Slashdot Log In
Judge Rules TorrentSpy Destroyed Evidence
Posted by
Soulskill
on Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:15 AM
from the slowing-sinking-ships dept.
from the slowing-sinking-ships dept.
Come play kdice writes "A federal judge has handed the MPAA a resounding victory in its copyright infringement lawsuit against TorrentSpy. Judge Florence-Marie Cooper entered a default judgment against Justin Bunnell and the rest of the named defendants in Columbia Pictures et al. v. Justin Bunnell et al. after finding that TorrentSpy 'engaged in widespread and systematic efforts to destroy evidence'. After being sued, TorrentSpy mounted a vigorous defense, including a counter-suit it filed against the MPAA in May 2006, but, behind the scenes, the court documents paint a picture of a company desperately trying to bury any and all incriminating evidence. TorrentSpy has announced its intention to appeal, but its conduct makes a reversal unlikely."
Related Stories
[+]
Entertainment: Court Rules Against TorrentSpy In MPAA Email Suit 130 comments
mikesd81 writes "C|Net reports that a lawsuit filed by TorrentSpy against the MPAA, accusing it of intercepting the company's private e-mails, was tossed out of court this week. Even though a U.S District judge ruled that the MPAA broke no rules, the MPAA does admit it paid $15,000 to obtain private e-mails belonging to TorrentSpy executives. The MPAA's acknowledgment is significant because it comes at a time when the group is trying to limit illegal file sharing by imploring movie fans to act ethically and resist the temptation to download pirated movies. From the article: 'Ethically, it's pretty clear that reading other people's e-mail is wrong,' said Lorrie Cranor, an associate research professor and Internet privacy expert at Carnegie Mellon University. 'Being offered someone else's e-mails by a third party should have been a red flag.' TorrentSpy is appealing the decision." This is just not a good week for those guys.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless of anything the CIA does, TorrentSpy deserves to be punished for having destroyed evidence (regardless further of whether they initially did anything wrong). It is also true that the CIA should be punished accordingly, but the failure of the courts to deal with that yet is simply irrelevant in the discussion of this case.
If you're sued, DON'T DESTROY EVIDENCE! It eliminates any credibility, and exposes you to situations like this.
Parent
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh and this is not a US company so the MPAA and the US courts cannot order them to save information that is not required by European law
America the land of the free
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1: TorrentSpy forums openly discuss infringement
2: MPAA files lawsuit
3: Wes Parker (TorrentSpy moderator, admin, it's not quite clear) says 'we need a plan to keep piracy off the forums'
4: Another moderator suggests creating a hidden forum and moving incriminating content there. Wes agrees.
5: Some time later, they begin
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Informative)
2: MPAA finds evidence TorrentSpy can implement and enforce bans of users by IP address [ON INTERNET FORUMS, NOT TRACKING SOFTWARE]
3: Under oath, a TorrentSpy moderator testifies IPs were logged [FOR FORUM SOFTWARE] until April 07 (more than a year after they were sued)
Fixed that for you. phpBB =/= bittorrent tracker, and no, you can't assume someone who visits the forums downloaded something illegally... MPAA apparently visited the forums...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps dropping info out of RAM is the destruction.
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Interesting)
"The judge in this case was looking for a way to say the defendant was obligated to keep durable records of his misdeeds, practically to the point of tapping the memory bus. "
The judges actions go even further.. He ordering TorrentSpy to eavesdrop on Foreign communications. A Criminal act, especially in the EU.. As a consequence TorrentSpy collected just enough information to prove that both the request and the torrent host were OUTSIDE the USA in which NO US court has any business collecting private data.
Remember TorrentSpy stopped servicing US IP addresses when ordered to start collecting the data.
"Torrentspy Acts to Protect Privacy" [torrentspy.com]
Sorry, but because you are located in the USA you cannot use the search features of the Torrentspy.com website.Torrentspy's decision to stop accepting US visitors was NOT compelled by any Court but rather an uncertain legal climate in the US regarding user privacy and an apparent tension between US and European Union privacy laws.
We hope you understand and will take the opportunity to visit one of these other fine websites:"
Technically, if the federal judge proceeds to trial, he would be guilty of several serious crimes.
