backtop

Print 35 comment(s) - last by PavlovsCanine.. on Jun 20 at 6:10 PM
MPAA claims that TorrentSpy was withholding information stored on site's servers.

The lawsuit between media companies and TorrentSpy heats up as the MPAA accuses the torrent site of concealing evidence.  For the first time, the courts have found that electronic trail left in a computer server's RAM, or random access memory, must be turned over as evidence during litigation, CNET reported in a blog. 

The decision was issued by Jacqueline Chooljiian, a federal judge in the Central District of California in Los Angeles.  The decision was made during the legal battle between movie studios and TorrentSpy over copyright infringement.  Chooljiian ordered the bittorrent site to start logging user activity and IP addresses.  TorrentSpy also has to turn over the data to the Motion Picture Associate of America (MPAA). 

The judge stayed the order on Friday to allow TorrentSpy time to prepare an appeal, which must be filed by Tuesday.  The judge also allowed the website to mask the IP addresses of users for now. 

"We have spent the last year challenging their relentless campaign against the 1st Amendment and personal privacy laws Worldwide. We have succeeded in delaying the court order to turn on logs while we appeal it. TorrentSpy will not create logs of what you do on the site without your consent."

Torrentspy claims that they will not release any user information and have never tracked user IP addresses, searches users make, or how they use the site.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
They want the data in the RAM?
By PrinceGaz on 6/13/2007 6:11:12 AM , Rating: 5
I don't see how a copy of the data in the RAM can really be provided as it is continually changing, unless an image is saved to disk very frequently. As servers tend to have a lot of memory, the disks will need to be constantly writing data and will be filled in next to no time. The whole idea of a copy of the data in the RAM is ridiculous.

If I were running TorrentSpy, I'd be tempted to turn up in court with the RAM chips from the server and hand them over to the MPAA saying that they can have them for a couple of weeks to extract all the data they want from them :)




RE: They want the data in the RAM?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/13/2007 6:31:03 AM , Rating: 5
Totally a legal loophole, in my opinion. Expecting data from a digital buffer to be preserved as a log file is ludicrous, though I suspect if this case goes through it will have deeper consequences for future legal battles.

My roommate and I created an interesting analogy. Suppose you are a bus driver, and a man who has just robbed a bank gets on your bus. You give the police your testimony but you have no video camera on your bus to confirm the man got on your bus after the robbery. The bank then accuses you of witholding evidence -- a definitive imprint of the robber's rear end from his seat could be used as positive identification.

What the MPAA is effectively asking for here is the backside deformations of all the torrentspy users. Brilliant! It's a good thing they still need a judge to sign off on this kind of thing.

If, by some feat of technology I'm not aware of, Torrentspy manages to eliminate RAM from their servers, then what? Will the MPAA claim the server L2 cache is storing said IP addresses?


RE: They want the data in the RAM?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/13/2007 2:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "Suppose you are a bus driver, and a man who has just robbed a bank gets on your bus"

The judge in this case isn't ordering them to turn over logs which don't exist-- he's ordered them to turn on logging, then turn over the logs when they do exist.

Give that, let me posit a more accurate analogy. You drive a bus, and 20 times in the past month, a bank robber has gotten on and used it to make his getaway. With that kind of record, a judge orders you to place a camera on your bus, so future robbers can be caught.

That sounds a good bit more reasonable, doesn't it?


By Christopher1 on 6/13/2007 11:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
That would be reasonable, if the analogy was anywhere near correct. In this case, the judge is ordering someone who stands on a corner where the bank robber passes everytime he robs the same bank, to stand there with a camera in order to photograph him.

That's the true analogy here, and that is why I don't like this. They are basically telling everyone "You have to log!" when a judge CANNOT order someone to log the activities of someone else, not an ISP, not anyone.

He CAN order that there can be a tap placed on an ISP or someone else..... but he cannot order the ISP or other person to do that themselves, it has to be done on court order by the police or some other LEO.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/14/2007 10:08:56 AM , Rating: 2
You're right - I'm not against the judges decision at all. I'm against the MPAA's accusation that the company knowingly withheld evidence -- which we both know is just a digital buffer on the system with no expectation of logging there.


