Saturday, December 06, 2008

Matthew Oppenheim tries to intervene in North Carolina probable cause hearing against MediaSentry

A "probable cause" hearing is scheduled to be conducted by the North Carolina Private Protective Services Board on December 10, 2008, in Robertson v. MediaSentry, investigating the charges which have been levelled against MediaSentry for investigating without a license. The charges stem from the RIAA's "John Doe" actions against students at North Carolina State University, in Raleigh.

On December 4, 2008, five (5) months after receiving notice of the hearing, the RIAA's lawyer Matthew Oppenheim wrote to the PPSB asking permission to participate in the hearing "in order to provide the NCPPS Board with as complete a factual picture as possible".

The students are represented by Stephen Robertson, a partner in the Greensboro, North Carolina, firm, Robertson & Medlin

Notice of Probable Cause Hearing
December 4, 2008, Letter of Matthew J. Oppenheim and "The Oppenheim Group"

[Ed. note. The "Prince of Darkness" himself asking to get involved? Sounds like they're afraid of something. With Matthew Oppenheim on their side, I'm pretty sure MediaSentry will lose. -R.B.]

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot
p2pnet.net




Keywords: lawyer 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 portable music player

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

"[...]With Matthew Oppenheim on their side, I'm pretty sure MediaSentry will lose. -R.B."

I had to LOL spontaniously after that editorial comment! :-)

--
A_F

Anonymous said...

What I'm wondering is that Oppenheim states in his letter:

"Moreover, we would like the opportunity to present to the Board the impact certain decisions might have on intellectual property enforcement on the Internet, as well as Internet usage generally."

Why should the NC Board really give a hoot about other federal litigation that doesn't fall under their control?

I hope that someone on the NC Board tells Mr. Oppenheim that his concerns about other trials is no concern of this board of inquiry.

Man, these guys are just looking to paint a sob story anywhere they can.

Anonymous said...

their story might will sound something like this:

Dear Bordmembers
Since the early years of this millenium the recordcompanies are suffering a bla bla bla and bla bla bla, We have no remedy at law if your board will shut our unlawful and illegal investigations sheme down so you can't do that.
We are so important that laws does not apply to my clients the record companies, so you can not do anything against MediaSentry.

Thank you very much
Matthew "The Dentist" Oppenheim



--
A_F

Anonymous said...

one could only hope that North Carolina realizes the interests of the state and its citizens are drastically different from the interests of corporations who are unwilling to adapt to the modern world.

if you want to operate in a state, abide by its rules as other industries have to (aside from those that are federally regulated).

bjh

Anonymous said...

Oppenheim says..."As a matter of fairness and fair process, we ask that we be permitted to participate so as not to be in a position of giving Mr. Robertson and his clients the advantage of a one-sided hearing."

I say...
What the #*&% does he think the
Ex parte process and the centralized litigation team that the RIAA has developed is? How one sided is a $13 billion industry going against kids and the poor been?

How about 15000 people showing up to support Mr. Robertson?

What is Oppenheim he going to do, threaten to sue the State of North Carolina, and tell them that their law has no authority?

Anonymous said...

I'm confused here. Is Mr. Oppenheim saying that MediaSentry is unrepresented, or that MediaSentry will have insufficient representation unless the RIAA has a seat at the table?

Why exactly would a court entertain their attempt to intervene when it's not the RIAA's battle to fight?

Anonymous said...

Is there any chance that Matt could get arrested for conspiracy to conduct illegal investigations in the state the moment he sets foot in North Carolina?

{The Common Man Hoping}

Ray Beckerman said...

"Is there any chance that Matt could get arrested for conspiracy to conduct illegal investigations in the state the moment he sets foot in North Carolina?"

Why not? He's certainly an aider and abetter, is he not?

Alter_Fritz said...

Ray, if you have the time please update the profile link you have given. It seems to have changed to
http://robertsonmedlin.com/StephenRobertson.cfm

Jadeic said...

