Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Caught Uploading Fake Torrents
An anonymous reader writes "The MPAA and other anti-piracy watchdogs have been caught trapping people into downloading fake torrents, so they can collect IP addresses, and send copyright infringement letters to ISPs. The battle between P2P networks and copyright holders seems to be a never ending battle. It will be interesting to see how much the anti-piracy groups practices change once they begin begin selling movies and TV shows legally on bittorrent.com."
I guess that Slashdot has been caught uploading fake headlines as well.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 is the magic number.
OMG the cops were also caught planting fake cars waiting to be stolen so they could catch car theives!!
If you are part of the MPAA and you download a torrent from someone else just to prosecute, technically isnt the MPAA breaking the law as well??
( I know off topic slightly )
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Have a fun time in court, everyone.
...then either it wasn't copyright infringment, or the MPAA was infringing too! The only legitimate way for the MPAA to "catch" people committing copyright infringement would be to observe the swarm without uploading anything itself.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
...if the file is fake and not actually the movie in question is it still piracy?
...if the MPAA is uploading it isn't it an authorized download?
...or will their lawyers eat mine for lunch?
...damn it.
IANAL but surely if the downloads they provide aren't copyright protected content and are in fact junk then you're not actually breaking any law because you're not actually downloading copyrighted content.
Contrary to that, surely if it is copyrighted content then the MPAA is making the content available to you. Is it really illegal to download something from the copyright owner if they make it available publicly with no license to agree to prior to download? I'd have thought they'd have a hard time arguing that they didn't intend the content be distributed in the case that they place it readily available on a file sharing site. What's more, even if the MPAA did use this argument then surely if this became precedent then it would have the side effect of destroying any court cases against file sharers as those sharers could merely claim that they didn't intend the files they were sharing to be distributed much like the MPAA might in this scenario?
I just don't see how this really has any legal grounding, however law is a funny thing, particularly in the US so I could be wrong here!
Attempted copyright infringement?? Is that even illegal?
Well, if they are uploading non-copyrighted stuff, what's the reason for sending the copyright infringement letters to ISPs?
Here we had software companies that share their own software on DC network couple of years ago. The plan was to go and talk to the downloaders about how bad that is.
A pity only uploading, not downloading is oficially a crime here.
Do not. Touch. Down.
How is downloading a file filled with zeros or random bytes breaking the law, even if it has the same file name as a valid release? Total Bullshit, if anyone gets prosecuted this way, they should be easily able to get out. I'm just glad I live in Canada :)
If they are loading up fake files for you to download, than you in reality do have "beat it" on MP3, you have static or a recording saying do not download this song etc. You are in fact NOT in possession of the stolen works that they are after
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Either they're uploading the real file which means they're in violation of copyright law, which seems unlikely. Or they're uploading the real file but they, as the copyright holder, have deemed it OK to distribute - which means it's OK to go ahead and grab it.
Or they're dummy files, which means you can go ahead and grab it since there's no copywritten content shifting hands.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
haven't they been doing this for years, screenshots weren't enough?
There is an allegation that article about the use of fake torrents by the MPAA to harvest IP address so they can use them to send out infringement notices, which has then been converted to a fact by the submitter.
I suspect that the MPAA has these fake torrents to confuse people and waste their time downloading junk, in the hope that they'll give up using torrents. It's a very weak link to suggest that these are being used to send copyright infringement notices.
Waking Up - There must be a better way to start the day.
If the MPAA is knowingly uploading something to you then they are giving their OK to you to accept it.
This is no different than if I hand you a dollar (or a fake dollar). I am agreeing to give it to you.
The MPAA is in full control of the content or fake content. If the MPAA has agreements with record labels not to give anything away for free then that is the MPAA's problem.
I wonder how long it'll be before mediadefender.com's site becomes the target of a DDOS.. On topic now, they are trying to sue people based on downloading a fake. This may hold up as in schools/planes where you would get in serious trouble for saying something of the order of "I have a bomb!" regardless of whether it's true. But still, it's pretty ridiculous. Going further, if a court were to validate the MPAA's 'evidence' in any of these cases, it'd change the rules so that the legal system must judge based on intent preemptively as opposed on based on actions. I'd think that would open the door for many a frivolous suit. It also seems the MPAA is pretty inexperienced at keeping up with the standards of torrent-based networks. They may be able to lure in non tech-savvy users but otherwise their efforts seem to be blocked fairly quickly by the torrent search engines. What are the current penalties imposed on a person for losing a court battle with the MPAA? (Could probably find it fairly easily but don't feel like going through legalese now). I remember in 2005 a law passed in Bulgaria where the sentence for downloading music illegally was set for 3 years. Pretty ridiculous considering the sentence there for committing a felony tends to be much shorter. Just a few thoughts.
While I think that current copyright terms are too long, and the DMCA and DRM completely negate the public interest part of the copyright bargain and need to be repealed, I also believe in copyright and think that it should be enforced. From that stance, I really think that law enforcement agencies, not the MPAA, should be the ones prosecuting copyright infringement by offering copyrighted works in places where infringement is known or suspected, and pursuing investigation and prosecution. Such a practice would be a legitimate sting operation, I think.
Someone should copyright the files that the MPAA is loading as fake files and than sue the MPAA for releasing copyrighted material, I wonder if false representation of these files would also fall in line.... any takers???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
This, by the way, is what the unregulated Internet looks like: the rich and powerful perpetrating their own rough justice upon the masses, unencumbered by any law or rule.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Does anyone recall the media hubbub surrounding the release of Star Wars: Attack of the Clones? That the movie had been released onto P2P networks before it had even hit the theatres in many countries? Incontravertible evidence that something _had_ to be done about this scourge of filesharing!
