The hacker has supposedly admitted to his role, and is cooperating with Torrentspy in the investigation, going so far as to provide documents that prove the nature of his relationship with the MPAA. This includes a written agreement signed by the hacker and an MPAA executive, according to Ira Rothken, Torrentspy’s attorney.

The MPAA vehemently denied the allegations. “These claims are false,” said Kori Bernards, the MPAA’s vice president of corporate communications. “Torrentspy is trying to obscure the facts to hide the fact that they are facilitating thievery. We are confident that our lawsuit against them will be successful because the law is on our side.”

The MPAA had previously sued several companies, including Torrentspy, IsoHunt, BTHub.com, and TorrentBox.com. These sites merely direct users to works that may be copyrighted, as opposed to the actual file-sharing networks the MPAA has formerly targeted.

Rothken had a rebuttal at the ready for the MPAA’s claims. “We have very significant proof of wrongdoing and the MPAA’s involvement,” Rothken said. “We think it’s ironic for the MPAA to claim that they are protecting the rights of the movie studios and then go out and pirate other people’s property.”

Torrentspy’s lawyer had a few words to say about the hacker, as well. “He’s mitigating the harm that he did,” Rothken said. “He is also allowing us to get a remedy against the MPAA and to help us stop them from using the stolen data.”

This lawsuit could further turn public opinion against the MPAA. It and the similar RIAA have generated strong feelings on both sides of the file-sharing issue.

Torrentspy has requested a trial by jury and is seeking unspecified damages.

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web

Technorati:

Doug is a staff writer for WebProNews. Visit WebProNews for the latest eBusiness news.

Attorneys for Torrentspy likened the service to that of Google when it comes to finding BitTorrent files. Their response cited several cases, including the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in MGM v Grokster.

The defense noted how users of either Google or Torrentspy who look for torrent files must also access a “torrent tracker,” which manages the distribution of files. “There is no allegation that defendants’ website manages file distribution like a tracker,” the response said.

Further into the response, the defense observed how there were no specific allegations of unauthorized downloads from Torrentspy. Attorneys believe they know the reason why this is the case:

Google’s search for “downloads” of copyrighted works like “Batman Beyond” returns links to legal downloads and infringers, the defense observed. This makes Torrentspy no different than Google in their view.

MGM v Grokster appears later in the complaint, used in reference with the defense’s opinion that Torrentspy did not copy, reproduce, or distribute any copyrighted work. To be covered under Grokster, Torrentspy would have had to commit some “actual infringement.”

“The complaint fails to allege any actual infringement whatsoever,” the motion said. The case has been scheduled for May 8, 2006, in US District Court for the Central District of California.

—

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo! My Web

Drag this to your Bookmarks.

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.