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."

Comments

Nothing for you to see here, please move along

[sokoban]

I guess that Slashdot has been caught uploading fake headlines as well.

ZOMG!!

[russ1337]

OMG the cops were also caught planting fake cars waiting to be stolen so they could catch car theives!!

Re:ZOMG!!

[Fez]

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?

Re:ZOMG!!

[Snarfangel]

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.

Re:ZOMG!!

[Nasarius]

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?

Re:ZOMG!!

[mrchaotica]

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.)

Re:ZOMG!!

[Leftist Troll]

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.

Re:ZOMG!!

[XanC]

That doesn't stop the cops from posing as 13-year-olds online to nab child predators. I'm honestly not sure how that works in court. How can one be convicted of soliciting a minor when there is no minor? Very similar to the fake torrent scenario.

Re:ZOMG!!

[Pantero Blanco]

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.

Re:ZOMG!!

[Nasarius]

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.

Re:ZOMG!!

[LordEd]

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.

Re:ZOMG!!

[kfg]

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

Re:ZOMG!!

[eric76]

They can only prosecute the child predators when the predator goes to meet with the child.

My understanding is that in Texas, arranging to meet someone for sex who you believe to be under the age of consent is a crime in itself whether or not you actually show up.

Re:ZOMG!!

[Sponge Bath]

I wonder what the value of random digital garbage is.

Well, Madonna seems to be raking in the bucks.

Re:ZOMG!!

[Score Whore]

Dunno about Texas specifically, but that is what the entire class of crime is about: the intent to have sex with a child. And it's been upheld repeatedly.

Re:ZOMG!!

[TubeSteak]

So what exactly are they claiming when they "notify" the ISPs?

That you downloaded/uploaded a file called "XXX.YYY.AVI"

AFAIK, nobody has actually gotten around to forcing the **AA into proving anything in court.

And again, AFAIK, the **AA hasn't had anything more than screenshots of alleged sharing as evidence

Re:ZOMG!!

[Wanon]

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.

Re:ZOMG!!

[kfg]

If I buy a bootleg DVD, am I making a copy?

No. You are purchasing a physical object. The bootlegger made the copy.

In "computer terms", you're copying the data, but you're not making a copy in the traditional sense.

Is there a pattern of ones and zeros on your drive that wasn't there before that matches the pattern of ones and zeros of the source?

If so, I'm afraid you have made a copy. A copy that even has a physical instantiation, even you fail to understand the latter point.

KFG

Re:ZOMG!!

[Lesrahpem]

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.

Re:ZOMG!!

[jrockway]

> attempted copyright infringement

No, it's called "conspiracy to conspire about thinking about thinking about a thought crime". Just turn yourself in now.

Re:ZOMG!!

[ricree]

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.

Re:ZOMG!!

[mordors9]

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.

Re:ZOMG!!

[wpegden]

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.)

You say "this is necessarily the case, because otherwise yada yada", as if the effects of copyright law can be assumed to be consistent with reason. You may be right about the law---I don't know in this case---but certainly, your argument that "the alternative is ridiculous!" is especially ill-suited to determining the how copyright law applies here. Arguments of this kind only work when the object being examined conforms in a very strong way to our intuitive notions of what makes sense. This is not the case, I would argue, with intellectual property law.

Re:ZOMG!!

[kfg]

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.

Yeah, there is that. Plus the fact that many people aren't actually recieving any files at all, or the file is a just solid screen color.

Nothing is perfect, least of all an 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.

Of course it's just cut up newspaper really, which might well annoy you, because you were actually expecting money, money you had every reason to believe was not mine to give, but you asked for it anyway.

No, there's no reason to sue/arrest you, but you might still be deserving of having your parents sit you down and scold the living bejeesus out of you.

Please bear in mind that in the past I've made it explicitly clear that I am, at the least, supportive of Jefferson's view that copyright has no place in a free society.

I'm not saying this is the way I think it should be, just trying my best, however weak and feeble that best is, to explain how things are.

KFG

Re:ZOMG!!

[mrchaotica]

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!

Re:ZOMG!!

[egypt_jimbob]

You will be tracked when you come back to BT for a real file. No, your IP address will be recorded and a form letter will be sent to your ISP saying whoever had XXX.XXX.XXX.XXX on Thu Jan 11 20:16:44 PST 2007 has downloaded an illegal file "Battlestar Galactica S03E07 REPACK DSR XviD-ORENJi", please turn off their connection or we will sue you.

Re:ZOMG!!

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.

