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?

[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: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?

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: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.