MPAA Would Rather TorrentSpy Spy On Users Than Stop Offering Service?
from the motivations,-huh? dept
TorrentSpy and the MPAA have been involved in a legal fight for quite some time. TorrentSpy is basically a search engine for files that are offered for download via BitTorrent. However, because the MPAA views such BitTorrent as a tool for unauthorized use, it's trying to sue the search engine, rather than go after those who are actually responsible for sharing unauthorized content. There was a slightly troublesome ruling earlier this year, where a judge ordered TorrentSpy to spy on its users -- violating TorrentSpy's own privacy policy. Rather than do so, TorrentSpy decided to block access to US users. Now, you would think this would make the MPAA happy. After all, the site they were so worried about was no longer an issue for the entire US market. Instead, the MPAA is back in court claiming that this action is merely another illegal move by the company. Apparently, the MPAA would rather have TorrentSpy keep operating, but spy on its users, than block access. That doesn't make much sense if TorrentSpy is really such a huge problem. Unless, of course, the MPAA doesn't have any real evidence that TorrentSpy is doing anything wrong -- and this is about the only way it hopes to prove its case.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bittorrent, log files, search engines, trackers
Companies: mpaa, torrentspy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
At least this time, they don't have a leg to stand on.
"They're not doing what we forced them to do with their US users!"
"What users?"
"Oh, uhhh, well... damn."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The fact that TorretSpy has cut off access to the US user's may also be irrelevant depending on how the judgment was worded/defined. If TorretSpy is to spy on it's "users" then it's still violating the court order even if none of those users are US based. If the order specifically claimed US user's then there may be a case that they aren't violating that order.
Regardless of how you view the US courts jurisdiction over non-US companies the problem is still that these same courts assume that they DO have jurisdiction. It may currently be a problem enforcing these judgements against non-US companies but expect that before too long the international trade groups start being pulled into this. It's already happening in the patent area where a company holding a patent (valid or otherwise) sues non-US companies for patent violation and before it can even be brought up into a US court of law the patent holder asks the international trade group to block ALL imports into the US of the "offending" merchandise. This has been granted before even though patent infringement has yet to be proven.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jurisdiction
> jurisdiction over non-US companies the problem
> is still that these same courts assume that
> they DO have jurisdiction.
They can assume it all they like but unless they actually *have* jurisdiction, companies like TorrentSpy are free to ignore their rulings. One of the key components of valid jurisdiction is the ability of the court to enforce its rulings.
If TorrentSpy has cut off all U.S. access to its site and is no longer doing business in the U.S., what do the studios hope to accomplish here? Even if the judge rules in their favor, the judge has no ability to enforce her jurisdiction over this foreign company anymore. It’s not like this judge has the power to order a foreign government to freeze foreign bank accounts or other assets. The MPAA would have totill bring a separate suit in whatever country TorrentSpy now operates and the litigate the thing all over again, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Opinion is:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Users wont want to use a service that is taking their personal data and information and giving it to the MPAA."
This would result in no one going to TS and then they would loose their advertisers, and then eventually have to close.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why slaughter the cow and eat steaks for a few weeks, when you can keep it alive and drink milk for a decade?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could just be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so you are saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: so you are saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]