Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA Spying Case To Be Appealed

Posted by samzenpus on from the let's-see-what-you-got-there dept.

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."

5 of 132 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe it's the wrong charge. by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Maybe it's not right to consider it "spying" because of the Wiretap excuse... but what about considering it "theft of intellectual property"?

    1. Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. by rts008 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I agree that it would be short term satisfaction to see them hoist by their own petard, I think it would set precedent in there favor for the long run. Society would lose more in the long term than the gain from short term gratification.

      I think they need bitch slapped hard for this, but most likely they will get a 'stern' talking to and not much more. Nothing with real teeth in it to seriously dissuade them. I also hope I aam wrong, but....

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  2. Two separate issues by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  3. I'm trying to figure out which is worse... by Goliath · · Score: 3, Interesting

    People who endlessly quote the Bible in every situation or people who ultra-endlessly quote the ultra-endless Ayn Rand in every situation.

  4. Perhaps not the Wiretap act by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But wouldn't this be covered under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986?