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."

8 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, indeed it would be very ironic. Thanks for clarifying that one, I don't know where the world would be without Captain Obvious!

    2. Re:Maybe it's the wrong charge. by PriceIke · · Score: 5, Funny

      The real irony here is that the MPAA is paying someone who did NOT create the content for the use of that content (the emails and the information therein), which to anyone with common sense is plainly a crime. I am quite confident Anderson will distribute his earnings to the content creators in a manner consistent with that in which the MPAA distributes their earnings to their artists.

      --
      It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
  2. How is that even possible? by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:How is that even possible? by flaming+error · · Score: 5, Informative

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

  3. 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
  4. Re:I'm trying to figure out which is worse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Anyone remember...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.