RE: They want the data in the RAM?
By bighairycamel on 6/13/2007 7:11:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I were running TorrentSpy, I'd be tempted to turn up in court with the RAM chips from the server and hand them over to the MPAA saying that they can have them for a couple of weeks to extract all the data they want from them


Or better yet, hand over the raw data from the ram. Here you go MPAA, good luck decyphering all those ones and zeros.


RE: They want the data in the RAM?
By cochy on 6/13/2007 7:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
I just finished a computer forensics class. Data in volatile memory is very important in a digital investigation. However, methods used in extracting and imaging this data is even more important. Forensics toolkits such as FTK and Encase are quite good at deciphering ones and zeros.


RE: They want the data in the RAM?
By deeznuts on 6/13/2007 1:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
That is not the point though, I believe. There is a legal loophole here. Torrentspy is arguing that the ip addresses and search queries are not discoverable because they don't log it, i.e. there is nothign to turn over, since it never really exists in their system.

MPAA argued, and the court agreed, that because this information has to pass through RAM, even if it isn't stored there, it is "discoverable" i.e. an item that can be requested in the discovery phase of a trial, and so logs must be turned on, and thsoe logs must be turned over.

So the gist of it is, since it is temporarily available in RAM, it is discoverable, so logs must be turned on. They are not saying that the information is on the RAM sticks nor that the RAM sticks must be turned over. Look here for a more complete discussion:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070610-bitt...


By InternetGeek on 6/13/2007 7:14:37 PM , Rating: 2
I remember there was a case very similar to this one but it was in regard of email servers. If I remember correctly, the judge decided that because emails were stored in ram for processing, the owners of the servers were allowed to save copies of those emails without having to inform the users; and thus actually allowing the owners to read all emails without having to fear any privacy issues. It strikes me that RIAA/MPAA argued using this decision to demand TorrentSpy to turn on logging on their servers.

It is odd TorrentSpy wasn't using the logging option given that the majority of web servers have it on to do their data mining (usage statistics, etc); though this applies to servers running commercial applications. TorrentSpy, up to what I know, is not making any money out of running searches beyond paying bandwidth and server maintenance. If someone is getting paid to do support/maintenance for a living it would be an entirely different matter then.

RIAA/MPAA is demanding TorrentSpy turn into their watchdog. If I was TorrentSpy I would do it but change the way I provide the service by informing all users that their searches will be logged and turned over tot he RIAA/MPAA. I would add a notice at every single search and would ask all users to register. Anyone smart would know what to look for through TorrentSpy during that time, and then they could just turn logging off again and carry on normally. ;)

Privacy is Privacy and it can be used both ways :D


Well stop using Torrentspy(if you hadn't already)
By sscilli on 6/13/2007 2:28:38 AM , Rating: 5
I'll admit, I do some torrenting, and in no way to I try to justify it as a legal activity. But forcing a site, which is basically a torrent search engine and hosts no torrents itself(at least to my knowledge, but it's been a long time since I've been there) to log IP addresses of everyone who visits their site is ludicrous. That be like the government asking Google to log IP's of people who use certain key phrases in their searches, and than turn that information over whenever asked. Sure the MPAA has a right to protect their material, but who do they think is gonna benefit from these types of tactics? Like it or not the people who are downloading these file are the very reason the MPAA is able to make so much money in the first place. The model is changing, and the MPAA(and especially the RIAA) need to adapt or their going to drive people toward other outlets.




RE: Well stop using Torrentspy(if you hadn't already)
By ZimZum on 6/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Well stop using Torrentspy(if you hadn't already)
By nayy on 6/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: Well stop using Torrentspy(if you hadn't already)
By Lonyo on 6/13/2007 12:08:11 PM , Rating: 1
You don't talk about what? :P


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/14/2007 10:10:29 AM , Rating: 3
And thus marks the first time in history comment moderation was used to uphold the laws of Usenet. lol


By Targon on 6/13/2007 7:45:21 AM , Rating: 5
What bothers me about this is that the MPAA and RIAA are trying to gather information without any clear evidence of wrongdoing. The police have a clear need to prove there is a reasonable reason to suspect criminal activity before they can do a search, but the MPAA and RIAA seem to feel they are entitled to do a search whenever they want, on whoever they want.

