Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WSJ Confirms RIAA Fired MediaSentry

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the meet-the-new-boss dept.

Music 158

newtley writes "Two days ago we discussed the earlier p2pnet report that the RIAA had fired MediaSentry (now called SafeNet). Now the Wall Street Journal is confirming this report. MediaSentry has been 'invading the privacy of people,' the WSJ quotes Ray Beckerman; 'They've been doing very sloppy work.' Beckerman cites MediaSentry's practice of 'looking for available songs in people's filesharing folders, uploading them, and using those uploads in court as evidence of copyright violations.' MediaSentry 'couldn't prove defendants had shared their files with anyone other than MediaSentry investigators.' The WSJ notes, 'In place of MediaSentry, the RIAA says it will use Copenhagen-based DtecNet Software ApS. The music industry had worked with DtecNet previously both in the US and overseas, and liked its technology...' "

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If by fired (5, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325703)

If by fired they mean their scam was found out and they got busted for it. Sure why not.

Re:If by fired (2, Interesting)

skaet (841938) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325999)

I've got nothing against the RIAA enforcing copyright for illegally shared media. This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders. What I do have a problem with is their methods such as MediaSentry's dirty little tricks like this, and the targeting of young teenagers and grandparents - which sets no real precedent and doesn't send a message to the real pirates except to say "we're a bunch of arseholes so go ahead and pirate some more."

If this switch to DtecNet can usher in an age of ethical copyright enforcement then go for it. Then at least their ego-fuelled air of self-rightousness might provide enough power to pay for the waste of legal fees they keep dumping into this pointless battle.

Re:If by fired (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326303)

I've got nothing against the RIAA enforcing copyright for illegally shared media. This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders. What I do have a problem with is their methods such as MediaSentry's dirty little tricks like this, and the targeting of young teenagers and grandparents - which sets no real precedent and doesn't send a message to the real pirates except to say "we're a bunch of arseholes so go ahead and pirate some more."

So, what should they do? Should they subpoena the ISP and find out who the perpetrator is and then drop the case if they person is over or under a certain age? If they did that they would be right back on the front page of Slashdot for age discrimination, and for having selected arbitrary ages as being OK to pirate.

I'm not going to defend the RIAA's business model, but the type of criticism they get generally smacks of rationalizations. Their is no way for them to defend their media rights, realistically, but people blow way out of proportion the handful of cases that are incorrectly filed as if that negates all of the others.

I'll likely be modded troll for this, but I'd bet that 99+% of all of the cases even filed by the RIAA (let alone that actual led to decisions or settlements) were against people who were breaking the law and downloading / uploading illegally.

I don't want to defend the RIAA's methods, but it just seems like everyone who posts against the RIAA would be unwilling to accept ANY form of defensive action by them.

I don't like the RIAA, I don't like how they price music or run the business, but it isn't for me to dictate to them how they should run their business. And while I do download music illegally, I don't justify it by saying it is cause the RIAA sucks or that they shouldn't be able to defend their intellectual property rights.

Re:If by fired (3, Insightful)

fwarren (579763) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326459)

So, what should they do? Should they subpoena the ISP and find out who the perpetrator is and then drop the case if they person is over or under a certain age?

Lets call it like it is. This has always been about PR. Let those who download music know. If you share music for download...WE WILL FIND YOU.

While realisticly speaking, you have a better chance of winning a lottery than getting charged by the RIAA. Still the name of the game is image. In the long run. Going after 9 year old girls. Going after people who are seriously handicapped and on a fixed income. Going after old people who are even clueless about if they own a computer. May not be the best way to win the PR war.

I think their downfall was getting lawyers involved. They started running it like a protection racket. We get an IP address and someone says it was used by you. Pay us $5,000.00, say your a thief, a pirate and promise never download music again...even from iTunes. Then we will go away.

As a way for the RIAA to cap people for $5,00 weather they can afford it or not. So they can make a little dough. It worked well enough. As a way to stop actual file sharing...it failed. As a way to win the PR war in the public eye on file sharing. They went after two many of the wrong people.

Re:If by fired (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328511)

I am offended that a post with so many glaring spelling and grammatical errors could get so highly moderated. Shame. Shame. SHAME.

Re:If by fired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328881)

I agree with you about it being a PR battle, and having failed. My fear is that this will only push the RIAA to increase their efforts to mandate more invasive forms of DRM or additional protective legislation.

On the one hand, if they achieve their magical perfect DRM goals then maybe it would pave the way for better download services with complete libraries. On the other hand, they would probably just jack up prices and force you to download bundles with stuff you don't want.

I don't really see a solution for the RIAA other than the iTunes model of just making it easier than the alternatives, which still necessitates some form of legal action if only to shut down anyone who starts to make the piracy process too easy.

Re:If by fired (2)

Ascagnel (826800) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326763)

I'm going to go out on a limb, but... I think the RIAA might be better off if they dropped their "Settlement Center." Rather than hanging the threat of a lawsuit, they should actually file the lawsuit before going to the settlement center. Give everyone their day in court, and a chance to say right off the bat that the case is bull. Let a technically experienced judge rule on this. This idea could be extended to the whole filtering business, if it were to ever get written into law (*shudder*). This should clear the hurdle of dirty tricks (the judge should spot those). It doesn't age discriminate. Also, if someone can stick a hole in this, please do.

Re:If by fired (1)

xeoron (639412) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328617)

IANAL, so correct me if I am wrong: Downloading content is not illegal. What makes an action deemed copyright infringement is by making content available and actually sharing it beyond the extent the law allows.

Re:If by fired (4, Informative)

Stoutlimb (143245) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326399)

"This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders."

I would like to point out to you that usually this is not the case. The music company usually retains the copyright to songs created by the artists they employ.

