MPAA Sets Up Fake Site to Catch Pirates

thefickler writes "Media Defender, a company which does the dirty work for the MPAA, has been caught setting up 'dummy' websites in an attempt to catch those who download copyrighted videos. The site, MiiVi.com, complete with a user registration, forum, and "family filter", offered complete downloads of movies and "fast and easy video downloading all in one great site." But that's not all; MiiVi also offered client software to speed up the downloading process. The only catch is, after it was installed, it searched your computer for other copyrighted files and reported back."

uh oh....

I just told all my friends about that site. Knew it was too good to be true.

Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo

Only on Slashdot would someone other than the MPAA/RIAA compare illegally downloading something that would cost twenty dollars to molesting children.

Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo

Surely you jest. They do that in the US Congress as well don't they?

Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo

>Surely you jest.
No I don't - and I told you, don't call me Shirley.

Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo

If you are thinking about molesting children then it is the same as molesting children, DUH.. eventually you would find a child and molest him/her, better to stop you now before a child is hurt.

This is great proactive behavior on the behalf of our government but i think we can do better, statistically speaking there is a percentage of people who will go to jail, the percentage is higher in some cities than others.. we could pro actively round up that number of people each year and put them in prison and save tons of police manhours.

OR even better put everyone in jail from age 8 on, and then the ones who exhibit good behavior can be released after 10 years or so (when they can become productive members of society, re:consumers/wage earners). Problem solved.

Re:uh oh....

So, they give someone their copyrighted stuff for free and then call that someone a criminal? Doesn't make sense to me :) .

Re:uh oh....

What is the actual legal position on this? If the copyright holder gives you the copyrighted work, then how is it a crime for you to take it?

Re:uh oh....

It's not. Even the summary covers this: The hook was to get people to download the client which searched for "other copyrighted files." Besides, there's nothing in the story to indicate that they actually did let people download real movies. They might all have been dummy files.

Re:uh oh....

Oh, so I just run it on my virtual machine? cool.

Re:uh oh....

The more I think about this the more brilliant it is.

When you download Kazaa, Limewire or most other clients they offer you the opportunity to scan your harddrive for content to share. That information is then available to the network, essentially reporting home.

How can anyone claim, in court, that action alone as being illegal? I posted earlier that if it scanned your harddrive it may very well be spyware and as such illegal, but I think I might be wrong on that.

Re:uh oh....

As long as the EULA for the software indicates that this is what they are going to do it is fine. If however the say that the software is going to speed up your downloads, it should speed up your downloads. If it does not mention that it also downloads a scanner then it should be clasified as fraud. Just because I install a program that states it will make certain files/information available, does not mean I give permission for every piece of spyware/trojan that wants to access the same information is free to install itself without my permission.

If the file they do let you download is a dummy file when they told you they were giving you a movie, then it is also fraud.

Re:uh oh....

Hey, it's time for me to bring out my rant against current Unix/Windows permissions systems! Whee.

OK, here's the short version: it's good that files on modern OS have access restricted to certain users, but that's not nearly enough. Instead access to files should be further restricted by process so that eg. Firefox only has permission to read/write to its cache, bookmarks, and download folders and that's it. If you need to upload, it should be forced to use a common API to beg the user for permission to even view uploadable files. Why? Well, exactly to stop this sort of exploit where a trojan promises to do something useful, but actually searches (using fancy new Spotlight and Windows Search, no less!) for files called "my CC#s" to send back to the mothership.

In other words, I think we should Sandbox Everything.

Apparently, SE Linux is trying to do something like this, but OS vendors need to find a way to make this whole process seamless and easy, so that I can right click on an application, go to permissions, and say, "This program I will allow to read my home directory, but only write to its own directories; that one I will let write anywhere, but read only itself" and so on.

It will be really hard to implement this in a user friendly way, but it is clearly the necessary next step in computer security. Apple, Microsoft, and (consumer oriented) Linux devs should start working on this now.