A cynic might think it an interesting situation that a dutiful journalist would have to admit to committing a potential crime just to verify the report. A less determined one might just settle for the query results, with the less technologically adept ones being completely convinced: ignorant of the fact that no hard coupling exists between a file's name and its content.
When the claims were tested for veracity by secret anonymous squirrels, none of the files found on the Gnutella network contained any footage of the film.
They're not doing this to find content, they're doing this to pre identify suspects for crimes they may commit in the future. Profiling and it's being done by a private party.
Couldn't it be argued that the MPAA is setting up a honeypots? Since honeypots are questionably legal (or illegal) because they are intercepting communications that are not intended for the interceptor, couldn't they be prosecuted? (ie The file transfer is intended for sharers and trackers who exist to benefit sharers)
OR
Since the MPAA is uploading the torrents to begin with, aren't they giving permission to view whatever they upload?
OR
How is this different from Phishing?
produce a copyrighted work licensed for free use by anyone except the RIAA/MPAA. upload copyrighted work to every p2p network on earth using filenames which make it appear to be a copyrighted work which the RIAA or MPAA control. wait to get sued. when sued, show that in fact they were the ones who violated YOUR copyright. rinse and repeat ad naseum until those motherfuckers get sick of their own medicine.
If I didnt post in here I would mod this up.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
They can have my IP. I just use whatever wide-open wireless network is available. Often, that's my town's free wireless program. Have fun, MPAA.
ianal - but there are a few things that i often see repeated in these discussions that are, to my understanding, a bit incorrect. i could be wrong, but i don't think so.
copyright protected content: anything that is written in the us is copyrighted at the time of writing. even if it doesn't have a registered copyright it still technically enjoys copyright protection (thus the mail it to yourself, leaving the envelope closed after arrival, to create dated evidence of copyright). this, i would think, would also make the random junk that they distribute copyrighted.
entrapment: it seems like it, but...entrapments is only a criminal-law defense, and has very strict rules for how it can be used as a defense. and of course in civil lawsuits entrapment just can't happen.
isp's often don't care: even if there's no law you violate, the mpaa can still complain to your isp, who probably doesn't investigate himself, just disconnects you.
the last thing is something i'm shaky-er on
assumed permission: if something is posted on the internet you have to assume you have permission to download it. all the images on someone's photo-blog are copyrighted, but you have to download them to view them at all.
so assuming i'm correct on all of that, then it logically *should* follow that any torrents that you know are being seeded and/or tracked by the **aa should be fine to download, and quite possibly fine to redistribute based on the way the **aa should know the bittorrent technology works.
in any case though it would probably have to wind up in court, and lets face it, by the time you're there you've already lost allot of money.
66.172.60.XXX,
66.177.58.XXX,
66.180.205.XXX,
209.204.61.XXX,
216.151.155.XXX
From the article:
The anti-piracy servers use hostnames like 101tracker.dhcp.biz, aplustorrents.qhigh.com, bitnova.squirly.info, bittorment.ocry.com, and pirate-trakkrz.leet.la. All these hostnames can be traced back to the same IP Ranges, these ranges contain possibly hundreds of fake trackers, so feel free to block them
I think it's worse than that. After noting your IP address as you download files that they themselves published, they then commit perjury by fraudulently claiming to the court that you were downloading copyright protected content and claiming damages for the download and distribution of content that didn't actually happen.
I think that you mean "Don't try to steal their shit."
If you're downloading a fake file, you're not really stealing anything.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
The only thing I have used Bittorrent for is downloading linux. Get faster FTP sites and fuck off!
Thats beacuse intent IS a crime, when you attempt to follow thru with it, regardless of the outcome.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Attempted copyright infringement is a new crime introduced by The Intellectual Property Protection Act 2006. The act has not yet been passed, so downloading fake torrents appears to be legal at the moment. But IANAL.
that intent to commit a crime, whether or not you go through with it, is often itself a crime.
That's not the case with copyright infringement. You have to actually infringe in order to be liable. It's not enough that you intend to infringe.
Okay. Let's assume you have a TV. You put it outside on your sidewalk and leave it there. Then you arrest the first guy who tries to pick it up. That would be the equivalent of what they are doing.
There are a lot of people who give things away legally by leaving in on their lawn.
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Has anyone here used PeerGuardian (a P2P IP blocker, with automatic whitelist updates)? Do programs like these actually work at blocker MPAA sniffers, or do they simply provide a false sense of security?
Many crimes however require that you actually do something. I beleive that copyright infringement is like that.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
The MPAA didn't upload any copyrighted material. They're seeding garbage files that are labeled as actual content and collecting IPs.
Of course they uploaded copyrighted material. The content of the torrent, whether it is garbage or not, is copyrighted by default.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Just one example: I'm the usual nerd fulfiling most cliches, somewhat fluent in english and of course I dig - like every nerd - current TV shows (Battlestar Galactica etc.)
There's no legal possibilty to obtain those shows legally here. Of course I could wait until they dub it and release it here but this usually takes up one year. Of course with crappy dubbing and no chance of getting the english voice track due to increased cost in licensing - even on pay-tv. Or wait even longer for the DVD release.
So the only way to obtain those shows is via bittorrent. I know several ppl who do that so there's definitely a market there... but noone is stepping in.
I know from a legal standpoint I should just do other stuff instead of watching pirated TV shows, but still its quite strange: The mechanisms of the free market somehow don't work here.
Maybe a police man can offer you drugs without breaking the law, to see if you buy.
Does that mean I can sell you drugs to see if you buy? Nope.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Media companies have been doing this for a long time. Companies like Overpeer would flood P2P networks with corrupt mp3s on the behalf of companies like sony etc. Way back in 2002.
If the MPAA is deliberately uploading files for others to download from MPAA computers, isn't that what is otherwise known as "Entrapment"?
If the *AA are going to act as a vigilante police force, then they have to be held accountable to the same regulations as the regular security agencies.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
You have a false dichotomy - it is (not necessarily) either (any) one of those.
