I'm guessing that they dude would be pretty perplexed. He gets chicken wings at least 3 times a day from them and never has to pay. Why the heck were they blowing a gasket of an extra one that wasn't costing them anything anyways?
The modern media consumer has effectively been thrown into a similar situation. They have gotten tons, and tons of media for free for as long as they can remember, and it makes no sense to them that it should suddenly cost money when it's not even involving anyone but another party willing to share with them.
You have it backwards (Score:3, Insightful)
To most people, theft is taking what you didn't pay for. That's exactly what file sharing someone else's IP is - you have something you didn't pay for, even if nobody else "lost" it as a consequence.
No, I don't think that's true. To most people, theft is taking something away from its rightful owner: the fact that someone "lost" it isn't just an irrelevant detail, it's the most important part.
Go ahead, ask someone, or just try a thought experiment. Suppose your neighbor told you they saw someone "stealing" your car, but then you looked in the driveway and your car was still there. The neighbor explained that it was a new kind of "theft" that doesn't cause you to lose the "stolen" item.
Would you feel ro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First, it looks like there was an HTML problem with your comment, so I don't know what the subject of your analogy is supposed to be. Let's call it a widget.
You plan to bring [the widget] to market and use the proceeds to provide for you and your family - keep a roof over their heads, food on the table, clothes on their back, education, etc... You look, but your [widget] is still there. The neighbor explains that it was a new kind of "theft" that doesn't cause you to lose the "stolen" item. As he's saying this your neighbor is walking back into his house carrying a brand new [widget] under his arm. [...] Would you feel robbed?
No, I wouldn't feel robbed, and I don't think many people would. In your analogy, just like in mine, nothing has been lost: I still have everything after this supposed "theft" that I had before it.
I might feel disappointed or upset that my plans to sell widgets wouldn't come to pass, certainly. But not everything that makes a person disappointed or upse
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure critical thinking courses would help a whole lot.
why wouldn't they.
Even the worst of students still absorb about 50% of the course material.
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the student that absorbed only 50% of our material that's running the country now. What point were you trying to make?
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
There are 6 "rights" included in a "copyright". They are enumerated in 17 USC 106 [findlaw.com]. You will not find any mention there of 'sharing', and the 'distributing' mentioned there is narrowly defined.
There is no prohibition against 'sharing' copyrighted material, and there are hundreds of ways of 'sharing' copyrighted materials which do not infringe a copyright owner's rights.
So if you want to play this game, my advice is to develop some premises that are real, rather than fallacious, to start out with.
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopefully the courts will serve as a more captive audience and hear the whole thing out soundly.
(I'm not a lawyer, a mathematician, or a philosopher, and should probably just clam up now.)
"Theft" is a slur in this case. (Score:5, Interesting)
I've mentioned it elsewhere in this thread, but the ubiquitous use of the word "theft" in the context of p2p file-sharing is a slur, not unlike the use of the "n word" in reference to african americans.
It is used to denigrate the practice and practicers of p2p file-sharing (more often than not no matter what the material shared is).
Is there not some basis for a suit in that?
I would imagine there must be a legal reason why more partisan news sources don't use the term "towel head" in reference to people of arabic descent or "kike" in reference to people of jewish descent.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the n-word is more likely to have come from the french version of the same word for black "Niger" (pronounced Nie-jer with the long I and soft G). I'm not saying the n-word (nigger) is the same word, but negro is.
There are several reasons for this, for instance, the King James bible uses the term in acts 13-1 to denote that Simeon was called that. But probably the most real reasons for it's usage is because of the Niger river and the territories in Africa (they bear that name to this date). But du
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
*ahem* Pay attention to the language. "Reproducing" does not mean "copy". Furthermore, by "making available" via P2P, you are not "reproducing" - the person downloading is doing the copying.
Futhermore, the punitive penalties the RIAA go for are around the distribution angle. There is nothing in there about giving away for free - yes, you can't re-sell or otherwise transfer ownership, but there's nothing about giving it away (especially if the other person makes the copy); there's an inbuilt assumption that copying & distribution is expensive, and therefore nobody would do it for free.
This is one of the reasons copyright law needs to be reconsidered in an era of digital content, and that laws designed to protect book publishers in the 18th century may not quite be appropriate now.