Something is Rotten in Demark (4, Interesting)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326949)

Am I the only one who wonders about the legal implications of hiring a firm based in Copenhagen? Do they suppose that that will protect them from the consequences of using investigators who are not licensed in the USA? Or do they plan to poison more torrents and release more spoof files rather than suing people?

The only thing I can think of when I read this is that they plan to cheat the system somehow and I can only wonder what they plan to do next...

Re:Something is Rotten in Demark (2, Insightful)

kenp2002 (545495) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329575)

This will not end well because of one word:

Espionage.

A foreign nation becoming involved, one breach of security, this doesn't look good on paper, why the hell would it look any better in real life? Opps that was a military laptop with illegal mp3s... oh crap..

Testimony (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329781)

One question I have would be how well testimony from an entity stations in another country would stand up in a US court, not that MediaSentry's was very good either.

Not exactly, the copyright is typically _assigned_ (5, Interesting)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26327195)

> The music company usually retains the copyright

Not exactly, in most cases the artist(s) assign their copyrights to the labels, and this means that soon, starting around 2013, there will be an interesting battle in the Federal courts whether or not the artists can terminate these assignments as stipulated in the 1976 Copyright Act [usc.edu] .

Re:If by fired (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326561)

Actually I have a feeling that while many might look at the death of Mediasentry as a good thing, I think it will end up being a lot worse. Because before you could fight them in court and who knows, if you got lucky you might get some law school or even NYCLawyer to take the case. Now it looks like they are just going to bypass the courts and go straight to the ISPs, which in most places have a monopoly. So I have a feeling if you use BT or any other file sharing tool 3 times they will just get the ISP to bounce you and that is it. After all by going to the ISP you will have to PROVE you didn't do anything wrong, which as most know proving a negative is pretty much impossible. And most ISPs aren't going to do the kind of deep packet investigation to see what you are down/uploading, most will just take the *.A.As word for it. And sadly with so little competition in most of the USA you can be effectively cut off from the Internet thanks to the *.A.As if they manage to get the ISPs to join in(and since most have media services they want to sell you it wouldn't surprise me if they jumped on board).

And since the net is one of the last great ways we have to speak out and be heard I bet it won't take them long to figure out it makes a pretty effective SLAPP to boot. After all with a private ISP they don't have to PROVE anything, since most TOS gives the ISP a thousand out clauses. What we need is copyright reforms, not more craziness from the media cartels. Sadly with both the dems and repubs bought and sold I just don't see it happening in my lifetime.

When it reaches large numbers there will be a bill (3, Insightful)

Kaukomieli (993644) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328631)

The business-model of ISPs is to sell internet-access to people. So if someone wants them to disconnect someone there will be a price-tag on this customer including the money spent on acquiring a customer in the first place and the amount of money the ISP expects to earn with this customer.

As it is a network industry there will be almost nil cost-reduction due to having a customer less (it ought to only effect peering-fees that can be attributed to this specific customer).
If a customer is not profitable due to exceeding the calculated traffic (extremely heavy users) the ISP will try to get out of the contract in some way anyhow, as is known from the discussions regarding "flat rates".

Disconnecting a handful of customers will not be a problem for a big ISP, but as soon as this gets an automated process regarding a significant part of the customer-base the ISPs will demand compensation.

Exactly right (1)

Doghouse Riley (1072336) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328879)

If you take away BT and Giganews, my desire for broadband drops to the point where a $10/month dialup account becomes a realistic possibility.

And I'm sure I am not the only one.

How many customers have to make that decision before my cable company decides not to be the RIAA'a buttboy?

Re:Exactly right (2, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329445)

But you are missing the upside to greedy ISPs. If you get rid of everyone that actually USES the amount they paid for then they can keep overselling like mad and never need to pay for any infrastructure upgrades. We have heard time and time again that it is these "granny" users that are nothing but profit for the ISPs since they use so little bandwidth compared to what they pay for. So by becoming the *.A.As buttmonkey they can cut off their "costly" users while having a great excuse that will keep 99% of them from saying anything about it in the press.

After all they were just getting rid of those "law breaking filthy thieves" and not just propping up their profit margins by not giving the customer what they paid for. Perfect spin while not actually needing to anything with their profits but stuff them in their pockets. And when you figure in the costs of actually upgrading your aging infrastructure I'm sure losing those BT and other file sharing app users will be negligible when compared to the upgrade, at least in the short term. And as we have seen time and time again in this country corporations have lost the ability to think past the quarterly earnings reports.

Re:If by fired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326663)

I've got nothing against the RIAA enforcing copyright for illegally shared media. This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders.

It is not the RIAA's job to enforce anything - that's why we have police.

Re:If by fired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326737)

I've got nothing against the RIAA enforcing copyright for illegally shared media. This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders.

It is not the RIAA's job to enforce anything - that's why we have police.

Bah, semantics. Investigate, enforce = whatever.

Re:If by fired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328687)

This is their duty and the artists are the legal copyright holders.

Do not mistake what the RIAA is doing as being for the benefit of anyone but themselves. The artists are NOT the copyright holders of these works nor do they benefit from these actions, the companies that comprise and support the RIAA are the copyright holders of the music and are the beneficiaries of these actions. The RIAA would love for you to believe that it is doing this for the "Artists" but the sad truth is that they wouldn't bother.

Re:If by fired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326141)

Well if you've been paying attention to the news lately on the RIAA, they won't need Media Sentry anymore, they want to have the ISPs do the dirty work for them of finding file sharers and punishing them for transferring copyrighted content. If they aren't going to sue individual file sharers anymore, MediaSentry has no purpose to the RIAA. I am sure all the pseudo half-assed evidence and all the headaches MediaSentry deservedly gave the RIAA, it makes sense for them to move in this direction. Of course this doesn't fix the problem of the RIAA wanting a strangle hold on the internet and wanting to burn the forest (Internet) down to catch a few people in the act. So, this just represents a change in strategy for the RIAA members, not necessarily anything beneficial to the legitmate consumer or technology on a whole. If the RIAA has their way, the internet will be like the private cell phone networks we use in the States: High Premium, controlled, and locked down.

