Slashdot Mirror


MPAA Sets Up Fake Site to Catch Pirates

thefickler writes "Media Defender, a company which does the dirty work for the MPAA, has been caught setting up 'dummy' websites in an attempt to catch those who download copyrighted videos. The site, MiiVi.com, complete with a user registration, forum, and "family filter", offered complete downloads of movies and "fast and easy video downloading all in one great site." But that's not all; MiiVi also offered client software to speed up the downloading process. The only catch is, after it was installed, it searched your computer for other copyrighted files and reported back."

617 comments

  1. uh oh.... by SpaceballsTheUserNam · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just told all my friends about that site. Knew it was too good to be true.

    --
    \.
    1. Re:uh oh.... by gbulmash · · Score: 1

      "I just told all my friends about that site. Knew it was too good to be true."

      Well, since it's offline, looks like all they'll get is a billboard of "AdSense For Domain Squatters" ads.

    2. Re:uh oh.... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I just told all my friends about that site. Knew it was too good to be true.

      You shouldn't be downloading "full movies" from these types of sites anyway. It's clearly illegal and only lets the MPAA say "See? These people are just common thieves like we've said all along". I mean, come on! You never bought a copy of the movie, so you can't be claiming "fair use, blah, blah, blah..." Good riddance to those who get busted, this may be dishonest of the MPAA, but it's also dishonest of you.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    3. Re:uh oh.... by DimGeo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So, they give someone their copyrighted stuff for free and then call that someone a criminal? Doesn't make sense to me :) .

    4. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Frosty Piss says: "You shouldn't be downloading "full movies" from these types of sites anyway. It's clearly illegal and only lets the MPAA say "See? These people are just common thieves like we've said all along". I mean, come on! You never bought a copy of the movie, so you can't be claiming "fair use, blah, blah, blah..." Good riddance to those who get busted, this may be dishonest of the MPAA, but it's also dishonest of you."

      Yeah, Trouble is I also "download" full movies. I do it from this thing called "Broadcast TV" Apparently the movies and TV shows are just free for the taking. My rabbit ears plug into my Mac's Elgato EyeTV and I get nice digital copies of these shows and movies. All for free. And Legal too! I don't understand why "downloading" from one cable (attached to my rabbit ears) should be any different than "downloading" from an Internet site.

    5. Re:uh oh.... by sycomonkey · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement is not theft. Someone has to lose something for it to be theft. Copying data is pretty much the opposite of theft.

      --
      --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
    6. Re:uh oh.... by dagamer34 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have to be a government entity to claim entrapment, and that's only in criminal cases. Instead, you'd have to argue that the **AA got their evidence through illegal means, which would normally lead to the case being thrown out without prejudice.

    7. Re:uh oh.... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Copyright infringement is not theft.

      What of it? This is your justification? It's still dishonest. And still against the law.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    8. Re:uh oh.... by sycomonkey · · Score: 1

      No I'm not justifying anything. Just making a clarification. If I were going to justify copyright infringment it would probably take more than three sentences.

      --
      --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
    9. Re:uh oh.... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      MPAA call it theft because it causes a loss in profit. This is of course assuming people would otherwise purchase/rent the movie, which is far from clear.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    10. Re:uh oh.... by EzInKy · · Score: 1, Insightful


      You shouldn't be downloading "full movies" from these types of sites anyway. It's clearly illegal and only lets the MPAA say "See?


      Downloading should not be considered infringing, or "illegal", because it really is no different than picking up a book found on the street. Besides, there is no sure way for a person to determine the copyright status of a file.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    11. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so if I find your social security card, drivers license and birth certificate its ok for me to copy them because I can? even give them to a few friends of mine? thanks!

    12. Re:uh oh.... by AntiNazi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What is the actual legal position on this? If the copyright holder gives you the copyrighted work, then how is it a crime for you to take it?

    13. Re:uh oh.... by Aneurysm · · Score: 5, Funny

      I reckon Christmas is the opposite of theft. You get loads of things for free from people. Also thieves go to prison and never see family, at Christmas you have to see family, whether you like it or not.

    14. Re:uh oh.... by EzInKy · · Score: 1


      so if I find your social security card, drivers license and birth certificate its ok for me to copy them because I can? even give them to a few friends of mine? thanks!


      Picking up my wallet from the street is not a crime, but using the information contained within to commit fraud is.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    15. Re:uh oh.... by The+PS3+Will+Fail · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Copyright infringement is not theft. Someone has to lose something for it to be theft. Copying data is pretty much the opposite of theft."
      Wouldn't the opposite of theft involve giving someone something? When a theft occurs, the thief has gained something and the thieved has lost something without their consent. The opposite should involve the thief losing something with his consent and the thieved gaining something.

      To say copying data is the opposite just confuses the issue. Copying data is not related to theft, in any way. Thieves in Bizarro World do not copy data. They give things to people. And then Bizarro Superman busts them for it.

    16. Re:uh oh.... by edschurr · · Score: 1

      Besides, there is no sure way for a person to determine the copyright status of a file
      I think this implies that you simply shouldn't copy the file then, not that you can.
    17. Re:uh oh.... by Babbster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not. Even the summary covers this: The hook was to get people to download the client which searched for "other copyrighted files." Besides, there's nothing in the story to indicate that they actually did let people download real movies. They might all have been dummy files.

    18. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the point is still the same, just because you can do something doesn't mean it is right or legal to do. just because I can copy everything in your wallet doesnt mean it is legal or right to do so. both the contents of your wallet and music/movie DVDs are relatively trivial to duplicate but have information that in context that has a real tangible value attached to it.

    19. Re:uh oh.... by EzInKy · · Score: 2, Insightful


      I think this implies that you simply shouldn't copy the file then, not that you can.


      The internet works by copying information from one computer to another so the default is to assume that everything can be copied. If this were not true then even simple web browsing would be impossible.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    20. Re:uh oh.... by click2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm guessing because Media Defender don't own the copyright on the works. They're employed by the MPAA who also don't own the copyright on these works. Its probably a convenient way to avoid entrapment or whatever legal or copyright issues giving away the media themselves would involve. Its up to the copyright holder to decide who to sue, but its still a very questionable action.

      Although, if Media Defender are financially profiting from illegally offering copyrighted works, I would think they are in a much worse position than any users who downloaded the media.

      I'd be more interested in the legality of the software. It is spyware, reporting personal identifying details about the users. Wouldn't this be an illegal search of some kind even with a ridiculously cryptic/solid looking EULA. I Seriously doubt it would be used in court. Its more likely to be useful as someone else said for hard statistics about actual numbers of users. It would be easy to make the data show anything they wanted, as evidence in an attempt to get even more laws passed. I bet also that more than a few users will soon cease downloading possibly illegal media.

      If this is an attempt to get evidence for lawsuits/collection letters then I hope any users contacted by the MPAA collection squads do fight, as the number of questionable actions made here would I think make it a very hard case for the MPAA to win. Any filenames, metadata, checksums or search queries collected would certainly not be proof of infringement.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    21. Re:uh oh.... by EzInKy · · Score: 1


      the point is still the same, just because you can do something doesn't mean it is right or legal to do.


      No, it is not the same. Downloading a file from the internet should be no more illegal than picking up a book, or a wallet, from the sidewalk. It is only what you do with the found item afterwards that should count.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    22. Re:uh oh.... by Asztal_ · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, so I just run it on my virtual machine? cool.

    23. Re:uh oh.... by sr180 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In some places it is. When I was younger i was given a police warning for Larceny by finding, because i found a cricket bat which had been sitting on the side of the road for a few days. I picked it up thinking it was abandoned, was reported to the police and given a warning. In this state (in Australia) if you find a wallet, and do not hand it in to police or try to return it, it is theft.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    24. Re:uh oh.... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "I mean, come on! You never bought a copy of the movie..."

      And you know this because....?

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    25. Re:uh oh.... by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 1

      If I were going to justify copyright infringment it would probably take more than three sentences.
      I tend to justify copyright infringement using Haikus:


      Caught from the airwaves
      Not from an internet site
      Digitize away

      --
      I feel like death on a soda cracker.
    26. Re:uh oh.... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      "To say copying data is the opposite just confuses the issue."

      No more than saying that copying data equals theft.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    27. Re:uh oh.... by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Non Sequitur. I do not willingly distribute my wallet's contents along other channels.

      Additional: It's fine if you copy my wallet's contents and give it to your friends. But if you or any of your friends were to use those contents in a way that could be construed as fraud, you can expect to be strung up by your shorts and your curlies.

      Related to another comment: Filesharing is the opposite of theft in that you are providing copies of something to others at no cost. In contrast, theft is removing from someone's posession something without paying.

      Of course, there *are* costs; bandwidth ain't free, whether it's charged per bit or a monthly fee.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    28. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      as the previous poster noted in many areas it is illegal to retrieve a wallet from the sidewalk and not report it. it is considered theft.

      t is only what you do with the found item afterwards that should count.
      you are in fact correct, it wouldnt really matter if people dowloaded a song/movie and didnt use it, they might as well delete it, it isnt doing them any good. now if they decide to listen to it, to benefit from the work of others without contribution, then it is indeed stealing because just like it takes work and money to create material things that can be stolen, it also takes work and money to create works of art. is this a sustainable business model? no, it isn't feasible or good business sense to go with DRM because it can and will be broken on a nearly daily basis, that doesnt change the fact that copying the work is wrong though.
    29. Re:uh oh.... by The+PS3+Will+Fail · · Score: 0, Troll

      I didn't fucking say that so what the fuck is your point?

    30. Re:uh oh.... by Schemat1c · · Score: 1

      Good riddance to those who get busted, this may be dishonest of the MPAA, but it's also dishonest of you. How's the weather up there on your self-righteous pedestal?

      shill
      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    31. Re:uh oh.... by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You forget the part in copyright that refers to, or their agents. As the RIAA is an agent of the copyright holders and in the the fake distributors are agents of the RIAA, the it is the agents of the copyright holders who a legally distributing no longer copyrighted works.

      Now of course the criminal action they will have been likely to commit is invading the privacy of 'minors', which is of course where child molester comes from.

      Also where children where using the parents computer and the RIAA agents failed to ensure that the person entering the contract was legally entitled to enter the contract, that failure of jurisprudence results in criminal trespass and technology crimes with regards to hacking computer networks.

      There is also the question of fraudulent misrepresentation as well as entrapment. These people really need to feel the full weight and measure of the law, a few years cooling the heels in jail, should wake them up to the fact that they are not above the law.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    32. Re:uh oh.... by fredklein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly.

      If I watch a TV show live, It's okay. (Even if I don't watch the commercials.)
      If I record a TV show with a VCR and watch it later, It's okay.
      If I record a TV show on a DVR and watch it later, It's okay.
      If I have a friend record a TV show (VCR or DVR) and give me the recording so I can watch it later, It's okay.
      BUT...
      If my 'friend' is an unknown person sharing a bittorrent, it's NOT okay?

    33. Re:uh oh.... by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 1

      Sweet. That means personal information can't be stolen!

      I do agree copyright infringement isn't theft. But you're reasoning is a dangerous one.

      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    34. Re:uh oh.... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It sounds like the MPAA was commiting the criminal act in this case, not the users.

    35. Re:uh oh.... by Emetophobe · · Score: 1

      Sounds like entrapment to me.

    36. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright infringement is not theft.

      Thank you for the reminder captain obvious. Thank god this point is only brought up ten times in every single thread that has anything remotely to do with copyright. Truly helpful stuff I tell ya! Taco should rename it to "/., news for nerds, and copyright infringement is not theft."

    37. Re:uh oh.... by autophile · · Score: 1

      Besides, there is no sure way for a person to determine the copyright status of a file.

      As you can see, your Honor, this file, while it may look like the complete Over the Hedge, is, in reality, not. The characters are slightly fatter. And the voices are not quite that of these famous actors. There is a slight buzzing to their voices, and the high frequencies are missing. Therefore, this file is actually not copyright DreamWorks Animation.

      --
      Towards the Singularity.
    38. Re:uh oh.... by edschurr · · Score: 1

      If you mean that the simple act of downloading shouldn't reflect badly on the downloader, then I could agree. But most of the time it isn't a mystery what you're downloading. Copying what clearly wasn't distributed by the copyright holder, like a feature film, isn't likely innocent.

    39. Re:uh oh.... by Mistlefoot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The more I think about this the more brilliant it is.

      When you download Kazaa, Limewire or most other clients they offer you the opportunity to scan your harddrive for content to share. That information is then available to the network, essentially reporting home.

      How can anyone claim, in court, that action alone as being illegal? I posted earlier that if it scanned your harddrive it may very well be spyware and as such illegal, but I think I might be wrong on that.

    40. Re:uh oh.... by tubapro12 · · Score: 1
      ...

      OMG do i go to /. or not do i go or not they may have accidentally put too many wrong words in the wrong order and put copyright infringement from a book on my pc OMG
      I couldn't resist. By reading this text its already on your computer at least twice... probably many times more but you get the idea...
    41. Re:uh oh.... by jlarocco · · Score: 3, Informative

      If I have a friend record a TV show (VCR or DVR) and give me the recording so I can watch it later, It's okay.

      No, going 100% by the law, that isn't okay. Fortunately, it's only illegal if you get caught, and short of 100% surveillance, there's no realistic way to catch people doing it.

    42. Re:uh oh.... by capologist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have to be a government entity to claim entrapment, and that's only in criminal cases.

      The same principle also applies in civil cases. If the plaintiff intentionally induced the defendant to commit the act for which the plaintiff is now suing, the court is going to take a very dim view of the suit.

      I'm not saying it applies in this case, because I don't know how much "inducement" went on, but the principle is there.
    43. Re:uh oh.... by fractoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      If I watch a TV show live, It's okay. (Even if I don't watch the commercials.)
      If I record a TV show with a VCR and watch it later, It's okay.
      If I record a TV show on a DVR and watch it later, It's okay. Everything up to this point has been OK.

      If I have a friend record a TV show (VCR or DVR) and give me the recording so I can watch it later, It's okay. Narp. That's the bit that's not OK. Well, I'm pretty sure it's not legal anyways. If your friend actually hands you his only copy then sure, but if he copies the tape and hands you the copy (as happens in a torrent) then you're making an unauthorized copy and therefore violating copyright.
      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    44. Re:uh oh.... by Hucko · · Score: 1

      err... what do they gain? is this a pyramid marketing scheme

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    45. Re:uh oh.... by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      From what I could gather from the anaemic article, the tool that the site provides searches your computer for pirated movies. Calling it a sting seems a little overstated. It just goes to show that you should never, ever, install any software made by the MPAA, unless you place no value in your privacy.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    46. Re:uh oh.... by Barny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interesting.

      In living in Victoria myself, and have in fact taken a "found wallet" to the police before with no id in it, they gave me a call a few months later(well, a friend who works there did at least) to advise me that since it hadn't been claimed I could submit a request for claiming the funds.

      Its not always a bad thing to help, but check your local laws first (remember, ignorance of the law is not a defense).

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    47. Re:uh oh.... by neoform · · Score: 1

      I just looked up the definition of entrapment in the dictionary and it says nothing about government.

      entrap (n-trp)
      tr.v. entrapped, entrapping, entraps
      1. To catch in or as if in a trap.
      2.
            a. To lure into danger, difficulty, or a compromising situation. See Synonyms at catch.
            b. To lure into performing a previously or otherwise uncontemplated illegal act.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    48. Re:uh oh.... by fractoid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Record your own shows
      Cherry blossoms all around
      Upload and be sued.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    49. Re:uh oh.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Everything the entertainment industry does hastens its demise.

      I have faith enough in creative people to believe that after the "industry" collapses there will still be plentiful music, film, art. It won't hurt that the artists will have to become more creative in the ways that they distribute their work.

      I know that I'm tilting at windmills, hoping that the entertainment-industrial complex falls apart, but I'm old enough now to own my beliefs and ethics, and to live according to them. I won't give my money to an industry that is hostile towards its customers, no matter how much I might like a particular band or artist. There are enough choices that I can readily find one that doesn't work against my best interests. And somehow, despite not having seen the commercially available DVD of Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Dead Man's Chest, I soldier on.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    50. Re:uh oh.... by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Moral of the story: Avoid anything to do with cricket.

    51. Re:uh oh.... by mr_matticus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a little absurd. If you pass a flyer on the street giving you directions to an alley full of stolen or otherwise misappropriated goods, and you go to that alley and walk away with something, you're in possession of stolen goods and have committed a crime. You can't get out of that by claiming "I was only going there to get some stuff to hand over to the police" and slip out of being charged, because all you would have had to do would be to tell the police about the alley and let them take care of it.

      If you want to cover your ass, announce your intention in advance. That's what undercover journalists do, in case they should get busted while doing a piece on, say, prostitution.

      Likewise, you can't go to a site offering clearly unlawful media content and think that you're not breaking any laws. You're there to get something you know is prohibited. "It's on the Internet, so I assumed I could have it" has never been a reasonable excuse. If you "find" a spreadsheet of social security numbers on the internet and store it on your computer, even if you don't commit fraud, you're not obeying the law, and you're in possession of unauthorized data and depending on what you have, may have committed a crime simply by having it.

    52. Re:uh oh.... by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that they were all fakes and the fact you tried shows 'intent to defraud'. Since in this society just having the intent to commit a crime is a crime in its own right.

      But at the same time, can they knowingly offer fake files with the intent to deceive? Its not quite entrapment, since you went there on your own looking for files, ( unlike the case if they emailed you out of the blue in a fishing expedition 'hey, free movies here' then claimed you
      'stole' them afterwards ) but it still smells wrong.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    53. Re:uh oh.... by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      Well no, you're not making anything, your friend is making the unauthorized copy. Best you could be got for would be accessory after the fact to copyright infringement, or perhaps conspiracy to commit copyright infringement ;)

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    54. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Entrapment only covers law enforcement. Despite its claims to the contrary, the MPAA/RIAA organizations are not law enforcement agencies.

    55. Re:uh oh.... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      the legal definition of entrapment, not the dictionary definition of the word.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    56. Re:uh oh.... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Sorry, bad wording. Your friend is then guilty of unauthorized distribution. And while that's not a crime, it is still illegal in most countries.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    57. Re:uh oh.... by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

      Wow, forget to take the blue pill or something? Did you swallow your tongue?

      Conniption fits are all the rage these days!

      --
      blah blah blah
    58. Re:uh oh.... by fredklein · · Score: 1

      If your friend actually hands you his only copy then sure

      That's what I said: He "give[s] me the recording..."

    59. Re:uh oh.... by Danse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is also the question of fraudulent misrepresentation as well as entrapment. It's only entrapment if it's done by the government (e.g. police). Fraudulent, it may be. As for being above the law, it's all about who you know. Just ask Scooter Libby.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    60. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone has to lose something for it to be theft.

      Like an exclusive right to copy, perhaps?

    61. Re:uh oh.... by fredklein · · Score: 1

      No, going 100% by the law, that isn't okay.

      It's illegal for my GF to record the latest 'Stargate: Atlantis' episode while I'm at work, and bring it over so I can watch it?? I doubt that.

    62. Re:uh oh.... by Alchemar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As long as the EULA for the software indicates that this is what they are going to do it is fine. If however the say that the software is going to speed up your downloads, it should speed up your downloads. If it does not mention that it also downloads a scanner then it should be clasified as fraud. Just because I install a program that states it will make certain files/information available, does not mean I give permission for every piece of spyware/trojan that wants to access the same information is free to install itself without my permission.

      If the file they do let you download is a dummy file when they told you they were giving you a movie, then it is also fraud.

    63. Re:uh oh.... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Once you have the copy in your possession, they would have to somehow prove a chain of possession back to your friend. Because it is legal for you to have that copy apparently per a couple real lawyers here in some copyright discussion here on slashdot earlier this year.

      I guess that is why most often they sue folks who distribute to them or their agents.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    64. Re:uh oh.... by ari_j · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In a court of equity, it's called unclean hands. The same or similar doctrines apply to cases at law (meaning those where you get sued for money damages), depending on your jurisdiction. Also, it may be that there are criminal laws against this sort of Trojan horsery - similar to how the law of false pretenses makes it a crime to obtain title to another's property by false pretenses. This could be considered a theft of computer services and/or a trespass to your computer by false pretenses. IANAL, but it's altogether likely that this kind of behavior can be punished in civil court, criminal court, or both.

    65. Re:uh oh.... by the_lesser_gatsby · · Score: 1

      Likewise, you can't go to a site offering clearly unlawful media content and think that you're not breaking any laws

      What's the legal status if the content is being offered by agents of the copyright holders?

    66. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this is the equivalent of a person telling you something at WalMart is free, then, after you take it, they follow you home, and search of other things you've gotten for free.
      The move is just as bad as the initial theft. Just because technology lets you do something, doesn't mean that it's right to do it.

    67. Re:uh oh.... by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      That depends on their agency to the copyright holders. Is the agent authorized to transfer rights to third parties on behalf of the copyright holder? With regard to Media Sentry, the answer is clearly "no." You can't license works through them under normal circumstances, and as far as I can tell, they are not making any claims about their relationship to the rightsholders or about the legality/legitimacy of their service.

      Simply knowing that Media Sentry is associated with the RIAA does not afford you any new rights. You know that the work is copyrighted and you know that the fake service is not providing you with any sort of license or authorization. If you are accused of being in possession of unlawfully acquired content, you must be able to rebut by showing a) possession of a licensed copy (e.g. official DVD) or of a digital license (e.g. an iTunes invoice or account which can be confirmed to be authorized). Acquiring it from any service which does not provide either of those lacks legitimacy. Any service providing anonymous access to non-public domain works is dubious. You cannot infer that because a business relationship exists, that it automatically follows that it's sanctioned usage.

      You would have cause of action against Media Sentry if they made express claims that the service was legitimate or legal or otherwise authorized. But look at it this way:

      If you're shopping at a jewelry store, and the sales clerk (an agent of the jeweler) offers to sell you an engagement ring for $500 that clearly retails for $4000, and then asks for cash and doesn't provide you with a receipt or get your name for warranty coverage, you know something's wrong. If you go through with that clearly illicit deal, you're still guilty of stealing that engagement ring, even though an agent of the store gave it to you. You have a separate cause of action against the clerk which you can pursue in the legal system, and there might be some small leniency granted due to the circumstances, but you would still be responsible.

      Now, if on the other hand you were explicitly deceived and provided with a fraudulent invoice, that would be a pretty sound defense, but you'll still suffer (you lose the ring and the $500, until you can recoup the money from the clerk). You might get lucky and be awarded damages that make that engagement ring cheaper than free, but there's a lot of hassle in the mean time. Unfortunately, Media Sentry doesn't appear to be deceiving anyone--their relationship to the RIAA by itself proves nothing and individuals are still responsible for complying with the law.

    68. Re:uh oh.... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      It theoretically causes a loss in profit. However the realities of the situation are more complicated. First you have the 0-0=0 principle, which is to say that just because someone is willing to download something doesn't mean they would buy it at the price you're selling. I suspect that a plurality of downloads fall in this category.

      Then you have the actual losses, that is, those who would have bought media but no longer will because it is available to download. Probably not THAT big of a segment. Then you have those who download and then buy if they like it. This segment is probably bigger than the previous segment when it comes to indie bands or bands who have loyal fans. Not so much the latest pop princess.

      And then you have the exposure factor. Again this mainly applies to newer bands who are not well known. It the same idea that the more saturated your advertising is, the less of a percentage of people will buy your product but in real numbers that number will be higher than what it was when you had a higher percentage return on your ads.

    69. Re:uh oh.... by Animaether · · Score: 1

      "it's only illegal if you get caught" ?

      the same could be said for murder. Not equating the two, just pointing out that something is either illegal - or it isn't. Perhaps you meant "Fortunately, there are only consequences if you get caught".

    70. Re:uh oh.... by phorm · · Score: 1

      My question would be how it knows you don't have an original copy of the materials in question? I wouldn't install this software myself, but if I did it would find mp3'ed copies of a few dozen albums that I ripped for use in my own portable devices or in my car's CD-mp3 player.

    71. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used the program (bf it went down). It worked fine. There was nothing that scanned my computer. I haven't read anything or seen anything with the program to verify that the MPAA is behind it. I think people are a little too paranoid/gullible about "master plans" of mpaa/riaa to catch people.

    72. Re:uh oh.... by cdw38 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've always wondered about this - when they "catch" people downloading something illegal, do they get the police to storm your house and confiscate your hard drive and all related belongings? Even if they confiscate my hard drive, why couldn't I just go out and buy all the movies I illegally downloaded (hypothetically speaking) and then say I owned all them and therefore have them on my hard drive legally? What can they ask you to do - provide them with receipts proving you owned them before your hard drive was confiscated? What if you paid cash and threw the receipt out as soon as you opened the movie and it worked? Or is it illegal to download a movie (or a song) no matter what? (as in, is there a difference between ripping a movie yourself and downloading a copy of it?).

    73. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copyright infringement is not theft. Someone has to lose something for it to be theft. Copying data is pretty much the opposite of theft.

      Don't tell us. Tell the judge. You may get all the kudos from the nerds but the judge won't be impressed. Prepare to lose your precious possessions. Say "goodbye" to your life and "hello" to debt slavery.

    74. Re:uh oh.... by Aliriza · · Score: 1

      This is like selling heroin and taking the junkies , it is against privacy and law. Maybe we would look for music out of the industry and films out of Hollywood , when someones watch a film for free , we also adververtise them for free.

    75. Re:uh oh.... by weber · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, having copyrighted content on your computer is not illegal in most countries. It's the distribution of said content that's a no-no.

      Of course if they do checksums of files identifiable as files distributed by pirate sites, they get an idea whether they can find something on your computer if they can get hold of it by some legal means. You could perhaps argue that the checksums are the same because you used the same medium, program & settings to transfer the work from its medium to your harddisk...

      Question: Is it illegal to *download* copyrighted work in *your* country, or is it just *uploading* it that's forbidden?

    76. Re:uh oh.... by Lavene · · Score: 1

      It's not. Even the summary covers this: The hook was to get people to download the client which searched for "other copyrighted files." Besides, there's nothing in the story to indicate that they actually did let people download real movies. They might all have been dummy files. If you download a dummy file you can't be accused for infringement can you? And just merely having "Other copyrighted files" on a computer is not illegal either I would think. I mean, I have some 100 CD's worth of music on my computer all ripped from my legally bought CDs and I do not take part in file sharing.

      I know American law is strange but this stunt I hope couldn't lead to anything...
    77. Re:uh oh.... by dreamlax · · Score: 1, Interesting

      What if you recorded it simultaneously using two VCRs, and gave someone just one of your copies?

    78. Re:uh oh.... by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >Downloading should not be considered infringing,
      >or "illegal", because it really is no different
      >than picking up a book found on the street.

      Yes, there is a difference in that in one case you create a copy of something (which can, but not always will, be copyright infringement), while in the other you don't. That is really one of the main things copyright is about, the creation of copies.

      >Besides, there is no sure way for a person to
      >determine the copyright status of a file.

      It is realtively easy to determine if there is a copyright or not on a specific work in a file. Not sure what else you could mean with "copyright status".

    79. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MPAA duckroll?

    80. Re:uh oh.... by fractoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      Good question! I'd guess that if you give someone else a copy while keeping a copy then the second copy isn't considered 'for personal purposes', but I know that laws vary around the place. Specifically, doesn't Canada have explicitly unregulated personal copying in this way? IE. if we both lived in Canada, I could burn you a copy of Metallica's latest CD and there's jack all Metallica or anyone else can say about it? Of course if I then ask for money for it...

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    81. Re:uh oh.... by Xiph · · Score: 1

      well, it might be, if you say private data, since it's no longer your private data,
      but your shared data afterwards. Thus you lose privacy.

      So while the data isn't stolen, Your privacy is, but i guess that's splitting hairs.

      --
      Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
    82. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's simple - if you have copyrighted media on a computer, you're a pirate.

      Hell, you can scratch "copyrighted".

      Some of the recent lawsuits indicate that "media on" can be deleted as well, and possibly that "have a computer" can be replaced by "don't pay the required protection fee".

