Court Orders TorrentSpy To Pay $110 Million To MPAA
from the don't-destroy-evidence dept
Just as IsoHunt is gearing up to fight its MPAA lawsuit, a judge has ordered TorrentSpy to pay $110 million to the MPAA in a similar lawsuit. However, despite the MPAA's Dan Glickman giving the expected "this is a warning to other such sites" quote, this actually shouldn't have much of an impact on other such cases -- as the details are somewhat different here. The problem with TorrentSpy's case was that the company was found to have destroyed evidence, which resulted in the ruling. It had little to do with the actual issues at hand. And, yes, while the "destroyed evidence" claim was somewhat exaggerated when the judge included TorrentSpy's refusal to spy on its users, the destruction of evidence went further than just not spying on users. The company was found to have deleted specific evidence, including forum posts and directory info. So, unless all the other torrent search engines out there also deleted evidence, it's hard to see how this case acts as a warning to anyone over anything other than the stupidity of destroying evidence. As for getting any money, given that TorrentSpy has shut down, the MPAA probably won't be getting any money -- not that they'd be giving it to moviemakers anyway.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Now .... by Krum on May 7th, 2008 @ 7:04pm
Now I'll have to get my legal Linux .iso's from another tracker. Stupid MPAA!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Evil MPAA by Triatomic Tortoise on May 7th, 2008 @ 7:20pm
These people at MPAA are pure evil. They have no respect for any human collaborative behavior.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Griper on May 7th, 2008 @ 7:44pm
That's a real shame, that was my goto site. Well there's always Pirate Bay, how many time have they been in the label's crosshairs?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
...so where does it go? by Carrie on May 7th, 2008 @ 8:32pm
If they were to get the 110 million owed to them, where would the money go? Where do you think it should go?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
re:...so where does it go? by Not Bob on May 7th, 2008 @ 8:35pm
Well, we can be pretty darn sure it wouldn't go to anyone whose work was allegedly infringed. Instead it would go into the coffers of the MPAA so they can pay more lawyers to fight more pirates. Same with any money received by the RIAA. At least that's the way I see it...
NB
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Seriously!... by Nunya on May 7th, 2008 @ 9:06pm
I am so sick of all this "copyright infringement" BS. Why is it, that in the 80's, when cassette players were all that, you could record music, share it, and there was not anyone "blah blah'ing" about pirating and all that other crap? Now (within the last 10 or more years)it is just a reason for lawyers and companies to get rich. It seems there is a violation of our rights somewhere. And ordering them to SPY on the users? Umm, it takes a hard-to-get court order to spy on phone conversations (at least over landlines) and what makes it any different for the internet?
Ok, so maybe I am just going off, I am just sick of RIAA & MPAA's crying. Someone should spy on them, and sue them for being crooked and not paying the supposed "infringed" people.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: ...so where does it go? by MLS on May 7th, 2008 @ 9:24pm
In all likelihood it will go nowhere since it is highly doubtful that any of the damage award will ever be recovered from Valence based upon my understanding that the company has declared bankruptcy.
Let's be honest. The whole purpose of P2P has been perverted by those who view it as a means to get something for nothing. Please do not get me wrong. I am sure that P2P is used for purposes that do not involve software and entertainment media protected under domestic and international copyright law. Unfortunately, at this point in time these uses seem to be in the distinct minority.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: ...so where does it go? by Anonymous Coward on May 7th, 2008 @ 9:39pm
Statistics please. Also, cite sources.
Off the top of my head:
1) Nearly all if not all Linux Distros
2) World of Warcraft game updates
3) Universities use it to share files between professors, and between professors and students
4) numerous free to download and use programs are available via P2P (from CutePDF Writer to Mozilla Firefox)
Don't get me wrong, a LOT of people use it to get music etc. Hell, I used it to get music. A lot faster than ripping all my CDs after a reformat (between Slayer and Metallica that's about 250 tracks or so on several dozen CDs).
Took me an hour to download all the albums I *do* own (come to me RIAA, I have the CD's in their jewel cases right next to my computer tower on a nice set of disc racks).
Digression aside (sorry) more people use non-torrent forms of P2P to download music/movies than bit torrent. AFAIK Kazaa and eMule are P2P but not BitTorrent protocol using applications.
Saying the purpose of P2P has been perverted is like saying the Internet was perverted because of all the porn. While that could be right if taken in a certain light, the truth is it hasn't been.
Porn is content whether the bible thumpers want it to be or not, and the Internet distributes it equally.