Re:If by fired (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326359)

It really should be "jettisoned".

Al Franken? Are you fucking serious? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326375)

Way to go, Minnesotans. Hey, I hear Jimmy Fallon is considering running for Representative. Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. You did once choose the minigun-toting 'roid-popper from "The Predator" to be your Governor. "I ain't got time to bleed!"

Re:If by fired (2, Funny)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26327037)

I think it was just their new year's resolution to dump em. If I worked at the RIAA *stops to go throw up just thinking about it* that would certainly be on my list!

The Fall Man (5, Insightful)

nathan.fulton (1160807) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325707)

...And all the while the RIAA will be the innocent victim of firms like evil MediaSentry.

...And all the while the RIAA will continue to fight the good fight against down-right theft.

...And all the while the people will continue to believe every last word of it.

Re:The Fall Man (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325983)

Burma Shave

Re:The Fall Man (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326241)

Ya, I thought it was obvious to me as well. I tagged it "Patsy". Though fallman and scapegoat will suffice too.

I confirmed it too! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26325715)

I sat naked on the bench in the health club locker room, staring at the tiles on the floor between my feet, but really looking at nothing. I was waiting for Barack to decide to come up ant talk to me. He was this muscular middle-age nigger who frequented the club and had ruined my life in the last few weeks. I was ordered to sit naked on the bench without a towel or anything to cover my nakedness. I had to keep my legs spread and my cock and balls visible for the anyone In the locker room who wanted a look. I knew instantly that it had been a mistake to sign up at the inner city health club which was eighty percent black, but It was near my house and cheap which was even more important.

The harassment had started on my first visit. Dark skinned, muscular senate aides bouncing around the locker room with their huge dicks and pendulous sacks of balls swinging, high fiving each other and laughing and rapping, and there I was, this moderately built white guy of thirty two.

I will never forget coming back from the shower and one chocolate skinned thug of about eighteen let out a "weeeeeeeow" kind of sound and then said very loudly to me, loudly enough for all his pals to hear, "White man, how the hell can you fuck wit such a small dick?" They all roared with laughter and I turned bright red. Before I left that first time, I med Barack. He eased up to me while I was packing my gym bag. He is one good looking darkie, I will say that for him. He flashed me a big white toothed smile and said he hoped I wasn't thinking of quitting the club. He said he was friends with the manager and they had my address and shit, and it would be really unfortunate if I decided to quit. Then he laid one large basketball player sized hand on my shoulder and said that he would see me at the same time the next day.

Well, that's how it started. It got worse each time I went to the club. Barack and the other niggers got me to get towels for them, had me scrub their backs in the shower, even made me pick their dirty stinking jock straps up off the floor. They sent their filthy jocks and socks home with me to wash for them.

Now let me state here once and for all, that I am in no way at all gay. I don't think I ever even had a gay thought. So all of this really repulsed me. They would brush up against me so their big fat black dicks rubbed my body. They would make constant jokes about me being a faggot.

So I had it out with Barack. I told him I was a single parent with a thirteen year old daughter and in no way gay, and I wanted to quit the club. That mention of my daughter was the biggest mistake of my life. Barack demanded to see a photo of her. Her name is Crissy. After that, all they talked about was "Crissy the Cunt" in the locker room.

"Some congressman probably shoving his dick in her right now while you is at da club." They would say things like that. Barack would ask, "Do you suppose she had ever sucked black dick?" I told them she was totally innocent, and they should keep their foul mouths to themselves. They beat the shit out of me.

I didn't go to the club for a week. All the windows were broken on my car, and my newspaper was stolen, and somebody pissed all over our door. I received a package at work, and when I opened it, there was a pile of shit in a box. I was going nuts with anguish. I thought of going to the police, but I knew I would face even worse if I did. So I went back to the club. That was two months ago. A lot had happened in those two months.

Now I sat waiting for Barack to speak with me. He walked up, stark naked. The first thing I saw were his huge brown feet next to me. I looked up at his long muscular legs. How could I miss the seven inch flaccid dick, thick as a flashlight and the ball sack that looked like it had oranges in it. It was fucking obscene. His stomach was hard and tight. His ass was one of those round tight nigger bubble butts. His chest well defined with large nipples. He had a killer smile, thick nigger lips, and dark flashing eyes that often looked drugged.

"So, my man, how's that little dick of yours hangin'?"

I spread my legs wider so he could see my pathetic shriveled white prick and small ball sack. If I didn't keep myself on display for them at all times, they would have a wet towel snapping session where my scrotum was the target. It hurt like hell and was totally humiliating.

"So, bro, is everything set up for tomorrow?" He stood close to me...so close that his huge flaccid hunk of fuck meat brushed my shoulder. His dick was so huge, it was just fucking obscene, and that was in its flaccid state. He had not showered yet, and his body reeked of the nigger stink of his workout.

"Please. Please don't do this. I know I agreed, but that was after you had beaten me almost senseless. Please, isn't there some other way?"

He lifted one leg and put his foot on the bench next to me. His gigantic balls swung back and forth in their fleshy sack.

"Dere is no other fucking way, man. You don't wanna even think of what we gonna do to you next time you disobeys us. Dere is no other way. Now it so happens dat I needs me a new girlfriend, and your pretty little daughter fills da bill."

I felt my stomach turn over. I tried to relax, to breath deeply, but I felt like I was choking. This president elect nigger thug was talking about my daughter. My little Crissy. My thirteen year old angel. He had announced to me that he wanted her to become his girlfriend! Jesus Christ!

