Court Says It Doesn't Matter That MediaSentry Isn't A Licensed Investigator
from the that's-fine dept
I know that many folks who are against the RIAA's sue-'em-all strategy have played up the idea that MediaSentry (the company the RIAA used to use to collect its flimsy "evidence") isn't a "licensed private investigator" in various states that require PI licenses. To be honest, I've always found this argument rather silly and distracting from the main point. The whole "PI license" thing is focusing on a loophole, rather than the merits of the case. And, yes, the RIAA plays dirty and uses any loophole it can find against people at times, but that doesn't mean it's worth stooping to the RIAA's level. Claiming that anyone needs a PI's license to see what IP address you have opens up a can of worms that we're better off leaving shut.So, I actually think it's a good thing that a court has rejected this argument in one case where it was raised. That doesn't mean that the evidence is strong or actually indicative of copyright infringement, but it hopefully gets the case focused on those actual issues, rather than a distracting side issue.
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: lawsuits, private investigator's license
Companies: mediasentry, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This weeks posts have been particularly weak, logically speaking.
> that require PI licenses. To be honest, I've always found
> this argument rather silly and distracting from the main
> point.
What you're saying is that the RIAA is above the law.
Would it be ok if the RIAA thugs broke into your house and
found evidence?
Would it be ok if the RIAA thugs plant evidence and
then find it?
If the RIAA can ignore laws to find evidence, why can't
the 'people' ignore the copyright laws?
Where do you draw the line on which laws must be
followed and which can be freely ignored?
You can't pick and choose the laws you want to follow
in a civil society, you must follow them all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This weeks posts have been particularly weak, logically speaking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This weeks posts have been particularly weak, logically speaking.
> Try reading before flaming.
If the law says you need to have a PI license before
doing investigation, and you investigate without a
license, then it's illegal. The judge can ignore
the law, but that doesn't make the action any more legal.
But, my point was with the original comment:
> To be honest, I've always found
> this argument rather silly and distracting from the main
> point.
and not with the legality.
This person believes that arguing that the RIAA didn't
follow the law is rather silly.
To be honest, I've always found *that* argument silly.
The law is the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This weeks posts have been particularly weak, logically speaking.
No. I'm not. And neither did the court.
Would it be ok if the RIAA thugs broke into your house and
found evidence?
No, of course not.
Would it be ok if the RIAA thugs plant evidence and
then find it?
No, of course not.
If the RIAA can ignore laws to find evidence, why can't
the 'people' ignore the copyright laws?
They didn't ignore the law. Read the decision. *THAT* was my point. They weren't ignoring the law. People were using this lame "PI license" thing as a bogus point to knock the RIAA. MediaSentry wasn't doing PI work. It was collecting publicly available data that people exposed.
You can't pick and choose the laws you want to follow
in a civil society, you must follow them all.
Sure. But that's got nothing to do with this story, now does it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This weeks posts have been particularly weak, logically speaking.
found evidence?
No, of course not.
Actually, the court seems to suggest that it would be OK. I quote:
"Although we are uncertain of the impact General Business Law § 70 has on what MediaSentry actually did or may have done, by placing recordings into a shared file for the entire world to visit and capture, without the permission of the rightful owners, the Doe Defendants are hardly in a position to claim trespass, force, or fraud by MediaSentry.".
So, if you are accused of sharing copyrighted works without permission then you cannot makes claims of trespass, force or fraud. Forcible trespass would indeed cover breaking into your house.
I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, just pointing out what the court said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Can of Worms
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nit-Pick
should read
the company the RIAA used to use to collect its flimsy "evidence")
... subtle difference :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nit-Pick
Heh. Thanks. Fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
License to view IP addresses
You can "anonymize" with a pool of addresses, but the anonymizer itself must then have a non-anonymous IP to direct the traffic back to where it belongs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filesharing (legal or not) is like hauling loads of stuff (legal or not) in an open-bed truck; MediaSentry essentially looked at the truck and wrote down the license plate number.
You don't need to be a police officer or PI to write down and report license plates of suspicious vehicles.
It's not like the truck is in your closed garage, and someone enters your garage without permission to get the plate number, but that the truck is parked in your driveway and visible from the street.
AFAIK, the judge wasn't talking about them accessing a closed computer system, rather observing traffic en route.
The pertinent issue is that MediaSentry reports so many users who aren't at fault. You try and be the guy who calls the police station with hundreds (or thousands) of license plate numbers that are 'suspicious' and see where it gets you. I'm surprised they haven't lost credibility more quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think Please. Is it really that much to ask for?
Everyone's in the wrong here: Media Sentry, RIAA, the judge and Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]