Can we hope that, if Oppenheim is allowed to present factually accurate and complete information to the Board, this will be duly recorded and placed in the public domain? Not that I believe for one nanosecond that he would voluntarily reveal all when so much effort has gone into avoiding any court mandate to explain the inner workings of the MediaSentry blackbox technology through discovery.

Dave

Ray Beckerman said...

Alter_Fritz.... Thanks very much. I corrected the link!

The last thing in the world Oppenheim would want is for the lies he would like to tell to be available to the public where technology experts could rip it to shreds just like they did Jacobson's deposition.

Anonymous said...

Ray --

Please ensure that Mr Robertson is aware of the Dutch case. It directly gives the lie to Oppenheimer's statement about accepting the evidenct. The only case where it was examined, and it was rejected. I don't think the Canadian case looked as closely into MediaSentry's competence before telling them to pound sand.

Hugh

Anonymous said...

Regarding the arrest of Mr. Oppenheim:
Some states (Texas/Virginia) do have laws which hold those hiring unlicensed PI liable. NC's statute does not have the provision. NC Gen Stat 74-C2. So hopefully one of the other states nab him.

Scott said...

It's laughably grandiose for Mr. Oppenheim to call himself "The Oppenheim Group" when he just seems to be one guy operating out of an address that appears to be his house.

Ray Beckerman said...

Yeah well he's "laughingly grandiose" in general. Here's a guy who makes his living bullying people who don't have the money to fight back. And he thinks he's a lawyer.

What he is is a disgrace to the legal profession.

Nohwhere Man said...

I find it interesting that in all of Mr Oppenheim's writing, he never suggests that anyone will present evidence that what MediaSentry allegedly did was compliant with NC regulations.

Anonymous said...

"To date, not a single court,
either in North Carolina or elsewhere, has questioned the credibility of the evidence that has been collected"

Ray - is this true? No court, anywhere has ever questioned the credibility of the evidence? really?

Anonymous said...

"No court, anywhere has ever questioned the credibility of the evidence? really?"

Courts have recognized that the evidence doesn't show any copyright infringement or even the person who's running the P2P software. Is that what you mean? Regardless, the scant record (none? one?) of depositions of MediaSentry employees make it hard to get a clear picture of how MediaSentry operates. So of course they haven't been directly shot down by courts -- they never show up in court.

If MediaSentry is crazy enough to show up in court, they'll face big problems.

XYZZY

Anonymous said...

Just a thought but a letter going out opposing the participation of the RIAA would seem to be a grand idea. The RIAA is a client of Media Sentry and nothing more, legally. Unless they participate in the data collection or specifically directs Media Sentry on collection of the data then their input is quite irrelevant to the proceedings. The board proceedings is not to determine the usefulness of the data to RIAA court cases but to determine if it was collected in a legal manner. Moreover, if the RIAA admits to being more than a client which we all know is true, then they themselves could be legally liable for the illegal conduct. IANAL. - JoeVet

eZee.se said...

What he is is a disgrace to the legal profession..
and to the human race.

Anonymous said...

XYZZY makes a good point to this man. Unless "making available" is a crime (which to this point it isn't) MediaSentry has never provided any evidence of any crime.

It may not be your brightest move to sit in a car outside a bank with a mask and a gun, but they can't send you to jail for bank robbery simply on that evidence if the D.A. can't even show that the bank was robbed that day.

All that MediaSentry can provide under the best of circumstances is that copyright infringement could have occurred - never that it actually did.

Someone should point this out to these judges who are so free about allowing subpoenas to universities and ISPs.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Anonymous said...

I requested that the court order MediaSentry to produce a copy of any licenses or permits that they have, and the courts have ignored my concern. LaFace v. Does 1-5...

Doe # 5.

Albert said...

Has anyone heard what the result of the hearing was?

Albert

Anonymous said...

@Albert December 14, 2008 10:10:00 PM EST

I have been checking the NCDOJ website for a couple of weeks to see if they put up the minutes from the meeting. Still nothing showing up.

???