    83. Re:uh oh.... by robot_love · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, they are working on 100% surveillance.

      --
      .there is enough of everything for everyone.
    84. Re:uh oh.... by KoldKompress · · Score: 1

      Apart from it's not stolen. It's the equivalent of someone giving you a flyer which leads you down to an ally with various items, and then you proceed to copy it. You're not depriving someone of the item, you're making a copy of it.

    85. Re:uh oh.... by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      I would _hope_ that this kind of thing is actually illegal. And would hope that it backfires badly on them as a result.

      Of course, if it isn't then I think I have an idea for a new business model...

    86. Re:uh oh.... by ajs318 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If I have a friend record a TV show (VCR or DVR) and give me the recording so I can watch it later, It's okay.
      BUT...
      If my 'friend' is an unknown person sharing a bittorrent, it's NOT okay?
      What if you had a really long cable from your friend's VCR to your TV set? Would that be OK? (I mean, apart from the 398V (= 230 * sqrt(3)) between your TV's chassis and their VCR's chassis if you're on different phases. We'll assume you've dealt with that.) We'll also assume both your and your friends' TV licences are fully paid-up. The only possible objection is that your friend might technically be acting as a rebroadcaster and thus incur some obligations .....

      So why is it a problem if the "really long cable" happens to be part of the public Internet? Well, a computer is involved. This creates a powerful Reality Distortion Field where normal laws and common sense absolutely do not apply, and any analogy with a non-computerised situation is null and void.
      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    87. Re:uh oh.... by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      In the UK as far as I'm aware:

      It is illegal to 'keep' a recording of a TV program. (ISTR a 2 week timeout)

      It's illegal to give it to a friend to watch.

      It might actually be illegal to watch your recording of yesterday's simpsons more than once as well.

      Not that any of these are actually enforced or anything. But from a legal stance, VCRs exist to allow the 'owner' of a reciever (and if relevant, the person paying for the service) to record something, to watch later. Nothing more.

    88. Re:uh oh.... by crucini · · Score: 3, Informative

      Or is it illegal to download a movie (or a song) no matter what?
      Yes. Unless you have permission from the copyright holder.

      ...(as in, is there a difference between ripping a movie yourself and downloading a copy of it?)
      Both are illegal in the US.

      There is a popular myth on slashdot that you have a legal right to rip music or movies that you've bought. There is no such right.
    89. Re:uh oh.... by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      That's not a justification, per-se, but the point remains that almost every bit of anti-piracy propaganda I've seen equates it to stealing. Now, whatever your stance on the 'is copyright infringement morally wrong', emotionally loading the issue by playing on misconceptions, is just not constructive.

      The definition of 'theft' includes '... with intent to permenantly deprive...'. Copyright infringment, by definition, doesn't.

    90. Re:uh oh.... by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      It *is* stolen. Stealing is merely the taking of something that you are not entitled to. What it is not is theft. And regardless of how you want to engage in the semantics of it, I used the terms "misappropriated," "unlawfully acquired," and similar to describe the actual acts in their digital form. You can call it whatever you like; it's against the law to distribute or otherwise gain access to copyrighted items to which you are not entitled (that is, licensed or an owner of a licensed copy).

    91. Re:uh oh.... by slart42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      If I watch a TV show live, It's okay. (Even if I don't watch the commercials.)
      If I record a TV show with a VCR and watch it later, It's okay.
      If I record a TV show on a DVR and watch it later, It's okay.
      If I have a friend record a TV show (VCR or DVR) and give me the recording so I can watch it later, It's okay. There's a german site, www.onlinetvrecorder.com, which so far managed to avoid lawsuits by using this argumentation. They let you download (for free) anything running on german television, as long as you specifiy that you want it beforehand. By doing that, they argue that the user is doing nothing else then programming a VCR, or in this case designating someone else to do it.
    92. Re:uh oh.... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      It's only illegal if you can't find the body, right? Tell it to Hans Reiser, the author of ReiserFS. That story is covered elsewhere on Slashdot.

    93. Re:uh oh.... by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      There is also the question of fraudulent misrepresentation as well as entrapment. It's only entrapment if it's done by the government (e.g. police). Fraudulent, it may be. As for being above the law, it's all about who you know. Just ask Scooter Libby. Considering that the MAFIAA act like the police, work with the police, even train some police forces and help write the laws. Then aren't they effectively the government? Entrapment would seem an accurate distinction to me.
      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    94. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it always legal to download movies?

      As long as you're not distributing copyrighted material, to my knowledge you're in the clear!
      At least we're allowed to do this in the Netherlands: it's called the home-copy-act, you're allowed to make a copy for yourself, even if you don't own the original. I believe it was inspired on the US laws.
      Anybody care to elaborate why the MPAA can get ANY information out of such a honeypot site??

      Basically it doesn't matter if you downloaded or own anything, this is not illegal!

      Just don't share, kids!

    95. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because nobody gave authorisation to the MPAA to get this content or metadata. It sounds awfully similar to police or secret service work. Who the hell do they think they are? In the EU there are privacy laws which probably prohibit this kind of behaviour. In the US, however... besides, there is this thing called 'tempation to commit crime'. I'm not sure if that exists in the US, but obviously the MPAA does that by advertising like that. Perhaps they are okay when I share their videos on torrent sites?

    96. Re:uh oh.... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Huh. If what you say is true, then how is it that digital audio players were ruled legal in a court of law? At the time of that decision, the only ways to obtain files playable in those devices were to rip them from CDs, analog media, or the radio...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    97. Re:uh oh.... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      When did the world become so fucked up that people think that freely sharing information is somehow wrong?!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    98. Re:uh oh.... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Talk about your own country. In the free world, it's legal.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    99. Re:uh oh.... by Danse · · Score: 1

      Considering that the MAFIAA act like the police, work with the police, even train some police forces and help write the laws. Then aren't they effectively the government? Entrapment would seem an accurate distinction to me. Well, if we were to hold them to the same restrictions that we hold the government to, it would take all the fun out of being an evil, corrupt organization. Corruption thrives on complex laws and technicalities.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    100. Re:uh oh.... by Daychilde · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to drive 1 mph over the speed limit, but that's extremely rarely enforced. Just because something isn't enforced doesn't make it illegal. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. None of the above comments reflect my views on the issue at hand, mind...

      --
      A cheerful little bird is sitting here singing.
    101. Re:uh oh.... by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      Although, if Media Defender are financially profiting from illegally offering copyrighted works, I would think they are in a much worse position than any users who downloaded the media.


      MOD PARENT UP. The people who gain most profit from p2p are those who are against p2p networks, they are the one who put spam in it and upload fake files. SO instead of asking damages from people who do not make any profit (users) the anti-p2p companies should be sued first for using the p2p networks to get money.

      The fact if they actually offer files that contain copyrighted work is only partly relevant. They claim to offer those files, and for users there is no way to determine if the file they are downloading is what they intend to download. It could be a fake, it could be the real thing. So suing people for downloading (and sharing at the same time) a defense can be that they intended to download something else. However due to the pollution by anti-p2p companies you cannot expect to get what you intended. They weakened their own legal attack by this.

      disclaimer: IANAL.

    102. Re:uh oh.... by simm1701 · · Score: 1

      Thats not really the point - because in many areas its not actually legal for you to format shift anyway - it falls somewhere between copyright, fair use and the DMCA (in the US) and gets complicated

      I'm more curious about how they know that the 700Mb file that you created from /dev/urandom and called Transformers-cam-divx.avi is a pirate film??

      I'd be more than tempted to set up a system with several of these files in a fire walled network to effectively honey pot them, depending on the terms of the EULA they could quite well be breaking various uk laws... but to be honest I don't really have the time and I'm not sure they'd be active in pursuing that in the uk anyway.

      --
      $_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
    103. Re:uh oh.... by bvimo · · Score: 1

      Isn't Christmas a Christian festival? Christmas is anti theft, a simple logical reversal gives theft is anti Christian. As I don't believe, when should I go to prison?

      --
      In either case, here at Microsoft, we feel standards are important. And we have fun, too. Doug Mahugh, Microsoft
    104. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's interesting, and completely wrong. EULAs still mean jack. They are not contracts since they
      lack consideration, and no EULA has ever been tested in court.

      Nobody can be "deemed" to have agreed to something they have no access to read, hence all EULAS
      are effectively toilet paper and nothing more.

      Even Sony didn't try and defend their rootkit with the EULA. But then Sony have never been properly prosecuted
      for that particular criminal act.

    105. Re:uh oh.... by earthbound+kid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, it's time for me to bring out my rant against current Unix/Windows permissions systems! Whee.

      OK, here's the short version: it's good that files on modern OS have access restricted to certain users, but that's not nearly enough. Instead access to files should be further restricted by process so that eg. Firefox only has permission to read/write to its cache, bookmarks, and download folders and that's it. If you need to upload, it should be forced to use a common API to beg the user for permission to even view uploadable files. Why? Well, exactly to stop this sort of exploit where a trojan promises to do something useful, but actually searches (using fancy new Spotlight and Windows Search, no less!) for files called "my CC#s" to send back to the mothership.

      In other words, I think we should Sandbox Everything.

      Apparently, SE Linux is trying to do something like this, but OS vendors need to find a way to make this whole process seamless and easy, so that I can right click on an application, go to permissions, and say, "This program I will allow to read my home directory, but only write to its own directories; that one I will let write anywhere, but read only itself" and so on.

      It will be really hard to implement this in a user friendly way, but it is clearly the necessary next step in computer security. Apple, Microsoft, and (consumer oriented) Linux devs should start working on this now.

    106. Re:uh oh.... by mike2R · · Score: 1

      They shed subpenas
      As an Autumn tree does leaves
      Winter closes in.

      --
      This sig all sigs devours
    107. Re:uh oh.... by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      In other words, I think we should Sandbox Everything.

      Apparently, SE Linux is trying to do something like this, but OS vendors need to find a way to make this whole process seamless and easy, so that I can right click on an application, go to permissions, and say, "This program I will allow to read my home directory, but only write to its own directories; that one I will let write anywhere, but read only itself" and so on.
      --
      I use Sandboxie to surf the web, http://www.sandboxie.com/ which asks you what you want to save to your _real_ HD when closing up, I really like it that way, that way only stuff you really _want_ will get on your disk.

    108. Re:uh oh.... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      No. They shouldn't. This is the basis of DRM, which circumvents hundreds of years of copyright law to put in the publisher's hands what you, as a purchaser, can do with the material. It can potentially block abuse, but it's very likely to be abused ot promote monopoly, avoid competition, and prevent backup copies or fair use quotation that are protected uses.

      It's also called "Trusted Computing". Since the master keys for that remain in Microsoft's hands, accessible to so-called law enforcement without a warrant, and there is no documented way for me as a citizen to get my own keys back, and the keys are revocable without warning and at whim, it is in fact a form of "Trust Me With Your Computer". It's clearly aimed at DRM, not at system security.

    109. Re:uh oh.... by ElleyKitten · · Score: 1

      There is a popular myth on slashdot that you have a legal right to rip music or movies that you've bought. There is no such right. That website you link to isn't about movies or music, but it does say you can backup sofware. You're mistaken; you are allowed to copy copyrighted material as long as you don't give the copies away.

      --
      "What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
    110. Re:uh oh.... by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I just told all my friends about that site. Knew it was too good to be true.


      Tip for the future: any site that requires you to register your details with them before you can download illegal stuff does not have your best interests at heart.
    111. Re:uh oh.... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      You're on Slashdot. It's illegal for you to have a GF that isn't on a webcam, paid for by the minute. Your punishment is to send her to my apartment for reprogramming. Tonight. With chocolate covered espresso beans, scented oil, and her own Wii controller.

    112. Re:uh oh.... by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Your link, it says what? I didn't notice anything to that effect.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    113. Re:uh oh.... by db32 · · Score: 1

      This is just too stupid for words. This is like trying to sue the convenience store owner for fraud when he gives you fake money that is easily traced when you rob him. Or maybe like when the druggie calls the cops because the dealer sold him fake coke. Seriously, as much as I hate the MPAA for the way they handle things, this particular trick doesn't bother me much, and crying fraud is stupid at best. I hope there isn't a judge alive that would view this as fraud. "Ok, so you are sueing the MPAA for fraud because they set up a site that offered illegal movie downloads...and you signed up...downloaded their fake client...and are now being sued by the MPAA for the copyright material they found on your computer?"

      I can't even wrap my head around the fact that you want a valid EULA that clearly describes its methods for software that is designed for catching illegal activities. The next thing you are going to tell me is that when the cops pretend to be drug dealers to catch druggies you want them to be wearing DEA uniforms.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    114. Re:uh oh.... by discojohnson · · Score: 2, Informative

      When a theft occurs, the thief has gained something and the thieved has lost something without their consent. ... Copying data is not related to theft, in any way.
      See, you contradicted yourself. When you copy something, you take away the scarcity of the product. If I have 10 copies of my movie, I can sell it for $10 a pop. If you make a 10 copies, now the market has twice as many, making my product less scarce, hence you took away from the value of the movie. Wouldn't you get pissed if you paid $50k for a BMW just for me to copy it, for free mind you? It'd make it worth a hell of a lot less. My comment isn't about copying physical goods, but in a digital world scarcity of a product is what helps drive costs. You can still have scarcity in an infinitely non-scare economy (bonus features on the dvd, cover art, backstage passes, shirts, etc) which will make revenue.
    115. Re:uh oh.... by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think it started when Prometheus gave fire to the Greeks.

    116. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      [from link in parent:]
      Can I backup my computer software?
      Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is "archival" copy, not "backup" copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works.

      Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if:

              * the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only;
              * you are the legal owner of the copy; and
              * any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred.

      You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).

      It is also important to check the terms of sale or license agreement of the original copy of software in case any special conditions have been put in place by the copyright owner that might affect your ability or right under section 117 to make a backup copy. There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies.
      [/from link in parent]

      Would making a backup of a music CD and storing the original in an archive storage count for "the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only"?
      I always rip my original music CDs and store them away (archive them?) only playing the rips I've made. I have not shared the original or the rips with anyone.

    117. Re:uh oh.... by DirkDaring · · Score: 1

      It was a joke Sherlock.

    118. Re:uh oh.... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      While everything you say is probably true (I'm not sure that I buy that people who download then buy is larger than people who download and don't), and while the **AA shouldn't be calling it theft, the fact remains that copyright infringement is still illegal.

      The more interesting question is, is copyright infringement immoral, and if so under what situations. Conversely, under which situations is copyright law immoral? Some philosophers, including MLK Jr, Ghandi, Mandela, and probably most articulately Thoreau, would argue that we have not only the right, but the duty to disobey unjust laws (but probably also accept the punishment).

      Now, I'm not trying to equate copyright reform with civil rights, nor am I saying copyright is ipso facto unjust. But, I do think there is an interesting spin here.

    119. Re:uh oh.... by TheFlamingoKing · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You need to understand that there is a difference between law enforcement and a private corporation (or cartel).

      Your analogy is incorrect because the societal agreement in America is the police are mandated by the public to enforce laws on our behalf. They can use methods that are above the laws in order to achieve this. A private corporation is not mandated by the public, and therefore not given the ability to break laws to enforce them. This includes the act of accessing my computer without my direct authorization. If a police team drills past my security and finds illegal materials on my computer, with proper authorization (court-ordered warrants) that act is legal. If a MPAA/RIAA funded corporation does it, it is a violation of the law and should be enforced. If a corporation is breaking the law to catch people breaking the law (not to mention that corporation directly profits from catching those criminals), how can we trust that known lawbreaking corporation to be unbiased?

      A better analogy would be a private investigator breaking into a house to find out if someone was a criminal.

    120. Re:uh oh.... by Morosoph · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a popular myth on slashdot that you have a legal right to rip music or movies that you've bought. There is no such right. That's not what the passage says. Rather, you are not allowed a aquire a rip that someone else has made, even if you already own the medium. Making back-up copies for your own use simply isn't commented upon here, probably becasue government interests didn't want people to know that they have this right.
    121. Re:uh oh.... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      How on earth can a nation with such ridiculous laws still consider itself free?

      Russia has more sensible laws now that they have embraced democracy.

      The truth is that the US is no longer about freedoms except the freedom for companies to make as much profit as possible.

      Maybe we need a revolution to take power back from the corrupt government system that has taken over. After all, both the main democratic candidates (Hillary and Barrack) have taken money from the MPAA / RIAA so we cannot expect any change in the next administration.

      You can not even take to the streets to protest as this is illegal. Actually I am not sure about this, But after seeing footage from the Seatle WTO or anti-vietnam demonstrations where the Police would spray teargas or CS at people peacefully sitting in the road it might as well be.

      What good is bill of rights when the government are allowed to trample all over it with impunity? They might not be able to pass law the contravenes it but they can get away with ignoring it in thier actions? Or even in the worst case they just pardon their chums who openly break the law after the courts have found them guilty? Is that what our forefathers intended our legal process to turn into?

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    122. Re:uh oh.... by BVis · · Score: 1

      Whether or not you have a legit copy of the materials in question is irrelevant to the MPAA. Their definition of "fair use" doesn't recognize the right of a consumer to keep a backup copy of their copyrighted material.

      Their lawyers would probably also argue that if someone wants to make a backup of their legitimately purchased media, then technology exists to make that copy locally and not require that they download it elsewhere. I'd have a hard time arguing with that, personally (IANAL.) Nevermind that while they argue that this backup can be made locally, any software used to do so is a DMCA violation. The MPAA never allows logic to get in the way of protecting their business model.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    123. Re:uh oh.... by WNight · · Score: 1

      Gotta love how you'd be less happy with a new BMW just because other people got to play with one too.

      Choke and die.

    124. Re:uh oh.... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      In your jewelry store example it is more like the rightful owner of a ring entrusts it to a disreputable seeming store in order to investigate their clientele. So you go in there, buy a ring that is too good to be true, and suspect that there are some shady dealings.

      Now, if this were really a stolen ring you'd have to return it, but if it comes to light that the store were acting as an agent of the original owner, but was not explicitly authorized to sell the ring, you would maintain ownership.

      Media Sentry is an agent of the studios, if they distribute copyright work without the studio's permission, they are liable, but that does not change the legality of any copies obtained through them.

      Another example: A (signed) recording artist does a few shows and sells CDs out of the trunk of his car afterwards, not realizing (or not caring) about the exclusive distributer clause in his recording contract. If you buy a CD from him, even if you didn't recognize him as the artist, your copy is still a legal copy, because the artist is an agent of the copyright holder. The copyright holder can then only go after the unauthorized distributor, but not the holder of the unauthorized copies.

      Disclaimer: IANAL, and this is all my understanding. I could be wrong, and if someone can refute me, preferable with authoritative links, I'd like to learn the error of my ways.

    125. Re:uh oh.... by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

      I don't get how making ACLs granular down to the user *and* process levels == DRM || Trusted Computing.

      I'm as tinfoilhatty about those things as anyone, but nothing about the GP's suggested security enhancements require them to be locked away from the machine administrator. They're also exactly the kinds of things SE Linux is incorporating right now.

      Think about it this way: go the opposite direction from the GP's suggestion and run with little to no ACL granularity. There... welcome to Windows 95, where processes can easily have more privileges than the invoking user.

      DRM is about fencing the user out of things on his own computer. The ACL tweaking suggested above is about letting the user fence things off more precisely than before. The two ideas have some overlap, but the one doesn't entail a slippery slope to the other.

    126. Re:uh oh.... by Type-E · · Score: 1

      how can an unknown person be your friend?

    127. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude... this is /. - you can't expect people to read your *entire* post now, can you?

    128. Re:uh oh.... by Fozzyuw · · Score: 1

      If you download a dummy file you can't be accused for infringement can you?

      Funny, my cousin once told me this story. When he was young and new at downloading movies, he installed Kazaa or something and tried to see if he could download a film. I think he picked Austin Powers or something.

      He "copied" a file from the internet to his computer that was labeled "Austin Powers" but when he played it, it wasn't Austin Powers at all. I believe it was either some obscure old film or a porn or something similar.

      Eitherway, he got a call/letter from his cable company telling him the MPAA contacted them for illegal fire sharing of the film "Austin Powers" and that if they got another letter, he would have his service terminated. Needless to say, my cousin didn't really care much about the movie nor was he much interested in file share (other than wanting to see if it was possible) so he uninstaller his program.

      It brings up a good question. If you download a file called "X" and you really get a file "Y", did you break copyright laws? What's there to be said about the intent to break the laws?

      Cheers,
      Fozzy

      --
      "The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." ~1984 George Orwell
    129. Re:uh oh.... by DMoylan · · Score: 4, Funny

      Any moron can
      Write haiku. Just stop at the
      Seventeenth sylla

    130. Re:uh oh.... by Gonarat · · Score: 1

      The only problem I see with this is the DMCA. Since almost all movies on DVD produced by the MPAA companies use CSS copy protection, the MPAA can claim that those movies were illegally copied. The only ways I can think of to bypass the DMCA is to have made the copy of the movie from a laser disk (no copy protection that I know of), or perhaps a VCR tape (I don't think that Macrovision on analog tapes is covered by the DMCA, but I may be wrong). I would guess that an ISO file of the original DVD that you own might pass since copy protection was not broken. Copies of your CDs on PC are generally not a problem since most CDs do not contain any effective form of copy protection.

      That said, I think the DMCA and this whole copyright war is dumb, and the industry would be better off creating a real site like this and competing. Charge a fair price, offer decent download times and no DRM, and people would use it. Free is good, but most people are willing to pay a fair price for convenience. It may be too late at this point to do this, seven years after the closing of Napster, p2p is quick and easy.

      If the RIAA would have bought out the original Napster and charged a fair price for using the service, this whole mess might of been avoided.

      --
      Beware of Sleestak
    131. Re:uh oh.... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. Or rather there is no right that a copyright holder has to interfere what I do with creative works in my own home. It's like some schmuck from Levitz trying to tell me I can't sculpt a copy of my couch in play-doh.

      A copyright holder only has the right to bother me once some other person is involved.

      They don't have the right to interfere with my own electronic masturbation & never had.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    132. Re:uh oh.... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      There is a popular myth among corporate lackeys that corporations have any right to interfere with what you do in the confines of your own home.

      That right is reserved to the government.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    133. Re:uh oh.... by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      See, you contradicted yourself. When you copy something, you take away the scarcity of the product. If I have 10 copies of my movie, I can sell it for $10 a pop. If you make a 10 copies, now the market has twice as many, making my product less scarce, hence you took away from the value of the movie.

      Congratulations, you've just described the consequences of competition. There's nothing immoral about reducing scarcity -- rather the opposite, in fact.

      Wouldn't you get [annoyed] if you paid $50k for a BMW just for me to copy it, for free mind you? It'd make it worth ... a lot less.

      I might be annoyed, if I purchased it primarily as a status symbol. That still doesn't mean you did anything wrong. After all, I'd be just as annoyed if it stopped being a status symbol for any other reason -- for example, if BMW were found to have employed socially unacceptable practices in constructing their cars (e.g. slave labor, massive environmental damage, etc.). The only one at fault would be myself, for mispredicting the future value I would get out of owning it.

      The point of property right -- and the law in general -- is to peaceably resolve the inevitable disputes that arise over the control of naturally and inescapably scarce resources. To employ the law as a way to create artificial scarcity is an massive injustice, not to mention ultimately futile.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    134. Re:uh oh.... by Drachemorder · · Score: 1

      It may not be a legal right, but I would consider it a natural right. You know, one of those certain inalienable rights that all men are endowed with by their Creator. Namely, it's the right to do whatever the heck you want to with your property so long as it doesn't impact someone else. Assuming that you don't distribute the stuff you're ripping (I know, big assumption) then it isn't impacting anyone else in any way. Copyright, by the way, is NOT one of those natural rights; according to the U.S. Constitution, copyright is granted by the government. Obviously, if it's something that's granted, then it isn't an inherent right. I hold the majority of copyright law as it exists today unconstitutional because it treats copyright as a property right, which would be an inherent right, and that is clearly incompatible with the constitutional copyright model.

    135. Re:uh oh.... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      You've a point that finer-grained access is not identical. But the technology is already implemented by Trusted Computing, and is designed to control authentication as well as access to files, software features, and hardwares. So it's basically one aspect of a done deal.

      Finer grained access is an automatic consequence of rigorous DRM: to perform it on a user, or program level, is an additional feature on top of what you had originally asked for. That's fine, but if it's user manageable, it's usually virus reconfigurable, too. And if it's not user managed, then it turns over control of file access and features to someone else.

      We've seen sophisticated systems for this. NTFS has some: SELinux has others. Neither are as graceful and network friendly as, for example, AFS is. But tying file access to processes is..... difficult without the level of encryption and hardware based access control that is the holy grail of DRM proponents. So much like encryption and authentication, they're extremely linked processes.

    136. Re:uh oh.... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      The copyright act talks about direct financial gain, and indirect financial gain (swapping) and public performance and distributing. Short of having the appearance that you're getting set to flood the local college campus with counterfeits of some work, there is likely no cause of action that the RIAA could come up with that would stick up in court.

      Sure the RIAA can choose to harrass you and commit blatant barratry.

      They can harrass you regardless of whether or not your even capable of the "crime" in question.

      That's the beauty of the sort of rampage the RIAA/MPAA are currently on.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    137. Re:uh oh.... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IE. if we both lived in Canada, I could burn you a copy of Metallica's latest CD and there's jack all Metallica or anyone else can say about it?
      Nope. Coming from a Canadian, who's looked into these laws a fair amount:

      If your friend burns you a copy of Metallica's CD and gives it to you, it's illegal. If your friend gives you his original to borrow for a day, and you burn yourself a copy while you have it, it's legal.

      Stupid distinction, I know. But, you know how politicians think.....

      Something I'm not sure about, though.....if your friend burns himself a backup copy, and just happens to give it to you a few days later, I think it's arguably OK, because the copy wasn't made to give to you. But, IANAL, so any Canadian lawyers want to take a stab at that last one?
      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    138. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't live together and aren't married, then yes it definitely is.

    139. Re:uh oh.... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Lying to support a moral position only undermines the moral position.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    140. Re:uh oh.... by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      you can expect to be strung up by your shorts and your curlies.
      Good thing I shave my nuts......
      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    141. Re:uh oh.... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      My information is unique and hasn't already been broadcast across 6000 movie screens for 6 months, then put on pay per view and HBO for another 6 months and then pressed onto DVD's by the millions and sent to every corner of the planet.

      You are conveniently forgetting that characteristic of "their data" versus "my data".

      Unless you are a data aggregator, you can't use the data in a wallet unless you are willing to commit other crimes that are not really related to copyright.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    142. Re:uh oh.... by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "This is the basis of DRM, which circumvents hundreds of years of copyright law to put in the publisher's hands what you, as a purchaser, can do with the material."

      Having the legal right to do something is not the same thing as having the guaranteed ability to do something.

      For instance, it's legal to drive 75MPH in some parts of the USA. Manufacturing or owning a vehicle which cannot do 75MHP safely is not a circumvention of the vehicle code.

      At any rate, products which cannot be copied to the full extent of copyright law have been around much longer than DRM as it's popularly known today. Software copy protection has been around since the 1970s, and copy-resistant documents came around shortly after the advent of xerography.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    143. Re:uh oh.... by jZnat · · Score: 1

      I'm more curious about how they know that the 700Mb file that you created from /dev/urandom and called Transformers-cam-divx.avi is a pirate film?? Actually, I think the software wouldn't consider that pirated because you used dashes instead of full stops. All pirated films follow the same [basic] naming schema (in a simple regex form, disregard /.'s automatic spaces): Movie\.Name\.(Year\.)?Source\.(Encoding\.){1,3}Rel easeGroup\.(\[CRC\]\.)?avi
      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    144. Re:uh oh.... by shark72 · · Score: 1

      "Considering that the MAFIAA act like the police, work with the police, even train some police forces and help write the laws. Then aren't they effectively the government? Entrapment would seem an accurate distinction to me."

      "Entrapment" is not the same as a honeypot, or a sting operation.

