Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Media Movies Security

'I Was a Hacker for the MPAA' 385

Posted by Zonk
from the definition-of-catharsis dept.
Wired has up an article with a man named Robert Anderson, who was recruited by the MPAA in 2005 to inform on people in the BitTorrent community. In a tell-all interview with the site, Anderson explains how the powerful media organization encouraged him to obtain the information they were looking for: "According to Anderson, the MPAA told him: 'We would need somebody like you. We would give you a nice paying job, a house, a car, anything you needed.... if you save Hollywood for us you can become rich and powerful.' In 2005, the MPAA paid Anderson $15,000 for inside information about TorrentSpy -- information at the heart of a copyright-infringement lawsuit brought by the MPAA against TorrentSpy of Los Angeles. The material is also the subject of a wiretapping countersuit against the MPAA brought by TorrentSpy's founder, Justin Bunnell, who alleges the information was obtained illegally."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'I Was a Hacker for the MPAA'

Comments Filter:
  • obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:04AM (#21070311)
    Mister Anderson...
    • Re:obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mfh (56) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:33AM (#21070469) Homepage Journal
      No, Neo would never work for the robots.
    • Re:obligatory (Score:5, Interesting)

      by im just cannonfodder (1089055) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:39AM (#21070501) Homepage
      This maybe a silly question but isn't hacking illegal in the usa as part of GW,Bush's anti terror laws? If this is the case shouldn't the mpaa members all now be under investigation by the cia/fbi?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Feyr (449684)
        patriot does not apply to true american companies and bush's cronies, especially if it prevents them from making money and/or protecting the True American Dream
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        This maybe a silly question but isn't hacking illegal in the usa as part of GW,Bush's anti terror laws?

        Look, Wired can be forgiven, since they're clueless nerd wannabes*, but damn it man, this is slashdot. Look at the masthead. Then get your wannabe ass off my lawn and no, you can't have your balls back.

        When I took transistor radios and turned them into guitar fuzzboxes as a teenager, that was hacking. When Delbert McGeekly quickly writes a few lines of code to get the server running again, that's hacking.
        • Re:obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

          by ResidntGeek (772730) on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:46AM (#21071439) Journal
          I want you to read this following line very carefully:

          SHUT UP.

          You're fighting a battle which was stupid even before it was lost, 10 years ago. To the general population, when Joey Pimpleface finds some code on the internet that lets him sniff out some doofus's password, that is hacking. That makes it the case, whether you like it or not. You're never, ever going to realign the definition of the term, not even if you did more than post on slashdot about it (which you won't). Do what you do with every other word in the damn language, and use it the same way everyone else does. Suddenly, magically, you'll find you can communicate with other lifeforms! Imagine that!

          By the way,

          Who would have thought that some day we would actually be respected, to the point that the jocks and cheerleaders would actually try to pass themselves off as us?
          You're so naive I almost hate to burst your bubble on that one, but no. Leaving aside your high-school perception of the world, the thing that set nerds and geeks apart is lack of social skills. I can assure you "jocks and cheerleaders", as you so eloquently put it, do not try to imitate an inability to socialize. Geeks and nerds are respected once they learn how to socialize, to become like the "jocks and cheerleaders" in that sense.
          • Re:obligatory (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) on Monday October 22, 2007 @10:57AM (#21072267)

            You're never, ever going to realign the definition of the term, not even if you did more than post on slashdot about it (which you won't). Do what you do with every other word in the damn language, and use it the same way everyone else does.

            Yes and no. Within the slashdot community, the word hacker has a different meaning. It is stupid to expect that meaning to apply outside slashdot, but inside one expects the word "hacker" not to get thrown around so much. Much like using "weight" at a physicists convention means something different (and more accurate) than in the locker room at your gym.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by pclminion (145572)

              Much like using "weight" at a physicists convention means something different (and more accurate) than in the locker room at your gym.

              Physicists are just as sloppy, terminologically, as anyone else. I've heard mass referred to as "weight" in plenty of informal discussions. It is not a problem because the context is always clear. Hell, we still have the term "atomic weight" which has been wrong for over 100 years, and yet continues to be used.