Re:ZOMG!!

[kahanamoku]

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! :-(

Re:ZOMG!!

[jones_supa]

They're seeding garbage files that are labeled as actual content and collecting IPs.

Shirley Manson must be upset.

Re:ZOMG!!

[xiaomai]

hmm, i think since you're using a wildcard it would just be *AA, or maybe you could use the '?' ... ??AA

Re:ZOMG!!

[GuyverDH]

Actually, you're wrong. Imagine that.

When you buy a bootleg DVD, you are buying whatever someone put on there, be it a copy, or original content.

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.
All you've done in essence, is taken *FAIR USE* clips, and very neatly strung them together to where "ZOMG" you can *watch* the whole thing.

Re:ZOMG!!

[kfg]

If I own the copyright to something, and I offer to give it to you . . .

I presume you mean a copy of the protected something and not the copyright.

. . .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 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

Re:ZOMG!!

[BobDigiDigi]

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?

Re:ZOMG!!

[stewbacca]

Chances are if you download their fake copy, you are bound to have other real and illegal copies of other stuff. It is bogus entrapment, and I'd laugh it out of court if I were a judge.

There is no crime involved by downloading a fake torrent, because you aren't getting any copyrighted material. Intent? What is the intent? "My intent was to see what was in this file that was made freely available (offered even!) via the internet. If I found it to have copyrighted material, I would have removed it. But since it had this lovely monochrome screen and no copyright notice, or end-user license agreement, I kept it as a free and lovely screen saver."

Re:ZOMG!!

[ignavus]

Pirates used to sail around the ocean until they saw a pretty looking ship. Then they would copy its design and build their own pretty looking ship.

That way they could avoid paying a naval architect to design such a ship.

It drove all those poor naval architects nearly bankrupt.

We mustn't let it happen again.

Help stamp out piracy - don't make illegal copies!

That's why copyright infringement is technically piracy.

Re:ZOMG!!

[CmdrGravy]

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 !

Re:ZOMG!!

[ArsenneLupin]

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. 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...

Re:ZOMG!!

[Half a dent]

"All you've done in essence, is taken *FAIR USE* clips, and very neatly strung them together to where "ZOMG" you can *watch* the whole thing."

Oh you mean like joining all the 30 second daily video clips from p0rn sites before file sharing became popular - now I can understand!

Re:ZOMG!!

[ari_j]

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.

is that even legal?

[ganjadude]

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 )

Re:is that even legal?

[crankyspice]

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??

The MPAA operates with the authorization of its member companies. They've presumably authorized the association to make reproductions of the copyrighted content for anti-piracy purposes, and copyright infringement is the unauthorized reproduction (or distribution, or ...) of the protected works, so, at a guess, I'd say they're pretty safe on that one.

Re:is that even legal?

[Snarfangel]

What if there is a confusing or misleading title on a torrent, and they download something they do not own the copyright for?

Re:is that even legal?

[mark-t]

Not at all... the MPAA is authorized to distribute their own content, after all.

But THEY are the ones choosing to put it on a public network, and its pretty hard to call it copyright infringement when the person you got it from when the person you got it from was authorized to distribute the content in the first place. It's their own choice to honor any download requests, after all... granting such requests is implicitly and indisputably granting permission to copy.

Re:is that even legal?

[ClamIAm]

This isn't off-topic at all, but IANAL, so the following may be completely wrong.

As for its legality, a similar legal concept is entrapment, but that involves law inforcement, not private parties. However, the MAFIAA have often argued (in court) that different aspects/behaviors of P2P file trading "induce" copyright infringement. Following this line of thinking, it might be possible to argue that they themselves were attempting to induce copyright infringement. I don't know if that could be turned into an argument to get off the hook or ban this practice, though.

Re:is that even legal?

[Traiklin]

Since the members of the MPAA own all the copy- and distribution rights to their respective works, not to mention that they're the sole source of licensing, they can do whatever they want with the files so long as it is sanctioned by the organization's standards and practices. They are the owners in the fullest sense and are above the fray of current IP controversy. They wouldn't bring suits against themselves, and let's say they did one day. It would be dismissed in a heartbeat, because you can't steal from yourself. The only place where something interesting might happen would be if a major studio expressly prohibited this sort of electronic sting, and the MPAA used one of their titles in such an action.

well the RIAA actually did do this, one of their own employee's setup the tracker, got the IP's and everything, then was Sued & Fired by the RIAA themselves for copyright infringment, so if they wanted to they could sue the same people they hired for copyright infringment for distributing the copyrighted work, even if it's not real, everything above points that out, if you go to buy drugs and what you are sold isn't drugs you still get busted for it.

