digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Gotcha! MPAA Tries to Trick Users into Downloading Movies Illegally!

zeropaid.com — New video download site busts you for illegally downloading video content as well as offers the ability to download video content using a custom client which also scans a users PC to see if the user has already downloaded copyrighted files.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ericodom, on 10/11/2007, -2/+118The site in question seems to be down?
    http://miivi.com/
    • KlayBorg, on 10/11/2007, -3/+106D-Dos rocks.
    • tehrob, on 10/11/2007, -4/+28milivanili.com?
    • netdroid9, on 10/11/2007, -7/+56Entrapment, anyone?
      • randomgeek, on 10/11/2007, -4/+23This has been said over and over, but no, it's not entrapment. Entrapment is when the police intentionally lead to you to do something that could be argued that you wouldn't otherwise do, soley for the purpose of arresting you. The MPAA are not the police, so that right there rules out entrapment, but also it couldn't be argued that you would never download pirated content and that you were drawn into using this website. The fact is, if you used the website, uploaded and downloaded illegal content, you'd be doing it of your own volition.
        • mrmdc, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19The MPAA police their content.

          The 'police' do not handle copyright infringement over the internet, that's a civil matter, not a criminal matter.

          Without the website you wouldn't be uploading the content, so, yes, it is entrapment.
        • slipgrid, on 10/11/2007, -5/+23Yo, I'm no lawyer, but to say that's not entrapment is straining the language. It *is* a trap.
          • spudnic, on 10/11/2007, -2/+41I think 'I'm no lawyer' was a bit redundant after starting the sentence with 'yo'
          • Nereus90, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Don't be hatin'
          • slipgrid, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2@spudnic: I think 'I'm no lawyer' was a bit redundant after starting the sentence with 'yo'

            Just because of that, I'm going to have to grammar check your ass.

            Error number one: In your sentence, think and was do not match tense. Correct is to say, "I think 'I'm no lawyer" is a bit redundant.

            Error number two: Where's your period, yo? Admit it! You don't know where the period goes. Does it go after the 'o' in yo? Or does it go after the apostrophe? I know, but clearly you don't.

            Error number three: Your sentence is wordy. Could you write it in a way where the word "I" is not two of the first three words?

            Should I go on? Well, should I, Dick?
        • ohgr, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7To expand the debate here a little. It's like when the police do those undercover Prostitute Stings. Same idea, lure you in with the goodies, then cuff you as soon as a transaction is made (or an offer).
      • DocHoliday22, on 10/11/2007, -4/+66They're just a bunch of assholes. Pure and simple.
      • DocHoliday22, on 10/11/2007, -8/+38They're just a bunch of assholes. Pure and simple.
      • ninj3, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16If they're not police, and it's not entrapment, then wouldn't that make them complicit in the crime since they are providing illegal content? Or retrieving it from your PC?
        • Nossie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4no. because they have the legal authority to host the majority of the MAFIAAs catalogue .....

          so what you want to do... is get your friend to upload your home made stuff and then sue them for distributing IP that doesn't belong to them.
          • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2But then you'd have to sue your friend.
          • dacheetah, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2You can drop the charges against your friend without providing grounds...
        • Nossie, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1no. because they have the legal authority to host the majority of the MAFIAAs catalogue .....

          so what you want to do... is get your friend to upload your home made stuff and then sue them for distributing IP that doesn't belong to them.
        • ninj3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Well then if they own the IP and upload the content to me free that means I'm not doing anything legal.
          And if they get stuff from my PC and the IP is owned by someone else, doesn't that mean they're doing illegal downloading?
          Better yet, if they retrieve stuff from my PC, doesn't that mean they're violating my IP?
      • missingnoh4x, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15Technically not entrapment, but it is a trap. [cue Admiral Ackbar]
      • johndi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No, but under the right circumstances it could be solicitation to commit a crime. It is not lawful to encourage criminal activities. Since they aren't the police they are acting as private investigators. Odds are they aren't licensed as such. There is also the spyware angle. These guys are almost certainly breaking the law, but will get away with it.
    • ojk007, on 10/11/2007, -3/+19For what its worth it was one of the most poorly designed sites ever..
      • Audacitor, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4It'll never come close to the atrocity called MySpace.
    • phantom_mullet, on 10/11/2007, -4/+80In other news, Demonoid is back up...
    • Jernej, on 10/11/2007, -12/+3comment abuse or something.. BUT WHY DOES THE WHOLE IDEA OF THIS SOUND LIKE IT WOULD FAIL TO PASS COURTS SINCE IT WOULD COUNT AS ENTRAPMENT?
      • ckpcw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Most cases don't go to court - people get scared & pay a few thou for a settlement.. I bet this would bring in a good number of those
      • david76, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4No, because it's not entrapment.
        In jurisprudence, entrapment is a legal defense by which a defendant may argue that he or she should not be held criminally liable for actions which broke the law, because he/she was induced (or entrapped) by the police to commit said acts. For the defense to be successful, the defendant must demonstrate that the police induced an otherwise unwilling person to commit a crime. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment
    • ahussain1986, on 10/11/2007, -11/+3digg down.
    • DaiTengu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I think they realized that they've been found out. Expect another massive front page digg soon when they register a new domain.
      Their cunning plan seems to have a flaw.

