Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules TorrentSpy Destroyed Evidence
Come play kdice writes "A federal judge has handed the MPAA a resounding victory in its copyright infringement lawsuit against TorrentSpy. Judge Florence-Marie Cooper entered a default judgment against Justin Bunnell and the rest of the named defendants in Columbia Pictures et al. v. Justin Bunnell et al. after finding that TorrentSpy 'engaged in widespread and systematic efforts to destroy evidence'. After being sued, TorrentSpy mounted a vigorous defense, including a counter-suit it filed against the MPAA in May 2006, but, behind the scenes, the court documents paint a picture of a company desperately trying to bury any and all incriminating evidence. TorrentSpy has announced its intention to appeal, but its conduct makes a reversal unlikely."
but from what I read, they did destroy evidence which they clearly aren't allowed to do. Sounds like bad decisions on the part of Torrentspy led to this.
Maybe if they left things as they were they could have fared better.
Gone!
The one doesn't invalid the other.
Regardless of anything the CIA does, TorrentSpy deserves to be punished for having destroyed evidence (regardless further of whether they initially did anything wrong). It is also true that the CIA should be punished accordingly, but the failure of the courts to deal with that yet is simply irrelevant in the discussion of this case.
If you're sued, DON'T DESTROY EVIDENCE! It eliminates any credibility, and exposes you to situations like this.
"Stumble before you crawl"
This has nothing to do with the CIA case.
Hey, look. We all know that the MPAA/RIAA are pricks. But the good fight isn't sticking up for people that are violating copyright in bulk on purpose. If a university were to block all of bit torrent, that's a cause worth fighting against. The right fight is to not allow the bad (or potential bad) to prevent the good. But let's not bury our heads in the sand and pretend places like TorrentSpy weren't doing anything but providing a way for people to share copyrighted material.
Like it or not, people are downloading and sharing against copyright all over. And there's no reason to support that.
I'm glad those sleazy rats at the MPAA won't be getting their greedy hands on my IP address from torrentspy.
This is the digital equivalent of throwing yourself on a grenade to save your comrads. Right on.
Thank you kindly,
AC
I'm really sick of our Federal system, as most of you know. It's completely ridiculous that law-school educated judges can not read the Constitution, and understand the basic definitions of freedom.
Copyright is a Constitutionally-protected power of government. I understand that. I hate copyright, I would never use it, but I accept it. To infringe on copyright, a person must take someone else's art, and make a copy. That person who paints their own version of a copyright-protected oil painting will use oils and canvas to breach copyright. The oil manufacturer is not guilty. The canvas manufacturer is not guilty. Exxon/Mobil who provided fuel for you to drive to buy the oil and canvas are not guilty. Ford, who provided the car to get to the store to buy oil and canvas are not guilty. The person selling you a book with a license to reprint that oil, is not guilty. You, the person doing the copying, are guilty.
TorrentSpy is like the gun, or the gun manufacturer. The murderer is the person actively aiming the weapon in anger, and pulling the trigger. The person selling the gun shouldn't care what the end user is going to do, other than warn them that they're buying something dangerous. The person making the gun should not be held responsible. The ACT of committing a crime comes from actually committing a crime.
If copyright is moral, and valid, then the person doing the copying should be found guilty. Hosting a torrent is not hosting a file.
If you vote, please vote against retention on every position. Judges need to be kicked out as quick as they're voted in. Vote against incumbents who enforce the law, too (police chief, etc). There's no reason to keep anyone in office long enough to abuse power. All these judges are just power-hungry. They can't understand that copyright is protected by the artist, only against someone else copying the art.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
There were already investigations into "toture" before 2005, but I guess your PSYOPS doesn't account for that or want it to be exposed. Perhaps there was no 'Congressional' investigation ongoing, but that has nothing to do with the fact that it was obvious evidence and was destroyed specifically because it would be used as THE damning evidence in any Congressional Impeachment / Investigation or even a UN based investigation.
It was destruction of evidence, just because it was a 'classified' set of tapes, it was still evidence that could have been used by numerous groups and individuals in numerous cases against the government before during and after 2005. Hiding the evidence and destroying evidence are both illegal.
Cheers.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
And? In the first two cases, it's illegal for the police to withhold evidence or coerce witnesses into not testifying for the defense. In the last case, they didn't tamper with the files, they filed altered court documents and lied to cover up the fact that they stole the files via dumpster diving.
My blog
The tapes were destroyed subsequent to a court order not to do so, in direct violation of that order. The order came about at that time to preserve possible evidence in the event of a future investigation. It is the violation of that previous order, not 'destruction of evidence', that is the current CIA scandal. I believe if the current investigation reveals that the destroyed tapes are germane to the investigation their destruction can be then deemed 'destruction of evidence'.
I feel current copyright laws are so one sided as to be ignored.
I pay for cable and if I record a show that's fine, but if I download a show because I forgot to TiVo it then I am breaking the law.
Ripping a DVD that I paid for is breaking the law.
Downloading a CD that got scratched is breaking the law.
IMO: I will pay for content once and only once. If you want to sell me new content bundled with old aka (movie + directors cut) that's fine but when it's identical content then I have already paid for it.
The MAFIAAs say that a lot. But I hope it's not true. If it is, then they really are getting an unfairly generous deal, as the GP said.
I could see arguing that one buys a license, not the physical work. In that case, if the media were lost or destroyed, replacements would be available at a nominal charge to cover plastic, postage, overhead, etc. Personal backup copies to be stored safely would be OK under that concept, or the reverse -- making a copy to play and saving the original.
I could also see making the argument that you bought a copy of a work, it's now yours to do with as you please -- "first sale" doctrine. You could give it to your friends, or sell it to someone else. Of course if you break it, tough. Buy another, just like if you broke a dinner plate.
But as you state it, they want the best of both worlds. You buy a license to to a specific copy of a work. You can play it or not. But you can't back it up, you can't transfer the work to a new medium so you can continue to use it after the original technology is no longer supported. All you own is the license to play copy # 1267888993 of "Oops, I did it again" on CD.
Kudos, though. You did get a car analogy in. It might be better to add that you need to buy a license to operate each car you own, and one for each friend or relative that might borrow your car. And each license wouldn't cost a $50 fee from the DMV, but would be sold as part of the car, and each license would cost the full price of a car. Trade-ins not accepted. So a two-car, two-driver household would need to "buy" four cars, that is, one license for each driver for each car.
I am not a crackpot.