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."
If you are part of the MPAA and you download a torrent from someone else just to prosecute, technically isnt the MPAA breaking the law as well??
( I know off topic slightly )
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
IANAL but surely if the downloads they provide aren't copyright protected content and are in fact junk then you're not actually breaking any law because you're not actually downloading copyrighted content.
Contrary to that, surely if it is copyrighted content then the MPAA is making the content available to you. Is it really illegal to download something from the copyright owner if they make it available publicly with no license to agree to prior to download? I'd have thought they'd have a hard time arguing that they didn't intend the content be distributed in the case that they place it readily available on a file sharing site. What's more, even if the MPAA did use this argument then surely if this became precedent then it would have the side effect of destroying any court cases against file sharers as those sharers could merely claim that they didn't intend the files they were sharing to be distributed much like the MPAA might in this scenario?
I just don't see how this really has any legal grounding, however law is a funny thing, particularly in the US so I could be wrong here!
Attempted copyright infringement?? Is that even illegal?
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.
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.
There is an allegation that article about the use of fake torrents by the MPAA to harvest IP address so they can use them to send out infringement notices, which has then been converted to a fact by the submitter.
I suspect that the MPAA has these fake torrents to confuse people and waste their time downloading junk, in the hope that they'll give up using torrents. It's a very weak link to suggest that these are being used to send copyright infringement notices.
Waking Up - There must be a better way to start the day.
If the MPAA is knowingly uploading something to you then they are giving their OK to you to accept it.
This is no different than if I hand you a dollar (or a fake dollar). I am agreeing to give it to you.
The MPAA is in full control of the content or fake content. If the MPAA has agreements with record labels not to give anything away for free then that is the MPAA's problem.
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
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.
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.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I wonder what the value of random digital garbage is.
Well, Madonna seems to be raking in the bucks.
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.
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
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
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
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.
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
> attempted copyright infringement
No, it's called "conspiracy to conspire about thinking about thinking about a thought crime". Just turn yourself in now.
My other car is first.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
I don't have a lot of time to work with, but there are a few points going around here that I think ought to be collected in one place:
/dev/unrandom. They are fine with that.
Entrapment: No, it's not. Entrapment, in order to work as a legal defense, is when the government takes action that induces you to commit a crime that you would not otherwise have committed. Walking up to you on the street and offering you $100 commission to steal a Rolex is entrapment. Putting up a website that purports to sell illegal machinegun parts is not entrapment, because you would have found some website to buy the parts from anyhow. Sending you a brochure to advertise child pornography and waiting for you to order some is questionable. This activity is somewhere between the child porn brochure and the machinegun parts website, but it is not government action so entrapment isn't a defense. It also doesn't matter, because the MPAA is interested in suing you into oblivion in civil court more than it is interested in seeing you behind bars. (After all, behind bars you can't make any more paychecks for the MPAA to garnish.)
MPAA consent to downloading content: Nope. They're uploading fake torrents. You are downloading something else, maybe a dump of
Downloading fake torrents is legal: Yep, it is. It's just that they're logging your IP address and will file a lawsuit that alleges, "[o]n information and belief, the Defendant has infringed the Plaintiff's copyright by downloading an illegally distributed copy of [the movie you were trying to download when you got the fake torrent]." They know you are going to find a real torrent later and download it, or at least some other movies. They know all they need to: you are a person using a given IP address to attempt to download their copyrighted material and you probably didn't give up when you found out that the torrent they fed you was fake.
Grabbing your IP address from the fake torrent download doesn't help the MPAA: See previous paragraph.
Did I miss anything? These seem to be the main issues being covered in the comments so far. The simple fact is that this tactic will probably work for the MPAA.
I recently received a message from my ISP that they had received notice alleging I was sharing copyrighted material from my connection, specifically "Mission Impossible 3" - a spanish version no less - over the eDonkey network. It showed the IP I have indeed had assigned to my home network for the past month or two, and was indeed using eMule. HOWEVER, I was only using it to download software, and in NO situation did I download ANY movies, especially anything in spanish! I know that it sounds totally typical, but I wouldn't be complaining if I got reported for something I actually did.
Getting reported for sharing something I've never even had is bullshit, though, regardless of what OTHER questionable things I had been doing. It's not a stretch to claim that their incorrect copyright infringement notice leans on illegal because of the possible harm that can come to me as a result. My internet connection could be disconnected at my ISP's will, forcing me to switch to a crappier ISP with higher prices (we have TWO broadband providers here), and my reputation could be harmed due to the false allegations made.
In Soviet America, MPAA torrents you!
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.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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
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
MAC is a layer-2 address, specifically for Ethernet protocols. Thus MAC address is only passed across switches. As soon as you hit a router, the MAC is gone. If you try and find out the MAC of slashdot.org, you'll find that the furthest you can get is your default gateway. Past that there's no info.
The 'spoof' file, that is. After all, the xAA is posting it to torrent sites themselves. Doesn't that make the file obviously legal. Therefore, even if it is named something that would be infringing copyright, wouldn't it still be legal to download? Even better, they are offering a file for download that is from the xAA itself, that claims to be some copyright-protected property. Isn't it then false advertising? If I was a major musician, say a certain comedy-minded one, and offered a file on my website for free download, claiming it is a song asking you not to download it, but the file isn't really that song, but just static; could I sue the downloader for trying to download my song? No.
Even if it is on GooTube instead of my own website, and I don't acknowledge that I put it there, it's still me putting it up for the public to download.
So no illegal activity has happened. So even though someone who would be downloading the file is the KIND of person who is likely downloading songs in violation of copyright, you haven't caught me doing anything inherently wrong, so how can you sue me?
i.e. "I caught this guy stealing a copy of my free pamphlet from the gray-market newsstand, so obviously he is stealing copies of non-free magazines, too!"
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.
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.
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.
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
...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
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
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
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."
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.
I am anarch of all I survey.
I was looking for the fake LOTR torrent and accidentally got the real one. Bloody annoying.
HAND.
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...