MPAA Being Sued For Allegedly Hacking Torrentspy

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.'"

Comments

But

[Alex P Keaton in da]

But wait- How can it be wrong if the MPAA does it? laws only apply to us mortals...

Re:But

[east coast]

We have to keep all those great artists employed so we can get great things like a remake of Miami Vice, the Dukes of Hazzard, and other such crap....

Why scoff? Not to justify the existance of the MPAA but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?

While the MPAA should be facing more serious legal action than a simple lawsuit the cries of "artists who are protected/represented by the **AA are just crap and their product is crap" are laughable when you consider that the **AA wouldn't have a leg to stand on if people actually felt this way. If people are serious about a boycott they need to go full tilt, if they turn to piracy the **AA is going to get paid either way.

I agree that these movies, for the most part, are crap. But they're crap at any price, you won't be finding this trash on my HD or in my home media collection. I simply have no interest. Pirating only reinforces the concept that stuff like "Gigli" has a viable market that is being robbed by P2P and BT services.

Re:But

[QMO]

It's also perfectly okay to sue when GPL code gets ripped off, because stealing GPL code is wrong. Even though we say "piracy isn't theft," we call it "stealing" when the GPL is violated

I've seen this sentiment a couple of times.
It sounds very noble, but it is entirely unconvincing.
If Overly Critical Guy would give at least one example of a single person that stated both views he would be more credible.

As it is, it sounds like Overly Critical Guy can't believe that the contradictory sentiments may actually be held by non-intersecting subsets of posters.

Re:But

[SillyNickName4me]

For all I can tell, the MPAA is being sued for breaking into a computer system (or paying someone to do so for them) with the intent of obtaining data without permission. This data is not, and was never intended for publication.

The RIAA/MPAA material being copied on p2p networks however was (intended for being) published, no (virtual) breaking into mpaa/riaa computers is taking place etc.

In other words, the 2 situations are so different that compating them as you do and claiming they are in fact the same thing is imho extremely silly.

Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[eldavojohn]

I would have preferred the headline "DMCA Bites MPAA in A$$" but I suppose the current one will do.

Now, it's only a matter of time before we see the "MPAA Sues MPAA" headline. I'm certain there's money floating all over the place inside the MPAA and those law-talking guys are going to get to thinking that they better sue first for the rights to that money. You don't know the phrase "every man for himself" until you've visited an association of lawyers.

Anyone else praying for the MPAA to implode in on itself like flan left in a cupboard?

Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard!

[number11]

didn't Senator Hatch try to push through some legislation a couple years ago that would make this perfectly legal for copyright holders? That's about the time he made the statement about if being OK if the RIAA/MPAA "blew up their computers"

Yes. And about a week later, Senator Hatch got caught running pirated software on his government website.

We didn't hear much from him about blowing up computers after that.

Phwew!

[iNTERcEPTOR-SdB]

Glad I only download less prosecuted television shows from there. Where do I contribute to money to help sue them?

Isn't this legal yet?

[statusbar]

I thought that the MPAA/RIAA were campaigning for the government to give them special exemption status with regard to the anti-hacking laws in the Patriot Act so that they could hack with impunity, even in the case of causing lost data, on the suspicion of copyright infringement.

--jeffk++

Re:Isn't this legal yet?

[voice_of_all_reason]

You are demonstrating a surprisingly keen knowledge of the Law, citizen. Only terrorists need to know information like that!

d00d

[packetmon]

Torrentspy's complaint includes claims that the man whom the MPAA allegedly paid $15,000 to steal e-mail correspondence and trade secrets has admitted his role in the plot and is cooperating with the company.

MPAA: How much to get us information on this evil company
h4x0r: d00d 3y3 c4n pwn3rfy th3m f0r ch3ep w1f my 0d4y j3etsp34k to0lbar!

Spy

[tgpo]

So in this case it's Spy vs. torrentSpy

Re:But who cares about a pirate?

[Lead Butthead]

The MPAA is, after all, practically a subsidiary of our government now.

Surely you mean it's the other way around.

Sued ... why no FBI raid?

[Bob Loblaw]

Why are the authorities not involved in raiding the MPAA offices in this case? That seems to be the *first* step when the MPAA are after someone else.

