Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Spying Case To Be Appealed
esocid writes "Back in 2005, the MPAA hired Robert Anderson, a former associate of TorrentSpy's owner, to illegally obtain internal emails and trade secrets. He did so by routing the email from the internal server to his own Gmail account. He subsequently sold 34 pages of stolen information for $15,000 to the MPAA. TorrentSpy owner Justin Bunnel sued them for spying, but lost the case due to a ruling that stated it was not illegal since the information was not intercepted under the Wiretap Act. The EFF called this decision a 'dangerous attempt to circumvent privacy laws,' since it implies that the unauthorized interception of anyone's personal email is legal. The appeal could have ramifications for MPAA president Dan Glickman, as the decision is expected around the time of his contract renewal."
Maybe it's not right to consider it "spying" because of the Wiretap excuse... but what about considering it "theft of intellectual property"?
I guess this fellow who intercepted the emails was some sort of Internet vigilante? He was hacking for the MPAA, which is apparently a quasi-government organization at this point. Stealing tangible mail is still a felony, however.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
So, let me get this straight. It's not illegal to break your employer's confidence and send a full dump of sensitive emails automatically to your private email account where you sell them to an interested third party?
Mr. Anderson. How nice to see you again. - Agent Smith
If you break into someone's house because you think they stole your things, and you find your things there, you can use that as evidence of the theft, especially if you document your break-in. You could sue the person for stealing your things in the first place, and probably win.
At the same time, it was illegal for you to break into the thief's house, and the police may well charge you for B&E. But that doesn't mean we all have to pretend that you didn't find your things there.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
People who endlessly quote the Bible in every situation or people who ultra-endlessly quote the ultra-endless Ayn Rand in every situation.
But wouldn't this be covered under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986?
TorrentSpy owner Justin Bunnel sued them for spying, but however lost the case due to a ruling that stated it was not illegal since the information was not intercepted under the Wiretap Act.
Since when does something have to be illegal for a lawsuit?
Some people are only alive because it's against the law for me to hunt them down and kill them.
Like..
http://torrentfreak.com/torrentspy-loses-case-against-mpaa-071218/
Apparently they deleted evidence of the copyright violations that occurred on their site.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but no actual theft occurred; the original data is still there. If you're going to make a big stink about terminology then please be consistent with it at all times, not just when it suits you.
...I wonder who would be receptive to bribes at MPAA HQ?
Since a great deal of US law is prohibitions on what law enforcement cannot do, there is currently a large amount that is open to private citizens that simply doesn't come up very often. For civil cases there are rules about obtaining evidence, but most of these rules relate to things like stolen work product from attorneys and things like grand theft.
The problem here may quite likely be that the person "stealing" the email did nothing that is directly illegal. It might not have been very nice, but in terms of a law being violated there just might not be anything. Even ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) is going to be a bit of a stretch here.
If the email in question was accessible to the person "stealing" it in his job, then I suspect about all you could try for is some kind of theft of proprietary information, i.e., trade secrets. This would apply to stealing a customer list but email? Might be tough.
Of course, he can be sued for his actions, but trying to categorize the lawsuit on the basis of wiretap? I think you would have to sue under the same grounds as you would for stealing a customer list, that techically there isn't much in the way of law against it.
Remember, I can sue you for spitting on your sidewalk if I want. There is no reason I cannot other than common sense. So suing someone for trading supposedly secret emails can certainly be done. Just don't try to characterize your suit as being on criminal grounds.
So quickly we've forgotten that "rubico" fellow that accessed Palin's e-mail account. When it happens to our politicians (who should be accountable to the people), it's a federal crime. When it happens to individuals or businesses, whatever floats your boat.
it is incredible that the MPAA thinks that this sort of attitude will help them with their cause.
Corporate email monitoring systems do the same thing. If you have ever been part of a HIPAA security compliant organization then you know this is true.
Unfortunately, while such activities fall under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, according to our friends at Wikipedia:
"The Act authorizes civil proceedings by the Department of Justice to enjoin violations of the Act, but does not create a private cause of action. Thus, victims or putative victims must work with the U.S. Attorney in order to obtain an injunction."
