What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
45 Comments
- Aceanuu, on 02/04/2008, -2/+55*cough*
Ahem.
Obligatory: ***** the RIAA. - sockpuppets, on 02/04/2008, -0/+12Those look like words to me.
- downer06, on 02/04/2008, -4/+15Raping Innocent Americans Asses
- smacksaw, on 02/04/2008, -0/+8Glad to see these guys finally get some attention as well. It seemed like MediaDefender was getting all of the grief.
Ok - serious question here to all of the legal-types out there: Does MediaSentry having no PI licence change anything? Does it make them able to gather evidence that they would by law not be able to gather as a licenced investigator? Does it make them follow a standard of ethics or accountability?
Is it simply sloth that these amateurs don't have a licence or does it benefit them to be quasi-legal? Inquiring minds want to know. - munkyxtc, on 02/04/2008, -0/+8"It appears, however, that the judge may not ever rule on the motion, as the RIAA has filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice." So apparently if you take someone to Civil court and they have a valid claim against your 'evidence' collection methods and you arent' 100% sure you are going to win the argument in front of the judge you can just back peddle to avoid Precedent from being set? Sure, this particular defendant cannot be sued again but they can go right after another person in NY state and hope their lawyer hasn't heard about this approach before.
- offspring06, on 02/04/2008, -0/+7These bastards try to connect to my PC all the time.
- pigfister, on 02/04/2008, -0/+6Fuk the MPAA, RIAA and all the other scum bag companies that think they are the gatekeepers of OUR culture, not the ***** they want us to hear!
boycott their propertarian hardware and software show support for artists by going to live concerts!
The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX. - munkyxtc, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5Actually, dismissing without prejudice is having the ability to file suit on the same claim again; without prejudice is defined as : " to set aside the present action and deny the right to file another suit on that claim."
- peterlisanti, on 02/04/2008, -1/+6I believe that in a case that is dismissed "with prejudice" the defendant has no immunity from future actions (lawsuits, etc...).
Also, the defendant cannot sue the plaintiff for legal fees.
Also, the RIAA sucks balls.
that is all - PA42, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5you copied a question verbatim from above. It has been answered.
- PA42, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5excellent question. T
hat question comes down largely to local law, however it likely will not change the analysis.
There is a generally contested issue of where internet related crimes, torts and contracts actually take place. Meaning, what jurisdiction controls, etc. Considering that the RIAA more or less chose New York as a venue and the defendant lives there, there is little doubt that NY courts have jurisdiction over the case. The issue about MediaSentry is tricky because they likely never set foot in NY and gauging the use of the Internet by using any server traffic attached to would leave every person on the Internet doing business everywhere, so that is not the standard. I believe that this issue would be settled under NY law and MedisSentry would be held to NY standards for two reasons. First, they were hired to investigate a New Yorker and therefore availed themselves to the protections (and warranties) of New York. Second, if their discoveries are going to be considered in New York court, they must allow themselves to be governed by New York law. If they were found to be operating without a license in NY this would not effect their MD business. This is similar to a lawyer, doctor or other licensed professional. You can be barred from practice in one state, while still allowed to practice in another.
I have not read the statute nor am I particularly familiar with NY law. As such, my opinions are just that, opinions, and they may not be 100% correct. It is my expectation, however, that the NY court would not find MediaSentry to be a PI and therefore, the statute would not apply. - PA42, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5There are several ways it could go:
1) This would only directly effect New York cases. Cases outside NY are not governed under the statute, therefore, it does not effect those cases, however their may be similar statutes in other states
2) The judge could (and likely would) decide that the even if MediaSentry was a PI firm, that the evidence is still good, but the jury would here about the lack of license. I am not an expert on this law, so I do not know exactly when judges have the discretion to throw out the evidence (however it would almost definitely be the judges discretion).
3) The judge could easily decide to say MediaSentry does not fall under the NY statute.
4) If the judge decides either way, future NY defendants could bring it up and won't necessarily follow this case, however it will be helpful to the side that wins (although it's moot because it's not going to trial)
5) It's doebtful that being a PI limits their evidence gathering ability, so the law probably doesn't "make them able to gather evidence that they would by law not be able to gather as a licenced investigator." however I may have misunderstood you
6) The PI law probably does have ethics attached (if you violate the ethics you lose your license), however in the state where I practice law, MediaSentry hasn't come close to an ethics violation
Other legal minds may disagree with me, but that's my take - a10webb, on 02/04/2008, -0/+5FTFA:"The exhibits attached to the RIAA's complaints invariably contain screenshots of KaZaA users' share folders as well as a list of the 20 to 30 songs downloaded by MediaSentry in their entirety."
You're kidding me right. A screenshot of a filename is supposed to tell you exactly what it is. That is complete ***** and proves nothing except what a file is named. That sounds like pure heresay to me. It's the same as saying, I saw this guy with a box that had 'music' written on it. Who knows what's inside, it could be books or bricks for all you know. - c0ldanon, on 06/13/2008, -0/+4As always it amazes me that companies such as MediaSentry (who are in the business of law) have the possibility of their evidence being inadmissable due to not abiding to the law...
Hopefully this will slow down the money-hungry RIAA for a least a little while whilst further denting their image. - spunkmyer, on 02/04/2008, -3/+7Haa, haa
- PA42, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4Why do people keep asking the same question which is answered above. If you don't like my answer or I didn't answer it, please elaborate or debate me.
- unjustend, on 02/04/2008, -0/+4These are not the words you are looking for.