              In a publication, the correct terms are always used. And of

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Hatta (162192)
            That makes it the case, whether you like it or not. You're never, ever going to realign the definition of the term, not even if you did more than post on slashdot about it (which you won't). Do what you do with every other word in the damn language, and use it the same way everyone else does. Suddenly, magically, you'll find you can communicate with other lifeforms! Imagine that!

            So I take it you call your monitor your "computer", your tower your "CPU", and the whole thing your "hard drive"? That's what the
            • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

              by pclminion (145572)

              So I take it you call your monitor your "computer", your tower your "CPU", and the whole thing your "hard drive"? That's what the general population does, so you should too.

              Silly generalizations on hundreds of millions of people do not make an argument.

        • Re:obligatory (Score:4, Interesting)

          by MadJo (674225) on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:49AM (#21071469) Homepage Journal
          Geez, lay off the caffeine next time.

          "Hacking" or "to hack" has many different meanings already. (The term was not invented by those 'hackers', and will not be the sole property of said hackers.
          Google and Xerox don't like it when their name is used as a verb, but it still happens. If you don't believe me, then google it.)

          Merriam Webster defines "hack [m-w.com]" as follows:

          Main Entry:

          Pronunciation:
                  \hak\
          Function:
                  verb
          Etymology:
                  Middle English hakken, from Old English -haccian; akin to Old High German hacchn to hack, Old English hc hook
          Date:
                  13th century

          transitive verb
          1 a: to cut or sever with repeated irregular or unskillful blows
          b: to cut or shape by or as if by crude or ruthless strokes
          c: annoy, vex --often used with off
          2: to clear or make by or as if by cutting away vegetation
          3 a: to manage successfully
          b: tolerate

          intransitive verb
          1 a: to make chopping strokes or blows ; also : to make cuts as if by chopping
          b: to play inexpert golf
          2: to cough in a short dry manner
          3: loaf --usually used with around
          4 a: to write computer programs for enjoyment
          b: to gain access to a computer illegally


          Yes, the term is being muddied by the media, but language is always in flux, meanings change. New words appear. Perhaps it's time to give the 'white hat' hackers a new term? Or start using the term 'white hat' more.
      • Re:obligatory (Score:5, Informative)

        by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Monday October 22, 2007 @09:08AM (#21071095) Homepage Journal
        Yes. 1030. Fraud and related activity in connection with computers [usdoj.gov] states that:

        [Anyone who] ...knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;
        The term "protected computer" is defined as:

        (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
        (i) the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

        (ii) the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State Hello, Mr. Federal Prosecutor? Where are you?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sconeu (64226)
        Come on... it's only illegal if "ordinary people" do it. If $BIG_CORP does it, it's a patriotic act to catch those Evil Content Pirates(tm).
  • by meringuoid (568297) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:05AM (#21070321)
    ...if you save Hollywood for us you can become rich and powerful.

    "...and we will rule the Galaxy together!"

    "Noooooooooooo!"

    • 15k? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by langelgjm (860756)
      If Hollywood thinks that 15 grand makes you rich and powerful, I think they need to examine more than their business model.
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by ubrgeek (679399)
        They paid him with the profits from Ishtar.
      • by ultranova (717540)

        If Hollywood thinks that 15 grand makes you rich and powerful, I think they need to examine more than their business model.

        They promised to make him rich and powerful, but then altered the deal, and Robert Anderson couldn't pray that they wouldn't alter it any further, having already sold out... for sweeties.

  • Cheapskates (Score:3, Funny)

    by suso (153703) * on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:08AM (#21070337) Homepage Journal
    Wow, they are even cheaper than I thought. $15,000? I know there were other benefits, but I would have laughed in their face.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:09AM (#21070339)
    After reading about crap like this, I'm happy that I no longer consume the shit spewed forth by the mass media. Just over two years ago I sold my TV and DVD player, gave away the DVDs and CDs I had to relatives and friends. Since then I haven't watched TV, watched a movie (on disc or in the theater), listened to mainstream music, or otherwise involved myself with their product.