... but IANAL
If it was the real file then they probably got permission to do so so they didn't violate copyright and they have not given permission to make copies. Just because a CD sits there on a shelf in a record store (where anyone can get it) doesn't mean it's alright (legal) to copy the fuck out of it.
But I would say that if it was real content and they left it sitting there just waiting for someone to copy it then that sounds rather like entrapment
IANAL and i think it's ridiculous but i always remember the 'mens rea' principle of law from my small amount of book-learnin'; if you have a guilty mind (ie you _meant_ to break the law), you're just as guilty as if you actually _did_ break the law. and i guess in america it wouldn't be hard to make that stick. :-)
That if you attempted to download a file from us (which we just sent you static) than you MUST have other illegal software on your computer.
This is (sort of) like finding someone in public with a joint in their hand and than going to their house and busting in because they had a joint in public they MUST have plants in the house.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
This sounded rediculous the first time I heard about it. They said people were getting fired from their day jobs and their ISP service disabled not for downloading illegal copies of movies at all. They downloaded a piece of random data that happened to be created by the MPAA.
Under this law, you can get fired for downloading literally anything. All the lawyers have to do is say any data at all, from a slashdot comment to a DNS entry, was deliberately put there by a client for the purpose of trapping pirates.
According to Google, there are anecdotes of people losing their home internet access for using BitTorrent, but they don't say if they were busted for downloading fake data or using too much bandwidth.
There have only been 3 arrests linked to BitTorrent usage. They were all people who made the first copy and who administered the tracker. The MPAA boasts 4 but you can only find 3 names. No-one has been busted for running a client.
Isn't it like leaving in a public place an envelope with "This envelope contains $100 that doesn't belong to you" written on the outside, but just filled with Monopoly money, then deciding to spy on/arrest/sue everyone who looked inside?
Or, given that piracy is illegal (for suitable values of "piracy" and "illegal"), it's more like catching people peeking inside the brown paper bag in the pr0n store entitled "Underage nymphos at it like knives with farmyard animals".
Or something.
> Common law is rrelevant here.
Should read "Common law is irrelevant here."
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Your actions can give a fair idea of your intent. A jury would have to decide whether some other explanation you might offer puts reasonable doubt in their minds.
If I go to someone's house with a gun and start shooting at them but miss with all the bullets I have are you going to let me off an attempted murder charge when I claim that I never intended to hit him and was trying to miss?
You don't know for sure what I was doing but it's beyond any reasonable doubt.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Regardless of whether the files are movies or fakes, they are copyrighted (at the time of their creation, provided they are actual videos, creations, not sure you can copyright non-creative files).
T HORIZATION, don't share it!
HOWEVER, how is the downloader supposed to know that they aren't authorized to distribute? The answer is: they can't, until they download the entire file, and then see a distribution notice on the video. Thus, if they are sharing only WHILE they are downloading (before finished), they have no knowing that the material can't be distributed.
It could be argued that it is legal to assume distribution is OK unless otherwise notified (seeing as how putting a file on a "file-sharing network" would be intended for sharing). By the time the downloader knows they can't share it 1) they already have it and 2) they should be ok as long as they don't share it after that.
THUS, if you see a file labeled LOTR-XVIDCD2.THISFILECANNOTBEDISTRIBUTEDWITHOUTAU
They don't give the nobel peace prize for "attempted chemistry"!
(apologies to sideshow bob)
I don't have a lot of time to work with, but there are a few points going around here that I think ought to be collected in one place:
/dev/unrandom. They are fine with that.
Entrapment: No, it's not. Entrapment, in order to work as a legal defense, is when the government takes action that induces you to commit a crime that you would not otherwise have committed. Walking up to you on the street and offering you $100 commission to steal a Rolex is entrapment. Putting up a website that purports to sell illegal machinegun parts is not entrapment, because you would have found some website to buy the parts from anyhow. Sending you a brochure to advertise child pornography and waiting for you to order some is questionable. This activity is somewhere between the child porn brochure and the machinegun parts website, but it is not government action so entrapment isn't a defense. It also doesn't matter, because the MPAA is interested in suing you into oblivion in civil court more than it is interested in seeing you behind bars. (After all, behind bars you can't make any more paychecks for the MPAA to garnish.)
MPAA consent to downloading content: Nope. They're uploading fake torrents. You are downloading something else, maybe a dump of
Downloading fake torrents is legal: Yep, it is. It's just that they're logging your IP address and will file a lawsuit that alleges, "[o]n information and belief, the Defendant has infringed the Plaintiff's copyright by downloading an illegally distributed copy of [the movie you were trying to download when you got the fake torrent]." They know you are going to find a real torrent later and download it, or at least some other movies. They know all they need to: you are a person using a given IP address to attempt to download their copyrighted material and you probably didn't give up when you found out that the torrent they fed you was fake.
Grabbing your IP address from the fake torrent download doesn't help the MPAA: See previous paragraph.
Did I miss anything? These seem to be the main issues being covered in the comments so far. The simple fact is that this tactic will probably work for the MPAA.
By publicly seeding the network with false data they're creating a very effective beta test for denial of service when the roles are reversed and the MPAA needs P2P to sell video.
Strikes me as an idea just a tad short of vision, and the irony is of course that them doing it now without negative effect creates precedent. If in doubt, keep digging?
Insert
The content of this message is original content that was created, bought, inherited, or acquired by currently legal means. The content of this message is owned by an MAFIAA associated corporation (or on rare occasions, an individual) who has paid the proper fees for our protection and lobbying services.
If you are reading this message on a questionable message board or other site and you have not paid for the content, YOU ARE A PIRATE. As your know from our videos, you have broken the law in a way no less serious that stealing a car or sinking a cruise ship. We would suggest that you turn yourself in to the FBI, after first paying the appropriate penalty of $250,000 to mafiaa.org.
