MPAA Being Sued For Allegedly Hacking Torrentspy 448
goldaryn writes "Valence Media, the parent company of Torrentspy.com, one of the web's largest torrent search engines, has filed a lawsuit against the MPAA for allegedly hiring a hacker to steal e-mail correspondence and trade secrets. From the suit: 'The Motion Picture Association of America willfully and intentionally obtained without authority, conspired to obtain without authority, purchased, procured, used and disclosed private information that it knew was unlawfully obtained through unauthorized access to Plaintiffs' computer servers and private email accounts, in violation of United States and California privacy and computer security laws.'"
But (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
Why scoff? Not to justify the existance of the MPAA but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?
While the MPAA should be facing more serious legal action than a simple lawsuit the cries of "artists who are protected/represented by the **AA are just crap and their product is crap" are laughable when you consider that the **AA wouldn't have a leg to stand on if people actually felt this way. If people are serious about a boycott they need to go full tilt, if they turn to piracy the **AA is going to get paid either way.
I agree that these movies, for the most part, are crap. But they're crap at any price, you won't be finding this trash on my HD or in my home media collection. I simply have no interest. Pirating only reinforces the concept that stuff like "Gigli" has a viable market that is being robbed by P2P and BT services.
Re:But (Score:2)
Why scoff? Not to justify the existance of the MPAA but if people think this stuff is crap why are people being caught downloading it?
Because the truth is there are people who want this crap, just not at the price and/or with the conditions that the MPAA imposes.
Re:But (Score:4, Insightful)
With theft, you lose your Audi or Walmart physically loses the stuff off the shelf. With copyright infringement, the MPAA is not physically deprived of their property. Their is potential loss of profit because the demand for their product goes down, but the same could be said if people had the ability to make their own car and thus make purchasing your Audi less attractive.
Re:But (Score:4, Funny)
"Copyright 2005. All rights reserved."
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
There is absolutely no inconsistency in a position that only one of these is wrong. The issue Torrentspy is raising has nothing to do with the ethics of duplicating information, it's about privacy.
Re:But (Score:3, Interesting)
And here is the problem once again, a definition issue. the MPAA doesn't believe that what TorrentSpy is helping to steal is simply "material intended for distribution to the public". Generally most movies have a legal statement on them which makes it clear that the product is NOT for public distribution, but in
Re:But (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you believe that they do not have a right to do this?]
Not quite right. They sell (distribute) it to the public for the private viewing of the public. In other words, although they distribute it to the public, they don't want the public turning around and giving public performances. (Like showing the copy at your place of business for instance as a guess.)
They may indeed have every right to do this, and making and distributing these copies may indeed be illegal, but this is indeed material which they produced for distribution to the public.
Seems like that to me at least.
all the best,
drew
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA/MPAA material being copied on p2p networks however was (intended for being) published, no (virtual) breaking into mpaa/riaa computers is taking place etc.
In other words, the 2 situations are so different that compating them as you do and claiming they are in fact the same thing is imho extremely silly.
Re:But (Score:3, Insightful)
If you throw a rock and break my window, I can not have you arrested for murder. What you did does not meet the definition of the charge.
If I leave my front door unlocked and you come into my home unwanted and uninvited, I can not charge you with rape, as what you did does not meet the definition of the charge.
If you infringe on my right to
Re:But (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a little more complicated than that. I, as one person, may not need one particular MP3 to survive. However, in aggregate music, art, science and philosophy form culture, and we, as a society, need culture to survive as an advanced civilization. We need those things to inspire us with dreams and aspirations, to make us see past our own insignificant lives, to leave a legacy for future generations.
Some forms of art are expensive, like making movies, but other forms like music and creative writing are very inexpensive. A motivated hobbyist can do a pretty decent job at music or writing. What the studios have done is positioned themselves as the gatekeepers and the toll booths of culture. Sure, they do provide a service of filtering out crappy content (crappy in the sense of unpolished and poorly produced), but the value of that service is all out of proportion to their tax on culture.
Re:But (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But (Score:3)
Exactly... And it is also not considered legal to freely distribute someone else's copyrighted work. I'm having real difficulty here understanding why people can't put together the facts on this issue.