The RIAA set up Sound Exchange to extort money from everyone, even those who play music from people who don't have a contract with RIAA members. The MPAA at least tends to represent the studios they represent, and doesn't seem to go after those who are more interested in watching stuff from other countries which are not available elsewhere.


By HaZaRd2K6 on 6/13/2007 11:12:58 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with you on that, but to a point. The allusion between Google/TorrentSpy and a bar/restaurant doesn't really hold water. TorrentSpy doesn't actually host torrents, it only searches for them, same as Google doesn't actually host any content, it only collates it. That would be like requiring the Yellow Pages to ask for ID before someone asked where the closest bar was--it's ridiculous. So before you say "the vast majority of TorrentSpy downloads are illegal", you have to realise that, technically, there are no downloads that originate from TorrentSpy.


By Akazar on 6/13/2007 12:23:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So while technically, no one downloads from Torrentspy, the site is still facilitating criminal acts.


That's like holding gun manufacturers liable for any crimes committed by those who use guns to committ crimes. Guns are used to facilitate crimes. So are computers, internet, cars, and a list of many other things.

And torrents don't just host illegal software. They host patches, free downloads, shareware, free music from new bands. Free books from aspiring authors.

Just because I go to torrent spy and download a torrent file for a game. Doesn't mean I downloaded the game. I can download a million torrent files and not use any of them in a torrent program to download anything. That's why I think this lawsuit is ridiculous.

They can't prove anything. They are just trying to make to bankrupt the site by forcing them to spend time and money in the courts. That's not what our legal system was created for and it's a realy shame that rich companies can use the legal system in this manner.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/13/2007 12:54:27 PM , Rating: 1
> "That's like holding gun manufacturers liable for any crimes committed by those who use guns to committ crimes...torrents don't just host illegal software..."

Guns are used primarily for legal purposes-- hunting and self-defense primary among them. If torrent sites really were used primarily for hosting things other than illegal downloads-- and they could prove that in a court of law-- your point would be valid. The problem is they can't do that. Even a cursory look at the tracker volume of any torrent site shows them used overwhelmingly for copyrighted material.

I'd like to point out that sites that do host only legal torrents (torrent.ibiblio.org, www.legaltorrent.com, etc) have never been the victim of an MPAA or RIAA suit.


By bighairycamel on 6/13/2007 3:48:36 PM , Rating: 3
I would just like to point out that I use torrents, even torrentspy, to download HD movie trailers when I want to preview a soon-to-be release. Usings torrents is much faster than an HTTP or FTP host 99% of the time, and considering an HD movie trailer is 200MB+ having a torrent network works nicely.

I realize I am of a few who use torrent searches legally, but torrent searches provide a service no different than any other search engine. I can just as easily type "Spider-man 3 torrent" into google as I can torrentspy with similar results.


By Targon on 6/13/2007 7:47:50 AM , Rating: 2
Just because you search for a file doesn't always mean that you have downloaded anything. It may show as evidence of intending to do something, but it doesn't mean you have actually downloaded a single thing.




By DigitalFreak on 6/13/2007 8:01:58 AM , Rating: 5
Don't count on it. We're well on the way to intenet = guilt in the legal system.


Legislating from the bench
By on 6/13/2007 8:40:19 AM , Rating: 5
This is probably the worst example of a judge "Legislating from the Bench" which I've ever personally seen.

Worse, there's no evidence of actual crime, which would at the least be an official government law enforcement issue. TorrentSpy is just a search facility, and this boils down to one private entity (MPAA/RIAA) trying to use the court to force their own I.T. policy on another private party (TorrentSpy website).

There is absolutely no basis for one private party to have to answer to another dissassociated private party like this. Hopefully TorrentSpy have a good laywer for the appeal, because this is such a ludicrous case. And personally I think this judge should lose her seat and be run out of town.




