MPAA v TorrentSpy
Facts:
In February of 2006 the Motion Picture Association of America filed a lawsuit against several torrent search engines, including TorrentSpy. TorrentSpy was/is an indexing site for Bit Torrent files. No .torrent files were hosted on TorrentSpy servers. At its peak, TorrentSpy indexed over 1,000,000 torrents. The MPA A claimed that TorrentSpy was liable for copyright infringement, as there were torrent links to a significant number of copyrighted movies on the site. In August of 2007 a federal judge ordered TorrentSpy to log all user data, in order to create logs of user activities, and hand the logs over to the MPAA. In response, TorrentSpy blocked all access to users from the United States, in order to protect their privacy. In October 2007 the MPAA hired a former TorrentSpy employee for $15,000 to provide information on TorrentSpy. The employee was able to give the MPAA valuable insider information on TorrentSpy, which included information gained by 'hacking' TorrentSpy's email system.
Holding:
In 2008 a federal judge hit TorrentSpy with a $111 million penalty for secondary copyright infringement under the Copyright Act. “...for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just." TorrentSpy was ordered to pay $30,000 for each of the 3,699 instances of infringement.
Analysis / Implications of Ruling:
- The DCMA has traditionally protected search engines from liability in such cases. Even though TorrentSpy had support for removal of copyrighted material via their 'File Rights' submission system, the court obviously decided that it does not fall under DCMA. The court's ruling is also interesting as there are no actual torrent files hosted on TorrentSpy's servers (it is merely an index).
- The MPAA hired a hacker to obtain TorrentSpy financial information and private emails. Evidence obtained by the hacker was used against TorrentSpy. The court apparently sees little problem in this course of action. Note: TorrentSpy is pursuing action against the MPAA for the aforementioned action.
- The ruling by the court in August of 2007 (to force TorrentSpy to create logs of it's user's searches) is somewhat disturbing. As recording IP addresses was against the TorrentSpy privacy policy, the August decision seems to allow outside parties to forcibly rewrite an opponent's privacy policy (and, in this case, even force the opponent to violate their own privacy policy).
- The federal judge ruled that because an IP addresses exist in the RAM of TorrentSpy's servers, they are "electronically stored information" that must be collected and turned over to the studios under the rules of federal discovery. Since just about everything that is ever processed in a computer environment is stored in RAM, the ruling could lead to basically anything being able to be collected under discovery. If the judge's ruling becomes precedent, it could require all search engines/ISP/companies to keep absurdly large and detailed collections of logs to comply with a discovery order (quite burdensome).
Conclusion:
Although it is undeniable that TorrentSpy held links torrents which violated copyright, it seems that the court in this case decided to go in it's own direction with it's decision. Despite compliance to DCMA take down requests, TorrentSpy seems to be being held to a different standard by the court. Even more disturbing are the rulings regarding the use of 'questionably obtained' evidence, requiring anything stored in RAM to be turned over in discovery, and the pressuring (blatant order by the court) of TorrentSpy to violate it's own privacy policy. The true loser in this case is the public, as precedent set in this case could very well lead to poor decisions in the future.
Facts:
In February of 2006 the Motion Picture Association of America filed a lawsuit against several torrent search engines, including TorrentSpy. TorrentSpy was/is an indexing site for Bit Torrent files. No .torrent files were hosted on TorrentSpy servers. At its peak, TorrentSpy indexed over 1,000,000 torrents. The MPA A claimed that TorrentSpy was liable for copyright infringement, as there were torrent links to a significant number of copyrighted movies on the site. In August of 2007 a federal judge ordered TorrentSpy to log all user data, in order to create logs of user activities, and hand the logs over to the MPAA. In response, TorrentSpy blocked all access to users from the United States, in order to protect their privacy. In October 2007 the MPAA hired a former TorrentSpy employee for $15,000 to provide information on TorrentSpy. The employee was able to give the MPAA valuable insider information on TorrentSpy, which included information gained by 'hacking' TorrentSpy's email system.
Holding:
In 2008 a federal judge hit TorrentSpy with a $111 million penalty for secondary copyright infringement under the Copyright Act. “...for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just." TorrentSpy was ordered to pay $30,000 for each of the 3,699 instances of infringement.
Analysis / Implications of Ruling:
- The DCMA has traditionally protected search engines from liability in such cases. Even though TorrentSpy had support for removal of copyrighted material via their 'File Rights' submission system, the court obviously decided that it does not fall under DCMA. The court's ruling is also interesting as there are no actual torrent files hosted on TorrentSpy's servers (it is merely an index).
- The MPAA hired a hacker to obtain TorrentSpy financial information and private emails. Evidence obtained by the hacker was used against TorrentSpy. The court apparently sees little problem in this course of action. Note: TorrentSpy is pursuing action against the MPAA for the aforementioned action.
- The ruling by the court in August of 2007 (to force TorrentSpy to create logs of it's user's searches) is somewhat disturbing. As recording IP addresses was against the TorrentSpy privacy policy, the August decision seems to allow outside parties to forcibly rewrite an opponent's privacy policy (and, in this case, even force the opponent to violate their own privacy policy).
- The federal judge ruled that because an IP addresses exist in the RAM of TorrentSpy's servers, they are "electronically stored information" that must be collected and turned over to the studios under the rules of federal discovery. Since just about everything that is ever processed in a computer environment is stored in RAM, the ruling could lead to basically anything being able to be collected under discovery. If the judge's ruling becomes precedent, it could require all search engines/ISP/companies to keep absurdly large and detailed collections of logs to comply with a discovery order (quite burdensome).
Conclusion:
Although it is undeniable that TorrentSpy held links torrents which violated copyright, it seems that the court in this case decided to go in it's own direction with it's decision. Despite compliance to DCMA take down requests, TorrentSpy seems to be being held to a different standard by the court. Even more disturbing are the rulings regarding the use of 'questionably obtained' evidence, requiring anything stored in RAM to be turned over in discovery, and the pressuring (blatant order by the court) of TorrentSpy to violate it's own privacy policy. The true loser in this case is the public, as precedent set in this case could very well lead to poor decisions in the future.