- BoneheadFarker, on 02/04/2008, -1/+5MediaSentry aren't in the business of law, or else they wouldn't have made such a stupid mistake. They are a bunch of geeks who thought they could make money on the situation and didn't do their homework...
- SpaceRibs, on 02/04/2008, -0/+3I've yet to hear positive news on the RIAA's side in quite a while ... they sure have lost a lot of steam over the past few years, along with any pity american consumers originally had for them.
- c0ldanon, on 06/13/2008, -0/+2Ah ok, my mistake.
I think my perception of the RIAA with a gang of hungry pitball lawyers ready to strike on anyone and everyone must have rubbed off a bit on anyone else related to them.
Thanks for the ammendment :) - actorboy, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2PA42:
Question: Does the fact the MediaSentry is located in Maryland while the defendant is in New York enter into it? Technically, even if MediaSentry is considered a PI by New York standards, they did not operate as a PI in New York, but rather gathered information that was transmitted across state lines. Or does the fact that the case is being tried in a New York court make the point moot? - ronaldinho, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2what pity?
- rinpoche, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2It's an interesting point that lawyer is making. Even if the case is dropped before the precedent is set, other lawyers are bound to pick up on it. I'm sure many states have similar laws.
I'd love to see how the malicious prosecution cases turn out.
BTW - something that rarely comes up is that attoryneys who file frivoulous suits on behalf of plaintiffs can be sanctioned. Attorney's have a duty to investigate whether a plaintiff's claims are factual. - inactive, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2Karma, karma, karma, karma, Karma Chameleon!
- sgtpppr, on 02/04/2008, -0/+2You guys work for MediaDefender or something? You dig a lot of the same stories and even joined digg around the same time.
- ORMEs, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1The problem with Kazaa is that it shares your music by default, and newb users don't understand that legitimate music that they've bought or ripped will end up uploaded to other peers resulting in illegal file sharing.
- kylere, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2I have no doubt that this will not matter in the long run due to the amount of lobbying being carried out by this organization, and the amount donated to corrupt Democrats and Republicans.
- pigfister, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1exactly and how can they tell if copywrite infringement had been committed, without them downloading a file themselves, which they never bothered to do btw.
- herebejames, on 09/17/2008, -0/+1I'm amazed the industry can even put up with either the RIAA or the MPAA & its middle men, it seems the only thing they achieve for them most days is progressively worse publicity. I can't even work out somedays if I should feel sorry for the industry behind them.
At best I'll be happy when someone on the other side of the fence realizes people won't pay full price for what's usually half rate content at best. Start getting realistic about the times were living in, start paying decent wages to the people who make it, not themselves & stop trying to re-write the book on content distribution every time a new draft emerges. It doesn't take a degree/PHD to realize every time they buck the change, eventually come round to the idea, release numerous doomed DRM & industry endorsed services 2 years too late - nobody cares, technology moved on. Either take advantage of it right then & listen to the consumer or lose out. Least of all drop the protection (and the money wasted on it) that will only ever amount to finite effectiveness & start making content people actually want to pay for the right to own.
hmmm end of rant. - GetALifeRIAA, on 02/04/2008, -1/+2Looks like RIAA picked another winner to work for them. Its probably because they can't get any real IT company to work for them, its bad for business Case and Point = MediaDefender.
- a10webb, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1Dear dkern:
You are in violation of the DMCA. You will be getting a letter from our attorneys with instructions on how to resolve this matter by paying out the ass.
Enjoy your day.
The MAFIAA - Quick2822, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1People still use KaZaa for file sharing? Crazy.
- ronaldinho, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1I can't wait for the day to say that the RIAA dies
- mojotooth, on 02/04/2008, -0/+1It doesn't benefit MediaSentry to be licensed. It benefits the *public* that they are licensed. That way PI companies that commit ethical skulduggery can have their license revoked by the government.
- slkuhn, on 02/04/2008, -2/+2Reported and blocked...have a nice day
- mydave, on 07/31/2008, -0/+0MediaSentry has acted as the RIAA's investigative arm throughout the music industry's legal campaign against file-sharers.
http://rpgworld.ath.cx/saves.html
http://mitip2007.org/cfp.html
http://www.omodudu.com - chazz871, on 02/05/2008, -0/+0All that may take is a few successful lawsuits brought by those who've been harrassed by the RIAA
- cnot3, on 02/04/2008, -3/+2Good news. Soon no doubt they will find that the RIAA has been extorting the American public without a license.
- alittleroy101, on 02/04/2008, -2/+1The force is strong with you.
- orangetiki, on 02/04/2008, -3/+1well isn't that a fanboy's wet dream come true.
- marffa, on 02/04/2008, -5/+2
Haa, haa - inactive, on 02/04/2008, -5/+1HAHAHAHAHA
How amateurish of them.
Screw them. - triskele, on 02/04/2008, -8/+3I'm at a loss for words.
- goldwish, on 02/04/2008, -7/+1
Glad to see these guys finally get some attention as well. It seemed like MediaDefender was getting all of the grief.
Ok - serious question here to all of the legal-types out there: Does MediaSentry having no PI licence change anything? Does it make them able to gather evidence that they would by law not be able to gather as a licenced investigator? Does it make them follow a standard of ethics or accountability?
Is it simply sloth that these amateurs don't have a licence or does it benefit them to be quasi-legal? Inquiring minds want to know. - ChristBehemoth, on 02/04/2008, -11/+2Oh crap, you got here before I could :)
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is