MPAA Being Sued For Allegedly Hacking Torrentspy 448
goldaryn writes "Valence Media, the parent company of Torrentspy.com, one of the web's largest torrent search engines, has filed a lawsuit against the MPAA for allegedly hiring a hacker to steal e-mail correspondence and trade secrets. From the suit: 'The Motion Picture Association of America willfully and intentionally obtained without authority, conspired to obtain without authority, purchased, procured, used and disclosed private information that it knew was unlawfully obtained through unauthorized access to Plaintiffs' computer servers and private email accounts, in violation of United States and California privacy and computer security laws.'"
But who cares about a pirate? (Score:3, Interesting)
And, do you know what? Since people have only a rudimentary understanding of the "dark Internets," everyone will eat their explanation up, and then head to the nearest Wal-Mart to purchase a CD published by a RIAA affiliate.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Torrentspy.
Useful defense tactics (Score:3, Interesting)
Then we can all use them.
Very clever, let the MPAA pay for attacking these insane anti-citizen's rights laws.
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:But (Score:3, Interesting)
While true, the conviction of el Enron honchos gives me a bit more hope. So it appears that execs can be held accountable for financial misappropriation... what about sending them to jail for hacking the same way the Justice Department likes to sentence other hackers??
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:2, Interesting)
So again, I have to ask, which is the actual crime here? I'm sure that I'm incredibly naive (and a poor speller to boot), but shouldn't copyright infringement cover something more along the lines of wholesale idea theft like copying a movie's plot and characters for your own film? Please explain this to me...
To answer the parent's question, the MPAA suit will obviously attract more damage, as they have the money and clout with congress to get their way. The problem is that we're trying to apply old standards to a new media/frontier/world, and they just don't work well.
Is it just me? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not saying the MPAA doesn't deserve to be sued, just pointing out something I found rather hypocritical.
Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid? (Score:2, Interesting)
RIAA Repeat? (Score:2, Interesting)
Kazaa (or Sharman, if you want to be "right") sued the RIAA because they used Kazaa Lite when finding people's IP addresses. Kazaa Lite was totally and completely illegal to use, and Kazaa said something about it in one of their terms. Kazaa lost, though, because the courts said that they didn't enforce the "non-pirate" clauses of their terms well enough, so this other part shouldn't be enforced either.
They're going to find some stupid excuse to let the MPAA go. I have no doubt in my mind about it.
Re:this is funny. (Score:3, Interesting)
In doing so, he made the point better than I ever could. Copying files isn't "stealing" because when you steal something, the owner doesn't have it anymore. Go figure.
Re:But (Score:2, Interesting)
If the MPAA did what this article claims, then they are guilty of a similar offense. Obviously, in filing their lawsuit, TorrentSpy states that they believe that the use of proprietary information can be restricted. For example, the article states:
The representative for TorrentSpy, attorney Ira Rothken, states his opinion that the MPAA is supporting piracy of other people's property. He isn't just making a public claim that the MPAA supports piracy, but instead he is suing the MPAA since he recognizes that piracy is unlawful.
But it can also be stated that if the accusations are correct, then the MPAA doesn't commit piracy themselves, they just facilitated it by paying someone else to do so... Yes, that would be very ironic. So if the MPAA is accused of piracy, then shouldn't we recognize that TorentSpy should also be seen as facilitating piracy in their own actions?
The whole situation is one which takes some real ethical tapdancing. I understand the feeling of schadenfreude that comes from TorrentSpy suing the MPAA. However, there is a hypocracy that is inherent in both sides of this argument. The root of the hypocracy is the concept that since an MP3 is information, and not a physical construct, then it doesn't harm anyone when you steal it.
However, the people that own the rights to that MP3 do feel that it is being stolen, and we really should be giving more respect to their point of view as well.
Re:But (Score:3, Interesting)
Piracy is just a scapegoat for an industry that churns out horrible products. I'd love to see piracy stopped just so the MPAA and RIAA no longer have anyone to blame.
Re:But (Score:2, Interesting)
VAG spends many millions of dollars doing research and development to design a superior automobile. Audi's Quattro four wheel drive system has won numerous awards, and while other car manufacturers can also develop a four wheel drive system, they can't duplicate the Quattro, and they can't call their own system a Quattro.
In the music or video side this means that your average Joe is allowed to go and make movies or music all they want, and they can even distribute their product as they see fit. However, they cannot duplicate the work of others and distribute it, and they cannot falsely claim to be what they aren't. For example, you cannot create a Flash animated version of Star Wars and distribute it under the Star Wars name.
You can use generic terms, such as calling your music Rock and Roll or Punk or grunge, or you can call your movie an Action movie or a Drama. However, it must be your own product if you are to claim that you have the right to distribute it.
And that is the key. What is going on here isn't about people creating a product of their own and distributing it. They are taking the product from someone else, duplicating it unlawfully, and then distributing it. If it isn't your property (and remember, just because you may own a CD doesn't mean that the music on it is your property) then you don't have a right to do anything you want with it.
The real problem with this discussion is that everyone is disagreeing with the idea of what property is. Until we can create a clear definition that is understandable to everyone, this discussion will continue to be misunderstood by most the people who are participating in it.
Re:But (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:But (Score:3, Interesting)
And here is the problem once again, a definition issue. the MPAA doesn't believe that what TorrentSpy is helping to steal is simply "material intended for distribution to the public". Generally most movies have a legal statement on them which makes it clear that the product is NOT for public distribution, but instead is only for private viewing.
Do you believe that they do not have a right to do this?
Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)
I hope TorrentSpy saved a lot of money to fight what is sure to be a loooooonnnnnnggggggggg drawn out court battle. I can't imagine the ad revenue of every torrent site on the planet since the beginning of torrenting even approaches the yearly legal budget of the MPAA.
Of course, the brilliant and slap-in-the-face method of winning this would be to take it far enough to get a nice huge settlement out of the MPAA, and then use that money to defend TorrentSpy users in future court cases. Or fund a trip or two to the Supreme Court.
Differences..and the face of it. (Score:5, Interesting)
But the act of breaking into a computer system breaks CRIMINAL laws while copyright infringement breaks only CIVIL laws. BIG difference.
Where are the FBI Raids? This country is so turned around now that, if you are big and powerful, you can get away with criminal acts while if you are a small timer you get the book thrown at you for minor offences.
I am very disappointed!