For a few years now, we've been covering the battle between TorrentSpy and the MPAA. While TorrentSpy has given in and shut down on the question concerning the operations of its business, there was a separate legal question that is still being fought in court. As we noted recently, TorrentSpy has appealed the judge's ruling that the MPAA didn't break any laws in gaining access to its executives' emails. As you may recall, the MPAA hired a guy who hacked into TorrentSpy's servers to send copies of all the emails to himself first, which he then sold to the MPAA (he later regretted this decision and confessed to TorrentSpy, which is what resulted in the lawsuit in the first place). When the issue first came up in court, the MPAA played dumb, and pretended that it assumed the guy had legal access to the emails.

While this may seem like just a straight privacy case, the EFF, along with the ACLU and others, have filed a brief noting that there's much more at stake here. Specifically, the EFF is concerned that the court ruled that since the email messages were not technically "intercepted" under the wiretap act, due to the fact that the emails were stored, however briefly, on a mail server before they were copied and re-forwarded. In other words, as the EFF points out, if you have access to any server that handles a message as it travels across the internet, it's not "intercepted" for you to read that message. That has huge and very dangerous implications for any sort of internet wiretapping -- suggesting that as long as the government routed all communications through its own machines, it could read everything without a warrant. This case is about a lot more than a BitTorrent tracker battling the MPAA.

While TorrentSpy may have shut down and lost its copyright infringement lawsuit against the MPAA, it's still appealing a separate issue: whether the MPAA broke the law in hiring a guy to break into TorrentSpy's email server and forward emails to the MPAA. The MPAA got away with playing dumb when this issue first came up, claiming it assumed the guy they hired had legitimate access to all of the emails he was handing over -- though, that seems highly questionable.

Following yesterday's $110 million fine against TorrentSpy, ostensibly for copyright infringement, but really for destruction of evidence, we figured that the whole thing would drop, as the company has already shut down. But... not so fast. The company has decided to appeal, claiming that the result was a Hollywood PR stunt. Given the way the MPAA tried to claim that this ruling acted as a warning to other torrent trackers, he has a point. Still, given the destruction of evidence in this case, it may not be the model case on these issues. There are plenty of other cases, such as those against The Pirate Bay (in Sweden) and isoHunt that will be more important long term.

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.

The saga between TorrentSpy and MPAA will certainly be declared a "win" (if not a "significant blow") by the MPAA, but it's really more of a sad statement on the way the entertainment industry goes about its business. TorrentSpy announced earlier this week that it was shutting down and giving up, not due to any court order, but mainly because it was sick of the whole process and it didn't seem likely that the judge was going to see its side of the story. If you recall, TorrentSpy lost its case, but not on the copyright claim. Instead it was based on TorrentSpy potentially having destroyed some important evidence. It does look like the company (stupidly) did destroy some evidence, though some of the "destroyed evidence" was TorrentSpy's refusal to keep log files on its users, something it felt would be a violation of its own privacy policy. Based on the destruction of evidence problem, it's not too surprising that the company shut down -- but there really was no ruling at all on the more important question of whether or not simply operating a search engine counts as "inducement." This case also highlighted some of the MPAA's more unethical moves, including having someone hack into TorrentSpy's email servers and forward internal emails to the MPAA. So, while the MPAA will surely declare victory, all the case actually showed was (a) how unethical the MPAA can be (b) that it was able to shut down a site with owners who stupidly destroyed evidence and (c) that no ruling was made on the actual claims concerning copyright.

TorrentSpy has lost the first round of its case against the MPAA, but the details suggest that it's for all the wrong reasons. TorrentSpy, of course, is like many other torrent trackers: it's a search engine. While the MPAA went after TorrentSpy claiming that it was violating copyright laws like Grokster/Morpheus, TorrentSpy pointed out (correctly) that the Supreme Court only said that service providers who actively encourage copyright infringement can be held liable. Instead, TorrentSpy noted, it was a search engine, just like Google -- which is quite accurate. However, the court seemed to have difficulty understanding this -- and when the court ordered TorrentSpy to spy on its users (against TorrentSpy's own terms of service), the company instead chose to cut off US users. This seemed quite admirable and reasonable. It was, in fact, a lot more admirable than the MPAA, who hired someone to hack into TorrentSpy's servers and pass on internal emails. However, it appears that TorrentSpy's decision to not spy on its users and to block access to US users is part of what caused it to lose the case. The ruling isn't on the merits of the actual copyright claim, but on the claim that TorrentSpy destroyed evidence -- such as the IP addresses of its users. There does appear to be some additional egregious destruction of evidence from TorrentSpy beyond just the IP addresses of users -- which was incredibly stupid for the company. That certainly hurt the company's position. However, that does not address the merits of the original lawsuit. The MPAA, of course, is claiming this is a huge win, but that's just its usual press release quote and has little to connect it to reality: which is that the MPAA won this case on a technicality rather than the merits. TorrentSpy plans to appeal, so this is hardly over -- but the destruction of evidence will hurt the rest of TorrentSpy's position, no matter how reasonable it may have been.

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?

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.

BitTorrent search engine TorrentSpy has been involved in a legal battle with the MPAA for some time now. The lawsuit took a slightly bizarre twist a few months back when a judge demanded that TorrentSpy start logging details about its users -- something the company had never done and had no plans to do. TorrentSpy claims that doing so will violate its users privacy and violate its own terms of service. Apparently, however, that hasn't convinced the judge to change the ruling -- meaning that TorrentSpy has now cut off access to visitors coming from the US as a way of protecting their privacy. Of course, it'll probably take all of about 10 minutes for most people to figure out other ways to get to TorrentSpy (or they'll just move on to another BitTorrent search engine). Congratulations to the MPAA for driving a bunch of movie fans further underground...