Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Court Rules Against TorrentSpy In MPAA Email Suit

Posted by Zonk on Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:55 AM
from the government-is-setting-a-great-precident-on-this dept.
Media Movies Government The Courts Communications News
mikesd81 writes "C|Net reports that a lawsuit filed by TorrentSpy against the MPAA, accusing it of intercepting the company's private e-mails, was tossed out of court this week. Even though a U.S District judge ruled that the MPAA broke no rules, the MPAA does admit it paid $15,000 to obtain private e-mails belonging to TorrentSpy executives. The MPAA's acknowledgment is significant because it comes at a time when the group is trying to limit illegal file sharing by imploring movie fans to act ethically and resist the temptation to download pirated movies. From the article: 'Ethically, it's pretty clear that reading other people's e-mail is wrong,' said Lorrie Cranor, an associate research professor and Internet privacy expert at Carnegie Mellon University. 'Being offered someone else's e-mails by a third party should have been a red flag.' TorrentSpy is appealing the decision." This is just not a good week for those guys.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] News: TorrentSpy Must Preserve Data In RAM For MPAA 489 comments
Transient writes "Reaffirming a magistrate's earlier decision, a federal judge has ordered TorrentSpy to begin keeping server logs as it defends itself against an MPAA lawsuit. In her opinion, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper interpreted federal discovery rules broadly. ' Judge Cooper took issue with TorrentSpy's argument that data in RAM is not "stored." She noted RAM's function as primary storage and that the storage of data in RAM — even if not permanently archived — makes it electronically stored information governed by federal discovery rules.' Given that TorrentSpy has limited access for users in the US, the ruling may be moot. But it does set a precedent for other, similar cases. 'Under this interpretation, any data stored in RAM could be subject to a subpoena, as at a basic level it is a "medium from which information can be obtained" just like a hard drive. '"
Submission: Court rules against TorrentSpy in hacking case by mikesd81 (518581)
[+] IT: Internal Emails of An RIAA Attack Dog Leaked 427 comments
qubezz writes "The company MediaDefender works with the RIAA and MPAA against piracy, setting up fake torrents and trackers and disrupting p2p traffic. Previously, the TorrentFreak site accused them of setting up a fake internet video download site designed to catch and bust users. MediaDefender denied the entrapment charges. Now 700MB of MediaDefender's internal emails from the last 6 months have been leaked onto BitTorrent trackers. The emails detail their entire plan, including how they intended to distance themselves from the fake company they set up and future strategies. Other pieces of company information were included in the emails such as logins and passwords, wage negotiations, and numerous other aspect of their internal business."
[+] Technology: 'I Was a Hacker for the MPAA' 385 comments
Wired has up an article with a man named Robert Anderson, who was recruited by the MPAA in 2005 to inform on people in the BitTorrent community. In a tell-all interview with the site, Anderson explains how the powerful media organization encouraged him to obtain the information they were looking for: "According to Anderson, the MPAA told him: 'We would need somebody like you. We would give you a nice paying job, a house, a car, anything you needed.... if you save Hollywood for us you can become rich and powerful.' In 2005, the MPAA paid Anderson $15,000 for inside information about TorrentSpy -- information at the heart of a copyright-infringement lawsuit brought by the MPAA against TorrentSpy of Los Angeles. The material is also the subject of a wiretapping countersuit against the MPAA brought by TorrentSpy's founder, Justin Bunnell, who alleges the information was obtained illegally."
[+] Your Rights Online: Judge Rules TorrentSpy Destroyed Evidence 325 comments
Come play kdice writes "A federal judge has handed the MPAA a resounding victory in its copyright infringement lawsuit against TorrentSpy. Judge Florence-Marie Cooper entered a default judgment against Justin Bunnell and the rest of the named defendants in Columbia Pictures et al. v. Justin Bunnell et al. after finding that TorrentSpy 'engaged in widespread and systematic efforts to destroy evidence'. After being sued, TorrentSpy mounted a vigorous defense, including a counter-suit it filed against the MPAA in May 2006, but, behind the scenes, the court documents paint a picture of a company desperately trying to bury any and all incriminating evidence. TorrentSpy has announced its intention to appeal, but its conduct makes a reversal unlikely."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Court Rules Against TorrentSpy In MPAA Email Suit 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • The MPAA wants us to act ethically??? (Score:5, Funny)

    by lecithin (745575) on Friday August 31 2007, @10:56AM (#20425643)
    "imploring movie fans to act ethically and resist the temptation to download pirated movies"

    How about -

      imploring the MPAA to act ethically and resist the temptation to download pirated emails.

