Recording Industry vs The People: Wall Street Journal confirms that RIAA dumped MediaSentry

Sunday, January 04, 2009

Wall Street Journal confirms that RIAA dumped MediaSentry

The Wall Street Journal has obtained confirmation of the story previously mentioned by p2pnet.net that the RIAA has dropped MediaSentry:

RIAA Drops MediaSentry

By SARAH MCBRIDE

In another sign of the music industry's recently announced retreat from a five-year-old antipiracy strategy, the Recording Industry Association of America has dumped the company it used to help it gather evidence for mass lawsuits it filed against people it claimed were illegally uploading copyrighted music.

The RIAA long used a company called MediaSentry to troll the Internet in search of people who uploaded large amounts of music. The information that MediaSentry collected became an integral part of the RIAA's aggressive litigation campaign. Since 2003, the RIAA—a trade organization representing Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, Sony Corp.'s Sony BMG Music Entertainment, EMI Group Ltd. and Warner Music Group Corp.—has sued around 35,000 people for what it says are illegal music uploads.

Now the RIAA will be rid of a company that became a frequent target of civil-rights advocates and others who complained that the RIAA's legal tactics were excessive. MediaSentry is a unit of closely held, Belcamp, Md.-based SafeNet Inc.

Complete article

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net
FutureZone.orf.at (German)
Slashdot
Chronicle of Higher Education
TorrentFreak

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

9 comments:

Anonymous said...: "In place of MusicSentry, the RIAA says it will use Copenhagen-based DtecNet Software ApS. The music industry had worked with DtecNet previously both in the U.S. and overseas, and liked its technology, said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy."

I'll bet. I bet they also like the fact that DtecNet is out of easy enforcement of State and Federal US Laws regarding licensing of Private Investigators and for possible illegal unauthorized intrusion of consumers computers. Oh, and I'm sure discovery will be even harder with the RIAA's overseas vendor than it already is with the exceptionally recalcitrant Media Sentry.; January 4, 2009 at 5:05:00 PM EST
Unknown said...: Just because they're out of state. It doesn't mean they don't have to be licensed. TO me, this would mean that any thing based on an illegal discovery should be thrown out of court. MediaSentry and now Dtecnet's evidence should be thrown out of court.

That would fix this issue licketysplit.; January 4, 2009 at 5:32:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: "In place of MusicSentry, the RIAA says it will use Copenhagen-based DtecNet Software ApS. The music industry had worked with DtecNet previously both in the U.S. and overseas, and liked its technology, said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy."

So the RIAA is already paying a foreign company to spy on Americans internet usage in the USA? Isn't that in violation of some state or federal privacy legislation?; January 4, 2009 at 6:32:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: My understanding is the PARTIES are subject to the Court. If this new investigator does not comply with discovery orders or most anything else, it is clearly within the power of the Court to NOT allow the evidence to be used at ALL.

I wonder if all the existing cases that use MediaSentry evidence will be dropped as well, as they will no longer have an investigator to testify.

I also wonder if the state and federal computer intrusion laws can be enforced against the RIAA member companies, as the acts of intrusion are ONLY being done because of the direction of the Plaintiffs in these cases. Being criminal laws, doing such an act by hire would be an act of the principal themselves. Think like hiring a contract killer, doing so can get you a murder one rap.....

I also think there might be another reason they dumped MediaSentry... They finally realized themselves how technically inept they were, and how much the RIAA was duped as to their technical ability (Or LACK thereof.)

I am waiting for Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas to be dropped, as a retrial is tough without testimony from MediaSentry......

Albert; January 4, 2009 at 6:46:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: If the RIAA's contract with Media Sentry is typical, then I suspect that the RIAA has access to any people it needs for onging cases. It just doesn't send MS any new business.

So don't hold your breathe that old law suits will be dropped.; January 5, 2009 at 12:54:00 AM EST
Anonymous said...: While it is true that MS might be required by contract to continue support, I do not think they will by any means give it their all, since they know they are not getting any more business.

Also, the reasons they were fired, and the shortcomings of their methods are clearly proper cross exam topics. I also wonder if the contracts can now come in, since they no longer can be considered a trade secret since MS is no longer currently engaged.

Albert; January 5, 2009 at 4:32:00 AM EST
Alter_Fritz said...: LOL @ Post January 5, 2009 3:34:00 AM EST

What is that, do the pyramid sheme scammers already hope for new gullible people from the content industry?
Given that they have hired MediaSentry,BayTSB and the likes in the past, and now even paying a company in Copenhagen
(That is Copenhagen in Europe, not in New York, in case they did not know and Danish courts have ruled that Danish ISPs must filter the internet so companies and people in Denmark can not reach the world biggest piracy place)
that is legally not even able to do investigations for them since the country is blocked, I guess pyramidshemes in making money are adequate joboffers these days!

(But not in the comment section on RIvTP!)
Spamming morons!; January 5, 2009 at 4:57:00 AM EST
Anonymous said...: " MicrosoftHater said...

If the RIAA's contract with Media Sentry is typical, then I suspect that the RIAA has access to any people it needs for onging cases. It just doesn't send MS any new business.

