Slashdot Mirror
Rightscorp's New Plan: Hijack Browsers Until Infingers Pay Up
A few weeks ago, Rightscorp announced plans to have ISPs disconnect repeat copyright infringers. mpicpp (3454017) wrote in with news that Rightscorp announced during their latest earnings call further plans to require ISPs to block all web access (using a proxy system similar to hotel / college campus wifi logins) until users admit guilt and pay a settlement fine (replacing the current system of ISPs merely forwarding notices to users). Quoting TorrentFreak: [Rightscorp] says 75,000 cases have been settled so far with copyright holders picking up $10 from each. ... What is clear is that Rightscorp is determined to go after "Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cable Vision and one more" in order to "get all of them compliant" (i.e forwarding settlement demands). The company predicts that more details on the strategy will develop in the fall, but comments from COO & CTO Robert Steele hint on how that might be achieved. ...
"[What] we really want to do is move away from termination and move to what's called a hard redirect, like, when you go into a hotel and you have to put your room number in order to get past the browser and get on to browsing the web."
The idea that mere allegations from an anti-piracy company could bring a complete halt to an entire household or business Internet connection until a fine is paid is less like a "piracy speeding ticket" and more like a "piracy wheel clamp", one that costs $20 to have removed.
aka "extortion"
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
If you download stuff that the rights-holders don't want to sell you, and you end up paying $20, of which $10 goes to the copyright holder, that's pretty damn decent.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
they can be sued out of existence for every mistake they make, I'm cool with it.
none of my fingers are going to pay up.
It's what's for dinner.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The trouble is, that this is just a nuisance fee. I can pay $20 out-of-pocket to make a bogus "piracy claim" go away. I'm sure, though, that they'll include contractual language asserting my guilt, even though I've never downloaded from The Pirate Bay or its ilk. Once they've confirmed that I'm willing to pay, how many times will they come back? The article mentioned settling accounts exceeding $300 for multiple "infringements."
Also, how are they going to convince my ISP, with whom I have both an ongoing relationship and competitive alternatives, to do this?
These Rightscorp asshats should be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and serve multiple-lifetime prison sentences each.
So, if I say that I have evidence that you're using water flowing into your house to make drugs, I guess you're absolutely fine with having that water cut off until you can prove that you're not indeed using it to make drugs. If you are making drugs, I guess you're ok with your family going thirsty even though it's not their crime.
Cryptolocker malware creators should sue Rightscorp for stealing their idea.
Seems to me that any ISP that redirects browser HTTP requests becomes liable to suit from the customers - for substantially more than $20.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"The Computer Misuse Act (1990) was introduced to help deal with the problems caused by the misuse of computers and communication systems, especially that of âhacking' and âunauthorised access.' The Act introduced three offences; it is illegal for any unauthorised person to access programs or data, the unauthorised modification of that data, and having unauthorised access with further criminal intent."
Seems clearly within the description of this law.
If I can't use it?
A top-notch, full-speed, multi-country VPN service can be had for $40/year, with $20/year deals available if you shop around a bit.
Only if they have common carrier status... ISP's do not. At least in the USA..
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So just how would one handle the issue of not ever having ever downloaded any copyrighted content and still having gotten locked out wrongly? Oh yah, just pay the $20.00 fee and then challenge it later to get reimbursed....SURE! This friends is the business model of the future of entertainment. Grab your ankles and say "thank you sir, may I have another?"
Sneakernet.
Try and stop that, you pathetic bloodsucking turds.
I walk around with a 128GB flash drive full of all kinds of goodness,
and I charge nothing and I share it ALL. Take that and shove it up
your cunt, Rightscorp.
I don't know how it works in other countries, but here in the USofA, there's a little thing known as "the presumption of innocence," meaning that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This does the exact opposite by assuming that anybody who's accused must be guilty and penalizing them without allowing them to present a defense. No judge would ever be stupid enough to rule in favor of Rightscorp, making the idea DOA at best, even if they don't get sued into bankruptcy the first time they try to enforce it.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
It's implied that I've paid their extortion fees I'm free to download as much as I want. Right? Sure it costs a bit more than Netflix but TPB has a better selection anyway...