    • Re:The MPAA wants us to act ethically??? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Red_Foreman (877991) * on Friday August 31 2007, @11:03AM (#20425735)
      TorrentSpy should press criminal charges against the MPAA.
       
        Industrial Espionage is still illegal, and purchasing internal emails maybe fall under Industrial Espionage statutes. I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion TorrentSpy should look into filing criminal charges against the MPAA, or the agent of the MPAA that authorized the purchase of these emails, and the person that sold those emails to the MPAA.

      • I would love to see how this would play out. The only problem is that even if there's a legitimate case to be made, it's up to the federal prosecutors to decide if they want to pursue the case.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cez (539085)

      According to court documents, the MPAA came into possession of the e-mails after first being approached by Robert Anderson. Anderson is a former business associate of Justin Bunnell, TorrentSpy's founder.

      Besides the 15 grand they paid for these "legally" aquired emails, one wonders what else they offered Mr. Anderson... perhaps the Blue Pill? But in all seriousness, this guy just happened to spend the time and risk of hacking the email servers with no prior contact with the MPAA? That smells awfully fi

      • Re:The MPAA wants us to act ethically??? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Applekid (993327) on Friday August 31 2007, @12:26PM (#20426777)

        Besides the 15 grand they paid for these "legally" aquired emails, one wonders what else they offered Mr. Anderson...
        Not that complicated. $15K for the emails, $15K for the judge or member of the judiciary (or a congressman with the power to redraw judicial districts).

        Just the cost of doing business. And to think when Valenti died there were actually some who thought the MPAA might start growing a conscience.
        • Read it again closely.

          According to court documents, the MPAA came into possession of the e-mails after first being approached by Robert Anderson. Anderson is a former business associate of Justin Bunnell, TorrentSpy's founder.

          That's just timing. It does not say that Robert Anderson supplied the e-mails.

          Anderson allegedly "hacked" into TorrentSpy's e-mail system and rigged it so that "every incoming and outgoing e-mail message would also be copied and forwarded to his anonymous Google e-mail account,

  • So, according to US law, it's illegal to hack into someone's computer to read their private data but it's legal to pay someone else to do it?

    Yet the legality of hosting a site hosting .torrent files that are not themselves infringing is being called into question?

    This seems very inconsistent to me. Is it or is it not legal to act as a proxy to potentially illegal material?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by varmittang (849469)
      "Yet the legality of hosting a site hosting .torrent files that are not themselves infringing is being called into question?"

      Giving a key to a thief that then breaks into a place using that key will get you in trouble. Since you know the .torrent leads to copy righted material and is illegal, just like you know the person you are giving the key to will steal something. Both are punishable under the US law for giving people access to material/possessions that are not theirs to take.
      • But you don't know. Almost every torrent site is automated. Most of them have take-down procedures, some even offer automated takedowns. Like it or not, that is enough to comply with the law.

    • This seems very inconsistent to me. Is it or is it not legal to act as a proxy to potentially illegal material?
      Depends on who has more money.
    • There is a difference between inducing, hiring, or causing someone to steal e-mail and buying the e-mails after he already had stolen it. The MPAA did not use the information to break the law. (As in the case of identity thieves who buy credit card numbers.) The Wiretap Act applies only against those who steal information, not against those who get it afterwards. The documents were not trade secret so there's really no other recourse available to TorrentSpy aside from perhaps getting the documents thrown out as not admissible.

      TorrentSpy should have sued the former employee who stole the information from them. There's no proof that MPAA induced the employee to violate the law. They should have sued this guy out of house and home. Instead, they worked with him to file a lawsuit against the MPAA. In doing so, they sued a party against whom they had no recourse under the Act. It was a risky strategy that did not pay off.

      There is lots of evidence that the rich are treated differently, but this isn't it.
      • If the MPAA wants to play by the legal rules that intellectual property and physical property go by the same rules, then how are they not guilty of receiving stolen property?
      • I never alluded to a class-based legal divide, and I don't really understand your conclusions. So the MPAA didn't use TorrentSpy's private emails for a subsequent illegal act... does that mean I can steal a gun from your locked house as long as I only use it for target practise? Or photocopy your diary as long as I don't publish it? Is breaking and entering forgiven if the end result is benign?

        Didn't O.J. Simpson get acquitted because evidence was improperly obtained? I think methodology is more important than you claim.
        • Read his quote again:

          The Wiretap Act applies only against those who steal information, not against those who get it afterwards.

          MPAA did not steal the emails. They obtained the emails from someone who stole them. The proper analogy would be purchasing a stolen gun from someone.

  • All animals are equal (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xonstantine (947614) on Friday August 31 2007, @11:01AM (#20425703)
    but some are more equal than others.

    While we (the citizens) weren't paying attention, "they" have put in a two-tiered structure where the laws apply to the sheep, but not the wolves. That's why if you steal someone's SSN, you go to jail, but if you are an illegal alien, hey, it's ok. Or if the MPAA or RIAA breaks the law, harrasses and intimidates people, it's ok...they are a legimiate business interest (and we know this because of their campaign contributions). If Tyson wants to import a whole town from Guatamala to work in their chicken processing plant in Arkansas, that's ok too. "Steal" a DVD by copying it, and it's pokey time for you. All the while your Congressmen and Congresswoman are busy putting their hands in your wallets to pay for boondoggles like the $140 billion ($450,000 for every pre-Katrina man, woman, and child) for New Orleans relief, and various other Bridges to Nowhere.

      • Re:All animals are equal (Score:4, Insightful)

        by morari (1080535) on Friday August 31 2007, @12:48PM (#20426995) Journal
        I wouldn't quite call it hysteria. Illegal immigrants undermine the already pitiful minimum wage we have set up through the country, while avoiding taxes altogether. While taxes don't tend to be used to any great degree of efficiency within our country, these illegal immigrants could theoretically be holding us back from proper socialized health care because of it. Among other things. They have a tendency to use false identification in other fields as well, bypassing the need for automobile insurance and registration, again depriving the country of taxes that (theoretically) go towards road maintenance and even putting other, insurance-paying, drivers at risk. Of course, they are merely the symptom of the larger problem; the American government. These parasites wouldn't exist without their money-hungry enablers, looking for cheap, controllable labor. The people that are here illegally don't care to take the time to become a valuable part of our society, they're not the stereotypical Eastern European immigrants of old who came here with a dream, looking to be part of the American ideology. Hell, most of them don't even want to learn the language (instant red flags) and they certainly don't want to pay taxes, fake I.D. or not. I'd imagine most of them don't even plan on staying long-term and instead just want to make enough money to go back home and do something with... build a taco-stand perhaps?

      • You undermine your post by bringing in illegal immigration.

        Au contraire. I live in Texas. Guess what happens if you are in a car collision with an illegal alien without identification or insurance that was his or her fault? More often than not, the police simply let them go. You and the police get a fake name, a fake number, and a fake address...and the bill for the collision. Try that as a citizen.

        Same thing with hospitals. If you are an indigent citizen and go for treatment in an emergency room, they will treat you, and then do everything they can post-

  • Corpprate Mole/Corporate espionage agent.

    Now you don't even have to hide, since apparently what you are doing is legal now. wtf?

  • How is this not illegal? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MikeRT (947531) on Friday August 31 2007, @11:05AM (#20425765) Homepage
    It's illegal to buy any good that is obtained through illegal means. I can't believe that at a minimum, the MPAA executives didn't violate a state law. Maybe TorrentSpy needs to contact a local attorney and see what options they have under state law. I find it very hard to believe that agreeing to pay for data gained through hacking is legal in any state in the United States.

    • Re:How is this not illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2007, @11:27AM (#20426051)
      TorrentSpy's case was based on the assertion that the MPAA violated the Federal Wiretap Act.

      All that this ruling means is that in the opinion of this court they did not.

      It does not grant carte blance access to industrial espionage. It does not mean that the MPAA violated no other laws.

      For a group of people who are picky about minor details of technical arguments you all assume a lot about legal ones.
  • you pay off the right judges, erm, make campaign contributions to elected judges...
  • since when "i have paid tens of thousands of dollars to acquire something that is private to someone/company by all laws" is not illegal ? or did judge get paid too ?

  • Wait... what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bonker (243350) on Friday August 31 2007, @11:17AM (#20425923)

    According to court documents, the MPAA came into possession of the e-mails after first being approached by Robert Anderson. Anderson is a former business associate of Justin Bunnell, TorrentSpy's founder.

    Anderson allegedly "hacked" into TorrentSpy's e-mail system and rigged it so that "every incoming and outgoing e-mail message would also be copied and forwarded to his anonymous Google e-mail account," records show.


    How the HELL is this not a felony?!

    • Re:Wait... what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Otter (3800) on Friday August 31 2007, @11:32AM (#20426111) Journal
      No one is saying that that's legal. The question is whether the MPAA should have known they were obtained illegally when Anderson sold the emails to them, claiming they had been obtained legally.

      Anyway, I'm sure some combination of "they weren't stolen, they were copied" and ""let's say you leave your back door unlocked and I..." is sufficient to make all of this OK.

      • No one is saying that that's legal. The question is whether the MPAA should have known they were obtained illegally when Anderson sold the emails to them, claiming they had been obtained legally.

        Anyway, I'm sure some combination of "they weren't stolen, they were copied" and ""let's say you leave your back door unlocked and I..." is sufficient to make all of this OK.

        I think you've unwittingly hit the solution to this whole thing.

        The emails were copied without authorization. That's a copyright violatio

  • By using them as the foundation for a lawsuit the MPAA violated the copyrights related to those emails. So torrentspy should countersue for the value attached to the infringement, the cost of the settlement from the lawsuit plus torrentspy's lawyer costs.
    • I was thinking the same thing. But you have to figure out what the value of those copyrighted emails are so you can make a case.

      If they are full of company trade secrets then the value might be tremendous. Say $45,000 per infringing piece of email that was copied? :)

  • I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 31 2007, @11:23AM (#20426013)
    Tampering and stealing physical mail is a federal crime...
    yet theft of digital mail is A-OK?

    I want to have what that judge is smoking.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by macrom (537566)
      In the United States, physical mail is provided by a federal institution, the US Postal Service. This is why tampering with standard mail is a crime. AFAIK, tampering with packages from other carriers (FedEx, DHL, UPS, etc) does not carry a federal penalty, though other laws may apply. Digital mail is the same -- it's not a service provided by a federal office (and neither are the networks through which digital mail flows) so there is no federal crime. Again, unless there is some sort of particular law tha

  • Screw them. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann.slashdot@gmail . c om> on Friday August 31 2007, @11:27AM (#20426047) Homepage Journal
    If you want to download movies, do it. Unless the MAFIAA starts giving you decent prices, you're not morally obligated to pay their stratospheric fees.

    I support civil disobedience. Just encrypt your stuff (hint: WASTE P2P) and do it at your own risk.

  • Only one question... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by pla (258480) on Friday August 31 2007, @11:28AM (#20426063) Journal
    a lawsuit filed by TorrentSpy against the MPAA, accusing it of intercepting the company's private e-mails

    We already know that the **AA can get away with whatever it wants, and that most judges have as much integrity as most politicians.

    But what I want to know here - Why did TorrentSpy sue rather than pressing charges? This doesn't sounds like a civil offense, it sounds like an outright criminal action on the parts of both the MPAA and Anderson.

    We should have people looking at going to prison over this, not having some petty countersuit thrown out of court.
  • Two parts of this article do not make sense together:

      "...he signed a contract stating he had come by the correspondence through lawful means."

    "Anderson allegedly "hacked" into TorrentSpy's e-mail system and rigged it so that "every incoming and outgoing e-mail message would also be copied and forwarded to his anonymous Google e-mail account," records show."
    • Of course it is legal. It is as legal as downloading movies. Ok, there is the saying that two wrongs make no right, but I always supposed this was invented by those who wronged first and wanted to protect themselves from retaliation. The MPAA is leading an ethical campaign? For me, when it comes to ethics, I find it unethical to pay for music and movies. Paying for movies is for me the same as supporting a terrorists group. Don't do it.
    • He told them that he had obtained the emails legally. He lied. Is that so hard to understand?

      • He told them that he had obtained the emails legally. He lied. Is that so hard to understand?
        I get my movies and music always legally. At least my friends on emule and bittorrent tell me they have the rights to distribute the stuff. Is this so hard to understand?

        • I get my movies and music always legally. At least my friends on emule and bittorrent tell me they have the rights to distribute the stuff. Is this so hard to understand?
          You know darn well they don't. It isn't clear whether they knew he shouldn't have had legal access to those emails or not. It is conceivable that someone privy to those emails leaked them.
  • Forget whether this involved breaking into computers or not. It sounds to me that the MPAA did not have copyright over these emails. Therefore copying them was piracy, right?
  • The MPAA's acknowledgement is significant because it comes at a time when the group is trying to limit illegal file sharing by imploring movie fans to act ethically and resist the temptation to download pirated movies.

    Morality can be a cover story of the vicious and manipulative, who set up rules so they can break them. People who mean well but are unaccustomed to the reality that life is combat, will try to follow the rules that are actually set up to constrain them.

    I will always pursue an option where I d

  • Apply this to movies (Score:3, Insightful)

    by deets (1072072) on Friday August 31 2007, @12:22PM (#20426737)
    OK, so I can pay someone, who had already copied a movie before they talked to me, for a copy of a movie, right? I am getting the movie leagally, by purchasing it.
  • Can you say Criminal Conspiracy?

    I thought you could.
  • "In court records, the MPAA said that the person who obtained the e-mails did so before approaching the group with an offer to sell the information and that he signed a contract stating he had come by the correspondence through lawful means."

    While I'm sure the RIAA knew they were in a gray area, they did cover their asses.
    • If I buy a stolen stereo, and make the seller sign a statement that it isn't stolen, that doesn't change the fact that I am no longer the owner of said stereo after it is taken into evidence. If you illegally record a conversation, then sell that tape - claiming it was legally obtained - it doesn't change the fact that it cannot be used as part of a prosecution (I'm not sure about civil law, to be honest, but I suspect illegally obtained evidence is not admissible in most cases).

      All they've done is tried t

    • Re:Store and forward (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jedidiah (1196) on Friday August 31 2007, @11:02AM (#20425725) Homepage
      You see there is this big fat legal distinction between the fact that a judge can order you to turn over your private emails and having some industrial spy steal them from you. The former is legal and a standard part of legal proceedings and the other is long established as a crime. The MPAA should get bitchslapped for this kind of thing. All parties involved should be raking them over the coals for this. The absolute LAST person that should be excusing this sort of behaivor is a judge. They are the sort of people that should be the first to object.

      The judge should have been pissed that the MPAA didn't file a discovery motion.

    • secondly, torrentspy is nothing but a haven for copyright infringement ...

      Ah, I understand. And this makes torrentspy an outlaw, with absolutely no rights? Fine. If I am searching /. I surely find an article where the MPAA or RIAA abuse the DMCA or do something else illegal. Therefore these organisations does not have any rights whatsoever anymore and downloading is officially legal.

      Is this what you meant, or did I misinterpret you somehow?

        • Next time the FBI intercepts some e-mails from the mafia
          So RIAA/MPAA = FBI in your opinion. I don't think I have more to discuss with you.
    • They are only when they are in a weaker position. To influence at least a few stupid people, who might buy into it. Ethics and laws are fine when one interacts with his neighbours or colleagues. When it comes to corporations they can rightfully be ignored. I mean 'rightfully' not in the same sense as 'legally'.

    • So paying a third party to steal insider information and possible trade secrets isn't illegal? Can someone explain that one to me? Didn't someone just go to jail for trying to sell Coke insider info to Pepsi?

      Pepsi wasn't the one prosecuted, but then Pepsi also didn't buy the information.

      TorrentSpy could sue Mr. Anderson, but there's the possibility that Mr. Anderson's internal account was always forwarding to GMail while he worked there, was a member of the management mail groups inside the company, and when he left his account was not purged nor those mail groups updated to exclude his account, resulting in communications continuing to be fowarded to his GMail account.

      If that were the case, did Mr. Anderson h

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.