Simple breakdown: (we'll use a music CD as an example)
You have a writer that pens the
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't bought a CD in years
A large part of being a part of the market for music CDs is being in the *habit* of listening to new ones. If you lose the habit, you stop wanting new CDs. So the RIAA is in a really tough position. If they implement effective controls on copying, they cut their audience, and if they don't their audience cuts them out.
The MPAA is a slightly different animal, but not much. I no longer go to see movies, and I don't miss them. My wife subscribes to NetFlix, and I don't even bother to watch them. Even though they're already paid for. It's not time pressure, either. I just lost the habit. I used to watch lots of TV, and now I don't.
Is it because they are purveying crap? Possibly. But they always were, you know. If I look at the old movies I liked, or listen to the old music, well, Sturgeon's law...only squared. There is actually some good stuff there, but slightly less than 1%. If you want "very good" it becomes much less than 1%. It's mostly a matter of habit.
Perhaps the original StarWars was as good as I remember. The second time I saw it, it still seemed pretty good, even though it was years later, the screen was an ordinary screen, and the print was pretty scratchy. The sequels? I saw the first one. It was ok, but nothing special. I've heard about several of the others...apparently there are several unexpected plot twists. It takes more than plot twists to make a movie worth seeing. In fact, plot twists aren't even necessary. The basic plot can be totally predictable and the movie can still be great (think "West Side Story" or "Camelot").
The thing is, you can set out to make a great movie, but you can't reliably get there. You can set out to make a splashy special effects movie, and you can reliably achieve it. You've got to be willing to make a bunch of schlock to make an occasional masterpiece. Some Directors are. Occasionally a producer is. A business office is never willing to do that.
If the MPAA rules, there will never be any more great movies. Don't criticize them because they produce crap, criticize them for fouling the well.
That said, lots of people like schlock. It can be watched mindlessly and without significant emotional involvement. "I Love Lucy" was one of the most successful radio shows ever produced, and almost all of it is schlock. There were occasional gems, but mainly it was schlock.
It would be nice if this suit were to bankrupt the MPAA. I don't expect it. But if every participant in both the MPAA and the RIAA caught a disgusting disease and dies slowly of the period of three years...I wouldn't weep one tear. Though I would feel a bit sorry for the janitors.
Re:But (Score:4, Funny)
People like to take the time to look at car accidents, but that doesn't mean car accidents are a good thing.
...unless, I suppose, the vehicles involved where ones containing chaufferred MPAA executives. But, I digress...
Re:But (Score:3, Interesting)
Piracy is just a scapegoat for an industry that churns out horrible products. I'd love t
Re:But (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:But (Score:3, Funny)
I completely agree.
Re:But (Score:4, Funny)
Re:But (Score:3, Informative)
If that doesn't help, then it's probably a good thing that you're unfamiliar with those two shows.
Re:But (Score:3, Interesting)
While true, the conviction of el Enron honchos gives me a bit more hope. So it appears that execs can be held accountable for financial misappropriation... what about sending them to jail for hacking the same way the Justice Department likes to sentence other hackers??
Re:But (Score:3, Insightful)
MPAA: What? you want to send us to jail? *Pulls out checkbook* Here's $30 mill.
JD: Oh wait, YOU didn't do the hacking, that guy you hired did, we should be going after him. Sorry for wasting your time.
That's how they won't go to jail.
Re:But (Score:3, Funny)
JD: Oh wait, YOU didn't do the hacking, that guy you hired did, we should be going after him. Sorry for wasting your time.
I'm afraid what you have described here is bribery and the JD has a rather dim view on that. What really happens is this:
MPAA (to JD): What? you want to send us to jail?
[Motions to passing Senator and pulls out checkbook]
MPAA (to Senator): Here's $30M for your campaigns! BTW, we're having a bit of a problem
Re:But (Score:3, Funny)
$string =~ s/MPAA/United States congress/;
print $string;
It's sad really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's sad really (Score:3, Funny)
So after a corporation has been in business for 18 years, it can vote and join the army?
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds very noble, but it is entirely unconvincing.
If Overly Critical Guy would give at least one example of a single person that stated both views he would be more credible.
