Court Rules Against TorrentSpy In MPAA Email Suit

mikesd81 writes "C|Net reports that a lawsuit filed by TorrentSpy against the MPAA, accusing it of intercepting the company's private e-mails, was tossed out of court this week. Even though a U.S District judge ruled that the MPAA broke no rules, the MPAA does admit it paid $15,000 to obtain private e-mails belonging to TorrentSpy executives. The MPAA's acknowledgment is significant because it comes at a time when the group is trying to limit illegal file sharing by imploring movie fans to act ethically and resist the temptation to download pirated movies. From the article: 'Ethically, it's pretty clear that reading other people's e-mail is wrong,' said Lorrie Cranor, an associate research professor and Internet privacy expert at Carnegie Mellon University. 'Being offered someone else's e-mails by a third party should have been a red flag.' TorrentSpy is appealing the decision." This is just not a good week for those guys.

Comments

Stealing ....

[Anonymous Coward]

So paying a third party to steal insider information and possible trade secrets isn't illegal? Can someone explain that one to me? Didn't someone just go to jail for trying to sell Coke insider info to Pepsi?

Re:The MPAA wants us to act ethically???

[Red_Foreman]

TorrentSpy should press criminal charges against the MPAA.
 
  Industrial Espionage is still illegal, and purchasing internal emails maybe fall under Industrial Espionage statutes. I am not a lawyer, but in my opinion TorrentSpy should look into filing criminal charges against the MPAA, or the agent of the MPAA that authorized the purchase of these emails, and the person that sold those emails to the MPAA.

How is this not illegal?

[MikeRT]

It's illegal to buy any good that is obtained through illegal means. I can't believe that at a minimum, the MPAA executives didn't violate a state law. Maybe TorrentSpy needs to contact a local attorney and see what options they have under state law. I find it very hard to believe that agreeing to pay for data gained through hacking is legal in any state in the United States.

Re:The MPAA wants us to act ethically???

[cez]

According to court documents, the MPAA came into possession of the e-mails after first being approached by Robert Anderson. Anderson is a former business associate of Justin Bunnell, TorrentSpy's founder.

Besides the 15 grand they paid for these "legally" aquired emails, one wonders what else they offered Mr. Anderson... perhaps the Blue Pill? But in all seriousness, this guy just happened to spend the time and risk of hacking the email servers with no prior contact with the MPAA? That smells awfully fishy too me. Perhaps someone out there needs to "legally" aquire some MPAA emails and find out the truthiness of this.

Re:Sadly this is the correct decision

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that Google are also "facilitating illegal trading of copyrighted works"

Try this http://www.google.com/search?hl=sv&q=filetype%3Ato rrent+medieval&btnG=S%C3%B6k&meta=, should we try to close down Google to?

Most things can be used to commit criminal acts but we should still only convict the person who committed the criminal act, not the store that sold the baseball bat that was used to break a window.

Counter sue for copyright violation.

[Egdiroh]

By using them as the foundation for a lawsuit the MPAA violated the copyrights related to those emails. So torrentspy should countersue for the value attached to the infringement, the cost of the settlement from the lawsuit plus torrentspy's lawyer costs.

Only one question...

[pla]

a lawsuit filed by TorrentSpy against the MPAA, accusing it of intercepting the company's private e-mails

We already know that the **AA can get away with whatever it wants, and that most judges have as much integrity as most politicians.

But what I want to know here - Why did TorrentSpy sue rather than pressing charges? This doesn't sounds like a civil offense, it sounds like an outright criminal action on the parts of both the MPAA and Anderson.

We should have people looking at going to prison over this, not having some petty countersuit thrown out of court.

Re:Wait... what?

[Otter]

No one is saying that that's legal. The question is whether the MPAA should have known they were obtained illegally when Anderson sold the emails to them, claiming they had been obtained legally.

Anyway, I'm sure some combination of "they weren't stolen, they were copied" and ""let's say you leave your back door unlocked and I..." is sufficient to make all of this OK.

Re:Am I reading this right?!

[darkmeridian]

There is a difference between inducing, hiring, or causing someone to steal e-mail and buying the e-mails after he already had stolen it. The MPAA did not use the information to break the law. (As in the case of identity thieves who buy credit card numbers.) The Wiretap Act applies only against those who steal information, not against those who get it afterwards. The documents were not trade secret so there's really no other recourse available to TorrentSpy aside from perhaps getting the documents thrown out as not admissible.

TorrentSpy should have sued the former employee who stole the information from them. There's no proof that MPAA induced the employee to violate the law. They should have sued this guy out of house and home. Instead, they worked with him to file a lawsuit against the MPAA. In doing so, they sued a party against whom they had no recourse under the Act. It was a risky strategy that did not pay off.

There is lots of evidence that the rich are treated differently, but this isn't it.