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
No offense to you in particular, but the fact that you got modded +5 Insightful shows the lack of understanding of copyright in general by the Slashdot community. TheVelvetFlamebait's post above nails the real issue.
laws designed to protect book publishers in the 18th century may not quite be appropriate now.
Like TheVelvetFlamebait alludes to, the law was not designed to protect book publishers. It was designed to protect book writers. The fact that the RIAA is using the law to protect itself is an abuse of that law, but copyright was designed to protect creators of artistic works that could easily be reproduced.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that with the printing press copying was expensive (you had to overcome the initial cost somehow), and copiers had to recover the cost. That means: copying was (nearly everytime) a business, and the number of people who had the means to engage in copying was limited.
Thus copyright was a win-win situation for everyone: printers were paying for copyrights to have something to print and sell legally, writers had an incentive to write stuff for the printing presses, readers got more and more stuf
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, you're arguing with a copyright lawyer. That might not be such a good idea.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
File sharing is legal everywhere. Copyright infringement is not. Please don't muddy the waters further.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are implying (well, stating outright) the RIAA cases are illogical, and I disagree. I think they can be certainly logical, if you understand the premises from which they arise.
I agree that the original poster needs to get his premises right (and as a rule that's where a law school education helps, in my experience) but once he does that, there is not necessarily a problem.
For example, class action torts; lay-people often find it immensely discouraging that a class action lawsuit which may give rise to a
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are implying (well, stating outright) the RIAA cases are illogical, and I disagree.
1. Yes I stated. I never imply.
2. Yes I stated they are illogical. I was not speaking as a businessman, but as a lawyer. They are illogical because they are not based on sound legal theory or on evidence that the defendant infringed any of plaintiffs' rights. I don't see anything in your post which disputes that.
3. As to whether the suits are logical from a business perspective, I will leave that to the marketplace, which does [blogspot.com] not [blogspot.com] seem [blogspot.com] to think [blogspot.com] so [blogspot.com].
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Informative)
Our company runs LegalTorrents.com - completely legal P2P distribution as a service to Content Creators.
Anyone who falsely claims the P2P = illegal, you can simply send them a link to our site as a counter example. Oh yeah, and Jamendo, and BitTorrent, and many, many others.
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
I may not speak for everyone, but I'm sure I speak for a fair percentage when I say thank you for proving that a protocol is a protocol, and not some piracy lane. Piracy can happen from HTTP to P2P to Torrent to FTP to Newsgroups to E-Mail, and all of those are at the most basic level peer to peer to begin with. Yes, there are middlemen in the way, but it's still basically one person networking to another through various connections, social, digital, or otherwise. To single out a specific protocol made for information transfer as a lane of information piracy when all protocols are designed for the transfer of information is asinine.
Re:p2p != illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
or are they relying on public ignorance to keep them justified?
You must be new here (that is, to the US....)
And no, I'm not trying to be funny. If you've been following the current election cycle, especially this past week, you should be well aware that this is a perfectly viable strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Blizzard should sue them, for claiming the method it uses to update World of Warcraft without suffering crippling bandwidth costs is illegal.
Weasel-worded bullsh!t (Score:5, Insightful)
"SafeNet/MediaSentry defended their actions by claiming their company simply "records public information available to millions of users. If private investigator licenses were required to do what MediaSentry does, every user on Limewire and other illegal p2p networks..."
Limewire is illegal? What other "p2p networks" are illegal? Good to see that the judicial system is finally wising up to those weasel-worded bastards.
Re:Weasel-worded bullsh!t (Score:5, Funny)
Bush is trying to fix that.
Re:Weasel-worded bullsh!t (Score:4, Insightful)
MediaSentry absolutely doesn't want to be an expert witness. As an expert witness they & their methods are subject to cross examination. They've been dancing this dance since day 1. They aren't private investigators, because then they could be regulated, have oversight, etc. They aren't expert witnesses because then their methodologies would have to be displayed & would be eligible for review. They want to play both roles without having to be subject to the rules governing either side.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
MediaSentry absolutely doesn't want to be an expert witness. As an expert witness they & their methods are subject to cross examination. They've been dancing this dance since day 1. They aren't private investigators, because then they could be regulated, have oversight, etc. They aren't expert witnesses because then their methodologies would have to be displayed & would be eligible for review. They want to play both roles without having to be subject to the rules governing either side.