Why isn't this a criminal investigation?

[internic]

I'm confused as to why this is a lawsuit brought by a private company and not a criminal investigation conducted by the FBI. IANAL, but I would have assumed that breaking into a company's computer systems to retrieve this information would violate criminal law, and I would have assumed that paying someone to do this would also violate criminal law. What's going on here?

Is paying someone to break into a computer system not a criminal act? Are the FBI knowingly ignoring a criminal act (perhaps because the MPAA is rich and politically powerfull)? Is Torrentspy just misrepresenting the situation to make it sound worse than it actually is (and, therefore, sound criminal)?

It's sad really

[porkThreeWays]

It's quite sad that people get to hide under the laws that protect individuals in that corporation. They basically do horrible illegal things, and the answer to everything is a small fine. A non-human entity doesn't make these illegal decisions. _People_ do. I understand why the government seperates a corporation from individuals, but when people make knowingly illegal decisions, they shouldn't be able to hide under that umbrella.

Re:this is funny.

[Overly Critical Guy]

The MPAA is like OJ. Even when they win, they will still be a loser. I still don't understand how they could have such a low understanding of technology that they would attack torrent sites anyway.

Torrent sites track torrents and provide a means of exchanging copyrighted materials. It's pretty cut and dry.

Besides, there is still the old idea that you can't call downloading "theft" because there really is no proven loser.

Then you can't call GPL violations "theft," but Slashdot does all the time. The loser is the person who owns the material who would normally have been compensated, but will not be because you downloaded without paying. Your downloaded files will be uploaded to other individuals who will also not pay. It's facilitation of copyright violation and withholding of revenues owed.

We should all of us contact a lawyer and have legal documents drawn up, and notorized that say something like "In the event that any digitally copyrighted material is found on this hard drive, let this document serve as a legally binding guarantee that said materials would never have been purchased otherwise and therefore no loss of revenue can possibly be proven solely based on the posession and or existance of these materials."

*rolls eyes* Yeah, that'll work.

It doesn't matter if you wouldn't have purchased something. How does that magically give you the legal right to have it? Do you understand capitalism and economies at all, or are you another dorm room kid with head-in-the-cloud ideals about how the real world works?

See, the problem is they have managed to convince too many judges that ALL of the material you or I may have on a hard drive would have absolutely been purchased had we not had the opportunity to download it.

It doesn't matter if you would or wouldn't have purchased the material. You ended up getting the material without paying for it when you had no right to, legally and ethically. You're essentially saying in that statement that you have a ton of stuff you would have never purchased, but you downloaded it anyway, which just bolster's the MPAA's position that the sites you got the material from should be shut down, so that the MPAA members' rights aren't being violated. The judges have to agree, because it's against the law to violate creators' rights and steal their stuff so you don't have to pay them for it. What gives you the right to do that?

I call bullshit. Who's with me?

Probably every other freeloader who has created an entire fictional belief system that scapegoats copyright holders so they don't feel guilty for pirating the fuck out of everything. "The MPAA made me do it! The RIAA made me do it!"

Why don't you ask John Carmack sometime if it's okay that people download Doom 3 without paying him for the years of work he put into it? Carmack's a Slashdot hero around here...would be interesting to see people's reactions to his response.

Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses

[Stormwatch]

Multi-screen theaters were extorted into showing and advertising known turkeys to maximize viewers before word spread about how bad the movie really was.

Reminds me of this...

"If Coca-Cola accidentally created 100 million cans of faulty Coke, you know for sure the entire 100 million cans would be dropped in the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, without a second thought and irrespective of what that did to the year's profits. What do we do with a crappy movie? We double its advertising budget and hope for a big opening weekend. What have we done for the audience as they walk out of the cinema? We've alienated them. We've sold audiences a piece of junk; we just took twelve dollars away from a couple and we think we've done ourselves no long-term damage."
--- David Puttnam, movie producer - GQ magazine, April 1987

Differences..and the face of it.

[RobertKozak]

On the face of it, it looks as though what **AA did was only (allegedly) break in and steal some emails while TorrentSpy is (allegedly) facilitating copyright infringement (but not actually infringing themselves).

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!