Guilt or innocence? It's irrelevant.

My question would be how it knows you don't have an original copy of the materials in question?

Your answer is that it doesn't matter, they'll come after you anyway.

Are you innocent? They don't care. It's completely irrelevant, because you'll be given a choice: Pay us a couple of thousand dollars and this will be over with, or go hire a lawyer that is much more expensive and defend yourself. Pay attention the the news here, and read up on their tactics [blogspot.com]. The RIAA/MPAA has a history of going after people that it knows are innocent.

If you choose option #2, you'll waste all kinds of time and money, possibly even face financial ruin as a result of paying dozens of thousands of dollars. In the end, after the RIAA/MPAA's lawyers have extracted as much money from you as they can, the RIAA/MPAA will drop their case. It will all just silently go away, except for the bills from the lawyers.

You've mistakenly assumed that it's all about your guilt or innocence as an individual person. The real point is to keep up appearances for their extortion ring to continue to be effective. The real point is to scare the shit out of people so badly that whether you're innocent or guilty, you'll still pay up.

Let's not fool ourselves, this is organized crime, plain and simple, except that for now, it's still legal. (Organized "Legal," I guess you'd call it.) What can you do about it? Well, if the thought of paying a lawyer to defend you and, if you actually want damages from the RIAA/MPAA for screwing around with you, paying $114,000 to a lawyer (the amount that is at stake in the most famous to date case of Capitol v. Foster [blogspot.com]), then you need to support organizations dedicated to changing the laws to make this type of extortion illegal. I would suggest the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org], who has a pretty good record of success, but at the very least, you need to write to your Congresscritters and let them know that the current situation is unacceptable.

Re:uh oh....

There is a popular myth on slashdot that you have a legal right to rip music or movies that you've bought. There is no such right. [copyright.gov]

That's not what the passage says. Rather, you are not allowed a aquire a rip that someone else has made, even if you already own the medium. Making back-up copies for your own use simply isn't commented upon here, probably becasue government interests didn't want people to know that they have this right.

Re:uh oh....

Flatly incorrect. It's not a myth, it's the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which modified the U.S. Code with regard to copyright law to specifically give consumers the right to make copies for themselves (and even give away a very limited number of copies to friends and / or family). Here's an analysis from Duke law school: http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/200 2dltr0023.html [duke.edu]

In general, your liability only exists when you *share* items. That is, all the legal actions by the RIAA / MPAA have alleged illegal distribution. Essentially, your behavior exposes you to legal action only when your behavior might negatively impact the market for an item. Arguably making yourself a copy of an item can deprive the owner of the item income, thus negatively impacting intellectual property owner. However, one can argue that in fact you would have never paid for the single copy, and therefore you haven't negatively impacted the IP owner at all. That's why photocopy machines / VCRs, etc. can exist. It's not because the IP owners don't mind, it's that they've (thus far) been unable to convince the courts that such copying negatively impacts their market.

Giving away copies, however, is a very different matter. No matter how "non-commercial" your activity is, if you give away enough of a product, you'll reduce the amount of money the IP owner can charge for the item, or put the IP owner out of business. So distribution gets you at the top of legal liability list.

Re:uh oh....

I'm guessing because Media Defender don't own the copyright on the works. They're employed by the MPAA who also don't own the copyright on these works. Its probably a convenient way to avoid entrapment or whatever legal or copyright issues giving away the media themselves would involve. Its up to the copyright holder to decide who to sue, but its still a very questionable action.

Although, if Media Defender are financially profiting from illegally offering copyrighted works, I would think they are in a much worse position than any users who downloaded the media.

I'd be more interested in the legality of the software. It is spyware, reporting personal identifying details about the users. Wouldn't this be an illegal search of some kind even with a ridiculously cryptic/solid looking EULA. I Seriously doubt it would be used in court. Its more likely to be useful as someone else said for hard statistics about actual numbers of users. It would be easy to make the data show anything they wanted, as evidence in an attempt to get even more laws passed. I bet also that more than a few users will soon cease downloading possibly illegal media.

