Digital Media

The MPAA doesn't want to make it easy for you to copy DVDs; DVD Shrink does.

(Credit: Download.com)

If you've been copying DVDs using some made-in-China DVD player, think about taking good care of the device, as you might not be able to buy a replacement.

The Motion Picture Association of America on Friday announced that its member companies have won a breach of contract lawsuit against China-based DVD player manufacturer Gowell Electronics Limited. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued a permanent injunction that prohibits the manufacturer from violating any term of the Content Scramble System license agreement.

The lawsuit started in June of 2008 after an MPAA investigation revealed that Gowell was manufacturing and selling DVD players that lacked the appropriate implementation of the CSS license agreement.

CSS technology is a security measure that controls unauthorized access to and copying of copyrighted content on DVDs. The CSS license mandates the content protection that enables film studios to provide consumers with more than 84,000 DVD titles, including 12,000 new titles last year alone.

The motion picture studios are third-party beneficiaries of the CSS license and may enforce it against licensees who fail to comply with its terms.

While this is the ninth such case in which a court has issued a permanent injunction banning future violations of the license, this time the plaintiffs are allowed to review and test any new or re-engineered products that incorporate the CSS technology before going to market.

According to the MPAA, worldwide motion picture industry losses total more than $11 billion annually to hard goods piracy, including bootlegging and illegal copying. MPAA member companies have now won three injunctions against noncompliant DVD player manufacturers and six against companies in the IT area. They intend to continue pursuing other violators vigorously through future litigation.

Personally, I think it's interesting how MPAA counts the money it doesn't make as losses. I am not so sure if the Chinese company would comply 100 percent with the court order, either. And even if it does, I don't know what good that would do to general consumers, like you and me.

The movie industry has finally responded to accusations that it filed suit to stop sales of RealDVD software as a means of maintaining control over technology companies.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for the rights of Internet users, last week called the lawsuit filed by the major movie studios against RealNetworks, the maker of the DVD-ripping software, an attempt at "controlling innovation."

On Monday, the Motion Picture Association of America responded in an open letter to the EFF titled: "Hollywood isn't Living in the Past, EFF Shouldn't Either." In the letter provided to CNET News, the MPAA calls EFF's claims "disingenuous and wrongheaded." The MPAA says RealDVD, which enables users to copy the contents on a DVD and save the digital file on a hard drive, is a pirate tool.

"Forgive us if we take offense when the EFF and other activist organizations that continually take the side of those who profit from widespread copyright infringement attack our industry," wrote Jim Williams, the MPAA's chief technology officer. "It's a desperate throw-back to the Napster days of old when (EFF would) pull out this tired and weathered playbook. It's not 2001 anymore. We've moved on. So should you."

The studios accused RealNetworks in their copyright suit of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and breaching its contract with the DVD Copy Control Association, the group that oversees the licenses that manufacturers need to build DVD players. Two weeks ago, Hollywood told U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel that RealDVD could cost the film industry billions and she agreed to force the software off the market until at least November 17.

Not only does the MPAA strongly deny being against innovation, but Williams wrote that Hollywood now works closely with the tech sector to deliver digital content to consumers.

"Movie makers and the technology community are working together to deliver to consumers a variety of legal choices," Williams wrote. "To the surprise of some skeptical Internet watchers, Hulu, the NewsCorp and NBC Universal backed video streaming site, has been both a popular and critical success. And, beyond what you can get through cable and satellite on-demand services, thousands of movies are now available for instant rental, download or ad-supported streaming via sites such as Apple's iTunes, Amazon, and NetFlix.

"The days of Hollywood being from Mars and Silicon Valley being from Venus are simply over," Williams wrote.

The EFF said in its initial letter that Hollywood's legal attack on RealDVD doesn't make any sense when the Internet is packed with similar (and better) DVD-copying software. But a film-industry source notes that RealDVD is very different. RealNetworks is a mainstream company and has the money to promote the software. This could lead consumers to believing that copying movies is always legal.

EFF and RealNetworks say copying is legal if the consumer owns the movies. The MPAA says it is absolutely illegal to copy rented films--and that's what the studios hope to prevent.

The other difference is that RealNetworks is a publicly traded U.S. company. Many other providers of ripping software are small and reside overseas and are beyond the reach of this country's system of justice, the source said.

Williams' letter in its entirety:

Recently, the Electronic Frontier Foundation published an article entitled, "Why Hollywood Hates RealDVD," whose basic claim is that Hollywood is anti-technology and innovation. It is disingenuous and wrongheaded to equate Hollywood's efforts to prevent piracy with being against innovation. The market is full of high-tech, legal examples of Hollywood and the technology industry partnering to bring movies and television to consumers in new innovative ways.

When companies go beyond the bounds of the lawful marketplace and profit from pilfering copyrighted content, the result is damage to those who make movies, high-tech companies that are part of the legitimate ecosystem of movie distribution, and ultimately to consumers. The major film studios have made every effort to focus on a strategy that takes advantage of the new avenues offered by the Internet and innovative consumer electronics. They've done this because they know that in an age of immediacy and ubiquity of content, they have to do everything possible to provide consumers with as much choice and convenience as possible. The studios have worked hard to enable legitimate business models that are more compelling to movie fans than shady, virus-laden tools that distribute pirated films.

The results? Consumers now have a multitude of ways to enjoy great video content. To the surprise of some skeptical Internet watchers, Hulu, the NewsCorp and NBC Universal backed video streaming site, has been both a popular and critical success. And, beyond what you can get through cable and satellite on-demand services, thousands of movies are now available for instant rental, download or ad-supported streaming via sites such as Apple's iTunes, Amazon, and NetFlix. In fact, there are more than 275 legal Web sites worldwide that provide high quality, digital content to consumers.

And those are just some of the more high-profile, well-known collaborations that the studios have made in the Internet arena. Every day, in efforts to provide consumers with even more and better ways to enjoy content, the film studios are working hand and hand with some of the biggest names in technology and also some of the smallest start-ups that haven't even publicly launched yet.

The days of Hollywood being from Mars and Silicon Valley being from Venus are simply over. So forgive us if we take offense when the EFF and other activist organizations that continually take the side of those who profit from widespread copyright infringement attack our industry as one that stifles innovation. It's a desperate throw-back to the Napster days of old when they pull out this tired and weathered playbook. It's not 2001 anymore. We've moved on. So should you. Isn't it also just a little insincere to cast the studios as "anti-innovation" simply because they have filed a lawsuit against a technology company for introducing a product to market that effectively creates a profit mechanism for themselves built on the back of our members' copyrighted content?

Movie makers and the technology community are working together to deliver to consumers a variety of legal choices for enjoying movies in innovative and flexible ways. Whether it's from downloading and streaming films legally, renting them online for one-time viewing or buying a DVD with a bonus digital copy, important progress is being made that allows consumers to enjoy movies legally in new and exciting ways. Our goal is to continue to increase these offerings as new legal technologies become available. It is important to note, however, that these innovations are only possible because the studios are able to protect their content--content protection is essential to the industry's ability to provide this vast array of options.

The industry is moving fast on these initiatives because we realize that media consumption is changing rapidly, and we must stay ahead of these significant shifts. To do so means that the movie industry has to be successful at every step of the distribution chain--from movie theaters to DVDs to downloads.

And, this success generates the profits that fund the creation of movies that consumers want (and that cost $100 million to make and market, on average). Which, in turn, go to real jobs, real tax revenues, and real economic growth in uncertain economic times. Yet, without the protection of intellectual property, the economic calculus would quickly begin to work against the film companies and technology firms working to provide content to consumers.

It is disappointing that in 2008, the studios are still fending off the tired old "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" stories. While others wish to hold on to the nostalgia of that fading era, the motion picture and technology industries are collaborating to bring consumers both the content and the products they want in a legal and therefore sustainable manner.

Hollywood isn't suing RealNetworks over piracy--that's just a smokescreen, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The group that advocates for the rights of Internet users said in a blog post Friday night that the the primary reason the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) filed a copyright suit against RealNetworks and is trying to halt the sale of the RealDVD software is to make sure the company, and anyone else wishing to build movie players, gets Hollywood's permission first.

"It has nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with controlling innovation," said Fred von Lohmann, EFF's senior attorney.

The studios accused RealNetworks in a copyright suit of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and breaching its contract with the DVD Copy Control Association, the group that oversees the licenses that manufacturers need to build DVD players. On Tuesday, Hollywood convinced U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel to keep RealDVD off the market until November 17 at the earliest.