    Instead of buying mainstream CDs, I go listen to local bands play at a variety of pubs and other venues, and buy directly from them if I like what I hear. The local theater productions are often far better than the latest Bruce Willis shitflick out of Hollywood. Instead of watching TV, I go biking, rockclimbing, and I also play recreational badminton.

    So I'm glad to say that my funding of this sort of bullshit has been minimal, if at all. I urge more people to take a path similar to the one that I've chosen. You'll be far better off, both in terms of the entertainment you do experience, the money you save, and the fact that you're not funding the mainstream media in any way.

  • Hm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kaitnieks (823909) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:11AM (#21070359)
    If this is really true, it must mean that MPAA seriously believe they can close illegal interweb media distribution channels. Either they underestimate scale of the problem or overestimate their own power and influence, in any case they live in a dream world.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417)
      What do you expect? After creating dream worlds for decades, it's only logical that they start living in them, too.
    • Re:Hm (Score:5, Funny)

      by Artifakt (700173) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:52AM (#21070565)
      It sounds fantastic, but I almost believe this story. Paying someone just $15,000 and thinking it would both make a major dent in their problems and get the kind of service they would need is all of a piece with 'living in a dream world'. The pattern fits - the MPAA has shown in other actions that they would think it's smart to spend lots on politicians, but hire somebody technical with the promise a good job and a pay off in chump change. Look at the small companies they have picked to implement various DRM schemes, and how easily those schemes have failed.
            In unrelated news, NASA has hired New Jersey laundrymat owner Marco Delgrepio to create a permanent lunar colony. For now, they're only offering him $15,000, but if he just beats some invading space aliens by uploading a virus from his apple powerbook, he'll get a car. It's a really nice car.
    • You kidding? Do you know the number of people I know who won't download a couple of songs anymore because of the fear of lawsuits? These people are now legal consumers.

      Not to mention the potential out-of-court payoffs to be had if the MPAA can bring up charges. 15K is a good investment if they can turn it around.
  • by MoonFog (586818) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:14AM (#21070387)
    The MPAA does not dispute it paid Anderson for the sensitive information, but insists that it had no idea that Anderson stole the data. "The MPAA obtains information from third parties only if it believes the evidence has been collected legally," says MPAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Kaltman.

    Essentially, the MPAA said "we will give you anything if you rat these people out and obtain evidence for us", yet "didn't know" he was doing it illegally? Please, just shows how desperate they can be and what kind of morale these people have.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by blake1 (1148613)
      Sure it's a questionable practise, but it's no different to what any number of corporations would do in a similar circumstance. If they don't ask how he got the information, they don't know, their hands don't need to be cleaned.

      You find this suprising?

      • by MoonFog (586818) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:26AM (#21070441)
        Surprising? Not really, expected more like it, but this is an organisation that constantly calls entire P2P networks into question because there MIGHT be illegitimate content on them. They even slam the protocol itself, claiming it is illegal, and are caught red handed doing illegal deeds themselves. Schadenfreude more than surprise I'd say.
    • by gsslay (807818) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:26AM (#21070435)
      Is there not something deliciously ironic about one set of criminals complaining about the illegal, immoral activities of another?

      Actually, the situation is just a bit too cloying for my tastes.
      • by emj (15659) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:17AM (#21070691) Homepage Journal
        It's easy to say that, but the right to privacy applies to criminals too. Perhaps we would have an easier time getting criminals caught if we wiretapped everybody, then they will have the same right as everyone else, and can't complain.