If this is an attempt to get evidence for lawsuits/collection letters then I hope any users contacted by the MPAA collection squads do fight, as the number of questionable actions made here would I think make it a very hard case for the MPAA to win. Any filenames, metadata, checksums or search queries collected would certainly not be proof of infringement.

Re:uh oh....

You forget the part in copyright that refers to, or their agents. As the RIAA is an agent of the copyright holders and in the the fake distributors are agents of the RIAA, the it is the agents of the copyright holders who a legally distributing no longer copyrighted works.

Now of course the criminal action they will have been likely to commit is invading the privacy of 'minors', which is of course where child molester comes from.

Also where children where using the parents computer and the RIAA agents failed to ensure that the person entering the contract was legally entitled to enter the contract, that failure of jurisprudence results in criminal trespass and technology crimes with regards to hacking computer networks.

There is also the question of fraudulent misrepresentation as well as entrapment. These people really need to feel the full weight and measure of the law, a few years cooling the heels in jail, should wake them up to the fact that they are not above the law.

Re:uh oh....

There is also the question of fraudulent misrepresentation as well as entrapment.

It's only entrapment if it's done by the government (e.g. police). Fraudulent, it may be. As for being above the law, it's all about who you know. Just ask Scooter Libby.

Re:uh oh....

Exactly.

If I watch a TV show live, It's okay. (Even if I don't watch the commercials.)
If I record a TV show with a VCR and watch it later, It's okay.
If I record a TV show on a DVR and watch it later, It's okay.
If I have a friend record a TV show (VCR or DVR) and give me the recording so I can watch it later, It's okay.
BUT...
If my 'friend' is an unknown person sharing a bittorrent, it's NOT okay?

Re:uh oh....

If I have a friend record a TV show (VCR or DVR) and give me the recording so I can watch it later, It's okay.

No, going 100% by the law, that isn't okay. Fortunately, it's only illegal if you get caught, and short of 100% surveillance, there's no realistic way to catch people doing it.

Re:uh oh....

If I have a friend record a TV show (VCR or DVR) and give me the recording so I can watch it later, It's okay.
BUT...
If my 'friend' is an unknown person sharing a bittorrent, it's NOT okay?

What if you had a really long cable from your friend's VCR to your TV set? Would that be OK? (I mean, apart from the 398V (= 230 * sqrt(3)) between your TV's chassis and their VCR's chassis if you're on different phases. We'll assume you've dealt with that.) We'll also assume both your and your friends' TV licences are fully paid-up. The only possible objection is that your friend might technically be acting as a rebroadcaster and thus incur some obligations .....

So why is it a problem if the "really long cable" happens to be part of the public Internet? Well, a computer is involved. This creates a powerful Reality Distortion Field where normal laws and common sense absolutely do not apply, and any analogy with a non-computerised situation is null and void.

Re:uh oh....

Record your own shows
Cherry blossoms all around
Upload and be sued.

Re:uh oh....

Any moron can
Write haiku. Just stop at the
Seventeenth sylla

Re:uh oh....

I think it started when Prometheus gave fire to the Greeks.

Re:uh oh....

I reckon Christmas is the opposite of theft. You get loads of things for free from people. Also thieves go to prison and never see family, at Christmas you have to see family, whether you like it or not.

Re:uh oh....

In some places it is. When I was younger i was given a police warning for Larceny by finding, because i found a cricket bat which had been sitting on the side of the road for a few days. I picked it up thinking it was abandoned, was reported to the police and given a warning. In this state (in Australia) if you find a wallet, and do not hand it in to police or try to return it, it is theft.

Re:uh oh....

Moral of the story: Avoid anything to do with cricket.

Re:uh oh....