    • Jugalator, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Yes, it's not only down now after yesterday's Digg assault on it, but they've apparently now sold the domain name too. So it's game over for that plan.
    • eoghanj, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1balls
  • corevette, on 10/11/2007, -7/+70because everything needs proof: http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/9595/miiviuc9.png
    • 0owh0r5xzs, on 10/11/2007, -14/+2Screenshots aren't proof. Photoshop told me that.
    • mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -4/+4thanks for posting a pic from the article you douche bag. its also incorrect so HA no proof.
      http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIsVerify.aspx?domain=miivi.com&prog_id=godaddy
      http://www.whois-search.com/whois/miivi.com
      http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=miivi.com

    • sirber, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Domain Name: MIIVI.COM
      Registrar: GO DADDY SOFTWARE, INC.
      Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
      Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
      Name Server: NS5.SECURESERVER.NET
      Name Server: NS6.SECURESERVER.NET
      Status: clientDeleteProhibited
      Status: clientRenewProhibited
      Status: clientTransferProhibited
      Status: clientUpdateProhibited
      Updated Date: 04-jul-2007
      Creation Date: 08-feb-2007
      Expiration Date: 08-feb-2010

      Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
      Domain Name: MIIVI.COM
      Created on: 08-Feb-07
      Expires on: 08-Feb-10
      Last Updated on: 04-Jul-07

      Administrative Contact:
      Chang, Jonathan info@miivi.com
      2461 santa monica blvd
      santa monica, California 90404
      United States
      310-954-3300

      Technical Contact:
      Chang, Jonathan info@miivi.com
      2461 santa monica blvd
      santa monica, California 90404
      United States
      310-954-3300

      Domain servers in listed order:
      NS5.SECURESERVER.NET
      NS6.SECURESERVER.NET


      Registry Status: clientRenewProhibited
      Registry Status: clientTransferProhibited
      Registry Status: clientUpdateProhibited
      Registry Status: clientDeleteProhibited
    • skoops, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Updated Date: 04-jul-2007

      did ya notice that? THEY CHANGED THE PREVIOUS REGISTRATION INFO TODAY
    • BitBurner, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3i called number disconnected...I was going to tell them i'm reporting them for Piracy....lol
  • Itazura, on 10/11/2007, -5/+343Batman Returns? They want to try and catch pirates with Batman Returns? Seriously, who got paid for that idea?
    • rhabd0mancer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Oh noes.

      I must be the worst pirate evar.
    • AlmostEvil, on 10/11/2007, -5/+52Dude, Michelle Pfeiffer in a rubber catsuit, high heels and a whip.

      What are you, gay?
      • AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -1/+13I believe all you had to say was Michelle Pfeiffer.
      • richardiscool, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5She's 49.
      • Lixie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4She's 49, but she ages like fine wine.
      • sully213, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7And she wasn't 49 when that movie was made. She was only 34 and that makes her the perfect MILF age in my book ;)
    • hirak99, on 10/11/2007, -1/+53This is they day that you will always remember, as the day when you *almost* caught Captain Jack Sparrow ;)
    • NgrHader, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3YOU WANNA GET NUTS? LETS GET NUTS!
  • Itazura, on 10/11/2007, -107/+4Batman Returns? They want to try and catch pirates with Batman Returns? Seriously, who got paid for that idea?
  • Itazura, on 10/11/2007, -109/+3Batman Returns? They want to try and catch pirates with Batman Returns? Seriously, who got paid for that idea?
  • Itazura, on 10/11/2007, -30/+207Wow...thanks digg for your new comment system, its about as good and glitched as myspace.
    • Smills, on 10/11/2007, -6/+37Just change global settings to expand all and it is pretty much like old then, just with more threads.
      • Tishiablo, on 10/11/2007, -14/+7Aww.. But then what would be the point of the Konami code? D:
    • katulatakulu, on 10/11/2007, -10/+3thank you
    • Ignathius, on 10/11/2007, -17/+6ya. all the idiots seem to be having problems with the new comment system.
      • DocHoliday22, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1ur one of them. Don't double post.
      • DocHoliday22, on 10/11/2007, -14/+1ur one of them. Don't double post.
      • siszam, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Oh yeah, WE are the idiots for getting scrip errors every time we click an new article and we made Digg look like junked up trash.
  • str3ama, on 10/11/2007, -5/+159They also have/had 300. This is entrapment isn't it?
    • tuxidomasx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+30i'm pretty sure entrapment can only be done by law enforcement officials.