---
said original content follows.
---
Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday to you, Happy birthday dear , Happy birthday to you.
If it's based on intent, then what's to stop me from downloading a whole bunch of empty torrents and claim "My intent was to download a bunch of empty torrents because I'm interested in the phenomenon"? Although you're downloading valuablecontent.something your state intent was not to watch the valuablecontent but to see the file nefariously named valuablecontent.something - this would be an easy defence for downloaders targeted this way.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
There's a specific law against dealing fake drugs, though. You can't really use analogies like that to reason what the law *is* because the law doesn't actually make sense--although you might be able to use them to argue how the law *ought* to be (which is something else entirely).
Think of the law as horrible spaghetti code logic maintained by politicians for several hundred years, with tons of weird special cases that probably never made any sense.
Now, as far as I know, there isn't "attempted copyright infringement" and if they're the copyright holders, I have to believe that they're authorizing you to have it by distributing it like that. Of course, I'm no lawyer, but if I were on the jury, I'd definitely come down hard on them for pulling crap like that.
On the other hand, I bet they'd use discovery to extort you--they might figure that, because you downloaded their fake torrent, you probably actually *have* infringed upon their copyrights in some other way, so they'd try to make you turn over your computer. And as we know from recent cases, even if you _didn't_ infringe upon their copyrights, they'll hire some old hack professor to claim it must be the wrong hard drive / you destroyed the evidence. Which sucks, because you can't really prove the negative, and you might actually have formatted the drive for perfectly legitimate reasons (i.e. for some reason other than hiding copyright infringement).
So yeah, downloading those things is trouble, any way you look at it. However, it might be loads of fun to report them as "pirates" and see if you can't get them kicked off of their ISP. Or, conversely, if the ISP actually buys that, how long before some torrent site bamboozles their ISP into thinking that they only host "fake" torrents to trap people? (Granted, that might not work so well if the employees of said ISP decided to "sample" things, but if they were the type to "sample" your torrents, they might also be the type to look the other way...)
IANAL. If you need legal advice, retain someone like that nice lawyer guy, Ray, who is always submitting stories here. He's already clued in to their dirty legal tricks.
I recently received a message from my ISP that they had received notice alleging I was sharing copyrighted material from my connection, specifically "Mission Impossible 3" - a spanish version no less - over the eDonkey network. It showed the IP I have indeed had assigned to my home network for the past month or two, and was indeed using eMule. HOWEVER, I was only using it to download software, and in NO situation did I download ANY movies, especially anything in spanish! I know that it sounds totally typical, but I wouldn't be complaining if I got reported for something I actually did.
Getting reported for sharing something I've never even had is bullshit, though, regardless of what OTHER questionable things I had been doing. It's not a stretch to claim that their incorrect copyright infringement notice leans on illegal because of the possible harm that can come to me as a result. My internet connection could be disconnected at my ISP's will, forcing me to switch to a crappier ISP with higher prices (we have TWO broadband providers here), and my reputation could be harmed due to the false allegations made.
In Soviet America, MPAA torrents you!
You're new here, aren't you?
Its baiting. Its like saying "HEY! HE STOLE MY CAKE!" "The cake was left completely unprotected with a label on it saying "Free cake, Help yourself"." "Doesn't matter, he took it!" "It wasn't even cake. It was gruel.". :D.
Lets face it, what do they have agaisnt them? They cant really do anything legally, can they. They're not even downloading the damn movie/music/show, they're downloading the 350mb garbage file. Now, if they could prosocute because of that and confiscate the computer, what if I decided I was funny and uploaded a torrent of me taking a bath butt naked to TPB and then named it somthing like "Pokemon Season 4 EP 2". Would that grant Nintendo the right to press charges and demand sezuire of their computer? Hell no. All it would be worth is maybe forking your own eyes out. Seriously, this is just blatant abuse, and any Judge/Jury stupid enough to give this crap a foot hold might as well just say "Your exempt from the law. GO WILD!".
Thank god I'm in NZ, where the copyright laws are less crappy, and the MPAA cant do jack shit directly to me
There is getting to be way too many cases in the US of police, the media and private corporations going after people, putting them in jail and ruining their reputations, lives and bank accounts with prosecutions of crimes that never really incurred but the "intent" could be sold to a court of law. Then there are also cases like Delorean's and who knows how many others who were out and out framed and/or forced into their crimes so they could be convicted of them.
Sideshow Bob: "Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry?"
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
So what are people guilty of when downloading a fake torrent?
Has the MPAA copyright on blank screens now?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Holy crap, you're right! I guess they'd better hope random bits aren't copyrightable, then...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Additionally: what does it matter whether you think it's entrapment, or question their ability to take legal measures? The fact is, most people who receive a notice such as that will get scared and stop file sharing. Mission accomplished.
It's not like the MPAA thinks it's going to recoup lost dollars through lawsuits, it's all a deterrent tactic. This is just another way to scare and deter people.
If you download a fake torrent what law did you break?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
What they're doing is not entrapment. Entrapment involves getting someone to perform a crime they otherwise would not have commit.
In this case, the individual downloading the fake torrent already had the intention to acquire a copy, illegally.
With that said, screw you MPAA.
Especially if you phrase it that way!
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
This is GREAT news!!!
Consider - when prosecuting for copyright infringement, the *AA present as "evidence" a screen shot showing an IP associated with a torrent with a suspect file name.
Now we have "proof" that just because a file is titled something similar to a *AA owned work, it doesn't necessarily contain that work. And the proof can come via discovery from the *AA themselves. woot - profit!
So all current infringement notices are invalid, and new ones will need to be accompanied by proof all files in the complaint were actually the works for which copyright was claimed.
In addition it's looking like the courts are going to start requiring proof copys were actually made by/from your instance of the file claimed (the work), but thats another issue.
