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.

Comments

"Hard redirect"

[Megane]

aka "extortion"

Re:"Hard redirect"

[chew8bitsperbyte]

Of course it would. The redirect happens at your ISP's level. Unless you're doing some fancy ICMP tunneling or some such business, you're going to get hit by this regardless of your OS choice.

Re:"Hard redirect"

[sumdumass]

Yes, it would work on almost all browsers and there likely would never be a patch that would get around it. Well not a legal one- you would basically have to hack the authentification system.

The browser is only in play in order to display messages with this. Access control is typically on the hardware level with the packets being redirected to control access. Of course if done by proxy, its a software/hardware combo but the router will not forward packets outside what they allow.

I see some consumer protection laws comming into play. Currently, if they shut you off, you do not continue to be charged. If they keep ylur account active but deny you the internet (which would be neccesary to display the messages) you aren't getting what you payed for. I'm also thinking some RICO statutes might be in play too if it can be determined they colluded in ordr to defraud the consumer.

Re:"Hard redirect"

[sixoh1]

IANAL but this definitely seems to fall within Tortious Interference or similar acts which would serve to break the contract between you and your ISP. Then again there is probably a clause in your ToS which they will attempt to use to allow this based on their "need" to charge Netflix extra for network peering.

Don't forget to read your contract and notifications of change!

Re:"Hard redirect"

[TheDarkMaster]

And the correct way to handle this is to put Rightscorp staff in jail . And if that is not possible, then kill them at first sight with extreme prejudice.

Re:"Hard redirect"

[Adriax]

Yeah. My question is what malware are they stealing the idea from.
Something their CEO caught probably.

Re:"Hard redirect"

[Entrope]

The key element of a tortious interference claim is not the existence of a contract, it is third-party interference with a business or contractual relationship. sixoh1 was suggesting that someone might have a cause of action against Rightscorp, not the ISP, so the ISP's prerogative to terminate customer contracts is not relevant.

Amost sounds like a good deal ...

[BarbaraHudson]

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.

Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ...

[causality]

You cannot prove a negative.

Sure you fucking can. Anything defined in such a way as to exclude other possible definitions can have the latter definitions be proven in the negative just as surely as the former definition can be in the positive.

3 != 4. A triangle is not a square. Red is not blue. Hydrogen is not helium. A dog is not a cat. If the coin landed heads-up, the coin did not land tails-up. If someone was in location A at time T, they could not have been in location B at time T committing crime C. You are not smart.

In your examples you are not actually proving a negative (that something didn't happen). You are proving that something is not possible or could not have happened.


Possible or not possible are easy by comparison. Proving a negative means, "take this thing that really could have possibly happened, and prove that it didn't happen". A shape cannot both be a triangle and a square. A pure color at a single wavelength cannot both be red and blue. You are drastically underestimating the scope of how difficult it is to prove a negative. "This couldn't have happened because it is impossible" is actually a positive claim and as such, can be proven.

Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ...

[Copid]

This sort of makes the statement, "You can't prove a negative," break down into, "You can't prove something that can't be proved." Well, now that's out of the way.

As long as...

[mad-seumas]

they can be sued out of existence for every mistake they make, I'm cool with it.

Re:As long as...

[Harlequin80]

I run my own business from home where the internet is critical. I literally have to stop working if it goes offline. Now I have redundant internet connections because of that but if they turned those off it would be very easy for me to prove substantial losses.

nuisance fee

[bored_engineer]

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?

Re:nuisance fee

[mcl630]

As the article states, it's very rarely only $20... they're charging $20 per song. And yes, they expect you to admit guilt along with the payment.

Re:nuisance fee

[russotto]

Once they've confirmed that I'm willing to pay, how many times will they come back?

You know the answer to that... once you've paid the Danegeld, you'll never get rid of the Dane.

CFAA

[Anonymous Coward]

These Rightscorp asshats should be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and serve multiple-lifetime prison sentences each.

Re:CFAA

[mcl630]

Extortion laws ought to apply here as well.

SMH

[Anonymous Coward]

Cryptolocker malware creators should sue Rightscorp for stealing their idea.