At first I had bluntly refused, letting my anger and disgust show. All the niggers in the club gathered around me, about fifteen of them, and Barack announced that I was racially prejudiced and didn't want him dating his white daughter. They started to slap and punch me.

"It's not that. Honest to God, I swear, it's not that you are black. It's that she is only thirteen. She's my innocent baby!"

Barack roared with laughter. "Any bitch of thirteen is totally ready for dick! She probably sucking da boys at school every day anyway by now." He looked at the photo of her which he had taken from me. "Yeah, she got real cocksucker lips, she shore do!"

"Oh God no, she's just a baby." I was crying in front of all of them.

"No, daddy, you gots it wrong. She is a babe...not a baby. Dat pretty little pussy is ready for some nigger popping!" Half the niggers surrounding me were getting hard ons, and I don't think there there was one under eight and a half inches.

For weeks I had argued, begged, pleaded, tried to bargain with Barack, but he only wanted one thing. My daughter's virgin pussy. Once I stood up to them and told them I would go to the police. They had dragged me naked and screaming into the health club bathroom and forced me to eat turds out of the toilet bowl. I was sick for two days. The next time I went to the club, Barack had made me suck his dick. That was the first time I saw it erect. Over twelve inches of throbbing leaking nigger cock. I had a panic attack and literally tried to run out of the club. They held me down on a bench and Barack fed me his black fuck meat. His balls almost suffocated me. His dick choked me. He even made me suck his ass. What could I do? I agreed to let them have my daughter. I know, I am an awful man. A sinner. It is unforgivable, but I am scared out of my wits.

"So, tomorrow, I comes over to yo house dressed up real good. You introduce me to yo bitch daughter. Now when I sees her, dis is how I wants her dressed. A very tight tee shirt dat says printed on it, "Obama" She will wear no bra under it so I can see the tips of her budding little titties through the material. Den she is to wear her nice pleated cheer leader skirt like in da photo, only I don want her to wear no panties under it. From now on, yo daughter is forbidden to ever wear any panties. We want dat fresh young cunt and ass ready and available at all times. I want you to have some really top drawer booze at yo house ready for me. I am not sure what I will want, so you better have enough to satisfy me, whatever my taste might be. Who da fuck knows, I may want a cosmo, or maybe some of dat Louis XIII Brandy dat costs three hundred dollars. You better have it all. After I has a drink, you pretty little bitch and I gonna sit on da couch and get acquainted. Dat means you as da daddy get to watch me finger her cunt and play wit her titties. You gets to see her meet my big fat old dick and even lick and suck it a little. I always insists on sex on da first date, cause how else you know how a bitch perform, right? Shit, I insist on sex on every date. I mean dat is da only reason for da fucking date..to plow some pussy! Right? Otherwise I'd rather hang wit da congressional black caucus. Now she gonna be a little uptight and scared at firs...right? Specially when she see my dick and she know dat huge motherfucker is gonna plow her virgin twat! Oh yea, if she got any hair on her cunt yet, you make sure she shave it all off before tomorrow. I wanna see bald thirteen year old pussy."

While he said all of this to me at the health club, his dick got thicker and thicker and long strings of pre-fuck started to hang from the fat pisshole.

"Please don't hurt her...please." I was shaking in my naked agony.

"Hurt her? No why the fuck would I hurt my new girlfriend? I gonna love her. I gonna show her da pleasures of lovemaking. Shore, it gonna hurt a little da first time I ram my twelve and a half inch motherfucking dick balls deep into her tight little teenage pussy. Shore it gonna hurt when I pounds her as hard as I can, and den pull out and shove it as hard as I can up her little asshole. Shore dat gonna hurt a little, but dat is jus' part of growin' up. A her daddy, you understand dat. Right? Better to hab some senator like me who wants her for his girlfriend fucking her, den every boy at school who don't give a shit about her.

"Now don't you worry, I gonna take her into the bedroom to fuck her cunt and ass. I think dat is private. I mean, you can watch da first time she suck my balls and lick my dick and such. But fucking is between a guy and his girlfriend. I wants you dere at the start...at the sucking part, cause she is gonna be scared like I say, and you can calm her. Tell her it is a natural part of life, and she just gotta learn to please a man. She, she shoulda learned dat couple of years ago already. She is a late bloomer.

Now I am gonna want to use her bedroom for da first fuck,cause I wants to fuck her little bitch body in her teenage bed, wit all her teenage shit around. It will be so hot. But den, I is moving into your master bedroom. You can sleep on da couch. I wants a nice big bed and luxury for future fucks. I gotta fuck at least three times a day, usually more. Now of course I still going to be bangin' other cunt, but I will fuck your daughter regularly cause she is my number one girlfriend. My special bitch. I ain't gonna introduce her to my bros until after I fuck her for a week or so. Den when she broken in, I gonna share her with all da boys from dis here health club. Dere about twenty of us here as you know, so she gonna be pretty busy sucking nigga dick and getting ass and cunt fucked. We gonna do mos' of it over at yo house. You have lots of food dere at all times fo my brothers when dey comes over to fuck your daughter. Since she be fucking most every day all day and night from now on, I suggest you apply to home school her. Dat way, she don't even need to think about school and she can concentrate on nigga cock all da time."

"Please, please use condoms...." I had tears running down my face.