As it is, it sounds like Overly Critical Guy can't believe that the contradictory sentiments may actually be held by non-intersecting subsets of posters.
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
It is valid and consistent position to hold that violating copyright is moral, while violating copyleft is amoral.
The two are not identical in intention. Copyleft is in fact designed to thwart copyright.
(the names rather implies as much)
Hoisted By Their Own Petard! (Score:5, Funny)
Now, it's only a matter of time before we see the "MPAA Sues MPAA" headline. I'm certain there's money floating all over the place inside the MPAA and those law-talking guys are going to get to thinking that they better sue first for the rights to that money. You don't know the phrase "every man for himself" until you've visited an association of lawyers.
Anyone else praying for the MPAA to implode in on itself like flan left in a cupboard?
Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard! (Score:2)
IIRC though, he pulled back when he suddenly realized anyone who composed a Haiku in elementary school was a copyright holder -n
Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard! (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. And about a week later, Senator Hatch got caught running pirated software on his government website.
We didn't hear much from him about blowing up computers after that.
Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard! (Score:2)
Re:Hoisted By Their Own Petard! (Score:2)
if the MPAA is sued and loses (Score:3, Funny)
If this happens, and MPAA loses, who will be the stewards of our movies? Who will be there to serve the movie-viewing public? Who will ensure we go en masse to the theater over an opening-weekend to recoup movie-making costs before word spreads of what a turkey that movie is (more on that in sec)?
This looks serious. Please, please, please... leave the MPAA alone! They are our shepherds.
(I saw an interview a long time ago about one of the MPAA techniques to ensure ROI on their turkeys. Multi-screen theaters were extorted into showing and advertising known turkeys to maximize viewers before word spread about how bad the movie really was. They also had to commit to a minimum number of showings. In return, they were "allowed", given the privelege, of showing true blockblosters. So, if it's a movie's first weekend, and it's getting HUGE publicity (Steve Martin's
- RV
), consider it a red flag, and wait for word of mouth about the movie's worth.)Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses (Score:2)
Another thing they do is refuse to pre-screen movies for critics if they know the movie sucks and will get bad reviews. IIRC, they did this with RV, as well as Doogle.
It's Doogal (Score:2)
Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses (Score:2)
Don't worry - Only we mere mortal humans, who can greivously appreciate the loss of 10% of our lifespan to a metal and cement box, actually "do time" for breaking the law.
The MPAA will just get a stern talking-to and the equivalent (to the rest of us) of a parking ticket.
And people wonder how I can feel moral outrage that we allow incorporation to entities which exist solely for the purpose of making a profit. Silly me.
Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses (Score:3, Informative)
Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses (Score:3, Informative)
That's called "block booking," and it's been illegal for over 50 years.
Schwab
Re:if the MPAA is sued and loses (Score:5, Insightful)
Well played (Score:2)
Phwew! (Score:5, Funny)
But who cares about a pirate? (Score:3, Interesting)
And, do you know what? Since people have only a rudimentary understanding of the "dark Internets," everyone will eat their explanation up, and then head to the nearest Wal-Mart to purchase a CD published by a RIAA affiliate.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Torrentspy.
Re:But who cares about a pirate? (Score:5, Insightful)
But there's "dirty hands" involved... (Score:2)
Doesn't matter if Torrentspy is "pirating" things. If they obtained things illictly about that fact
from Torrentspy, the MPAA doesn't really have the right or ability to pursue the case at that
celebrity jailtime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:celebrity jailtime (Score:3, Funny)
All hail... King of the Mixed Metaphor! Hail! Hail!
Re:celebrity jailtime (Score:2)
Re:celebrity jailtime (Score:2)
Re:celebrity jailtime (Score:2)
What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here we see an eye-for-an-eye. Gandhi said if we followed that rule the whole world would be blind. I think it's appropriate here as in the long run, it isn't consumers who will "win" if this case continues, it is the lawyers and the law itself that wins. As cases are won and lost and precedents are set, we don't see the market of sellers and buyers made easier, instead we see more laws and legal precedents that put more power in the hands of those who can afford the legal costs.
