TorrentSpy Ordered By Federal Judge to Become MPAA Spy

[BWF89]

TorrentSpy, one of the world’s largest torrent dump sites, has been ordered by a federal judge to monitor its users in order to create detailed logs of their activities which must then be handed over to the MPAA.

According to CNET News.com. federal judge Jacqueline Chooljian requested that Torrentspy (what’s in a name) must start creating logs detailing their user’s activities. This, despite the site’s privacy policy which states they will never monitor their visitors without consent.

Understandably, this is a worrying move by the court - even more so when one considers these logs must then be turned over to the MPAA. This is believed to be the first time a judge has ordered a defendant to log visitor activity and then hand over the information to the plaintiff. The decision - arrived at last month but under seal - could force sites that are defendants in a law suit to track the actions of their visitors.

The owners have been granted a stay of the order in order to make an appeal, which must be filed by June 12, says Ira Rothken, TorrentSpy’s attorney.

“It is likely that TorrentSpy would turn off access to the U.S. before tracking its users,” said Rothken. “If this order were allowed to stand, it would mean that Web sites can be required by discovery judges to track what their users do even if their privacy policy says otherwise.”

This action follows MPAA action in 2006 against several BitTorrent sites, TorrentSpy included. According to the MPAA, Torrentspy helps others commit copyright infringement by directing people to sites which enable them to download copyright material, an offense claims the MPAA, of secondary copyright infringement.

At the time, Rothken said “It [TorrentSpy] cannot be held ‘tertiary’ liable for visitors’ conduct that occurs away from its web search engine”. TorrentSpy claims it did nothing illegal and suggested the MPAA should sue Google.

An attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation referred to the order to demand a defendant log visitor activity and then hand over the information to the plaintiff as “unprecedented.” He continued “In general, a defendant is not required to create new records to hand over in discovery. We shouldn’t let Web site logging policies be set by litigation”

One way or another, it seems that the MPAA is determined to obtain information about TorrentSpy and its users. A complaint issued by TorrentSpy suggests the MPAA paid a hacker $15,000 to steal e-mail correspondence and trade secrets. The hacker admitted that this was true.

SOURCE: http://torrentfreak.com/torrentspy-ordered-to-spy-on-its-users-on-behalf-of-the-mpaa/

[jgrabham]

US judges can force people to do that???? Hardly the land of the free we all hear about!

[NeoLithium]

No kidding. That is technically federal espionage ordered on not just their own citizens but also globally. This sounds absolutely ridiculous.

[CautionaryX]

What do we expect? The American public has no idea, nor really even cares that this is going on. All they seem to care about is Paris Hilton, gas prices, and Social Security.

[jgrabham]

All they seem to care about is Paris Hilton,.

So its not just us then?

[ThinkBuntu]

It's just big business-driven corruption. Been going on forever...eventually, freedom always wins out.

[kamaboko]

I guess it's just getting harder to rip companies and individuals off these days of their intellectual and artistic rights.

This is of course meant in jest.

[Adamant1988]

I guess it's just getting harder to rip companies and individuals off these days of their intellectual and artistic rights.

If there is one thing I disagree with it is the illegal downloading of Movies. While I don't agree with this move, I do agree with the notion that Movies are not free downloads, and never should be.

[kamaboko]

Some funny replies by Pirate Bay. They're outside of the US and not subject to US laws.

http://thepiratebay.org/legal

[wolfen69]

If there is one thing I disagree with it is the illegal downloading of Movies. While I don't agree with this move, I do agree with the notion that Movies are not free downloads, and never should be.

and everything else besides movies is ok to download?

i personally dont give a rats a$$. if i can download it, it's free. if you dont want me downloading, take away the source.

[juxtaposed]

If there is one thing I disagree with it is the illegal downloading of Movies. While I don't agree with this move, I do agree with the notion that Movies are not free downloads, and never should be.

Why?

I think corporations have a right to sell information on a little plastic disc or any other physical/non-physical medium they want, but not to decide what others do with that information, whether they share it (P2P, let others watch), use it (watch it), or anything else.

Once they transfer possession of information to other people (sell it to them), they no longer have control over what happens to it.


I guess it's just getting harder to rip companies and individuals off these days of their intellectual and artistic rights.

It's always been easy for corporations to rip people off of their rights to share information.

:)


They're outside of the US and not subject to US laws.