Barack roared with laughter. "Condoms? Shit...no. We never use condoms. It ruins da fuck. Dat little bitch gonna be pregnant in a couple of weeks at mos'. You gonna be da grand daddy of a nigga chile! And who knows. She young. If she stay tight enough and cute enough, maybe we fuck her for three or four years, you know, pass her around, pimp her out. Shit, she still young enough. She could hab five or six nigga babies! We don' allow no abortions. She gonna breed. Now my brothers and daddy be comin' over lots to fuck her too, so you better have lots of keys to yo house made, or jus' leave the fucking place unlocked. She don't leave da house without permission. I would hate it for both of you if some black bro comes over for a good hard fuck, and she not dere! Now I know you worried about her. Don' be. After a few days of getting nigga dick, she gonna love it so much, dat all she gonna live for. I seen it in young white bitches lots of times. Someday she gonna thank you for all dis. I mean how many girls her age so lucky to get ten to fifteen black cocks a day? Long as her pussy and asshole hold up, she be happy. One thing, she gonna hab to be a really good cocksucker, cause One thig is dat when da boys in my hood meet up wit da republics to work on budget agreements...we got dis thing. We hab our girlfriends suck da cocks of all da members of the other party, as kind of a peace signal, you know, a sign dat we is kewl and everything is okay. So she gonna pretty much hab a dick in her mouth twenty-four seven for da next few months. She gonna be sucking on old white guy dick even when she getting fucked by my bros. Dis house gonna be pretty packed full of black boys! Now, after a bitch has sucked fifteen to twenty dicks a day, she often get a real tired jaw and swollen lips and a sore tongue, so you gonna have to tell her no matter how tired she get, da last dick of da day she suck, gets jus' as good a suck as da first one in da morning. You gotta make sue she understand that. I can't have no bad reports from dem rpublicans dat my bitch can't suck!

Now we gots one more problem. Da little bitch gonna be so busy getting fucked and sucking dick, she ain't gonna hab no proper time to clean up da dicks after dey fuck her cunt and ass! You know it da bitch's job to clean a dick wit her mouth after a brother fuck her. I mean, you can't expect a brother to walk around wit pussy slime or ass juice on his dick. But she gonna be so busy, she ain't always gonna hab time to clean up, so you my friend is going to have to step up to da plate to help her. You gonna be the official dick cleaner. You gonna lick and suck da dicks clean after dey fuck yo bitch of a daughter. I want you naked on you hands and knees at all times around da house, ready to lick and suck dick clean. And you gonna do a fine job too, I just know it. You get all dat stink off da cock. Maybe you can entertain da brothers waiting next in line to fuck yo daughter too by lickig dere balls and assholes. I never thought of dat until just now. Hot damn, dat is a good idea, ain't it? So dey don't get bored while dey waitin. And den, to keep your daughter fresh and tight, after every three or four fucks, you gonna crawl in and suck the nigga cum right outta her pussy and asshole. Think how great dat is. You gonna get to suck some thirteen year old pussy and asshole! How lucky is dat? You gonna clean out her cunt real good with yo tongue so it is ready for da next nigga.

We gonna be da happiest family you ever seen! Now come on, white boy, suck my dick, can't you see it dripping all over da floor?"

I put my mouth over the head of the huge leaking hunk of fuckmeat, and resigned myself and my daughter to our new destiny.

This is a false story (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26325719)

Planted by my asss like a turd on the creamy white virgin breast of Lisa Snelling, I think this is caused by BSD because of the packet filter in ipV6? cock

The question is though (5, Interesting)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325721)

ARE they legal investigators in other states? That was one of the whole points with Mediasentry, they where illegally doing what they where doing in a number of states the RIAA had cases in. If this new company does the same shit then guess what, nothing changes and the RIAA is again violating the law.

Re:The question is though (1)

mpe (36238) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328571)

ARE they legal investigators in other states? That was one of the whole points with Mediasentry, they where illegally doing what they where doing in a number of states the RIAA had cases in. If this new company does the same shit then guess what, nothing changes and the RIAA is again violating the law.

But did anything happen to the RIAA over this? It's unlikely that a company in Denmark would be a certified PI anywhere in North America too.

Bad summary: uploads != downloads (5, Interesting)

scdeimos (632778) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325731)

The /. summary reports:

Beckerman cites MediaSentry's practice of 'looking for available songs in people's filesharing folders, uploading them, and using those uploads in court as evidence of copyright violations.

The MSN article reports:

Mr. Beckerman cites MediaSentry's practice of looking for available songs in people's file-sharing folders, downloading them, and using those downloads in court as evidence of copyright violations.

Whilst it's still a scummy thing to do, it's not as bad as uploading to peoples' filesharing folders and then taking them to court for copyright violations.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (5, Insightful)

paimin (656338) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325885)

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (3, Interesting)

jps25 (1286898) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325985)

Has kdawson ever disappointed?

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326355)

troll? for stating the obvious?

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326033)

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

But we all knew what the intended meaning was.

Don't get your panties all untwisted over this.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26327323)

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

But we all knew what the intended meaning was.

Did we all?

First of all, that we may guess what the intended meaning was is no excuse for writing complete nonsense (or turning things upside-down). Second, there is a very big difference between whether you download something from somebody's shared folder or whether you're "uploading [... files to other peoples computers], and using those uploads in court as evidence of copyright violations."

And some of "us all" have it understood exactly as it was falsely stated in the summary.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (5, Funny)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326191)

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

It depends on your point of view.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326219)

No, it doesn't. You also never change a citation.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (3, Informative)

sgladfelter (889576) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326357)

I think you were going for +1 funny (although how you got modded flamebait I don't get), but it really doesn't depend your point of view.

All that matters is who originated the file transfer, i.e. If I am downloading something, you wouldn't say "The server is uploading something to me." Nor would it make any sense to say "The server is downloading something from me." when I am in fact uploading.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (4, Funny)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326995)

> All that matters is who originated the file transfer, i.e. If I am downloading something, you wouldn't say "The server is uploading something to me." Nor would it make any sense to say "The server is downloading something from me." when I am in fact uploading.

Actually, I know plenty of people who would say exactly that and think it made sense. I would go so far to say that it's going the way of the "hacker vs. cracker" distinction in that few people appear to care at this point. Best find some new terms, like they did with the white hat/black hat thing.

I mean, at this point, if you say that crackers broke into your website, people will be on the lookout for someone speaking with a southern drawl...

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (1)

paimin (656338) | more than 5 years ago | (#26327489)

Nonsense. It's like mixing up "to" and "from". It's not unclear at all, and we don't need new terms.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (2)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326487)

c'mon, mods. A classic weasel-phrase from Obi Wan Kenobi is "-1, flamebait"?

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (1)

Samah (729132) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326439)

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

As soon as I read that I looked up at the summary and sure enough, kdawson.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326449)

As far as I can tell, it's just clumsily worded. Because the thing that MediaSentry are trying to prosecute for is uploading, they're having to download (and thus have the peer upload) the file from them and using that transfer as evidence. Of course, that relies on the colloquial meaning of "upload" (relying solely on point-of-view, sort of like left vs right) rather than the literal meaning, which invokes classifying one machine as subordinate to/a peripheral of another.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326535)

But Ray had it right and the person writing the summary had it wrong. MediaSentry is downloading the music from the other person and using that as evidence the person is "sharing".

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326513)

The difference between uploading and downloading?

C'mon, it's not like this is a tech site or something... ... ...
yoink

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326813)

Dear lord, must we really suffer summaries on /. that confuse the difference between uploading and downloading??

Agreed; the artist of this novel summarization should read his word manual more patiently so he doesn't misconceive his acronyms.

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (1)

Kleen13 (1006327) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326905)

I know... It sounded like my sister talking about how she uploaded a new program on her pc and got "one of those virus things."

Re:Bad summary: uploads != downloads (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326903)

Whilst it's still a scummy thing to do, it's not as bad as uploading to peoples' filesharing folders and then taking them to court for copyright violations.

Hrm.. As the RIAA's contractor, uploading the file to a known public file-sharing location without an agreement in place implies unlimited permission for the recipient to share through that folder, granted by the act of uploading.

Does this mean... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26325733)

Does this mean there is a chance (hope) this will open the door for MediaSentry to get his ass sued (in particular for fabricating false evidence.) Will this also open the door for the RIAA to also get their asses handed down in court?

Shut up. I like to dream.

Re:Does this mean... (5, Interesting)

neokushan (932374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325771)

I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine that the only people with a potential case against MediaSentry would be the RIAA themselves for "misrepresenting" them or something and I very much doubt the RIAA would sue their partners in crime, MediaSentry almost certainly has plenty of dirt on them.

I'm not sure how Privacy laws work with regards to P2P, but it's probably quite easy to show you willingly shared the contents of your Hard Drive with others, or you'd be able to sue every other P2P user out there who connects to you.

Then again, I sure as shit aren't a lawyer and in this Crazy, topsy turvy world we live in, anything is possible.

Re:Does this mean... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326057)

For false evidence you're probably right. The RIAA would have contracted MediaSentry and used their evidence for DMCA takedowns and court cases. As the RIAA were presenting their evidence they would have most of the responsibility, but corporations rarely get anything other than fines and if they're smart the RIAA would have contracted the responsibility for their evidence to MediaSentry. Any victim would have to deal directly with the RIAA's faulty accusations because MediaSentry were a contractor of the RIAA.

There is good news though as the hysteria around hacking has caused unbalanced laws that say accessing a network resource without permission is illegal. Remember there are some legal opinions of these laws that say running nmap on a server is illegal, so while most Slashdot users would say "if it wasn't password protected don't complain" the law as written is typically much less reasonable and for once this is beneficial to the public.

I think that someone would have a good case against them (whether they have the resources to pursue the matter is another question)

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

Ok guys... (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325767)

Somebody needs to do a humiliating break-in to the RIAA's new jackbooted flunky and pull out some more email and phone records. It was hilarious when it happened to MediaSentry, I'm sure it'll be even funnier in Danish.

Now, I have neither the ability nor the intention; but I can dream...

Re:Ok guys... (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26328945)

Are you sure it's not the SWEDISH cook you're thinking of? :-)

Re:Ok guys... (1)

minvaren (854254) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329361)

"RIAA hires new Swedish company, hints that filesharers are now bork-bork-borked!"

They were evil... (5, Insightful)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325803)

...but we can assume that they were fired for being incompetent, not for being evil. All this proves is that there is a baseline level of incompetence which is unacceptable even for the RIAA. I wondered how low they'd be able to go.

Re:They were evil... (5, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325843)

there is a baseline level of incompetence which is unacceptable even for the RIAA

On that I beg to differ. The incompetence was something the RIAA was at all times aware of, and condoned. They didn't care if they got 20,000 or so 'false positives'. This was about creating a climate of terror. They were interested in getting something done cheaply, and it creating widespread fear. As it turns out the only people who ever came to fear the RIAA were the people who were not computer savvy and were not big file sharers.

And if you think the level of competence at the RIAA is better than MediaSentry's, why don't you take a survey of the record company shareholders and ask them how competent the RIAA was in administering this campaign.

Re:They were evil... (3, Insightful)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325891)

They didn't care if they got 20,000 or so 'false positives'

... because they still made thousands of dollars from each of those 'false positives' by threatening them with a lawsuit.

Re:They were evil... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326091)

Lawsuits are not cheap. As Ray intimated, the RIAA has actually lost money on this litigation campaign. That just the direct effect -- settlements minus legal fees. They were presumably really interested in an indirect effect -- scaring people into not sharing music online. (They were presumably not interested in the indirect effect of making lots of people realize that they're evil jackasses.)

Re:They were evil... (3, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326687)

And if you think the level of competence at the RIAA is better than MediaSentry's, why don't you take a survey of the record company shareholders

I don't know if it's just me getting angrier as I get older, but I find that the level of competence is slipping everywhere and in everything. I only have to look around my office to see around half the people that are less than competent, and it seems that it was eons ago that I got above satisfactory customer service during a transaction of some sort.

Re:They were evil... (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#26327669)

On that I beg to differ. The incompetence was something the RIAA was at all times aware of, and condoned. They didn't care if they got 20,000 or so 'false positives'. This was about creating a climate of terror. They were interested in getting something done cheaply, and it creating widespread fear.

Does that mean you could in theory dob them into the authorities for being terrorists?

Re:They were evil... (5, Insightful)

tftp (111690) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326383)

...but we can assume that they were fired for being incompetent, not for being evil.

We should assume that they were fired for becoming a worn out tool, a liability. In politics the term is "throw them under the bus."

The reasons for that are obvious - they lied too much, they broke the law several times, they were shown to be incompetent, use unproven, arbitrary methods, and so on. RIAA simply couldn't use them any more, since every witness from MediaSentry would be immediately confronted with their own earlier contradictory statements, and RIAA would lose the case.

Re:They were evil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26328345)

The reasons for that are obvious - they were caught lying too much, breaking the law several times, and were publicly shown to be incompetent, use unproven, arbitrary methods, and so on

there ... fixed it for you

The plot thickens.... (5, Insightful)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325817)

I really wonder what relation this had to the RIAA's big fake 'announcement' last month. I hope the WSJ and other journalists are asking the right questions.

Re:The plot thickens.... (2, Interesting)

1 a bee (817783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326169)

And how does Murdoch figure in all of this? I wonder. Besides being the new owner of the WSJ, he apparently has his fingers in the music industry also.

Any idea what they're up to? (1)

Xenographic (557057) | more than 5 years ago | (#26327029)

Any ideas where they go from here? The only thing that strikes me is that they're using a non-US firm. I have to believe that's part of some plot to use international boundaries to keep courts from taking a good look at what, exactly, this firm is doing on the RIAA's behalf.

Oh, and lest I forget, we should keep reminding people that the RIAA = EMI, Sony Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group & Warner Music Group [wikipedia.org] . I'd hate for the labels to evade a little bad press by hiding behind the RIAA name.

Re:Any idea what they're up to? (2, Funny)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329527)

Any ideas where they go from here?

I don't know. Chapter 11?

DtecNet (5, Interesting)

troll8901 (1397145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325859)

From their web site [dtecnet.com] :

"The evidence generated by DtecNet has been used and approved by criminal and civil courts alike across Europe."

I know it's too early to tell, but assuming if their claims were true...
If their evidence can satisfy the European courts, which are more protective of the individual (my POV, barring history), then what trouble would they have in the US courts?

"By only targeting content positively identified as illegal, the system avoids the problems of targeting P2P protocols indiscriminately securing maximum bandwidth for legal traffic."

Interesting, how would they know - they'll have to download a copy, right? If I record my own karaoke and share it out, does it count?

Also, won't they fall into the same "couldn't prove defendants had shared their files with anyone other than investigators" situation? (Imagine if they say that my <insert lousy movie here> episode is downloaded 50,000 times!)

Re:DtecNet (4, Funny)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325993)

Also, won't they fall into the same "couldn't prove defendants had shared their files with anyone other than investigators" situation? (Imagine if they say that my episode is downloaded 50,000 times!)

"Which was, your Honour, the number of downloads we expect the defendant to have made over the term of infringement, three months, via defendant's Internet connection which I believe Your Honour can be shown to be from defendant's laptop using it's built-in fifty-six thousand bit per second (scowls and raises eyebrow significantly at jury) Modulator-Demodulator unit over a known telephone line identified as belonging to ..."

Re:DtecNet (1)

psnyder (1326089) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326353)

If I record my own karaoke and share it out, does it count?

I believe it does actually, technically, yes. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but unless you're the copyright holder, you can karaoke for personal use, but you're not allowed to distribute. You could claim "parody" and "fare use" depending on the situation, but if they deem it to go beyond that, it could be treated as a "cover" of the song. And you must get permission to do a cover. Not to mention the fact that the background music you are singing over is most definitely under copyright.

But in reality, it's very doubtful they'd go after a fan distributing bad karaoke.

Re:DtecNet (1)

Muad'Dave (255648) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329027)

You could claim "parody" and "fare use"...

You can't charge people to ride your song.

Re:DtecNet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26327143)

"If their evidence can satisfy the European courts, which are more protective of the individual (my POV, barring history), then what trouble would they have in the US courts?"

Well... the US Courts have very different laws in many odd ways concerning the admissibility of evidence.

But, as others have mentioned, I imagine the same "unlicensed investigators" may prove a problem if they ever decide to operate within a state jurisdiction physically. Of course, since a transaction on a computer server legally occurs in the physical location of that server, and since downloading from a p2p site would make that "transaction" have a physical location on the alleged infringer's computer, wouldn't that count as operating in the jurisdiction of the state the infringer's system physically resides?

(NYCL probably knows far better than I can guess. But the jurisdictional tangle of the US Court system may be what kills the new company, too. Or not, depending on precedent. There are times I really dislike that our adversarial legal system means "whoever argues best must be true" despite what any facts may directly say. But it has worked, more or less, for awhile now...)

Re:DtecNet (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26329831)

If their evidence can satisfy the European courts, which are more protective of the individual (my POV, barring history), then what trouble would they have in the US courts?

Well, for one thing they still likely wouldn't be licensed investigators in various US states, which was one of the points where MediaSentry also got in trouble with the courts...

My guess is (4, Funny)

sleeponthemic (1253494) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325939)

The new company, "Yrtnesaidem Inc" will be much better.

Re:My guess is (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326343)

The new company, "Yrtnesaidem Inc" will be much better.

My bet is on MediaSentinel or MediaProtector. Coincidentally it will be made up of exactly the same staff members and management.

It that a man in a Armani suit waving his hand and saying "these aren't the investigators you're looking for"?

Re:My guess is (1)

Mister Liberty (769145) | more than 5 years ago | (#26327689)

LOL, Ynnuf!