Thank you, tinkerghost, for reminding people of that. They have argued strenuously in UMG v. Lindor that they are not expert witnesses, in order to avoid having to provide expert witness disclosure. And in the 3 pending Michigan investigations, they have argued,equally strenuously, that the are expert witnesses, in order to avoid having to comply with the licensing statute for investigators.
So what are they really?
Professional liars.
Is any license required for that? No, just the willingness to go to jail
Disingenious defense (Score:5, Informative)
What a bunch of cocks. Don't they understand that it's the combination of collecting the information and presenting it in court that is the issue here?
Gotta take SafeNet's Side on this one (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate this notion where ya can't do squat without some license from the government. So on purely libertarian grounds I'm forced to take SafeNet's side. Yes there are some legitimate chain of evidence issues involved, as other posters note, but basic liberties have to trump that. Evidence collected by a licensed & bonded investigator should be given extra consideration in court perhaps but ANYBODY should be able to collect evidence of criminal activity from the public Internet and should be able to t
Re:Gotta take SafeNet's Side on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
IANAL, but AFAIK, anybody can collect that type of evidence already and testify in court, provided that they are doing it as private citizens doing it in the interest of Justice. What Media-Sentry is doing is different: they are acting as paid agents of the RIAA, investigating on their behalf and charging money for it, without the proper licenses. It's the same as with home renovation; you don't need any type of license to renovate your own home, but you do if you act as a contractor, doing it on other people's property and receiving payment for your work.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate this notion where ya can't do squat without some license from the government.
Live by the law, die by the law.
Copyright is purely a government-granted legal fiction. I would have thought that by the MAFIAA would have bought a law that says you don't need a PI license to collect evidence for cases regarding copyright infringement. Hell, I'm surprised they haven't bought a law that relaxes requirements regarding the chain of evidence for copyright infringement cases because they are just so hard to win otherwise...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone can testify in a court of law so long as they have some assured credibility. If they "were there", that is credible (eye witness). Otherwise, they should have to be an expert witness with some sort of credentials - something to lose if they are bullshitting. They are CLAIMING to be expert witnesses, and at the EXACT same time (in a different concurrent suit) claiming they do not have the responsibilities of an expert.
~nog_lorp
Re:Gotta take SafeNet's Side on this one (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm a big freakin libertarian too, but the fact is that without licensing what you get is exactly this situation: jokesters who lie through their teeth and get away with it.
Doing it for hire (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd lean towards your opinion, except for one thing: There are a multitude of things you can do on your own behalf, but once you want to sell your services, it's different. [see: prostitution]
Electricians, cosmetologists, lawyers all do things that you could many times do yourself. But if you want to sell yourself as an expert to others, there are licensing and other rules.
While SafeNet might only be using public information, but who's to say they aren't also illegally tapping into information they aren't supposed to? If they were licensed P.I.'s their licence would be at risk if they violated the rules. Risk of their professional license is another way to keep them straight, for things that criminal and civil law don't cover.
Re:Gotta take SafeNet's Side on this one (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice to see fallacious arguments still garner mod points. What you're suggesting is a false dilemma.
In this case they are engaged in spying on third parties without their knowledge and doing so for a price. They are collecting information which requires an education and training and using that as sole support for a civil case. And have not been proven to do so in a manner which is in accordance with the laws of the state of Michigan.
That's completely different than when a person sees a car accident and is later called to testify.
Following your logic, I should be allowed to open my own lab to examine DNA to solve murders without involving the police.
Re:Gotta take SafeNet's Side on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes! Just the other day, I wanted to take some kid's appendix out. But, the damn Nanny State government said I actually needed to have a medical license! What kind of fascist dictatorship are we living in, anyway?
Re:Gotta take SafeNet's Side on this one (Score:4)
I know you were attempting to be sarcastic, but I wouldn't have any problem with that provided you didn't commit fraud by claiming medical credentials you don't have. If the kid's legal guardians want you to do the surgery despite your lack of formal approval by the state I see no reason to interfere.
Medical regulations, including licensing, are no more beneficial than any other kind of regulation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you were attempting to be sarcastic, but I wouldn't have any problem with that provided you didn't commit fraud by claiming medical credentials you don't have.