ISPs becoming liable?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Seems to me that any ISP that redirects browser HTTP requests becomes liable to suit from the customers - for substantially more than $20.

wouldn't that be...

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Useful Tip

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Now what could go wrong?

[mikeiver1]

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?"

Re:Now what could go wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for fucks sake, you KNEW what he meant by the post.

Re:Now what could go wrong?

[ruir]

From the ISP point of view, why should I work for free for this bastards, and damage the relationship with my customers?

Re:Tor

[PopeRatzo]

Hey, thanks for that, Mr AC. I didn't know about I2P.

https://thetinhat.com/tutorial...

Unconstitutinal

[techno-vampire]

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.

Re:Unconstitutinal

[sixoh1]

While its nice to think that the Constitution prevents this kind of thing, it is generally ONLY applicable to criminal defense. You can still be indicted, arrested and jailed awaiting trial, and until you enter the courtroom this presumption of innocence doesn't event matter. You only get the benefit from this Constitutional right _AFTER_ you have been through all of the previous steps, so don't expect to pull out your laminated copy of the Bill of Rights as a shield.

In a civil matters, particularly a trial, you are not entitled to automatic presumption of innocence as a defense, and not even a tiny amount of deference is due to you in the exercise and enforcement of a contract you might have with your ISP.

About the only legal protection an individual might have is a class-action lawsuit alleging fraud against the ISP, and that's something that takes years to work its way up to the pain threshold of settlement or trial.

Re:Unconstitutinal

[s.petry]

Correct in concept, wrong in practice. Today you are guilty first, and parallel construction will be used to ensure guilt if someone want's you that way. Unless of course you have a whole lot of money, in which case you will never see charges let alone a trial.

I hope you are right that it never happens, but in practice how long was that porn company extorting money from people? Nobody from the company went to jail for extortion to my knowledge, they were just told by a judge to stop. I'm not going to dig past a summary, you can surely do more if you like.

The point is that you should never say never, especially with the high level of corruption we are seeing in the USA. It may be implemented just to test the waters, I personally would not be shocked.

Re:Unconstitutinal

[Darinbob]

That only applies to the legal system. Rightscorp is bypassing the legal system and instead getting the ISPs to do the work of law enforcement, and with no analogue to the court system. Basically there are three private parties, Rightscorp, the ISP, and the ISP's customer, and any of the three is legally allowed to presume the other two parties are guilty bastards without proof. Also any of the three are able to sue if they feel unfairly treated if they think some laws are being broken, and they can countersue if anyone sues them, if they'd rather spend that kind of money doing so.

Re:Unconstitutinal

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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.

You really do not understand how the US legal system works. I'm not an attorney, but my best friend is. He has taught me a lot about how the legal system really works here. I can assure you that it is indeed quite possible to find a judge who would rule in favor of Rightscorp. Anything can happen in a US court - anything. I know of a case involving a business dispute in my city where an appellate court ruled that the court that decided the case made up the law out of thin air. Think about that - a court was found to have made up the law they ruled on. My friend told me he had never heard of that happening before. The Naxos vs. Capitol case,which had devastating results for those of us who hoped that copyrights might actually expire one day, in my opinion also resulted in a ruling where the court that heard the case made up the law they ruled on out of nothing. If the US Supreme Court was to get some kind of hypothetical case where the law technically was very clear and required a certain ruling but actually giving that ruling would destroy the United States, plunge it into civil war and directly lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people, at least 4 members of the current court would shrug their shoulders and give that ruling, acting powerless to do anything else. There were all kinds of crazy decisions made by courts allowing mass mailings of infringement notices some years ago and that was probably as big a violation of due process as is even possible, yet it took years before judges in general began to oppose the practice. And this isn't even getting into the practice of having juries decide complex patent cases. All I can tell you is that if you haven't served on a jury, you really cannot even comprehend how stupid and technically challenged many if not most jury members are.

The 4th amendment... RIP

[fyngyrz]

This is why we Americans now have the Fourth Amendment, requiring due process (with various levels of proof) before interfering with someone's life.

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.

Doing it wrong.

[Nyder]

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!!!!

metaphors

[Tom]

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.