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Isn't this just another problem for encrypted darknets to solve?
I note in the OP that they are focussed on "Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cable Vision and one more" which is basically means they are only going to bother with cable providers that have localised monopolies where subscribers can't just switch to a new ISP.
While that may work where cable monopolies exist (i.e. USA) it would fail utterly in markets where xDSL is the more predominant carriage method as most people would just churn from one ISP to the next rather than pay a "fine" and admit guilt, especially if the "fine(s)" add up to more than the cost of changing.
Dan. -- So what if it's spelt wrong, nobody's perfect
Well, but that was a while ago. Now the legal system is using rationales like "hey, your MONEY doesn't have any rights, so we don't need due process to seize it, just suspicion" and also "terrorism", "you are on this list", and the big winner, "I think I'll just shoot you" (and often your dog, even, every once in a while, your cat), plus "we like searching your finances and communications without a warrant, so we do (IRS, NSA, DEA, other TLAs)", etc.
You gotta keep up a little better.
Also, the 4th constrains the federal government. With significant optimism poured on the 14th amendment, plus a judge who hasn't received his most recent bribes, the 4th also constrains state governments. It does not, however, constrain corporations or individuals. That is, of course, if anyone was still paying it serious notice, which is clearly not the case anyway.
This stuff actually depends upon civil law, and there, the rules are *completely* different and not at all what you expect. Or will enjoy. Civil law exists specifically so the system can hammer you in the event that criminal law is not up to the job. Any other usefulness is wholly coincidental.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I'd really love to see them do this to somebody who takes them to court for it. Rightscorp and the ISP will have to prove the guilty party is the account owner. If they can't, then they still have to prove who the guilty party is, and make them pay. It's called burden of proof. This company is simply attempting to circumvent the U.S. legal system because in most cases, they won't be able to prove who was downloading the copyrighted material.
The problem is rooted in the fact that an IP address is not the same as an individual. Take for example, a household of Dad, Mom, and two children. Which device in the house was used to download the copyrighted material? Which individual was using that device at the time? How does anyone know if maybe a family friend was visiting and used the device? Is it possible that a trojan or other malware was on the device and did it without any user consent? The company would have to be able to prove which individual was using the device that was downloading the material at the time it was downloaded, and probably need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was downloaded with the user's consent. Determining all that, is next to impossible in almost all the cases.
Rightscorp & The ISP's case, is very weak if anyone challenges it.
suppose you run a vpn from home. they can't easily put a redirect in when its not port 80 (etc) traffic.
wonder what they plan to do with us vpn guys?
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Robert Steele is not a god. But maybe someone could prove me wrong?
You don't want to cut off their web browsing, you want to cut their power. Get the electric companies to cut the power till they pay up. Can't download or watch them infringing files with no power.
Cut the power!!!!
Be seeing you...
Only a matter of time before Rightscorp gets sued. No one will get their $20, but the lawyers will win and Rightscorp will end up with a nice bill.
Revolution is the opium of the intellectuals.
is less like a "piracy speeding ticket" and more like a "piracy wheel clamp"
No, it is not. A wheel clamp is attached by police, i.e. the executive branch of the government elected by the people. Like it or hate it, it's part of the democratic system and it is authorized to do this.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If that gets to be a problem they can always just block all traffic except for the payment site.
Windows?
Consider from their point of view with MPAA, RIAA and other trolls constantly harassing them. They cannot police their users. They often turn over lists of IP addresses and customers.
This would allow ISPs to turn over traffic inspection, enforcement, and resolution, and let someone else deal with the headache.