      what they are doing doesnt seem anymore illegal than indirectly inviting someone to steal your car so you can call the police on them

      its still kinda shady tho. definitely a lame move by the MPAA if its true
    • theoallardyce, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Hang on then, carrying a weapon for self-defence is legal in the US, so why dont people start using entrapment against street gangs - walk up to a gang and taunt them until they pull a gun on you, then have a few buddies take the gang out from afar. It would clean the streets up in no time.
      • abdrahman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Because instigating violence is illegal.
      • Giga, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4I don't think starting gang wars and extermination fits under the definition of cleaning up the streets.
      • SoonerRoadie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Self defense is not justifiable under the Model Penal Code (which has not been completely adopted by any state, but many criminal statutes are modeled after it) when

        "Sec. 3.04(2)(i) - the actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter;"
      • xister, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3lol! Would YOU want to be the guy that gets to taunt a gang member into pulling out a gun and probably getting a round or two off at you before he gets taken down?
        • cconger, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Not if Blonde was hiding above the covered wagon ready to shoot out the rope!

          (Good the Bad and the Ugly reference)
    • KMye, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13Entrapment? No. Majorly ***** up? Yes.
    • JPDyno, on 10/11/2007, -0/+28I dont think its entrapment,
      But Seriously, If I put a TV in the trading post with a sign 'free to anyone who takes it'.... I hardly think Id be able to get them arrested..... but it seems the MPAA can.
      • thecompkid, on 10/11/2007, -9/+3Well, you would be saying that the TV is free to be taken, so obviously that would not be illegal to take it.
        This site, however, makes no claims to the legality of movie downloading, so, no, it's not entrapment.
        • Fhwqhgads, on 10/11/2007, -0/+12It's a torrent site. People go there for free stuff. Period.
      • dtribe, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12A better analogy would be say, Toshiba for example, putting one of their TVs out in public with a sign saying "Free Copies, Help yourself!!". Then when Job Bloggs walks up, takes out his magical TV cloning device and makes himself a copy of the TV he finds himself under arrest, and having his home searched for more TVs.
        • DocHoliday22, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Not really. Toshiba would have to be putting out stolen TV's out to the public, and the public would also have to know about the fact that it's stolen. Only then "apparently" there is just cause for an arrest and a search. They're just a bunch of fags who are trying desperate things now. No doubt anyone who did get caught would have an easy time getting the judge on their side.
        • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1IF Toshiba just put a TV out to the public and a company working with Toshiba put a magical TV cloning device next to it, with a sign saying "Clone a free TV!" and a hidden camera. Then when Joe Bloggs walks up and uses the device, Toshiba sues him and searches his home for more TVs.
    • ccrook, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23IANAL but it could be construed as the MPAA giving up their copyright by they themselves allowing their content to be put up online and downloaded for free.
      • ThndrShk2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+35Downloading content is not illegal in the first place. Only distributing it.
        The company who makes the content downloadable- by choice -lawfully cannot place a lawsuit against the downloader because the person who is receiving the file cannot verify it's legality, nor if it's even the file they want, before opening it; as well they are obtaining it directly from the copyright holder.
        Although this isn't technically giving up copyright, it's all but saying "Goto this site, download movies from Hollywood companies for free, with permission of Hollywood copyright owners!" Any lawsuit brought by such a site is frivilous and malicious towards the consumer, in which would bring down the site and should impose fines for premeditation and exploitation.

        All i have to say is "Nice jerb MPAA, Nice Jerb"
        • KlayBorg, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Its mainly so they can catch your other illegal downloads not through them. However, if you just set up a box devoted to this site, you could get all this content completely free, and they can't sue you.
        • ThndrShk2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Only problem is the other 'illegal downloads' are not illegal to have. Only illegal to distribute. The only thing they are going to do with the datamining they have is find out how many people actually download.
          Having the file is not the same as giving others the file.
    • pring, on 10/11/2007, -0/+31Does the custom application's EULA specify that it will scan your computer for copyrighted material and could be used against you in court? If not, can't they be sued for installing spyware on your computer without informing you of the information they are collecting and what they will do with it?
    • bluechips23, on 10/11/2007, -1/+18They also have 300? This is MADNESS!
      • missingnoh4x, on 10/11/2007, -8/+4THIS... IS... oh, screw it. Too easy a response.
      • jetfuel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Madness? No... THIS IS THE MPAA!!! ... and it's *****, desperate practices of trying to catch anyone who doesn't want to pay ridiculous prices for a couple hours of entertainment.
        • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1This Is MPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
    • jmnormand, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5not entrapment no but if it is supported by the mpaa then it would be difficult to claim you did anything illegal in court as they are distributing their own copyrighted material. not sure how the site works because it is out of commission, but if they copyright owner is giving it to you then it isn't illegal. not to mention the complexity of anti spyware laws around the world...
  • LlamaV3, on 10/11/2007, -16/+4I'm sure this is illegal isn't it? as str3ama said, it's entrapment! Screw the MPAA
    • brianbb98, on 10/11/2007, -2/+24no.