Licenses are creditionals.
If the kid's legal guardians want you to do the surgery despite your lack of formal approval by the state I see no reason to interfere.
Does that hold true even if that kid were you?
But of course... (Score:2)
There's that minor difference between recording that information for simple personal use and recording in for use as evidence in a court of law. Otherwise, there would be no need for PI licenses since, after all, a PI is only recording publicly available information like where you go and what you say.
But of course we all already knew this...
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see... (Score:5, Interesting)
On one side we have a massive industry with an unlimited supply of lawyers (and public officials) and on the other side we have somebody who's obviously right.
Let's see which way this one swings.
[Although the phrase "Michigan's legislature and governor have backed the agency's position that an investigator's license was required" does make me cautiously optimistic - Let's get this one right, Michigan!]
If defense is true, their "evidence" inadmissible (Score:2)
If their defense is true, their "evidence" should be inadmissible, since publicly available information cannot be used to trace it to an actual person.
we all need licenses? Ha... (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta love that: "If we need a license, everyone that uses Limewire needs a license." Sorry, but the rest of the world isn't hired by the RIAA specifically to start legal proceedings based on the data they are collecting. There is a difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Compelling case... (Score:2)
Nobody likes MediaSentry but they do make a compelling case. If you require a PI license in order to simply view logs of connections to your machine and to contact the people referenced in those logs then the law would be extended to a lot of other things.
If I not mistaken I thought the line between requiring a PI license and not is simply where the information exists... If you are using third parties or other people's hardware then a PI license if clearly warranted.
But on the other hand if all the informat
Re:Compelling case... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody likes MediaSentry but they do make a compelling case. If you require a PI license in order to simply view logs of connections to your machine and to contact the people referenced in those logs then the law would be extended to a lot of other things.
If I not mistaken I thought the line between requiring a PI license and not is simply where the information exists... If you are using third parties or other people's hardware then a PI license if clearly warranted.
But on the other hand if all the information you're using is in-house then the license is simply not warranted or helpful.
I don't think it would serve the public good at all to require a PI license, particularly if all Network/System Administrators ended up requiring one.
It also wouldn't stop SafeNet/MediaSentry from operating the way they currently do.
It also, ostensibly, involves the chain of custody of evidence.
Let's see what happens.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's see what happens.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Two questions, Mr. Beckerman:
First, is there some court proceeding in progress which is likely to require one of the crooks to testify under oath?
Second, assuming they do take the fifth, and the "evidence" upon which all of the cases are based is wiped out, won't SafeNet just hire some people with investigator's licenses to continue the farce? Or is there some reason that a legitimate, licensed investigator would refuse to participate?
Interesting stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, hopefully the filings by Case Number 162983070 will lead to them being tried for the felonies they have committed. Their testimony is not needed, the burden of proof can be easily satisfied using public records of the cases in which they have provided evidence.
Re:Let's see what happens.... (Score:5, Informative)
Two questions, Mr. Beckerman: First, is there some court proceeding in progress which is likely to require one of the crooks to testify under oath?
There are many. In UMG v. Lindor [blogspot.com] we had noticed MediaSentry's deposition, and were awaiting rulings on our document subpoena from the Magistrate Judge, when the RIAA made a motion to drop their case. However, the case is pending at this time. There are plenty of other cases in which MediaSentry's deposition can and should be taken. E.g., Andersen v. Atlantic [blogspot.com], Atlantic v. Boyer [blogspot.com], Elektra v. Torres [blogspot.com], Arista v. Does 1-27 [blogspot.com], Arista v. Does 1-17 [blogspot.com], LaFace v. Does 1-5 [blogspot.com], to name a few.
Second, assuming they do take the fifth, and the "evidence" upon which all of the cases are based is wiped out, won't SafeNet just hire some people with investigator's licenses to continue the farce? Or is there some reason that a legitimate, licensed investigator would refuse to participate?
I don't know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I want to agree with that final bit - I REALLY DO - but I somehow doubt it will. The RIAA has shown that they are adamantly determined to see this particular gambit through to the bitter end and, short of the execs responsible for it going to jail (which I doubt will happen), they'll keep pushing forward, just slightly altering their tactics as each old tactic fails them. I would love to be proven wrong and, gawd knows you know more abou
Re:Let's see what happens.... (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA has shown that they are adamantly determined to see this particular gambit through to the bitter end
I have not seen that kind of resolve.
