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?
...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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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