The studios told the judge that RealDVD enables consumers to build huge film libraries without paying a cent. They just need to rent a movie and use RealDVD to copy and store the material to their hard drives. Lawyers for the MPAA described the "rent, rip and return" scenario and told the judge this could cost the film industry billions. But in his post, von Lohmann points out what many others have already noted: there is software readily available on the Internet that copies and stores films on hard drives. Most of it is unencumbered with any of the copy protections found on RealDVD.

"Hollywood can't possibly believe that the $30, DRM-hobbled RealDVD software represents a piracy threat," von Lohmann wrote. The studios are using the lawsuit to "send a message about what happens to those who innovate without permission in a post-DMCA world."

The licensing agreements tech firms are required to sign before making movie players are a means of control, said von Lohmann. The licenses "define what the devices can and can't do thereby protecting Hollywood business models from disruptive innovation," he said. Representatives from RealNetworks and the MPAA could not be reached Friday.

Watermarks and DRM
The licenses also give Hollywood the power to ask a that tech companies help in the fight against piracy, says von Lohmann.

"In the course of these years-long negotiations, Hollywood has managed to wrest several important concessions from technology vendors," von Lohmann wrote. They "include requiring that computers do watermark detection to spot pirated copies when reading data from Blu-ray discs, and imposing DRM on resulting copies."

Why RealDVD is so threatening to the studios is that RealNetworks has the potential to start a rebellion among gadget makers. The company is thumbing its nose at Hollywood's licensing deals and telling the courts that it only needs to protect the DVD's contents, which RealDVD does. If RealNetworks is allowed to build a player without a license, then others will follow. Hollywood wants to avoid that at all costs, according to von Lohmann.

"By reading the existing CSS license carefully," von Lohmann wrote, "Real found a way to create a new product category without first getting permission from the Hollywood studios."

He suggests that Hollywood isn't against allowing people to back up their DVDs. He said we might see products that enable people to make copies. It's just that the studios want to share in the profits made by such products.

RealNetworks and the MPAA aren't due in court against until mid-November.

Inside Marilyn Patel's courtroom on Tuesday, it was obvious the federal judge was concerned by some of the things she heard about RealDVD.

The $30 software enables people to copy DVDs and store their contents on a computer's hard drive. Lawyers for the movie industry told the judge at a hearing in San Francisco that by selling the technology to consumers, RealNetworks violated copyright law and that the software could cost the studios billions in lost DVD sales.

"She was clearly concerned about the possibility the software could lead to copyright theft," said Fred von Lohmann, a spectator at the trial and a senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a group that advocates for the interests of Internet users.

RealNetworks was in court to try to convince Patel to lift a temporary restraining order that forced the company to stop selling RealDVD. I have to score Round 1 in favor of the movie industry. Patel refused to lift the order, telling the courtroom there are "serious questions" about whether the software violates copyright law. She worried about whether people would make unauthorized copies of DVDs, saying "it's impossible to bring back copies once they're out in the market."

The big film studios, which filed a copyright suit against RealNetworks last week, appear determined to prevent consumers from creating digital copies of their films. The way they see it, the ability to copy a film and store it on a hard drive is just a half step away from sharing movie files across the Web. Of course this is already being done at peer-to-peer sites, and with the help of ripping software that anyone can obtain with a simple Google search. But the people who actually rip films are still a small fraction of the population. The studios want to stop the practice from going mainstream.

From Napster to protecting source code
How this issue will be decided is hard to gauge because of Patel's mixed record on high-profile tech cases.

Patel is referred to in Silicon Valley as the "Napster judge." In 2000, Patel ruled that Napster was not entitled to protection from copyright violations because it wasn't an Internet service provider as defined by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Her decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and in March 2001 she ordered Napster to remove copyrighted music.

"She has a reputation of being a very smart judge," von Lohmann said. "She is highly respected. She's not known as a technology judge in the way judges in San Jose are. She's clearly not afraid of technology."

In another case, Patel found in favor of a computer science professor who sued the U.S. government over restrictions it placed on the exporting of "dual use" cryptographic technology. The professor, Daniel Bernstein, held that such a restriction violated his First Amendment rights. Patel ruled that computer source code was indeed free speech and thus protected. Her decision was once again upheld by the Ninth Circuit.