      ***** the MPAA... and the RIAA
    • serpentskiss, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5If the software that is downloaded and installed is scanning your machine, and reporting back to another server your habits, and any IPs/sites etc visited, and any other spurious files you have on your HD, *and* it doesn't tell you what it's doing, then surely they're guilt of spreading malware/trojans. They're basically getting you to install software under false pretences.
  • LlamaV3, on 10/11/2007, -12/+4man, I want to reply to tuxidomasx but this comment system sucks and won't let me reply.

    Anyway, I see your point, but what if you never did anything like this before, but found there website really tempting and tried to download the movie, aren't they guilty of something?

    It's like the police persuading a nun that murder is ok, and then executing her when she tries to stab someone.
  • KlayBorg, on 10/11/2007, -2/+81This sites already down anyway. Yay for D-Dos attacks :D
  • tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -2/+97Call me stupid, but watching videos on teh interwebs isn't illegal. Uploading them is. What can they possibly charge you with if you innocently go over to their site and watch some of their videos?

    Thanks for the free movies, 'MiiVi'.
    • gotamd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21That's exactly what I was thinking. It also seems like they would have to have a license from the copyright holders to distribute these movies, so what illegal activity is going on here? If it's illegal to download from that website, then it seems to me like it should also be illegal for them to upload the material to you.
      • spinalcracker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Not if they own the rights to what they have uploaded.... Besides it sounds more like they want to bust you on what you already have on your system and this is just a tool to find that information out... What a waste of time and money... seriously... for every pirate they find that has hundreds of movies on their system and is worthwhile busting, they will come across thousands of people with no movies at all or not enough to justify the effort... then after a while somewhere in some office, someone is going to say.... "Hey, we are spending so much time and money on this with no results... better sue someone for any infraction before our funding gets pulled and the production companies start bailing"... what a joke... plus I am pretty sure, anyone that knows what they are doing does not use some random website for their downloading means
    • Salgat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13I thought spyware was illegal?
      • DJBadBoy310, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Not if you agree to it in a EULA.

        You can't get them in trouble if you agreed to put the spyware in your system.
    • missingnoh4x, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Downloading pirated content is in fact illegal. And they're breaking the law as well by giving the content to you.
      • ckpcw, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5WRONG - they aren't breaking the law if they A) Own the copyrights to said content, or B) Are working with the permission of the copyright holders
        • shark615, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2If they own the copyright and posting it for download then downloading it from them is no illegal. Uploading however would be the illegal part.
    • sonaro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I think the main point is to force people into settling, as most can not afford to defend themselves in court.
    • merreborn, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13It'd be funny if nintendo sued these guys for infringing on their "Mii" trademark.
      • FluffyArmada, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5If they did... I would buy another Wii to thank them. (hear that nintendo?!)
        • RocketGib, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Only if you can find one... Remember the article posted yesterday about how the Wii's demand is still greater than supply?
  • Lyght, on 10/11/2007, -4/+47This is already on the Top 10 under news... http://digg.com/tech_news/Anti_Piracy_Gang_Launches_their_own_Video_Download_Site_to_Trap_People
  • DCUK, on 10/11/2007, -1/+50I will go there just to download, I would LOVE for them to even try and take me to court. The case would fall like a badly stacked house of cards
  • theeEqualizer, on 10/11/2007, -9/+32Yeah, I don't see this working out for them legally. Any lawyer could pin them for entrapment. That's what it is, clear and simple.

    btw, I happen to work for a company that gets direct correspondence with such parties, and I can verify, MediaDefender does indeed subpoena individuals. I even recognized the contact's name.
    • tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10This isn't entrapment. If anything it's a honeypot, but it's not really even that because this isn't being done by law enforcement. It is a stupid idea though.
    • shark72, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5You keep using that word "entrapment." I do not think it means what you think it means.
    • Matt2k, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Thank god for the legion of practicing attorneys here on Digg.com. What would we ever do without their insights and wisdom.
  • theoallardyce, on 10/11/2007, -16/+22This is entrapment, pure and simple, if the police arent allowed to do this then the MPAA sure as hell shouldnt be able to get away with it. Whats next - they come after digg for revealing this?