      Wikipedia has a pretty good article on entrapment. It you truly believe in your heart that this sort of honeypot is entrapment, you may want to change the Wikipedia article. You're not the first slashdotter by a long shot to consider this kind of thing to be entrapment; perhaps the wikipedia article could use a "Layman's Understanding" in addition to the correct definition.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
    145. Re:uh oh.... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Ah, but the Greeks didn't have a problem with it, now did they?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    146. Re:uh oh.... by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Now, if this were really a stolen ring you'd have to return it, but if it comes to light that the store were acting as an agent of the original owner, but was not explicitly authorized to sell the ring, you would maintain ownership. No, because the agent in this case is not authorized to sell or to license. They are authorized to investigate. Whatever they do in the course of that investigation does not affect the fact that they are not authorized to cause new licenses to come into existence. Furthermore, media sentry is not representing itself *as* giving you a license to the work. No license exists without an invoice, or an account which clearly maps an individual to a copyrighted work, or the possession of a physical license (e.g. an official CD). MediaSentry isn't selling you something that's too good to be true--they're not selling it at all. They're presenting it. I suppose my example is flawed in that way, so you can amend it to say that the store clerk offers to give you the ring for free. The reason I didn't do that the first time is because no clerk would have motivation to do so because they'd gain nothing from it, and the "too good to be true" part is the critical one.

      A (signed) recording artist does a few shows and sells CDs out of the trunk of his car afterwards, not realizing (or not caring) about the exclusive distributer clause in his recording contract. If you buy a CD from him, even if you didn't recognize him as the artist, your copy is still a legal copy, because the artist is an agent of the copyright holder. The copyright holder can then only go after the unauthorized distributor, but not the holder of the unauthorized copies. No. That copy is legitimate because CDs are manifestly licensed by virtue of being official copies. Your right to resale of that CD cannot be contracted away, and that CD is legitimate, period. The artist can give it away or sell it to you, provided that those CDs were the artist's property to begin with (either purchased or given to him by the label/distributor/manufacturer/anyone who owned the pile of CDs). If the artist *stole* the CDs from their owner, then you're right back at "being in possession of stolen goods" and you'd have to give the CD back to the legitimate owner, even though you didn't know the CD was stolen.
    147. Re:uh oh.... by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      On windows there is something called Core Force that tries to do something like this, but I don't think it's ready for prime time yet.

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    148. Re:uh oh.... by phorm · · Score: 1

      Their lawyers would probably also argue that if someone wants to make a backup of their legitimately purchased media, then technology exists to make that copy locally and not require that they download it elsewhere

      How would the software differentiate between a locally created backup copy and one that was downloaded?

    149. Re:uh oh.... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      Also thieves go to prison and never see family


      That depends on the family...
    150. Re:uh oh.... by jZnat · · Score: 1

      If you used BitTorrent to download your file, you've also uploaded it. What I do instead is with some movies I backup from DVD, I post them on The Pirate Bay and Demonoid anyhow. I prefer to be part of the civil disobedience rather than a discreet pirate. ;)

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    151. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how much you could hide by just running it in a chrooted environment.

    152. Re:uh oh.... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I don't know about the MPIAA but the RIAA really does try to get heavy police involvement with the raids, they want the police to come down like a mailled fist! If they can get the SWAT team out and the forced entry team to batter down your door for the neighbors to see so much the better. They want the bust to look like the police was busting narco-terrorists running the major meth lab for 5 states to instill fear into others. It's not about your rights to have an archival copy, or your fair-use rights, it's about their being the sole distributor; they don't want the artists themselves to be able to distribute their own work. The difference between ripping your own and downloading is the distribution is always illegal unless you have the distribution rights, where ripping can be fair-use, archival, time/media shifting and therefore legal.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    153. Re:uh oh.... by TheNetDevil · · Score: 1

      Well, in Windows you can do this but it is very user unfriendly. You can create an user for each application, then set the NTFS permissions and then run the application under the credentials of that user. Though there are probably some problems in this approach depending on the application.

    154. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are you using an operating system that is copyrighted?

      Filthy pirate.

    155. Re:uh oh.... by gruntled · · Score: 3, Informative

      Flatly incorrect. It's not a myth, it's the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which modified the U.S. Code with regard to copyright law to specifically give consumers the right to make copies for themselves (and even give away a very limited number of copies to friends and / or family). Here's an analysis from Duke law school: http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/200 2dltr0023.html

      In general, your liability only exists when you *share* items. That is, all the legal actions by the RIAA / MPAA have alleged illegal distribution. Essentially, your behavior exposes you to legal action only when your behavior might negatively impact the market for an item. Arguably making yourself a copy of an item can deprive the owner of the item income, thus negatively impacting intellectual property owner. However, one can argue that in fact you would have never paid for the single copy, and therefore you haven't negatively impacted the IP owner at all. That's why photocopy machines / VCRs, etc. can exist. It's not because the IP owners don't mind, it's that they've (thus far) been unable to convince the courts that such copying negatively impacts their market.

      Giving away copies, however, is a very different matter. No matter how "non-commercial" your activity is, if you give away enough of a product, you'll reduce the amount of money the IP owner can charge for the item, or put the IP owner out of business. So distribution gets you at the top of legal liability list.

    156. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me ask you a question: What if Roland Piquepaille FUCKED YOU UP THE ASS? Would that be "OK"?

    157. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's fine, but if it's user manageable, it's usually virus reconfigurable, too.
      But first, that virus would need access to that config file. Either the user would have to allow that, or the virus would have to perform some sort of privilege escalation (which is its own security flaw).
      Not that there aren't users who would give any privilege to any program that asks politely, but there's really only so much we can do for those users.
    158. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right is not specified in the Copyright Act, you mean. Doesn't mean you don't have the right.

    159. Re:uh oh.... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      So your telling me that if I say, "Here have this ring, and take care of it, but I'm probably going to want it back at some point," but you turn around and sell it, it is theft? Now I know the law isn't always intuitive, and I could be wrong, but if I loan something to you, and you sell it, I think I'm SOL (and next time I won't trust you with my things.)

      I seem to be missing my "invoice, or an account which clearly maps an individual to a copyrighted work" for every CD I've ever bought. Sure I was issued a receipt, but there was no mention of copyright (let alone a clear indication of the copyright holder) in any of that. Copyright exists (at least in the US) without requiring any action on the part of the copyright holder. I hold the copyright on my slashdot posts for instance.

      If I have an agent who squirrels away copies of my material, I can go after that agent, but I can't do anything about the copies in the wild, as those copies were authorized by my agent, and therefore ostensibly by me. Downloading a copyrighted work from a website is illegal, unless the website belongs to the studio, the MPAA, or an agent of either.

      In my CD example, I wasn't very clear. What I meant was the artist is selling CDs from his car, that were his creation, whether live tracks, remixed stuff, or something other than a label sanctioned and factory produced CD. He isn't allowed to produce or distribute them as per his contract since he signed away the copyright. The label can go after the artist, but not the guy who bought the CD, since he bought a CD from an agent of the label.

    160. Re:uh oh.... by Lockejaw · · Score: 1

      Ok, so you are sueing the MPAA for fraud because they set up a site that offered illegal movie downloads
      I'm sorry, your Honor, I didn't realize getting them from the MPAA didn't make it legal.
      If the MPAA is offering movies for download, it doesn't have much to complain about if people accept that offer and try to hold them to it.
      --
      (IANAL)
    161. Re:uh oh.... by ReptilianSamurai · · Score: 1

      I looked at your link, and all I got from it was that you can't download or upload from P2P networks legally.

      Ripping something you've bought is fair use, and perfectly legal in the US. Now the DMCA makes ripping movies with copyright protection on them more complicated, since technically it is illegal to circumvent this protection.

      --
      I installed Linux on a car, but it crashed due to bad drivers...
    162. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You link to a document that does not cover movies or music.

      I see lots of references to software.

      Doesn't seem like a very authoritative source for music/movies.

      But if you say so...

    163. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conniption fits are all the rage these days!
      LOLz. I see wut U did thar!
    164. Re:uh oh.... by lgarner · · Score: 1

      "Instead access to files should be further restricted by process..."

      Such as http://www.novell.com/linux/security/apparmor/over view.html or http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/

      From my experience, Apparmor is far more straightforward.

    165. Re:uh oh.... by etherlad · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting to factor in the origins of Christmas as a Pagan festival. Therefore, theft is anti-pagan.

      Or something.

      --
      Soylens viridis homines es
    166. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a popular myth on slashdot that you have a legal right to rip music or movies that you've bought. There is no such right.

      That page says nothing about backing up movies or music that you've bought, nor does it mention the principle of fair use.

      Methinks you have no idea what you're talking about.
    167. Re:uh oh.... by BVis · · Score: 1

      How would the software differentiate between a locally created backup copy and one that was downloaded?
      Under the MPAA's theory (nobody has a right to make a backup) it wouldn't matter what the source of the copy was (local rip or downloaded) because they don't give you permission to make a backup of ANY sort.

      Hmm, I see your point. My bad.
      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    168. Re:uh oh.... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Instead access to files should be further restricted by process so that eg. Firefox only has permission to read/write to its cache, bookmarks, and download folders and that's it. If you need to upload, it should be forced to use a common API to beg the user for permission to even view uploadable files. ...
      Apple, Microsoft, and (consumer oriented) Linux devs should start working on this now.

      Microsoft released it with Vista. It's called "UAC" and was almost universally hailed as a really bad idea. Apple makes fun of it in its commercials.

      People claim they want secure applications, and then bitch when they have to click something to allow it to do something that appears insecure. People demand APIs to accomplish certain tasks, then bitch when malware uses the same APIs. It's a no-win situation, and Linux on the desktop is going to have to deal with it in spades when it becomes mainstream.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    169. Re:uh oh.... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies.

      Now pay attention, this is important stuff.

      In our country, rights are set to "on" by default. Unless a federal or state law, or city ordinance prohibits something, you can do it. The Copyright Act does not have to authorize something -- laws prohibit actions.

    170. Re:uh oh.... by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      ...(as in, is there a difference between ripping a movie yourself and downloading a copy of it?)

      Both are illegal in the US.

      There is a popular myth on slashdot that you have a legal right to rip music or movies that you've bought. There is no such right.

      You are wrong. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992* allows for analog and digital copying of copyrighted audio works for home use without any copyright protection. It is perfectly legal to make a copy of a copyrighted audio (or software) work for personal use, and no amount of FUD by the MPAA or RIAA will change that fact (although they may have some success simply changing the law, if we let them). The right to backup and/or change the medium of a copyrighted work is protected under fair use, and various legal amendments to copyright. Go pedal your FUD elsewhere.

      *: 17 USC 1008

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    171. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can call it whatever you like
      Ok, I'll call it "copyright infringement," since that's one of the few terms that wasn't picked for rhetorical purposes. The only reason the Music And Film Industry Associations haven't called it "puppy stabbing" is because people would probably laugh at them for it.
    172. Re:uh oh.... by AndersOSU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As much as I appreciate the funny mod, I was making a serious point here. There has never been a free information utopia. Information is hoarded, especially when it confers an advantage to one group. Whether it be stone cutting, iron (or steel) smelting, beer recipes, gunpowder, power looms, steam engines, hardware architecture, or software, those who gain a political, military, or economic advantage from the technology are very reticent to share.

      It just so happens that the industrial revolution made us much better at deciphering other's secrets. It is no coincidence then that the birth of IP law happened around the same time.

    173. Re:uh oh.... by hiroller · · Score: 1

      There is no other provision in the Copyright Act that specifically authorizes the making of backup copies of works other than computer programs even if those works are distributed as digital copies.

      Actually it does if you read it correctly. According to the one line quoted above, the Copyright Act only pertains to computer programs only and anything else is not covered under it, including CDs and DVDs distributed on digital media. So you can backup your disc of MS Office 2003 but not your copy of George Clinton and the P-Funk Allstars

    174. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reality distortion filed is the one you are creating to rationalize theft.

    175. Re:uh oh.... by BecomingLumberg · · Score: 1

      Here is the real question though - If the MPAA is an agent of the rights holders, and they are offering these files... is downloading them still illegal?

      --
      If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
    176. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just pointing out that something is either illegal - or it isn't. Yeah, the law is just like that - no room for interpretation.
    177. Re:uh oh.... by jonfelder · · Score: 1

      So your telling me that if I say, "Here have this ring, and take care of it, but I'm probably going to want it back at some point," but you turn around and sell it, it is theft? Now I know the law isn't always intuitive, and I could be wrong, but if I loan something to you, and you sell it, I think I'm SOL (and next time I won't trust you with my things.)

      You're wrong. The key word here is loan. If I give you something, it's yours and you can do whatever you want with it. If I loan you something, and you sell it, you owe me the value of the object. In legal terms a loan means that the object is not yours and that you have a responsibility to return it when asked in the same condition that it was loaned in.

      So even if you don't sell it, but you break it, you owe me for the cost to fix it.

    178. Re:uh oh.... by rkcallaghan · · Score: 1
      crucini wrote:

      There is a popular myth on slashdot that you have a legal right to rip music or movies that you've bought. There is no such right.(with link to copyright.gov page) My good friend, the page you linked to does not say that. The entire page talks about software, not movies or music. The closest thing on the page is a reference to the fact that you can't buy a "backup" from someone else -- your fair use backup must be made by yourself.

      You do have the right to "rip" (meaning place-shift) movies and music that you have bought; provided you do so yourself, or someone on your behalf working directly with your personal copy does so, and can do so without violating the DMCA (meaning DVDs are probably out).

      IANALly,
      ~Rebecca
    179. Re:uh oh.... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      Blue pill? Sorry, maybe you need V!agararara but I'm fine.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    180. Re:uh oh.... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if I sell your ring, which obviously would make me unable to return it, then you can sue me for its value. It is my understanding, (and again I could be wrong) that the person who bought the ring owns it free and clear. I can't repossess it, and you can't (legally) try to recover it by reporting it stolen.

      Media Sentry is like me in this situation, they didn't behave appropriately with the material they were entrusted with, so the MPAA can sue them. However, since they were in fact entrusted with the material, the people who obtained it through them have legitimate (if unauthorized) copies and are in the clear.

    181. Re:uh oh.... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      There is a popular myth on slashdot that you have a legal right to rip music or movies that you've bought. There is no such right.

      From RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia:

      "[t]he Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user's hard drive... Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act."

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    182. Re:uh oh.... by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      "Entrapment" is not the same as a honeypot, or a sting operation.

      Fair point, I guess the fact that people are looking for the stuff (already attempting the act) before they get to the honeypot site. Means that they would have committed the crime without MAFIAA intervention, so no entrapment.

      Wikipedia has a pretty good article on entrapment. It you truly believe in your heart that this sort of honeypot is entrapment, you may want to change the Wikipedia article. You're not the first slashdotter by a long shot to consider this kind of thing to be entrapment; perhaps the wikipedia article could use a "Layman's Understanding" in addition to the correct definition. That's because I am not the first /.er who is not a lawyer.
      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    183. Re:uh oh.... by jonfelder · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, that's true. I was just commenting on your original statement that said you were SOL, and that you simply don't lend them stuff in the future.

    184. Re:uh oh.... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Right, so you're not completely SOL, but you're not getting your ring back, and you have no case against the third party purchaser. Sorry, I didn't thoroughly think through that post.

    185. Re:uh oh.... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      His girlfriend's probably a Sheppard thunker. The Gateworld forum's gender distribution would surprise you.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    186. Re:uh oh.... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Well, if it's consensual and you're not in Texas, yes.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    187. Re:uh oh.... by db32 · · Score: 1

      If they were doing drive be installs or exploits or something then yes, the better analogy would be the PI breaking in. So since we are splitting hairs. You let someone who you thought was a drug dealer into your house to sell you drugs, but instead it turns out he is just some private party looking to get the reward for turning in criminals, and he calls the cops to report that he found paraphanalia in your house. YOU still let him in (downloaded the illegal movie download speedup software), and it would be unbelievably stupid for you to complain that he didn't tell you he was going to call the cops if he saw anything illegal (other downloaded movies) after you invited him in to sell you illegal drugs (the downloaded movies you were going to get from the site that offered you the speedup software). You clicked install, they aren't breaking the law, quit crying, pay for the movie or don't watch it. Personally I choose don't watch it, most of it is garbage anyways.

      You know how you avoid those the problem? You don't go looking for illegal movie downloads that might be a trap! Sorry, no sympathy, its a stupid argument.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    188. Re:uh oh.... by sycomonkey · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has loses a copyright infringement lawsuit either purposefully broadcast their identity while doing it, or did not hire a competent enough lawyer. I am not afraid of the **AA (mostly because I rarely engage in copyright infringement anyway, but also because if I were caught they would end up paying for my lawyer, and possibly extra for my pain and suffering. I can play this game too, I understand my rights and many of the legal issues involved. I don't even technically own this IP address, the ISP bill isn't under my name, and it is used by several people.)

      --
      --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
    189. Re:uh oh.... by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      It isn't. "Stealing" private information isn't theft legally or morally. You don't commit theft of credit-card numbers, you commit fraud of credit-card numbers.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    190. Re:uh oh.... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Well...just a few problems.

      1. They weren't advertising it as free MPAA approved movie downloads so that "getting it from the MPAA" argument is almost completely garbage
      2. They could offer movie downloads, get you to download their speedy client thing, check for other illegal movies and *gasp* not let you download movies from them. So right there "getting" is pretty much destroyed because "download our download speedup software so you can download the bootleg movies we have faster" doesn't invalidate "oh, we forgot to tell you we have no bootleg movies for download".

      Yes, they are grasping at straws. Yes they are a dying business that would rather legistlate profit than to adapt to the new world. No, they aren't so freaking retarded that they would actually let you download movies from them while convincing you to download their illegal movie checker software.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    191. Re:uh oh.... by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      remember, ignorance of the law is not a defense When Congress, just the federal level, creates over one thousand new laws every year I think it's nothing short of fraudulent, and certainly predatory, to expect everyone to know every aspect of the law.

      Another fine example of why the Constitutional framers included the 9th and 10th Amendment for the purposes of KISS. What true patriot encourages a government which actively engages in a game of creating laws for the rather ambiguous purpose of catching people who don't stay up 24/7 reading the Congressional RSS feed?

      You don't see the obvious problem in your statement?
      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    192. Re:uh oh.... by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      I think it started when Prometheus gave fire to the Greeks.
      Yes, but Prometheus got sued by the Fire Industry Association of the Gods (FIAD) and was sentences to have his liver pecked at by a hungry eagle for all time. And you thought the RIAA was tough!
    193. Re:uh oh.... by merreborn · · Score: 1

      Haikus are easy
      But sometimes they don't make sense
      Refrigerator

    194. Re:uh oh.... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "How on earth can a nation with such ridiculous laws still consider itself free?"

      It was said once that "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose", so in this interpretation US is truely free, as everything we used to be able to do has slowly been taken away from us.

    195. Re:uh oh.... by mpe · · Score: 1

      Even the summary covers this: The hook was to get people to download the client which searched for "other copyrighted files."

      It's unlikely to be able to look very well. Possibly just the equivalent of a "web spider" searching the local file system for certain filenames. Even if it could actually identify "other copyrighted files" how's it going to know what the applicable laws are? Those relating to "spyware" as much as copyright...

    196. Re:uh oh.... by No+Tears+In+The+End · · Score: 1

      In such a country, we can say just about anything we choose about the people who run the country without being fed Polonium.

      I repeatedly talked about how morally and intellectually bankrupt the Clinton administration was and millions of people talk about how stupid President Bush is and none of us glow in the dark and we haven't been fed dioxin.

      LK

      --

      -You can cry, but you'll still die. There'll be no tears in the end.
    197. Re:uh oh.... by Lockejaw · · Score: 1

      1. They weren't advertising it as free MPAA approved movie downloads so that "getting it from the MPAA" argument is almost completely garbage
      Yeah, anyone who's been downloading from there was pretty clearly going for illegal downloads. Even if it were a criminal investigation, you wouldn't really be able to claim entrapment. OTOH, I could imagine some people going there now that it's known that the MPAA is behind it.

      So right there "getting" is pretty much destroyed because "download our download speedup software so you can download the bootleg movies we have faster" doesn't invalidate "oh, we forgot to tell you we have no bootleg movies for download".
      Actually, that might be ruled misrepresentation.
      --
      (IANAL)
    198. Re:uh oh.... by mpe · · Score: 1

      MPAA call it theft because it causes a loss in profit.

      Given that this industry is notorious for creative accounting it would be hard to prove this in the first place.

      This is of course assuming people would otherwise purchase/rent the movie, which is far from clear.

      It dosn't help their case that they ask for "settlements" which have no relationship to the price of a movie ticket, rental or even the retail price of DVD/VHS.
      There are also two other possibilities. That there are people "buying" primarily because they have seen a pirate version. The final, possibly actually the majority of cases, situation. Is of people who would (or even could) not "buy" the whatever. It's perfectly possible that staggered "release dates" (including previews) actually promote piracy.

    199. Re:uh oh.... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Or maybe like when the druggie calls the cops because the dealer sold him fake coke."

      This is actually a crime, it is distribution of a controlled substance in lieu of.

      "The next thing you are going to tell me is that when the cops pretend to be drug dealers to catch druggies you want them to be wearing DEA uniforms."

      No i think the law is clear on entrapment and if the officers are soliciting sales then yes the case should be thrown out.. this is the same thing the MPAA is doing, soliciting illegal activity.. they should be charged with conspiracy.

      BTW do you have something against people who use drugs?

    200. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows UAC?

    201. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bear craps in woods
      he does not wipe his butt hole
      this is not haiku

    202. Re:uh oh.... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "They can use methods that are above the laws in order to achieve this."

      Are you actually saying that the police are above the law?

    203. Re:uh oh.... by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Isn't there a firefox plugin that color-codes known "fake" sites?

    204. Re:uh oh.... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is an interesting idea, and, unlike many of the MPAA's ideas, actually appears to be legal. The software could literally describe exactly what it was going to do, scan your computer for media files and share the list, and people would agree, because that's what P2P software does.

      OTOH, I'm not entirely certain under what logic the user would be doing anything illegal, either.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    205. Re:uh oh.... by guardian-ct · · Score: 1

      Easy, click on the "Alter Relationship" button next to their name, and change em to "friend". Done :)

    206. Re:uh oh.... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      You are not legally allowed to make backup copies of music as a matter of law. There is no law allowing it.

      However, the courts have said that personal copies, for format shifting and/or backup, are in general legal. They decided that way back when tape players came out in cars and people starting copying their records to tape. (So, despite what the RIAA tried to claim about ripping mp3s being inherently, almost that exact issue was settled decades ago.)

      This is often mistakenly called 'Fair Use', but is not what fair use actually refers to, which is the limited ability to copy parts of a work, even giving that to others.

      However, ripping DVDs is still illegal under the DMCA.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    207. Re:uh oh.... by TheFlamingoKing · · Score: 1

      Yes, but probably not in the sense you are thinking.

      A police officer can shoot and kill a civilian and not be charged with murder. Therefore, the law of murder does not apply. However, there are rules about who they can shoot without being charged. The officer is not above those laws (or maybe shouldn't be, officers have been caught planting evidence and lying under oath before.)

    208. Re:uh oh.... by Prune · · Score: 1

      I wish I had family.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    209. Re:uh oh.... by db32 · · Score: 1

      I can shoot and kill a civilian and not be charged with murder, and I am not law enforcement. A Cop can shoot and kill a civilian and be charged with murder (as has happened frequently). So no they are not above the law, nor are the laws any different for them.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    210. Re:uh oh.... by db32 · · Score: 1

      Well thats the problem, those people who would go anyways are idiots. "I am going to go wave toy guns at cops so they get in trouble when they shoot me" is the same line of stupidity. No sane judge is going to defend the downloader in this scenario, and I think demanding that they do is irresponsible if we actually want to maintain that grandma isn't really downloading mp3s. If you really want to make a case that the RIAA is harassing innocent people to scare people then you have to stand up and drop the hammer on the people who really are guilty. Like their methods or not, they ARE right that many of these people are violating copyright. If the community outs the real offenders it protects us from insane lawsuits, it makes the aggressors look bad for attacking the innocent, and *gasp* if we don't buy the horseshit they are selling then maybe the market will actually start to adapt to something we would be happy to participate in.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    211. Re:uh oh.... by db32 · · Score: 1

      I still don't feel sorry for criminals busted by criminals because ultimately they were doing something illegal. Crying foul that you got busted doing something illegal because the person catching you was doing something illegal is stupid. As far as entrapment goes I have a hard time believing a judge would go for that if they found a website and tried to go in and get free movies. The big problem with entrapment (specially in the case of drugs) is that most people are scared of the drug dealer pushing on them and will just throw some money to make the scary guy that probably has a gun go away. If I was surfing the web and found "Illegal drugs here! Buy now!" and it turned out to be a cop...well I don't think I would get far claiming entrapment. The kiddie molesters certainly don't get very far with those claims when its a cop and not a underage girl/boy.

      And yes, I have seen meth, coke, acid, etc ruin FAR too many peoples lives to not have large issues with people using them and or selling them. Now a couple of potheads I really don't give a rat's ass about, but smoking a plant that you can find growing in a ditch and snorting stuff that came out of a chemistry set are two very different things. But more than that, it was just the easiest thing that came to mind because I have seen multiple stories in the news of dealers calling the cops when someone stole from them, or druggies calling the cops when the dealer sold them bad stuff, or any number of things like that of such unbelievable stupidity that it is hard to justify not letting them rot in a cell somewhere.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    212. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but what about DRM? I say that if they restrict our rights, we fight for more! An Eye For An Eye!

    213. Re:uh oh.... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      How's it theft if somebody who has paid their TV licence, which entitles them to watch TV programmes, watches a TV programme that they are entitled to watch by virtue of having paid for it? What is the thing that somebody used to have before the programme was watched that they no longer have afterward?

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    214. Re:uh oh.... by crucini · · Score: 1

      Ripping something you've bought is fair use...

      The linked page does not support that assertion. In fact, it weighs strongly against it. Note criterion 3:

      amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;

      The implication is that copying a small section of a work is more likely to be fair use. Reading further, in the 1961 report, almost all the examples of fair use mention the brevity of the extract:
      • ...quotation of excerpts...
      • ...quotation of short passages...
      • ...some of the content...
      • ...summary of...
      • ...a portion of a work...
      • ...a small part of a work...

      Which part of that web page allows copying an entire work for you personal enjoyment?
    215. Re:uh oh.... by crucini · · Score: 1

      In our country, rights are set to "on" by default.
      The Copyright Act essentially forbids duplicating a copyrighted work without the owner's permission. Section 117 provides some exceptions. The page states clearly that section 117 does not apply to music or films.

      So your right to copy:
      • was "on" by default
      • was turned off by the Copyright Act
      • was turned back on, partially by section 117 - but only for computer software
    216. Re:uh oh.... by crucini · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992* allows for analog and digital copying of copyrighted audio works for home use without any copyright protection.

      You're right. I overlooked the AHRA. I knew the mp3.com lost the musiclocker case over the mere act of copying CDs they bought - but apparently if they were consumers they would have been safe.

      The right to backup and/or change the medium of a copyrighted work is protected under fair use...

      I disagree. Fair use generally covers copying a small portion of the work for specific reasons.

      Can you link to a credible source that supports your claim?
    217. Re:uh oh.... by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      In my version of events, you as user set the permissions for applications. Applications do not set their own permissions. Accordingly, iTunes or whatever will not be able to mark its files as "only iTunes may read this." ITunes will have no choice about the permissions it gets. Those permissions will be set by the user and iTunes will be forced by the kernel to respect them.

      This is the absolute opposite of DRM.

    218. Re:uh oh.... by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      No, UAC is quite different from my proposal. In UAC, if I want to use certain restricted files, I have to tell Windows, "Let me user these files" every time I want to use them. Basically, what it does it get you to allow it to launch your app as a user with more permissions than usual. Once the app closes, the permissions are gone because the next time you launch the app, it will be as your weakened user not as your strengthened user, and so you can't touch the files again without elevating the app again.