At Tuesday's hearing, Patel made clear that she wants to understand how RealDVD's technology works before going forward. Not only does she want to hear testimony from experts representing RealNetworks and the film industry, she also said she will consider appointing her own: the same special master she used during the Napster trial, A.J. "Nick" Nichols.

Patel began considering the idea of hearing from experts after RealNetworks and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) disagreed on how RealDVD worked.

Who has the advantage?
Nobody knows better how the software functions than RealNetworks. The company may have an advantage in illustrating for Patel how RealDVD can copy DVDs without circumventing their protections in the way the MPAA claims. MPAA attorneys said that DVDs come with four layers of protection and that RealDVD retains only one when making a copy.

Rob Glazer

(Credit: RealNetworks)

"That's a very biased way of expressing it," said von Lohmann, adding that it's not clear whether all of the so-called layers are protected under the DMCA. "Yes, four things do exist on the DVD but describing them as layers of protection and saying that RealDVD throws away three is not a fair description."

When it came to defining for the judge how the software posed a threat, lawyers for the film industry appeared to be much more successful. They told her anyone renting a movie could use the software to create and store a copy and RealNetworks' attorneys acknowledged this. To prove that RealNetworks knew consumers would use the software in this fashion, the MPAA's attorneys showed the judge a quote from the company's CEO Rob Glazer about RealDVD.

"If you want to steal, we remind you what the rules are and we discourage you from doing it," Glazer was quoted, "but we're not your nanny."

Patel won't hold another hearing until after November 17.

(I took a closer look at the "Napster judge" presiding over the case in this story.)

SAN FRANCISCO--RealNetworks on Tuesday failed to convince a district judge to lift a restraining order and allow the company to start selling RealDVD again until she learns from experts, including the court's, how the software functions.

That means RealDVD, which enables users to copy a DVD and store it on their hard drive, is unlikely to reappear in the marketplace for at least another month and perhaps longer. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel indicated she wouldn't be available for another hearing until after Nov. 17.

"I am extending the temporary restraining order because I'm not satisfied in the fact that this technology is not in violation," Patel said following the three-hour hearing. "There are serious questions about copyright violations. There are questions about violations of the (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), and violations of these companies' agreement."

Things haven't gone well for RealNetworks' efforts to launch RealDVD. Last week, an hour after RealDVD hit the market, the company filed a preemptive lawsuit against the top motion picture studios. RealNetworks wanted the courts to rule that the software didn't violate any laws.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) filed its own suit a few hours later and on Friday obtained a restraining order. Hollywood claims RealDVD violates the DMCA by circumventing the anti-copy protections on DVDs to enable consumers to copy movies. The software also violates RealNetworks' agreement with the DVD Copy Control Association (DVDCCA), the group responsible for protecting DVDs against piracy, according to lawyers for the MPAA.

The arguments
James DiBoise, RealNetworks' attorney appeared to get the better of the movie industry early on in the hearing. He told Patel that RealDVD enables consumers to copy a film, store it on a hard drive and does so without cracking any of the copy protections found on a DVD. There isn't anything in the company's agreement with the DVDCCA that prohibited what RealDVD does, he argued.

"There is nothing in the agreement that says a physical disc has to be playing in a physical drive," DiBoise said. "That's not our fault."

The MPAA's attorneys acknowledged that there isn't anything specifically written against what RealDVD does, but they argued that the law requires RealNetworks to stay within the parameters of what the contract authorizes. And what RealDVD does isn't authorized. Bart Williams, the attorney representing the MPAA attacked RealNetworks' claim that the software didn't remove some of the copy-protections.

The MPAA appeared to score points with Patel by pointing out RealDVD enabled consumers to make copies of movies they didn't own. Patel asked DiBoise whether people could make movies they owned and he said yes and it was legal under Fair Use. She asked whether the software allowed people who just rented a film to create and keep a copy. DiBoise responded: "Yes, but to watch it and not do anything else with it."

DiBoise implored the judge to lift the restraining order. He said RealNetworks anticipated that half the revenue RealDVD would generate would come between now and the holidays and that the order was causing serious financial harm to the company. On the other hand, sales of RealDVD wouldn't cause any significant hardship to the movie industry. He pointed out that there were lots of products available on the market that enabled people to rip movies.