Re:is that even legal?

[Overly Critical Guy]

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.

Re:is that even legal?

[DavidTC]

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!

Re:is that even legal?

[ClassMyAss]

I suspect that the problem would be that most of these companies have authorized the *AAs to distribute copies in the service of fighting piracy, so you might actually have some trouble finding pairs that they weren't authorized to touch.

Of course, this brings up an obvious out: IANAL, so I don't know how this would hold up, though. All you need to do is bundle an original piece of creative work, say, a text file, that would qualify as a copyrighted work that some group owns the copyright to. This group would explicitly license the work for distribution except by agents of the *AAs or other anti-piracy groups. The file would need to be bundled with every torrent served to be effective. The group could also set up a legal agreement with the distributors of said file such that any money generated by enforcement of the copyright (through settlements or court awards) would go towards offsetting awards to the *AAs on copyright violations of their bundled items. The idea being that should the *AA bring the case to court, they would be admitting that they also infringed upon an equally costly copyrighted work that they certainly do not have the rights to distribute, and the awards would balance out, thus they have no incentive to bring the case at all (except that they clearly have the money to continue a drawn out court case whereas the average user does not). Furthermore, a BT client could be configured to refuse to distribute anything but the copyrighted text file to another client until it has also recieved that text file - some sort of mutually assured destruction handshake protecting against litigation.

There's probably some loophole here, though, I'm not entirely sure...any law-inclined people out there care to comment?

But if the MPAA was distributing them...

[mrchaotica]

...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.

Re:But if the MPAA was distributing them...

[Xest]

Even in this case would it really be viable evidence? I'm not sure by observing the swarm that you can ever tell that these people have actually received the full file and in that case, with many media formats all you're left with is a file full of random bytes, at what point does it become copyright infringement? I was under the impression in the cases of file sharers they've actually had to demonstrate having downloaded an entire file to prove infringement, merely receiving half a file isn't enough as half a file may quite often be nothing but useless data. Would the same apply to observing a swarm? i.e. being unable to tell if the full file is actually ever being received by anyone?

Re:But if the MPAA was distributing them...

[Bios_Hakr]

If the MPAA is the copyright holder, they can distribute it however they want. Them offering a torrent would not be infringement.

You downloading it from the MPAA would also not be infringement. Downloading is illegal.

However, once you upload a single bit to the MPAA or another party, you have infringed upon the MPAA's right to be the sole distributer.

Re:But if the MPAA was distributing them...

[StikyPad]

You can't infringe on a copyright you already own. At best, it's a defense for the downloaders by saying that the copyright holder made the material freely available. And actually, that seems like a pretty strong defense. If I put a paper on top of the copier with a note that says "Press here to obtain your copy," it would be ridiculous to think I could then sue you for making the copy.

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. I highly doubt, however, that any such wording was present in the torrent (although it is possible to add comments). Also, intentionally using a distribution mechanism which by default makes people distributors would seem to be a de facto exception to the clause since you knew, or should have known, that redistribution would occur through your actions.

So...

[Perseid]

...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.

Re:So...

[Opportunist]

Well, technically they can impound you for downloading the fake content, if downloading said content is illegal. They are the originator, it's their 'art', so...

Though I'd wager it could be kinda hard (provided you find a judge that isn't yet caught up in anti-piracy bubbles) to argue that this isn't a setup, that they didn't want to play agent provocateur. Is that legal in the US?

Re:So...

[cfulmer]

HA! Well, if posting it on a bittorrent site is distribution, then they are certainly allowed to distribute their own work. So, there's no infringement if they make it available for you to download and you do.

I suspect, though, that they're using that to find people who are sharing other infringing files.

Re:So...

[mr_matticus]

This is by no means my specialty, but the difference is the camera and the degree of separation. With pornography, you're not paying someone to have sex with you, but more to the point, they're being compensated for their performance on film. Pornography is very light on the drama and the acting, but technically it's filmmaking. They choose to have sex because the script requires it, and they choose not to fake it because the producers obviously wouldn't like that, but they're not being paid for sex. The fact that there is a certain legitimacy to the whole operation (a real company and production studio) lends it credibility.

Interestingly, though, I wonder if paying two people to have sex with each other is technically illegal. Again, this isn't something I work with, but it seems to me that since the parties having sex aren't exchanging money, it's not actually prostitution. I could see a number of loopholes to successfully prosecute this, but it raises an interesting question.