    That said I think entrapment is a brilliant idea and I only wish the police did more of it. Leaving wired cars around to trap car thieves is only the first step. The police need to be ruthless, they need to literally walk up to suspected gang members and taunt them until the suspect pulls out a gun or knife forcing the police marksmen to take them out - it would save so much time.

    I strongly believe that until entrapment is used to successfully clean the streets of gangs, no-one should have the right to be using it to catch software pirates.
    • tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -9/+10This *ISN'T* entrapment. Moreover, setting up 'hot' cars to catch thieves isn't entrapment either. That is a valid police tactic often called a honeypot. Please go and learn something of what you're talking about.
      • donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6Rephrase it all you want, its still entrapment.
        • tizz66, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3And reiterate it all you want, you're still wrong. Go and read the definitions people have helpfully posted below.
      • JPDyno, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3yeah but if you put a sign on the car saying 'take me, im free' and leave the keys in it......
    • donnyburnside, on 10/11/2007, -5/+2I agree completely with your last sentence.
    • Ph34rb0t, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Oh yeah, we need more entrapment, just like we need more racial profiling and lynch mobs; that sure would clean this place up.
      Gangs are a symptom of a larger issue, there are plenty of places without them.
      • abdrahman, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Where, exactly, are there no gangs? Pretty much everywhere in the US has an affiliate member of one of the major Hispanic, Black, Italian, Russian,etc. gangs; the UK and most European countries aren't too much different either
        • Ph34rb0t, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Pretty much anywhere in rural Canada. Although you find a few biker gangs, there are no 'street' gangs 'cept in a few big cities, Toronto.... yeah thats about it.
        • leetdood, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2What ph34rb0t is true.. I live in a rural town, and around here there aren't any gangstas hanging in the street trying to be tough.
    • PABeachBum, on 10/11/2007, -9/+2Funny you say that, because LA used to have a "gang unit" whos job it was to pretty much go out and take out gang members in any way possible. That is, until people started hearing about it and P.C. idiots made the police department shut them down.
    • PABeachBum, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Funny you say that, because LA used to have a "gang unit" whos job it was to pretty much go out and take out gang members in any way possible. That is, until people started hearing about it and P.C. idiots made the police department shut them down.
    • PABeachBum, on 10/11/2007, -10/+1Funny you say that, because LA used to have a "gang unit" whos job it was to pretty much go out and take out gang members in any way possible. That is, until people started hearing about it and P.C. idiots made the police department shut them down.
  • obeezy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20guess I won't be joining any "Hot New" file sharing sites. I'll stick to what I know.
  • AzraDarkness, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19Forbidden
    You don't have permission to access / on this server.

    I wonder if they realized they got caught :D
  • lawbag, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13well well well, it took them a LONG time to work out this little scam. You'd have thought they would have masterminded this years ago, which shows their long term planning and foresight deserves to be beaten down. They couldnt foresee the demise of the CD and DVD in the same way they couldnt foresee a subtle way of trapping "victims".

    Surely this software which downloads rates as illegal, a trojan or spam or spyware?
  • sinu, on 10/11/2007, -8/+0Is there any nice free movies. look good is it legal.
  • DestroyFascism, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4They can't prosecute on this site alone, that would be entrapment. But they can use it to "Monitor" leads and make a case based on information from this website..
    • shark72, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Wikipedia has a page on entrapment. It's a quick and easy read and a great resource if you would like to know more about what entrapment really is. If you truly believe that this is entrapment, then you can try changing the Wikipedia article.
  • joper90, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14This is a honeypot is it not? not entrapment?
  • edebolt, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4seems like stretch to assume this is the MPAA and not just an enterprising supplier trying something experimental. Any of these download sites could betray users at some point for various reasons like profit, poor security or making a deal with a prosecutor.
    • Darkestblaze, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Except the whois information directly points to the MPAA's affiliate company...
  • jazzjeff, on 10/11/2007, -4/+9Clear entrapment. Typical of these scumbags. What does anyone expect from a setup in America. We allow them to do this to us, meanwhile we sit on our asses and do nothing! Any other country and the people would be protesting on the streets - here, nothing, zilch. And the worlds wonders less and less why America is declining for the answer is clearly staring them at least in the face - its called American Procrastination!!!
    • Markpdotcom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10I've always wondered why everyone in America complains about the RIAA and MPAA and yet does nothing against them? They aren't government bodies. They weren't put there to protect you from anything. Get rid of them!
      • DustinR, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Ummm what do you think all of the pirates have been doing all this time?
      • tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What do you suggest we do aside from not buying their product and killing their PR.
    • shark72, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I'm not sure I follow. Why do you think this is entrapment?
  • gotamd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+30So do they let you actually download the movie or whatever? If so, they've obviously been granted the rights to distribute by the copyright holders or they themselves would be breaking the law. And if that is the case, then how can they "get you" for downloading a file from a website licensed to distribute them by the copyright holders?
    • Stri, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Ha, interesting question gotamd
      • Nossie, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3another point tho is they cant control the content YOU upload.... so if they dont own the rights to what you upload then they dont have the rights at all :)
      • Nossie, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1another point tho is they cant control the content YOU upload.... so if they dont own the rights to what you upload then they dont have the rights at all :)
    • Fhwqhgads, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11They are above the law, didn't you know?
  • ptacnik, on 10/11/2007, -13/+6im in ur torrents suing ur uploads
    • crushfan, on 10/11/2007, -3/+4You suck. -- I mean, u suck.
    • Markpdotcom, on 10/11/2007, -5/+1Actually I still think its quite funny! :)
  • Plinkotic, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Not that I'm gonna go grab a movie online anyway on dialup, but is it possible to get the movies via their method and get rid of their client/spycrap?
    • Stri, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Irrellevant. If you want to download there are many "safe" places to get them from.
  • AustinGoodchild, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2Check this out in the google cache...
    http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:rT1F6aJ6TAQJ:profile.myspace.com/index.cfm%3Ffuseaction%3Duser.viewprofile%26friendID%3D43077412+miivi.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