... short of the execs responsible for it going to jail (which I doubt will happen)
I would not be surprised to see criminal culpability for aiding and abetting MediaSentry's felonies and misdemeanors.
... they'll keep pushing forward, just slightly altering their tactics as each old tactic fails them
If your SOLE witness has to take the Fifth, your cases are gone.
I would love to be proven wrong and, gawd knows you know more about the law and its processes than I do, but I just put more faith in the RIAA's pig-headed-ness than their common sense and willingness to play by the rules.
I wasn't suggesting that they have a shred of either common sense or willingness to play by the rules. I believe they will be shut down by (a) their shareholders, or (b) the judges.
Re:Let's see what happens.... (Score:4, Funny)
The counsel would have to be uncannily stupid and/or desperate to try this argument in court.
They have tried it in court.
Draw your own conclusions.
The difference is obvious (Score:2)
While it may be publicly available, Limewire or people doing Google searches don't typically use the results to support criminal prosecutions and lawsuits. They'd have a better argument that private investigators shouldn't require licenses than that they are acting as private investigators.
Brett
Legal Requirements (Score:4, Insightful)
How Dare He! (Score:5, Funny)
Good heavens, the commoners are getting quite out of hand. They'll be demanding perjury charges for false DMCA takedowns next!
I agree (Score:2)
Well, yeah, if they intended to use the information they downloaded as evidence in a civil case, I suppose they would!
Not much of a defense (Score:2)
Not quite... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, every search engine and Internet user would be required to have a private investigator license if MediaSentry needs one.
But not everyone using a search engine or collecting data from a p2p client are doing so for the purpose of presenting evidence in court.
Nice try.
What's the big deal about a license!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's the big deal about a license!? (Score:5, Insightful)
agreed.
This seems to be snake oil doublespeak for "quick get in the car and drive!"
1. connecting to the users' computers for the purposes of determining what files are stored there is not public information.
2. presenting that as evidence in court requires that you are license to perform the investigation and that you have at least learned proper protocols for handling evidence.
3. users are not presenting evidence in court. They are simply using a service. Recording the information you get by connecting and then using it for purposes of prosecution seems a bit dodgy at best. At worst, it seems like a violation of the computer fraud and abuse act. Mediasentry is connecting to a private system. It is connecting for reasons other than what it is representing at the time of connection. It is taking information from those systems. Isn't that a violation of the CFAA?
Typical Slashdot Hypocrisy (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's consider an alternate story: hardscrabble open-source advocate uncovers evidence that Microsoft misappropriated his GPL'd code, files lawsuit. Microsoft convinces the State of Michigan to prosecute him for failure to have a private investigator license. It's not hard to imagine which side Slashdot would take, no?
Come on! We're all supposed to be good libertarians here. There's no good reason for the government to require a *license* in order for somebody to gather non-private information. We shouldn't cheer when the government abuses a bad law - even if it's being used against a party we personally disagree with.
Fallacious comparison (Score:4, Informative)
Let's consider an alternate story: hardscrabble open-source advocate uncovers evidence that Microsoft misappropriated his GPL'd code, files lawsuit
This is a fallacious comparison of the two situations.
First and foremost, the developer himself found the evidence.
Second, he retains a lawyer and sues the company specifically, rather than a john doe in order to gain his identity and go on a fishing expedition.
Re: (Score:2)
His evidence might be allowed in court because he's an expert witness in the area of computer programming.
Going through code may not be investigating.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're not all "good Libertarians" and I resent the insinuation. I agree that if this student wins his case it'll set a dangerous precedent, but that's about as far as I'll cooperate there.
Michigan PI Licensing Information (Score:5, Informative)
If private investigator licenses were required to do what MediaSentry does, every user on Limewire and other illegal p2p networks would be required to have a license. Indeed, every search engine and Internet user would be required to have a private investigator license if MediaSentry needs one.
First, let me say- Uhh... no.