Extortion, spying, acts of war, and privacy violations among the many countries that use the Internet.
A suggestion to judge Cooper, I wouldn't go traveling outside the USA, unless you want to be locked up for a very long time.
Meanwhile the MPAA just received a meaningless victory.
No foreign court will honor any judgment against TorrentSpy that was based on it's refusal to follow court orders requiring the commission of a criminal act.
Hopefully a significantly wiser circuit court will rule the Coopers actions where inappropriate,
remove him from the case, and vacate all judgments. (Less they too want to wish to dispose of their passports as well.)
Parent
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Interesting)
I won't be surprised if I start seeing forums close left and right due to this.
Moral: run a discussion forum, you'll get sued no matter what you do. Don't bother running a discussion forum.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're assuming that destroying evidence is "wrong", and that "two wrongs don't make a right".
The CIA is part of the government, and the government is elected by the people. It is an extension of the people's will. Therefore, anything the government does, if not quickly corrected, is assumed to be the people's will, and therefore "right". And if an action is OK for the government to do, as far as I'm concerned it's good enough for the rest of us too.
It's just like the police. If it's
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's difficult for the public to keep the proper understanding, because they typically don't see the entire case. They hear an article about the indictment, or the conviction or acquittal, but rarely follow all the goings-on. The burdens of proof in civil and criminal matters have, if anything, shifted in favor of defendants in the last decade or two. However, on the o
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're willing to live as someone no better than the foe you hope to defeat, I am simply baffled by your sense of ethics. It is better to die a good man than to live as a wicked one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the risk of feeding a troll...
Are you seriously saying that after the government beat the location of the secret operatives out of captured combatants...?
I think he's saying we shouldn't have beaten the information out of them. So far, the American people know of no actionable intelligence that was gained in this manner.
How much information gathered would be enough to satisfy you and how much would be enough to foil any advantage of knowing this information?
I can't speak for the GP, but for me there is NO amount of information that makes it acceptable to torture people. We are the good guys. We are better than that. The good guys don't need to resort to these tactics. If they do, they are no longer the good guys.
As long as we can monitor what we found, we can stop anything from happening
The point here is that we can't.
If something happens and American people are killed again, are you guys going to dance and proclaim that you were right?
N
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, look. We all know that the MPAA/RIAA are pricks. But the good fight isn't sticking up for people that are violating copyright in bulk on purpose. If a university were to block all of bit torrent, that's a cause worth fighting against. The right fight is to not allow the bad (or potential bad) to prevent the good. But let's not bury our heads in the sand and pretend places like TorrentSpy weren't doing anything but providing a way for people to share copyrighted material.
Like it or not, people are downloading and sharing against copyright all over. And there's no reason to support that.
Parent
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Funny)
It is true, TorrentSpy are dicks. Criminal dicks
But the thing is, given the level of assholery I think the **AAs are capable of, I still manage to side with the criminals.
Because we need dicks to fuck asses.
Otherwise, we're gonna be covered in shit.
Parent
change the citizenry or change the laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, if there's a law that a large portion of the citizenry seems unwilling to obey, should we try and change the behavior of those people breaking the law or should we try to change the law? Or, to put it another way, do you really think the genie will go back in the bottle? I don't think that, short of a mandated-by-law trusted computing scenario, (and, let's face it, will TC really be "
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyright law is broke. Burn it down. (Score:5, Insightful)
I pay for cable and if I record a show that's fine, but if I download a show because I forgot to TiVo it then I am breaking the law.
Ripping a DVD that I paid for is breaking the law.
Downloading a CD that got scratched is breaking the law.
IMO: I will pay for content once and only once. If you want to sell me new content bundled with old aka (movie + directors cut) that's fine but when it's identical content then I have already paid for it.
Parent
Re:Copyright law is broke. Burn it down. (Score:5, Insightful)
The MAFIAAs say that a lot. But I hope it's not true. If it is, then they really are getting an unfairly generous deal, as the GP said.
I could see arguing that one buys a license, not the physical work. In that case, if the media were lost or destroyed, replacements would be available at a nominal charge to cover plastic, postage, overhead, etc. Personal backup copies to be stored safely would be OK under that concept, or the reverse -- making a copy to play and saving the original.
