If you want to talk about slippery slopes, take a look at which direction the MPAA is attempting to push the anti-technology snowball this time (I'll give you a hint, it's not up-hill...) - the newest lawsuit that they've filed is against BitTorrentSpy, a site that doesn't offer BitTorrent files, just indexes them - much like Google does. Here we get the distinct impression that not only does the MPAA not want you sharing their movies, they don't want you sharing any movies, or running a service that points consumers anywhere in that direction. A resounding "who on earth does business this way?!" once again echoes from my room.
The EFF reported about the TorrentSpy conundrum on March 31st - the article reads:
A few weeks ago, the major movie studios filed a lawsuit against the operators of TorrentSpy. Although the TorrentSpy suit has been characterized as just the latest chapter in the MPAA's attack on Bit Torrent file sharing, on closer examination it looks more like a wholesale attack against Internet indexing generally.
If you check out TorrentSpy you'll find that the site offers what are basically links to torrent files that the site indexes, much like how on google you find links to different sites. The article explains that google actually indexes torrent files along with webpage links. Of course, we don't believe that this kind of indexing is evil, but the MPAA certainly does, and the most disturbing element of their argument follows:
The complaint gives little guidance about what the studios think separates TorrentSpy from any other index. It alleges that "the predominant use" of the index is for infringement (shades of MGM v. Grokster!). It claims that "indexing files according to specific titles of copyrighted television programs" is evidence of inducement. It argues that TorrentSpy "favorably compare[s] its website to other peer-to-peer services widely used for infringing activities." I'm sure the plaintiffs will further develop their "TorrentSpy is different" themes as the case goes forward.
Maybe the EFF hasn't harped on this enough, so I will. If it's any indication that this "prosecute people to try and squelch technology that you find threatening to your kingdom" nonsense has gone way too far, it's the fact that this "predominant use" argument is still being leveled against people. It amazes me the keen eye for prognostication the MPAA and RIAA must have - they've somehow been able, throughout the years, to arrive at conclusions such as this - i.e., "TorrentSpy will undoubtedly be used to pirate things that the MPAA owns," "anyone that downloads an MPAA owned movie or an RIAA owned song would have otherwise purchased it and is thus 'stealing,'" and so on and so forth - every subsequent argument requires such a skillful degree of mind reading, that you'd almost think these groups would be better served putting their psychics to work on figuring out ways to keep people interested in major studio/major label movies/music, when consumers are quite obviously beginning to look elsewhere.