Wrong Lawsuit at the wrong time.
By Mitch101 on 6/13/2007 9:54:26 AM , Rating: 2
There is a lot of crazy and stupid in the world.

How long until the RIAA/MPAA hits the next unibomber? I know I shouldnt even mention something like that but it really feels like its going to happen. The RIAA is going to hit someone so down on his luck and so beaten down by everything out there that when served with one of these papers that says pay up or in 90 days blah blah blah.

Seriously were close to betting its going to happen in the next 1-2 years and were betting the guy doesnt even have or can afford a computer that it happens to much less afford to counter sue or find an attorney who will accept the case.

Im also waiting for the flood of counter lawsuits which exploit the methods the RIAA/MPAA is taking which are invasive to the general population. Basically if anyone circumvents a firewall there is a lawsuit. After all if you can accidentally or even purposely use someone elses wifi network (Even because they are too stupid to secure it and maybe even the person using the wifi is too stupid to know its not his wifi because after all they are all named the same by default) and be arrested for it then what the RIAA/MPAA attorneys are doing is clearly illegal.

What the hell America since when is Hollywood above the law. Oh I forgot they are because Hollywood constantly makes a mockery of the judicial system. If a hollywood star does drunk driving why is it they go off nearly free while anyone else would be made to pay out the arse the rest of thier lives.

HOLLYWOOD > GOVERNMENT LAW > REGULAR PEOPLE

Goverment law is just hollywood's biatch. Face it Judge's your just hollywoods bitch.

Hey how about another line of coke Mr Downy Junior. How many times can this guy get busted and still remain out of jail? Lindsey Lohan is not in Jail because? Did Britney Spears get child counseling by child services after her poor judgment in child care? Yup hollywood is above the law. We need more Judge Judy's and less of the wussie judges in the LA court system.




By sscilli on 6/13/2007 5:14:06 PM , Rating: 2
What we really need is less big corporation lobbying. This suit scares me because the end result will have a huge effect on all websites. I mean Torrentspy is a search engine, if they are forced to turn over information to a private party whenever they ask, what do you think is going to happen to our privacy when using any search engine. Will advertising companies be able to ask google to hand over ip's of users who search for their products or similar? If this case goes through it's going to open the door for even more ridiculous law suits, and will have a far reaching impact on the internet in general.


Quote to think about....
By IckesTheSane on 6/13/2007 11:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
I cannot remember where I read it, or who said it, and I'll probably not even get it exactly right, but I have a good quote to think about:

"No industry has the right to exist."




RE: Quote to think about....
By dadz on 6/14/2007 5:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
The quote I remember is "the government doesn't owe anyone a living." No subsidies, no legislation to maintain industries.. No pork-barrel politics or legislation. Most capitalist democracies are unclear on this concept.


Stop Making Movies!
By AntiM on 6/13/2007 9:14:26 AM , Rating: 3
If you're loosing so much money because your movies are being stolen, then stop making movies. If you're afraid that when you release a DVD someone is going to copy it, then don't release the movie on a DVD. Consider the gross revenue for the top movies, a good movie will gross well over 300 million.
http://www.movieweb.com/movies/boxoffice/alltime.p... ( these are box office ticket sales only) And I do realize that's gross sales, good luck finding true figures for net profit.

They are still making gobs of money even without releasing a movie on DVD. Movies are just entertainment, we can survive just fine without them. Hollywood can fall off the map, the world won't stop. There are plenty of other ways to be entertained. When I have to choose between being entertained while a few moguls (and actors) make obscene amounts of money, or my personal freedom and privacy, I will choose the latter.

The MPAA would have us believe the movie industry is loosing money and people are starving and are on the verge of going broke. They are making plenty of money, just not as much as they would like.

Stop making movies so my freedom and personal privacy can remain intact... and while your at it, stop making and selling music too. I will still find entertainment or I might even use my time doing something productive.




Grsec
By Runiteshark on 6/13/2007 8:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
Thats why Grsec has this wonderful ability to "sanitize all freed memory".