      What I am proposing is quite different. Instead you would say, eg. "Explorer can mess with any files, but RandomP2PAppFromWeb.exe can only mess with its own files." After you set it, those applications would *always* have those same permissions whenever your user launches them until the settings are changed by a super user. No recurring dialog boxes involved.

    219. Re:uh oh.... by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I'm glad someone understands what I'm proposing. If you weren't AC, I add you as to my friends list.

    220. Re:uh oh.... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Wait. You're going to do this by hand? And given that Itunes and other system software is installed by the privileged user, there's no graceful way to prevent such software from hogging more privileges than it needs, right? And you're right back at the root user granting specific groups privileges and setting up permissions for specific file repositories pretty swiftly.

      Such restriction is desirable, but it can get extremely painful to maintain very quickly. It's particularly bad when applications need access to each other's repositories, auch as Outlook and everything else, or web browsers that need access to the local filesystem as file:///.

    221. Re:uh oh.... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      You're confusing distribution with use, which shows your flawed understanding of copyright law.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    222. Re:uh oh.... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      You're ignoring case law. Codified law is only one part of the U.S. legal system. If you want to really understand how the law works, you must study the case law, i.e., the application of the codified laws in the courts. This is one of the aspects of U.S. law that many from non-English speaking countries don't fully grasp. England developed her own legal system, which was passed on to her colonies. This system is structurally different than the Napoleonic Code of the European Continent (and its colonies).

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    223. Re:uh oh.... by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      My Vista test machine got taken so an engineer could use it as a workstation, and I don't have a virtual machine set up yet, so I cannot go confirm this right now. However, IIRC, you CAN assign arbitrary rights to users/processes with UAC, instead of having to click on dialog boxes. However, setting this up IS something of a pain in the ass. :)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    224. Re:uh oh.... by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      Yes. Your girlfriend has no rights to distribute that episode to others. She has the right to record it for her own use, that is it.

      Now, if she watches it with you, well, hell, that'll probably count as a public performance and be wrong too.

    225. Re:uh oh.... by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "And yes, I have seen meth, coke, acid, etc ruin FAR too many peoples lives to not have large issues with people using them and or selling them."

      Hmm, I have seen meth, coke, acid, etc.. have no effect whatsoever on people's lives. I am one of them. and I have seen the opposite. What i have noticed is that the lives that are "ruined by a substance" were in fact ruined because of the person, not the drug.

      Meaning they would have ended up that way anyway whether it be from drinking, suicide, sleeping around etc.. when someone is on a path to destruction and cares not what happens it matters little what method they use.

      But by all means punish me because others could use something irresponsibly, also lump me in with them because my personal freedoms mean nothing to me.

      "Crying foul that you got busted doing something illegal because the person catching you was doing something illegal is stupid."

      No it's not, you either enforce the law across the board or not at all.. selective prosecution is not Justice.

      Reading your post i don't think you have a full grasp of the entrapment laws (in the US). If a citizen would not have committed a crime unless for the encitement of an officer of the court, that is entrapment.

      Cops have to walk a very fine line to be able to avoid cases being dismissed because of entrapment, if you ever watch the cops shows with the prostituion stings you will notice that the undercover lady does not solicit actions from Johns, she asks them plainly what they are looking for, what are they doing etc.. they don't MAKE any offers, just accept them.

    226. Re:uh oh.... by The+PS3+Will+Fail · · Score: 1

      He wasn't fucking replying to you moron! You're the dumbest asshole on Slashdot. Stop fucking posting. Nothing you have posted is intelligent.

    227. Re:uh oh.... by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      Ah. I'm working under the assumption that UAC is just a broken version of what Apple's been doing for user authorization since 10.0. Basically, they made a pretty version of sudo. I haven't actually played with it yet, just read a little about it.

    228. Re:uh oh.... by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      "And given that Itunes and other system software is installed by the privileged user, there's no graceful way to prevent such software from hogging more privileges than it needs, right?"

      No, that's not it at all. We're clearly having some sort of failure of communication. The proposal is that the system is changed. Today, a typical machine looks like this:

      Root: Can do anything.

      Admin user: Can do anything if they enter their password first and elevate to root. Otherwise can only use files set for their user/group.

      Normal user: Like an admin user, but can't elevate permissions as needed.

      Restricted user: Can only run a few things as whitelisted by another, more powerful user.

      My proposal would add sub-restriction underneath the permissions of individual users. The first time you ever launch an application, you'll be asked to specify whether it gets "Minimium", "Normal", "Trusted", or "Custom" permissions. After that, the system will remember the permissions set for that application and if the same user requests to launch it, it will be loaded with the specified level of permissions. "Minimum" means a system can only read/write files in its own folder, and it cannot read any other folders, except the system folders needed for API access, etc. "Normal" means it can only write to its own area and a common downloads folder, but it can read the same files that the current user can read. "Trusted" means it can read or write anything that the current user can. "Custom" means custom. Of course, applications can request temporary elevation of their privileges from time to time, eg. Firefox is always run as "Minimum" for safety reasons, but you let it read your files for a little while when you want to upload stuff. Privileges should also be able to be set in the file browser, which for obvious reasons will have "Trusted" privileges.

      This system would require a lot of deep kernel hooks to make it smooth (or you can just fake it with an assload of ACLs), but the GUI end of it would be almost as important, since it needs to ensure that users don't just set everything to "Trusted" when the spyware they download tells them to. You can also imagine various minor niceties like saying, "Oh, application X is associated with .XYZ files, so X will be allowed to read/write any XYZ files of this user." That shouldn't be set by the application though, but when you first try to open an .XYZ file, the shell should say, "Right now, there's no app associated with XYZ files, but X claims it can read them. Should I allow that?" If the user says OK, then it should ask, "Well, how about I let it read/write all of your XYZ files, is that, OK?"

      Anyhow, you can imagine more details, but the point is to re-write everything so that A) the user has absolute control over the privileges of every app and B) the user doesn't feel the need to set every app to "Trusted" since the system is intelligent and unobtrusive enough to have sensible defaults and easy to understand dialogues.

    229. Re:uh oh.... by dlthomas · · Score: 1

      ...

      You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).

      In other words, the position of the U.S. copyright office is that if you've purchased songs on iTunes, you'd better make sure your automated backups don't touch it, or you're breaking the law. Hard disk failure? Purchase it again. Probably shouldn't even store it on a RAID.
       
      ... I'm strongly inclined to believe the courts would disagree, though of course IANAL.

    230. Re:uh oh.... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      Same to ya buddy. Evidence actually shows he was responding to me, dimwit.

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    231. Re:uh oh.... by ehrichweiss · · Score: 1

      Nevermind you were trolling and it hid you. How do you keep warm under that bridge during the winter?

      --
      0x09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    232. Re:uh oh.... by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      Two things:

      1. A CD is a manifestly licensed copy. Having the official CD is both necessary and sufficient evidence of being a licensee. I have already said this in prior posts. You only require an invoice for digital files (or have an active account with a service that can confirm your license to the work, e.g. iTunes or Rhapsody).

      2. If the CDs the artist is distributing are remixed or live performances, the artist still owns the copyright. You can't sign away your right to create derivative works of your own creation. While you could technically run into trouble by performing your song without label authorization, there would have to be extenuating circumstances for a court to rule against an artist performing his or her own work despite having surrendered the copyright to their current label. If we're talking about something from a former label, then things get more tricky, but that is outside the scope of anything related to the current issue or the original analogy.

    233. Re:uh oh.... by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      IANAL...

      Exactly.

      Almost exactly... the particular laws that govern the areas the RIAA/MPAA operate in are a lot more murky and difficult for judges to understand or interpret (technology and all). Some states are moving towards having divisions of their judicial system where there are judges with technological training - as well as legal training specific to technology - just to alleviate those issue.

      Regardless, laws change, OR pressure is put on related parts of the industry (DVD player makers, mp3 player makers, etc) to make such things impossible - often brought about by these cartels... and while what you say below is legal - every single one of them are things that the **AA and other bodies are trying to make illegal (through law) AND/OR impossible (through "deals" with the related hardware manufacturers).

      If I watch a TV show live, It's okay. (Even if I don't watch the commercials.)

      Watching live would be ok, but proposals have been put forth to make skipping the commercials impossible or difficult - ridiculous, huh? This would be implemented in a couple possible ways, from synchronized commercials, to the inability to change the channel during one. No, this isnt a joke. I think this one failed, but it has been talked about on some major financial mags.

      If I record a TV show with a VCR and watch it later, It's okay.

      Skipping the commercials may become illegal - or impossible due to potential laws or standards that the industry are pushing (2 phase attack - either make skipping them illegal (pretty much dropped) or make the creation of DVRs that allow skipping commercials illegal - or push vendors to make them regardless of whether a law exists (still being pushed). If they succeed in the 2nd one, then it will be a DMCA violation to circumvent the copy protection on that digital recording or stream to bypass the commercials... neat huh? They are boxing that one in nicely.

      If I record a TV show on a DVR and watch it later, It's okay.

      Yep, it is... though a big push has been put on making such recordings time-sensitive, so they expire after sitting there for x number of days... we'll also see where that one (quietly) goes...

      If I have a friend record a TV show (VCR or DVR) and give me the recording so I can watch it later, It's okay.

      Another one that the industry has tried to change by setting precedents (and failing) and rewriting the laws.

      But back to the main point. These are civil suits - not criminal ones. And in this society (right or wrong), anyone can sue anyone else for anything (that's a civil violation) whether it happened or not. After that, even if "in the right" you still better have a good lawyer, AND hope you have a judge that understands tech law and technology at a suitable level.

      In the past, the **AA have not had to follow the law, because the judges didnt understand those laws or the technology relevant to determining if laws were even being broken. That seems to be changing... and I think this latest scenario is just an example of the **AA trying out a different "business model" - and so far failing with no repercussions.

      BUT...

      If my 'friend' is an unknown person sharing a bit torrent, it's NOT okay?

      Yeah, that isn't ok. Maybe it seems like it should be. Under certain circumstances, based off the law that governs taping things on TV, loaning out a DVD to a friend, etc it would seem legal (those certain circumstances being letting your friend download/view it from your personal torrent - those circumstances would NOT be seeding a torrent so everyone and their dead grandmothers could do the same - that falls under the distribution category - which would be illegal in any of your scenarios).

      Additionally, the many of the laws that govern sound recordings

    234. Re:uh oh.... by The+PS3+Will+Fail · · Score: 1

      No, I was not "trolling". I was responding to your stupidity. It's pretty clear that you can't understand the nesting system of Slashdot. Stay the fuck away.

    235. Re:uh oh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, this is the same guy who has a link to centralKYdating.com. KY dating, eh? that's pretty forward, bringing KY to a first date, dontcha think? unless he's talking about Kentucky, in which case the only difference is that you bring KY to the first date with your sister. either way, he's an inbred trailer park dweller.

    236. Re:uh oh.... by sycomonkey · · Score: 1

      Scarcity is an illusion when you are dealing with digital data. There is no scarcity of something that is infinitely copyable for no costs.

      --
      --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
    237. Re:uh oh.... by Stefanwulf · · Score: 1

      Maybe we need a revolution to take power back from the corrupt government system that has taken over. After all, both the main democratic candidates (Hillary and Barrack) have taken money from the MPAA / RIAA so we cannot expect any change in the next administration.
      Wait...are you actually suggesting that people band together in armed revolt and take to the streets with the stated purpose of violently overthrowing the government of the United States and fundamentally altering the social and political order of the nation - all in the name of copyright reform?
  2. Entrapment or Honeypot? by gbulmash · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can you say "entrapment" boys and girls? I knew you could.

    OTOH, it's not like the people who would have been caught by this were innocents. I dislike pirates only a bit less than I dislike the scumbag tactics the MPAA and RIAA have been using to try to catch them. I'd have liked to see how they were trying to entice people to pirate movies and how their site was set up before I judged how wrong this was on a scale from 1 to 10.

    --Greg

    1. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by martin_henry · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is the worst kind of entrapment....the kind WITHOUT Catherine Zeta Jones.

      --
      www.purevolume.com/martyd
    2. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll be honest, I usually pirate stuff I wouldn't have bought in the first place (which after used, gets deleted since I didn't like it all that much), as a backup (I lost my Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, which I later found in my closet), or if I like it -- I usually but it, for fear of viruses. On the other hand, I run all this software in a Virtual Machine, so if it does have something it shouldn't -- I catch it, or in this case -- they won't find anything.

      Now, I won't defend those that put up MASSIVE archives (100's of GB's). A few songs here and there, ok. But egad.

    3. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by GizmoToy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to defend the RIAA's actions, but I don't know if you can call it entrapment or not. Entrapment, by definition, involves the police persuading you to commit a crime you wouldn't otherwise commit. This is a private entity catching people committing a crime they would otherwise commit. I don't condone their methods, but I doubt you could successfully adopt an entrapment defense.

    4. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      this is definately entrapment, because they hold themselfs out as legit. the act of downloading content itself is not illegal, so how would anyone know this site wasn't legal?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by jombeewoof · · Score: 1

      I would imagine it could be construed as hacking and/or virus/spyware like software.
      Unless they explicitly tell you that the software will be searching your drive and reporting wouldn't that violate several laws that restrict what software authors can and cannot do?

      If this is deemed a legitimate way of finding the pirates, I think this would open up the floodgates for every piece of software written to call home with non anonymous usage and whatever else they decide to mine from your system.

      Also, I wouldn't want any software that I run to send anything to anyone without my explicit permission.
      When I install Gnu/Debian, it asks me if I want to opt into anonymous package usage. That's fine with me because it asks, and I can say no. If it didn't ask, I'm sure we would be calling for the heads of the devs.

      --
      Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
    6. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by spyder-implee · · Score: 1

      It looks like they are really going for the easy targets and not people like (dare I say?) us, that could easily tell this was a bogus site. Personally I find it comforting they are that far behind the game, but feel sorry for the innocent people who do get caught up in this.

      --
      Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
    7. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. Entrapment is a term thrown around quite frequently, but it has an actual legal meaning that is far more narrow than most people understand.

      A court would laugh in the face of anyone claiming this to be entrapment.

    8. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Mistlefoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. Leave Zeta Jones out of it.

      The worst kind would be "The only catch is, after it was installed, it searched your computer for other copyrighted files and reported back."

      I've read the article and glanced at many google links and does anyone have any evidence of this other then a quote on a website?

      If the MPAA tricked me into downloading a bogus file and stored my ip, well, that would be my fault. Such is life. Everyone who visits my website has their IP recorded too. They have that right.

      If the program they get me to download is laden with spyware there are laws for that though. This is the only part of the story that concerns me, and I am sure, concerns them.

    9. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by gerf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem here is that a person may download and install the program with no intention of copyright violations. However, their computer is scanned likely without their knowledge for other, very possibly legal, files. You'd have to read the agreement, rather than click-through it like usual to know this. If they did not warn of complete scans and information being sent back to their servers, then they probably have committed some sort of computer crime.

      I've ripped my CDs into .mp3 files, as have millions of others with movies and other media. What is their reaction to seeing these files? Are you going to receive their threatening letters in the near future? God only knows, but frankly, it shouldn't be tolerated in the least.

      Hell, if they want to charge you with "theft," charge them back with breaking and entering.

    10. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can you say "entrapment" boys and girls? I knew you could. I doubt it would be entrapment in,

      First off the *IAA is not a government agent or acting as one.

      Second, they are not leading these people to commit the crime. They are just holding the door open. Its like a cop(male or female) can dress as a girl and walk down dark steets at night. If (s)he called out "Come on just try and snatch my purse," to everyone who passed by that might be entrapment, now if you just jump her because she looks like an easy target (s)he can bust your ass and you ARE going to jail.

      To the second point, does putting something on a webserver constitue proffering it, or is it just leaving the door open. This is an interesting question because it gets back to who is responsible of distribution when copyrighted material does change hands, the person hosting the file or the person doing the downloading?

      I know most slashdot'ers look at it the other way but I have always thought that hosting the files is not the issue, that person has done nothing. The downloader is the one actually making the copy, writing out a new file. This is likely the wrong leagal position though because it would seem contray to most recent laws like the DMCA, the take down notice would make no sense if the above is true. I don't know what if any case law might clarify but the current understanding of legislators seems to be contrary to my view.
      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    11. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by gbulmash · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Not to defend the RIAA's actions, but I don't know if you can call it entrapment or not. Entrapment, by definition, involves the police persuading you to commit a crime you wouldn't otherwise commit. This is a private entity catching people committing a crime they would otherwise commit. I don't condone their methods, but I doubt you could successfully adopt an entrapment defense."

      It's actually an interesting question... The police have successfully put out honeypot cars (attractive and maybe a bit easier to steal than normal) to catch car thieves, and those convictions have been upheld AFAIK.

      OTOH, I remember in a community college class on criminal law, they discussed when the cops sent a guy out with 20 dollar bills visibly hanging from his pockets and pretending to be drunk, arresting people who tried to roll him. That was ruled as entrapment because the cops made him such easy pickings as to induce people to commit a crime.

      That's why I said I'd have liked to see the site. How much the MPAA/MediaDefender did to lure people to the site and then entice them to download content would determine where it fell on the range from honeypot to entrapment.

      -- Greg

    12. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just entrapment but a search warrant too!

    13. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Unless they explicitly tell you that the software will be searching your drive and reporting wouldn't that violate several laws that restrict what software authors can and cannot do? It's called a EULA. It would be interesting to see exactly what percentage of people bother to read them. Fairly typical, I would expect.
    14. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Amouth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      well here comes the question - they own the copyright - they knowingly put their material out there for people to download - and even created a site that inticed people to download it.. as far as i can see they where just giving it away.

      on the other hand they also installed spy ware on users computers without letting them know ahead of time - that is aginst the law in some states - it is on the same lvl as alotof the viruses out there.

      and if they try to doge the the fact that "they" put it out there by saying it was this "company that does the dirty work" then you point the finger and say - hey did this company have distrubution rights? if not then they are in alot of trouble - if so then they gave the stuff away - and if they say that the company doesn't have distrbution rights but what they where doing wasn't violating the their copyright then well damn many people will be happy to see them say that cause that can be applied so many ways..

      all and all this was EXTREAMLY STUPID of them - and i can only pray that they get their asses burned when they try to take someone to court from this thing

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    15. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      how the fuck do you know they would have commited it if you didn't give them a nice convenient website with family options?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    16. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Fairly typical, I would expect. Er...I meant, "Fairly atypical."

      Funny what difference a single letter can make.
    17. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I agree. This is a honeypot, not entrapment. Entrapment is about actively making you try commit a crime, and even worse.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    18. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Can you say "entrapment" boys and girls? I knew you could.

      Maybe if they brought some kind of lawsuit about the movie you download from them. But what about the ones they find on your hard drive that you got someplace else? You downloaded the "helper" software, did you read the EULA? Maybe you "agreed" to let them look around, and guess what they found!

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    19. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Almost... except with copyright, if they invite you to copy it, then it's not a crime in the first place because permission to copy it would be implicit in the notion of any form of overt invitation to do so. It's neither entrapment nor a honeypot... it's just a giveaway. You put stuff on a filesharing network to enable other people to copy it, and copying copyrighted works is only infringement if it's not done with permission from the copyright holder. Since the copyright holder (or a suitably authorized entity) in this case is the one putting it up for copying, how can it be construed that the copyright holder is *NOT* giving permission to copy?

    20. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Aneurysm · · Score: 1

      on the other hand they also installed spy ware on users computers without letting them know ahead of time - that is aginst the law in some states - it is on the same lvl as alotof the viruses out there. You're assuming that the user didn't agree to it, which isn't stated. It could easily give an option during installation saying "This application may take usage information and information on your other media from time-to-time in order to measure popularity - I agree - I disagree". Just because it reports back doesn't mean it installed this functionality surreptitiously.
    21. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      It's a honeypot if they didn't advertise it and there was no obvious inducement. A PC with open ports can be a honeypot. A PC with open ports and a webpage that says 'hack this PC!!' is entrapment.

      Once they put up a page that days 'download movies free!' it's entrampment, because they've induced someone to commit a crime they (arguably, but that's enough) wouldn't have done otherwise.

    22. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by westlake · · Score: 1
      Can you say "entrapment" boys and girls? I knew you could.

      Can you say "I know the difference between civil and criminal law. The difference between the rules that bind the police and the rules that bind every else?" I am not sure you can.

      it's not like the people who would have been caught by this were innocents.

      Saying that comes pretty close to sabotaging any hope of raising entrapment as a defense. If you are ready and willing to download all those lovely "free movies" and the site is designed to attract the greedy little fool you are --- it's game over.

      Entrapment

    23. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
      Can you say "entrapment" boys and girls? I knew you could.

      By the very fact that the MPAA didn't attempt to take down the site, it implies that it's operating legally.

      By them making themselves easy to find and offering you an opportunity that you don't find elsewhere, you may well be tempted to try something you'd never try otherwise.

      I think that qualifies as entrapment.

      --
      "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    24. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by sleigher · · Score: 1

      There was also a case in the 80's in Florida where they sent the cops out to sell crack on the street corner and arrest the buyers. This was entrapment and all the cases were dismissed. --

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    25. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by EzInKy · · Score: 2, Insightful


      I know most slashdot'ers look at it the other way but I have always thought that hosting the files is not the issue, that person has done nothing. The downloader is the one actually making the copy, writing out a new file.


      How is the downloader suppose to determine if the file being offered is infringing? If people are just expected to assume that everything is illegal then browsing the web pretty much becomes impossible.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    26. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      and if they try to doge the the fact that "they" put it out there by saying it was this "company that does the dirty work" then you point the finger and say - hey did this company have distrubution rights? if not then they are in alot of trouble - if so then they gave the stuff away - and if they say that the company doesn't have distrbution rights but what they where doing wasn't violating the their copyright then well damn many people will be happy to see them say that cause that can be applied so many ways.. I would have thought people had learned this by now.. Copyright holders can pick and choose who they want to sue. There's no law that says they must wield their power or lose it and there's no law that says they must wield their power equally.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    27. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If I understand this correctly, this is something completely different from entrapment and likely to get the RIAA into serious trouble.

      First, if I download copyrighted files from a site run by the RIAA, then this is _completely legal_. What is illegal is downloading such material without permission of the copyright holder. The way this was described, I would have the _permission of the copyright holder.

      Second, if the RIAA installs spyware on my computer, they are in deep shit. Especially if there is nothing illegal on my computer that they could use to blackmail me.

    28. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe, just maybe, the MPAA will not sue them for the files that they downloaded from their nice convenient website, but will drag them to court over the unlicensed files that the suckers had on their harddrives? (Seriously, who installs "download enhancers"? That has got to be the oldest trick in the book.)

    29. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by TheCoelacanth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the program they get me to download is laden with spyware there are laws for that though. This is the only part of the story that concerns me, and I am sure, concerns them. It searches, without permission, for files on your computer and then reports what it finds. It is spyware.
    30. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by skrolle2 · · Score: 1

      I know most slashdot'ers look at it the other way but I have always thought that hosting the files is not the issue, that person has done nothing. The downloader is the one actually making the copy, writing out a new file. No, this is wrong. The one hosting the files, the one that is making the copyrighted material available is violating the copyright. It doesn't matter who is technically making the copying operation, it's the actual spreading that's prohibited. The person that hosts the files has done something, he has made the material available. Any other interpretation is insane.
    31. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the police did this, in some (most?) states, if you're predisposed to commit the crime it defeats a defense of entrapment.

    32. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by skrolle2 · · Score: 1

      The copyright owners MUST have authorized this firm to make the material available on the internet, for everyone, for free. This means that any material obtained this way is a perfectly legal copy. The only way it could not be so is if this honeypot website has some sort of hidden license agreement or too-long-to-read-eula that actually states that you are not allowed to download this material. But if they don't, going to this site and downloading the material IS NOT ILLEGAL.

      That is why they need the scanner program that checks if you have OTHER copyrighted material on your machine that you have downloaded illegally, and this is something they might bust you for.

    33. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I'd have liked to see how they were trying to entice people to pirate movies

      Same here. If they are enticing people to "illegally" download media it's wrong but if not it's different. If they had just set out a honeypot then I have no problem with it.

      Falcon
    34. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      '' By the very fact that the MPAA didn't attempt to take down the site, it implies that it's operating legally.

      By them making themselves easy to find and offering you an opportunity that you don't find elsewhere, you may well be tempted to try something you'd never try otherwise.

      I think that qualifies as entrapment. ''

      No, it is not entrapment. If a cop tells you: "Look, that guy left his wallet on the table, you could just take it.", that is entrapment. If the same cop tells you "Here is my wallet, you can have it", that is not entrapment, that is a present. Taking the wallet is no crime, it is perfectly legal.

    35. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      they knowingly put their material out there for people to download

      Are you certain about this? The files may look like the real thing, but (after skimming the article) I don't see anything to indicate they put the *real* media out there. Seems extremely unlikely to me.

    36. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by xXenXx · · Score: 0

      I think you mean MPAA. This is movies, the RIAA is music.

    37. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by skrolle2 · · Score: 1

      Argh, I'm too tired to follow through on my own posts. Sorry for the multiple posts.

      What this means is that this cannot be entrapment, since by downloading the material they made available, you are not violating copyright, you are not doing something illegal. So a honeypot it is, although if you just skip or block their scanner, there's no way you can be busted for anything illegal.

    38. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      But the RIAA don't own the copyright to the recordings, the member companies do. Even so this is some tossy little subsidiary.

    39. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Seumas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First, my understanding was that uploading was probably illegal, but that the verdict had not come down on downloading. In other words, it is infringement to provide a copy of copyrighted material that you do not own, but it is not illegal to _receive_ a copy.

      Second, what is the point of an application searching my computer to see what copyrighted material I have on it? I ripped my entire CD collection and most of my DVD collection to my file server in the last few years. They would see almost six terabytes of copyrighted material on my machine - ALL of it legitimately owned and purchased by me. What are they going to do, see the enormous number of hits from their software and send the police after me for owning too much content?

    40. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by terrymr · · Score: 1

      The honeypot cars make me laugh - I see the police on the TV telling you not to leave your keys in your car (even in your driveway) because you'll be held liable for damage/crimes comitted with your car if its stolen. Then they're on the TV parking cars on the street with the keys in them so people can steel them.

    41. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by jkgamer · · Score: 1

      IANAL but I'm not sure you could call this entrapment. If the client does not actually attempt to download copyrighted material, but simply seeks out material on the computer, then the person has already committed the crime. All the MPAA is attempting to do is get your computer to snitch you out. However, for those who have friends and family that are not of a ./ level, they may very well believe this to be legitimate. I just spent hours cleaning up a system that was loaded with trojans and viruses. Amongst the software installed was LimeWire Pro. When I confronted my friend about it, informing him of the risks of trading copyrighted material with these P2P applications, he informed me that he had purchased LimeWire Pro so it must be legitmate. (LimeWire wasn't the 'cause' of his problems, but some of the content that he traded with it was.)

      The trouble with all of these cases and business models is that not every consumer out there is aware of these issues. Many grew up making mix tapes for their friends, not fully aware of copyright laws. Mostly due to the fact that most people associated the copyright with the physical media on which it was purchased. It wasn't easily distributed on the mass scale that is possible today. We can't go around jailing Grandma and Uncle Bill because they thought that they were getting a great deal on some old music. We can't lock up Mommy because little sister found a neat way to fill up her little MP3 player. We shouldn't even being allowing these businesses to bully these people into giving up their life savings. It doesn't benefit society at all to do so. It only benefits a few of the elite, who do not need it.

      So both sides need to reach a common ground, one that is beneficial to the artists/corporations and to society as a whole. Business needs to look at new models, and society needs to learn to respect the rights of the owners. Trading a mix tape with a friend doesn't have near the impact as trading it with 5 million internet users. If a solution isn't found soon, we will have to build more prisons to hold those filthy MP3ers. (I can see it now... "What are you in for?" "Dude, I was trading Def Leopard songs, don't #$&*^ with me!") We'd also have to create welfare housing for all those that had their retirement dwindeled away by legal fees. Or maybe we should forget about the prisons and welfare housing and just shoot them. (Oh wait, then we would need more landfills. I wonder if you could convert people to the material used to create CDs? Soylent Blues???)

