Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Rules Against TorrentSpy In MPAA Email Suit

Posted by Zonk on from the government-is-setting-a-great-precident-on-this dept.

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.

12 of 130 comments (clear)

  1. The MPAA wants us to act ethically??? by lecithin · · Score: 4, Funny

    "imploring movie fans to act ethically and resist the temptation to download pirated movies"

    How about -

      imploring the MPAA to act ethically and resist the temptation to download pirated emails.

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:The MPAA wants us to act ethically??? by Red_Foreman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. Am I reading this right?! by spyrochaete · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, according to US law, it's illegal to hack into someone's computer to read their private data but it's legal to pay someone else to do it?

    Yet the legality of hosting a site hosting .torrent files that are not themselves infringing is being called into question?

    This seems very inconsistent to me. Is it or is it not legal to act as a proxy to potentially illegal material?

    1. Re:Am I reading this right?! by boarder8925 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This seems very inconsistent to me. Is it or is it not legal to act as a proxy to potentially illegal material?
      Depends on who has more money.
      --
      Keep your eyes to the sky.
    2. Re:Am I reading this right?! by darkmeridian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    3. Re:Am I reading this right?! by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I never alluded to a class-based legal divide, and I don't really understand your conclusions. So the MPAA didn't use TorrentSpy's private emails for a subsequent illegal act... does that mean I can steal a gun from your locked house as long as I only use it for target practise? Or photocopy your diary as long as I don't publish it? Is breaking and entering forgiven if the end result is benign?

      Didn't O.J. Simpson get acquitted because evidence was improperly obtained? I think methodology is more important than you claim.

  3. All animals are equal by Xonstantine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but some are more equal than others.

    While we (the citizens) weren't paying attention, "they" have put in a two-tiered structure where the laws apply to the sheep, but not the wolves. That's why if you steal someone's SSN, you go to jail, but if you are an illegal alien, hey, it's ok. Or if the MPAA or RIAA breaks the law, harrasses and intimidates people, it's ok...they are a legimiate business interest (and we know this because of their campaign contributions). If Tyson wants to import a whole town from Guatamala to work in their chicken processing plant in Arkansas, that's ok too. "Steal" a DVD by copying it, and it's pokey time for you. All the while your Congressmen and Congresswoman are busy putting their hands in your wallets to pay for boondoggles like the $140 billion ($450,000 for every pre-Katrina man, woman, and child) for New Orleans relief, and various other Bridges to Nowhere.

  4. Re:Store and forward by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You see there is this big fat legal distinction between the fact that a judge can order you to turn over your private emails and having some industrial spy steal them from you. The former is legal and a standard part of legal proceedings and the other is long established as a crime. The MPAA should get bitchslapped for this kind of thing. All parties involved should be raking them over the coals for this. The absolute LAST person that should be excusing this sort of behaivor is a judge. They are the sort of people that should be the first to object.

    The judge should have been pissed that the MPAA didn't file a discovery motion.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  5. Wait... what? by Bonker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    Anderson allegedly "hacked" into TorrentSpy's e-mail system and rigged it so that "every incoming and outgoing e-mail message would also be copied and forwarded to his anonymous Google e-mail account," records show.


    How the HELL is this not a felony?!
    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:Wait... what? by Otter · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      --
      What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  6. I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Tampering and stealing physical mail is a federal crime...
    yet theft of digital mail is A-OK?

    I want to have what that judge is smoking.

  7. Re:How is this not illegal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    TorrentSpy's case was based on the assertion that the MPAA violated the Federal Wiretap Act.

    All that this ruling means is that in the opinion of this court they did not.

    It does not grant carte blance access to industrial espionage. It does not mean that the MPAA violated no other laws.

    For a group of people who are picky about minor details of technical arguments you all assume a lot about legal ones.