No matter what though it all comes back to the same thing. BitTorrent is a protocol, and as much as the RIAA/MPAA love to propagandize that its 'illegal' it quite frankly is not. No matter if you CAN use it 'illegally'.
You can use Google to find BitTorrent trackers just as well as TorrentSpy. All it does is point you in the right direction. YOU still have to go do it. Just because they are "making available" doesn't mean they are actually infringing, and if TorrentSPy hadn't been retarded enough to destroy evidence they could have pushed the RIAA's legal theory (which isn't working out against individuals) against them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: ...so where does it go? by Anonymous Coward on May 7th, 2008 @ 10:46pm
Let's be honest. The whole purpose of photo copiers have been perverted by those who view it as a means to get something for nothing. Please do not get me wrong. I am sure that photo copiers are used for other purposes. Unfortunately, at this point in time these uses seem to be in the distinct minority.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Deleted Files by Reed on May 8th, 2008 @ 12:43am
I can't get over the hypocrisy. The White House deletes incriminating emails, so why can't Torrentspy?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
FFS! by Kent on May 8th, 2008 @ 1:33am
I get Techdirt feeds on my homepage and I think that allows me to see nearly every RIAA or MPAA suit covered on here. It's just getting ridiculous now, they haven't prevented any piracy except MAYBE from the individuals they've sued, and even then, I wouldn't be at all surprised if those people went back to pirating music eventually. Like someone mentioned, its just a vicious cycle, proceeds from the lawsuits go back to the organizations' pocket books and pay more attorneys to sue for unjust dollars of supposed damages using very shady legal practices.
RIAA and MPAA, $*#@ off!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
#6 by Just Me on May 8th, 2008 @ 3:54am
"Why is it, that in the 80's, when cassette players were all that, you could record music, share it, and there was not anyone "blah blah'ing" about pirating and all that other crap?"
I think the key difference here is enforcement. The record companies *did* complain about cassettes and, later, CD-R's (we actually have had a tariff here in Canada for years).
The difference is that you can't tell if a 14 year old is taping off the radio to a cassette. If you dl via BitTorrent then you may leave footprints.
Not taking sides, just wanted to point that out.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Dear Bittorrent sites by Ferin on May 8th, 2008 @ 4:46am
Please don't shoot yourself in the foot when participating in court cases that may set precedent for how file sharing is treated. It makes it much harder to defend other, similar sites, when you do that. Thanks.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Paper Tiger by Anonymous Coward on May 8th, 2008 @ 6:31am
Robber Barons awarded amount that they will never get.
Dan Glickman: "this is a warning to other such sites"
Warning - the Robber Barons will spare no expense in wasting money on fruitless efforts.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hmmm by Anonymous Coward on May 8th, 2008 @ 9:23am
if it were just for destroying evidence, why the $110m damages?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Hmmm by MLS on May 8th, 2008 @ 9:51am
In any litigation under copyright law a plaintiff is entitled to either damages actually sustained or monetary amounts specified by statute (so-called statutory or in lieu damages).
As a general rule, a judge has discretion to award statutory damages in an amount between $750 and $30,000 for each infringing act. Given the defendant's conduct the judge opted for the highest amount, which when multiplied against the number of infringements shown to date resulted in the $110+ award.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Hmmm by Anonymous Coward on May 8th, 2008 @ 10:40am
But the Techdirt summary at the top implies the payout had nothing to do with copywrite, just evidence destroying.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Hmmm by MLS on May 8th, 2008 @ 11:33am
The damages were awarded under the provisions of US copyright law.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Seriously!... by Anonymous Coward on May 8th, 2008 @ 11:45am
Seriously, you can debate file sharing, but please do so honestly. Right or wrong, we all know there is a difference between copying a tape for a friend and giving 100,000 access to copy it online.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Seriously!... by Tony on May 8th, 2008 @ 12:45pm
"Why is it, that in the 80's, when cassette players were all that, you could record music, share it, and there was not anyone "blah blah'ing" about pirating and all that other crap?"
Your age is showing. There WAS. And there was a similar outcry by the MPAA & company when VCR's hit the market, too.
And, FYI, copying cassettes and distributing them to others is copyright infringement, and has been prosecuted as such. It's just that it is much harder to trace the college student distributing cassettes at school than the student uploading files from his dorm room.
The RIAA & MPAA have to deal with new technology - which they're not. But we gain nothing by denying or ignoring the facts of the past.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmmm by Anonymous Coward on May 8th, 2008 @ 3:32pm
The meaning of which is up to the judge unless and until it is overturned by a higher ranking judge.(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment