Damion Chaplin
06-25-2006, 07:30 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,126222,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,126222,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp</a><br /><br /></div><i>"TorrentSpy named the hacker who it claims broke into its computer systems on behalf of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), as part of a legal request that would force the MPAA to turn over documents stolen from the Internet file-searching company. TorrentSpy accused the MPAA in May of paying a hacker $15,000 to steal confidential company information, including e-mails and passwords for accessing TorrentSpy's servers. The MPAA has called the charges baseless... TorrentSpy included with its court filing a declaration from Robert Anderson, the hacker allegedly hired by the MPAA, detailing his activities and his ties to TorrentSpy. Anderson describes himself as an "acquaintance" of Justin Bunnell, a principal of the company that runs TorrentSpy.com, who did some marketing work in 2004 and 2005 for a company Bunnell was involved with. The two parted ways in April last year, when Anderson stopped working for the company and became "upset" with Bunnell, he said in his declaration. Two months later, Anderson contacted the MPAA and offered to provide it with information about TorrentSpy, he said. The court filing includes a document described as a contract signed by the MPAA and a bogus company, representing Anderson, that includes the MPAA's agreement to pay Anderson the $15,000 for his services. Anderson says the MPAA "knew, or reasonably should have known," that he was not authorized to obtain the information he did, which also included e-mails, client billing information, IP (Internet protocol) addresses of servers, a cashflow spreadsheet, and a personal utility bill of one of the company's principals."</i><br /><br />Well the MPAA may call the charge baseless, but I'd say that's pretty damning proof. Anderson might have a problem proving that the 'bogus company' that signed the contract in fact represented him. However using a fictitious name doesn't mean one doesn't have to fill their side of the contract, so that may not matter too much. I'm no legal expert though. :wink: Personally, I hope the MPAA gets reamed on this one.