Here's the requirements [sherlockpi.com], and some of them are quite interesting. Like:
A person, firm, partnership, company, limited liability company, or corporation shall not engage in the business of furnishing or supplying, for hire and reward, information as to the personal character of any person or firm, or as to the character or kind of business and occupation of any person, firm, partnership, company, limited liability company, or corporation and shall not own, conduct, or maintain a bureau or agency for the purposes described in this subsection except as to the financial rating of persons, firms, partnerships, companies, limited liability companies, or corporations without having first obtained a license from the department.
Hmm....
Re:Michigan PI Licensing Information (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm...illegal P2P?! (Score:2, Insightful)
"Illegal P2P"? So, I guess that means that the WoW patches I just downloaded from the Bittorrent network are illegal.
I should expect a cease and desist letter from Blizzard any minute now...
WTF is with these RIAA and affiliate companies always making the statement that P2P is illegal? It is some of the MATERIAL that may be a violation of copywrite to distribute without license. The networks themselves and the sharing of free-to-distribute medias are perfectly legal. Maybe if they understood this, they w
Re: (Score:2)
Their definition of p2p is flawed as well.
The internet in general is p2p, that's what makes it the internet.
Like it or not, the internet subsists on copyright infringement. The only reason user contribution and participation (in other words "the internet") exists today is because 99% of copyrights go unenforced on the internet, whether by choice or by the infringers' careful choice of host nation.
Hardly anyone seems to get this at all.
Don't appluad the PI statutes. (Score:4, Informative)
The law may be making the online community happen, in this instance, where it is causing the RIAA grief. But on the whole, laws like the Michigan law are not good for the computer forensic and computer security community.
Scott Moulton's talk at Defcon 16: http://defcon.org/html/defcon-16/dc-16-speakers.html#Moulton [defcon.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
MI law (Score:5, Informative)
The law is pretty clear here, it's a bad argument on SafeNet's part.
Section 338.822
(b) "Computer forensics" means the collection, investigation, analysis, and scientific examination of data held on, or retrieved from, computers, computer networks, computer storage media, electronic devices, electronic storage media, or electronic networks, or any combination thereof.
(e) "Investigation business" means a business that, for a fee, reward, or other consideration, engages in business or accepts employment to furnish, or subcontracts or agrees to make, or makes an investigation for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to any of the following:
(i) Crimes or wrongs done or threatened against...or any other person or legal entity.
(viii) Computer forensics to be used as evidence before a court, board, officer, or investigating committee.
Section 338.823
(1) A person, firm, partnership, company, limited liability company, or corporation shall not engage in the business of professional investigator for hire, fee, or reward,
It basically all comes down to the fee requirement and evidence to be used in front of a court.
Glancing through a window from the street is legal (Score:4, Insightful)
MediaSentry deserves to go down. Hard.
Inadmissible evidence? (Score:3, Informative)
However, holding onto that gathered information and using it in other ways would fall under an entirely different law. But rendering that information inadmissible in court would force the RIAA's corporate spies to follow the law or be essentially useless except for building a case for just cause for a warrant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, anybody who has a practical interest in this question (or thinks they might) really ought to hire a lawyer.
That said, I'll proceed to the usual bloviation.
I believe what you're grasping for is something that is called "the fruit of the poisoned tree." Evidence gained by illegal means is usually inadmissible. In this case, it is not the actions in question (scanning P2P networks) that is illegal. It is doing so in the capacity of a professional private investigator without a license to act in th
Danny DeVito (Score:3, Funny)
Bullshit (Score:4, Interesting)
SafeNet/MediaSentry defended their actions by claiming their company simply "records public information available to millions of users. If private investigator licenses were required to do what MediaSentry does, every user on Limewire and other illegal p2p networks would be required to have a license. Indeed, every search engine and Internet user would be required to have a private investigator license if MediaSentry needs one."
Bullshit. If private investigator licenses were required to take compromising photographs of people in public places, everyone who owns a camera would be required to have a private investigator license.
Ummm, hey, dumbass; it's not the act alone that matters. It is the act as part of an investigation. Are you retarded, or lying?
Michigan vs. Texas (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not familiar with the law in Michigan. I am somewhat familiar with what was attempted in Texas. I believe they have similar roots and similar objectives.
The idea is to eliminate the "shadetree forensic examiner" from the marketplace. These folks represent themselves as being qualified but often do more damage than useful work. Read up on Bando v. Gates for an example of an unqualified forensic examiner.
