MPAA accuses TorrentSpy of concealing evidence

The movie studios may have discovered a new and powerful weapon in their war on copyright infringement.

The courts have for the first time found that the electronic trail briefly left in a computer server's RAM, or random access memory, by each visitor to a site is "stored information" and must be turned over as evidence during litigation, according to documents seen by CNET News.com.

Jacqueline Chooljian, a federal judge in the Central District of California in Los Angeles, issued the decision while presiding over a court fight between the studios and TorrentSpy, the BitTorrent search engine accused of copyright infringement in a lawsuit filed last year by the film industry. On May 29, Chooljian ordered TorrentSpy to begin logging user activity, including IP addresses, and turn the data over to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).

"There can be no serious dispute that the Server Log Data in issue is extremely relevant."

--Jacqueline Chooljian, judge, Central District of California

The judge stayed the order on Friday to allow TorrentSpy time to prepare an appeal, which must be filed by Tuesday. She also allowed TorrentSpy to mask the Internet Protocol addresses of the site's users "at least at this juncture."

This may be the first time that anyone has argued that information within RAM is electronically stored information and therefore subject to the rules of evidence, Chooljian said according to court records. Up to now, many Web sites that promised users anonymity, such as TorrentSpy, believed they need only to switch off their servers' logging function to avoid storing user data.

Should Chooljian's order stand, the decision could force Web sites to rethink privacy precautions.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation called the judge's decision "troubling" and said it could mean that any Web site operator could be compelled to log user activity anytime they faced a lawsuit. In its privacy policy, TorrentSpy pledges not to collect any personal information about users except when they "specifically and knowingly provide such information."

But user data was stored at TorrentSpy, according to Chooljian. The judge said in court documents that this information survived on TorrentSpy's server RAM for about six hours. RAM is defined by Chooljian as "a chip where volatile internal memory is stored."

The judge agreed with the MPAA that the existence of user data in RAM enabled TorrentSpy to retrieve user information. She also wrote that the data was crucial for getting at the truth in the case, according to records.

"There can be no serious dispute that the Server Log Data in issue is extremely relevant," the judge said in her finding.

Concealed evidence?
In one of the most hotly contested disputes so far in the case, the records show that the MPAA accused TorrentSpy of trying to conceal evidence when the search engine began directing visitors to the servers of an outside vendor.

The MPAA claimed that TorrentSpy did this to avoid being in possession of user information as the search engine anticipated receiving a court order, according to records. TorrentSpy denied the accusations and said that the outside vendor was chosen for "significantly faster processing and delivery."

Among the arguments TorrentSpy made against turning over logs was that the law only required the company to produce documents already in possession. It did not ask for the creation of new records.

But that's exactly what the judge was asking the company to do, TorrentSpy's attorneys asserted in court records. Chooljian disagreed.

"Since the information is already in the RAM, then defendants aren't really being asked to create new information," Chooljian wrote.

She also noted that it was not her goal to set a far-reaching precedent with her decision.

"The court emphasizes that its ruling," Chooljian said in the documents, "should not be read to require litigants in all cases to preserve and produce electronically stored information that is temporarily stored only in RAM."

TorrentSpy's other arguments against tracking users were that the costs were too high and that the action would violate user's privacy and hinder free speech. All were rejected.

In response to TorrentSpy's free-speech argument, the judge cited other cases that had established illegal file sharing "qualifies for minimal First Amendment protection."

Should TorrentSpy lose in appeal, it would likely have seven days to produce data logs, according to the court records. The company's attorney, Ira Rothken, said Friday that it is unlikely TorrentSpy would continue operations in the United States if forced to turn over user data.

[inachu]

If I ran a website like this.

I would fdisk,format, drill a hole into the hard drive then shred the disks into metalic dust.

But if by any chance I would turn over any info then it would be on pedophiles.

[pfrabott]

RAM is the issue here.

The issue here is not the hard drive. The issue is RAM, a series of IC chips that act as "short term" memory on the computer. These cards have been discarded in the past by courts since they are volital (that is, when you turn your computer off all information they were holding are gone, permanently). If the MPAA wins this can have a huge impact on how future cases against the internet will be handled.

[zoredache]

destruction of evidence.

}} I would fdisk,format, drill a hole into the hard drive then shred the disks into metalic dust

And then you would probably get a default judgment against you, and additional charges of willfully destroying evidence.

Sure you would protect your customers, but are you really willing to spend the rest of your life in jail for them?

[alexgieg]

Poetic Torrents

Someone should develop an algorithm to covert IP numbers and other logable information into and from English dadaist poetry, then claim copyright ownership over the poetic output, specify who can access it and how, then sue anyone violating their rights.

Make it even more believable by publishing selected pieces at a specific website with the option (for real) of printing on demand.

"What were you doing at the site at this day and hour?"

"Me? I was contributing my computer time to generate some poetry. I hope you liked it."

"Lies! You were illegally file-sharing!"

"Of course not. Here's the 2nd edition of my computer generated poetry in hardcover. I can sell you a signed copy for only $19.99. PayPal payment, please."

Eat that, MAFIAA!

[pfrabott]

Wish it would work.

I wish it were that simple but as with anything, there are ways to locate the original data (your thought is similar to encryption, although a very different way to encrypt mind you. very interesting thought.)

[kentest123]

Hash FIles -> Fractal

An interesting if not entirely workable idea. Along a similar vein though, I would like to see a fractal generator that uses existing hash files to calculate the fractals they display, so in essense the hash files are their own unique artistic forms. It might give the hosting and sharing of these hash files, which already contain no copyrighted material, a slightly more legally defensable position. Plus fractals are pretty.

