IFPI Convinces ISP To Just Hand Over Hard Drives Of Torrent Site
from the that-seems-questionable dept
This is not the first time something like this has happened, but the IFPI somehow convinced Swedish hosting company Itstaden/ServerConnect to simply hand over the hard drives of one of its hosting customers, LimeTorrents. The IFPI apparently has been pressuring ServerConnect for moths, claiming that it could be liable for any infringement on LimeTorrents, but rather than filing a lawsuit, it simply said that ServerConnect should hand over the harddrives and it did. I'm curious how this is legal. It may depend on the specific contract ServerConnect has with its customers, but it seems that handing their hard drives over to a private party without any sort of court order almost certainly breaks the user agreement, if not local privacy laws.
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: hard drives, isps, legality, liability, torrents
Companies: ifpi, lime torrents, serverconnect
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Reminds me of AlTransa vs BREIN
The datacenter (WorldStream) that housed the serverracks of webhoster AlTransa, is located in The Netherlands, but that datacenter didn't own the racks.
The owner of the racks (and the hosting party itself), Craig Salmond, resides in Costa Rica.
But, nonetheless, the datacenter gave over the servers to BREIN, after BREIN came by and threatened the datacenter people.
A single email was sent to mr. Salmond to notify him that his servers would be confiscated, on the suspicion of hosting a torrentsite called Swan.
No judge was involved with this server raid, making it a theft of hardware by BREIN, aided by Worldstream.
And instead of a police investigation, BREIN decided it would investigate the server hardware itself. Keeping up its claim that it found illegal content on the server hardware. But I think their actions make any evidence they bring forward in a court of law, out of the confiscated hardware, inadmissible, if it ever comes to a lawsuit.
Sorry, I only have links in Dutch on this particular story:
http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/105793/brein-moet-in-beslag-genomen-servers-inleveren.html
htt p://webwereld.nl/nieuws/105819/aangifte-tegen-brein-om-serverdiefstal.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reminds me of AlTransa vs BREIN
However, a lot of countries are not sane anymore on this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reminds me of AlTransa vs BREIN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
must be old servers if the have moths
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And this is the 2nd post that I've read today where there has been a typo.
Other one was in the title Blog Posts About Crusing Around The Caribbean On New Boyfriend's Sailboat Leads To Alimony Reduction
Maybe it's just me, but that probably should be "Cruising".
Looks like Mike was probably kinda tired when he wrote those up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who is IFPI - we all do not know every acronym, BTW
Who is IFPI and who cares ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is IFPI - we all do not know every acronym, BTW
That's just way too depressing before a first cup of coffee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who is IFPI - we all do not know every acronym, BTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who is IFPI - we all do not know every acronym, BTW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guess what they exist to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And with both major crashes within one week, I hope it opens up people's eyes. The carelessness of handing over sensitive data, not matter how legal, can come back to bite you in the ass pretty damn hard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i disagree. if anything, virtualized hardware will make it harder to track these things down.
think about it: a rack of 6 physical servers is actually running 120 rented servers. which of those 6 is actually running the site that you have a problem with? do you confiscate all 6 and knock 119 other servers offline while you figure out what the problem is? do you just confiscate the 1 server and take 19 others with it?
add to that a little forethought, say a non-US registered domain name for your questionable site (all of my favorite trackers are going to .me, .it, or .ph), good backups, and a second or third server in a different country with a different vendor, and you see the problem that seizing physical hardware presents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i disagree. if anything, virtualized hardware will make it harder to track these things down and keep these sites offline.
think about it: a rack of 6 physical servers is actually running 120-300 rented virtual servers. which of those 6 is actually running the site that you have a problem with? do you confiscate all 6 and knock 119-299 other servers offline while you figure out what the problem is? do you just confiscate the 1 server and take 19-49 others with it?
do you just have the vendor take the 1 virtual server offline and email the VHD/VDI files? this is where block crypto comes into play on the virtual server side.
add to that a little forethought, say a non-US registered domain name for your questionable site (all of my favorite trackers are going to .me, .it, or .ph), good backups, and a second or third server in a different country with a different vendor, and you see the problem that seizing physical hardware presents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get out of jail free.
-C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get out of jail free.
I also like eating moths (or is that months? I'm not sure now.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get out of jail free.
For example, there is Swedish case law that establishes that if the police use wire-tapping based on suspicion of a certain crime and the tapped calls reveal a completely different type of crime, then that evidence may still be used in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Get out of jail free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Get out of jail free.
Evidence is evidence. To ask someone to disregard evidence because it is obtained illegally would not contribute to better judgements. If the evidence was obtained illegally it is used as evidence, and the illegal act of obtaining it is prosecuted as whatever crime it may be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yet another....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drives
> to a private party without any sort of court
> order almost certainly breaks the user agreement,
> if not local privacy laws.
Forget privacy laws. How about laws prohibiting theft of property? The drives don't belong to the ISP. They don't have any legal right to give them to anyone (save perhaps law enforcement with a valid warrant).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]