        The reason you want criminals to get away, is because you don't want to be treated the same way. These rules apply whether you are an angry spouse, big company or the police.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Sique (173459)
        In Germany we have a word for that: "Catch the thief, he has my knife in his back!"
        • by jfuredy (967953) on Monday October 22, 2007 @11:25AM (#21072643)

          In Germany we have a word for that: "Catch the thief, he has my knife in his back!"
          Wow! German must be an amazing language if that can be translated into a single word!!
          • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday October 22, 2007 @02:04PM (#21074611)
            They have a word for everything. The language likes compound words like no other. One of these situations of "Hmmm, we don't have a word for that, well let's just jam together some existing words that describe it and call it a new word." For example: Suppose we need a form to calculate the additional costs on a transaction. That would be a Zusatzkostenberechnungsschein. If one could transliterate that to English it would be something along the lines of Additionalcostcalculationform.

            So sure, they probably have a word for "Catch the thief, he has my knife in his back!" as well :D.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by hawk (1151)
            If you can't express a thought as a single german word without violating any grammar rules, you're just not trying . . . :)

            hawk
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by drsmithy (35869)

            Wow! German must be an amazing language if that can be translated into a single word!!

            German: proudly turning sentences into words and words into sentences.

    • Indeed- And what would be the rationale behind contacting Anderson in the first place if RIAA truly believed he would obtain the info legally?
      OTOH this anderson better have proof for what he's saying.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Red Flayer (890720)

      Essentially, the MPAA said "we will give you anything if you rat these people out and obtain evidence for us", yet "didn't know" he was doing it illegally? Please, just shows how desperate they can be and what kind of morale these people have.

      Please, RTFA.

      Anderson approached them, saying pretty much, "I can get you this info, how much is it worth to you?"

      Then, when they met, he told them that he had "an informant" who had access to the info. Two degrees of separation? There's plausible deniability righ

    • by CmdrGravy (645153) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:11AM (#21070663) Homepage
      To be fair if I instructed my minions to:

      "Get this project finished to everyones satisfaction and I don't care how you do it"

      I'd be a bit surprised if they came back to me the next day and said

      "Hey boss, that project thing. It's all fixed up real nice now. Real nice"

      And it turned out they'd done it by killing all the people who were waiting for it.

      I think most rational people when told to use whatever means necessary take it for granted this means whatever means available within the law. Particulary if you've signed a contract specifically saying that.

      This Anderson bloke is basically an idiot, the MPAA paid him peanuts, probably knew full well he was going to break the law to get them the information they wanted but let him go ahead with it anyway having insulated themselves as much as possible from any actions he sees fit to take upon himself.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:23AM (#21070421)
    Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is a 100mbps connection when you are unable to share?
  • "Rich and powerful" on $15K? Are they high?
  • MPAA losing money (Score:2, Informative)

    by carlosap (1068042)

    From Piratebay Top Torrent Movies ...

    I.Now.Pronounce.You.Chuck.And.Larry[2007]DvDrip[Eng]-aXXo SE 5257 LE 11556
    MPAA Lose: Total: (5257 + 11556)* $19.99dlls = $336,091.87dlls

    Pirates.Of.The.Caribbean-At.World's.End[2007]DvDrip[Eng]-aXXo 10-17 19:11 Decargar 900.29 MiB 5182 7394
    MPAA Lose: Total: (5182 + 7394) * 19.99dlls = $251,394.24dlls

    1/2 Million Dollars just in 2 movies, so yes!, they have to do something.
    • by Fred_A (10934) <fred@@@fredshome...org> on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:36AM (#21070483) Homepage

      MPAA Lose: Total: (5257 + 11556)* $19.99dlls = $336,091.87dlls
      MPAA Lose: Total: (5182 + 7394) * 19.99dlls = $251,394.24dlls/qhote>
      Who would have thought dynamic libraries were so popular on p2p networks. I wonder what people do with them.
    • by deftcoder (1090261) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:37AM (#21070487)
      You're forgetting that the overwhelming majority of people pirating those films would NOT pay to see them.