First, I rarely respond to trolls. But I have seen you posting for this site here multiple times (similar to the way ninenine does; In fact, considering that very few porn sites run windows and your link does, I suspect that you are ninenine).
But do you really find this all that profitable from this site? In addition, I am sure that you are spamming other "tech" sites (digg, pcworld, pcmag, etc). Since you insist on using this site for spam, I have an intersting story for you to submit; show us number on how many actually click though and/or buy your sites. This use to be a hard core tech site. Over the last decade it has become less so. I would be curious to see how this site stacks up for click-throughs vs. other geek sites. In addition, it might be interesting to see how many clicks occur when you are not modded as a troll. Basically, do your link, record the time, and then check how many click through while you are at 0 or above until you hit a troll level. I really think that this could be an interesting story.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Funny, only a few minutes ago I read elsewhere about someone in New Zealand who got stung by this a few days ago when Paramount contacted their backwater ISP and had his account temporarily disabled. He got away with a 'warning'.
http://nzdsl.co.nz/PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-479.phtml
I'm not sure I see how this is entrapment. Entrapment is when you induce someone who would otherwise be unwilling to commit the crime into commiting a crime. How is making something what appears to be copywritten material on a search engine inducement? It seems pretty clear that this is not entrapment.
Of course, whether it is copyright ingringement is questionable as well. If the content isn't real, it's not ingringement. Unfortunately, with screen shots being treated as evidence, things can get tricky. If these reports can be substantiated, perhaps they can be used as a reason to demand there be proof that actual infringement took place (as opposed to a screenshot listing filenames that shared substrings in common with the titles of protected works).
MAC is a layer-2 address, specifically for Ethernet protocols. Thus MAC address is only passed across switches. As soon as you hit a router, the MAC is gone. If you try and find out the MAC of slashdot.org, you'll find that the furthest you can get is your default gateway. Past that there's no info.
The 'spoof' file, that is. After all, the xAA is posting it to torrent sites themselves. Doesn't that make the file obviously legal. Therefore, even if it is named something that would be infringing copyright, wouldn't it still be legal to download? Even better, they are offering a file for download that is from the xAA itself, that claims to be some copyright-protected property. Isn't it then false advertising? If I was a major musician, say a certain comedy-minded one, and offered a file on my website for free download, claiming it is a song asking you not to download it, but the file isn't really that song, but just static; could I sue the downloader for trying to download my song? No.
Even if it is on GooTube instead of my own website, and I don't acknowledge that I put it there, it's still me putting it up for the public to download.
So no illegal activity has happened. So even though someone who would be downloading the file is the KIND of person who is likely downloading songs in violation of copyright, you haven't caught me doing anything inherently wrong, so how can you sue me?
i.e. "I caught this guy stealing a copy of my free pamphlet from the gray-market newsstand, so obviously he is stealing copies of non-free magazines, too!"
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
They are uploading *FAKE* torrents. As in not real ones. As in they aren't uploading the copyrighted content.
There really isn't any law dealing with attempted infringement. This isn't criminal law so they can only ask for damages. Well those damamges have to have a basis, either actual or statutory. Since there was no copyrighted material downloaded, no actual daamges can be proved. You can't argue any damage was done by downloading random data. That just leaves the statutory damages, which are the really heavy ones. However if you read the laws on those, they are for infringement, not for attempted infringement. Again since we are talking random data, and random data that the MPAA willing distributed, no infringement occurred.
Now I'd bet they are smart enough to realise this and this isn't for court cases, they just send the ISPs threatening e-mails to try and get accounts canceled. I don't know that the MPAA is doing lawsuits, that seems to be the RIAA's thing. Most groups just send takedown notices. We got one from the ESA. One of our users had downloaded Quake 4. They didn't file a lawsuit or even ask their name, just asked us to get rid of the file and "take appropriate action as per your terms of service."
This will work fine for that, since there's no real legal burden. However I can't see it going anywhere in a court of law with a competent defense. There's no actual damage so it's hard to say you deserve any money.
around christmas time, i downloaded a cam version of Deck The Halls. if hollywood keeps making crap like that, they won't have to worry about "illegal" movie "piracy." it'll die out from lack of interest.
Serenity now, insanity later.
If I understand correctly, BitTorrent works along the principal of multiple computers hosting the entire content, each distributing bits and pieces in a manner where the client can receive said content in as fast a manner as possible, rebuilding the original file from multiple partial streams.
Now, if someone were to come up with say, a method of taking a music file, or movie, breaking it up into hundreds of thousands (or millions) of pieces, only distributing 1 to 3 second bits of the file from any one source, how could you be accused of distributing the entire content?
Given hundreds or thousands of these sources, eventually the entire movie, song or album could be reconstituted, but not from any one source, and nowhere on any one machine was the entire source distributed to any other one machine.
If checksums were placed out for each *segment*, also on different sources, only valid content would be viable as part of the re-integration process.
As for re-distribution, all you'd ever give out is bits and pieces, again covered under fair use, never the entire file.
it would be like taking every 300th frame of a movie, or every 30th millisecond of a song, and making it available. Pure giberish by itself.
Just a thought....
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
There has been some discussion that nefarious activities are being taken with cracked copies of popular 3-d modeling software. Such that virus scanners search out the crack, and quarantine it. Whether it is someone trying to piggyback a virus on the program, or 3-D companies using the virus protection system to protect their content, remains to be seen.
Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?
The only catch is that I could say "You can have a free copy, but you may not redistribute." Since all downloaders of a torrent are also uploaders, you'd be violating the redistribution clause.
They have no proof you are redisributing though - aren't there specifically leech clients that do not transmit?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Buy the frinkin CD already!!!
When you download a torrent you contact the MPAA's server and your PC says "I would like this file", then the MPAA's server says "Okay, here you go", and proceeds to send you the data.
