Who's More Ethical: TorrentSpy Or The MPAA?
from the just-a-simple-question dept
Wired has an interview with Robert Anderson, the guy who hacked into TorrentSpy's servers and handed over a bunch of internal TorrentSpy info to the MPAA. From the interview, it's quite clear that the MPAA knew that it was getting access to content that had not been legally obtained, but it still pushed Anderson for more such info (including asking him if he could obtain similar info about The Pirate Bay). Yet, because they know how to cover themselves legally, they made Anderson sign a contract saying that all of the info he gave them had been obtained legally. But, still, it's quite clear that the MPAA has no qualms spying on people using questionable means. At the same time, however, we've noted that TorrentSpy is so aghast at the idea of spying on its own users, that it shut off US access to its site to protect its users from court-ordered spying. So, which organization comes across as more ethical here? The MPAA, who's actively trying to get confidential information from various torrent tracker sites? Or TorrentSpy, who's actively trying to protect the privacy of its users? Yet, why is it that people act as if the MPAA has the moral high ground here?
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, hacking, spying
Companies: mpaa, torrentspy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I will personally never support those agencies again for the rest of my life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more ethical: neither
T*S* blocking US users while not filtering US content ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...ok, you start. Once you've made some progress, let me know and I'll jump in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Business as usual
Let's not forget that hacking is still illegal and if I was TorrentSpy, I'd do exactly what they did then send out hit men to take care of business.
As of now, the score is evenly divided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just because YOU think file sharing is unethical doesn't mean I do. Just because you believe in Jesus doesn't mean I do.
So arguing morals and ethics is nonsense because quite frankly I care as little about your morals and beliefs as you likely care about mine.
As just so I'm clear I do not view sharing copyright information in any way unethical or against my moral beliefs. If you do all I can say is SUCK IT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stick with
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stick with Describing Irony
It might be safer if you just point out the irony in the above situation and leave the moral argument to those who are stronger in understanding those elements and how to argue them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #7
You are only responsible for you, unless you are promoting all of the illegal stuff in a very serious manner (inducing).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re #7
I have been on torrent sites looking for legit content and have given up 99% of the time and downloaded it from a slow source because I could actually find legal copies of what I was looking for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re #7
Sure, if you go searching for a DVD rip of movie X, you're going to find that the only downloads available aren't legal...because the very definition of that download is copyright infringement (yeah, I know, restoring backups is legit, but there are so few people who need that).
Maybe you should ban spray paint as it can be used to get a person high, or canned whipped cream for the same reason. Just because something can be used for an illegal purpose does not negate it's legitimate use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re #7
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you're retarded
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you're retarded
For one, Torrent Spy is not violating any copyrights! It is a search engine for torrents. Yes a large majority of torrents may be copyright infringing, but there are also quite a few that are not, and put there for fully legitimate purposes.
Would you feel different if the MPAA hired a hacker to hack Google or Yahoo? As you're probably a shill from either the MPAA or RIAA, probably not.
Knowingly hiring a hacker to get information from someone, even if the hacker hands the information over under the clause that it was obtained legally, is VERY, VERY UNETHICAL! Doesn't even closely compare to having a search engine, even if it is mainly used for copyright infringement that may or may not be illegal, but may only be a tort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: you're retarded
This is also notable as the only time I have seen "retard" and "martyr" used concurrently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hold on...
Yet, because they know how to cover themselves legally, they made Anderson sign a contract saying that all of the info he gave them had been obtained legally.
What? So all they had to do to cover they butts was have Anderson sign a contrat saying the info was legally obtained and magiacally his hacking became legal? Yeah right. The MPAA had this contract made and signed in the event that TorrentSpy found out about the illegaly obtained info and tried the sue the MPAA, that way the MPAA could just say, "He signed the contract saying he obtained the info legally. It's not our fault if he didn't obtain it legally."
But if this is possible does this mean that I could hire a hacker to do the same thing to the MPAA and have a contract like that so when the MPAA came after me I can just, "He signed the contract saying he obtained the info legally. It's not my fault if he didn't obtain it legally"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hold on...
In that respect, you are legally in the right (though as it appears, morally in the wrong). The problem with that argument is whether or not the MPAA had knowledge of the wrong doing on the part of the hacker. If so, then it would be gross negligence to continue to accept the information. Such knowledge should end the contract and any further information gathered from the source would then be illegally obtained.
It's pretty much the same thing as buying fenced goods. If you're aware the goods are stolen, you're liable for some of the blame for the theft; if you're unaware, then you may lose the stolen goods and your money, but you aren't criminally liable.
Makes sense if you think about it, it's about as fair a deal as an impartial system can allow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The MPAA is going after torrent sites because they see them as a threat to their business model. The problem here is that torrents can be used (and frequently are) for legitimate purposes (try downloading the latest Linux distro of your choice direct from a site and then again from a torrent, let me know which is better). So effectively it's like trying to shut down Home Depot and Lowe's because they sell crowbars...which can be used in criminal activities.
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ethics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ethics
Just because you are not taking a tangible object does not mean it isn't theft. The argument for it being stealing is that, as a consumer, there is a likelihood (no matter how small) that you might purchase the film (or a viewing thereof). If you obtain a viewing for free, you have effectively cost the industry potential money. In this way, watching a movie at a friends house is also a type of theft. If the MPAA had their way you probably wouldn't be allowed to do that.
Don't get me wrong, I don't see any problem with downloading the files, I just recognize that getting the entertainment without paying for it is a form of theft of services.
If there are any MPAA people reading all this, I'd like you to know that I'd happily pay for my downloads if you would provide a reasonable outlet for me. Say $5/movie, and I can burn off a DVD when I get it downloaded? Not your cup of tea? Paying $30 for a DVD isn't mine, so we'll have to just agree to disagree for the time being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ethics
No, you have not stolen something. You've breached a contract. That's different. Learn the difference. It may seem subtle, but it's important.
Just because you are not taking a tangible object does not mean it isn't theft.
No, it isn't theft -- and the difference is important.
The argument for it being stealing is that, as a consumer, there is a likelihood (no matter how small) that you might purchase the film (or a viewing thereof). If you obtain a viewing for free, you have effectively cost the industry potential money.
If that's the argument, then you just flunked econ. Based on your definition "likelihood (no matter how small) that you might purchase" being somehow prevented then you just made almost every business in the world thieves. I've made this point before, but based on this definition, the pizza shop that opens next to the deli is guilty of theft. After all, when it's time for lunch, and I choose the pizza shop over the deli, that pizza shop (again, based on your definition) has "effectively cost the deli some money."
You see why that's not theft? It's a marketing decision. No company has a right to money. They have a right to try to convince people to pay them for goods or services.
If you want to take the analogy even further, let's say I open up a beverage shop, and a pizza shop opens up next door and offers free sodas with every pizza. Again, by your definition, this is theft. After all, who's going to buy a soda at the beverage shop when you can get a free one next door? But we don't condemn that, because that's reasonable competition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ethics
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your all missing something
First, Downloading music without consent of the artist is NOT stealing. It is copyright infringement. Never let anyone confuse the two, that is where most of these arguments come from.
Second, Torrent Spy and The Pirate Bay are just hosting sites for USER POSTED items. They are not in control of what is put up. They are protected by "safe harbor." And if they determine that the only way to protect their users is to block access from the US than that is OK. Self censorship is a good thing, government mandated censorship is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate crime pays
The MPAA won't face any trouble over this or any illegal activities in which they choose to engage. Aside from their army of lobbyists and their Congressional allies--bought and paid for, fair and square--the same argument applies as with the Valdez: Everyone knows it's a big problem, but no one in power wants to risk losing the next election.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunate...
THIS is where I have the problem with what MPAA is doing... they should have researched which copyrighted material was in violation, and then issued a legal document demanding the info for THOSE items. So, unless copyright laws change, MPAA has a right to SOME of that information, but they need to go about getting it through the legal system in order to avoid violating the rights of the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #26
As for #16, if you couldn't find it, maybe you should seed it so others can find it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ethical MPAA? Is this a joke?
How do you compare the ethics of two organizations these days? I'd start by finding out how much money is riding on each organization. The higher the sum, the more likely the organization will commit unethical (or outright illegal) acts to protect that sum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone rapes a family member or friend of yours and plainly committed a crime are you within your right to go out and kill that person? Or lets not go to that extreme. Are you able to fill out a legal document that says it's okay to hunt this guy down and beat the piss out of him or physically do anything to him period? No... it's not for you to decide how this person should pay his debt to society... It's not even for you to hunt him down. You give your description of the perp and let the police find them and a judge convict them...
2 wrongs NEVER make a right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Texas does some things right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dictionary Man
It is copyright infringement, and not stealing. Simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]