    42. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by westlake · · Score: 1
      as far as i can see they where just giving it away.

      This argument is plausible only when the site unmistakably belongs to a legitimate distributer --- otherwise you are just another guy whose new refrigerator fell off the back of a truck.

      Juries are middle-aged, middle-class, small-C conservatives. There ain't nothing wrong with their bullshit detector.

    43. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by saxoholic · · Score: 1

      It's not entrapment? But isn't it sort of malware/spyware? and isn't that still illegal?

    44. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by puddpunk · · Score: 3, Informative

      Listen: Entrapment is only entrapment when performed by a law enforcement official.

      The MPAA is not a law enforcement official - as much as they want to be.

    45. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by jombeewoof · · Score: 1

      but your rights cannot be legally taken away even if you do sign a contract negating them.
      I hate to bring up poor analogies but what if I chose to sign myself up for slavery, this would not be legal.
      I cannot under any circumstances sign away my right to privacy or free speech, can I?
      (actual question, I obviously am not a lawyer)

      --
      Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
    46. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      It's not a crime to download movies.. so why would this be entrapment?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    47. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Seumas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IANAL but I'm not sure you could call this entrapment. If the client does not actually attempt to download copyrighted material, but simply seeks out material on the computer, then the person has already committed the crime. How so? If you've ever seen sting videos, they don't arrest you for driving down a street known to be a big prostitute hangout. They don't arrest you for talking to a drug dealer about doing a deal or talking to a hooker about having sex. They only do so after money has been handed over.

      All the MPAA is attempting to do is get your computer to snitch you out. Their attempt is completely invalid. All they can do is prove that you have copyrighted content on your computer. As I mentioned in another post, I rip all of my CD and DVD collections to my fileserver. I have almost six full terabytes of copyrighted content between my music and movie collections. All of it is content I have purchased and legally own. So the only thing they can try to take me to court over (or threaten me with, unless I hand over money to their mob tactics) is for doing something they don't like with their content that I own (ie, converting it into a format I prefer to consume it as).

      As for P2P... really, there's nothing risky about P2P. P2P isn't evil spyware bent on corrupting your computer. Some of the content can, sure.. but... well.. that's what you scan files for with an anti-virus app before running them (if you're on a Windows system, of course).

      As for people respecting the rights of artists and copyright owners? I think people tend to feel less obligated to organizations that themselves have no respect for the consumer or the artist. Personally, I gladly hand over $10 for artists that I love to listen to. I'm glad to help them out and pay for some great material. But I'm not going to give $20 to Sony or Universal or BMG. Even if their artists were something I wanted to listen to. Frankly, I'd rather do without. But a lot of people see copyright infringement as an underhanded thing to do to the corporations just like the way the corporations treat artists and consumers and fans is often underhanded. They get away with as much as they possibly can under the law or even despite the law. The only difference is, what they do is acceptable and they can get away with it, because they have billions with which to lobby lawmakers and politicians and fund court campaigns while the consumer does not.
    48. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      If one couldn't sign away his right to free speech, we wouldn't have NDAs.

      I don't know about privacy, though.

    49. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Why is this not causing a huge number of lawsuits? In the UK, it would be a gross violation of the Computer Misuse Act, and I presume most other jurisdictions have similar rules. They would probably be in violation of the Data Protection Act here, but I don't know which states in the US have similar laws. Download it, let it run and find no files, then sue them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    50. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by tftp · · Score: 1

      No need to be a lawyer. Sign up for a security clearance and then see what happens to your right to free speech or your right to privacy, or to your right to freedom of [international] travel. Generally, soldiers in the army also have very few rights, outside of the right to do what they are told.

    51. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they are complicit in aiding the copyright infringement by their members.

    52. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      One of the following must be true:
      • They are not actually distributing the movies, just claiming that they will long enough to get the spyware on your machine (then they are committing fraud).
      • They are giving away movies, with the consent of the copyright holder, in which case run their client in a VM / emulator and grab the free films.
      • They are giving away movies without the consent of the copyright holder, in which case they are committing copyright infringement on a grand scale. Since the MPAA are clients of theirs, this could be used in court a evidence that they place no value on digital reproductions, and used to limit claimed damages if they sue anyone.
      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    53. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Can you say "entrapment" boys and girls?

      Indeed, you go to their site and download their movies, you are entrapping the MPAA into paying you millions of dollars for breaking into your computer. I recall SONY getting into trouble for this. There need to be more perp walks for the executives who approve this criminal behaviour.

    54. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Second, they are not leading these people to commit the crime. They are just holding the door open.

      Where do you come with that? I've rtfa and I didn't see anwhere where it said one way or the other whether they were leading people or not.

      Falcon
    55. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by ebonum · · Score: 1

      This is interesting. With a little time and money, this presents an opportunity. Do a clean FC 7 install, download one movie and sue the hell out of them. They have plenty of money and, I assume, a very good insurance policy. That makes them an ideal target. If you do get a large verdict, they can pay. Plus, you can aggressively purse criminal complaints and possibly turn this into a class action lawsuit ( the others joining the CA suit might bring too much legal "baggage" cause ). Plus, during discovery, you can ask for huge amounts of data from them and make it all public record. To get the big damages, you will want to establish a pattern of behavior, so it is fair to ask for all document and programs that are similarly designed.

      I have to wonder what this thing would say about my mp3 collection. I've got about 2000 high bit-rate mp3's - all burned from my CD's. I do have some downloaded mp3's, but only for music that is out of print and impossible to find. I'd buy they CDs if only someone would sell them to me. Which is another interesting point. I would like to see legislation that says copyright holders of published media must make their works available for sale - otherwise, the copyright is forfeited and the works go into the public domain. Copyrights are designed to help people get paid for their creativity and recoup T&M in creating the work. Copyrights should not be used to lock up works so that no one ever gets access ever again. (Vanglis' Cosmos music is a example that comes to mind)

    56. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by russotto · · Score: 1

      The RIAA has been delegated the authority to sue on behalf of the copyright holders. If they offer the films for download, and then sue the downloader, and in court claim that while they have the authority to sue, they lack the authority to allow downloads so therefore the downloader is guilty, I think there's legal defenses which apply. Unclean hands, maybe.

    57. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by falsified · · Score: 1

      Oh, don't you know? Copyright and trademark are the same thing!

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    58. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      By them making themselves easy to find and offering you an opportunity that you don't find elsewhere, you may well be tempted to try something you'd never try otherwise.

      Actually if they are offering downloads and they have the permission of the copyright owners then someone who downloads from them is breaking no copyright. For someone to break or infringe copyright then they must not have the permission of the owner however the owner did give permission.

      Falcvon
    59. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by pklinken · · Score: 0

      I don't condone their methods, but I doubt you could successfully adopt an entrapment defense.
      How about the Chewbacca defense?
    60. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Skapare · · Score: 1

      If the site in any way appeared to be representing itself as legal for downloading and/or it could be associated with the movie industry itself, then one could argue they were being offered content by a representative of the content owner, and thus it would be legal. And they may well have intended to not even pursue for what was downloaded from that site. Instead, they would use the results of the software search of your computer (hey ... can I get a GPL version for Linux, please) and see what else you had.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    61. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by syousef · · Score: 1

      They article says they offered complete downloads of movies and "fast and easy video downloading all in one great site."

      I'd call advertising flashing in your face that hey lookie lets make downloading fast and easy for you incentive to commit a crime someone might not otherwise commit.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    62. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by fredklein · · Score: 1

      By that argument, every library with a copy machine is guilty.

    63. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      I dislike pirates too ... but it's unlikely any of the people downloading from that site were pirates. Pirates don't bother downloading media from some Web site somewhere. They just go buy a legitimate copy and make more, because true piracy generally involves illegal mass-duplication of copyrighted materials which are then sold for money. It's a not-so-subtle distinction that's completely lost on most people, but it's an important one under U.S. copyright law. It's also the reason the people the RIAA has been suing haven't been charged in criminal court.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    64. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by trewornan · · Score: 1

      You or I would be in deep shit. Powerful corporations with lots of money get a token slap on the wrist (Sony for example).

    65. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you ripped your CDs and added leet ID3 tags and cover scans to the files so that they happen to have exactly the same checksums as widely distributed illegal copies, I would recommend that you don't admit to it. It's better they get you for downloading than for distributing and being in a copyright infringement group.

    66. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by capologist · · Score: 1

      i can only pray that they get their asses burned when they try to take someone to court from this thing


      I'm not satisfied to wait for that. That spyware trick is criminal, at least in some states. The odds of seeing anybody actually prosecuted for this stunt are damn close to zero, but it's what should happen.
    67. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by toddestan · · Score: 3, Informative

      In this case it is the MPAA doing the spying. Most of the MPAA's content content is distributed on DVDs encrypted with CSS. So unlike CDs where you can legally rip CDs you own to your harddrive, you can't do this for most movies without violating the DMCA by cracking the encryption. So they probably feel pretty safe that if they find any MPAA content on your harddrive (DVD rips), that you've committed some kind of crime.

    68. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      this presents an opportunity. Do a clean FC 7 install, download one movie and sue the hell out of them.

      What do you think this is, some video game where once you find a quirk in the AI you can milk it and the AI doesn't see what you're up to? If you knew about it and went out of your way to become a 'victim,' how much compensation do you think you're due?

      When did you think this up, while recuperating from "slipping" on some water down at the local supermarket?

    69. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Second, what is the point of an application searching my computer to see what copyrighted material I have on it?

      If they found those files in your emule folder or in your bittorrent folder with a .torrent extension, then that might give them enough of a reason to send you a threatening letter. Of course, this wouldn't be absolute proof that you had downloaded these files yourself, or that those files are even illegal copies of the files they're thinking of, but not having absolute proof of an infringement hasn't stopped the RIAA from having taken action before -- and it probably won't stop them from taking action, threatening people, and asking for paiments again.

    70. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 1

      Are there any indications on the website as to what they are doing is illegal? Just because some downloading is illegal, doesn't mean all downloading is illegal. Some intellectual property owners are just fine and permissible of downloading their material.

    71. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by jombeewoof · · Score: 1

      After my post I was thinking a little bit, and the fact that an NDA exists is clear enough evidence that you can under certain circumstances sign away certain rights.

      Being a member of the Armed Services you are in fact signing all of your rights away, you are no longer a citizen, but are now property of the government. (see recently a Man was going to be charged with destroying govt property by giving a kidney to his mother)

      Interesting, I guess I'll have to change some of my assumptions.

      --
      Linux Zealots: Smarter than Mac Zealots, but still zealots.
    72. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      I believe there is an similar concept in civil law that would likely get their cases thrown out in this, though damn if I remember what it's called.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    73. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Funny
      Then they're on the TV parking cars on the street with the keys in them so people can steel them.

      I hear that's how the deLorean was invented.

    74. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      True, they don't need any evidence of anything to drag your ass to court and waste a lot of your money, anyway. At what point, however, does it become an issue for authorities to get involved? Sometimes they send legal notices to someone and drag them to court. Other times, they sick the FBI on the person. I'm not sure what the deciding factor is there, other than level of alleged infringement or degree of potential conspiracy on behalf of the defendants? It would be really interesting if someone were ever not only taken to court in a civil suit, but actually arrested by the police or FBI and pulled up on charges that turned out to be nothing more than the RIAA spying on your computer and finding that you had ripped your own collection to your network for your own use.

    75. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the government isn't going to be prosecuting you for breaking an NDA, as it's a civil matter, not a criminal one. All this right-to-free-speech stuff is just saying the US government won't go all Kim Jong Il on you and beat the soles of your feet with broken bottles for saying "bush is a tosser".*

      Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but that's my take on it.

      * Unless you're a terrorist, of course. National Security is Serious Business.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    76. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by canadian_right · · Score: 1

      We call them bait cars. But our police leave them LOCKED. Reduced car thefts 40% over the last 4 or 5 years here. The cars have video, gps, and remote control so the police can kill the engine and arrest the thief.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    77. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Myopic · · Score: 1

      Yeah. The important part is whether the person would commit the crime anyway. So, just putting out a car and waiting for it to be stolen, that's a passive thing, no person will be induced to steal the car unless they were going to anyway. The other situation puts out an attractive criminal opportunity and actively induces people to commit crimes they might not otherwise commit. I'm sure some other examples would be harder to balance, but the two you gave are good examples on either side of that line.

    78. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      It's actually an interesting question... The police have successfully put out honeypot cars (attractive and maybe a bit easier to steal than normal) to catch car thieves, and those convictions have been upheld AFAIK.

      There's a fundamental difference. The police don't stand beside the cars and entice passers-by to steal them. They place cars, generally attractive (customized with skirts, rims, performance tires, stereo equipment, etc.) in high theft areas. They surveil the vehicle and monitor the theft system.

      Now, what's the difference between the police parking a Pimped Honda in a parking lot and Joe Citizen parking HIS Pimped Honda in a parking lot? If a thief is going to steal one, it might as well be the one that belongs to the local constabulary so we wind up with one less car thief on the road.

      That, and the video footage and later explanation by the would-be thieves is priceless stuff. :)

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    79. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by dynamik · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you may find that 'format shifting' is illegal in your state / territory. A lot of the "backup" rules changed when they revised the DCMA.

    80. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by joystickgenie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess you never heard of the problems that book publishers gave libraries when copy machines were first installed.

    81. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I have several movies on my hard drive here, most of them MPAA.
      I have recorded them from TV, mostly at night or when at work, to watch when I have time. This is perfectly legal, despite what MPAA might wish.

      Yet, if all they do is scan for video files that matches content they have the copyrights to, they'll get quite a few hits here.

      Not only is this both fraud and breaking the DMCA (they circumvent an encryption device -- Windows firewall), but it's also making a mockery out of court procedures, where they go on a fishing expedition and prosecute people without any substantiated reason to believe that the copies on the hard drive are, in fact, obtained in an illegal fashion, and not, say, through BeyondTV or Windows Media Center.

      It seems rather clear that MPAA is desperate if they feel the need to break so many laws to stop some potential infringers. Hopefully, this will be one of the nails in their coffin.

      --
      *Art

    82. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Koohoolinn · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what's worse. Have you seen that film?

      --
      Deze sig is in 't Nederlands geschreven.
    83. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Pofy · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, in many countries it is perfectly legal to make such copies. So the program can also determine for example WHERE the copying occured or other circumstances that may affect it? It can I assume also determine WHO created the copy. Perhaps the files has been legally bought in such a way that they can be copied (even in the USA)? It is the ACT of copying that is illegal not the possession of a file that hapens to have a copyright.

    84. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Pofy · · Score: 1

      >The one hosting the files, the one that is making the copyrighted
      >material available is violating the copyright. It doesn't matter
      >who is technically making the copying operation, it's the actual
      >spreading that's prohibited. The person that hosts the files has
      >done something, he has made the material available. Any other
      >interpretation is insane.

      Both making a work available to the public (the uploader) and the creation of a copy (the downloader) can be copyright infringment. So in many cases, both the persons are commiting copyrightinfringement.

    85. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Durkheim · · Score: 1

      And how would a VM prevent them to have your IP adress?

    86. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when you say innocent, those would be the people using this site to get copyrighted music for free right?

    87. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by iainl · · Score: 2

      It absolutely wouldn't. But the only illegal act they're trying to catch here is the presence of other media files on the drives. Running a VM is probably the swiftest and easiest way of stopping it seeing any other files you might happen to have lying around.

      Of course, if I ran the program on my machine, the RIAA would probably jump to malign conclusions about the 55Gb of legally ripped music from my own CDs that exist in my iTunes library. I wouldn't put it past the MPAA to think that my 100Gb file called "Bourne Supremacy.wmv" is a dodgy copy of the movie, rather than the HD-DVD trailer, either.

      But while I know they're legal, I still wouldn't want to waste time and money telling a court of law that.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    88. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by iainl · · Score: 1

      Some of us are nerdy enough to not only download movie trailers in HD quality from assorted Studio-provided legal sites, but often leave a fair few of them lying around. Given what we already know about the Media Sentry tactics, how do you expect them to react to my (perfectly legal) directory of 100Mb+ wmv and m4v files that all have the titles of movies?

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    89. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by dave1791 · · Score: 1

      I'll reckon that buried in the EULA somewhere is a "we get to scan your hard drive" clause. Using the software is aggrememt to being scanned. Kind of hard to sue when you "agreed" to it.

    90. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by penguin_dance · · Score: 1

      How about VIRUS? This is no better than some kiddie script turning my computer into a zombie or having it do anything else I've not agreed to. It's beyond spyware.

      --
      If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
    91. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Entrapment, by definition, involves the police persuading you to commit a crime you wouldn't otherwise commit. Exactly, the POLICE. It is always illegal for private citizens to entice people into committing crimes.

      However, I don't see how this could hold up in court. Frankly, I really don't know how ANY of these lawsuits go forward against anyone. I, personally, would go pro bono and simply deny everything. They don't (and won't) have the contents of my hard drive so I would simply argue: Wasn't me. They'd say they have my IP address which they confirmed with my ISP and I'd tell them that IP addresses can easily be spoofed so it's not enough to determine identity. I'd get one of networking expert friends to testify to this (because it's true).

    92. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by ebonum · · Score: 1

      I understand your point. However, this is the world we live in. People will buy 1 share in every company on Nasdaq hoping for a scandal so that they can lead a class action lawsuit. This is perfectly legal. Don't like it. Get the laws changed. People who engage in illegal activity deserved to get hit with criminal prosecution and suffer civil actions. You use their "product". You suffer damages. Laws are violated. You have the right to sue. This is not faking an injury. You might be able to download the accelerator software without downloading a movie and violating any laws yourself. Personally, I have no problem screwing over the MPAA. Especially we they violate the laws of the United States. Perhaps you are someone who feels the CIA and MPAA are above the law... If so, lobby to have the laws say precisely that.

    93. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      In the UK at le4ast, the Data Protection Act would prevent this information for being used for purposes other than the stated purpose, and for the information to be kept no longer than required to fulfil the stated purpose. If the purpose is to measure popularity, that is all it could be used for. If there is no need to retain information on individual accounts to measure popularity of material, then they could not retain this information either, or even send personally identifying information with it.

      So in your example, using this system to catch potential infringers would be illegal under the Data Protection Act, even if it didn't violate the Computer Misuse Act.

    94. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Aneurysm · · Score: 1

      Fair point, I also live in the UK.

      However, many people who use the site would not be from the UK, and how does the Data Protection act work if you are accessing a non-UK site? Do they need to abide by the Data Protection Act, or do you accept the laws operating within the host sites country. Interesting question, and I don't know the answer.

      A simple rewording of the message could circumvent the DPA anyway. Let them know that their data is going to be used to check for media on their computer and that this data will be shared with the MPAA. I bet that a huge number of people won't really know what this means and will click accept, and another large chunk will be clicking next without really reading anything that is appearing on screen.

      Finally, the DPA states:

      Data must not be disclosed to other parties without the consent of the individual whom it is about, unless there is legislation or other overriding legitimate reason to share the information (for example, the prevention or detection of crime). If copyright infringement is a crime, then they could probably ignore the DPA because of this provision, however you're probably in entrapment territory again.
    95. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Targon · · Score: 1

      There are some interesting aspects to this one though. Taking of physical property without permission of the owner is illegal, no question about it. In the case of downloading of copyrighted materials, if the copyright holder gives away a copy for free and doesn't indicate that it is an illegal copy, that is fully legal.

      The real illegal activity is when those who download music UPLOAD it as well. It is VERY VERY difficult to convict someone of illegal downloading, but if you are also uploading it, you are an active part of copyright violation, and that is where they will nail you to the wall. There are enough legal sources of MUSIC downloads to make the issue very complex, but when it comes to movie downloads, there are so few places to download movies and other videos legally that the MPAA can catch you.

    96. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cops also send out young policewomen dressed as hookers who then arrest anybody who tries to offer them money for sex. The courts say this isn't entrapment.

      Lucky for us slashdotters, nerds usually don't approach women. E.g. I met all my hookers through friends (who were also mostly hookers).

      Twenty bucks for a hooker and you're guranteed to get laid (never pay first). OTOH you get a real date (by "you" I of course don't mean YOU, after all you're at slashdot;) and it will cost a lot more with no gurantee of anything except a lighter wallet.

      Is this the reason why prostitution is illegal in most US states? There should be some sort of out for single geezers and nerds, neither of which can get laid any other way. Prostitution laws are cruel!

      -mcgrew

    97. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a cached page of a wiki-like page about MiiVi.com: http://tinyurl.com/22jyoq
      On it there is a small picture of the page :)... best I could do without too much effort.

    98. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      Very true that people using the site wouldn't be from the UK, and I guess more importantly, the site itself and the organisation isn't in the UK either, so that blows a rather big hole in my DPA argument :) It wouldn't - and couldn't - apply in this case.

      If they were UK based though, I don't think your rewording would help - the purpose of collecting the information must be made explicit - just "shared with the MPAA" wouldn't be enough. If they stated it was for the purpose of detecting copyright infringement, then I guess they could use the data for that purpose.

      In the UK, copyright infringment isn't a crime (yet). It's a civil offence.

    99. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      As far as the question of jurisdiction goes, the DPA 1998 says:

      5. - (1) Except as otherwise provided by or under section 54, this Act applies to a data controller in respect of any data only if-
                  (a) the data controller is established in the United Kingdom and the data are processed in the context of that establishment, or
                  (b) the data controller is established neither in the United Kingdom nor in any other EEA State but uses equipment in the United Kingdom for processing the data otherwise than for the purposes of transit through the United Kingdom.

          (2) A data controller falling within subsection (1)(b) must nominate for the purposes of this Act a representative established in the United Kingdom.

          (3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), each of the following is to be treated as established in the United Kingdom-
                  (a) an individual who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom,
                  (b) a body incorporated under the law of, or of any part of, the United Kingdom,
                  (c) a partnership or other unincorporated association formed under the law of any part of the United Kingdom, and
                  (d) any person who does not fall within paragraph (a), (b) or (c) but maintains in the United Kingdom-
                              (i) an office, branch or agency through which he carries on any activity, or
                              (ii) a regular practice;
                  and the reference to establishment in any other EEA State has a corresponding meaning

      So basically, if you operate in the UK, or have some kind of link to it in relation to your data processing activities, it's covered. The exemption to transit of data through the UK is to allow the UK to route internet data without having to apply the DPA to every packet!

    100. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by merreborn · · Score: 1

      Numerous posters have pointed out the various legal difficulties with the MPAA attempting to pursue anyone using data collected from this site.

      This leads me to wonder if they ever intended to actually do so at all, or if this is merely a psychological tactic: "Don't download, you never know which sites are run by the MPAA and which ones aren't!"

      They don't necessarily have to sue anyone. They just have to scare a sufficient number of people into thinking they might.

    101. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      ot only is this both fraud and breaking the DMCA (they circumvent an encryption device -- Windows firewall), Uh, sorry, bypassing the Windows firewall isn't circumventing encryption (there's no encryption involved).
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    102. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I saw that right after I hit "Submit". I meant to say "circumvent an encryption device like the Windows password or protection device like Windows firewall", but cut it down to make it shorter. Anyhow, it's still a circumvention of technology intended to keep others out of your machine, and thus a DMCA violation. :-)

    103. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Amouth · · Score: 1

      well if it wasnt' real material then they can't do anything to the people.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    104. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      this is the world we live in. People will buy 1 share in every company on Nasdaq hoping for a scandal so that they can lead a class action lawsuit. This is perfectly legal.

      First of all that's ridiculous, because damages will be based on the size of your holding. And it's also substantially different from willfully making yourself a 'victim' as in the original post.

      Don't like it. Get the laws changed.

      You like maybe make it be fraud to intentionally slip and fall in order to pursue a lawsuit? That's already the law. What I was talking about was today's attitude that having something bad happen to you is a stroke of good fortune and a chance to profit. You're supposed to be compensated for your loss, not profit from it.

    105. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Well, if they are smart, they'll look at the file name and realize that they are trailers and not nail you for them. Given the RIAA's tactics, I wouldn't even expect that much from them. If they are clever, they'll keep a hash of trailers they have distributed and automatically ignore them. If they are real bastards, they'll claim that the trailer is copyrighted work (true), and that you have no license to redistribute them (debatable) and go after you.

    106. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by iainl · · Score: 1

      At which point, that raises an important question, actually - if the bastards are just scanning whole hard-drives instead of a specific download area, how heavy is the evidence for an intention to distribute?

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    107. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Kelson · · Score: 1

      This is the worst kind of entrapment....the kind WITHOUT Catherine Zeta Jones.

      Funny story...

      During my last year in college, I had a dual-boot system but ran Linux most of the time, since I'd seen the crazy stuff people were able to do to Win9x boxes over the campus LAN. Early in the year, figuring some sort of file-sharing would be useful, I set up two samba shares, one read-only and one write-only. A folder where I could post things and a dropbox. Within a few months I'd forgotten about the dropbox. Sometime the following year I was cleaning up the system and stumbled across the folder. Embarrassingly, I discovered two very large MPEG files containing Entrapment. Apparently someone had found a writable share, uploaded it with the intent to transfer it somewhere else, and discovered they couldn't get the file back. (This was exactly why I made it write-only in the first place -- so it couldn't be used as a transfer point). I told my brother about this, and he laughed and said, "At the very least they could have pirated a good movie!"

    108. Re:Entrapment or Honeypot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what is to stop people from now claiming, using this as evidence, that the RIAA / MPAA uploads their own content to the 'net - which would mean that it is now 'legal' to download whatever you like.

  3. elsapo by Elsapotk421 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This almost sounds illegal :-/. But hey the MPAA and RIAA are the most important group of people in the world right?

    --
    We came,we saw, we kicked it's ass!
    1. Re:elsapo by tgatliff · · Score: 1

      Or maybe is shows how bad their "Media Defender" technology is... I mean how can you defend it if you are the one giving it away... :-)

    2. Re:elsapo by jeiler · · Score: 1

      It is illegal in the US: Title 18, Part I, Chapter 47, Sections 1029 or 1030 of U.S. Code are good places to start looking, but there are other federal and state ordinances against fraudulently gaining access to "access devises."

      --

      If you haven't been down-modded lately, you aren't trying.

      Sacred cows make the best hamburger.

    3. Re:elsapo by nacturation · · Score: 1

      We came,we saw, we kicked it's ass! Why did you kick it is ass? http://www.angryflower.com/itsits.gif
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    4. Re:elsapo by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      Ohhhh, if you want it to be possessive, it's just I-T-S,
      But if it's supposed to be a contraction, then it's I-T-apostrophe-S...
      Scalawag!
      -Strong Bad
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  4. EULA by cpt.hugenstein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would think that this process of detection would have to be spelt our pretty clearly in the eula for it to even be feisable for them to try to use this against users.

    1. Re:EULA by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      Do people even read those? For all we know, it could quite clearly state that.

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    2. Re:EULA by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      I would think that this process of detection would have to be spelt our pretty clearly in the eula for it to even be feisable for them to try to use this against users.

      Maybe they just rely on our impatient fingers to click right through that EULA without reading it...

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
  5. So where is homeland security? by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    This is obviously cyberterrorism, especially if any government employees download and install that software.

  6. Not to state the obvious, but . . . by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 5, Informative
    The only catch is, after it was installed, it searched your computer for other copyrighted files and reported back.

    Doesn't this violate various anti-spyware laws? For example, here's Illinois' law:

    Creates the Consumer Protection Against Computer Spyware Act. Sets forth provisions for unauthorized collection or culling of personally identifiable information, unauthorized access to or modifications of computer settings and computer damage, unauthorized interference with installation or disabling computer software, and other prohibited conduct. Provides that certain persons may bring a civil action against a violator of the Act. Exempts willful and wanton misconduct from the limitation on liability.
    1. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by gbulmash · · Score: 1

      How much do you want to bet their EULA spelled out exactly what the program did in obfuscated legalese plus had language making you give up all sorts of legal rights and protections, giving them a baker's dozen of various claims for dismissal of your suit.