So what happens if the MPAA loses? Can you or I use the same case tactics to defend our own information? What happens if the MPAA wins? They only get more powerful. In the end, someone else is enhancing their power (through the State), rather than a market that really doesn't need any more powerful players in the game.
I'd rather see someone sue the LAWS that are bad rather than take advantage of other bad laws to try to fix the system in their favor.
Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye? (Score:2)
Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye? (Score:5, Funny)
"Give me a steak. Medium rare."
Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't sue laws. Even if you could, they have no money to pay damages. You need to VOTE to change laws.
This is a tough one for me. As an anarcho-capitalist, I believe...
Ah well, that explains it.
Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye? (Score:2)
Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye? (Score:2)
Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye? (Score:2)
If I'm going to get blinded anyway, I'd rather the guy who does it be in the same boat. Otherwise he'll keep tormenting me and I won't be able to do anything. Taking away power from those who misuse it isn't mindless revenge; it's pretty well grounded in logic.
Re:What did Gandhi say about an eye for an eye? (Score:2)
Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic) (Score:2)
Re:Anarcho-capitalist? (off topic) (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. When gold is money (as it has been for almost 8000 years until 1913), people use it as a store of wealth and a unique article of barter. When paper was redeemable for gold, we had a VERY strong and stable currency (the dollar of 1790 was only devalued about 5% by 1912). From 1913 to 2006 the paper unbacked dollar has devalued almost 96%.
In fact, the US experienced this in its earlier days of currency. The gov't decided to allow banks to print their own currency, and it was a complete mess. The US gov't finally had to step in and take over all minting itself.
Again, I disagree. Check out Rothbard's What Has Government Done To Our Money [mises.com], a free e-book. Rothbard explains what happened with banks -- they were nationalized after Lincoln tried a central bank (it failed). Nationalized banks fell under a national charter that let them loan out more money than they had reserves for -- causing the historic runs. This was NOT free market banking. In fact, Lincoln (and Greenspan and now Bernanke) all believe in the monetary policy that is generally called the "real bills doctrine" which repeatedly has been found to be false.
Lastly, without some kind of backing of the currency, its worth remains very low. US currency is backed by the economic and military power of the US gov't. I would argue that any sufficiently valuable and stable currency, in the absence of government, would make whatever group produces that currency into the gov't, ipso facto.
Untrue. Government backing of the dollar through faith has caused the dollar to fall 96% in less than 100 years. Before this time, currency backed by gold has held value for thousands of years. The only time gold faltered was during gold rushes which was quickly corrected by increased buying power in one market that shipped gold elsewhere to equalize. Before that, gold standards fell apart usually when _government_ debased gold with cheaper metals.
You can't (easily) counterfeit gold, and you can use gold in an economy much larger than the one we have today. It might instill a small soft and beneficial deflation, but this would be good for every economy as it encourages savings and smart investing.
Everything we see negative in society today can be attributed to fiat currency -- wars, socialism, powermongering and wage destruction. Housing bubbles, tech bubbles and even the Great Depression occured due to fiat currency. Faith comes from a hard money standard (gold), not from war and power which require more money devaluation to occur.
Isn't this legal yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
--jeffk++
Re:Isn't this legal yet? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Isn't this legal yet? (Score:2)
d00d (Score:5, Funny)
MPAA: How much to get us information on this evil company
h4x0r: d00d 3y3 c4n pwn3rfy th3m f0r ch3ep w1f my 0d4y j3etsp34k to0lbar!
Re:d00d (Score:4, Funny)
You missed a hyphen between the 0 and the d4y. Heck, can't you even spell and use proper punctuation in your 'leet?
Useful defense tactics (Score:3, Interesting)
Then we can all use them.
Very clever, let the MPAA pay for attacking these insane anti-citizen's rights laws.
Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:4, Insightful)
"These claims (by Torrentspy) are false," Kori Bernards, the MPAA's vice president of corporate communications, said in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "Torrentspy is trying to obscure the facts to hide the fact that they are facilitating thievery. We are confident that our lawsuit against them will be successful because the law is on our side."
Conceivably both lawsuits will succeed, both parties allege (different) illegal activities. The question is, whose suit will attract the most damages - one stolen spreadsheet or a few million stolen movies?
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm confused. I thought the law was supposed to be on the side of the public?
