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

How is that even possible?

[MikeRT]

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?

Re:How is that even possible?

[pleappleappleap]

That has always been the case in this country. And in most other countries, for that matter.

Re:How is that even possible?

[noidentity]

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?

Only if you get caught, and only then if you don't have a good lawyer and lots of money (which you should have plenty of after you sold all that private information). In summary, it's only illegal if the little guy does it.

Re:How is that even possible?

[arkhan_jg]

It's theoretically not illegal for the MPAA to use those clandestinely gathered emails as evidence in their own separate case - they can't be sued for obtaining them.

Think whisteblowers; even if the evidence they gather is done by secretly dumping off their boss's email and then passing it to the FBI, the company doesn't get to sue the FBI for privacy violation to have the evidence supressed.

Of course, Torrent Spy/Justin Bunnel could have sued Robert Anderson directly for breach of contract, illegal access of company resources or whatever.

Now, whether the MPAA *should* have the same protection as law enforcement, and whether their illegal private dicks *should* have the same protections as whistleblowers when setting people up is a different set of questions altogether.

Re:How is that even possible?

[TubeSteak]

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.

It would only discourage the RIAA if the penalties outweigh the gains, probably by a significant margin.
Otherwise, like many other companies do when the fine is less than the [gain], they'll just factor in the penalties as the cost of doing business.

Re:How is that even possible?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I guess it would seem that way to people who frequently (if not exclusively) read sites like Slashdot who report on these cases in such a biased light. The problem you're facing is that, as far as the courts are concerned, intellectual property infringement is a serious developing problem, and sympathy is currently firmly with the copyright holder. They worked to build their empire, and aside from technically legal payola, they haven't really abused it. On the other hand, there are millions of people leeching from them, every day abusing them. It's no wonder the courts sided (initially) with them.

I know from experience that the concept of someone rich having the moral high ground over the common man is a difficult concept to grasp, and it's becoming increasingly difficult as the MPAA and RIAA insist on, more out of desperation than anything else, constantly abusing their positions of power in order to cheaply nip the problem in the bud. But, despite their shifty tactics, they are being wronged, and there needs to be a solution. Not just for them, but for their competitors and the entire industries they represent.

If you object to them, but still want to help out, start buying only indie works, and ignore the **AAs. It's not a wrong against them to support their competitors, and in fact, it's healthy competition. Who knows, we may see kinder, more gentle **AAs? It is, however, wrong to take a slice of their intellectual properties' value for yourself without paying for it first, and this will only make the courts side more with them over you. Who knows, we may see the **AA's every whim realised in legislature?

Re:How is that even possible?

[Danse]

It would only discourage the RIAA if the penalties outweigh the gains, probably by a significant margin. Otherwise, like many other companies do when the fine is less than the [gain], they'll just factor in the penalties as the cost of doing business.

Whoever was involved in paying him for the emails should be in prison for at least several years. That might serve as a bit more of a deterrent.

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge.

[LostCluster]

Oh, yeah, that's right. "Theft of intellectual property" isn't a legal charge.

Since when...

[Quantos]

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?

Hmm.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

The english "tolerate" is derived from the latin "tolero" which is to "bear, endure, or suffer". It is not a synonym for "respect". Seriously.

There is absolutely nothing about tolerance that requires you to think that somebody's beliefs, whatever they are, are not stupid. Nor is there anything that prevents you from noting the fact.

This has been your angry that-word-does-not-mean-what-you-think-it-means rant for the day. Thank you.

Anyone remember...?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't be the only atheist who thinks the Bible is still a reasonable book with plenty of good lessons and nice quotes. Just because you don't look to it theistically doesn't mean you should ignore/bash/insult it.

I've quoted Plato's Republic and Teddy Roosevelt in the last few days and I don't hold either of them as a source of religion...

If anyone really cares... Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and Erdas 2 are great quotable Biblical books, even in a completely secular environment.

Re:law for me but not for thee

[Huntr]

Their (the --AA) cause isn't to win hearts and minds, it's to throw enough shit at the walls that eventually some of it sticks. It's been an effective strategy thus far.

Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge.

[TheRaven64]

Copyright infringement is, however, and any creative work - including an email - is copyrighted automatically by the sender. The recipient receives an implicit license to do anything normally associated with receiving an email, but no one else does. If you intercept an email, you are copying a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright owner. I believe the fine for wilful infringement currently stands at $7,500 per work in the USA. The fact that the MPAA has engaged in lawsuits prosecuting people for doing exactly this could almost certainly be used to justify a claim that they knew it was illegal, that they did it for financial gain, and all of the other requirements for the maximum fine.

Re:law for me but not for thee

[aaandre]

Corporate lawyers live in an alternate reality with calculable monetary penalties and rewards for every possible action, no matter how immoral. Their advise is based on the size of the monetary rewards and risk calculation.

Everything else is irrelevant.

The logic is there, just not quite human.

Re:Too shaky, no good

[mysidia]

The collection of e-mails would be a copyrighted work, even if some of the individual messages didn't contain very much aesthetic value. Copyright works don't have to be creative; there are a lot of factual works like pages of an almanac that contain simple facts about their subjects.

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.

As sweet as it might taste to use copyright against them, that sure sounds like a bad tack.

How about prosecution of the former associate under computer fraud and abuse act, for gaining access without authorization, and charges against MPAA for conspiracy to due the same, plus charges of Tortuous Interference against the MPAA for intentionally paying a former associate of the site to do things they knew (or should have known) would be against their agreement?

Realizing full well TorrentSpys E-mail servers would most likely be involved in inter-state communication.

This is no different from a company paying a sysadmin working for another company to plant a virus on a server to forward them trade secrets.

Re:Two separate issues

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Sort of. One hidden wrong and one documented wrong makes two documented wrongs... ... which is right, I guess.