      So, let's say about $100 USD per film and call it even.
      • by Machtyn (759119)
        mod the above insightful. Just because someone downloaded it, does not mean they would have purchased it if the download was not available.
    • Re:MPAA losing money (Score:4, Informative)

      by dave420 (699308) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:00AM (#21070609)

      And if those people aren't actually going to buy the movie:

      I.Now.Pronounce.You.Chuck.And.Larry[2007]DvDrip[Eng]-aXXo SE 5257 LE 11556
      MPAA Lose: Total: (5257 + 11556)* $0 = $0

      Pirates.Of.The.Caribbean-At.World's.End[2007]DvDrip[Eng]-aXXo 10-17 19:11 Decargar 900.29 MiB 5182 7394
      MPAA Lose: Total: (5182 + 7394) * $0 = $0

      Or, if the people who download it will buy it on DVD or go to see it at the cinema, then there is no correlation between those who download and lost revenue. None at all.
    • by Technician (215283) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:27AM (#21070743)
      How many of those downloads are the same as a lost sale? I doubt the quality is the same as the retail DVD and could fetch the same price. Was it a lost sale, or a lost rental? At full retail price, would the lack of a download make a retail purchase? The prices given are as always, shown as the MAX possible loss for the most impact. Many people who would never pay full retail would buy if the price was reasonable. I for one don't spend over $15 on DVD's. Most of the time, I spend under $10. Calling DVD's at twice that price a lost sale at $19.99 because it can be downloaded is a pipe dream. It's a lost sale because it is $19.99.

    • 1/2 Million Dollars just in 2 movies, so yes!, they have to do something.
      A reasonable person would suggest thyey stop making shit movies. Unfortunately the MPAA companies aren't run by reasonable people.
  • by smchris (464899) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:43AM (#21070525)
    We would give you a nice paying job, a house, a car, anything you needed.... if you save Hollywood for us you can become rich and powerful.' In 2005, the MPAA paid Anderson $15,000

    Where does Anderson live, Lesotho?
  • by packetmon (977047) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:43AM (#21070529) Homepage
    "If I can only perl -pi -e 's:torrent:torrentspy4daMPAA:g' torrentSourceCode.c I can become a martyr with my story" said Mr. Anderson as he duped numerous websites into believing his story.
  • by Fuzzypig (631915) on Monday October 22, 2007 @07:56AM (#21070587)
    Biggest pile of Elephant wank I have ever seen! "If you hack TorrentSpy", "you can have anything you wish for", so here's a measly $15k! If he was tasked with saving a multi-billion dollar industry on his own, surely they could have a a quick whip-round at the MPAA directors meetings and probably raise 10x that in small change!!! Hacing TorrentSpy??!! WTF!? Hardly rocket science is it, its a publicly open web-server pushing out glorified text files telling you where file sharers are sharing copyrihted material! A few pokes about on WhoIs, the odd phone call here and there, leaving the IP collector on a few weeks on a few very popular torrents, work out the ISPs of those sharers and Bob's your Auntie's Live-In Lover, bish-bosh-zoom $500k please!

    I'm sorry, but this smacks of FUD from the MPAA/RIAA bullshit, brain-storm meeting! How can we scare off casual "pirates"? I know, says bow-tied twat number 1, lets make up shit about professional hackers gathering your details and bringing down the fabric of society, or at least one of the 75 popular torrent sites.

  • by Nebuul (1008475) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:05AM (#21070641)
    It's pretty clearly obvious that they did not give him $15,000. What they ACTUALLY did was give him a free song download *valued at $15,000*

    Jesus, please read the article before writing summaries!
  • Isn't it ironic, that goodness is now "I did something evil before... but heyy, look at me now! am sorry and I am talking about it!" I think this guy would have been better off if he had refused MPAA and blew open the "bad intent" (well... one of them...) of the stupid execs all over the place! Kind of lame, to acknowledge now, after of course licking the green off the $$$. But, I guess that is the trend now...
  • by jpellino (202698) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:26AM (#21070731)
    Anderson: Okay, here's the plan. We get the data and then hold the RIAA ransom for... 15 HUNDRED dollars!
    Number Two: [clears throat] Sir, strictly speaking, fifteen hundred dollars will not go very far these days. My butler alone makes over fifteen hundred dollars a week.
    Anderson: Really? Okay then... we hold the RIAA ransom for 15... THOUSAND dollars!