      But the defense not in the EULA is that if you sued them, the software in question was downloaded expressly for the purpose of committing piracy, so you might have trouble getting sympathy from a jury.

      - Greg

    2. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might have been in the EULA.

    3. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by timmarhy · · Score: 4, Informative

      only an EULA isn't a contract and no one can make you give up legal rights or protections.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Plus one crime has no bearing on the other.

      You can't say 'I murdered him because he was a pedophile'. You get tried for murder, he (if he lives) gets tried for pedophilia. They're separate crimes.

      So they can't say 'we spied on him because he is a pirate' and get away with it. You get tried for copyright infringement, they get tried for breach of privacy laws.

    5. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      What? In general, EULAs are considered legally to be boilerplate contracts. The fact that you, and apparently a mod, think that EULAs are somehow non-binding blows my mind.

    6. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Otterley · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong; at least a growing minority courts have held that a EULA, if agreed to by the party installing the software, is a contract enforceable by law. See, e.g., ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir., 1996).

    7. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, but each clause has "unauthorized" in it. I would think that if you read what the program actually does (assuming that it spells it out) and agree to it then you have "authorized" it.

      Rather like inviting a vampire over your threshold, but you get the picture ....

      Let's face it "unauthorized access to or modifications of computer settings" could be *any* program or driver that you ever installed, except that you "authorized" then to make those settings when you chose to install it.

    8. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by BKX · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the ruling considered it a "form contract" which means that most of the provisions that reduce a party's rights are ignored by the courts. The reason is that there is no (or a very limited) "meeting of the minds", since you were not party to negotiations and had no way to change the agreement. This doesn't mean that form contracts aren't valid, just that the courts are VERY likely to strike provisions requiring things that solely benefit the corporation producing the contract, like arbitration clauses and the such.

    9. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      What? In general, EULAs are considered legally to be boilerplate contracts.

      No, they aren't. Contracts are up-front negotiations, with give and take on both sides, before money changes hands. EULA's don't do that, and aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

    10. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Otterley · · Score: 1

      What you're referring to is unconscionability, which is the doctrine that courts are free to strike particular terms that it finds were oppressive or unfairly surprising to the party against whom the terms are charged. Although courts occasionally do hold that such terms are invalid, they tend to do so on a case-by-case basis, and infrequently as a matter of law. To my knowledge, no court has ever held that particular terms in a click-wrap agreement are per se unenforceable as a matter of law.

      Your assertion that courts are generally free to ignore terms in form contracts that reduce a party's rights is a vast oversimplification; in fact, form contracts are routinely upheld. Only in particularly oppressive cases will a court hold terms in a contract unenforceable -- e.g. the occasional cases you refer to in which arbitration clauses were struck, citing public policy to protect the poor.

      All contracts reduce the contracting parties' rights - if they didn't, there would be no possibility of recovery for breach (i.e. you don't have a right not to perform under a valid contract)! However, clear notice of a contract's terms is required to bind the parties, and if you'd read ProCD you'd have seen that the 7th Circuit determined that a clickwrap agreement provided the required notice. Whether the other party actually read and understood the terms is a subjective test, and contract theory is objective, not subjective.

    11. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      No, contracts are whatever the parties agree to. For example, if you are renting an apartment from anyone other than an individual owner your ability to "negotiate" the terms of the lease are zero. Try it sometime - just say that you find the clause about "no commercial use" oppressive and want it struck out.

      Your ability to negotiate the terms of a loan contract are similarly zero. There is no "give and take" and the relationship where one side has all the power and the other none is quite standard.

      You really should understand what is and what is not a contract.

    12. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they are. Do you know what the fuck a boilerplate contract is? Why are you wasting my time when you obviously know nothing, and couldn't even bother to even do a cursory glance into what I mentioned.

      Contract DO ABSOLUTELY NOT require negotiations. Maybe you should check into shrink-wrap EULAs, too. Which, If you looked into it, this was not. It was however, what you were talking about. And you'd still be wrong.

    13. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by 7-Vodka · · Score: 1
      Don't forget that in a couple of states it might be standard law that a eula is a legal contract.

      Look up UCITA

      Fortunately, most states ended up rejecting UCITA and even passing laws to the contrary.

      Somehow though, I have a vague recollection that congress passed it into national law... Maybe it was a bad dream, 1998 was a long time ago.

      --

      Liberty.

    14. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can't say 'I murdered him because he was a pedophile'. You get tried for murder, he (if he lives) gets tried for pedophilia Minor nitpick: pedophilia isn't a crime, pedophilia is a psychological disorder. Child molestation is a crime, which may be (and probably most often is) motivated by pedophilia. So, you can't actually get charged with "pedophilia", as that's just a mental condition, not an act; and we don't try people just for thinking bad things, only for actually doing them.
      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
    15. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      "Give and take" was not a good choice of words, but you really should understand that's no reason to go and be a condescending dick. With contracts, all parties can try and negotiate, but even if one party refuses to, all terms are still available up front before money changes hands. With EULA's, that is not the case. In fact, if you disagree with the EULA, you just bought a nice paperweight since you had to open the box to read the EULA and now the store wont take it back. EULA's are not contracts.

    16. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      "Give and take" was not a good choice of words, but you are completely full of shit if you keep insisting EULA's are valid contracts. Even if one party refuses to negotiate, all terms in a contract are available to both parties before money changes hands. With EULA's, that is almost never the case. Now get fucked, shithead.

    17. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most child molesters are, if recall correctly not pedophiles either. I think most fall into the category of "sadistic psychopaths" i.e they get their kicks from the power thing, and prey on kids because they make better/easier victims.
      Then there's a "mystery category" where someone just molests a child without any prior, or later attraction to children. Often their own daughter, I believe.
      Pedophiles often have to have additional psychological problems before they become dangerous. Psychosis, or dis-associative disorders for example.
      Then there's also a difference in what legally constitutes a child ( 18 yrs) and what the psychiatrists call a child (prepubescent).

      But I don't blame anyone for mixing up the concepts since the media almost never gets these things right.

      It's what usually happens when clinical or legal definitions get into the hands of people without the education to grasp the finer distinctions. (Consider Linux vs. gnu/Linux, or peoples inability to tell a hard drive from a computer case, or the web vs the Internet.)

    18. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by RobBebop · · Score: 1

      Preemptive strike... SUE THEM!!!

      Can a lawyer from the EFF or anti-**AA camp find a handful of users who had their personal liberties violated by the malicious installation of MPAA-brand spyware. I don't know if you could attach a dollar amount to the value that stealing your personal information is.... but I would imagine a target of a couple hundred thousand dollars per user would be fair (what's the equal to? about pirating 10 songs, before the extortionary "RIAA/MPAA deal").

      Once the MPAA is paying out millions of dollars, maybe they will rethink their business model and start making good films instead of suing their customers.

      --
      Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
    19. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AFIK, it's [anything, not just this] not illegal, as long as you're a corporation, and you're making money by doing it (in the U$A, at least).

    20. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and we don't try people just for thinking bad things, only for actually doing them.

      ahhhh, the pre-patriot act nostalgia just warms the cackles of the heart, no?
    21. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Yep, those were the good old days, before the terrorists won.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    22. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Actually, your nitpick is not so minor. If you kill somebody because they're a pedophile, it's plain old murder. (Though maybe you can play on the jury's dislike for pedophiles and get off on a variation of the Dan White defense.) But if you kill somebody because they molested a child (especially if it's you're child) you'd be very hard to prosecute effectively, and would have all kinds of legal defenses.

    23. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by splutty · · Score: 1

      Agreeing to something illegal in a legal contract doesn't make it legal. This is going to be the stickler for the R*, not the fact whether the EULA is considered a legal contract or not.

      If you and I put our signatures under a legal contract where you allow me to kill and eat you (something that actually happened in Germany), the actual act of killing you would still be illegal, and get me into serious problems. (Of course I don't condone killing nor eating of people, but I'm assuming that's obvious)

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    24. Re:Not to state the obvious, but . . . by Otterley · · Score: 1

      It's true that an agreement to do something illegal excuses a contract for impossibility, but this is pie in the sky - what illegal act is in the contract?

  7. Will we see justice? by TheRequiem13 · · Score: 1

    People should not have to worry about tricks like this. It should be (and probably is) illegal. It should be easily punished.
    Unfortunately, I'm so jaded that I truly believe no one will get so much as a slap on the wrist over this.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Will we see justice? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People should not have to worry about tricks like this. It should be (and probably is) illegal. It should be easily punished.
      Unfortunately, I'm so jaded that I truly believe no one will get so much as a slap on the wrist over this.


      I'm guessing, in the US at least, if they setup the site properly there would be nothing illegal about it. They could host "pirated" movies that the copyright owners gave them permission to use in this fashion; the EULA could specify that they are are allowed to search your machine for files and report back what is found and use the information in any manner they pleased.

      Of course, I would also guess a defendant would get little sympathy for the "I was tricked" defense.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  8. Legality by damadfiddler · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I believe this qualifies as entrapment.

  9. Hmmm ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    If they control distribution of the material and they are providing free downloads, weren't the just giving away their own stuff? Not quite the same way as Prince was, but still.

    1. Re:Hmmm ... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Who? Media Sentry? What makes you think they have any special right to license big media's copyrights?

      There's a reason why they contract others to do their dirty work.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Hmmm ... by brunson · · Score: 1

      But if they haven't been authorized by the copyright holder to distribute this material, then they are guilty of illegal distribution.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      Jesus loves you, I think you suck
    3. Re:Hmmm ... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      And? It's not like their employers are going to sue them.

      I'm sure they had to stipulate that they wouldn't. Note: giving someone a promise you won't sue them for distributing their material for a given purpose is not the same as giving them a license to distribute your material.

      Besides which, what relevance does any of this have? Despite what you may hear coming out of the copyright propaganda factory, it's not illegal to download...

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Hmmm ... by skrolle2 · · Score: 1

      But how did Media Sentry obtain the material in the first place?

      If they were given the job by the copyright owners to create a honeypot site where they offered some material, and if they were given this material by the copyright owners, then that MUST be an implicit license to distribute the material freely. You can't interpret it any other way, can you?

    5. Re:Hmmm ... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Meh, it doesn't matter anyway. There's no law against "possession of unlawful copies"... yet.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:Hmmm ... by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      But that's a crucial point, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but copyright law is written to protect the exclusive right to *reproduce* and *distribute* a work. The person on the receiving end isn't guilty of copyright infringement, except in the case of BitTorrent, etc where there is no line between distributer and receiver.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
  10. EULA? by plams · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unless an EULA actually states that their software shares your harddisk's contents with another party this it's utterly illegal. Everybody reads the EULA's don't they?

  11. A Modest Suggestion by florescent_beige · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stories about MPAA shenanigans could just as easily and correctly be entitled, for example, "Sony Sets Up Fake Site..." (Or Disney, or Universal, or Paramount, or Warner). MPAA is, after all, simply their agent in these matters.

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
    1. Re:A Modest Suggestion by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
      Stories about MPAA shenanigans could just as easily and correctly be entitled, for example, "Sony Sets Up Fake Site..." (Or Disney, or Universal, or Paramount, or Warner). MPAA is, after all, simply their agent in these matters

      Or, you could just link to the Wikipedia site and not get mod'ed down.

      I can get mod'ed down all day because this user name (iknownuttin) is owned by a consortium of folks who speak their minds and doesn't necessarily represent my own personal point of view or spelling, althoough, by being a member, they in fact represent me. And if I do get mod'ed down, it's no skin off of my ass because this is just shell organization's user name.

      So, it's really not me saying this, just my user id, but the parent is correct and the mods are Goddamned stupid for modderating him down.

      --
      I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    2. Re:A Modest Suggestion by Choad+Namath · · Score: 1

      How the hell is this a troll? A troll is something posted with the intention of pissing people off.

  12. Security breach, etc... by Ekhymosis · · Score: 1

    Ok, so the MPAA and Mediasentry are doing this 'devious' thing. But how will this go when the program suddenly causes computers to go haywire, etc? Can they sue mediasentry et al?

    --
    Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
  13. Cost? by twitter · · Score: 1

    it's not like the people who would have been caught by this were innocents.

    Really? The MPAA is giving their movies away and you did not take one? Does this cost them their copyright?

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:Cost? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In fact they were innocent - the MPAA are acting for the copyright holders, so if they give something away it's completely legal.

    2. Re:Cost? by Kabuthunk · · Score: 1

      I don't think they'd be using the things you downloaded from the site itself against you. If the "helpful" software it peddles to speed up downloads searches your hard drive for all other media, that's probably a bit of a bigger worry.

      --
      Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
  14. Love to see one of these cases come to light. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

    First of all, just because the MPAA owns copyright to a movie doesn't mean I can't have a copy of it on my hard drive (or in my DVD library, for that matter).

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    1. Re:Love to see one of these cases come to light. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Umm yes it does. That's why it's called a *copy*right.

      If they don't give you permission you cannot copy it.

    2. Re:Love to see one of these cases come to light. by Ant+P. · · Score: 1

      That's why it's called a fair use *exemption*.

  15. How did they spread the word? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How did you hear about it? I'd be interested in learning how they advertised their existance. Forum posts? I've never heard about this site, and I often frequent the shady parts of town.

  16. WTF? by JamesRose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Perhaps Media Defender won't use its own name on the registrar the next time around, but it just goes to show the lengths at which the MPAA is willing to go, to fight piracy." Illegally install spyware on my fucking machine, search my PRIVATE FILES, oh and then to top it off, with the MPAA the mess that it is in, they'll probably sue you for having a file named "Hostel", you may or may not have stayed in a hostel last year on holiday, but it sure does seem like copyright so we're gunna take your hard disk and have a closer inspection of my PRIVATE FILES!

    Without huge data transfers, they can't fully check a file, so the best they can do is spy on your file names, and steal your documents, not any media files though, I hope people get sued for this I really do, so the MPAA gets screwed with the huge countersuit.

    1. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most file sharing networks operate off the hashes of the files, which are small and easy to replicate, and it's easy to compile a list of said hashes with a client to any major file sharing network. So there would be a pretty easy way for them to know what you do and don't have, irrespective of the file name.

    2. Re:WTF? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Those are not only your private files... Those are your copyrighted works.

      I wonder if someone can get statutory damages from the MPAA.

  17. does that mean I can keep the movies? by nanosquid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, if they provide free movie downloads, does that mean I can legally keep it?

    1. Re:does that mean I can keep the movies? by Tatisimo · · Score: 1

      You can, as long as you figure out a way not to get caught by their spyware.

      --
      Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
    2. Re:does that mean I can keep the movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe using VMWare or a VirtualPC might do the trick. I would do it this way, but I'm too coward !

      1- Create a bare VM
      2- use it to download the movies
      3- disconnect the router from the internet
      4- scan the files for viruses/spyware
      5- if clean copy the files over to your real computer
      6- close the VM without saving changes and voilà !
      7- enjoy your free (legal ?) movies.

      Of course, that's assuming that the spyware has no knowledge it's running in a VM and doesn't try to get to the real computer.

    3. Re:does that mean I can keep the movies? by wolf08 · · Score: 1

      # Of course, that's assuming that the spyware has no knowledge it's running in a VM and doesn't try to get to the real computer. Even if the software 'realizes' that it's running in a vm, it can't do anything about it because of the sandbox nature of VMs. The only way it could get to the real filesystem is if there was a exploitable security bug in the VM's software. (not the guest's software)

    4. Re:does that mean I can keep the movies? by westlake · · Score: 1
      So, if they provide free movie downloads, does that mean I can legally keep it?

      You are the fish. You swallowed the bait. They reeled you in. What do you think happens next? You get gutted and hung out to dry.

    5. Re:does that mean I can keep the movies? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      You clearly don't understand what a VM is. There is, as a matter of definition, no way for software to determine whether or not it is running on a virtual machine, much less access anything to which the virtual machine is not allowed access. If someone sold you some software claiming it created a "virtual machine" and it lets "virtualised" programs know, you want to take it back because it's not fit for rightful purpose.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    6. Re:does that mean I can keep the movies? by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      Errr... actually it's quite easy to detect if you're running in a VM...

      http://www.codeproject.com/system/VmDetect.asp

    7. Re:does that mean I can keep the movies? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      This only works on badly-implemented VMs because it is relying on the bad implementation. The "inside" of any decent virtual machine implementation should be absolutely indistinguible from a real machine.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    8. Re:does that mean I can keep the movies? by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise you were talking about theoretical VMs, not real world ones. Unless you know some real world VMs that are undetectable? I don't know of any myself.

  18. The saddest part about this... by tgatliff · · Score: 3, Informative

    They knew they were going to eventually get caught. It doesnt take a genius to realize that if "going dark" after 10 hours of the article release that they were anticipating this... And I suspect if the media contacts them, then it will be the classic "the intern did it" type response.... These guys make the russian mafia look good by comparison...

    1. Re:The saddest part about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the MPAA don't stoop to assassinations, beatings and maiming. Perhaps comparing them to the Russian mafia is overstating things a bit.

      Although there could be a compelling case for organized criminal activity such as conspiracy to commit various crimes, extortion, racketeering etc.

    2. Re:The saddest part about this... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 1

      And I suspect if the media contacts them, then it will be the classic "the intern did it" type response.... These guys make the russian mafia look good by comparison...

      Then we adjust our tactics to match.

      It's easier to break a poorly paid fall guy than an overly paid CEO. Have the intern charged, brought in for "extensive questioning", and punished severely. I don't imagine it'll take too long to get a whole pile of information out of him when he sees pictures of his former employer sunning on the beaches of Belize while he's sweating his life away in court/jail/other.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    3. Re:The saddest part about this... by LurkerXD · · Score: 1

      Hey, not all of us interns are complete morons...

    4. Re:The saddest part about this... by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      I don't imagine it'll take too long to get a whole pile of information out of him when he sees pictures of his former employer sunning on the beaches of Belize while he's sweating his life away in court/jail/other. Good thing for Bush. Libby's sentence was commuted.
      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  19. Maybe not entrapment because... by Skreech · · Score: 1

    Could this not be entrapment because they're looking for pre-existing material? I don't actually know, and I would love to be proven wrong such that the MPAA is, in fact, performing entrapment.

    It seems their philosophy is that it's easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission. It's like a DoS against the government and the people such that the system can't keep up with the flood of their dubious or illegal actions, and they can otherwise afford to pay fines in exchange for scaring people until there's an injunction against the site. Hell, fines were probably factored into the budget for this fake website.

  20. Is this a legit or non-legit movie site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If MiiVi.com is distributing movies with the MPAA's permission, then downloaders are ok.
    If MiiVi.com is distributing movies without the MPAA's permission, then MiiVi is in trouble.

    Either way, something is wrong with their tactic.

    1. Re:Is this a legit or non-legit movie site? by enosys · · Score: 1

      What if they don't have permission to distribute movies and they're just distributing other videos, even just a black screen and silence, and claiming those are movies? That's kind of like how the police can sell fake drugs.

    2. Re:Is this a legit or non-legit movie site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can tell, nobody has actually seen what this program does. Everybody is just feeding into the sensationalizm. This news story is sooo over the top that I don't think there is any merit to it. Consider the sources: Torrenfreak, Zeropaid. These are not exactly unbiased reporting. Maybe Miivi was a legit site.

  21. They should pay by TWDsje · · Score: 1

    We should all upload videos that are nothing but hours of static, and use it to waste their bandwidth and money. It is time they get a taste of their own medicine.

    --
    TWD - TheWhiteDragon
    Visit my weblog
    1. Re:They should pay by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Ha ha ! We taught them a lesson they'll never forget !

      Now, where'd I put that copy of The Matrix, seriously, I can't find it in all this static.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    2. Re:They should pay by scaryjohn · · Score: 1

      Nah. They'd claim to own the copyright on static, too.

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    3. Re:They should pay by tftp · · Score: 1

      Nah. Challenge them to produce a 1,000,000 bit long seed for the PRNG that created your static. You have it, and you can recreate your work of art. If they don't then you are the author, and not them. And if the {RI,MP}AA downloaded your static then you are welcome to sue them, just like they do.

  22. Got Ethics? Perception of RIAA/CRIA vs. MPAA by Cordath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This incident highlights what is, perhaps, the biggest reason why RIAA has already lost their battle against piracy and the imminent danger the MPAA faces. RIAA could have limited their depredations to only those pirates who mass produce bootlegs for profit. Instead, they went after the blood of their own customers and employed methods that make the pirates look like the good guys. Root kits, law suits, entrapment, price fixing, you name it. The icing on the cake was the knowledge that the only people they screwed over more than the customer was the artists!

    Here in Canada, we have CRIA, which actually managed to get a tax slapped on all recordable media, mp3 players, etc.. Ostensibly, the money collected form this tax is supposed to go to the artists whose incomes are reduced by the evils of all Canadians. It's anyone's guess what CRIA actually does with the loot. Their books are not public. The last time I checked, they weren't paying out bupkiss to indie artists, but aren't they our victims too? As a Canadian, all I see is my money being taken away because I'm a criminal by default and given to the buisness equivalent of the mafia. Bravo!

    I've been boycotting all RIAA/CRIA affiliated labels for years. The way I see it, every penny spent on one of their artist delays the inevitable and gives them another opportunity to do irreparable harm to our laws. However, I still go to the cinema and buy DVD's. Why am I not as concerned about the MPAA? Perhaps it's because they have, to date, not stooped to quite the same levels as RIAA in going after their own customers, even though they're already the scum of the Earth behind the scenes.

    Here's a word to the MPAA. Take a look at the mess RIAA has made of its affairs. You don't want to go down that road.

  23. a simple primer on morality by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Interesting

    any sense of right and wrong includes punishment. however, the punishment must always be less severe than the crime itself. otherwise, you do not have justice, you have revenge

    this observation applies to the mpaa/ riaa versus music pirates

    this observation applies to social and religious conservatives and why sharia law is wrong/ why homosexuals should be allowed to marry/ etc.

    this observation applies to the wackjob end of the liberal spectrum who believe something like 9/11 or bali bombing or 7/7 in london is appropriate response for western cold war crimes, etc.

    there's a whole raft of other ideological failures, that are failures simply because they confuse justice and revenge

    whatever you believe, if your belief includes responses to perceived crimes that are harsher than the crimes themselves, then that automatically means whatever you believe is wrong, and will fail. this is a cornerstone concept of the validity of any ideology: revenge is not justice. justice elicts support from other people, and therefore is an ideology which can take hold and spread to other people. rvenge elicits no support. it causes others to turn away

    and this is why the riaa/ mpaa will never prevail: what they do gets no sympathy. because what they do is worse than music/ movie piracy. it is cold and cruel and therefore without an ability to garner support from the general populace

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:a simple primer on morality by beyowulf · · Score: 1

      any sense of right and wrong includes punishment. however, the punishment must always be less severe than the crime itself. otherwise, you do not have justice, you have revenge
      What if the punishment is equally as severe as the crime itself? Taking into account mitigating factors, making a punishment less severe than the crime isn't justice, its a slap on the wrist.
  24. ARE YOU A COP? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cause you have to tell me if you are.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      No they don't. They just can't lie about it, but they sure can tapdance around it.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    2. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course they can lie about it, you gullible faggot.

    3. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mods got the reference at least...

    4. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      '' No they don't. They just can't lie about it, but they sure can tapdance around it. ''

      It is absolute legal for a cop to lie about it. If you are say a drug dealer, and you ask a potential customer "are you a cop", that cop can lie about it, straight to your face, in front of a dozen witnesses, and when you try to sell him drugs, he can then arrest you. Perfectly legal.

    5. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by falsified · · Score: 1

      The only point at which a cop cannot lie about anything is at trial.

      Cops most certainly lie all the time ("Your fingerprints were all over the place!") and undercover cops lie every day about everything they do. If you were about to sell fifty kilos of cocaine to someone, and you asked them if they were a cop, and they responded with "Well, that's neither here nor there. Hey, did you catch What Not to Wear last night?!?!", how effective do you think undercover patrolling would be?

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    6. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by trewornan · · Score: 5, Funny
      The only point at which a cop cannot lie about anything is at trial.

      Your naivety amuses me.

    7. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only point at which a cop cannot lie about anything is at trial.

      When I got busted for DUI, the cop lied at my preliminary hearing. Yes, I saw with my own two eyes a cop lying before a court of law.

    8. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by falsified · · Score: 1

      Haha, okay, fine. The only point at which a cop cannot lie about things that have been videotaped is at trial.

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    9. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by Nasarius · · Score: 1

      The only point at which a cop cannot lie about anything is at trial.
      Hyperbole, at best. Examples:

      Cop (lying): I have a warrant.

      Cop (lying): You have to let me search you.
      The police are very much capable of committing civil rights violations by lying.
      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    10. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Depends on where in the world you are and how you formulate the question. If you are in the Netherlands you simply ask for his ID. If he's a cop he legally has to show his ID and identify himself as a cop. If he isn't, he doesn't have to do anything. Which is exactly why the police use non-cop informers for this kind of thing.

    11. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by Pofy · · Score: 1

      Sure, that does not, however, mean they can never lie or are not allowed to lie.

    12. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by falsified · · Score: 1

      Oops. Yeah, you're right - if you do ask a police officer your rights, if I recall correctly they can't lie about those. Something important to remember if they're being rather lazy about that whole "one phone call" thing.

      --
      HI, MY NAME IS ISAAC.
    13. Re:ARE YOU A COP? by HeroreV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Still wrong! I can't remember the details, but there was a case where something was videotaped from multiple angles and the cops made some completely absurd claim like the videos were wrong.

  25. Entrapment or Honeypot?-"/." court now in session. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "A court would laugh in the face of anyone claiming this to be entrapment."

    Which court would that be? The court of public opinion, or the legal one?

  26. It's only entrapment ..... by budword · · Score: 1

    If it's the government doing it in a criminal case. For civilians in general or to gather evidence for a civil suit, the rules are different.

  27. Anyone who fell for this deserves to get caught by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

    Seriously. Offering something to download and install on your computer to increase the speed? That practically screams 'malware'.

    1. Re:Anyone who fell for this deserves to get caught by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

      Well... the ones downloading it are probably also the ones sitting there thinking "Hmm, my computer is slow lately" because of all the malware they've already been infested with.

    2. Re:Anyone who fell for this deserves to get caught by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1


      s/malware/vista/
      </Cheapshot>

    3. Re:Anyone who fell for this deserves to get caught by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Offering something to download and install on your computer to increase the speed? That practically screams 'malware'.

      Yeah, that's what I thought about Fileplanet, too...

  28. How interesting by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    Who knew that a bad Stallone sci-fi movie could provide appropriate social commentary.

    MAFIAA: We will pump spyware onto their computers to catch the pirates!

    MAFIAA flunkie: But aren't we breaking the law in the process of catching criminals?

    MAFIAA: IAMTHELAW!!!!!

    W. Bush: And I'm the Decider! *hunches over* heh-heh

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  29. You see, children... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why you should only use a reliable video piracy site, such as "Pirate Bay", or one of the larger "YouTube" immitations.

    Seems like you can't trust anyone these days.

    1. Re:You see, children... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Funny

      his is why you should only use a reliable video piracy site

      Don't you mean a LEGAL video piracy site? Because you see... in Sweden, piracy (or at least linking to) IS legal :)

    2. Re:You see, children... by westlake · · Score: 1
      This is why you should only use a reliable video piracy site, such as "Pirate Bay"

      What makes you think you can trust Pirate Bay?

    3. Re:You see, children... by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      you can prolly trust pirate bay- but not the users on pirate bay- the best is to use a dummy e-mail and get things off private limited trackers if you want to keep under the radar.

    4. Re:You see, children... by Kennego · · Score: 1

      If you can't trust Pirate Bay, who can you trust?

  30. You know what they say! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't cheat an honest man!

    1. Re:You know what they say! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't trust an honest man.

  31. Ouch by ruinous · · Score: 1

    Oooh, that's just nasty. And surely illegal. Any lawyers about?