I could also see making the argument that you bought a copy of a work, it's now yours to do with as you please -- "first sale" doctrine. You could give it to your friends, or sell it to someone else. Of course if you break it, tough. Buy another, just like if you broke a dinner plate.
But as you state it, they want the best of both worlds. You buy a license to to a specific copy of a work. You can play it or not. But you can't back it up, you can't transfer the work to a new medium so you can continue to use it after the original technology is no longer supported. All you own is the license to play copy # 1267888993 of "Oops, I did it again" on CD.
Kudos, though. You did get a car analogy in. It might be better to add that you need to buy a license to operate each car you own, and one for each friend or relative that might borrow your car. And each license wouldn't cost a $50 fee from the DMV, but would be sold as part of the car, and each license would cost the full price of a car. Trade-ins not accepted. So a two-car, two-driver household would need to "buy" four cars, that is, one license for each driver for each car.
Parent
I too living in 21st century America, too... (Score:3, Interesting)
The CIA's tapes were destroyed in 2005 — long before any investigations into "torture" came about. Thus it was not "destruction of evidence", but merely "destruction of tapes". CIA today does not deny, that they did use waterboarding, so it is not clear, what those tapes would be in evidence of.
For it to be called "destruction of evidence", the destroyed materials must be important to an ongoing investiga
Re:I too living in 21st century America, too... (Score:5, Insightful)
It was destruction of evidence, just because it was a 'classified' set of tapes, it was still evidence that could have been used by numerous groups and individuals in numerous cases against the government before during and after 2005. Hiding the evidence and destroying evidence are both illegal.
Cheers.
Parent
Re:I too living in 21st century America, too... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Not that I agree with the MPAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe if they left things as they were they could have fared better.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That alone should invalidate everything else the judge had to say.
Re:Not that I agree with the MPAA (Score:5, Informative)
In short, TorrentSpy lied to a judge, and they got caught. That was remarkably stupid, and they're being punished for it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not that I agree with the MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
That alone should invalidate everything else the judge had to say.
Bullshit - read it, will you? The Judge said that the IP's were available to TorrentSpy as the information was present in the RAM at some point. They required that TorrentSpy log that information. That's quite a bit different from "preserve the ram".
TorrentSpy fucked up big time on this, and got caught. Courts don't like people that destroy evidence and smack them around. They especially don't like people that destroy evidence after the case is filed, or lie what about what they can/cannot do.
I have zero sympathy for TorrentSpy. Without their actions, they would have had a chance to beat this case.
-- Ravensfire
Parent
Re:Not that I agree with the MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which, if TorrentSpy were to be believed, would potentially require modification of the software. Merely because something "was present in the RAM at some point" doesn't imply that it's easy to log, otherwise DRM would be even more broken than it currently is.
Now, of course, we've discovered that TorrentSpy were actually lying about this, but
Re:Not that I agree with the MPAA (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously deliberate.
Parent
No IP logs, indeed (Score:3, Informative)
There were no IP logs
From TFA:
TorrentSpy also failed to provide the MPAA with full IP addresses of its users, testifying under oath that they were not available. Conversations on the forums between the moderators paint a different picture, however. A March 2006 conversation between a couple of moderators showed that users could be banned by IP address, and moderators testified that full IP addresses were logged until April 2007.
Care to revise that "no IP logs" statement? Or are you still arguing for the sake of arguing?
Thanks For Destroying the Evidence! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the digital equivalent of throwing yourself on a grenade to save your comrads. Right on.
Thank you kindly,
AC
Re:Thanks For Destroying the Evidence! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they really were looking out for other people, they shouldn't have been keeping potentially incriminating information
Severe Penalties Make it the Best Option (Score:5, Interesting)
How hard is it to destroy data (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um.
Also, even if it hasn't, you'd better hope they don't link that post to you.
Think!
destroy data before you're sued (Score:3, Insightful)
There are two steps to the RIAA's lawsuits: the "settlement" letter and the actual lawsuit itself. If you destroy data after receiving the settlement letter, you're a wise person. If you destroy data after receiving the lawsuit papers, you're toast if they catch you (as noted in this article).