Look into it.




Ridiculous
By mdogs444 on 6/13/2007 8:26:58 AM , Rating: 2
I find this entire suit ludacris. They do not store any physical files on the for the RIAA, etc to be concerned with. Are they just planning on using the data to track people who came to the site because they are PROBABLY downloading copyright matieral?

If this is the case, then they may as well go after numerous other sites such as DVDRhelp.com because they tell you how to copy CD's, DVD's, etc. Even though you down actually download any music, movies, etc from them, they aid in it so are they guilty as well?

Sounds like they are trying to make everyone guilty by association, which is just wrong.

So since i told my friend that there is this site called torrentspy, that you can search for torrents (even though you dont download them from there), can i be guilty by association? Sounds like that is what they are going for.




The MPAA has lost its mind
By 16nm on 6/13/2007 1:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if the members of the MPAA lost so much revenue that they were only able to produce a few films each per year. In otherwords, they would be reduced to their output of the eighties and early nineties when fewer movies were produced and a larger number of them were worth watching. I love movies but I have wasted a lot of time watching many mediocre to poor productions (2 hrs. times each bad movie) in my life and if I could have this time back, I would be happy. In fact, I would like to sue the MPAA for taking my money and wasting my time. To me, this sounds just as rediculous as these MPAA lawsuits. I want returned my $7 paid for seeing Ishtar. Also Starwars Episode I, II and III, Superman, ...




MPAA AND RIAA are just pissed off
By shraz on 6/13/2007 3:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
RIAA doesnt sell any CDs anymore... duh cuz they cost freaking high and nobody buys CD PLAYERS ANYMORE. All digital MP3's now. LEARN TO ADAPT!

MPAA doesnt see much of movie theater goers... DUH! Freaking $10++ for a movie is ridiculous. DVD are still a big market tho.




Know Your Customer
By PavlovsCanine on 6/20/2007 6:10:38 PM , Rating: 1
There's a lot of know-your-customer laws in many places. If you're a landlord, and you have a good reason to suspect someone is using the space they've leased from you for illegal activity, you have an obligation to try to determine if that's the case, put a stop to it, and if necessary call the police. Banks are required to take steps to make sure their customers are not engaged in money-laundering. It's not being a stooge, it's your duty as a law-abiding citizen. In any situation where someone is using your property or a service you provide for illegal purposes, you have an obligation to make a reasonable effort to stop it.

Someone used the analogy of a phone book. Suppose instead someone published a phone book exclusively of in-home masseuses, and also organized it by blonde/brunette/redhead. Sure, there's a lot of legitimate use for such a directory, but you have to be exceptionally obtuse if you think that's what it would actually be used for, and the fact that you've organized it in a way that implies you know exactly what it will be used for makes it reasonable to suppose that it's your goal to facilitate prostitution.

So back to Torrentspy. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that a huge proportion of its use is for piracy. Certainly the people who run torrentspy know that. I don't know the proportion of search engines that log IP addresses, but I'd bet quite a lot do so they can compile usage statistics. Unless IP logging is prohibitively expensive (given storage costs these days, I strongly doubt it), does anyone think that the primary reason torrentspy doesn't log IPs is precisely so that people who pirate stuff can't get caught? Even if it was expensive, does anyone think the RIAA/MPAA wouldn't be willing to pick up the tab for IP logging if torrentspy claimed that cost was the only reason they didn't do it?

There's so much bullshit flying around that it's ridiculous. If you think you ought to have the right to pirate stuff, just come out and say so. Don't pretend it's purely privacy. Privacy is an important right, but by and large you lose rights when you systematically abuse them or protect people who do. It's also important not to confuse privacy with anonymity. The average person doesn't get this, but everyone on this board surely has to know that the internet is not an anonymous place, and it takes a good deal of effort to actually do something anonymously on the net. It's a good rule of thumb to be suspicious of anyone who insists on anonymity and won't tell you why. If a cop sees someone walking around in summer with a ski mask on, I'd damn well expect the cop to keep a close eye on him.




"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki