MPAA RIAA Mercenaries Have Shady Activities Exposed

A

admin

Audioholics Robot
Staff member
According to stories surfacing in The Wall Street Journal, Ars Technica, and others, a company called MediaDefender has sprung a leak of internal electronic correspondence that reveals some of the interesting activities the company engages in and with whom. Over the weekend, a group calling itself MediaDefender-Defenders began circulating over 700 MB of internal company email and an interesting phone conversation on the web. The content appears to have been intercepted by employee snafu and shows the involvement of top executives at the company with the many dubious activities of MediaDefender.


Discuss "MPAA RIAA Mercenaries Have Shady Activities Exposed" here. Read the article.
 
J

Jim Robbins

Audioholic
It's hard to put in to words how wrong this seems... The RIAA and MPAA are constantly slapping lawsuits onto people who may or may not have violated any laws, and they don't back down, even when the people are dead or don't own computers, etc... I am just dumbfounded!! Not only are they extorting money from people, they are now using illegal tactics to do so! Either that, or they are just bogging down networks and baiting people as well! Unbelievable!
 
stratman

stratman

Audioholic Ninja
Disgusting, is there anyway of letting them (the MPAA and Media Defenders)know how stupid, crass, irresponsible, criminal and down right cowardly they are?:mad:
 
davidtwotrees

davidtwotrees

Audioholic General
So, this is a company that bogs down web sites that help people download free music against the artist's wishes? Oh, no, not that.:)
 
jliedeka

jliedeka

Audioholic General
Getting people to install their trojans is at least highly unethical if not illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Jim
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
Getting people to install their trojans is at least highly unethical if not illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Jim
Exactly. This may be just the tip of the iceberg.
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
For the Record.. I just downloaded a Porcupine Tree Album. :eek:

SheepStar
 
Sheep

Sheep

Audioholic Warlord
Oh, another one! With 1 more on the way! :eek:

SheepStar
 
b_panther_g

b_panther_g

Audioholic
So, this is a company that bogs down web sites that help people download free music against the artist's wishes? Oh, no, not that.:)
I hope you're kidding when you defend MediaDefender. If not, please think about this.

You are saying this company has more rights to your private information than you do!

Going after/attacking websites is one thing. Installing trojans on your personal computer is totally different. You lose ALL privacy when a trojan is active on your computer.

If MediaDefender merely has equal rights to your computer, they would clearly state what their trojan does. You would be able to agree or disagree to run it. But that's not the case.

If you do not think the information on your private computer is important, then please do the following...

1. Uninstall your virus scan and disable your firewall.​

2. Remove your router.​

3. Share all hard drives and give everyone full read/write privileges.​

This gives any copyright holder on the Internet the same access as MediaDefender's trojans. In other words...

All copyright holders on the Internet can peruse your PC for their copyrighted material.

BTW they will also have full access to your family photos, tax documents, personal letters, and anything else - just like MediaDefender:) And you won’t know when they’re looking - just like MediaDefender:)

If you are not willing to do this (and you shouldn't) then you may want to rethink your position.
 
D

Dolby CP-200

Banned
I’m not too happy with downloading movies nor would I stoop down so low to even being downloading movies.

I prefer to buy my DVD titles legitimately at least I know where I stand, rather than having the pigs and FACT bashing down my back door!
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
To be fair, the law does allow people to sell or give away original recordings of music and film they have purchased to someone else. However, it is illegal to sell or give away a copy. In other words, if you share your music with someone else and retain the original, you broke the law. That's pretty clear.

What business is it of MediaDefender? None, unless they represent the interests of the copyright holders at the behest of the copyright holders and I believe they do.

Does that give them the right to install a trojan on your computer? Of course not. That is also illegal.

I have no problem with what they are doing. How they are doing it could well be another matter, however.
 
davidtwotrees

davidtwotrees

Audioholic General
If you sleep with dogs, you're gonna get fleas.

I hope you're kidding when you defend MediaDefender. If not, please think about this.......
If you are not willing to do this (and you shouldn't) then you may want to rethink your position.

I frankly don't care about Media Defender nor was I defending them. Whenever downloaders are confronted with the fact they are stealing an artist's product against the artist's wishes the downloader invariably starts blathering about freedom, and rights, and how cds cost too much, etc etc etc.
I have met a blossoming recording artist. A fine woman from Australia. Her fourth disc is set for release around Christmas. Her website messageboard suddenly lit up recently when someone began a new thread with, "the new album is out, I just downloaded it and it is fantastic." All the mp3 sluts were ecstatic and downloading it at will. The woman popped on and was totally flabbergasted that someone had leaked her album, and that her best fans were downloading shamelessly. Musicians have a hard enough time making
a living. They are alot like athletes-most don't make it, and those that do have short life span as an artist. Imagine making your dream come true to find out that people could steal your work and you have no say in the matter!

As someone who did a lot of Ironwork in Chicago, the Urban law was basically if you got caught stealing, whatever happened to you was fair game.
If Media Defender is hurting innocents, then that is a bad thing. If they are dropping trojans on people who steal music from Musicians, meh- no skin off my nose.
 
sholling

sholling

Audioholic Ninja
While I disagree with downloading and especially posting copyrighted work let’s look at who has done the majority of the stealing. To understand this you first need to understand how the founding fathers (USA) envisioned intellectual property protection to work. It was to be a social contract between the inventor/artist/writer and society. A quid pro quo. In exchange for a grant of an exclusive right to profit from the invention/painting/book for a limited period of time, the inventor/artist/writer would grant ownership of the work to society at the end of that limited period. You still see this in patent law.

The two critical pieces are the exclusive right to profit from the work and the time limit. The quid pro quo. Historically there was always a right to make a widget for your own use – as long as you weren’t profiting from it. If you made money using it or sold copies there was civil liability – as there should be.

Unfortunately this long established quid pro quo arrangement broke down with copyrights. The Sonny Bono (who’s copyrights were expiring) Act extended the ‘limited grant of protection’ from the historic 27 years to lifetime plus 50 years for individuals, and 90 years for corporations. How much money changed hands to facilitate this theft of intellectual property from the public eludes me. But it was worth at the least many tens of billions to Hollywood and the music industry.

If the Sonny Bono Act were to be extended to patent law you would have had a choice one car company until the 1980s, aircraft production might have been limited to the Wright Brothers until the mid 1990s, and your TV would still have to be an RCA, probably a $5,000 20” B&W tube set. Etc, etc, etc.

Hollywood and the record moguls haven’t contented themselves with theft of intellectual property through the purchase of congress. They’ve also used their buying power in Washington to purchase legislation to rollback fair use as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. To ban using your brain to figure out how something works. And to limit innovation. This is on top of operating their businesses with a set of ethics that would make a pimp blush. Pardon me if I don’t have a lot of sympathy for them.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
In other words we should ignore the law because we don't like it?
 
J

Jim Robbins

Audioholic
As someone who did a lot of Ironwork in Chicago, the Urban law was basically if you got caught stealing, whatever happened to you was fair game.
If Media Defender is hurting innocents, then that is a bad thing. If they are dropping trojans on people who steal music from Musicians, meh- no skin off my nose.
You make an interesting point. Of course, it seems logical to allow those who do wrong to be punished by their own wrongdoing. However, putting trojans on people's computers and bogging down legitimate networks is a terrible thing, as we are all punished! I personally do not download music or movies off the net. I buy or rent them. I encourage other people I know to do the same! But the RIAA and MPAA are going about this the wrong way. They hurt the public with their lawsuits that are many times bordering on extortion. They hurt the artists by consuming huge sums of money from them and giving them nothing in return but a bad reputation.

It seems like there should be a better solution then acting like you are some kind of Music Mafia extorting and punishing outside the law.
 
sholling

sholling

Audioholic Ninja
Ignore is a good choice of words. That doesn't mean I violate it. I would never post copyrighted material illegally. But I do give out a cheer for everyone that sticks it to RIAA (an illegal cartel) and the MPAA and will continue to do so until the cartels are broken up and the quid pro quo balance is restored. I'll also cheer as the cartel's shady minions get exposed and hopefully busted . I'll also cheer on the innocent soccer moms and gray haired grannies that beat up cartel's extortionists in court and in the court of public opinion.
 
DavidW

DavidW

Audioholics Contributing Writer
In other words we should ignore the law because we don't like it?
I assume this comment was directed at the earlier comment by sholling who was disparaging certain laws enacted by lobbyist and other corporate interest for the Recording and Movie Industries.

The MPAA, the RIAA, and others who hire the likes of MediaDefender and their ilk are also ignoring the law.

While downloading copyrighted material is illegal so is taking the law into your own hands as the MPAA and the RIAA have done by hiring this company to apply justice for them. I thought I had made this abundantly clear, but perhaps not.

In the abstraction of cyberspace, they have hired mercenaries to go and conduct raids to disrupt operation, plant spying devices, decoys, etcetera. So what is next, the MPAA hires their own paramilitary police force to conduct raids on the supposed criminal’s homes, confiscate their computers for pirated files?

The difference is only in degree, not in kind.

The Internet Architecture Board, an international public entity that grew out of a US Department of Defense program called Defense Advanced Research Projects Agancy, Internet Configuration Control Board, defines the actions consistent with the actions of MediaDefender as unethical and unacceptable.

Most countries, including our own, prosecute hackers for doing what MediaDefender does. Should MediaDefender be treated differently because they are incorporated and do this at the behest of other corporations? No.

For those who have not put two and two together, MediaDefenders efforts to bog down P2P sites doesn’t just affect file sharers engaged in illegal activity.

All that bandwidth that MediaDefender uses has to pass through the information superhighway to get there. It bogs down the entire internet, perhaps not much across the whole system, but it uses capacity up none the less. Ever wonder why sometimes one’s broadband connection seems slower than other times, web pages seem to take a longer to load? MediaDefender affects every server and connection between them and their target, perhaps crossing your path.

Who is the MPAA to decide who is criminal and who is not, even if they do have some sort of evidence? Every citizen of the US is entitled to Due Process of the Law, not punishment at the hands of vigilantes who think such persons have committed a crime.

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ....

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...
Wikipedia: Due Process

I have never seen it stated anywhere that Due Process includes the action of vigilantes. If file sharing is deemed illegal, it is a legal matter and up to the legally designated authorities to handle.

For that matter, is MediaDefender properly and legally licensed as a private investigator as required in most states?

Sholling is correct in his statements about the historical intent of the provisions for copyright and patents as intended by the founding fathers as careful study of American history and the constitution would reveal.

The Music Industry has long existed by means of legalizing theft by making artist sign over rights to the music label who owns the work, not the artist. No file downloader is stealing from any artist who works for the traditional record industry because the label, not the artist, owns they copyright.

Robert Fripp of King Crimson, tired of what the labels were doing to him and with his work began the Discipline Global Mobile label to run contrary to the Music Industry and their common practices. All of the following is from DGM’s web site:

DGM Copyright Statement (1994).

The phonographic copyright in these performances is operated by Discipline Global Mobile on behalf of the artist and compositor, with whom it resides, contrary to common practice in the record industry. Discipline accepts no reason for artists to assign the copyright interests in their work to either record company or management by virtue of a "common practice" which was always questionable, often improper, and is now indefensible.

Members of the public not familiar with the norm might not know this common practice: the artist pays to record the album, generally on an advance provided by the record company. This advance is then recouped from artist royalties (which are subject to limitations in accordance with "company policy") and the album is owned by the record company. The record company owns the artist's work, for which the artist paid. If the record company, or owner of the company, sells the catalogue or the company itself, the artist receives nothing for their work, even though the artist paid for it to be made.

The copyrights of the compositions rest with the performer and post-performance compositor. Crimson Music recognizes no valid or ethical reason to assign them to publisher or manager as an inevitable, necessary or useful part of the business of collecting publishing royalties.

The artists affirm their moral rights to be acknowledged the authors of these works, subject always to the operation of grace.

Let us sadly acknowledge, in the spirit of preparing the future and repairing the past, that the publishing industry and music industry has often and repeatedly failed to treat its artists honourably, equitably and with common decency. There are too many instances of abuse, exploitation and the betrayal of trust for us to view this world with equanimity, confidence or ease.

Actions from the past which we now view with regret, including our own, may yet be addressed: they are reparable, they are forgivable; they are not excusable, they are not acceptable. To do otherwise is to place ourselves outside the natural circle of healing. This is truly terrifying.

Cynicism and bitterness are natural, reasonable and likely responses for anyone, whether performer or audient, who knows a close relationship with those who control money flows within the music industry; music can be a gate to Paradise, but cynicism holds us at the threshold.
Incidentally, Frank Zappa’s second album is named ‘Absolutely Free’, not for any hippie reference current with the times, but because his first album did not make enough money to pay off the record label so he effectively made the album for them for absolutely free.

About DGM

The fifth aim of DGM is to be a model of ethical business in an industry founded on exploitation, oiled by deceit, riven with theft and fueled by greed.

If a small company, which aims to be true, can succeed in the music industry there is hope for others. We each support each other without necessarily seeing or knowing how this might be, or when it occurs. But on the level where things are true, this is true.

Any business will be successful if it provides its customers with either what they want or what they need. If the public needs what it wants, or wants what it needs, the business will be very successful. In this sense public taste can redirect and reconstitute our business culture. There is hope in this.

The formal view of Crimson Music and DGM is that business practices, although widespread and "common practice", which seek to deprive the creative element of its authority, and artists of the benefit of their work, are short-sighted and immoral.

Any culture whose artists are directed or controlled by commercial interests is in mortal danger. Any artist directed or controlled by commercial interests is in mortal danger. Any artist willingly directed or controlled by commercial interests is not to be trusted.
The history of the music industry is a history of exploitation and theft.

There are legitimate uses for P2P networks, damaging them for supposed illegal activity becomes collateral to legal use, but I am sure the labels don’t care if an independent is impeded collaterally:

About DGM Live

DGM Live utilizes the latest in peer-to-peer technologies to deliver large music files across the internet. Files are distributed using BitTorrent, a file distribution utility that can dramatically increase the speed of your download by retrieving your content not only from DGM's servers but from fellow downloaders simultaneously. Download it now.

In addition to BitTorrent downloads, you may also download your files directly from your web browser.
I don’t advocate stealing anything, but the record labels can eat s***, the same s*** they have served to artists for decades.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
Ignoring or violating laws because we don't like them leads to anarchy. Really bad idea. However, if the RIAA etc. are breaking the law then they should be hauled into court and sued just like the defendants in their suits. If there were any money it, the class action lawyers would be all atwitter with excitement. But there isn't any real money it.

I'm defending what these outfits do, not how they do it. I'm not condoning their illegal activities any more than I condone violating copyright laws.
 
DavidW

DavidW

Audioholics Contributing Writer
Ignoring or violating laws because we don't like them leads to anarchy. Really bad idea. However, if the RIAA etc. are breaking the law then they should be hauled into court and sued just like the defendants in their suits. If there were any money it, the class action lawyers would be all atwitter with excitement. But there isn't any real money it.

I'm defending what these outfits do, not how they do it. I'm not condoning their illegal activities any more than I condone violating copyright laws.
These outfits have no legal right to do what they do, irrespective if it is in the name of justice to prevent some other crime.

If MediaDefender is a properly licensed private investigator, then the MPAA can have them hand the 'evidence' over to the authorities.

But they don't, they take the law into their own hands and exact justice by a method of their choosing.

And if one spends some time with the term Anarchy, one will come to realize that it does not mean some sort of chaotic, violent, lawless state. It just means without a formal government or explicit leaders.

Technically, if we had a true direct democracy in this country, rather than a representative republic, it would be closer to anarchy than one might think.

In 18th century historical usages, especially when considering the works of the Founding Fathers of the United States, the word "democracy" was associated with radical equalitarianism and was often defined to mean what we today call direct democracy. In the same historical context, the word "republic" was used to refer to what we now call representative democracy.
Wikipedia: Democracy

The word "anarchy" is often used by non-anarchists as a pejorative term, intended to connote a lack of control and a negatively chaotic environment.

Wikipedia: Anarchy

The lawless activities that MediaDefender takes on behalf of the MPAA and the RIAA are closer to the 'Anarchy' being implied here.

This type of behavior is the basis for the wild west analogy in reference to the internt. Back then it was the law of the gun, now justice is dispensed by server and malware.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top