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.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...