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."

Comments

Re:How is that even possible?

[flaming error]

It would seem that "legality" is proportional to the cost of your legal counsel, and inversely proportional to the virtue of your cause.

Re:How is that even possible?

[StikyPad]

It *is* illegal, but if those emails also document an illegal (or legally actionable) activity, then they can be used as evidence.

The rules of evidence are more strict for law enforcement than for private citizens. That's just the way it is.

In my nonbinding opinion, I think the case against TorrentSpy should stand, AND the responsible parties should be prosecuted for gaining access to a computer system without authorization. To my knowledge, this is fully allowable within the bounds of the law, and would rightfully discourage the RIAA (or anyone else) from using such methods in the future.

Industrial Espionage

[ExRex]

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.