I can see large ISPs having teams to deal with these issues, but small ISPs having their hands forced :(
Dunno, but we should all get a tab and drop by Rightscorp to let them know how we feel about them.
http://www.rightscorp.com/cont... I personally found it exhilarating.
BOMBS AWAY!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
This sort of thing is best handled by turning their weapon against them. If a corp can block anyone's internet connection because they maybe pirated something - then you can do the same. We all create "content". Write an essay - or a forum posting. Or take a picture. Whoops - content! Now you can troll arround just like that corp. Claim that someone pirated your stuff.
And who to bother? Anyone in Rightscorp and their friends and families would be a good start. Also, anyone in the justice system; cops, lawyers, judges. And the corporations themselves - corps are "persons" and can surely have internet access revoked by their ISPs.
People in power won't like to loose internet access themselves. So striking back like this will either have the law repealed - or strict punishment for falsely claiming piracy. In the latter case, apply that punishment to trigger-happy corps. You win either way.
This actually sounds like a brilliant savings plan to me. Now I can pirate all that I want for $10/mo. I can consolidate Spotify, Netflix, Hulu....
We have freedoms because others fought for them; either pay it forward when your turn comes, or stop complaining, because by caving in, you're part of the problem.
Sometimes "paying it forward" just means inconvenience. Sometimes it costs money. Sometimes it means more ... it's for each person to decide - and if they want to make that decision based on a cost-benefit analysis ("it costs more to fight than to give in") rather than what's right or wrong, that's their decision - but it means their principles are for sale.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So what if I only have an ubuntu server running at my house with no graphical browser.... I don't think Lynx is up to the task.
"This site has been blocked because it has been determined by Web Reputation Filters to be a security threat to your computer or the corporate network. This web site has been associated with malware/spyware."
Love it.
It is unwise to ascribe motive
"[What] we really want to do is move away from termination and move to what's called a hard redirect,
Is this a fancy phrase for extortion?
Not "sheeple" so much as having other pressing financial concerns. If your money is being driven towards home repairs, car repairs, medical costs, and trying to maintain a decent standard of living (not extravagant but putting food on the table and clothes on your family) despite rising costs of living and non-rising-to-match salaries, you aren't going to have the money to hire a lawyer and you aren't going to have the time to take off of work to fight a court case. Unfortunately, our legal system is set up so that fighting for your rights takes money that many people don't have. So if you sue someone and offer a quick low-cost settlement, they will take it because it's the one that will eat less of their precious income.
Just because someone can't afford to do X doesn't mean that person is a "sheeple" for not doing it. Especially if doing X would cost money that instead is being used to feed their family and put a roof over their head.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Watch as I refuse to pay my internet bill due to my internet no longer working. Why would an ISP agree to such a thing?
... and your argument depends on people being sheeple.
By and large, people don't have the time, money, or knowledge to challenge petty nonsense like this. But it's still morally wrong to have a system in place where a mere accusation results in an actual punishment.
I wish more people would fight it, but they demonstrably won't. Does that make any of this right? Absolutely not. This company should be punished severely.
"No man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation." -- General Douglas MacArthur.
That's practical advice. None of this makes it right. You absolutely have a right to complain when someone does unethical things like this.
Is apparently heavily involved with this company: https://www.google.com/finance...
He is a regular speaker at HOPE, and tries to stay involved with open source and hacker communities, and is a looney tune. It's gotten to the point where people who attend his talks play "the Robert Steele drinking game" and have to drink whenever he makes ludicrous unsupportable claims.
If the company is doing wrong to so many people, then there's always a shark willing to take 30% for a class action. Now, what the company is doing is not illegal if they have proof of illegal downloading. To the contrary, it's better to have only violators pay rather than all users pay a "piracy tax" like we do now on CDs and other storage media. Why should you or I pay for someone else's actions?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
If the company is doing wrong to so many people, then there's always a shark willing to take 30% for a class action.
Not good enough. Subverting the court system that provides checks and balances is simply a fundamentally flawed and morally wrong idea to me and other freedom-minded individuals.