How is this not giving permission?
This would be like if you sent a letter to the MPAA requesting a copy of Superman, and they sent you a DVD in the mail. You haven't stolen the DVD, they chose to send it to you.
If their server offers you the file, then not only are they giving you the data, but they are giving it to you with the knowledge that your client will also distribute the data to others.
If this were not the case, then you would be violating the law any time you downloaded copyrighted content via bittorrent, even when the copyright author wants you to download it. If they do not intrinsically give you permission to send the data to others by putting up the link, knowing how bittorrent works, then any time you downloaded something, those copies that others make from the data your tracker hands off to them would be a violation of the law.
Also, if putting up a torrent link is not permission to download, then could one not use this to entrap the MPAA? If one were to determine which IP addresses as theirs, one would need only to put up fake torrents with what appear to be real movies, and wait for the MPAA to download them. When they do, they would be violating your copyright on that garbage data.
If the movies uploaded by the MPAA are fake, then there is no crime. If the are real, then what is the MPAA doing giving them away for free? Hells bells. A defendant could even say he 'thought the movie was being distributed by the MPAA, so the download was legal'
We should preferentially download every torrent posted on them. (Or maybe only the first kB, to save our own bandwith.)
The MPAA would have to get:
1) Your WiFi provider to turn over the Mac address from the logs (if they even archive them for that long)
2) The manufacturer of your network chip to divulge which OEM it got sold to (easier if the chip belongs to dell, but many of them are broadcom)
3) The OEM to figure out whether the sold it to you directly or to a reseller
It'd be easier to go after someone else.
the file name would be a dead giveaway as ALL release groups put their name in the file name. such as "law.and.order.special.victims.unit.s08e10.hdtv.xv id-xor.[VTV].avi".
well if you come accross a file called law.and.order.special.victims.unit.s08e10.MPAA.avi then maybe you might be suspicious or law.and.order.special.victims.unit.s08e10.avi with no release group. so it will be pretty easy to spot the fake torrent. i'd be more annoyed if i downloaded a fake one only because i would have wasted my time.
Anyone caught downloading these fake copies can be charged with the
\
Look at all the trouble Joey got in for downloading a Garbage File.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
isnt this entrapment? and illegal?
portfolio
I seem to have a subtle problem with this. Lets say, for the sake of argument, I downloaded the garbage file from the torrent. Sure it has a title which is close to a copyrighted movie, but nowhere does it tell me it is copyrighted.
Then I try to play the movie and get 2 hours of white noise. Nowhere does it tell me that the noise I am watching is copyrighted! So how do I infringe any law here.Taking this argument one step further. Let us say that MPAA figures this out and puts one of these FBI-(blue or red) warning screens before the movie. I now know that the item is copyrighted, so technically I am in trouble. At that time I realize to my utter horror that I downloaded a copyrighted item. Should I not now return this item to the rightful owner with my apologies. Because I could only know this was copyrighted until the complete download was performed. Where do I send my copy together with a letter that I found this item?
Downloading something from a torrent is not illegal. So when it is not marked as copyrighted I have no way of knowing.I was looking for the fake LOTR torrent and accidentally got the real one. Bloody annoying.
HAND.
I am replying to your comment rather than the very similar sibling, because you posted first. I did not overlook the fact that the thing you downloaded is garbage or the fact that there is no civil claim for attempted infringement (although there may be a claim for civil conspiracy, especially in light of the way that p2p software works, but that doesn't matter here).
Like I said, downloading the fake torrent is legal. The MPAA can still sue you because, as I pointed out, they are acting on information and belief that you downloaded the real thing later on. They are also probably right. They do, of course, have to prove that you actually did in order to recover anything in court, but that's a question of evidence, not a question of you being legally in the right.
Consider this sequence of events. You download the fake torrent and the MPAA logs your IP address. You later find a real torrent of any movie and download it. The MPAA sues you and alleges as I quoted in my prior comment that, on their information and belief, you have infringed their copyright by downloading one of their movies. (Lawsuits start out vague and work their way toward specificity. Saying "he infringed one of our movies!" is probably enough to get the ball rolling.) They then subpoena your computer's hard drive and either find movies on it and win or find that you tampered with it and win by default (because tampered-with evidence is generally assumed to be as bad for the tamperer as can be imagined).
In the unlikely event that you never did any illegal downloading and it was just a fluke that you downloaded a fake torrent of a movie that would otherwise have constituted copyright infringement, you are probably safe.
just an idea, people could organize a movement to overload these companies servers. it would make a good excuse because there would be no way to tell the difference between a person who intended to download the file in question, and a person who merely wished to take bandwidth from teh server.
www.americanjapan.com
Anyone who gets caught with this method can just claim they knew it was from the RIAA. After all, if the RIAA puts it online and makes it a free download, they are effectively granting anyone the right to download the fake torrent legally.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
Doesn't matter about the rights/wrongs/legalities of anything.
No RIAA case has ever gone to trial, either they scare the defendants into handing over some money or they drop the case when real lawyers get involved.
The only important thing is that ISPs get accustomed to handing over user account details and that the press keeps on reporting that people are landing in court because they downloaded stuff.
i.e. It's a FUD campaign.
No sig today...
technically yes the downloader is not actually stealing (copyright infringing - whatever you wish) anything at all. But is it conspiracy to commit the crime? If the feds were to put a fake (shop dummy) president at a podium somewhere (yes it is a completely laughable situation - just bear with me) and caught some cheeky wrongdoer who runs up to this "president" and shoots the dummy (who he completely thought was the president) in the head, what would he be up for?
Murder - no because he did not commit to the actual act
but conspiracy to commit murder?
Technically no now that I look at the trustworthy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compare attempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join "the plot" later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted and/or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.