The American government seems to think that the world is subject to its laws and its will.

[kamaboko]

Why?

I think corporations have a right to sell information on a little plastic disc or any other physical/non-physical medium they want, but not to decide what others do with that information, whether they share it (P2P, let others watch), use it (watch it), or anything else.

Once they transfer possession of information to other people (sell it to them), they no longer have control over what happens to it.

That's not technically correct. When a company like Microsoft (for software) or BMG (for music) sells one a CD/DVD of content, they're selling a single user license to use that product . In no conceivable way are they transferring intellectual ownership or distribution rights to that product. If that were the case, they would only be able to sell one movie, one software application, or one song. For example, when you go to a theater to watch a movie, the movie theater doesn't own the movie. They lease it, and under the terms of agreement, they will only show it in their theater and not distribute it. I challenge anyone to show me that when they buy a movie, a CD of music, or a software application, that the terms of agreement indicate that they now have sole ownership and intellectual rights to do with that content as they please.

[smbm]

Some funny replies by Pirate Bay. They're outside of the US and not subject to US laws.

http://thepiratebay.org/legal

I laughed a lot whilst reading some of these.

[juxtaposed]

That's not technically correct. When a company like Microsoft (for software) or BMG (for music) sells one a CD/DVD of content, they're selling a single user license to use that product . In no conceivable way are they transferring intellectual ownership or distribution rights to that product.

I don't think that should be reconized though.

If someone sells something to you, their will to control what you do with it shouldn't be valid.

Sure, it is in the current American legal system - but it's not right.


If that were the case, they would only be able to sell one movie, one software application, or one song.

No. People will still want a physical copy alot of the time.

But they might not be willing to pay 20$ for it. It might make the record companies charge a more fair price for music.


I challenge anyone to show me that when they buy a movie, a CD of music, or a software application, that the terms of agreement indicate that they now have sole ownership and intellectual rights to do with that content as they please.

Sure, the law (in some countries) allows them to restrict what you do with something you buy. That doesn't make it right.

[Adamant1988]

and everything else besides movies is ok to download?

i personally dont give a rats a$$. if i can download it, it's free. if you dont want me downloading, take away the source.

Not necessarily OK, but not nearly as bad as movies. For everything else, an alternative route for compensation of the costs exists. Music can be used commercially(ads) bands go to give shows all over the place; software can have subscriptions, etc.

But truly, as it stands, movies exist to sell movies. Maybe merchandising on the side, depending on how popular the movie is, and it's target audience. So, yes, I see downloading movies to be far more damaging than downloading music, or software.

[Adamant1988]

I don't think that should be reconized though.

If someone sells something to you, their will to control what you do with it shouldn't be valid.

Sure, it is in the current American legal system - but it's not right.
If you are an American citizen it is your every right to feel that way and act accordingly. However, you must be prepared to suffer any consequences that arise as a result of your actions.




No. People will still want a physical copy alot of the time.

But they might not be willing to pay 20$ for it. It might make the record companies charge a more fair price for music.
Almost all of my music is from my CD collections, with some odd single files from friends showing me new bands, etc.



Sure, the law (in some countries) allows them to restrict what you do with something you buy. That doesn't make it right.

See the first statement in my post.

[Ireclan]

I honestly think it's ridiculous, being ordered to fork over spy logs to the MPAA. If anything, those logs should go to some sort of law enforcement agency, NOT to what is essentially a representative of a bunch of artists.

[juxtaposed]

If you are an American citizen it is your every right to feel that way and act accordingly. However, you must be prepared to suffer any consequences that arise as a result of your actions.

I'm a Canadian citizen, and luckily, last time I checked, downloading and uploading copyrighted content is legal (some judge said so a few years ago).

Though I think I read that the government is going to change that.


Almost all of my music is from my CD collections, with some odd single files from friends showing me new bands, etc.

Right; you'd rather have a CD then a digital copy (though a CD and a digital copy for a portable player would probably be the best).

People download music, but they'd rather have a physical copy. The biggest thing is that CDs cost alot.


NOT to what is essentially a representative of a bunch of artists.

They don't represent artists, they represent the big four record companies.

[kamaboko]

I don't think that should be reconized though.

If someone sells something to you, their will to control what you do with it shouldn't be valid.



And if you don't agree with the terms of conditions governing that sale, you don't have to buy it.




