RIAA MediaSentry: remote control
p2pnet news view | RIAA News:- “The fur continues to fly in Michigan, in a number of proceedings involving MediaSentry’s unlicensed investigations,” says Recording Industry vs The People succinctly.
Banned in Massachusetts, it’s also now also in trouble in Michigan where the governor recently signed into legislation an expanded revision of the state’s professional investigator licensing act.
“The new definitions make it absolutely clear that the activities of Media Sentry fall under the definition of a private investigator and that, as such, it needs to secure a license to investigate residents of Michigan,” said RIvTP in another post.
Now, “In one of the three administrative proceedings before the Department of Labor and Economic Growth, Kruger v. MediaSentry, the complainant submitted a letter with exhibits to the Court,” it says.
“And in the John Doe case involving Northern Michigan University, LaFace v. Does 1-5, the pro se defendant John Doe #5 submitted additional documents to the Judge, and the RIAA responded.”
It did indeed.
Using Matthew E. Krichbaum as its front, the Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG hit outfit is trying to claim its “investigations” were kosher because they were handled remotely.
“MediaSentry does not conduct ‘computer forensics’ examinations of this nature,” says Krichbaum.
Regular p2pnet readers will recall he was the RIAA-hired lawyer who went after schoolgirl Brittany Chan, who was only 13 at the time.
Now, “When MediaSentry observes and downloads sound recordings and other digital information that a copyright infringer has placed on the Internet, its agents are located outside the State of Michigan,” he says in a court document, going on »»»
Moreover, the information MediaSentry downloads is available to each and every member of the general public. MediaSentry may not even know the physical location of the infringer’s computer until after MediaSentry requests and receives transmission of the copyrighted sound recordings. The Michigan Legislature does not have the authority to regulate the behavior of an entity located outside of its boundaries that receives information through cyberspace from a source whose location may be unknown at the time the information is transmitted. The impact of such a law would be that any individual gathering evidence from a Website or cyberspace would need to obtain a license in Michigan, and every other State with a similar licensing law, without ever having set foot in the State. Obviously, this would be a significant expansion of the contemplated reach of the statute.
Stay tuned.
Recording Industry vs The People – Fur continues to fly in Michigan over illegal MediaSentry investigations, September 6, 2008
Banned – RIAA MediaSentry: shut down in Massachusetts, April 9, 2008
also in trouble – RIAA MediaSentry: operating illegally in Michigan, September 4, 2008
RIvTP – State of Michigan backs DLEG, codifies agency position that computer forensics technicians are required to be licensed under Michigan law, September 4, 2008
Brittany Chan – Britanny vs RIAA hearing date, December 6, 2005
only 13 – Big Music wants Britanny Chan, October 5, 2005
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
If they want to present evidence in Michigan they have to have a license in Michigan period!
September 8th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Or the dwnloadfing is in remote control too.
While the downlaoder was located in Michigan he/she did not downloaded anything from MIchigan.
Therefore she/he is not liable in Nichigan either.
What’s about that?
September 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Not only that, but when the sampled IP addresses are processed and found to be used by people in Michigan, Massachusetts, or any other state requiring PI licenses, shouldn’t the requests for identities and other proceedings be denied in the first place??
September 8th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
tossed salad syndrome.
put the mpaa and mediasentry into a bowl. mix with green leaves and other fruits and vegetables.
now eat it and , remember that when you shit, your getting rid of the worst bits your body don’t want.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Shouldn’t the whole **AA’s be rightfully pinned as the crooks that they are.
This has gone beyond just being a major hassle of a special interest group trying to stop people selling VHS copies and cassette tapes dubbed from a LP record, to terrorizing the public into admitting that the broke a law that does not exist, and trying to strong arm them into paying for music/movies that they “might” have payed for.
Just my two cents
September 9th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
> If they want to present evidence in Michigan they have to have a license in Michigan period!
Agreed. And as a Michigan citizen, I’d like to add that we can require whatever we feel like within the bounds of our Constitution(s).
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/publications/Constitution.pdf
September 10th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Or, since MediaSentry claims that the information they harvest is publicly available, defendants should therefore be allowed to pick any citizen off the street to testify that said defendants did not infringe copyrights, backed with their own evidence. After all, if MediaSentry is demanding that their “non-investigator” evidence and methodology should be accepted, what’s stopping any of us from presenting evidence in favour of defendants and demanding its acceptance?
November 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Anyone that has access to citizens’ secure and private information should have some kind of license.