Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Central Michigan University files complaint against MediaSentry

We have learned that Central Michigan University has filed an unlicensed investigator complaint against MediaSentry with Michigan's Department of Labor and Economic Growth.

Among other things, the complaint notes that MediaSentry is being pursued in other states as well, and cites to MediaSentry's own promotional materials, and to RIAA court papers, as evidence of MediaSentry's illegal activity.

Complaint

[Ed. note. To you university counsel out there : "Hint, hint." -R.B.]

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net
Daily Tech
Ars Technica
Associated Press (via The Oregonian)
Tweakers (Dutch)
ZeroPaid



Keywords: digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

In the engineering profession there is an activity called "crimping". which is applying your seal (yes, we still use the old-fashioned kind that embosses the paper, at least in Ohio) which is the applying of your seal to work which is not yours. If you are caught, it will cost you a fine and a suspension, at least.

Now I wonder about the many Linares declarations. Does he really have competent knowledge of each and every investigation/case, or is he merely "crimping", or whatever it is called in your profession (perjury, maybe?)

Kip Patterson

John said...

Quite the damning complaint. Hopefully now that a college is actually complaining, some results will follow.

Megan said...

This. Is. Beautiful.

Anonymous said...

Amen, megan, Amen!

Anonymous said...

My God, I don't feel alone anymore.

Doe # 5 LaFave v. Does 1-5 NMU

Not a lawyer but... said...

Yeah. IANAL. This seems to be a very minor choice of law issue. The Michigan law appears to be a long arm statute designed to apply to investigators from any state, who are investigating entities who are within Michigan's borders. See e.g. section 6 of the law, which states that anyone who is a citizen of the United States is covered by the law.

A law written to take into account the RIAA's interpretation would probably be make note of the place of origin. The language about computer networks, and about accessing data on a computer, suggest that the law applies where data is accessed from a computer within Michigan's borders, or belonging to person bound by Michigan law.

Lastly, I'm shocked that the RIAA doesn't really cite any legal authority. Their best argument seems to be that the law shouldn't be retroactively applied. That seems to be a non-starter given that the Michigan agency had authority to promulgate rules.