Sure, it is in the current American legal system - but it's not right.



Regardless, it's the law.




No. People will still want a physical copy alot of the time.

But they might not be willing to pay 20$ for it. It might make the record companies charge a more fair price for music.



It's not up to you to determine what a "fair" price is. Tell me, when you go to the store and buy a box of cereal (or whatever), do you tell the cashier that you'll only pay $1.50 and not $3.50 as is labeled on the box? No, you don't. This is no different. If you think your music is too expensive, why not go to your local music store and try for a discounted price there? They'll say, "no", that's why.



Sure, the law (in some countries) allows them to restrict what you do with something you buy. That doesn't make it right.

And stealing it makes it more right?

[juxtaposed]

Regardless, it's the law.

Um, this isn't a discussion over whether it is the law in America or not - that's pretty obvious. That would be a boring discussion.


And if you don't agree with the terms of conditions governing that sale, you don't have to buy it.

What I am saying is, their restrictions on what you can do with something you buy shouldn't be valid.

If they don't like what you will do with something they sell you, then they shouldn't sell you it.


And stealing it makes it more right?

Copyright infringement isn't stealing.

Taking a CD from a store or from someone without their permission is stealing.

SInce you seemingly think highly of the law, when someone gets sued/arrested/whatever for uploading/downloading copyrighted material, its copyright infringement, not theft.

Me uploading a copyrighted thing to someone else, or them uploading a copyrighted thing to me is in no way stealing. It's sharing. It also infringes on someones copyright, a concept that I don't agree with, and isnt reconized everywhere.

[nutz]

This is lame but seems to follow the natural course of things. I think that movies and music and other entertainment items should be more reasonably priced to begin with.

If it weren't for the ability to download songs and movies I would never experience them. Never could I justify $20 for a music CD or $45 for a movie…

I think it is silly how much we pay the entertainment industry to keep our minds filled with crap. Spiderman grossed enough money to buy a country or end hunger and poverty in some parts of the world. I don't think people downloading movies and such is going to kill Hollywood…

So is it wrong? Yes. Does it really matter? Not that much…

[kamaboko]

What I am saying is, their restrictions on what you can do with something you buy shouldn't be valid.

If they don't like what you will do with something they sell you, then they shouldn't sell you it.



I guess restrictions for shooting someone with a gun shouldn't be valid either. After all, you bought the gun, you should be able to do anything you want with it and suffer no consequences. Let's see...the gun vendor has to ask first though, right?





Me uploading a copyrighted thing to someone else, or them uploading a copyrighted thing to me is in no way stealing. It's sharing.



Wrong. If I come by your house in the middle of the night and take your car, I'm not stealing it....you're sharing it.

[juxtaposed]

Wrong. If I come by your house in the middle of the night and take your car, I'm not stealing it....you're sharing it.

I can't believe how blatently stupid that sounds. Do you know how file sharing works? Even the very extreme basics?

The files are copied in file sharing (as opposed to the fact that a car can't be copied like files can), and it is consentual; you have to load up a file sharing program and set it to upload to upload to other people (not many would consent to their car being stolen).

Stealing a car is relativly equal to a hacker copying your files without you knowing and then deleting your originals. That has very little to do with file sharing and copyright infringement though.


I guess restrictions for shooting someone with a gun shouldn't be valid either. After all, you bought the gun, you should be able to do anything you want with it and suffer no consequences. Let's see...the gun vendor has to ask first though, right?

Besides the fact that I don't think their should be laws/government/authority over others at all, think of what you are saying. I am not even going to dignify that with any more of a response then this.

I am awestruck at how... Stupid what you are saying is. I don't know, maybe someone is trying to cause trouble by using your account and pretending to be you and saying stupid things; To even compare car theft and two people consenting to sharing files over the internet is, at best, absurd.

[Polygon]

i buy movies because i like having the physical copy, and having the original copy of the movie that i can do whatever i want with (as in rip it to my computer and stuff)

i dont share movies or music because again i want the physical copy, and i rather have the CD or DVD so i can rip a compressed version to my computer and not worry that the copy on my computer is the only copy i own

i download some TV shows, because i can just record them from the TV using my DVR or my VHS recorder. they are showing it for free, why are they worried about making money off of it?

[Adamant1988]

I can't believe how blatently stupid that sounds. Do you know how file sharing works? Even the very extreme basics?