[pfrabott]

RAM now legal in cases?

The bigger issue with the MPAA winning here is far beyond providing customer information. The fact that RAM would now be legally subject as "stored memory" may be the start to the end of anonimity online as we know it. Since *all* information hits RAM at some point (even credit card transactions or search keys etc. which may only be stored temporarily). If RAM is now seen as "stored memory" then any case using it would have a huge impact on the internet. forget about encryptions and SSL. All you need is a court order and the data is yours. Not good.

[pjhenry1216]

Judge Ignorant

Shouldn't a judge be aware of what she's actually saying before she says it? She's defining things that she has no right or authority to define. And her interpretation is extremely dangerous and shows absolutely no basis to assume she has any idea what she's talking about.

She's unknowingly making the web a dangerous place.

[pjhenry1216]

also

also, they are being asked to create new information. whenever someone is asked for records that don't exist, the information *does* exist. it just needs to be gathered together. information like this always exists. the records don't though. beyond that, shouldn't the records already be gone since its past 6 hours? They'd only be able to create records for the past 6 hours. Beyond that, its not like accessing RAM is the same as accessing the HD. Granted, its not difficult, but its not as straightforward as saying, "Ok, let me save this file and send it over."

[balonga]

allmighty money

judges error is so evident and the intention your clear that anyone can see the power of money over justice.

[Atari05]

...SImple

I just hate the MP and RIAA....

I REALLY wish artist would just drop them so I can actually enjoy the product they produce.

[Drummerpig]

RAM again

This case illustrates--again--how the law grapples with technology, in this case trying to deal with RAM. We have not previously had a ubiquitous intermediary for information like RAM. In copyright, too, RAM causes lots of mischief. The "copies" made in RAM count as copies under the law; that's why merely running code legally creates a "copy" of it. Running code in violation of the EULA creates an infringing copy of the code.

Courts haven't yet extended this to the RAM buffers found in home electronics, but logic suggests that for now, those are also "copies."

It's a little like saying that when you read a book, for the brief interval that the text is perceived but not decoded, your brain stores a "copy" of it. And that copy, if not licensed, infringes someone else's copyright.

[machineman2000]

Confiscate my brain?

Damn you but very well put.
This reminds me of Napster on steroids case.
Let's see I bought the 45, the LP, the cassette tape, CD, remastered CD, the box set and the occassional DVD performance if they were still around and you say I don't own it and I had no right to occassionally download it from the old Napster...gimme a break you greedy out of control idiots.
Ah the out of control free enterprise system moves another step closer to it's demise and the sad part is nobody is watching or cares.

[Professor Cornbread]

Take RAM images?

Does this mean that the judge will require torrentspy to image their RAM and archive it to disk at regular intervals? Defeats the purpose of RAM doesn't it, and in how many seconds would their disks be full....?

[disco-legend-zeke]

Always sad when a great technology is abused.

Talk among the media companies is tha Bit Torrent is somehow a bad thing.

Bit torrent certainly is bad for the record companies and movie companies, but not for the use of it by pirates and thieves.

The real threat of bit torrent technology is that it permits individuals and teeny tiny companies access to bulk transfer, putting them on equal footing with the studios.

Already bigger stars are leaving their labels as contracts expire, and unknowns are amassing fan base and sales through downloads.

Bit torrent, and, even better, live cascade distribution are the start of a level playing field.

[emjaysea]

Yeah, the movie industry is hurting alright...

That's why Spiderman has made $325,585,149 as of today, and it's still showing in movie theaters. File sharing is killing them!

[balonga]

Judge decision is abuse

judge order is against the faith of users on anonymous use and it is against all civil rights to give that personal information to a private association such as MPAA
fascist things are being made in the name of anti piracy fight and copyright
MPAA should better focus on best and cheaper products than "Big-Brothering" the public.

[zincmann]

Read This: From TOrrentspy Website

Hello Friends of TorrentSpy,

This message is to inform you about recent efforts by the motion picture studios to shut down TorrentSpy. As you may know, in February 2006 the major movie studios and their Washington lobby, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), filed a lawsuit against TorrentSpy and other search engines.

We guess that hiring hackers and turning a blind eye to identity theft is not enough for the movie studios and the MPAA. Now they want to know who you are, what you search for, and what you download. In short, it is the view of the movie studios that websites should not allow anonymous use and your activity on the Internet - anywhere - is their business.

The really scarry thing is that if we lose this court battle, the movie studios will be able to go after any search engine or website and force them to collect data about YOU. It is not an exaggeration to say that losing this fight is a nail in the Internet's coffin.

We have spent the last year challenging their relentless campaign against the 1st Amendment and personal privacy laws Worldwide. We have succeeded in delaying the court order to turn on logs while we appeal it. TorrentSpy will not create logs of what you do on the site without your consent.

While we use Google Analytics for website statistics, TorrentSpy servers have never tracked your IP Address, the searches you make, or how you use the site. We are dedicated to your privacy and we are fighting for your rights!


Torrent Stats
Torrents Today 4,054
Torrents Indexed 554,512

[Sosai X]

i quote Axl...

"Welcome to the jungle
It gets worse here everyday
Ya learn to live like an animal
In the jungle where we play
If you got a hunger for what you see
You'll take it eventually
You can have anything you want
But you better not take it from me.."

I think it's a losing battle for the MPAA and the RIAA. No matter how many holes they plug, the users will just find another one.

[crimius]

couldn't have said it better myself

----