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."
Only in this case, no actual theft has occurred. If it's fake, there is no crime. Sure there may be intent, but how exactly are you supposed to infringe on the copyright of a nonexistent work?
In this case, it's like putting a pile of junk beside the road and sticking a carboard sign on it that says "car." I wonder what the value of random digital garbage is.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
...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.
And AFAIK, copyright infringement requires unauthorized *distribution*. Attempting to acquire bootleg material is, at best, a trivial offense. So what exactly are they claiming when they "notify" the ISPs?
LOAD "SIG",8,1
The MPAA still holds the copyright on the sequence of bytes it did upload... but it also gave permission to copy by the act of uploading it! (This is necessarily the case, because otherwise I could just as easily say that you were infringing my copyright by reading this post.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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
The MPAA still holds the copyright on the sequence of bytes it did upload... but it also gave permission to copy by the act of uploading it!
The MPAA didn't upload any copyrighted material. They're seeding garbage files that are labeled as actual content and collecting IPs.
1. These aren't cops, or law enforcement of any kind.
2. If you put your own car out by the road with a "free car" sign on it, you can't accuse someone who takes it of GTA.
3. If the cops actually plant a "fake car" like you describe, the perpetrator is not guilty of Grand Theft Auto, as no car has been taken.
US copyright law doesn't require any explicit statement or registration. In general, you own the copyright on anything you produce. Nothing is public domain unless it is explicitly released as such.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
My solution is simple. I host all of my Linux distribution under code names that just happen to correspond to some movie names. Its not my fault if I 'accidentally' download the wrong humorously named Linux distribution.
And AFAIK, copyright infringement requires unauthorized *distribution*. . .
No, unauhtorized distribution is a requirement for copyright infringement to be deemed a criminal matter, but the law is called copyright, not distribution right. The right to distribute is a corallary right of the right to copy, since the former depends on the latter.
If you are the legitimate owner of the physical media you may distribute at will. You do not need any special authorization, the person who created it did. CD stores are not licensed, they just buy "stuff," property, and resell it.
So what exactly are they claiming when they "notify" the ISPs?
That their copyright has been violated, because it has. The downloader is making a copy, without authorization. Yes, it's a trivial civil offense. That isn't at all the same thing as saying it isn't an offense.
KFG
And attempted arson, attempted murder, attempted fraud, attempted prostitution aren't?
There is no crime involved here. The MPAA members sue in civil court for copyright infringement: a tort. In order to win they must convince the court that an unauthorized copy was made. "Tried" doesn't count.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
OMG the cops were also caught planting fake cars waiting to be stolen so they could catch car theives!!
Grr, Copyright Infringement ISN'T THEFT!
REPEAT AFTER ME!
Copyright Infringement ISN'T THEFT!
It would be more like the cops planting a fake car and then someone copying the design of the fake car, so they could catch people copying their design.
"If the MPAA is knowingly uploading something to you then they are giving their OK to you to accept it." That's right. They're give you their OK for you to accept the FAKE torrent. "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." They aren't giving away any record label or movie content for free. They are giving away fake torrents for free.
In my opinion there's a huge difference here. Even if the MPAA put up real files they still should not be able to do anything about you downloading them because they are the copyright holders. This is the same thing as when an artist puts up a song for free download on their website. You can't get in trouble for downloading it because the copyright holder is the one offering the file.
That analogy doesn't work for downloading, though. Their servers aren't just sitting there with files on them. They are actively sending out data to people who have requested it. Very huge difference. To borrow your analogy: if you are sitting on your porch with a bag of money, and I walk up and ask for some, I'm not stealing if you reach into the bag and hand me some of it.
FKnight,
I think you are missing his/her point. The MPAA can't do anything to these people. The ISPs don't have to release any information to them either.
The MPAA is just trying to scare people.
Any how, most people trade content now by hand. Kids trade CDs and DVDs full of content all day at school. Adults trade at the office or gym. People are using one-time-use heavy encryption and sending stuff through the mail back and forth with Europe, South America, etc.
The MPAA is loosing the battle.
Besides, at some point the Indie labels will all just distribute in the clear as a marketing gimmick to try to get a leg up on the biggies. At some point one or two of them will stick. The economy will change.
Many crimes however require that you actually do something. I beleive that copyright infringement is like that.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Oh Grasshopper... I am disappointed. This isn't about what is legal or not. This is about intimidation and abuse of power. Most of the tactics the MPAA have employed were legally dubious. They know that they can scare the ISP into action. They can extort a couple grand out of you (or your parent) because you can not afford to combat them.
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.
If the MPAA is deliberately uploading files for others to download from MPAA computers, isn't that what is otherwise known as "Entrapment"?
Can you point to a part of the article that says anything about that being illegal? FTA, they are trying to trap people into downloading fake torrents, so they can collect IP addresses, and send copyright infringement letters to ISPs. They aren't prosecuting the people they catch (or at least the article doesn't mention anything of the sort), and I don't know that they need any solid evidence to send a copyright infringement letter to an ISP. According to the article, this is basically a tactic used to identify people who are downloading pirated material by catching them when they download fake pirated material.
It isn't always true, but if someone downloads an illegal copy of Miami Vice, that same person has probably downloaded other pirated movies. The MPAA uses the fake torrents to find out who is downloading movies and uses that information as leverage against ISPs. The legality of the MPAA's (or whoever is doing this) actions aren't really relavent in this case because this isn't being taken to court.
Or at least that's how I read the article.
You'd better hope you're wrong, because otherwise you owe me (pinky to mouth) one million dollars for having illegally downloaded and read my post! I never explicitly gave you permission to view it, just as the MPAA didn't give people explicit permission to download its torrent. I merely made it available, and you just assumed that it constituted permission. So ha ha, sucker -- you're screwed now!
Now, do you realize how stupid that argument would be? I mean, I realize that copyright law is fucked up, but it's got to give way to common sense sometime!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
I think it's funny the way Slashdot words this. The MPAA was "caught" uploading fake torrents, as if they were doing something wrong when everyone else is illegally pirating their materials.
"Sufferin' succotash."
Isn't it funny the way Slashdotters never care about the law over what pirates do, but when it's something the MPAA does, suddenly we're all splitting legal hairs and explaining the law? What about the law that says you can't rip people off by infringing on their copyrights and stealing their stuff? Or do artist rights not matter anymore on Slashdot?
Digg has gotten even worse. It's a pro-piracy haven where they even actively spread piracy tips to help others steal artists' stuff.
"Sufferin' succotash."
But to go with the story, the bag 'Full of Money' would have to be empty. (as per the Fake Uploading)
:-(
Then you will be attempting to charge me for the theft of money which didn't even exist in the first place?!
And you wont be charging me with the theft of a paper bag, because AFAIK the torrent index file isn't physically the copywrited material in dispute.
and now my brain hurts!
----- Concentrate on promoting more than demoting.
Anyway, I (role)play along, and eventually agree to meet them at a nearby park. I get there, honestly expecting a 20-something dressed in a Catholic Schoolgirl uniform, only to have the FBI arrest me. My INTENT was perfectly legal. But good luck I'll have trying to prove that to anyone.
That's why you should meet them in a bar, or another age-restricted venue. They'd have a hell of a time trying to prove you were trying to pick up on 13-year-olds in a bar.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Then you are an adult in need of supervision.
After all, you generally need a credit card to get internet service, and you generally need to be 18 to get a CC
Somewhat behind the times, aren't we?
If I own the copyright to something, and I offer to give it to you . . .
.and you accept, and then I give you something worthless instead, aren't I guilty of fraud? So can't downloaders who end up with worthless files sue the MPAA for fraud?
I presume you mean a copy of the protected something and not the copyright.
. .