To the contrary, it's better to have only violators pay rather than all users pay a "piracy tax" like we do now on CDs and other storage media. Why should you or I pay for someone else's actions?
I don't, so here's an idea: Reject both ideas, because they're both unjust. Defeating false dichotomies is easy.
Rightscorp was harassing me for a time because my phone number once belonged to an Army Sgt. who, apparently, violated a copyright. I shudder to think what could happen to other innocents.
We see grannies in Kiev dodging bullets to fight for basic freedoms, and we're too unmotivated, too helpless, to even take a stand on minor irritants that, if unopposed, just encourage others to do come up with similar tactics to bleed us dry by the death of a thousand cuts? I simply don't buy it.
That's why I'm saying that we have a duty to ensure our rights continue to be respected. All rights come with duties, responsibilities, or obligations. Freedom simply isn't free.
I'm not saying this as idle speech. I've taken quite a few hits for standing up for people's rights. One of the latest examples is the ongoing battle between 100 tenants and the new landlords, who want to kick everyone out and integrate the 4 buildings into a housing co-op with significant rent increases. At the public meeting on October 31st, I tore apart their claims that they could unilaterally terminate the tenants leases without cause, and pointed out that what they claimed was "the maximum compensation permitted by law" wasn't even the minimum. To try to shut me up, their director proceeded to me as a transsexual to all my neighbours who were at the meeting, as well as others. That's the sort of toothpaste that not only can't be stuffed back in the tube, but spread quickly through the community. Between December and January I was assaulted 3 times. Connection?
2 weeks ago the director had to publish a public notice. In the largest daily newspaper. In the regular news section. It reads, in part, "I, Daniel Lefebvre, sincerely apologize to Madame Barbara Hudson if I I offended her in any way with words making reference to her transsexuality at the information meeting for residents of Anthony Street."
It's one thing to be out on slashdot (2006, iirc), quite another in my own community. I paid the price for standing up for my neighbours and I'd do it again, even though it's caused quite a bit of friction in the family. After all, it's everyone's duty to "pay it forward" out of respect for the men and women who throughout history have fought to give us the rights we have today. Those who won't because it's "too inconvenient" are pissing on the sacrifices of previous generations.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Well, why NOT have violators pay? You speed, you get caught, you pay. You steal, you get caught, you pay. You kill someone, you get caught, you pay. In all these examples, there are exceptions for mitigating circumstances. If you're speeding because you have a passenger who needs to get to the hospital ASAP or they die ... If you steal because someone's holding a relative hostage ... If you kill someone in self-defense ...
The current situation requires everyone to pay for illegal downloaders via levies on storage media and devices that incorporate storage media. I don't illegally download, why should I be penalized by those levies? And why shouldn't illegal downloaders, when caught, not be held accountable for their actions, barring any mitigating circumstances?
There have always been, and always will be, those who are falsely accused, whether it's speeding, theft, or murder. We don't deal with this by refusing to bring charges against anybody, ever, but by allowing everyone to have their day in court. To do otherwise would be to subvert the justice system, and the public of their rights to recourse. How would you like it if there were no laws against theft? Or doing 150 in a school zone? Or bumping someone off, 'just cuz'?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Class action lawsuits don't subvert the court system
No, they don't, but then again, I didn't say they did. Rightscorp's scheme is what doesn't use the court system, and their scheme is immoral.
The current situation requires everyone to pay for illegal downloaders via levies on storage media and devices that incorporate storage media. I don't illegally download, why should I be penalized by those levies?
Take that up with the copyright thugs.
And why shouldn't illegal downloaders, when caught, not be held accountable for their actions, barring any mitigating circumstances?
Take them to *court* if you want them punished. Don't just have the ISP try to force them to cough up money based on an accusation and faulty evidence. This shit should go to court, and nowhere else. That's what pretty much everyone is saying.