So (if he worked alone) that isn't applicable either. So what are they liable for.
maybe so actually - because a bittorrent network requires at least two parties (one seeder and one downloader) and when the download gets going theres alot more "conspiring" parties. That's how I see it anyway
of course IANAL (although I start law school this year - so I could come back to you soon enough ^_^)
ugh I'll stop here - this is ending up in more questions than I can answer.
My Mommy says smoking kills. Oh, is your Mommy a doctor? No. A scientific researcher of some kind? No. Well then sh
IANAL, but doesn't downloading a file someone thinks is a copyright-protected movie give something like probable cause to request permission to search that person's hard drive for files of interest? Were I advising them of a strategy to find people who're doing this, I'd think that would be an excellent way.
It seems like, based on search warrants I've seen, activity like that would be reason to compel seizure of computers and electronic devices, etc., etc., with intent to search for copyright-protected motion pictures, MPG, AVI, MOV files and the like. Please correct me if I'm off-base (highly likely)...
We're not quite in 1984 or "Minority Report" land yet (but boy are we trying). I'm not so sure it's a rock solid given that you can prove something from a mere title - after all, the RIAA is now providing evidence itself that it has seeded false names files. Nor is an intent to download the same as actual evidence. Given how they screwed up that case that was on Groklaw (must check how that is going) I'm not so sure they're trying hard. It's about scaring people and using the fact that ordinary people can't afford justice in the US courts.
Now, here's a fun question. I may want to test my torrent with some white noise and thus aim for a RIAA file, and accidentally end up with copyrighted material. Oops - who is to blame?
That I download a file that MAY be copyrighted material is, thanks to the RIAA, no longer a certainty. I.e. there is *reasonable doubt* over my intentions..
Lesson 1 with any questionable tactics is that there is usually a way to make them work against you..
For the record, I'm not interested in illegal music, but I consider AllOfMP3 a legal setup. It's not their fault that the RIAA doesn't want to collect the revenue (which exposes the RIAA motives rather clearly) - I haven't seen anyone actually calculate how much revenue the RIAA is actually LOSING by what they do. There must be a way to approximate that. Alienating their future customers, bad press, people no longer buying from legit sources in protest, even more artists going independent, payment to maintainthe status quo (not the group), return of disks with copy protection etc etc etc. Those costs alone must be worth quite a boatload of cocaine and starlets..
We're not quite in 1984 or "Minority Report" land yet (but boy are we trying). I'm not so sure it's a rock solid given that you can prove something from a mere title - after all, the RIAA is now providing evidence itself that it has seeded false names files. Nor is an intent to download the same as actual evidence. Given how they screwed up that case that was on Groklaw (must check how that is going) I'm not so sure they're trying hard. It's about scaring people and using the fact that ordinary people can't afford justice in the US courts.
Now, here's a fun question. I may want to test my torrent with some white noise and thus aim for a RIAA file, and accidentally end up with copyrighted material. Oops - who is to blame?
That I download a file that MAY be copyrighted material is, thanks to the RIAA, no longer a certainty. I.e. there is *reasonable doubt* over my intentions. Lesson 1 with any questionable tactics is that there is usually a way to make them work against you.
For the record, I'm not interested in illegal music, but I consider AllOfMP3 a legal setup. It's not their fault that the RIAA doesn't want to collect the revenue (which exposes the RIAA motives rather clearly) - I haven't seen anyone actually calculate how much revenue the RIAA is actually LOSING by what they do. There must be a way to approximate that. Alienating their future customers, bad press, people no longer buying from legit sources in protest, even more artists going independent, payment to maintainthe status quo (not the group), return of disks with copy protection etc etc etc. Those costs alone must be worth quite a boatload of cocaine and starlets..
Anyone? Could be a fun exercise..
to all the above:
;-)
s /html/crim/crim20.htm for a primer.)
... ...there is not likely to be a jury... ... ...OJ was found liable in a civil court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O.J._Simpson#Civil_t rial)... ... ...etc.
listening to tech geeks talk about law is nearly as informative as listening to law geeks talk about tech.
criminal liability in court generally requires a showing of the existence of both a mens rea (criminal intent / guilty mind) and an actus reus (an illegal act proscribed by law). certain crimes which are considered especially injurious to our social fabric, such as statutory rape, or which constitute "simple" administrative violations, such as speeding, are subject to "strict liability", which means the act itself regardless of the intent is sufficient to establish the accused's guilt and to subject him/her to criminal liability. these crimes are--and need be under western principles of criminality--generally well-defined, however. don't worry: leeching a decoy mpaa torrent is not likely to be one of them.
a common concern expressed in the numerous posts above suggests a shared belief here at slashdot that the downloading of a non-existent copyrighted file cannot constitute a "crime" because no copyrighted file was downloaded. readers may be surprised to learn that while certain jurisdictions allow "legal impossibility" (eg. shooting, with the intent to kill, a dead person; pickpocketing an undercover cop, etc.) as a defense to liability for criminal attempt, others do not. (see http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outline
civil liability is another matter entirely: the standard of proof is less favorable to the "accused" in civil court than in criminal court...
ianal.
Especially if there isn't likely to be a english vocal/strange region DVD copy?
What about people who like odd japanese films but aren't in the right region? There is no market, so how can there be any loss?
Is the garbage file itself copyrighted?
Then we could sell Collectible RIAA Garbage Patch Files on eBay. Collect them all!
If I downloaded the file with intent to get a garbage file, was that freely offered?
P.S. Does anyone have the Garbage Version of Epsiode 1?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Most people (the masses) who download songs and movies using the likes of limewire are not aware that they are breaking the law. They don't read newspapers or watch the news on TV. They don't want to know anything about Bush, Blair, RIAA, MPAA (worse still they look down on you if you talk about politics or something in the news), they think it's all bullshit and 'don't go their' a quote! Yet if you upset these people to much they will riot in the streets.
