Another Claim Of Illegal RIAA Investigative Techniques

from the it's-spreading... dept

Wed, Feb 6th 2008 1:21pm — Mike Masnick

In the past, we've heard about lawsuits in Oregon against the RIAA claiming that its investigation techniques were illegal, but now it appears that idea is spreading. A NY court is now reviewing a request to toss out evidence compiled via questionable means in a lawsuit filed by an RIAA label against someone for sharing unauthorized files. The defendant claims that the RIAA used Media Sentry, who broke the law by not having an investigator's license in New York. Frankly, the idea that you need an investigator's license is pretty silly as well, but it does highlight how the RIAA isn't exactly known for playing by the rules either.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: illegal, investigation techniques, riaa
Companies: media sentry, riaa

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2008 @ 1:52pm

Class Action Lawsuits
Boy would it be great if the Attorney General of the US did his job. Personally I think it would be great if he filed a Class Action Lawsuit on behalf of the People against the RIAA for their tactics.

After all, all their suits tend to be questionable, typically frivolous, and waste the courts' time. They are effectively terrorizing the citizens of the nation they level charges against, constantly harassing them and forcing them to settle in most cases.

Oh and where would the money go? The education system could use a hefty donation. They could give the money back to our future.

At the very least I'd love to see state level attorney generals do this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mark, 6 Feb 2008 @ 3:27pm
  
  Re: Class Action Lawsuits
  post
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon, 6 Feb 2008 @ 3:36pm
  
  Re: Class Action Lawsuits
  "hey are effectively terrorizing the citizens of the nation"
  
  Ohh! This makes them terrorist by our current overly broad definition. Might as well make it work for the people and let DHS know. We can ship the RIAA and MPAA and any of the others off to Guantanamo for a while!! w00t!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wild0505, 6 Feb 2008 @ 3:30pm

Injunction?
I'm surprised someone hasn't filed for a motion to postpone the progress of all of the other cases out there until this ruling comes down as they have used Media Sentry for so long.

If the ruling comes down in favor of the defendants, would there be any recourse for the folks that have settled already? The payments made were paid under the threat of legal action based on illegally obtained data/evidence!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon, 6 Feb 2008 @ 3:38pm
  
  Re: Injunction?
  I am sure in the settlement declaration there was fine print that removed any options for recourse from the defendant.
  
  I mean, if I was in the RIAA's position, I sure as hell would strip any rights I could from them in the process for just this very reason.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - wild0505, 6 Feb 2008 @ 4:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Injunction?
    Not when you read the settlement agreements. Worst part that I can see in there is
    
    3. You agree not to infringe the Recordings or any other sound recording protected under federal or state law, whether now in existence or later created, that is owned or controlled by any of the Record Companies. This agreement not to infringe shall include, but not be limited to, using the Internet or any online media distribution system to upload or download the Record Companies’ sound recordings or otherwise to distribute or make available for distribution to others any such recordings, except pursuant to a lawful license or with the express authority of the Record Companies. You further agree to destroy all copies in your possession of the Recordings and any other of the Record Companies’ sound recordings that you have downloaded onto any computer hard drive or server without the Record Companies’ authorization and also to destroy all copies of such downloaded recordings that you have made onto any physical medium (e.g., CD-R) or device in your possession, custody or control.
    
    and
    
    6. You agree not to make any public statement that is inconsistent with any term of this Agreement.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Jon, 6 Feb 2008 @ 4:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Injunction?
      I stand correct. I guess I was giving them just a little bit of credit for being complete jack-holes. I am sure if they found out about this 'hole' someone would be getting fired. :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - mike allen, 7 Feb 2008 @ 12:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Injunction?
      my reply to this would be second word OFF put in front what you wish. they are therefore taking the persons right to free speech.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Harry, 6 Feb 2008 @ 4:05pm

Re: Re: Class Action Lawsuits
He never said that the RIAA were terrorists. They can terrorize people without being terrorists like Osama Bin Laden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon, 6 Feb 2008 @ 4:26pm
  
  Re: Re: Re: Class Action Lawsuits
  I apologize. I forgot my and tags. I do understand that he did not call them terrorist. I just based the pairing on some of the justifications our government has used to classify someone as a terrorist. The mere association with the word or activity that could be vaguely associated to terrorism would be enough lump the *AAs into the pool, thus giving us an avenue to be rid of them.
  
  If you can not tell, I have no love for them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh Yeah, 6 Feb 2008 @ 4:20pm

"Frankly, the idea that you need an investigator's license is pretty silly as well..."

Oh really? Personally I think the public has direct interest in knowing who is acting a quasi-police investigator, otherwise any jack-off trolling your trash, following you or prying into you personal affairs could claim they are 'simply investigating'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2008 @ 5:01pm

HEyy guys!! whats goiin on ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike C., 6 Feb 2008 @ 7:09pm

Investigator's license IS needed
"Frankly, the idea that you need an investigator's license is pretty silly as well, "

I disagree here because the complaint touches on the part of New York law that is intended to protect individuals. From the article:

"In an interview with Computerworld, Altman said that under New York law, a private investigator is someone whose activities can include checking out an individual's identity, habits and movements or collecting evidence to be used in a court."

The crux of the matter is not that they did the investigation. New York may frown upon, but likely has no issue with the collection of the information in this case. However, the results of that investigation are going to be used in court as evidence. In fact, the evidence has ALREADY been used - in the ex parte case against the Does to get the current defendants name. It's the combination of both collection of information AND the use of that information in a court case that is driving the request to throw the MediaSentry evidence out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scorpiaux, 6 Feb 2008 @ 7:15pm

Misleading trash
What a bunch of horse manure, Mike. You posted, "A NY court is now reviewing a request to toss out evidence compiled via questionable means in a lawsuit filed by an RIAA label against someone for sharing unauthorized files." You suavely fail to mention that requests to toss out evidence are common occurances in many, if not most, trials. So what's the big deal? Are you suggesting or hoping that somehow RIAA's complaint is doomed? Why not just say so instead of dancing around with language?

And this is slick, too. "The defendant claims that the RIAA used Media Sentry, who broke the law by not having an investigator's license in New York." First, is the RIAA at fault here? It didn't break any laws. And really. Are you not concerned that the defendant is the one who is the real law breaker? This is just another attempt on your part to satisfy your bunch of groupies with the trash you produce here. You just don't get it, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2008 @ 7:32pm
  
  Re: Misleading trash
  "First, is the RIAA at fault here? It didn't break any laws."
  
  So the illegally obtained evidence should be allowed in court?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Pete, 6 Feb 2008 @ 9:26pm
  
  Re: Misleading trash
  evidence obtained illegaly is not admissible regardless if you think the defendant is guilty or innocencet
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Feb 2008 @ 8:21pm

Don't feed the trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]