And we all know how eager the DOJ is to chastise the MPAA.
The closer you are to the code, the happier you are. - Ancient Geek Proverb
> If you break into someone's house because you think they stole your things, and you find your things there, you can use that as evidence of the theft, especially if you document your break-in. You could sue the person for stealing your things in the first place, and probably win.
Actually, they paid someone to break in. IMHO, that's even worse. The reason we have a suppression remedy is so that the police don't get tempted to abuse their powers to get convictions. If private parties are willing to hire their own "police" I really think that the suppression remedy ought to become available to keep private parties from engaging in the same sort of misconduct.
It's just not right that they should get away with doing something like that so flagrantly.
That's the first connection I made, too.
Your brain is not a computer.
Well, anymore it seems that if you are:
Big Media (TV Networks, MPAA, RIAA),
NSA,
Haliburton, or Blackwater,
Banking Industry,
[add favorite MegaCorp. here],
or the Prez,
then it's all National Security, ACTA, or WTO...
and are exempt from scrutiny and prosecution.
For those not on the above list, to accept the Corporate New World Order, you need to lube your rectum and get braced to have all 555 feet 5 inches (169.294 m) of the Washington Monument assrape you.
Why yes, observation and experience are making me somewhat cynical...and unfortunately have seen little reason to change my mind significantly.
I don't want to end up looking like goatse! So I try and fight this crap to my limited ability. I suggest you all do the same.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
As sweet as it might taste to use copyright against them, that sure sounds like a bad tack.
First, you can only copyright works with some creative content. So that means the MPAA would be off the hook for, hypothetically, a short email containing a one-word noncreative reply like "yes" -- such an email could perhaps be damning information, but arguably devoid of creative content and therefore not protected by copyright. I don't like the sound of that (that you can spy on me as long as I'm not writing anything creative).
Second, the Copy Right has numerous loopholes, such as fair use for purposes of critical commentary, noncommercial educational use, satire, etc. So the MPAA might try to mount some sort of fair use defense. I don't like the sound of that either (that you can spy on me as long as it is "fair use.")
Basically, copyright law is the wrong law to use here. It has got to be something more along the lines of the Wiretap Act or the Stored Communications Act.
IANAL.
$META_SIG_JOKE
So wiretapping is illegal but re-directing traffic is not?
Wow. Simply WOW.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
if id do that with my job, id have to pay alot of money... either that guy just had enough money, or privacy and companies secrets dont mean a thing in the us.
You're 100% right. This also goes for consultants, btw. It's is perfectly possible to advise a client to go into direction "A" and advise him to go into direction "B" half a year later - if you find a client who doesn't have a clue (like a government, for instance) you can more or less print money for as long as it happens. Afterwards you then use this as reference for new victims..
Insert
Or was the above satirical? If so, good show, Chance! Have you seen Being There?
$META_SIG_JOKE
I'm perplexed now. I think I may have completely missed your point.
My original reply I just blockquoted[below], but after review, I think I would be wrong in using it as is for my reply to your comment.
*further review, and RTFA, and TFS*
Uhmm... Forgive me for being an idiot, and 'knee-jerking' my own head from my shoulders.! :-)
I should have caught the 'tongue_in_cheek:...Maybe it's not right to consider it "spying" because of the Wiretap excuse..." bit, but totally fscked up the rest.
Really, no sarcasm intended here, I screwed the pooch big-time, and my apologies.(I'm leaving my reply for two reasons: 1. I am not afraid to admit my wrongs to everyone...2.This is how I really feel, even though off-topic, and totally unfair to you and your comment...:-)
*looks in mirror:"What a maroon!...Stupid git!"
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
There is a big case here at the moment involving the PMs adviser in an email discussing how to smear opponents. The question no one seems to be asking is, how did the emails get leaked.
davecb5620@gmail.com
The nature of infringement is considered. This is the crux of the book, the denouement, a spoiler. It is the philosophical rant around which the book is staged, the very reason for its existence. It is the summation of the philosophy of the book, as far as I can tell in its entirety.
No one in their right mind would consider this fair use, of course not everyone here is sane.