News MediaSentry slapped by Massachusetts

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/02/06/mediasentry_slapped_by_massachusetts/1

MediaSentry, an 'information gathering' company responsible for providing evidence against alleged file sharers, has been issued a 'cease and desist' notice by the state of Massachusetts.

 

Go for the eyes, Boo!

 

wow, the riaa making an arse of them selves, thats original

 

Cookie for you, Minsc!

 

Personally I think it's totally legitimate for the RIAA to utilse these methods.




HA HA, oh, ha, sorry, couldn't keep a straight face whilst saying that.

 

Well it's another nail in the coffin for the RIAA. One more nail closer to the final one

 

PWND!!!!

by the way, why did Massachusetts make a 'cease and desist' notice?

 

0wned! Horray for my state doing something right for once

 

Gareth Halfacree i got it that far.... but a PI licence.... 3.14159265..... or another thing?

 

ROFL, the other PI

As in Private Investigator

 

ow that kind of PI, i was not associating PI to that PI, here the letters are exchanged, as in IP or "Investigador Privado".......

thanks

 

They've no doubt done "wrong" in the eyes of law, but whether they have actually done wrong (as in moral) is entirely different. (God I love having studied philosophy!)

Anyway Ive just thought surely the legal cost for all these court proceedings is far higher than what these people have allegedly robbed the company of (Though I suppose it does help to stop the increase of this kind of activity somewhat).

Im in the UK so what is the RIAA exactly? Will these media companies ever win completely is more the question id want answered?

 

For them to be sitting and watching the torrents, would they not also have to be illegally sharing or downloading the file themselves?

 

According to the article MediaSentry only registers calls for bit-torrent file parts I gather?
To me this means that MediaSentry or RIAA have a remote chance to verify that people have downloaded files in their entirety? Or they'd also have to monitor that the users reach 100%?
Otherwise there wouldn't be a case would there?

Also these lawsuits on copyright infringement claim substantial losses but how do they even remotely calculate this?
What if the "Doe" downloaded a song to listen to it on his non WMA/Ipod device because he didn't know how / bother to convert the CD on his desk to MP3?!

I don't get it. I really don't see how we can have "open" and "transparent" democracies and then have judicial systems that are generally more ignorant than cotton balls.
The whole idea of copyright is to give the creative person some defense against someone cashing in through unauthorized reproduction of their creation.
Mr. and Ms. Doe don't cash in on downloading 17 songs on a P2P network.
It's a matter of a judicial safeguard being used offensively. Come on courts of our great democracies! See this for what it is.

I suddenly realize that scare tactics is what bled through the brains if the RIAA godfathers. Noting that scare tactics is the most immoral and anti-democratic way of doing anything.

RIAA et al please stop wasting your money and lawyers on harassment and start doing some good for the world for a change. Contrary to your beliefs it's actually possible to make money from doing good.