Williams disputed this. He told Patel that not only would buyers of RealDVD have the ability to make unauthorized copies of the films they rented but the public would get the impression that this kind of software was legal.

In denying DiBoise's request to lift the restraining order, Patel chided RealNetworks for "rushing to market" before deciding the issues in court first, as the MPAA had suggested they do.

It's official: Hollywood has asked a federal court for a restraining order to stop RealNetworks from selling its RealDVD software, a technology that enables users to copy films and store them on their hard drives.

The Motion Picture Association of America, which represents the largest film studios, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, claiming that "RealNetworks' RealDVD violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act because its software illegally bypasses the copyright protection built into DVDs."

Representatives of the MPAA, which has also asked for monetary damages, said they hope that the judge will make a decision on the restraining order today or tomorrow.

RealNetworks, the media delivery software company, landed the first blow in this fight when it filed its own lawsuit earlier Tuesday against the studios and the DVD Copy Control Association.

RealNetworks' lawsuit asks the court to rule that RealNetworks' RealDVD software "fully complies with the DVD Copy Control Association's license agreement." Real feels that it has a strong case because its software does not break the DVD's encryption when copying it to the hard drive (and, according to the company, it even adds a second layer of DRM). Real claims that this method is similar to that used by Kaleidescape, a provider of high-end home media servers.

(Credit: RealNetworks)

Kaleidescape's 2007 courtroom victory over the DVD Copy Control Association is cited by Real as the precedent for the RealDVD software's legal case.

The MPAA says the two cases have nothing to do with each other. The lobbying group for the studios argues that the central question is whether RealDVD violates the DMCA, which prohibits companies from developing products that circumvent copy protections.

"RealNetworks' RealDVD should be called StealDVD," Greg Goeckner, executive vice president and general counsel for the MPAA, said in a statement. "RealNetworks knows its product violates the law, and undermines the hard-won trust that has been growing between America's moviemakers and the technology community."

What the studios fear is that the RealDVD technology will enable people to "rent, rip, and return," meaning that people could rent films, copy them to their hard drives, and return the movie without ever paying for an authorized copy.

The MPAA said in a statement that they are making content available on multiple platforms and that it's now easier than ever to obtain films legally. The studios said, however, that they would "vigorously defend our right to stop companies from bringing products to market that mislead consumers and clearly violate the law."

CNET's John P. Falcone contributed to this report.

Newly reauthorized legislation will ask U.S. universities to deter students from illegal file-sharing, a controversial provision that has drawn concern from educators and praise from copyright holders.

On Thursday, the House of Representatives and the Senate overwhelmingly voted to pass the Higher Education Act 2008 (H.R. 4137), a law first established in 1965 to govern the nation's universities. Despite its five-year reauthorization schedule, the law hadn't been reapproved by Congress for 10 years, or about the same time it's taken the Internet to pervade college campuses nationwide. President Bush is expected to sign the legislation in the coming weeks.

Among its new provisions are rules asking universities and colleges to develop "plans to effectively combat the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, including through the use of a variety of technology-based deterrents." And to "the extent practicable," offer students legal alternatives for peer-to-peer file sharing as "determined by the institution in consultation with the chief technology officer," according to the act.

The provisions initially drew concern from educators because, if universities and colleges don't comply, they could risk losing federal aid grant funding. The nonprofit tech-and-education advocacy group Educause also said this week that the provision could put too high of a burden on universities to develop programs that would meet the law's potentially nebulous standard.

These provisions require "each institution to carefully interpret the legislation's language in deciding how to comply," according to a blog post from Educause. The group signed a joint letter from the American Council on Education expressing reservations about the provisions.

Still, a representative from the House Education and Labor Committee said that the law does not require universities to police students, but rather to inform them of their campus policies and the legal implications of downloading and disseminating copyrighted materials. It asks that universities develop a plan for deterring file-sharing, but it does not mandate any specific program. Universities that don't comply with these provisions, including reporting annually on their campus policy to the Department of Education, would be able to appeal a decision on federal funding.

In addition, under the new law, universities would be able to apply for a grant to support the development of a program to stop illegal file-sharing on campus. If signed by the president, the provisions will go into effect for the fall semester.

The Motion Picture Association of America applauded the passage of the act. It plans to start sending information booklets to college campuses outlining ways to comply with the legislation.