You have to be a government entity to claim entrapment, and that's only in criminal cases. Instead, you'd have to argue that the **AA got their evidence through illegal means, which would normally lead to the case being thrown out without prejudice.

Re:Entrapment or Honeypot?

This is the worst kind of entrapment....the kind WITHOUT Catherine Zeta Jones.

Re:Entrapment or Honeypot?

Not to defend the RIAA's actions, but I don't know if you can call it entrapment or not. Entrapment, by definition, involves the police persuading you to commit a crime you wouldn't otherwise commit. This is a private entity catching people committing a crime they would otherwise commit. I don't condone their methods, but I doubt you could successfully adopt an entrapment defense.

Re:ARE YOU A COP?

'' No they don't. They just can't lie about it, but they sure can tapdance around it. ''

It is absolute legal for a cop to lie about it. If you are say a drug dealer, and you ask a potential customer "are you a cop", that cop can lie about it, straight to your face, in front of a dozen witnesses, and when you try to sell him drugs, he can then arrest you. Perfectly legal.

Re:ARE YOU A COP?

The only point at which a cop cannot lie about anything is at trial.

Your naivety amuses me.

Re:Entrapment or Honeypot?

If I understand this correctly, this is something completely different from entrapment and likely to get the RIAA into serious trouble.

First, if I download copyrighted files from a site run by the RIAA, then this is _completely legal_. What is illegal is downloading such material without permission of the copyright holder. The way this was described, I would have the _permission of the copyright holder.

Second, if the RIAA installs spyware on my computer, they are in deep shit. Especially if there is nothing illegal on my computer that they could use to blackmail me.

Re:Entrapment or Honeypot?

One of the following must be true:

• They are not actually distributing the movies, just claiming that they will long enough to get the spyware on your machine (then they are committing fraud).
• They are giving away movies, with the consent of the copyright holder, in which case run their client in a VM / emulator and grab the free films.
• They are giving away movies without the consent of the copyright holder, in which case they are committing copyright infringement on a grand scale. Since the MPAA are clients of theirs, this could be used in court a evidence that they place no value on digital reproductions, and used to limit claimed damages if they sue anyone.

Re:Entrapment or Honeypot?

"Not to defend the RIAA's actions, but I don't know if you can call it entrapment or not. Entrapment, by definition, involves the police persuading you to commit a crime you wouldn't otherwise commit. This is a private entity catching people committing a crime they would otherwise commit. I don't condone their methods, but I doubt you could successfully adopt an entrapment defense."

It's actually an interesting question... The police have successfully put out honeypot cars (attractive and maybe a bit easier to steal than normal) to catch car thieves, and those convictions have been upheld AFAIK.

OTOH, I remember in a community college class on criminal law, they discussed when the cops sent a guy out with 20 dollar bills visibly hanging from his pockets and pretending to be drunk, arresting people who tried to roll him. That was ruled as entrapment because the cops made him such easy pickings as to induce people to commit a crime.

That's why I said I'd have liked to see the site. How much the MPAA/MediaDefender did to lure people to the site and then entice them to download content would determine where it fell on the range from honeypot to entrapment.

-- Greg

Re:Entrapment or Honeypot?

well here comes the question - they own the copyright - they knowingly put their material out there for people to download - and even created a site that inticed people to download it.. as far as i can see they where just giving it away.

on the other hand they also installed spy ware on users computers without letting them know ahead of time - that is aginst the law in some states - it is on the same lvl as alotof the viruses out there.

and if they try to doge the the fact that "they" put it out there by saying it was this "company that does the dirty work" then you point the finger and say - hey did this company have distrubution rights? if not then they are in alot of trouble - if so then they gave the stuff away - and if they say that the company doesn't have distrbution rights but what they where doing wasn't violating the their copyright then well damn many people will be happy to see them say that cause that can be applied so many ways..

all and all this was EXTREAMLY STUPID of them - and i can only pray that they get their asses burned when they try to take someone to court from this thing

Re:Entrapment or Honeypot?

The problem here is that a person may download and install the program with no intention of copyright violations. However, their computer is scanned likely without their knowledge for other, very possibly legal, files. You'd have to read the agreement, rather than click-through it like usual to know this. If they did not warn of complete scans and information being sent back to their servers, then they probably have committed some sort of computer crime.

I've ripped my CDs into .mp3 files, as have millions of others with movies and other media. What is their reaction to seeing these files? Are you going to receive their threatening letters in the near future? God only knows, but frankly, it shouldn't be tolerated in the least.

Hell, if they want to charge you with "theft," charge them back with breaking and entering.

Re:Entrapment or Honeypot?

In this case it is the MPAA doing the spying. Most of the MPAA's content content is distributed on DVDs encrypted with CSS. So unlike CDs where you can legally rip CDs you own to your harddrive, you can't do this for most movies without violating the DMCA by cracking the encryption. So they probably feel pretty safe that if they find any MPAA content on your harddrive (DVD rips), that you've committed some kind of crime.

Not to state the obvious, but . . .

The only catch is, after it was installed, it searched your computer for other copyrighted files and reported back.

Doesn't this violate various anti-spyware laws? [ncsl.org] For example, here's Illinois' law:

Creates the Consumer Protection Against Computer Spyware Act. Sets forth provisions for unauthorized collection or culling of personally identifiable information, unauthorized access to or modifications of computer settings and computer damage, unauthorized interference with installation or disabling computer software, and other prohibited conduct. Provides that certain persons may bring a civil action against a violator of the Act. Exempts willful and wanton misconduct from the limitation on liability.

Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . .

only an EULA isn't a contract and no one can make you give up legal rights or protections.

Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . .

Plus one crime has no bearing on the other.

You can't say 'I murdered him because he was a pedophile'. You get tried for murder, he (if he lives) gets tried for pedophilia. They're separate crimes.

So they can't say 'we spied on him because he is a pirate' and get away with it. You get tried for copyright infringement, they get tried for breach of privacy laws.

Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . .

You can't say 'I murdered him because he was a pedophile'. You get tried for murder, he (if he lives) gets tried for pedophilia

Minor nitpick: pedophilia isn't a crime, pedophilia is a psychological disorder. Child molestation is a crime, which may be (and probably most often is) motivated by pedophilia. So, you can't actually get charged with "pedophilia", as that's just a mental condition, not an act; and we don't try people just for thinking bad things, only for actually doing them.

Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . .

Wrong; at least a growing minority courts have held that a EULA, if agreed to by the party installing the software, is a contract enforceable by law. See, e.g., ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996) [findlaw.com].

A Modest Suggestion

Stories about MPAA shenanigans could just as easily and correctly be entitled, for example, "Sony Sets Up Fake Site..." (Or Disney, or Universal, or Paramount, or Warner). MPAA is, after all, simply their agent in these matters.

WTF?

"Perhaps Media Defender won't use its own name on the registrar the next time around, but it just goes to show the lengths at which the MPAA is willing to go, to fight piracy." Illegally install spyware on my fucking machine, search my PRIVATE FILES, oh and then to top it off, with the MPAA the mess that it is in, they'll probably sue you for having a file named "Hostel", you may or may not have stayed in a hostel last year on holiday, but it sure does seem like copyright so we're gunna take your hard disk and have a closer inspection of my PRIVATE FILES!

Without huge data transfers, they can't fully check a file, so the best they can do is spy on your file names, and steal your documents, not any media files though, I hope people get sued for this I really do, so the MPAA gets screwed with the huge countersuit.

does that mean I can keep the movies?

So, if they provide free movie downloads, does that mean I can legally keep it?

The saddest part about this...

They knew they were going to eventually get caught. It doesnt take a genius to realize that if "going dark" after 10 hours of the article release that they were anticipating this... And I suspect if the media contacts them, then it will be the classic "the intern did it" type response.... These guys make the russian mafia look good by comparison...