Tomorrow's news headline... (5, Funny)

pikine (771084) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325989)

RIAA caught lying [slashdot.org] about firing MediaSentry.

What of the jilted lover? (4, Interesting)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26325997)

So what're the odds of some sort of memo surfacing from a jilted SafeNet from the RIAA saying something to the effect of 'Use any means possible! We have good lawyers! Don't worry about breaking the law! These fools can't fight us, this is America!! And in this country the laws are written by the people with the most money! Namely US! The RIAA, and all our members! Wahahaha!'?
Aside from the obvious self incrimination I mean.

Awwww. Poor babies (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326043)

let's just get over this whole 'your rights online' bullshit and just admit that this has nothing to do with rights and has everything to do with free tunes.

if this had anything to do with rights you guys would be petitioning the legislature about the laws at hand. i bet a single one of you fuckers have done no such thing.

Re:Awwww. Poor babies (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326093)

I would bet even more than that have done no such thing.

Just in case, you're reading, MediaSentry (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326077)

Just because past experience has shown that the guys at MediaSentry tend to read all the online articles about themselves, I'd like to insert this comment here:

* Fuck you guys *

Thanks! That is all.

Great anti-DRM idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326149)

Instead of bothering around with all kinds of DRM solutions, all the governments of the world should get together and pass laws requiring every human being to have an implant that monitors every sound coming into the ear. Whenever the sounds match any portion of a copyrighted song, the person's bank account is automatically debited the pay-per-hear price of that song. This makes irrelevant the need to have any other copyright law on music. In fact, the music publishers will encourage file sharing, public performance, copying, etc., because all of these things will mean that more people will hear the music, and therefore more money will flow to the music publishers. The automatic debit should take place regardless of the reason that a song was heard. That means if you pull up next to someone at the stoplight and they are playing loud music, you will pay for the privilege of having heard that music. If you're walking down the street and someone with a boom box is playing loud music, you will pay for the pleasure of hearing that music. Therefore the music publishers will encourage people to listen to music at high volumes. By the way, you will have to pay whether you hear the entire song or any portion thereof. I think this is a much better plan than having to burden both the publishers and the customers with DRM.

Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (5, Interesting)

NZheretic (23872) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326183)

"In place of MusicSentry, the RIAA says it will use Copenhagen-based DtecNet Software ApS. The music industry had worked with DtecNet previously both in the U.S. and overseas, and liked its technology, said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy."

So the RIAA is already paying a foreign company to spy on Americans internet usage in the USA? Isn't that in violation of some state or federal privacy/computer intrusion legislation?

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (1)

pfarber (1123907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326647)

A company is trying to keep deadbeats from stealing their legal property. Its freaking music. You would not shoplift a CD yet putting it in a publicly accessed folder for all to copy is ok? I support the **AA's 100% for protecting their assets. If you don't like it.. change the laws. But done cry when you get caught by legal means and convicted by a jury of your peers.

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (2, Funny)

Buzz_Light (1017486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326835)

You wouldn't hire an international team to spy on American citizens so that you could sue them on questionable grounds, would you? ... oh wait...

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326707)

So the RIAA is already paying a foreign company to spy on Americans internet usage in the USA? Isn't that in violation of some state or federal privacy/computer intrusion legislation?

Spying? Looking at the files that SOFTWARE YOU INSTALLED on YOUR COMPUTER makes available to ANYONE on the internet isn't spying.

The RIAA may be scummy, but this isn't spying.

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (1)

pacificleo (850029) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326969)

Safenet is based out of India , in my office building .

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (4, Informative)

Splab (574204) | more than 5 years ago | (#26327149)

I think quite a lot of misunderstood what DtecNet does, they are a software provider and can help with technical things during proceedings. They create software for eavesdropping on torrent etc. - the people who is going to use it are very much American.

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26327419)

They create software for eavesdropping on torrent etc. - the people who is going to use it are very much American.

DtecNet happens to share offices with the Danish counterpart to RIAA, AntiPiratGruppen, and AFAIK DtecNet is responsible for the entire process of "securing evidence" here.

Re:Paying a foreign company to spy on Americans? (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26327741)

It's also interesting to see that the RIAA admits it's poking it's nose in abroad.

Anyone know how this works? Do they have any jurisdiction to bring cases in a foreign country? What if they're sticking their nose in in a country that prohibits them from doing so due to privacy laws etc., can people in that country then sue back?

What? A puppet for NYCL? (-1, Troll)

statemachine (840641) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326263)

You finally heeded my advice and used a puppet to post your story instead of shameless self-promotion.

But seriously, thanks! ;)

In other news (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326285)

MediaSentry disbands, everyone who worked for MediaSentry* gets a new job in a brand new company called MediaSentinel. RIAA hires MediaSentinel, judges are oblivious.

*Except for the "blahbob" guy, if he hasn't been fired already.

go ahead and circle jerk, you fags. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26326407)

i love how you all gave big fuck yous to the riaa and sat around and modded each other up.

it's the slashdot version of a reach around. fucking music stealing faggots.

Well said, sir! (4, Funny)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326427)

You sir, are quite a well-articulated gentleman.

Neat. (1)

man_ls (248470) | more than 5 years ago | (#26326711)

I had no idea our friend Mr. Beckerman was such a big deal beyond Slashdot, and the people he represents. Mainly because the general public is so woefully uninformed on matters such as this.

Kudos!

WSJ??? (1)

traabil (861418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26327129)

WSJ??? Surely you mean "Netcraft confirms ..."

Shocked! (3, Funny)

otter42 (190544) | more than 5 years ago | (#26327643)

Shocked and astonished I am! Scandalous! That a company should do exactly what we pay them to and report to us exactly what they are doing, and that somehow we would still be ignorant of the exact nature of their activities! Those responsible should be fired, obviously!

Err... why's everyone looking at me like that?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?