  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:33AM (#21070777)
    Ho boy, he's not going to have a good time when he makes it to the big house. If there's one thing hardened cons can't stand, it's a snitch. And if there's a subset of snitches they really can't stand, it's people who mess up file sharing for everyone else. This one guy had posted a bunch of torrents that were supposed to be really good movies but were instead just mislabeled copies of Britney Spear's Crossroads... that poor bastard got shivved in the shower.

    Wait, what's that? He's not going to jail? *throws down hat, stomps on it* What the hell is this country coming to?
  • by mosch (204)
    'We would need somebody like you. We would give you a nice paying job, a house, a car, anything you needed.... if you save Hollywood for us you can become rich and powerful.' In 2005, the MPAA paid Anderson $15,000....."

    That is a really fucking weak-sauce redefinition of rich and powerful. $15k? Christ. I wouldn't wipe my ass with $15k.
    • Can you tell me where you live and what time you typically empty your bowels? I'll be fishing through the sewers apartment connects to during those times for $15,000. I figure most people go once a day, so that's a pretty good wage for wading through shit.
    • by jimicus (737525)
      Put another way, $15k for a perl script which spiders torrentspy.com, parses all the IP addresses in all the torrent files it can find, does a whois on each of them and returns the results - a few hours work at most - seems like a pretty sweet deal.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mosch (204)
        "$15k to make people's lives miserable because they committed some minor IP violations? sweet deal!"

        I would've expected people to want more money, but I guess it makes sense. There's always somebody who is sufficiently selfish to fuck everybody else over for a comically small sum of money.
  • by speaker of the truth (1112181) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:37AM (#21070813)
    If this person had hacked Microsoft and posted the Windows source code online you would all be heralding him as a true freedom fighter. However because he hacked someone you like you say what he did was wrong.

    I guess the motto here at slashdot is "you must respect people's rights, unless we don't like them."
  • by Jesus_666 (702802) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:40AM (#21070837)
    They sat him in front of a notebook where he got a blowjob while someone put a gun against his head and John Travolta counted down from sixty until he caved in to the pressure and used ls /usr/bin to crack the 128-bit encryption securing TorrentSpy's login form.

    Hollywood uses that method a lot.
  • by goga_russian (544604) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:42AM (#21070855)
    a rat is a rat anywhere in the world... and we all know what happens to rats. america promotes the culture of 'telling on someone', ratting on your friends to save ur ass, or make money. please dont admire a rat.
  • what bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cliffski (65094) on Monday October 22, 2007 @08:45AM (#21070901) Homepage
    "We would give you a nice paying job, a house, a car, anything you needed.... if you save Hollywood for us you can become rich and powerful"

    outside of hollywood movies, nobody talks like this. this is all the ramblings of some deranged kid.
  • by scottsk (781208) on Monday October 22, 2007 @11:33AM (#21072761) Homepage
    So the MPAA thinks being rich and powerful is worth $15k? I don't blame the guy for sour grapes -- he needs to write a book, and maybe they can make his story into a movie so he can really cash in -- of course, he probably won't make a dime because the movie will be pirates! But the article is really funny because it shows just who the MPAA really are. They promised everything and delivered nothing!
  • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Monday October 22, 2007 @11:33AM (#21072765)
    Typical MPAA/Riaa deal making.

    I'm sure his $15million check was cut due to various fees. His final cut was $15,000.

  • by Mr.Fork (633378) <edward...j...reddy@@@gmail...com> on Monday October 22, 2007 @12:26PM (#21073357) Journal
    Hmmm... collecting private information to identify people without their knoweldge. I do believe MPAA would be breaking the law here in Canada. Let me talk to my security dude - I'm wondering if I could get the entire MPAA board executive but on Canada's TERRORIST watch list? Seeing how they're spying on Canadians violating privacy laws for 'yet-undetermined activities' - wouldn't that be funny...?

"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- "Ali Baba Bunny" [1957, Chuck Jones]

Working...