"Congress is sending a strong message that intellectual property is worth protecting," MPAA CEO Dan Glickman said in a statement.

Piracy is just one piece of the new Higher Education Act. Overall, the reauthorized legislation seeks to help students deal with rising tuition costs through a number of new provisions, including asking universities to post more information on the Web for students, such as Web calculators that help students accurately assess fees.

Other new additions include provisions for energy-efficient practices and to encourage interest in science and technology. The legislation, for example, includes a grant program for colleges that want to design and implement new green programs.

In the wake of the shootings at Virginia Tech last year, the law also authorizes a grant program for universities seeking to overhaul their security and emergency warning systems with new technology. Universities could apply for funding from the DOE to create a real-time messaging system, for example.

"In the decade since the Higher Education Act was last reauthorized, our world has changed dramatically--and so have the needs of America's students," said Rachel Racusen, a spokeswoman for the House Education and Labor Committee. It "will bring our nation's higher education programs into the 21st century."

A week after the debut of The Dark Knight, Hollywood's big summer hit, the movie studios are taking aim at two small-potatoes Web sites that point people to pirated versions of first-run films such as the Batman thriller.

The Motion Picture Association of America on Tuesday said it has filed lawsuits against MovieRumor.com and Free Online Movie DataBase, or FOMDB, for violating studios' copyrights by providing links to pirated versions of their movies.

The suits, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, alleged that the sites are virtual clearinghouses for locating infringing copies of copyrighted films--and that they're profiting from the sale of advertising against those pirated movies as a result.

"There are many people operating illegal Web sites like these who are profiting from the theft of protected content," John Malcolm, director of worldwide antipiracy operations for the MPAA, said in a statement. "We have every intention of shutting down these, and sites like them, for good."

Requests for comment from MovieRumor and FOMDB were not immediately returned. According to measurement site Quantcast, MovieRumor attracted about 120,000 U.S. visitors in June, and FOMDB drew about 130,000 worldwide visitors in July.

A quick look at MovieRumor showed that viewers could watch The Dark Knight in five parts from a link on the front page. Downloading the film was slow, however, and a spyware warning popped up while it loaded.

The legal actions are part of an ongoing campaign by the Hollywood studios and representative MPAA to target large and small sites that allegedly foster film copyright violations. Since June 2007, the MPAA has filed seven lawsuits against similar sites, and in May, a Los Angeles judge awarded the lobbying group two multimillion-dollar judgments, respectively against Showstash.com and Cinematube.com.

The new civil lawsuits ask for damages and injunctive relief for violations under the United States Copyright Act of 1976.

TorrentSpy may be gone but its attorneys continue to allege in court that the motion picture industry engaged in a spying campaign against the company as well as others, including the Pirate Bay.

TorrentSpy, a BitTorrent search engine that was driven out of business last March as a result of fighting a copyright suit filed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), is seeking another chance to argue that the MPAA wronged the company when it purchased information obtained from a hacker who had pilfered company e-mail.

A federal judge threw out TorrentSpy's hacker complaint last August, saying it was unclear whether federal wiretapping laws covered the interception of e-mails. On Thursday, TorrentSpy's attorneys filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, asking that it reverse the trial court's dismissal of the case.

Included in that heavily redacted legal filing was more detail about the kind of information the MPAA sought from Robert Anderson, who has acknowledged hacking into TorrentSpy's e-mail system. According to TorrentSpy's legal filing, when Anderson initially offered to sell information to the MPAA he promised much.

Anderson wrote to the MPAA: "We can provide the names, address, and phone (numbers) of the owners of Torrentspy.com and Thepiratebay.org--along with evidence, including correspondence between the two companies."

Dean Garfield, an MPAA executive, gave the following testimony, according to the court records: "We were going to get information about the location and identity of the people who were running Torrentspy, as well as information related to a general conspiracy and relationship between Torrentspy and a number of other prominent services including ThePirateBay."

Representatives from the MPAA have always said that Anderson had already obtained the information before offering it to them and told them he had obtained the TorrentSpy e-mails legally. The MPAA did not respond to interview requests.

TorrentSpy's attorney, Ira Rothken, said last August: "We believe that the MPAA, when it paid $15,000 for about 30 pages of e-mails, knew or should have known they were involved in purchasing something in a wrongful manner."