Got Ethics? Perception of RIAA/CRIA vs. MPAA

This incident highlights what is, perhaps, the biggest reason why RIAA has already lost their battle against piracy and the imminent danger the MPAA faces. RIAA could have limited their depredations to only those pirates who mass produce bootlegs for profit. Instead, they went after the blood of their own customers and employed methods that make the pirates look like the good guys. Root kits, law suits, entrapment, price fixing, you name it. The icing on the cake was the knowledge that the only people they screwed over more than the customer was the artists!

Here in Canada, we have CRIA, which actually managed to get a tax slapped on all recordable media, mp3 players, etc.. Ostensibly, the money collected form this tax is supposed to go to the artists whose incomes are reduced by the evils of all Canadians. It's anyone's guess what CRIA actually does with the loot. Their books are not public. The last time I checked, they weren't paying out bupkiss to indie artists, but aren't they our victims too? As a Canadian, all I see is my money being taken away because I'm a criminal by default and given to the buisness equivalent of the mafia. Bravo!

I've been boycotting all RIAA/CRIA affiliated labels for years. The way I see it, every penny spent on one of their artist delays the inevitable and gives them another opportunity to do irreparable harm to our laws. However, I still go to the cinema and buy DVD's. Why am I not as concerned about the MPAA? Perhaps it's because they have, to date, not stooped to quite the same levels as RIAA in going after their own customers, even though they're already the scum of the Earth behind the scenes.

Here's a word to the MPAA. Take a look at the mess RIAA has made of its affairs. You don't want to go down that road.

FRAUD AND LIES!

Is fraud an acceptable enforcement tactic? Seems to me that if they offer downloads, and are contracted by the movie studios to do exactly this, than any downloads from them are de facto legal.

And if they spy on your computer otherwise with software that doesn't clearly indicate this in the license agreement, doesn't The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act come into play? Could MediaSentry go down Big Time over this little misstep?

Playing with fire, they are

it searched your computer for other copyrighted files

Practically 100% of the files on your computer are copyrighted. Even if those files are music or movies, their mere presence doesn't indicate a breach of copyright. And unless they're transmitting a significant portion of those files back when "phoning home" - and thus running afoul of copyright law themselves in the process, to say nothing of computer trespass laws - merely mentioning the title of a work in a filename or in metadata doesn't authenticate that file as containing what the filename or metadata suggests that it does.

Re:Steal one. Go to jail.

Not really, stealing a car is straight-up theft no matter whose car it is (even a family member's, if you don't have their permission). It's a bit different when a copyright holder is saying "Hey, downloaded our copyrighted material for free! Simply writing this statement is us giving you written permission to copy my copyrighted material! BTW we're going to scan your computer for files and store in our big database about everything you've got on your computer!" ...

Not the real point

Any discussion about US copyright must start with the fact that these folks have paid lawmakers to subvert copyright to make it effectively infinite: 70years + life of the author, or 95/120 years depending on circumstances. These terms are completely absurd and they change the reasons for ALL the behavior in the marketplace of copyright-protected IP.

There is no rational discussion that can occur about "fair", "legal", "right or wrong", until this time scale for copyright is corrected. It is my opinion that the term should be about 20 years max regardless of circumstances.

What is stupid about this

What is so stupid about this sleezy tactic is that there is no guarantee that any videos on a person's hard drive is illegal.

1. The Movie COULD BE converted using commercial off the self software. Divx Pro can do it along with many others. Just walk into your nearest computer store.
2. TV Episodes can be recorded via any TV tuner card. Such as WinTV cards.

The presence of movies and tv episodes on the hard drive doesn't make it illegal.

Re:You see, children...

his is why you should only use a reliable video piracy site

Don't you mean a LEGAL video piracy site? Because you see... in Sweden, piracy (or at least linking to) IS legal :)