The files are copied in file sharing (as opposed to the fact that a car can't be copied like files can), and it is consentual; you have to load up a file sharing program and set it to upload to upload to other people (not many would consent to their car being stolen).

Stealing a car is relativly equal to a hacker copying your files without you knowing and then deleting your originals. That has very little to do with file sharing and copyright infringement though.



Besides the fact that I don't think their should be laws/government/authority over others at all, think of what you are saying. I am not even going to dignify that with any more of a response then this.

I am awestruck at how... Stupid what you are saying is. I don't know, maybe someone is trying to cause trouble by using your account and pretending to be you and saying stupid things; To even compare car theft and two people consenting to sharing files over the internet is, at best, absurd.



his point about the Gun is actually just fine, it follows your line of logic fairly well. The deal with the Car, not so much.

5/10 points.

[jgrabham]

Like the ad at the start of some films in the UK

"You wouldnt steal a ca"r (has a clip of someone stealing a car)
"You wouldnt steal a TV" (has a clip of someone stealing a TV)
"You wouldnt steal a movie" (has a clip of someone stealing a DVD)

--Rewinds--

"You wouldnt steal a movie" (has a clip of someone downloading a file)

"Piracy is theft"

"theft is a crime"

[nutz]

Would it be a crime to let e friend borrow a DVD but not copy it?

[dannyboy79]

Would it be a crime to let e friend borrow a DVD but not copy it?

You know that a great analogy!!! You would almost have to say that it should be a crime based on how much they're trying to control the music and movie we buy. I am smart enough to know that it is wrong to download music and movies from the internet that knowingly infringe on copyright laws. If you live in the US and you say anything different I believe that you're only fooling yourself. Now, do I agree with the laws, MOST CERTAINLY NOT!!!!!

I live in the US and agree with another person when they think it's sickening how our Entertainment Industry makes billions of dollars when my mom who is a teacher, who is shaping the future of our world, who is virtually ensuring the earths existence is paid next to nothing!!!! That's what sickening to me!!!! Nevermind she's my mom, she just the teacher example that I am using.

Now, how much money does fricken Hollywood make to begin with DESPITE peole breaking copyright infringement laws, ENOUGH. There already making more than enough so I say let people do what they want to do and DON'T start logging IP addresses of Torrent Sites.

[jgrabham]

Would it be a crime to let e friend borrow a DVD but not copy it?

Yes, because you could be watching it at the same time, if you copied it. Also it says in the screen of writing bit at the start that lending is not allowed.

[lepz]

Some funny replies by Pirate Bay. They're outside of the US and not subject to US laws.

http://thepiratebay.org/legal

You gotta Love piratebay :lolflag:

[SunnyRabbiera]

What do we expect? The American public has no idea, nor really even cares that this is going on. All they seem to care about is Paris Hilton, gas prices, and Social Security.

Well I care about this stuff as I think its bull....


to hell with Paris Hilton

[nutz]

Yes, because you could be watching it at the same time, if you copied it. Also it says in the screen of writing bit at the start that lending is not allowed.

What if I invited a whole bunch of poeple over to my house and showed the movie to all of them but did not actually give any of them a copy.

By the way; you are right. Belive it or not it is even against the law to loan copyrighted material!

[yabbadabbadont]

What if I invited a whole bunch of poeple over to my house and showed the movie to all of them but did not actually give any of them a copy.

By the way; you are right. Belive it or not it is even against the law to loan copyrighted material!

Strange... it doesn't seem to have stopped every public library in America from lending Dvds and Music CDs...

OK, the bit about public performance could possibly be construed to be a violation, but it really depends on what the courts consider to be "public".

[saulgoode]

What if I invited a whole bunch of poeple over to my house and showed the movie to all of them but did not actually give any of them a copy.
That might fall under the category of public performance and proper licensing required. The recent Superbowl Championship enjoined some churches to prevent them from showing it on big screen to members of their congregation.


By the way; you are right. Belive it or not it is even against the law to loan copyrighted material!

I disagree. If we are speaking of copyright law, first-sale doctrine permits you to transfer your ownership of a copyrighted work to someone else; either for a fee (selling it), or as a gift. What is a loan other than one person giving a gift and then the other giving it back?

[dannyboy79]

As I said, it's all BS to make the rich richer and the poor poorer!!