This just sound like scaremongering

[Xest]

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!

Re:This just sound like scaremongering

[krotkruton]

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.

hmm

[Swimport]

Attempted copyright infringement?? Is that even illegal?

what does this accomplish?

[SoupGuru]

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.

Calm down

[MEGAMAID]

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.

If the MPAA uploads to you then it is legal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:If the MPAA uploads to you then it is legal

[FKnight]

"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.

Re:If the MPAA uploads to you then it is legal

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:If the MPAA uploads to you then it is legal

[Artifakt]

These may well be arguements that can sometimes affect a judge and are very likely to affect a jury, but it's not really required that they do so. If this were about trademark law, where there is a compulsory requirement to defend, then the RIAA would have done something that could automatically void their whole position, but since there's no requirement to defend a copyright or lose it, there's also no real requirement that the RIAA not give away some copies unless it wants to also give blanket permission for everyone else to keep on giving.
          Giveaways are much more likely to affect the willfullness test than the whole law. Since without willful intent to infringe, damages per instance are limited to $30,000 U.S., this doesn't matter much - typical settlements are for less than $30,000/instance already. The RIAA is still able to threaten a bigger loss than most private citzzens can afford to risk, so the excess above that doesn't have as much significance.

Re:If the MPAA uploads to you then it is legal

[Anonymous Coward]

This would probably constitute promissory estoppel. Doing this and then suing, severely weakens their case.

Re:If the MPAA uploads to you then it is legal

[indifferent children]

The MPAA is just trying to scare people.

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.

when will someone copyright static???

[ganjadude]

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???

The M.O. probably since Attack of the Clones.

[cerebis]

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.

It qualifies as illegal search

[gelfling]

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.

Re:Today's word is entrapment

[cpt kangarooski]

No, you're wrong.

A better name for entrapment would be inducement.

If you're willing to engage in a crime, it isn't entrapment for the police to offer you an opportunity to break the law. So in your example, the policeman who does nothing more than offer to sell you drugs and who does sell you drugs, is not breaking the law and is not entraping you.

If you aren't trying to break the law, and you're more or less strongarmed into doing so -- i.e. induced by something more than a mere opportunity to do so -- then it can be entrapment. So if you didn't want to buy drugs, and refused the offer, but then the police threaten you into doing it, you'd have a decent entrapment defense.

Re:well than my next point is....

[John Hasler]

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.

They can have my IP...

[NineNine]

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.

Re:They can have my IP...

[Kalriath]

Do you spoof your MAC? They have that too. LK No they don't. Every single router on the path between your computer and the remote computer changes the MAC address on the packet. Research TCP/IP before making that sort of statement.

Re:Catch-22 for MPAA ?

[ganjadude]

I have'nt brushed up on torrent EULA's recently but the owners of the servers should add a clause that uploading false files is illegal and against the TOS and this might allow the Torrent companies to come back at the MPAA. Just a thought.

Use peerguardian and block the following ip set

[vivek7006]

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

SOME FACTS

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Today's word is entrapment

[geekoid]

Entrampment is being enticed to do something you wouldn't have done otherwise.

"...the defendant has the burden of proving either that he or she would not have committed the crime but for the undue persuasion or fraud of the government agent, or that the encouragement was such that it created a risk that persons not inclined to commit the crime would commit it, depending on the jurisdiction. When entrapment is pleaded, evidence (as character evidence) regarding the defendant that might otherwise have been excluded is allowed to be admitted."

This is why a police officer posing as a prostitute won't ask for money, or make the intial offer.

PeerGuardian?

[lenova]

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?

Re:PeerGuardian?

[Klaus_1250]

The only provide a false sense of safety if you don't read their website :-) Peerguardian may help, and yes, it blocks a lot of copyright enforcing evil-doers, but it is not meant to be tool that will give you complete protection. It is not pretending to be either. I would never use p2p without it, but, I don't expect miracles from it either.

Re:What's law breaking about this?

[hammock]

Except we in Canada have the right to download copyrighted media. By paying the blank media tax on all recordable media, we are granted license to fill said media with movies and music that we didn't buy: that's where that extra tax has been going, the Canadian Private Copying Collective.

http://www.cpcc.ca/english/index.htm

Click the link, see how happy that canuck is for paying tax on something he might not even use for piracy? Paying a tax on backup media is fun!