So don't hold your breathe that old law suits will be dropped"

It is true that the RIAA may not drop the cases--they never let the lack of evidence or lack of a case influence their decision whether to continue a case. But as Ray has pointed out, defense now gets to ask Media Sentry why they were fired--goes to credibility. Oh, and there is the small matter of Media Sentry personnel possibly being subject to arrest for illegally conducting private investigations without the required licenses in multiple states.

But, I wouldn't be surprised if the RIAA continues to file identical cases in the future, with only the name of the "investigator" changed. They haven't promised not to sue people. Heck, they still won't say that it is legal for people to transfer songs from CDs to their iPod!; January 5, 2009 at 2:41:00 PM EST
Anonymous said...: I had a conversation with Michigan's DLEG today. The investigator in charge of the three cases sent to him (Kruger, Central Michigan University and U of Michigan) has made his recommendation and has forwarded it to his supervisors.

His quote was… "It seems to me everyone should comply with the law. I don't feel MediaSentry has done so as suggested in my investigation."

He seems like a very honest and fair guy. We will have to see what his supervisors do with his report. RK; January 5, 2009 at 10:57:00 PM EST

Post a Comment

JUDICIAL QUOTATIONS

"[T]he Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the [complaint] does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address .... As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity." -Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, S.D. California. January 29, 2013, AF Holdings v. Rogers
"The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time." - Hon. Gary R. Brown, Magistrate Judge, E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012, K-Beech v. Does 1-37
"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
-Hon. S. James Otero, Dist. Judge, Central Dist. California, March 2, 2007, Elektra v. O'Brien, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555
"The University has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty...[C]ompliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery....[T]he Court declines to authorize discovery and quashes the subpoena as to Does # 8, 9, and 14" -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, November 24, 2008, London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4
"[C]ounsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...." -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, June 17, 2008, London-Sire v. Does 1-4
"Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. [I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here.....These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme... to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined." -Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk, Magistrate Judge, District of Maine, January 25, 2008, Arista v. Does 1-27, 2008 WL 222283, modified Oct. 29, 2008
"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer." -Hon. Lee R. West, District Judge, Western District of Oklahoma, February 6, 2007, Capitol v. Foster, 2007 WL 1028532
"[A]n overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal.....The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse." -Hon. S. James Otero, Central District of California, August 29, 2007, SONY BMG v. Does 1-5, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2535
"Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience."
-Hon. Sam Sparks and Hon. Lee Yeakel, District Judges, Western District of Texas, November 17, 2004, Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, 2004 ILRWeb (P&F) 3053
"The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs."
-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge, Eastern District of Virginia, July 12, 2007, Interscope v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388, vacated on reconsideration 6/20/08
"Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."
-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia, Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico, May 24, 2007, Capitol v. Does 1-16, 2007 WL 1893603
"'Statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages." Hon. Michael J. Davis, Dist. Judge, U.S.District Court, Dist. Minnesota, January 22, 2010, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset
"[T]his court finds that defendants' use of the same ISP and P2P networks to allegedly commit copyright infringement is, without more, insufficient for permissive joinder under Rule 20. This court will sever not only the moving defendants from this action, but all other Doe defendants except Doe 2."
-Hon. W. Earl Britt, District Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina, February 27, 2008, LaFace v. Does 1-38, 2008 WL 544992
"[L]arge awards of statutory damages can raise due process concerns. Extending the reasoning of Gore and its progeny, a number of courts have recognized that an award of statutory damages may violate due process if the amount of the award is "out of all reasonable proportion" to the actual harm caused by a defendant's conduct.[T]hese cases are doubtlessly correct to note that a punitive and grossly excessive statutory damages award violates the Due Process Clause....."Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel, Dist. Judge, N.D. California, June 1, 2005, In re Napster, 2005 US DIST Lexis 11498, 2005 WL 1287611
"[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered....."-Hon. David G. Trager, Senior District Judge, Eastern Dist. New York, November 9, 2006, UMG v. Lindor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83486, 2006 WL 3335048
"'[S]tatutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered'....(citations omitted) and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'". -Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, Dist. Judge, Southern Dist. New York, August 19, 2008, Yurman v. Castaneda
"The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases.... The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts..... [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs." -Hon. Michael J. Davis, District Judge, Dist. Minnesota, September 24, 2008, Capitol v. Thomas
"If there is an asymmetry in copyright, it is one that actually favors defendants. The successful assertion of a copyright confirms the plaintiff's possession of an exclusive, and sometimes very valuable, right, and thus gives it an incentive to spend heavily on litigation. In contrast, a successful defense against a copyright claim, when it throws the copyrighted work into the public domain, benefits all users of the public domain, not just the defendant; he obtains no exclusive right and so his incentive to spend on defense is reduced and he may be forced into an unfavorable settlement." US Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., July 9, 2008, Eagle Services Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services, Inc., 532 F.3d 620
"Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product.....RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale."
-Hon. James P. Jones, Dist. Judge, Western Dist. Virginia, November 7, 2008, USA v. Dove