  32. I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like this would be a case of a copyright owner (or technically a 3rd party with permission from the copyright owner) putting up their own content for download. There shouldn't be anything illegal about that. If Media Defender did it without permission, technically they're the ones that committed copyright infringement.

  33. Would that evidence be inadmissible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think any lawsuit on that should be dismissed. Unclean hands, unauthorized access of a computer, decpetive trade practices, ... a defense lawyer could have a great time with something like this.

  34. can this be the end of mpaa? by superwiz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Entrapment issues aside (since mpaa is a private organization and does not have the limits put on the GOVERNMENT by the constitution), each one of these scans (if unauthorized) is a copyright violation if perfomred on a computers that contains any sort of creative work (for example a piece of code that someone is working on for their CS101 class). Perhaps mpaa should be reminded what kind of penalty copyright violations carry with them. Reminded, that is, through a subpoena for every instance of such violation.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  35. Using the internet is a private affair? No infrin by QX-Mat · · Score: 1

    As far as I know, copyright law goes something like this. The rights holder is granted a limited monopoly. This right is as such that it stops entities recreating your property. Later on this incorporated the distribution of copyrighted material - ie: you must have the original covering, you must not resale, or identify as your own. Copyright became a right to distribute only the work as the work, and resell only as an item (ie: you can sell a book to a friend, but not the story or change the form of the story).

    Copyright doesn't extend into the home. Private affiars, as long as non commerical, are outside the privee of most laws. And if I remember correctly the supreme court ruled (i've been reading a lot of Lessig's work!) that once the intarweb cable enters the home, it is a private affair - ie: you can connect what ever box to the end you want to receive signals.

    Take that a little further. If you are positioned to simply receive copyrighted content, you are doing nothing illegal if you are not trafficking. If you use a website to receive copyrighted content, you are also not doing anything illegal. Watching TV, which comprises of 99.999% copyrighted works, is not, to my knowledge, illegal.

    So how is receiving (downloading) a pirate movie illegal if it is not stolen, not a bootleg or modified work, not involved in terrorism???

    Matt

  36. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo by TheCoelacanth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only on Slashdot would someone other than the MPAA/RIAA compare illegally downloading something that would cost twenty dollars to molesting children.

  37. FRAUD AND LIES! by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Is fraud an acceptable enforcement tactic? Seems to me that if they offer downloads, and are contracted by the movie studios to do exactly this, than any downloads from them are de facto legal.

    And if they spy on your computer otherwise with software that doesn't clearly indicate this in the license agreement, doesn't The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act come into play? Could MediaSentry go down Big Time over this little misstep?

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
    1. Re:FRAUD AND LIES! by gsslay · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid you, like most of the posters here, have totally missed the point.

      No where is it indicated that the site actually provided any of the free movies it claimed to have. So no-one obtained anything off them, illegal or otherwise. The idea that the purpose of the site was to give people free downloads, and then prosecute them for the same, is obviously ridiculous and I can't believe anyone is seriously suggesting it. I also find it difficult to believe that they'd risk trying to build case of copyright infringement by breaching computer security & privacy laws. It would be a sure way of invalidating any possible legal action before you even start.

      Far more likely that the intention of the site was to encourage the visitor, eager in their search for something for nothing, to contribute their existing downloads to the site's non-existent p2p network. This is what would scanned their computer. After agreeing to this they'd find that the site had actually nothing to offer other than "thanks for the scan of your computer, noob".

    2. Re:FRAUD AND LIES! by HalAtWork · · Score: 1

      No where is it indicated that the site actually provided any of the free movies it claimed to have. So no-one obtained anything off them, illegal or otherwise.

      Then wouldn't the site be popular for maybe 3 seconds and then people would spam all over IRC/newsgroups/nfopages "fake site miivi fake site" or whatever?

    3. Re:FRAUD AND LIES! by gsslay · · Score: 1

      Isn't that what happened?

    4. Re:FRAUD AND LIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how is this catching anyone?

    5. Re:FRAUD AND LIES! by gsslay · · Score: 1

      The same way phishing sites catch anyone. There's always the period before it's widely known that the site isn't what it claims to be.

  38. Great attempt by nlitement · · Score: 1

    Too bad they can't catch the terabyte torrent distributors, or hell, even the scence itself, so they try to catch the naïve, computer illiterate and often innocent grandmas and children.

  39. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo by TheDugong · · Score: 4, Funny

    Surely you jest. They do that in the US Congress as well don't they?

  40. Re:MPAA Free - New World Order 2.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Read More globaltics.net
    Arrrr..


    To be honest, this spam is getting old. I prefer the "I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT HORSECOCK!" spam because at least that made me giggle a little inside when I read it. Even the GNAA posts were better than this stupid globaltics spam.

  41. The important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it run on Linux?

  42. Re:Got Ethics? Perception of RIAA/CRIA vs. MPAA by edschurr · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but at least the levy ought to give you the right to copy stuff.

  43. Re:a simple primer on morality-REVENGE by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 1
    any sense of right and wrong includes punishment. however, the punishment must always be less severe than the crime itself. otherwise, you do not have justice, you have revenge

    And just what have you got against revenge? There's a few thousand terrorists around the world that death after torture is still too good for them.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  44. I trapped their trap and sent back "Legalize It" by BrentRJones · · Score: 1

    by Bob Marley. And I reported that I was George W. Bush and that I had all the Marley classics plus Cindi Lauper's "She Bop", "Girls just want to have fun" and other wonderful music including Bill Clinton on jazz saxiphone. Now let's see what happens.

    --
    Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
  45. Great for us non-americans! by aliquis · · Score: 1

    OMG, this is fucking great, easy to get videos and MPAA can't do shit here, thanks! ;D

  46. It helps to be Elite by erroneus · · Score: 1

    Using Linux for everything as I do means I have access to a lot of tools and a lack of such tools to be used against me. I'm not saying that it CAN'T be done because it can, but it's a LOT less likely. For one, I use primarily OSS so there's enough community review that it's not likely that anything like that would pass for long.

    I do use some non OSS on Linux though... I have this UT2004 game... $10 from WalMart online! C'mon! Who pirates when the price is so low?! (If the MPAA, RIAA and/or BSA is reading, take note! Lower prices will defeat copyright infringement, so consider lowering the price and save money on lawyers and investigators.) I also have NeroLinux but since the office has a licensed Nero for Windows, I can legally use the key for Linux too... no really, it's in the EULA or whatever. But outside of that and the proprietary video driver software, it's all OSS.

    So when I do go to download movies and such, I stick to the stuff that's not hosted in the US (DUH!) and generally flaunts their "rebellion" by printing letters and responses from US copyright holder groups. That doesn't make me invulnerable but add to the mix the use of things like TOR and I'm okay I guess... (But then again, I generally don't waste my time downloading current release movies either... truthfully, I'd rather see it on the big screen if it's good and on DVD if I liked it on the big screen. I usually only download TV shows and foreign movies so I'm not much of a target anyway...not when there are much bigger targets out there a LOT easier to get at... it's kind of like my anti-auto-theft strategy: Always park next to a MUCH nicer and more expensive car.)

  47. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    >Surely you jest.
    No I don't - and I told you, don't call me Shirley.

  48. Is that in the EULA? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Because if it ain't... that's trespassing and collecting evidence illegally.

  49. Re:Got Ethics? Perception of RIAA/CRIA vs. MPAA by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but at least the levy ought to give you the right to copy stuff.

    It does. Canadians have a right to copy for private use.

  50. I knew they were fake... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    true pirate sites DON'T have "family filters", yarrrrr!!! :P

    1. Re:I knew they were fake... by socz · · Score: 1

      hey that's not true! Pirate Bays image site has "filter adult content" or something along those lines. Maybe "offensive" content. Either way, for that site at least it doesn't matter, all the porn goes through anyways!

      --
      My abilities are only limited by my imagination
  51. So if this is an MPAA site... by Leptok · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this count as them giving them away?

  52. Re:Got Ethics? Perception of RIAA/CRIA vs. MPAA by djmurdoch · · Score: 2, Informative

    CRIA doesn't get the loot, CPCC does. They report on how it is distributed. About 15 percent of it is distributed to record companies, but most goes to authors and publishers. You can see the mechanics of it here.

  53. Playing with fire, they are by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

    it searched your computer for other copyrighted files

    Practically 100% of the files on your computer are copyrighted. Even if those files are music or movies, their mere presence doesn't indicate a breach of copyright. And unless they're transmitting a significant portion of those files back when "phoning home" - and thus running afoul of copyright law themselves in the process, to say nothing of computer trespass laws - merely mentioning the title of a work in a filename or in metadata doesn't authenticate that file as containing what the filename or metadata suggests that it does.

    1. Re:Playing with fire, they are by AusIV · · Score: 1

      Practically 100% of the files on your computer are copyrighted. Even if those files are music or movies, their mere presence doesn't indicate a breach of copyright.

      That was my first thought. I have well over 300 GB of "copyrighted material" on my disks. I have about 2,000 songs - all ripped from my extensive CD collection, and over 400 TV shows and movies that I've recorded with MythTV. The MPAA may not be happy that I have a bunch of movies on my hard drive, but they're legal because I recorded them when they were shown on television.

      All of the media on my computer was legally obtained, and I'm not distributing it, but a system scan wouldn't know the difference. I fail to see how the mere possession of copyrighted works is even incriminating, much less how they'd be able to make a decent legal case with the data they're collecting.

    2. Re:Playing with fire, they are by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      And unless they're transmitting a significant portion of those files back when "phoning home" - and thus running afoul of copyright law themselves in the process, to say nothing of computer trespass laws - merely mentioning the title of a work in a filename or in metadata doesn't authenticate that file as containing what the filename or metadata suggests that it does.

      Disclaimer: MAFIAA sucks and all that.

      OK, there's another alternative: they're comparing candidate files with a checksum database rather than comparing the entire file:

      if (filename.endswith('.mp3')) {
      if (isinpiratedatabase(md5sum(filecontents)) {
      report('Possible infringer at my.ip.ad.dr'); }}

      Not saying they're doing this, but they could be. Of course, that also raises the question of how likely two random people are to generate an identical MP3 from the same source CD using the same encoder. The fact that my Britney.mp3 is identical to yours doesn't necessarily indicate more than a shared poor taste in music.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    3. Re:Playing with fire, they are by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Of course, that also raises the question of how likely two random people are to generate an identical MP3 from the same source CD using the same encoder. The fact that my Britney.mp3 is identical to yours doesn't necessarily indicate more than a shared poor taste in music. They're not really that concerned about people who ripped an MP3 from CD; they're interested in the thousands of people who all downloaded the identical MP3 from a P2P site.

      Of course, this article is about the MPAA, not the RIAA, and they're not concerned about MP3s at all. ;-)
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:Playing with fire, they are by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      They're not really that concerned about people who ripped an MP3 from CD; they're interested in the thousands of people who all downloaded the identical MP3 from a P2P site.

      Right, but what I meant by that was that they couldn't necessarily tell who'd downloaded an MP3 versus who ripped it themselves. For example, I imagine that 99% of people who rip a given album with iTunes will end up with identical AAC (or MP3) files. They could still tell that a given Britney.mp3 really was the latest teen junk single and not some random bait file or misnamed Metallica track.

      Of course, this article is about the MPAA, not the RIAA, and they're not concerned about MP3s at all. ;-)

      True. I think the same goes for popular DVD rippers, though. Can you really tell that Jackass.mov was an illegal download instead of a legal rip?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    5. Re:Playing with fire, they are by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Right, but what I meant by that was that they couldn't necessarily tell who'd downloaded an MP3 versus who ripped it themselves. For example, I imagine that 99% of people who rip a given album with iTunes will end up with identical AAC (or MP3) files. They could still tell that a given Britney.mp3 really was the latest teen junk single and not some random bait file or misnamed Metallica track. Sure they can - ignore the filename, and compare checksum of the file to a list of known checksums of files being offered for illegal download. Britney.mp3 will match against the checksum of a Metallica track that somebody uploaded to Kazaa, but something you ripped yourself is unlikely to match, regardless of the filename.
      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    6. Re:Playing with fire, they are by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      (friendly note: I said "could still tell")

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  54. ProCD is the majority rule by glrotate · · Score: 0

    Who could argue with Posner? The Kansas case of Klocek held to the contrary.

  55. Steal one. Go to jail. by creativeHavoc · · Score: 1, Interesting

    http://www.baitcar.com/ Police in Vancouver have been using bait cars for years to catch auto theifs. If that is legal, then this would probably be legal.

    --
    insight through the mind
    1. Re:Steal one. Go to jail. by k3vlar · · Score: 1

      There are several hilarious leaked videos of post-theft bait cars and their drug influenced drivers. The neat thing is the car can be locked and stopped remotely, trapping the thief inside, so they never end well for the driver.

      --
      Unlike porn, which yada yada rimshot hey-ooh!
    2. Re:Steal one. Go to jail. by necro2607 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not really, stealing a car is straight-up theft no matter whose car it is (even a family member's, if you don't have their permission). It's a bit different when a copyright holder is saying "Hey, downloaded our copyrighted material for free! Simply writing this statement is us giving you written permission to copy my copyrighted material! BTW we're going to scan your computer for files and store in our big database about everything you've got on your computer!" ...

    3. Re:Steal one. Go to jail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is more like someone *offering* you drugs. If you do a search for $RANDOMARTIST and come across this site offering you downloads of their material for free then you have not actively tried to do a bad thing - they actively solicited you to download the stuff. There are plenty of places where you can get free material legally (hint: i work for a record label which provides free mp3/aac downloads).

      If they make it *very* obvious that the material is not legal then there *may* be some validity, but if it is just buried in some obtuse legalese somewhere then they are SOL.

      I doubt there is any illegal material to download anyway - just this client which (possibly illegally) searches your hard drive.

    4. Re:Steal one. Go to jail. by phorm · · Score: 1

      To add to that, this program is doing to the equivilient to "Lots of BMW's and Hondas are being stolen lately, so we will search your garage to see if the car in there matches"

      It sorta seems to miss the part where you might actually "own" the car in question, or in the case of music, own the original media the song came from.

  56. Re:First Post! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Post! This exact comment has already been posted. Try to be more original...

  57. A bigger agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if this was intentional? You know, look like you're a noob so everyone disregards you, then secretly have skills (or in this case, real honeypot-type sites) to catch them. I don't think this is likely, because of the legal problems created by the 'discovery' of this one, but it's a thought.

  58. Speeds Sucked by donnacha · · Score: 1

    Well, I don't know about all this philosophical mumbo-jumbo and legal hoo-ha but I can tell you this: their download speeds SUCKED!!

  59. gone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    whatever you want to call it. the site is now down.

  60. What anti-spyware laws? by westlake · · Score: 2, Informative
    Doesn't this violate various anti-spyware laws? For example, here's Illinois' law:

    This bill has been bounced back and forth between the Illinois House and Senate for two years, without any final action being taken. Bill Status of HB0380 Spyware Prevent Initiative Act

    Only Arkansas and Virginia have anything on the statute books, and the Virgina law has openings for the rights agencies you could drive a tank through. To begin, you have to prove "malacious intent."

    2007 State Legislation Relating to Internet Spyware or Adware, An Act to amend and reenact 18.2-152.4 of the Code of Virginia, relating to computer trespass; spyware; penalty

  61. Two words by razpones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Entrapment and spyware, those two things are illegal.

    1. Re:Two words by fonetik · · Score: 1

      Entrapment isn't illegal. It's a legal defense.
      Spyware isn't illegal either per se.

  62. That doesn't make sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All over the internet there are legitimate free music, and free videos. In fact, the internet is filled with free stuff. Google offers free videos, free software, free *everything*.

    I think a reasonable person when confronted with a nice web site that has videos to view would conclude that it was somehow, in the spirit of the magic internet, that it was free and legitimately so.

    You can't get a lawyer in this goofy place to explain how the nuances of copyright works, and you expect joe-web-surfer?

  63. RIAA, releases similar "riaaBuddy" software by transporter_ii · · Score: 1

    Stung by criticism that it was utilizing unlicensed private investigators in order to track down alleged online copyright violators, the RIAA has admitted to "improperly obtaining" user data, and in an unusual near-apology, vowed to clean up its act. "It is time to face the music. We must stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life. Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do," said Mitch Bainwol, Chairman and CEO of the RIAA. Bainwole went on to say, "We have important work to do -- real pirated CDs to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face. I now ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past eighteen months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of upcoming American entertainment that will be brought to you by RIAA members.

    On the same day, the RIAA also announced new software it would make available as a free download called riaaBuddy.

    riaaBuddy is an on-screen "intelligent software agent" created by the RIAA, and based upon Microsoft Agent technology. The goal of the program is to help users enrich their online musical experience as they discover digital music together with the included "riaaBuddy," which is an animated, purple Sheryl Crow. Users can interact with Sheryl by asking her questions, get recommendations on new music released by RIAA artist, as well as be politely informed when unapproved websites are loaded.

    Other features include, an integrated download tracker, music-related themes, desktops, screen savers, and cute, animated emoticons, bearing a resemblance to top-selling RIAA artists. Also included is a desktop search utility that indexes a hard drive's contents in order to allow the user to easily perform searches.

    While initial response to the program has been positive, a few early users complain that the program is buggy. The purple Sheryl Crow is said to only be able to sing the song Daisy Bell. "The program keeps changing my home page to a crappy RIAA home page," said one teenager who wished to remain anonymous out of fear of a RIAA-sponsored lawsuit. There have also been complaints of an increase in pop-up advertising.

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
  64. md5sum? by WastedMeat · · Score: 0

    I didn't see anyplace where the mechanism for comparing files was mentioned, and I am neither into IT nor law, but if it just performs md5sums on every 700MB file it can find, would this not consume sufficient resources to qualify as a DoS attack?

  65. The really funny thing is by transporter_ii · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The really funny thing is, that was supposed to have been a joke, but being so freaking close to what the MPAA is doing, it really isn't funny anymore.

    Transporter_ii

    --
    Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
  66. copyright infringment by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    That is why they need the scanner program that checks if you have OTHER copyrighted material on your machine that you have downloaded illegally, and this is something they might bust you for.

    A problem with this though is that they don't know if you don't have the right to any file a scan finds. If they charge someone who does have a legal right to what's on thier computer it leaves them open to a lawsuit, or a counter lawsuit.

    Falcon
  67. Re:a simple primer on morality-REVENGE by necro2607 · · Score: 1

    And just what have you got against revenge?

    Heh. As cliche as it might be.. an "eye for an eye" leaves the world blind...

  68. Duh, by StrangerAtRandom · · Score: 1

    Its the people that are posting the movies that are the problem.. If they get rid of them then there is no pirated movies for people to download.. Its kinda like the cops selling pot to kids, and then arresting them for buying pot..

  69. Three words by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

    Felony indictment now.

  70. This is ridiculous... by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

    So, how does this differ from my setting up a table full of DVDs at the flea market with a sign reading "Free DVDs -- Take One," then asking the cops to bust you when you take one? The "honeypot" analogy just doesn't fly -- while just because an unlocked car with keys in the ignition doesn't give you the right to take it, it would be another thing entirely if the owner put a "Free Car" sign on it.

    It's sad, too, because the only people who will get harrassed over this are probably not very net-savvy folks. Who would trust a website blatantly offering free movies? Most who engage in file sharing to any great degree would probably smell a trap right from the start.

    --
    "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
  71. Has Anyone Analyzed The Software? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Can it be fooled into sending terabytes of reports of my noninfringing homemade porn (featuring just me) back to them?

  72. If a company.. by jshriverWVU · · Score: 1
    set's up a website that offers it's content to download for free, wouldn't that be either entrapment, or just silly? Because technically since it is the owners having the pages setup they are thus offering their content for free.

    To me this sounds like Blockbuster giving away free DVD's, then tell you afterwards you're a thief for taking them.

    1. Re:If a company.. by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Yup basically. That and MPAA != law enforcement. They're not entitled to sting people like a narc officer might. If the MPAA gave out the files, than you're not violating their copyrights.

      The only loophole I think would be if you reasonably thought you were violating the copyrights, then it could be attempted piracy [or equiv if that even exists]. Or course you could just claim you thought the site owner was generous :-)

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  73. Re:Got Ethics? Perception of RIAA/CRIA vs. MPAA by syousef · · Score: 1

    Here's a word to the MPAA. Take a look at the mess RIAA has made of its affairs.

    You're just justifying your desire to watch your DVDs and go to the movies.

    The RIAA and MPAA are just associations. Ever looked at the member organizations?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_l abels
    Big four: EMI, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Universal Music Group, Warner Music Group

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA
    Big six: Buena Vista Pictures Distribution (The Walt Disney Company), Sony Pictures, Paramount Pictures (Viacom -- which bought DreamWorks in February 2006), 20th Century Fox (News Corporation), Universal Studios (NBC Universal), and Warner Bros. (Time Warner)

    Sony, Warner Brothers, and Universal are common to the list. Many are the same damned companies being represented. You really think your argument holds any moral weight???

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  74. Slashdot 'em into oblivion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that the site really even needs to exist for the news coverage of the story to have its intended effect, or that it would even be possible for the twelve remaining people (myself included) that haven't moved on from Slashdot to Digg could actually put a dent in the site's bandwidth.

    Personally though I'm not willing to risk getting my computer subpoenaed by the MPAA, even though I've never downloaded music or movies on any computer. Why? Because I don't want to lose access to my computer while they figure that out.

  75. considering their crimes by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    death and torture is less cruel than what they plan to do

    in which case, death and torture is justice, as it is less harsh than their crimes, such as bombing civilians

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:considering their crimes by Nazlfrag · · Score: 1

      If in defeating our enemies we become like our enemies, we have lost.

  76. Easily spotted as fake... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    Is it just me, or was that a pretty obvious fake? For one, there's no way I'd download any special download software that's only used on one site, ever. That just screams "spyware" to me, no matter how you look at it. In this case, it happened to spy for the MPAA, but I wouldn't put it past some shady download site to do the same and I wouldn't touch software like that with a 10 foot pole.

    As for whether or not it's entrapment, I don't see many lawyers here. At best, I suspect it might run afoul of various anti-spyware laws, assuming any of them have teeth. Of course, not unlike the scammers who use similar tricks to get you to do something illegal (making you an accomplice, and thus someone unwilling to turn them in) they've gotten you to infringe upon someone's copyrights making it unlikely that anyone will want to come forward. But still, I wonder, would anyone sued as a result of these investigations be able to claim that the copies they downloaded were authorized by the copyright holder because of the way they put them out there? You'd think they'd be holding the weaker hand with that claim, but I wonder... they do have the money for expensive lawyers, after all.

  77. what next by luther349 · · Score: 0

    can you say illagle of course they whont get in any truble the case will go away and the juge will have a new farrie. money makes laws and well they have money. and the mpaa is a even bigger beast them the riaa. people can stop buying music cds couse they suck anyways but not buying some huge hit movie is alot harder yes they relese alot of crap to but they do still come out with some relly good ones. but if they sink as low as the riaa who knoes. i relly dont think they relise they encurage priecy by fighting it and such blanent sites only inform un-savy users that hey they can get the stuff for free then start searching other sources for it.

    1. Re:what next by luther349 · · Score: 0

      another point is if the site was mpaa owned then they canot sue for anything they downloaded from there. you cant give it away then say you stole it. they can try saying that but the second they see the sites owned by them it would get tossed out. the reasion would be the mpaa holds the rights and the site they owned said anyone can have anything on there for free. they might get something on the other files from there spywhere but thats illagle in many states as well and probly wouldent hold up very well anywhere. all they did hear was wast there time. unless they pull a riaa and start sending random letters and using a scare tatic but anyone could easly fight it off just like the riaa.

  78. Lets play games with them! by padlocked.swings · · Score: 1

    Here's how you can play their game against them.
    Buy a cheap used laptop with a working wifi. Don't ever use it on your networks. Install a clean install of Windows on the system; Windows that you bought with cash from Best Buy or Circuit City; not with a credit card. Don't let Windows try to register through your own network.
    Using a public access Wifi AP, download a bunch of movies onto the system. Fill'er up with stuff.
    Create / Install a remote console on the system.
    Fine a MPAA exec with less-then-steller children. Find out where they go to school.
    Sneak into that school and place the laptop in a place where it can be easily stolen. Hope that the MPAA's exec's child steals the computer.
    When the computer goes on line, use the remote console to have the computer go to the entrapment site. Do the whole bit of downloading and allowing their spyware find all the other stuff on the system.
    Profit!

    1. Re:Lets play games with them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're drunk aren't you? :-)

  79. This looks like a job for...VMWare! by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this looks like a job for VMWare! Fight honeypots with honeypots!

    Make a virtual machine completely empty other than a copy of Windows. Download their software onto it, and download the movies. The software has nothing to report back.

    Get the movies you want, then zap the VM.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:This looks like a job for...VMWare! by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Except that the files they were offering for download probably were not real movies.

      If they were being smart, there would be just a small enough excerpt of the real stuff to count as "fair dealing" (so there is no breach of copyright), followed by bogus data crafted to crash the MPEG codec engine with a buffer-overflow and execute some code of their choosing. Since different systems will require different data to crash the MPEG engine, and movies are by definition large files, they could use just one file to knock over many different systems (and know, from which code actually ran, what they were running). Obviously the crashcodes would have to be placed in descending order of commonness of system, so as to minimise the amount of static / skipped frames before the user twigs onto their bustedness.

      It's totally illegal, of course (Misuse of Computers act makes such crashing an offence; Unfair Contract Terms Act applies if the EULA tries to press-gang you into agreeing to it; Data Protection Act might apply; might constitute an offence such as Soliciting a Crime or Aiding and Abetting; somebody may well flesh out the above description a little, secure a patent on it, and stick the MPAA for patent infringement), but that never really stopped anybody before .....

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  80. i agree 100% by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    how does doing something less cruel than what our enemies planned to do to us make us like them?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  81. I wonder if this will turn into a TV show... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man goes to site to download. All of a sudden police bust into his room. Dialogue ensues..

    Man: What the??

    Police: Hands behind your back. Down on the ground now!

    Man: I was just..

    Police: Bangbros episode 23. Who's your daddy and Playboy Calendar 2005? Geez. This guys a sick horsecock.

    Man: It was ju..ju..ju...just a joke. I wasn't REALLY going to watch them.

    Police: Take him to the station. This man digusts me.

  82. Another reason to run Linux! by ylikone · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly certain the software download was probably for Windows only.

    --
    Meh.
  83. Legal Point by FryerTuk · · Score: 1

    How did the website get the content to distribute?

    It downloaded it from the MPAA

    So, it willfully committed the very same crime it is now attempting to entrap others into committing?

    Easiest case to beat yet if you ask me

    ps. Counter-suits make this kind idiocy stop.

  84. Not the real point by drDugan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Any discussion about US copyright must start with the fact that these folks have paid lawmakers to subvert copyright to make it effectively infinite: 70years + life of the author, or 95/120 years depending on circumstances. These terms are completely absurd and they change the reasons for ALL the behavior in the marketplace of copyright-protected IP.

    There is no rational discussion that can occur about "fair", "legal", "right or wrong", until this time scale for copyright is corrected. It is my opinion that the term should be about 20 years max regardless of circumstances.

  85. Why aren't we winning the war on drugs... by patio11 · · Score: 1

    Crikey, with criminals who have brains THAT rotted by junk, you would think it would be easier to lock them all up. "Whoa man, I just had this trip and got a real good idea to get one over on Johnny Law. Here it goes: Ask him, man, are you a cop? And he'll say yeah. And then I'll say 'Well then I will not sell you this here kilogram of weed, because that would be, like, illegal.'"

  86. Entrapment? by DTemp · · Score: 1

    Could someone who has a legal background comment on whether this is entrapment or not?

    1. Re:Entrapment? by gilesjuk · · Score: 1

      Entrapment is usually argued in the context that it was the Police who baited the victim and that the person would otherwise have been a person who would be unwilling to commit a crime.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

      Being as someone was searching for such a site and signed up suggests that it isn't entrapment.