Soliciting != doing

[EmbeddedJanitor]

There is a difference. In some primitive countries you can get busted for soliciting to buy/sell sex with/as a prostitute. You don't actually have to have sex for it to be a crime, soliciting is in itself a crime. That is why the cops can bust you just for asking.

Many crimes however require that you actually do something. I beleive that copyright infringement is like that.

Re:Today's word is entrapment

[StikyPad]

Entrapment only covers law enforcement. Private parties can basically do whatever they want.

At any rate, "when a person is predisposed to commit a crime, offering opportunities to commit the crime is not entrapment, a widely held misconception similar to the idea that police officers must answer questions truthfully if they are asked the same question three times, or that they must say "yes" if asked if they are a police officer." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

IP-holders don't think international

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:IP-holders don't think international

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

(Forgive the ignorance if iTunes sells these only to the US...)

Bingo.

Re:Today's word is entrapment

[meta-monkey]

This is why a police officer posing as a prostitute won't ask for money, or make the intial offer.

That's why I don't have sex with cops. It's too much of a pain having to initiate all the time.

It's the uploads!

[whoever57]

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?

But what about the uploads that the downloaders send to other bittorrent users?

Re:It's the uploads!

[whoever57]

Unless they provided a license agreement prior to download then redistribution would be legal. Public Domain

Err.... No. Nothing makes it public domain. It's as if you bought a copy of a book. You did not sign a license agreement, but you are still not entitled to make copies of the book.

In this case, the copyright holders gave you permission to download, but unless you can show that they also gave you permission to upload, you may be SOL. One might be able to argue that simply by making it available on bittorrent, there was implicit permission to upload, since the download/upload capability is built into the protocol, or, rather than permission, that the MPAA is estopped from pursuing uploaders due to their own actions with respect to making the content available via bittorrent.

Hmmm...

[Helldesk Hound]

If the MPAA is deliberately uploading files for others to download from MPAA computers, isn't that what is otherwise known as "Entrapment"?

what about 'mens rea'?

[andyr0ck]

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. :-)

Re:well than my next point is....

[John Hasler]

Common law is rrelevant here. These cases are tried under Federal copyright law. The claims are for statutory damages, which require that there be an actual infringement.

Getting fired for downloading fake data???

[heroine]

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.

Bad analogy time!

[KNicolson]

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.

General Recap

[ari_j]

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:

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 /dev/unrandom. They are fine with that.

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.

Re:General Recap

[Anonymous Coward]

The fun part lies in the Savvy bittorrent user that uses a live CD on the computer and a USB drive for the content. Download like a madman, when they supeona the computer they find a lilly clean computer.

A bartPE cd can give you a nice Windows XP live cd with your favorite P2P apps if you dont like the linux variety.

I suggested this to someone once and their eyes light up and they asked, That would make their case agsinst you in court 100% useless as they have no evidence!

Yup! hide the USB drive full of contraband and you are scott free. Easy to do and thwarts their "computer experts" pretty easy. Add in the mix a wireless router set to defaults with a wide open accesspoint and your plausable deniability goes up so high it's shameless.

Just a nice tip for you P2Pers from your friendly neighborhood hacker.

Re:General Recap

[deblau]

"[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]."

The defense is implied consent: "Your Honor, by distributing their own copyrighted file on a p2p network, making it free for download, and not providing any disclaimer or other access control, they gave me permission to download it in accordance with the usual custom on p2p networks."

On top of which, you didn't actually download that movie, so there was no direct infringement of that movie. Granted, you made a copy of something, but it wasn't a copy of [the movie you were trying to download when you got the fake torrent].

The MPAA can substitute something else for the real movie, but it has to be copyrighted by them to win on copyright infringement. Then an additional defense is fraud: "Your Honor, I thought I was downloading something else, but they tricked me into downloading Spider-Man." That's stupid -- they might as well distribute the real movie in the first place.

Interesting risk they're creating ..

[cheros]

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?

Re:What's law breaking about this?

[Kalriath]

I suggest you consult your country's ACTUAL Copyright Law. Any third-rate country has online access to it's laws, so you should be able to have a read of it. Here in New Zealand, we also pay a tariff on any "Audio CDR" discs, and definitely on VHS (not DVD, or regular CDRs). Unfortunately for the **AA, our law seems to consider it a violation ONLY if you possess pirated content for commercial use. I think it's a mistake.

How about fake piracy reports?

[necro2607]

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.

Re:How about fake piracy reports?