    "Dos Manos's Companies
    Miivi.com
    Santa Monica, CA US
    Chief Editor"

    MiVii Chief Editor? - http://www.myspace.com/djcolin
  • Damien79, on 10/11/2007, -7/+6@tizz66

    "This *ISN'T* entrapment. Moreover, setting up 'hot' cars to catch thieves isn't entrapment either. That is a valid police tactic often called a honeypot. Please go and learn something of what you're talking about."

    This is not legal tactics everywere, in my country it is entrapment.
  • Maddjonesy, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1theoallardyce need to stop watching The Shield so much! lol
  • agimat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8We all know what they're after really, the following write-up uncovers the details

    http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=119

    /no ads
    //100% topic relevant
    ///not mine
    ////slashie overload
  • patrickray, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Whois Server Version 1.3

    Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered
    with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
    for detailed information.

    Domain Name: MIIVI.COM
    Registrar: GO DADDY SOFTWARE, INC.
    Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
    Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
    Name Server: NS02.ADMDIT.COM
    Name Server: NS01.ADMDIT.COM
    Status: clientRenewProhibited
    Status: clientTransferProhibited
    Status: clientUpdateProhibited
    Status: clientDeleteProhibited
    Updated Date: 02-jul-2007
    Creation Date: 08-feb-2007
    Expiration Date: 08-feb-2010

    Either a: Everyone on this thread is internet illiterate, of b: Internic is involved in a fraud on the whole internet.
    • randomgeek, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Or c: They changed their whois information
    • mikesbaker, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1NO logic damn you it gets in the way of hating the MPAA!!!!!!
  • kungfumaniac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16I'd buy movies if the MPAA just got their heads out of their collective asses and let me buy them from iTunes and burn it to a DVD.

    Until then, it's just easier to pirate.
  • Jetpac, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Its not illigal to get films from this site.

    If they are uploaded and the copyright is held by the uploader they have just chosen to allow people to download said films by allowing access such as this to them.

    it IS NOT ENTRAPMENT as has been said it is known as a "Honey Pot" have you folks never hear of Sting Operations.
    obviously the legal use of entrapment varies bvetween countries down to individual law and legislation. Besides, entrapment only refers to Law enforcement. Educate yourselves:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment

    "entrapment will occur when law enforcement officials cause an offence to be committed which would not have occurred had it not been for their involvement"

    Nobody is forcing you to make downloads.
    • brickbat, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3True that nobody is forcing you to make downloads but if they had not made the file available (an offence) you would not have been able to download it. Now read the wikipedia definition again. A honeypot is not advertised. No one goes to a theif and says, hey there is this car on Melrose with this license number - please go steal it. Same thing here. By 1. making the files available themselves and 2. advertising the website as a place to download illegal material, they are entrapping people - but this is all secondary. This has nothing to do with downloading movies from their website which you will never do (successfully). This is about collecting personal information about users and linking it to ip addresses collected from other places like bittorrent networks and using it to build a case.
      • roberto_deneero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5They are committing fraud by advertising one service then stealing information from users' computers. Using the Internet to perform this fraud is a federal offense.

        Everyone must flood their office with phone calls pointing out that the public is well aware of their fraudulent activitites. (310) 956-3300
  • BinDrinkin, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Legal Definition of Entrapment from lectlaw.com :

    ENTRAPMENT - A person is 'entrapped' when he is induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers or their agents to commit a crime that he had no previous intent to commit; and the law as a matter of policy forbids conviction in such a case.