  87. The key word here is "unauthorized" by patio11 · · Score: 1

    If you say "Yeah, please, root my box so that I can get free movies.", then it is NO LONGER UNAUTHORIZED.

  88. Reminds me of Sony by toyotabedzrock · · Score: 1

    Sounds like what Sony did. They should be sued for this kind of activity. It's strange there is no Goggle cache or a copy of the site on the WayBackMachine.

  89. What about my friends? by gmby · · Score: 1

    We all feel left out; We run linux!

    wait for it.....

    here it comes....

    "But... Does it run linux?"

    --
    I don't want a pickle; I just want a Motor-Cycle! A four foot cop arrived with a five foot gun!
  90. a modest propossal by waferthinmint · · Score: 1

    Here is an idea that may be worth a business model for a new and improved MPAA response to digital distribution.

    Since copying is illegal but public libraries are fair use, what if it were guaranteed that the file were erased from the originating computer after the transfer was completed? For example a library of some number of movies (multiple copies of each movie) could be purchased and distributed among some number of users. The software to distribute the movies could be based on BitTorrent but after I download a copy of Movie A it is removed from at least one of the other users. Movies that have been stored on or downloaded onto my machine that I want to watch would be queued on my machine for a period of one week. The movie would rejoin the delete queue after one week or if I marked it as ready for delete.

    the number of movies on a user's Watch queue could be limited if need be. The total number of users can grow by growing the library: each new user must pay a one time fee equal to a new movie. the original library would have to be seeded with donations but if a DVD ripping format and encoding were agreed upon we could all donate our personal dvd collections. the more we donate the more we are allowed to have on our watch queues. download speed and priority could be controlled based on hdd space provided for shares not on watch queues and available up load speeds of different users.

    1. Re:a modest propossal by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      that would be useless in bittorrent though- unless you just immediately got the movie anytime you wanted and there were a ton of them floating around- and if there were just a limited number you could only get a couple of seeds at a time- less if the file/computer goes offline at the time when it is supposed to upload- and the ques would be horrible as well- thousands of people clammaring for the same movie- plus, what is to keep you from just duping the movie on to removable media?
      the best idea is still to have a membership site that is licensed by the MPAA\RIAA with fully opened copyrights and a host of seed machines owned by the licensed company.

    2. Re:a modest propossal by Kredal · · Score: 1

      I think they call that "Blockbuster"

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
    3. Re:a modest propossal by shark72 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an over-complicated solution in search of a problem. There'll always be people who pirate because they want to save money, or they just get off on breaking the law.

      As for the rest of us -- Netflix works great, in my experience. I pay a flat fee per month, and with a few clicks I can have practically any movie I like in my mailbox the next day, and my mailbox is about a far a walk from my projector as my PC is. The cost is quite low vs. the cost and inconvenience of sucking up my bandwidth with BT and burning the pirated copies to DVD.

      And, for people who insist on downloading rather than wielding shiny plastic discs -- Netflix has begun testing a download service, too. Odds are that with their resources and their library, they'll be there much more quickly than your proposed system would be able to get traction.

      If people want to pirate because it saves them money, or it's fun, or whatever -- then they should go ahead and do just that. But "cost" and "convenience" are quickly being eliminated as rationales.

      --
      Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
  91. software? by Tom · · Score: 1

    MiiVi also offered client software to speed up the downloading process. Ok, what kind of total idiot would install that kind of software anyways? If it's not a MPAA trojan, it's a spammer trojan or logging your PIN numbers and sending them to Russia.

    Thank you, MPAA, for weeding the general public of the lower 5%. May I suggest you shoot them first, and then yourself? You'd do us all a great favor.
    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  92. I just want to know by houghi · · Score: 1

    MiiVi also offered client software to speed up the downloading process.


    Does this run on Linux?
    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    1. Re:I just want to know by AlgorithMan · · Score: 1

      I heared it runs well in wine
      but you should chroot ~/.miivi first...

      --
      The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
  93. indeed by duerra · · Score: 1

    I'd rate you up if I had any mod points

  94. They're after uploaders, not downloaders. by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they offer files for download, and you download them, then there is an absolute defence, that you had permission. If you upload files without the copyright holder's permission, then there is no defence. You were deliberately infiringing copyright.

  95. It's only "piracy" if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they don't give you permission to copy.

    They did.

    Does anyone have a list of files that they putatively shared so that I know to pass this list on to the courts and ask for a declarative judgement stating these files are free to share.

    I suspect that this can be rescinded if the copyright owners state publicly that this site was their agent and is no longer and now withdraw the offer of free copies.

  96. Re:I trapped their trap and sent back "Legalize It by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

    "Legalize It" is by Peter Tosh. You fail it...

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  97. How much *less* cruel can it be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And is it less cruel to target millitary buildings or warn ahead of time? Is torture worse than that? If so, what are they are now ALLOWED to bomb such "valid" targets and you no longer are allowed to torture them.

    What if someone not involved thinks that the death of 30,000 civillians is so bad that the torture and beheading of a complicit american (and since GWB is the man in charge and the US voted him in *agan*, that would be ALL americans) is acceptable on this scale.

    Do you go "ah well, we deserved it"?

    THAT is why using the tools of the enemy is a bad idea. We then make justification for them to continue: they just weight the things going on differently.

  98. Sounds Illegal by herbierobinson · · Score: 1

    This sounds like a Trojan horse to me. That would make the felony level illegal... Like the Sony root kit.

    --
    An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
  99. This would be fun... by The+Impossible · · Score: 2, Informative

    The dutch law is very clear about this. Under dutch law it's completely legal to download stuff from the internet. This is mostly due to the fact people will download anyway. They put a special tax on empty cd's and dvd's to compensate the loss of income. (and yes, the compact cassette had a same tax)

    Also, under the same dutch law, it's illegal to offer copyrighted materials for download...

    I for one would be very interested to see what the judges think of this kind of setup. Would it stand up in dutch court or would the US law be enforced. (Ah well, as long as the US think they can evade international laws... who cares about the US laws. ;) )

    --
    ... Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
  100. Why should we? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

    Why should we buy from criminals like the MPAA? IT makes no sense to fund this sort of thing

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  101. False Advertising by mistralol · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the UK i think this would fall under the false advertising laws. The fact that they advertise you can get it for free means its perfectly fine for you todo this. They are in fact breaking the law if they says its for free and its not.

  102. Need soap? by remmelt · · Score: 1

    As noted above: Unclean Hands.

    1. Re:Need soap? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      ah. thank you.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  103. "Mii"-Vi? by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 1

    Bet Nintendo will be absolutely thrilled over the fun this is going to cause them. This almost sounds like the kind of site where you'd go to watch videos encoded specifically for the Wii.

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
  104. The MPAA did this, has the RIAA done it too? by heavygravity · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know: has the RIAA pulled this kind of a stunt as well - set up some kind of torrent site, or music sharing site, or similar? It would probably be good to make this kind of thing as public as possible.

    --
    Cuban Music MP3's - cuband.com
  105. What - are you stupid!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry - if you actually INSTALL an application that supplies you with illegal material (I mean an app like this, rather than something like BitTorrent which is just aids the transport), you deserve to be caught.

    You have all these sites that say "Sign up now - give us your personal details, etc.". Who the hell actually signs up to these? You're physically saying "This is who I am - I am now goinging to perform an illegal action".

    It's like criminals breaking into a house and leaving contact details behind, with a signed confession!!

    If you're going to do something illegal, at least have the sense to do it anonymously!!

  106. Yay! Free files! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    So it's time to dig out that old PC from the attic that you don't use any more, wipe it clean, install an old copy of Win98 or something (I assume the spyware/ dl-client is Windows-only) and start downloading! I don't mind it scanning my computer if that computer is one without any other content at all...

  107. Where is a Cached Page when you need one. by jtok202 · · Score: 1

    I get tired of listening to the EULA agreement argument, Either point me in the direction of the Program/Cache of the website or please quote the EULA to somewhere so that it can be viewed and reviewed. Curses being at work or I would have done this when I first saw it and it was still up. Looking forward to information.

  108. MiiVi.Com? by LittleGuy · · Score: 1

    MiiVi, as in "Milli Vanilli"?

    Did I read that right?

    If that's the inference, then I have to give the RIAA +1 for being cute and tongue-in-cheek.

    --
    Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
  109. So the RIAA own copyright on the fakes too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they say "BrtneySpears_Hit_Me_Baby_One_More_Time.mp3" on the file name but it contains garbage, there's no expressive content and it isn't copyrighted, so no fraud committed by the act. If it is copyrighted by the server owner (directly or as an agent) then by saying "please download this file" they have given the right to copy the file so no fraud committed by this act. If the file does not contain the putative content (thereby not giving consent to the song it says it is but isn't) then you have either:

    1) the putative song wasn't downloaded so no fraud
    2) the downloader *thought* you gave permission to copy the putative song so whether it is or is not, there's no fraud committed when they attempt a download

    So it really can't help, can it.

    1. Re:So the RIAA own copyright on the fakes too? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      If they say "BrtneySpears_Hit_Me_Baby_One_More_Time.mp3" on the file name but it contains garbage then there's a good chance it's not a fake.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    2. Re:So the RIAA own copyright on the fakes too? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Except you didnt know upfront it ws the copyright holder that was hosting the 'service'. So i bet 'intent to defraud' will still stick.

      Dont get me wrong, im all for downloading and have zero moral isuse with non profit trading, but i also dont pretend that you can get out of it if you truly get nailed to the wall if caught red handed violating IP rights. Currently its illegal. That needs to change, and will change, but today its still a crime.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  110. you didn't answer my question by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    you danced around it with a bunch of hypotheticals

    fact is, if someone plans on the mass murder of civilians on purpose, by surprise, there is little that you can do to them that is worse than what they have already planned

    you have a nice way of framing those who commit horrendous crimes as somehow understandable or explainable. they aren't. if the usa disappeared into a giant lake tomorrow, the guys we are talking about wouldn't celebrate and turn into pastoral sheep farmers. they would go right on with their murderous agenda. because what they do has to do with an agenda all of their own making, not as some reflection of anything the usa ever did. of course, they use what the usa did as an excuse, but they'd have any excuse handy, no matter how much the usa changed its behavior, because their behavior is all about their own agenda, not anything the usa ever did

    a lot of people like you don't seem to understand that simple truth. you understand what these guys do as a reflection of something the usa did. nope. wrong. what did the balinese do to deserve to be bombed? oh yeah, those horrid imperialist balinese. how about the spanish tourists who were just car bombed in yemen last week? hey, after the madrid subway bombings, they got rid of the government complicit with the usa. by your reasoning, that makes the spanish free of attack

    or just maybe you don't really understand how these guys think. at all

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  111. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo by pestario · · Score: 1

    doesn't work in text :-p

    --
    :n
  112. Response by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    That's nasty .

  113. Business strategy by TheSciBoy · · Score: 1

    1. Have friend hire some models and take pictures of them nekked.
    2. Put said pictures on MY site.
    3. Have friend sue anyone who enters my site, but "neglect" to sue me for putting them up.
    4. Profit!!!

    --
    Badgers, we don't need no stinking badgers! - UHF
  114. Re:Got Ethics? Perception of RIAA/CRIA vs. MPAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yup, their mafia like behavior is so bad i can't really justify paying for music anymore. i only rent movies, i'd rather not give them anymore money than i can help.

    its a sad position to be in..when you've made your customer feel dirty handing you money.

  115. Guilt or innocence? It's irrelevant. by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My question would be how it knows you don't have an original copy of the materials in question?

    Your answer is that it doesn't matter, they'll come after you anyway.

    Are you innocent? They don't care. It's completely irrelevant, because you'll be given a choice: Pay us a couple of thousand dollars and this will be over with, or go hire a lawyer that is much more expensive and defend yourself. Pay attention the the news here, and read up on their tactics. The RIAA/MPAA has a history of going after people that it knows are innocent.

    If you choose option #2, you'll waste all kinds of time and money, possibly even face financial ruin as a result of paying dozens of thousands of dollars. In the end, after the RIAA/MPAA's lawyers have extracted as much money from you as they can, the RIAA/MPAA will drop their case. It will all just silently go away, except for the bills from the lawyers.

    You've mistakenly assumed that it's all about your guilt or innocence as an individual person. The real point is to keep up appearances for their extortion ring to continue to be effective. The real point is to scare the shit out of people so badly that whether you're innocent or guilty, you'll still pay up.

    Let's not fool ourselves, this is organized crime, plain and simple, except that for now, it's still legal. (Organized "Legal," I guess you'd call it.) What can you do about it? Well, if the thought of paying a lawyer to defend you and, if you actually want damages from the RIAA/MPAA for screwing around with you, paying $114,000 to a lawyer (the amount that is at stake in the most famous to date case of Capitol v. Foster), then you need to support organizations dedicated to changing the laws to make this type of extortion illegal. I would suggest the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who has a pretty good record of success, but at the very least, you need to write to your Congresscritters and let them know that the current situation is unacceptable.

  116. Entrapment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this the legal equivalent of speed traps and illegal entrapment? Everyone who used the site should call the cops on the MPAA and Media Defender.

  117. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Entrapment is obviously okay when involving crime involving the internet! You don't think so? Why are you defending those child molesters, then?

    (I have never seen To Catch A Predator, but I am a bit confused about exactly what crime was committed if there are no children involved.)

  118. I thought software like that was illegal... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like in california. something about misrepresenting what the software actually does AND using it for surveillance. Am I wrong?

    1. Re:I thought software like that was illegal... by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      It's only illegal if you or I do it. Evidently it's ok if a rich corporation does it.

  119. I posted a comment under "Eric" by manowar821 · · Score: 1

    I'd be curious to see if there are tags built into the files from this site.

    Again, I'd like to say... If you downloaded anything from this site, delete the files immediately. They could be tainted beyond help.

    Please, wont someone think of the pirates?


    Arrrr matey.

    --
    Internet: Serious Business
  120. RIAA now endorsing filesharing? by db10 · · Score: 1

    It's good to see them do a 180 on this issue.

  121. Real movies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone have a definitive answer as to if these were actually movies or just dummy files?

  122. The law is murky on that point by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think it's clear that people should be allowed to rip their own music, even the RIAA has mentioned that it doesn't want to start suing people who do this (that's too much bad publicity even for them). Certainly iTunes allows you to rip music and movies and put them on your iPod, and you don't see the RIAA suing Apple now, do you? Admittedly, Copyright law doesn't specifically spell that out as fair use yet, but if that ever got tested in court most of us are confident that ripping your own CDs for your mp3 player would be considered fair use, just like the copy of this post your computer makes when viewing Slashdot is considered fair use and not copyright infringement.

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
  123. What is stupid about this by kahrytan · · Score: 2, Informative

    What is so stupid about this sleezy tactic is that there is no guarantee that any videos on a person's hard drive is illegal.

    1. The Movie COULD BE converted using commercial off the self software. Divx Pro can do it along with many others. Just walk into your nearest computer store.
    2. TV Episodes can be recorded via any TV tuner card. Such as WinTV cards.

    The presence of movies and tv episodes on the hard drive doesn't make it illegal.

    --
    \
  124. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo/porn by utopianfiat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Epic troll. I tip my hat to you, sir.

    --
    +5, Truth
  125. Uh, Whos doing the wrong? by corifornia · · Score: 0

    Isn't that entrapment? Beyond that, isn't providing pirated material illegal as well? Seems like the idea isn't well thought out and probably wouldn't hold water in any suit over piracy.

    --
    crap.
  126. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo/porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what you guys are saying is that the MPAA holds copyrights on child porn, and they set up this site to catch them pirating it?

  127. You started with the hypotheticals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you are currently torturing to death people...

    Why do you think the 11/9 incident happened: people on Saudi Arabia and nearby countries didn't want the US in the ME. The US kills many civilians and, from their POV keeps arming Isralis who kill more arabs. So therefore, killing americans by any means possible for a small, under-provisioned and loosley knit collection is acceptable. Because, to these people "the US deserve it: killing 1000 americans is less bad than killing 10,000 arabs".

    Whether 9,000 of those arabs were committing acts of violence against others isn't what they see as relevant. Just as you don't see thier complaints against the US as relevant.

    So they are as justified in their acts as you believe you are in yours. You will torture them, they will torture you.

    I fail to see where the difference between you two is. Who's the good guy?

  128. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

    I have never seen To Catch A Predator, but I am a bit confused about exactly what crime was committed if there are no children involved.

    Questions like that only embolden the enemy.

  129. Entrapment? by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    Isn't this entrapment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment)? Maybe it isn't since the police are not involved. Also, it seems the real issue is what the trojan horse finds by scanning the HDD rather than downloading the content, but that seems like fraud. What's in the EULA?

  130. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

    Only on Slashdot would someone other than the MPAA/RIAA compare illegally downloading something that would cost twenty dollars to molesting children. And only in Washington State would someone pay a bigger price in jail time than molesting children. You can face up to five years in jail for taking your own personal money and placing a bet. Nice.
    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  131. Legal by shipbrick · · Score: 1

    So if it is legal for them to lure you in to sue you, is the opposite true?
    Can I set up a ton of fake copywrited files on an otherwise clean machine with filenames like "Brittney Speres - Crapsong.mp3" and "American Midol - Season 3.mpeg" but have the content really be non copywrited material like say family videos and folk songs, and then install their software, get sued by them, and then counter sue?

    just a thought..

  132. Mod parent UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easily the most insightful thing said on /. in a long, long time. Honest.

  133. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo by ClubStew · · Score: 1

    MPAA and RIAA have both gone on record stating basically that downloading copyrighted work is more costly than other crimes, which of course includes molestation. And of course, cost is all that matters - not shattering lives like RIAA has so many times before.

  134. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea by zakezuke · · Score: 1

    Its not always a bad thing to help, but check your local laws first (remember, ignorance of the law is not a defense).

    Ummm, ignorance of the law is a great defense. When you establish accountability the first things taken into account are intent, knowledge, wrecklessness, and negligence.

    see wiki for more details. According to wiki in Australia these are simply called fault elements.

    In living in Victoria myself, and have in fact taken a "found wallet" to the police before with no id in it, they gave me a call a few months later(well, a friend who works there did at least) to advise me that since it hadn't been claimed I could submit a request for claiming the funds.

    If you found a wallet, you should try to find the owner. The law might require you to go to the police, but if your intent was to find the owner, and were ignorant of the letter of the law, this would make a GREAT defense.

    While most places there is the rule "ignorance is no defense", in practice it's the best one available. In reality, being stupid is not a crime, neither is having a faulty memory. Even in places that have strict liability in place, even then in practice ignorance is a great defense. Traffic violations are a good example of this, where you can almost always tell it to the judge and at the very least talk your way down in terms of fine. For example, I ran a red light at an intersection marked no right on red. I told the judge "I didn't see the sign, went back and there is a sign, just never noticed it". I was still accountable, but failure to yield and a fine of $20.00.

    But in a civil matter, the rules are more vague than criminal.

    --
    There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  135. That lame joke.... by StressGuy · · Score: 1

    just cheapened every +5 funny mod I've ever got....thanks ;)

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  136. you don't have to listen to the truth from me by circletimessquare · · Score: 1
    might as well get the truth straight from the (reformed) terrorist asshole's mouth:

    When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

    By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.

    More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

    The attempts to cause mass destruction in London and Glasgow are so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that they are likely to have been carried out by my former peers.

    And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy.

    For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770

    so you keep blaming the west for what terrorist assholes do. you earn my contempt, the derision of the terrorist assholes, and a complete blind ignorance of the truth of what is going on in your world. congratulations, you're a sheltered propagandized western sheep: "terrorist assholes bomb the west: it's the west's fault, baaaaaah"

    this is your problem: you think what these assholes do has absolutely anything to do with what the usa did. if the usa didn't ever do any of it's cold war crimes or if the usa acceded to every agenda item of the jihadists, what would happen?

    what would happen is that the jihadists would keep right on attacking the west. because what they do IS NOT A REFLECTION OF THE WEST. jihadist asshoels do not attack the west because the cia killed che guevara, or because of nike sweat shops in indonesia, or because the usa didn't sign the kyoto protocol, or because of walmart, or any of your retarded fringe concerns. jihadists bomb the west BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN ORIGINAL RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY

    wake up, sheltered propagandized western retard, your blind ignorance is showing
    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:you don't have to listen to the truth from me by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      so you keep blaming the west for what terrorist assholes do. you earn my contempt First you acknowledge that the guy is a deplorable terrorist asshole...
      and then you go ahead and believe his rationale as gospel truth.

      It never quite occured to you that, no matter what he says, he'll be lying for the sole purpose of artificially inflating the perceived importance and power of his extremist associates?

      I think the KKK pulled the same stunts.

      jihadists bomb the west BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN ORIGINAL RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY Maybe they do and maybe they don't--but I doubt they'd have the ready access to international level funding if the US weren't constantly meddling in, and pouring money into, the systems in their nations from which they can feed off of.

      One hundred angry extremists of any religion, training in the desert, aren't going to have any impact until they can afford the plane tickets. That wouldn't be so easy if the US weren't pouring billions of dollars into their local economies.
      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  137. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo by Some_Llama · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you are thinking about molesting children then it is the same as molesting children, DUH.. eventually you would find a child and molest him/her, better to stop you now before a child is hurt.

    This is great proactive behavior on the behalf of our government but i think we can do better, statistically speaking there is a percentage of people who will go to jail, the percentage is higher in some cities than others.. we could pro actively round up that number of people each year and put them in prison and save tons of police manhours.

    OR even better put everyone in jail from age 8 on, and then the ones who exhibit good behavior can be released after 10 years or so (when they can become productive members of society, re:consumers/wage earners). Problem solved.

  138. my god, the blindness by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    i try to understand how people like you think, and it just utterly escapes me. the best i can get at is that you suffer from a subtle form of racism. basically, you see westerners as responsible people, and you see middle easterners as irresponsible. you hold westerners responsible for what middle easterners do. no matter what. EVEN when a nonwesterner attacks the west, EVEN when they do it in the name of a stilted interpretation of their own religion. it's fucking incredible! it's racism, condescension, patronization

    let's put it this way you blind propagandized low iq sheep: in a world where only westerners can be held accountable for anything in this world (your way of thinking of the world, not mine), then, by logical inference, westerners will be in the middle east forever. after all, they are the only ones you hold accountable for anything, right? therefore, they are the only ones, IN YOUR MIND, who can fix anything in the middle east. it's an extension of your retarded logic: westerner's 100% accountable and responsible, for everything. fucking insane

    meanwhile, in a world where you can hold middle easterners responsible for what middle easterners do (what a radical concept! i know! i'm WAY out there!) then you can begin to see the west leave the middle east

    people like you just blow my mind. it's mystifying, your blindness, your subtle racism

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:my god, the blindness by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      i try to understand how people like you think, and it just utterly escapes me.

      You mean like the part where you'll acknowledge someone as completely and utterly lacking in moral character and fiber (an extremist terrorist) but then, if they say something which supports your personal bias, you'll quote them as gospel truth?

      The rest of your post is a just a rant. Such as...

      basically, you see westerners as responsible people, and you see middle easterners as irresponsible.

      Completely unsubstantiated and also completely false. I don't draw responsibility lines based on geographic location of origin. I draw responsibility lines based upon making sure that, for example, the hundred billion which you send to Afghanistan to fight opium growth isn't really turned into AKs and plane tickets for international terrorists--something the US seems to be incapable of doing or even understanding.

      you hold westerners responsible for what middle easterners do.

      Wow. You're pretty accomplished at the skill of making things up. I hold the US government responsible for the millions of dollars of aid which it sends willy-nilly around the globe. I hold the US government responsible for the billions of dollars of business interest which the politicians and their business compatriots send willy-nilly around the globe. An Afghani with a bad attitude is no different from a New York slum dweller with a bad attitude. The difference is that the New York slum dweller doesn't have access to hundreds of thousands of US taxpayer dollars.

      no matter what. EVEN when a nonwesterner attacks the west,

      Yeah? Aside from the poorly contrived evidence of 9/11, can you cite one time when this has actually happened?

      let's put it this way you blind propagandized low iq sheep:

      Either you're deliberately ignoring the universal dependency of financing or else you're describing yourself.

      in a world where only westerners can be held accountable

      How about we start by holding the Western pseudo-royalty accountable for where they spend their (in reality, our) tax money? I understand that you can't bear to face the reality of financing. Doing so would eliminate the basis for your "it's all teh evil Muslims fault" rants.

      If you enable a terrorist then, in my book, you are a terrorist. The US Federal Government has been enabling terrorists since at least WW-II and probably long before.

      westerners will be in the middle east forever.

      That has nothing to do with my ideas or my perspective or my frame of reference. That's just a fact that follows the multi-billion dollar rebuilding efforts that we (the taxpayers) have been forcibly committed to. It's like East Germany all over again. How much did that cost?

      they are the only ones, IN YOUR MIND, who can fix anything in the middle east.

      The Middle East was doing whatever they were doing before the US Feds decided to raise a hissy fit about it with a microscope. Now that the US Feds did take the leap to go ahead and break everything in the Middle East then, yes, it's their responsibility to fix it. Sadly they're avoiding that responsibility and doing nothing but passing the cost for that rebuilding onto the blue and semi-white collar taxpaying population who never really wanted to get involved in the first place. Who's dodging responsibility?

      it's an extension of your retarded logic: westerner's 100% accountable and responsible

      Don't you think people should be held responsible if they buy a hit man? Shouldn't they be held responsible if they buy a bomb and leave it in a building to go off? Shouldn't they be responsible if, under the guise of (faulty) intelligence and acting in the most rash manner possible, they decided to plunge an entire nation into turmoil?

      Whether or not Middle Easterners were responsible for 9/11 (which I really, really doubt) the fa

      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  139. Sorry, I've forgot the original purpose... by owidder · · Score: 1

    ... of the MPAA See my small cartoon: http://geekandpoke.typepad.com/geekandpoke/2007/07 /did-you-know-th.html Bye, Oliver

  140. El Mooto by Lord+Balto · · Score: 1

    The site's not only down, the domain has been parked. Not necessarily as a result of being slashdotted. The torrent blogs are all over this. If they come back up there will no doubt be a surge of uploaded "videos" that will annoy the cr@p out of their monitors. This kind of thing rapidly becomes a no win situation as soon as folks find out about it. You'd think they'd save their money.

  141. Option #3 by JonTurner · · Score: 2, Funny

    You forgot option #3. Kill them and bury the bodies in a shallow grave behind the shed.

    But if you do, please shoot a video and post a torrent. That would be entertaining.

  142. So let me get this straight... by Roskolnikov · · Score: 1

    They got caught running a site; the purpose of which was the implied download of movies.
    They suggested the installation of client software to facilitate the download of movies, this software
    scanned the host installed for illicit files and phoned home.

    Once caught they removed all evidence of it's existence.

    One could presume that they're actions would suggest knowledge of wrong doing.
    A search for google cache for this site reveals nothing, but the site has been up and registers since after the 7th of February.

    Anyone have web-cache of this site? Anyone have the client installed? If you do you might have cause for a legal complaint
    and a subpoena to seize their machines, one that is accelerated in nature as they are attempting to cover their tracks.

    IANAL but this seems like a good way to get a foot in the door of their perfectly 'legal' operation.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  143. Huh??? by www.sorehands.com · · Score: 1

    No, it is not reporting home. It is making a list that the USER AUTHORIZED to make.

    Now, if this list is sent to MPAA central now that is not an authorized action.

    I would contend if the action is not authorized, then it would be a violation of California Penal Code 502.

  144. AppArmor by nanosquid · · Score: 1

    It will be really hard to implement this in a user friendly way

    Well, AppArmor (available for Linux) has fairly straightforward configuration files for major apps. So it can, for example, ensure that your Firefox can only read/write your download directory and the system directories it needs to.

    1. Re:AppArmor by earthbound+kid · · Score: 1

      That's good. Now they just need to polish it until it's good enough to be included and turned on in the default installations of Unbuntu et al.

  145. here's a magic concept for you by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    "personal accountability"

    let's see if you can use it in your ideology someday

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it