[pp.int.general] Anti-Piracy Cash Operation

Andrew Norton ktetch at gmail.com
Mon Nov 16 21:22:21 CET 2009

Nope, sorry, it can NEVER be entrapment.

First of all, a civil company can never entrap. Not under UK law.
a) It HAS to be a member of law enforcement, or at their behest.
b) it has to be a criminal act, this is civilly actionable, not criminal.
c) they must entice the target to do the action that they would not
otherwise have done.

To clarify A, a snitch working for the police would count, if he is
doing it at their behest (ie a sting operation)
for B, well, copyright infringement is a civil matter in the UK,
except for monitary gain. That's why in the oink raid, for instance,
the police were told Alan was selling access, which made it a criminal
And for C, this is what people don't understand very well. Imagine
drug dealing. If I went up to one, and said "can you get me some blow
[cocaine], I've got money for you if you can" that would be enticing
him. If instead I said "What have you got?" <answer> "Ok, how much for
that?" That is not enticing, as I've not encouraged him to commit a

These cases fail on all three aspects. It's something that's brought
up every time TorrentFreak runs a report on this, and it's the same
answer each time.

Also, MediaDefender was a bad example of a company for Type A - they
never did any logging, they did mostly swarm poisoning, and some fake

And yes, I've been doing research on them for almost 2 years. I'll
happily sign NDAs.


On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM, coretx <coretx at gmail.com> wrote:
> On the "entrapment" they are using various tricks for this.
> Example,
> Company A, in Jurisdiction A does the entrapment.
> Company A provides "proof" to company "B" that resides in jurisdiction "B".
> Company C f*cks over pirates using data from "B", while being in
> jurisdiction D.
> In some jurisdictions, entrapment is legal. And in some cases it's hard to
> proof that it is "entrapment".
> In case "B" is being trapped on using entrapment, they destroy it, and setup
> a company Z.
> A typical type "A" company is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaDefender
> And you already know the story behind it. Including the "trade secrets"
> argument being used.
> Ofcourse, that's just one  the constructions in a nutshell. Also, Davenport
> Lyons is notorious for using every dirty trick in the book.
> Once, i was invited to the offices of one of their "clients". Because the
> wanted to "learn" from me and a friend,
> after my friend "settled" ( legal extortion ) with them. However, it turned
> out to be a trap. Luring us into another country, other legislation.
> And f*ck us over there, or so they planned.This was about mimicking a
> protocol, and applying it within a home network.
> Plus, writing guides for people so that they could learn howto to do it
> themselves. ( Basically doing nothing but filtering and replacing
> advertisement
> data between 2 devices on a local home network. )
> "By accident" i got my hands on a database of one of Davenports Lyons
> biggest clients.
> And some case examples.
> If someone is doing research on them, i could easily arrange xs.
> However, a NDA needs to be signed before transferring the data.
> N.B Keep in mind that this is just experience talk. If you really want to
> know what is going on, talk to some lawyers.
> On Nov 16, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Nicolas Sahlqvist wrote:
>> I stumbled over a interesting article about the leaked documents about the
>> Anti-Piracy Cash Operation that seems to be initiated by the MAFIAA
>> movement, they actually make a business model in sending threats of
>> copyright infringement to people and it is generating a LOT of money (150
>> times more profitable then legal sales!) as the articles explains:
>> http://torrentfreak.com/leaked-documents-reveal-anti-piracy-cash-operation-091115/
>> http://torrentfreak.com/illegal-downloads-150x-more-profitable-than-legal-sales-091009/
>> http://torrentfreak.com/new-anti-piracy-lawyers-chase-uk-file-sharers-090508/
>> http://torrentfreak.com/youre-caught-downloading-dream-pinball-settle-now-or-go-broke/
>> The leaked document actually shows that the firm chasing file-sharers are
>> actually putting copyrighted content on the P2P networks in the 1st place
>> so
>> is that not entrapment? I doubt these methods are 100% legal..
>> http://www.wikileaks.com/wiki/Davenport_Lyons_and_DigiProtect_Actionpoints_for_filesharers%2C_14_Jan_2009
>> - Nicolas
>>  PPI / PPSE member
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list