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."

102 of 617 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    2. 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 :) .

    3. 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.

    4. 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?

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Re:uh oh.... by Asztal_ · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    11. 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!
    12. 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
    13. 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
    14. 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?

    15. 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.

    16. 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.

    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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
    20. 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.
    21. Re:uh oh.... by StikyPad · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    22. 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.

    23. 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.

    24. 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
    25. 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.

    26. 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.

    27. 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.
    28. 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!
    29. 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.
    30. 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.
    31. 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.

    32. 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.
    33. Re:uh oh.... by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    34. 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.

    35. 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.
    36. Re:uh oh.... by DMoylan · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    37. 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......
    38. 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.

    39. 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.

  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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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

    7. 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.'
    8. 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....
    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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?

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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?"
  3. 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.

  4. 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 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....
    2. 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.

    3. 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).

    4. 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."
  5. 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?

  6. 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
  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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?

  11. 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...

  12. 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.

  13. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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."
  17. 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?

  18. 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.

  19. I knew they were fake... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    true pirate sites DON'T have "family filters", yarrrrr!!! :P

  20. 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 :)

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. Two words by razpones · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Entrapment and spyware, those two things are illegal.

  25. 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!" ...

  26. 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
  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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!
  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.
  33. 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.

    --
    \
  34. Re:Dateline NBC: To catch a paedo/porn by utopianfiat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Epic troll. I tip my hat to you, sir.

    --
    +5, Truth
  35. 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.

  36. 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.