Had this stupid thing happen top me too...
Had a client with Lego Star wars....it wouldn't install.
The Publisher's website had a fix, a new windows installer ini file...
It didn't work, but the forums had info on other user modified ini's floating around...
I went to an open p2p search engine, found the ini file and the download would never start.
Two days later I got a cease and desist letter from Rogers saying I was illegaly sharing
copyrighted material! The farking file never downloaded, it was an ini file for windows installer, but they were telling my ISP that I was illegaly sharing
copyrighted material! Pi**ed me off for two secs then I deleted the e-mail. But I suppose I have a black mark against me know somewhere at Rogers...
End of Line.
if you put up a file for sharing named "star wars:episode 1" and it's just a blank file, aren't you comitting wire fraud?
Actually, the MPAA is more guilty than the downloaders they are collecting IPs from. They have not only provided the content for distribution, vs. only possessing it, they have committed conspiracy by engaging third party companies and in doing so violated the RICO statute. Let's see some indictments.
Start submitting evidence to the courts: MPAA distributing pirated videos/child pr0n/snuff films! c'mon, everyone has photoshop, right?
..It's doing it so that when a newbie torrent user downloads Casino Royale for two hours and gets a black screen video or whatever else is in the fake torrent, he will say "Screw torrents, this is a waste of time" and then go out and buy the DVD or go to the movie. If you flood the internet with fake torrents, people will have a harder time finding what they want, and a decent percentage will simply give up and pay money for things. That's what happened to Kazaa...it was flooded with so many fake files that a lot of people simply stopped using it.
If O2 is good, O3 must be 1.5 times better!
It's got nothing to do with infringing. I've been on the receiving end of one of these RIAA/MPAA "stings". It doesn't matter whether you have infringed or not. The point is to get your ISP to pull your high speed connection and ban you as a customer for life. Your ISP isn't going to take any chances and there is nothing in it for them to stand up for you. Your not worth that much as a customer to them. Everything you will ever pay to your ISP in your lifetime will be a drop in the bucket compared to the legal fees they might incur. They can ban you for just about anything they want. Read your terms of service. If you not just passively surfing the web and checking email you are probably technically violating your contract with them. You don't have a right to broadband. These blacklists are real.
And once they cancel your account how many other high speed options do you have? And once you are blackballed by all the high speed net providers in your town how much torrenting are you going to be doing on dialup?
The whole point is to consign you to the dirt road of the information superhighway. Welcome to the slow lane.
What's the big deal? If you don't pirate, you don't have to worry about "fake" torrents.
I downloaded a couple files from Torrent sites and next thing I know my ISP had booted me. Some ISP's bow without even calling to find out. I should better be able to download some of these files, what the ISP did was said:
"You were using Bittorrent and that is against our policy" and I have a BUSINESS account.
Here is the kicker, I was downloading my latest and greatest Linux Distribution of Choice and I got kicked for being a Torrent Downloaded.
They never kicked me for Porn or LimeWire.. just for downloading over bittorrent.
I pay more for a business account, let them send the offending letter to me so my lawyers can handle it.
Actually, I switched ISP's cause I cant stand that kinda of crap.
Anon for a reason, MPAA will find out where I am and kill my kids this time.
...their ISP connections and those payments are based upon a period of time, ergo, it represents (potentially) an expediture of wealth to download something when you could either be downloading something else or downloading something else faster? By extension, wouldn't a corporate entity posting fraudulent files that never complete or are blank be (arguably) committing a form of fraud? Fraud is probably not the swindle I'm looking for but... anyone...? anyone...? Bueller?
Loading...
In post soviet russia, the government also controls commerce.
Well, at least in the free world it's completely the other way 'round.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A couple of days before I read about this on Slashdot, a friend of mine was telling me about how he got a letter from his ISP telling him to stop. The guy has *huge* archives of "pirated" shows, movies, etc., and I'd wondered how he didn't get caught. Anyway, he apparently is still downloading.
Could this just be a ploy to point out intent to break the law? If I'm a bank that wants to transfer money from one place to another and I get wind of a robbery happening, and I set up a decoy. Then the decoy is robbed do not the same laws apply as if the real thing were robbed?
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
While it would be quite easy to put promotional material on torrents that would both have some actual value for downloaders, but still not constitute a threat to potential sales, the industry won't do it. I used to think this was because they were just stupid, either not realizing the promotional potential of digital distribution, or naive enough to think they could actually stop it. But after running over the idea with a guy who recently left Capital Records, I found out the real (according to him) reason why media companies won't use p2p networks for promotion.
Apparently, this battle was already played out during the advent of radio. Originally, the music industry wanted radio stations to only be able to play songs if they paid hefty royalties for them. But song record companies successfully used radio play as a means of promoting records, causing the Supreme Court to decide that radio play constituted promotion, as was therefore not subject the royalty scheme which the record companies had in mind.
My friend from Capital said that, even in the mid-nineties, record companies were hiring companies to poison anonymous online distribution outlets for music. But they were prevented from trying to "embrace and extend" the technology into a promotional vehicle, out of fears that if they did - it would become legal and deny them the power to eventually charge licensing fees. I personally think this is a profoundly stupid tactic, but then again I also would have thought that hiring Britney Spears to do anything more artistic than soft-core porn would have a been a profoundly stupid idea. Nonetheless, with the major companies taking this approach, there is reportedly a real fear of backlash from the industry for any one who tries to successfully use p2p distribution as a promotional vehicle, to the point that it isn't done.
I don't know anyone high up enough in the movie industry to ask if this is their take as well, but it seems a reasonable hypothesis.
Does this make sense to anyone else? I always thought the radio stations did have to pay royalties to play songs, but I've wasted far too much company time today to go and research the court cases behind this. I just thought it would be useful information to pass along.