The problem is most people are missing the point. States do not differentate between actions taken as part of an investigation or not. States do not differentate between evidence being collected for court vs. information for private use. If you are going to regulate examiners, then by God they are going to regulate examiners. What defines an examiner? Well, the Texas proposal would have regulated anyone doing "examination" work.
Yes, indeed, using Google would have fallen into their definition in some cases. This is not a matter of fine-tuning the law. This is utter silliness. The objective - elimination of unqualified people touching computers - is a good one. I'd really like to have a law like that to keep most of the people that come to me for help from ever touching a computer again. But it is not a realistic objective and not one that is compatible with the current state of the art.
Bemoan the use of "unlicensed investigators" all you want, but be aware that the bloggers license is next if this really were to succeed. I suspect it will not. The law may remain but it will not be enforced. Ever.
Re:SafeNet is acting as an investigator (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This move seems more like a maneuver against the RIAA then a chance to catch Safenet doing something illegal. The impression I received from reading the article [beckermanlegal.com] you wrote concerning the RIAA's legal practices was that Safenet only made it to the stand a handful of times at most, and each time made no attempt to insist their methods met the relevant reliability standards.
With that in mind, it seems like the RIAA lawyers are the ones presenting Safenet as legitimate investigators, and then dismissing the case
Re:SafeNet is acting as an investigator (Score:5, Insightful)
This move seems more like a maneuver against the RIAA then a chance to catch Safenet doing something illegal. The impression I received from reading the article [beckermanlegal.com] you wrote concerning the RIAA's legal practices was that Safenet only made it to the stand a handful of times at most, and each time made no attempt to insist their methods met the relevant reliability standards.
It has not yet been deposed even once.
With that in mind, it seems like the RIAA lawyers are the ones presenting Safenet as legitimate investigators, and then dismissing the case once in possession of the desired name.
You are confusing the "John Doe" cases with the "named defendant" cases. In the "named defendant" cases the MediaSentry investigator is the RIAA's sole fact witness.
Putting Safenet under the spotlight puts their methods directly in question, and offers the chance to expose a part of the RIAA's own methodology that seems to much harder to achieve when directly dealing with the RIAA's suits and actions. All the same, criminal charges against Safenet for what they are doing specifically with technology and information might have unintended, negative consequences. Is the push to prosecute Safenet being put specifically into terms of it's actions as agent in the RIAA cases?
Of course it is. We don't know about their other illegal activities.
Downloading a file, verifying it's content, recording the IP address from which it came hardly seems illegal.
1. You might feel differently if someone accessed your hard drive under false pretenses. 2. Doing it without an investigator's license is certainly illegal. 3. It might even be illegal with an investigator's license, under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
All normal things that legitimate software might do.
It is software. You haven't persuaded me it's "legitimate".
>Safenet hands that information over to the RIAA, and the RIAA of course misuses that.
That, too. But Safenet and the 'expert' Dr. Doug Jacobson are partners in the misuse. Without being clear on the Michigan law, is it the last step, the releasing of that information to a client with the knowledge that it's going to be used in litigation, what specifically defines it as computer forensics and requires an investigator's license?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You are confusing the "John Doe" cases with the "named defendant" cases. In the "named defendant" cases the MediaSentry investigator is the RIAA's sole fact witness.
It seems more likely I've misunderstood the process as outlined. Without the evidence gathered by MediaSentry's investigator, how does the RIAA obtain the ex parte ruling to proceed to the "Named Defendent" phase? A judge cannot order an ISP to turn over a specific account name without anything to identify the specific account. Isn't there a standard for evidence to obtain such a ruling, implying a presentation of the investigator as legitimate?
Downloading a file, verifying it's content, recording the IP address from which it came hardly seems illegal.
1. You might feel differently if someone accessed your hard drive under false pretenses.
The important thing is to separate false pretenses. I download
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free music has been making people happy since the dawn of civilization, that is why there are so many who pursue it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, I can see this already:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If private investigator licenses were required to do what MediaSentry does, every user on Limewire and other illegal p2p networks would be required to have a license.
Not only that, but Limewire and other p2p's presumably have THE USER'S PERMISSION. SafeNet does not. QED.