Oh well, I suppose when you pay for a law, you should expect it to be on your side.
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:2)
Also, torrentspy's claim (that they in no way validate or transfer any illegal material) might actually hold up. Heck, they don't even run the trackers... they just host the
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:2)
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:2)
For example:
5-finger discount from BestBuy: Theft
Watching a DVD you purchased: OK
Loaning your DVD to a friend: OK
Viewing a DVD with 5 friends: OK
Showing a DVD to 50 paying customers: Copywrite Violation
Burning a copy of a DVD and giving it to a friend: Copywrite Violation
Burning 100 copies of a DVD and selling
Good. (Score:2)
Yeah!
Corporate Vigilante (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what happens when a corporate consortium declares itself a vigilante in the fight against pirrracy. What makes it worse is there own twisted view of what is morally right and what isn't (suing students into bankruptcy and hacking into people's computers to justify there ends most certainly isn't).
See, even large corporations support vigilanteism! (Score:3)
Anyway, back on topic. Ever since the RIAA started providing corrupt or malformed songs on P2P networks[1] it was only a matter of time before the MPAA started futzing with things too. However it is surprising that the MPAA would outdo the zealoutry of even the RIAA.
[1] I don't condemn all file sharing, only the illegal kind.
Doubtful (Score:4, Insightful)
Unless the hacker has more direct contacts than one or two people inside the MPAA, I'd expect this to be swept under the carpet fairly quickly. I really hope the MPAA gets some bad press because of it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
this is funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
Besides, there is still the old idea that you can't call downloading "theft" because there really is no proven loser. We should all of us contact a lawyer and have legal documents drawn up, and notorized that say something like "In the event that any digitally copyrighted material is found on this hard drive, let this document serve as a legally binding guarantee that said materials would never have been purchased otherwise and therefore no loss of revenue can possibly be proven solely based on the posession and or existance of these materials."
See, the problem is they have managed to convince too many judges that ALL of the material you or I may have on a hard drive would have absolutely been purchased had we not had the opportunity to download it.
I call bullshit. Who's with me?
Re:this is funny. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:this is funny. (Score:3, Insightful)
If enough good people prefer sharing there would really be no reason to pay for anything, I mean, its not like money is really based on anything anymore. And a lot of products are valuable because of their intellectual property, whatever that is..
Hrmm, I believe in The Abolition of Work [deoxy.org].
This [youtube.com] is also interesting..
Re:this is funny. (Score:2)
> "theft" because there really is no proven loser.
Downloading is not theft (it may or may not be copyright infringement) because that is well-established law in the US. Theft implies that someone has been deprived of possession of his property. Making a copy, authorized or not, does not deprive anyone of possession of any property and so is not theft.
Re:this is funny. (Score:5, Insightful)
Torrent sites track torrents and provide a means of exchanging copyrighted materials. It's pretty cut and dry.
Besides, there is still the old idea that you can't call downloading "theft" because there really is no proven loser.
Then you can't call GPL violations "theft," but Slashdot does all the time. The loser is the person who owns the material who would normally have been compensated, but will not be because you downloaded without paying. Your downloaded files will be uploaded to other individuals who will also not pay. It's facilitation of copyright violation and withholding of revenues owed.
We should all of us contact a lawyer and have legal documents drawn up, and notorized that say something like "In the event that any digitally copyrighted material is found on this hard drive, let this document serve as a legally binding guarantee that said materials would never have been purchased otherwise and therefore no loss of revenue can possibly be proven solely based on the posession and or existance of these materials."
*rolls eyes* Yeah, that'll work.
It doesn't matter if you wouldn't have purchased something. How does that magically give you the legal right to have it? Do you understand capitalism and economies at all, or are you another dorm room kid with head-in-the-cloud ideals about how the real world works?
See, the problem is they have managed to convince too many judges that ALL of the material you or I may have on a hard drive would have absolutely been purchased had we not had the opportunity to download it.
It doesn't matter if you would or wouldn't have purchased the material. You ended up getting the material without paying for it when you had no right to, legally and ethically. You're essentially saying in that statement that you have a ton of stuff you would have never purchased, but you downloaded it anyway, which just bolster's the MPAA's position that the sites you got the material from should be shut down, so that the MPAA members' rights aren't being violated. The judges have to agree, because it's against the law to violate creators' rights and steal their stuff so you don't have to pay them for it. What gives you the right to do that?