I await with bated breath your argument for financial loss in getting nothing for nothing. Nevermind the fact that they promised you nothing, you assumed.
"Would you like this peanut butter jar?"
"Shit yeah! I'm hungry. Hey! There's no peanut butter in here. What's the deal?"
"Dude, is it a jar? Does it say "peanut butter" on the label? It's a peanut butter jar. Now fuck off."
KFG
Now, when you play that DVD, you are streaming data, a small amount at a time. At no time, while playing it, did you have an *ENTIRE* copy floating around somewhere.
No? You don't have an *ENTIRE* copy floating around your dvd player?
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
No, the law doesn't work that way.
You can't cause someone to cause harm to yourself on purpose and then sue someone for it, even if such harm is specifically laid out in the law as a tort. Even if it's illegal to have an open manhold without a fence, and that if someone falls in they get a lot of money, that doesn't mean I can delibrately walk up to it, 'fall' in, and sue. Nor can you stand behind buses and hope you get hit as they lurch into motion.
In fact, tort law requires that you take reasonable steps to prevent harm to yourself, as long as they aren't too onerous. I.e., you have to inform them they are harming you, if you suspect they don't know. Like you can't sue someone for twenty years of second-hand smoke because they smoked in the apartment below you and it went through their ceiling if you have not, at any point, told them this was happening. The courts frown on anything that makes it look like either the harm wasn't that bad, or, alternately, you were 'saving up' harm to sue over.
So, if they feel that way about various forms of inaction, you can imagine how they feel about it if you go around actively taking actions that cause 'harm' to yourself. If you try to sue over that in court, you will be thrown out. There's probably some fancy latin word for this, but it simply does not fly.
Ergo, if the MPAA is handing out torrents, either of actual movies or two-hour copyrighted blank screens, and they understand how bittorrent work, by everyone uploading, they cannot sue anyone if that, in fact, happens, even if the law explicitly says otherwise, because tort law as a whole completely excludes 'harm you deliberately caused other people to cause to yourself'.
That said, they've managed to pass criminal copyright law recently, so you could in violation of that. Of course, if you are, the MPAA has just committed a crime by entering into a general criminal conspiracy with you!
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
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...
To be completely correct the scenario would be like this.
The MPAA are sitting on their porch with a large bag labelled "Free Money, Come & Get Some" so you go over and ask them for some. They give you something which looks like money until you've got a bit further down the road when you realise it's only fake money.
The MPAA then follow you down the road back to your house and call the police asking them to charge you with stealing their money except rather than demanding just the money they pretended to give you back to you they ask for 100 dollars back for every dollar you didn't get because if you had have got it then you might have given it to anyone of your 100 friends. If you had it, which you didn't because the money was fake.
I hope that makes the situation crystal clear !
Digg has gotten even worse. It's a pro-piracy haven where they even actively spread piracy tips to help others steal artists' stuff. In this case, however, the so-called "artists" put up their copyrighted "works" (actually, just garbage, but as they created it, they actually do own the copyright to it) on a torrent server by themselves, free for the taking. They cannot then turn around and whine "you're stealing from us" when people do use the free service that they set up.
It's akin to a shop setting up a bin somewhere labeled "free samples", and then siccing the cops on those unsuspecting customers who "steal" from that bin...
No, this MPAA-sponsored file sharing isn't about scaring people or about lawsuits. They are just increasing the amount of filesharing going on, so that they can up their estimate of lost annual revenues to $60 billion.
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
Not quite. It's more like this:
The MPAA has disguises on and carries a big bag that says "free money (caution: this money may not be entirely legal to possess)." You take some, which is fake, and walk home. They follow you home and sue you for possession of stolen or counterfeit money. They use the power of subpoena to look around your house until they find the stolen or counterfeit money you got from somewhere else.
This isn't about finding people who download the fake torrents. As I've pointed out elsewhere, this is about identifying people who are downloading movies, suing them, and then finding out which movies they successfully downloaded.