Comments on: RIAA MediaSentry: remote control

By: digital content geek

digital content geek — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 16:32:43 +0000

Anyone that has access to citizens’ secure and private information should have some kind of license.

By: DTS

DTS — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:34:59 +0000

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?

By: Robert Chapin

Robert Chapin — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:03:06 +0000

> 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

By: Just my two cents

Just my two cents — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 01:49:27 +0000

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

By: Concerned citizen

Concerned citizen — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:38:52 +0000

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.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 21:58:49 +0000

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??

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:31:25 +0000

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?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:27:43 +0000

If they want to present evidence in Michigan they have to have a license in Michigan period!