I call bullshit. Who's with me?
Probably every other freeloader who has created an entire fictional belief system that scapegoats copyright holders so they don't feel guilty for pirating the fuck out of everything. "The MPAA made me do it! The RIAA made me do it!"
Why don't you ask John Carmack sometime if it's okay that people download Doom 3 without paying him for the years of work he put into it? Carmack's a Slashdot hero around here...would be interesting to see people's reactions to his response.
Re:this is funny. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:this is funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you take the rootbeer, you've deprived the store-owner of his property, . If you copy a file, the owner still has the original.
tha analogy would be a better one if you took a photo of his rootbeer.
Re:this is funny. (Score:3, Interesting)
In doing so, he made the point better than I ever could. Copying files isn't "stealing" because when you steal something, the owner doesn't have it anymore. Go figure.
From the American Heritage Dictionary (Score:5, Insightful)
Definition of theft:
1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
or from the Thompson & Gale Legal Encyclopedia:
A criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent.
Definition of steal:
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
Definition of take:
To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
1. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
2. To seize with authority; confiscate.
So...
"for instance if I plug something into an outlet at your house, you are not deprived of anything yet I have stolen, have I not."
My electic bill would be greater because of you. As a direct result of your action, I have to pay more money. You have taken something of value that wasn't yours.
"How about unused bandwidth on an open wifi spot. (open by stupididy, not on purpose). Again you are not 'deprived' of anything yet it is still 'stealing'"
I can see people mistakenly calling it 'stealing'. But as long as it's an unmetered connection (in other words, not charged per kilobyte or whatever), the owner is not suffering any loss. Of course there may be laws against unauthorized access, but those are generally for security reasons. I have an open wifi connection, and don't see why I should get angry if people use it. If people abuse it, I'll secure it.
Spy (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Spy (Score:2)
Sued ... why no FBI raid? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid? (Score:2)
If I was Torrentspy I'd have found some way to get the FBI to do a surprise raid on the MPAA, involving "kick down the door" entry and confiscation of all their computers and files as evidence.
Re:Sued ... why no FBI raid? (Score:3, Funny)
because they'd use the Chewbacca Defense [wikipedia.org] and force the FBI to pay them a million dollars
Why isn't this a criminal investigation? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm confused as to why this is a lawsuit brought by a private company and not a criminal investigation conducted by the FBI. IANAL, but I would have assumed that breaking into a company's computer systems to retrieve this information would violate criminal law, and I would have assumed that paying someone to do this would also violate criminal law. What's going on here?
Is paying someone to break into a computer system not a criminal act? Are the FBI knowingly ignoring a criminal act (perhaps because the MPAA is rich and politically powerfull)? Is Torrentspy just misrepresenting the situation to make it sound worse than it actually is (and, therefore, sound criminal)?
My issue with this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can someone tell me why this is a matter of sueing the MPAA? I would think that if there was solid evidence of the MPAA being caught up in this activity that the cuffs would come out and some suits would be hauled off to the klink.
That, in and of itself, makes this seem like something that may be hard to attack in a court of law. If you have a legal conviction it would make the civil suit seem solid. A civil suit on it's own seems weak.
Re:My issue with this... (Score:5, Informative)
> A civil suit on it's own seems weak.
You've got it backwards. A criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Winning a civil suit requires preponderance of evidence. OJ Simpson was found not guilty but nevertheless lost a subsequent wrongful death suit.
Besides, there's no money in filing a criminal complaint.
Differences..and the face of it. (Score:5, Interesting)
But the act of breaking into a computer system breaks CRIMINAL laws while copyright infringement breaks only CIVIL laws. BIG difference.
Where are the FBI Raids? This country is so turned around now that, if you are big and powerful, you can get away with criminal acts while if you are a small timer you get the book thrown at you for minor offences.
I am very disappointed!
Maybe they were looking for... (Score:3, Funny)
good point (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:good point (Score:2)
Re:good point (Score:3, Insightful)