[necro2607]

Perhaps, but the filename mentioned was an MPG around 700 megs, called "Mission Impossible 3.blah.releasegroup.Spanish.dvdrip.mpg" or such.. iduno

Reminds me of another time where I got a copyright violation notice sent in because i had a readme file in my download share (also on eMule). What the hell? heh...

Obligatory

[BarlowBrad]

In Soviet America, MPAA torrents you!

Surely They Couldn't...

[toejam316]

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.".
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 :D.

Re:that's why there are courts, juries etc

[fredklein]

1) Your analogy sucks.

2) To use the issue a few posts upthread:
Lets say I meet someone online. They claim to be underage. However, I honestly beleive them to be of age and roleplaying. (After all, you generally need a credit card to get internet service, and you generally need to be 18 to get a CC.) 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.

Re:Let's say I leave a TV on a sidewalk

[flyingfsck]

Worse - a fake TV, made of cardboard, then you arrest the guy for attempting to steal a real TV...

A New Zealand example?

[meowsqueak]

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

Re:that's why there are courts, juries etc

[Chuck Chunder]

Lets say I meet someone online. They claim to be underage. However, I honestly beleive them to be of age and roleplaying. (After all, you generally need a credit card to get internet service, and you generally need to be 18 to get a CC.)

No one would believe it because it's ludicrous. Your "After all" reasoning is incredibly stupid. I suppose if you could provide some evidence of low intelligence or incapacity to go along with your story you might have something though....

No, they don't

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Curious, is it illegal to download it?

[Anonymous Freak]

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!"

You miss an important fact

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:that's why there are courts, juries etc

[macadamia_harold]

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.

Re:that's why there are courts, juries etc

[westlake]

They claim to be underage. I honestly believe them to be of age and roleplaying.

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?

Re:It ISN'T unauthorized distribution though

[EzInKy]

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.


Since copyright is automatic you have to assume the material can not be distributed. Though there are many things about current copyright law that are bad, this part is the worst. Before the US joined the Berne Convention the default state of new works was public domain. Protection was only granted if it was requested, which was a much more sensible state of affairs.

Re:that's why there are courts, juries etc

[Tmack]

...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.

IANAL...

But it doesnt matter as much if the actual illicit item/activity is not itself illicit, so long as your actions go to support only that they are illicit. By that I mean if you are caugh selling ziplock baggies of oregano, but are going around telling people its really pot, and charging like it is, they can arrest you for solicitation. Directly from a (googlecache) NY Bar Practice test, question/answer 2: "solicitation is the asking, inciting, or requesting that another commit a crime with specific intent that the crime be committed." By this reasoning, as long as you make the first contact to the undercover officer posing as a 13yo and are first to bring up meeting them or doing stuff with them thats illeagle if she really is 13, meaning they did not join the chat room and start talking to everyone in there about how they should meet her and do stuff even though shes only 13, etc, you are guilty of solicitation. You have asked the girl, posing or not, to perform an illeagle act with you, ie: statutory rape or contributing to the delinquency of a minor or any of a handfull of those "think of the children!!" laws that might apply. Your "roleplaying" excuse would only hold up if you specifically ask the girl if she was doing so, and confirm that she is really of-age (at which point she, as an under-cover, would probably stop talking to you or blow you off somehow and sit around and wait for another target).

As it applies to the MPAA's actions, they are trying to setup their own sting operation. By requesting an illeagle download, be it the real thing or something that just looks like an illeagle copy of a movie, you are guilty of solicitation. Their ground is a little more shaky though, since they themselves are not officers of the law, and by advertising the fact that they have said files available (by posting to trackers or whatever), they themselves become accomplices, which if you follow that practice exam I posted above, could get at least the MPAA's testimony based on their actions thrown out, or even get the whole case tossed. As I see it, the only way they would/should (who knows what they tell the judge) not be held as accomplices is if they put their files on their own torrent server and nowhere else. Like standing on a street corner posing as a prostitute. But, if they dont post to a tracker, or send out where their torrent site is, no one would know to go there. If they DO post or whatever, they are encouraging people to go there, similar to a prostitute holding a sign over her head advertising her services.

Tm

If they're fake, what's the problem?

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Reminds me of that line in _A Few Good Men_ where Tom Cruise has a client arrested for buying orgeano, thinking it was marijuana. "Being a moron isn't a crime".

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'

The MPAA dont though

[grahamsz]

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.

Yeah.

[warrax_666]

I was looking for the fake LOTR torrent and accidentally got the real one. Bloody annoying.

fight back!

[maulakai]

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.

ie. It's just a FUD campaign.

[Joce640k]

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.