Judge Rules TorrentSpy Destroyed Evidence 325
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."
Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:5, Interesting)
Severe Penalties Make it the Best Option (Score:5, Interesting)
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 investigation/lawsuit... This is what TorrentSpy (unlike CIA, they did it to hide doing, what they now claim they have not done) has done, according to the judge, and your attempt to defend them on the basis of their being "a small company" is quite pathetic.
How hard is it to destroy data (Score:5, Interesting)
evidence (Score:1, Interesting)
i know we're talking about an organization and not an individual here, but is there really anything morally wrong with destroying evidence to cover your ass? self-preservation trumps law.
Re:Thanks For Destroying the Evidence! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Justice prevailed... (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:Justice prevailed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not that I agree with the MPAA (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but that is destruction of evidence, and it is little wonder that they were sanctioned for it. TS left the judge no choice.
Re:Justice prevailed... (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 on DRM (including CSS on DVDs when backed by things like the DMCA) limits the fair use rights. Their refusal to distribute their media in a form that the market obviously wants (or, in some geographical locations, at all, or at least in a timely fashion) violates the first part of the agreement.
I am not in favour of abolishing copyright completely. It is a nice bargaining chip to use. Without something equally simple, while I would still write I probably wouldn't publish my writings. Copyright, however, should be absolutely contingent on the creator (or their publisher) distributing their works. I would even advocate some form of compulsory licensing, so that people can distribute my work as much as they like (with or without my consent) and pay a royalty directly. Alternatively, I can wrap my works up in as much DRM as I like, but once someone cracks it then I lost it all because I don't get to claim copyright on works which don't allow fair use.
I call bullshit. Or a RIAA troll. (Score:1, Interesting)
Prove me wrong. Provide the cases where this has been tested. The one's which match his situation.
The EFF's lawyers are extremely confident about the legality of Tor. And running a Tor node isn't that much different than what the OP claims he's runnng. See the EFF's Tor FAQ page.
Basically you're full of BS. Either put up or pipe down.
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
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.
Re:Man, I love living in 21st century America! (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps dropping info out of RAM is the destruction.
Re:Not that I agree with the MPAA (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 it doesn't change the fact that it was an unreasonable request by the judge, especially considering this is discovery. Are you really going to say that people should have to start gathering entirely new evidence to support discovery?
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.)