I would not make any destruction of data obvious. A wiped disk is a sure sign of intentional destruction.
If I were to destroy data, my plan would be to use the "Craftsman Hammer" hard drive data destruction tool and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
TorrentSpy = The Gun (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright is a Constitutionally-protected power of government. I understand that. I hate copyright, I would never use it, but I accept it. To infringe on copyright, a person must take someone else's art, and make a copy. That person who paints their own version of a copyright-protected oil painting will use oils and canvas to breach copyright. The oil manufacturer is not guilty. The canvas manufacturer is not guilty. Exxon/Mobil who provided fuel for you to drive to buy the oil and canvas are not guilty. Ford, who provided the car to get to the store to buy oil and canvas are not guilty. The person selling you a book with a license to reprint that oil, is not guilty. You, the person doing the copying, are guilty.
TorrentSpy is like the gun, or the gun manufacturer. The murderer is the person actively aiming the weapon in anger, and pulling the trigger. The person selling the gun shouldn't care what the end user is going to do, other than warn them that they're buying something dangerous. The person making the gun should not be held responsible. The ACT of committing a crime comes from actually committing a crime.
If copyright is moral, and valid, then the person doing the copying should be found guilty. Hosting a torrent is not hosting a file.
If you vote, please vote against retention on every position. Judges need to be kicked out as quick as they're voted in. Vote against incumbents who enforce the law, too (police chief, etc). There's no reason to keep anyone in office long enough to abuse power. All these judges are just power-hungry. They can't understand that copyright is protected by the artist, only against someone else copying the art.
Don't forget earlier stories about her. (Score:5, Informative)
Since that topic has been expounded upon, here are some articles about the judge in the case:
1. Judge dismisses trial for prosecutor's misconduct [washingtonpost.com]
Here, she dismissed a case when the prosecutors offered a plea agreement to a witness so he could not testify for the defense.
2. Notorious BIG Trial mistrial declared [sohh.com]
In this instance, she declared a mistrial when LAPD was withholding evidence from the trial.
3. Pooh Trial Thrown out [suite101.com] (heh heh)
A trial involving the Winnie the Pooh was ruled in favor of Disney after the family was found to have "tampered" with files at Disney.
The judge has a love for evidence. Torrentspy shoulda known what would happen if they messed around with it.
Re:Don't forget earlier stories about her. (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I prefer the ones who have already made up their mind in advance.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
resounding? (Score:3, Insightful)
The MPAA, like the RIAA, has failed the grasp the significance of what's unfolding in the 21st century. However you feel about sharing copyrighted material (right or wrong), suing sites into oblivion will not stop what is apparently going to be the new pervasive form of distribution. Just as the horse and buggy gave way to the automobile, so the delivery mechanism of physically moving data around on DVDs in face of the industry's unwillingness to provide it's own online delivery alternative, will naturally give way to a more efficient system.
Take a hint: For about the past 70 years, advertising has fully paid for free content via broadcast radio and TV.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference between the GPL and regular use of copyright is that the GPL is intended to support the freedom of the individual to use his computer as he sees fit. There is absolutely no contradiction in supporting the GPL and calling for an abolition of copyright.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I make a living from copyright. I am a writer, and the thing I sell is 'intellectual property.' In spite of this, I agree with the poster you quote. The ability to control my creations is not an intrinsic right. It is a bargain made with society. I agree to distribute my work and to permit certain uses of it under the banner of fair use, and society agrees, in return, to enforce my exclusivity.
The problem with the *AA is that they are violating the spirit of this in a number of ways. Their insistence
Re:Justice prevailed... (Score:5, Informative)
Please pay special attention to how much the artist cut is in traditional CD sales compared to the new digital distribution. You will find a huge disparity in what record companies are claiming and what is actually happening.
I don't think TorrentSpy will get much sympathy from
Parent
5th Amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Not preserving evidence != destroying evidence. I'm thinking the most sensible standard for courts to follow is minimalist. That is, no changes should be made to operations. Whatever information was being kept before should be preserved. And whatever information was not being kept for whatever reason (limited resources, goes stale quickly) should not be fair game for judges to order preservation of. So we have an argument over whether the info the judge was ordering TorrentSpy to keep was long term or