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."
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
Start a happiness pandemic
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!
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.
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
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.
"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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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.
Only on Slashdot would someone other than the MPAA/RIAA compare illegally downloading something that would cost twenty dollars to molesting children.
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."
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.
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.
true pirate sites DON'T have "family filters", yarrrrr!!! :P
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.
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.
Entrapment and spyware, those two things are illegal.
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
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
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
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?
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.
Entrapment only covers law enforcement. Despite its claims to the contrary, the MPAA/RIAA organizations are not law enforcement agencies.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
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.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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!
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.
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.
Wikileaks, no DNS
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.)
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.
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.
Epic troll. I tip my hat to you, sir.
+5, Truth
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.