    However, there is no entrapment where a person is ready and willing to break the law and the Government agents merely provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity for the person to commit the crime. For example, it is not entrapment for a Government agent to pretend to be someone else and to offer, either directly or through an informer or other decoy, to engage in an unlawful transaction with the person. So, a person would not be a victim of entrapment if the person was ready, willing and able to commit the crime charged in the indictment whenever opportunity was afforded, and that Government officers or their agents did no more than offer an opportunity.

    On the other hand, if the evidence leaves a reasonable doubt whether the person had any intent to commit the crime except for inducement or persuasion on the part of some Government officer or agent, then the person is not guilty.

    In slightly different words: Even though someone may have [sold drugs], as charged by the government, if it was the result of entrapment then he is not guilty. Government agents entrapped him if three things occurred:

    - First, the idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.

    - Second, the government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving him the opportunity to commit the crime is not the same as persuading him to commit the crime.

    - And third, the person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before the government agents spoke with him.

    On the issue of entrapment the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not entrapped by government agents.
    • randomgeek, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Thank you. Now maybe people will stfu with the entrapment crap. Contrary to popular belief, it is -not- illegal to protect your stuff. Even though the MPAA is being sleazy about it, there is nothing illegal about this.
    • Username222, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1So basically, if they were advertising their site and saying "download movies online legally" then they sued you, then it would be entrapment... I think. lol
      • shark615, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1NOOOO. For ***** sake this can't be entrapment purley because this is a CIVIL action and the RIAA whatever is not the police or an agent of the policy.
  • PABeachBum, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7Lots of armchair lawyers on digg today. No this isn't 'entrapment". Entrapment is only valid if a law enforcement agency does it.

    And pimp the definition of it somebody posted above. You have to be coerced into downloading. Leaving a 'hot' car on the side of the road, or in this case movies, technically isn't entrapment.
    • dogstar0125, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1What if a site posts the movie online and advertises it as a free download? Does the user have an obligation to determine whether the site has obtained permission to distribute the content? If so, that could have far-reaching implications.
  • dienaked, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5If the copyright owner voluntarily puts their work up for free on their own download site, how is that copyright infringement when I download?
    • shark615, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2It isn't. They are doing this for the uploads and the software that can grab info about already dled stuff.
  • Amnesia10, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Also for European users there are addition laws that are being broken such as privacy laws which could mean that any cases here could be difficult as all their evidence would have been obtained illegally.
    • shark615, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Only if the EULA said nothing about the actions off the software. If it says at the bottom that it will collect info then probably will be valid
  • Thomasson, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I don't care if it's entrapment, a honey trap, or spyware. The reason it won't get them anywhere is because we exposed it... Which is probably the best defense against all sniffling spyware, no?
  • afx1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8"it's army of prying eyes"

    it is army of prying eyes
  • jebus123, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I sure hope the MPAA had authorization to distribute those copyrighted movies! And if they did, they why is it illegal to download from an entity which had the right to distribute?
  • cheerybounce, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Somebody could assemble a trojan for them that makes lots of false positives from innocent people. An another finger-pointing round would be hilarious and lethal for RIAA.
  • bluenash, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4i smell a Class Action lawsuit
  • kp606, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3In all honestly, even if they are using questionable methods, I can't agree with movie pirating, at all. Movie are million dollar undertakings, often the brainchild of several people, and the hard work of even more. If companies lose any revenue at all over online movies, downloaded OR streaming, it isn't fair to them. Supply and demand: a business does not exist to create a product with no gaining back.
    • KevinO, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Me smells someone working with the MPAA...or an 'up and coming' movie producer/director.... This is the wrong place to preach kp606, it's like going to a whore house and saying stop beating that whore! Nobody is going to listen here.
    • Darkestblaze, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4However, if I wasn't going to see the movie unless it's free, how am I harming the filmmaker at all? Most of the crap released these days certainly isn't worth $9, plus gas, plus the experience of sitting in a room that reeks of stale popcorn and spilled soda while surrounded by people sneezing and coughing and talking on their cell phones. When there's something I think might be interesting, if I can't download it and watch it on my own time without interruption, I just say "oh well, I guess I can live without seeing that movie," I don't immediately run out to the nearest AMC and eagerly drop $9 to see it (assuming it's even still playing in the theatre, as renting the dvd doesnt bring a dime to the filmmaker anyway, 100% profit for the rental agency). And who says all filmmakers are just in it to make money? Did you ever think that some of them just enjoy knowing that other people like their work and agree with their artistic expression? Or are painters just in it for the green too?
  • catfish182, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2This sounds like a plan of Dr Evil's
  • gta3mobster, on 10/11/2007, -1/+30http://miivi.com/media.php?hash=541A05642773D86305153D9958D7B67350AC26E0
    Suspicious...? The media is referenced by the 40 character hash. Wonder what that means.

    MMkay. I don't like using domain names. I much rather use IP addresses. Shall we?...
    Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]

    ping miivi.com
    Pinging miivi.com [38.102.232.160] with 32 bytes of data:
    Request timed out. //(X4)

    ping www.miivi.com
    Pinging www.miivi.com [216.151.137.2] with 32 bytes of data:
    Request timed out. //(X4)
    Interestingly enough, they are two different addresses.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    from: http://ws.arin.net/cgi-bin/whois.pl
    Search results for: 216.151.137.2 // [HTTP://WWW.MIIVI.COM]
    Output from ARIN WHOIS
    OrgName: Xeex
    OrgID: XEEX
    Address: 2461 Santa Monica Blvd.
    Address: Suite #517
    City: Santa Monica
    StateProv: CA
    PostalCode: 90404
    Country: US

    ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.xeex.com:4321/
    NetRange: 216.151.128.0 - 216.151.159.255
    CIDR: 216.151.128.0/19
    NetName: XEEX-COMMUNICATIONS-2
    NetHandle: NET-216-151-128-0-1
    Parent: NET-216-0-0-0-0
    NetType: Direct Allocation
    NameServer: NS01.XEEX.COM
    NameServer: NS02.XEEX.COM
    Comment: Rwhois information can be found at
    Comment: rwhois://rwhois.xeex.com:4321/
    RegDate: 2005-03-15
    Updated: 2006-06-02
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Search results for: 38.102.232.160 // [HTTP://MIIVI.COM]

    OrgName: Performance Systems International Inc.
    OrgID: PSI
    Address: 1015 31st St NW
    City: Washington
    StateProv: DC
    PostalCode: 20007
    Country: US
    NetRange: 38.0.0.0 - 38.255.255.255
    CIDR: 38.0.0.0/8
    NetName: PSINETA
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MEDIADEFENDER:
    MAILING ADDRESS:
    2461 Santa Monica Blvd., D-520
    Santa Monica, CA 90404
    PHONE: (310) 956-3300
    FAX: (310) 956-3391

    http://mediadefender.com/contactUs.html
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    // [From the Google CACHE of his MYSPACE page...]

    Dos Manos's Companies
    Miivi.com
    Santa Monica, CA US
    Chief Editor
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2461 santa monica blvd santa monica CA 90404. What are those odds? They are in fact in the same building. Madness! And to top it off, 2 hands is in Santa Monica as well...

    A quick trip over to google reveals "PSINETA." Many users complain about it disrupting their normal flow of internet traffic. That sounds illegal to me... *bwahaha* So miivi.com is exactly what the article says.

    Also, "Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)" is not an error. They made the webpage say that. I can type in www.3456hjow3q526iop3u6h.com and it says "cannot find server", not "invalid hostname."

    The 4th of July with nothing to do until nightfall. I shall continue to digg deeper.
    • Giga, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Sounds like an error in their webserver vhost settings, not a DNS error.
    • plutpwnium, on 10/11/2007, -6/+2You have no life man, seriously.
    • mattvogt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Heck, I dugg you up just for your effort.
    • zmjone2992, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2thanks for the effort bro, keep goin, im bored as ***** too
    • Dax420, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0I think xeex.com is a hosting provider. Someone probably paid them to register the domain name and point the domain to the IP of one of their co-lo boxes. They would have registered the domain using their reseller account the the billing and tech contacts would point to the provider as they paid to register domains in bulk and then charge the customer as part of their hosting fee. I work for a hosting company and we do the same thing all the time.
  • gep642, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Kinda makes you wonder... If the MPAA has authorized this site (a site providing users with a way to download a movie for free), shouldn't this be considered a legitimate way to get this movie? And if they haven't authorized it, shouldn't they be suing MediaDefender?
    • brainboy77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1this is what we like to call a "Bush ***** Himself Up Moment".
  • Hangender, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16MPAA is promoting the distribution of illegal file sharing. I suggest the MPAA sent a take down notice to the MPAA.
  • sirjtaa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4That's basically spyware. They'd have to have a warrant or something to invade people's privacy like that.
    • plutpwnium, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Read above comments, specifically the ones posted by Bin... they do NOT need a warrant, thats the wonders of the American legal system.
    • Ibox, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2They Can't get a warrant, because the MPAA is not a govt. agency, or any type of law enforcement.
  • gkiltz, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0It's COMPLETELY INSANE that no one has counter sued the MPAA for invasion of privacy, which is exactly what they are doing! But I really think the courts will draw the line at entrapment.
  • dattaway, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3One more reason to use my annoying partying neighbor's wireless connection. I can fix him up real good...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.