Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Piracy Firm Rightscorp Will Hijack Pirates' Browsers Until a Fine is Paid (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Anti-piracy firm Rightscorp says that it's working on a next-generation technology called Scalable Copyright, under which it plans to extract cash settlements from suspected Internet pirates. The company says its new technology will lock users' browsers and prevent Internet access until they pay a fine. (Sounds familiar?) To encourage ISPs to play along, Rightscorp says the system could help to limit their copyright liability. For those unaware, Rightscorp works with copyright owners such as movie studios, music labels, and game developers, and tracks the IP addresses of people who are torrenting copyright infringing material. Sadly, the company's previous tactics haven't worked so well. The company doesn't have many clients, and it posted a net loss of $3.43m in 2015, up from the $2.85m net loss recorded in 2014.
I stand corrected: From Wikipedia: Theft, meanwhile, emphasizes the potential commercial harm of infringement to copyright holders. However, copyright is a type of intellectual property, an area of law distinct from that which covers robbery or theft, offenses related only to tangible property. Not all copyright infringement results in commercial loss, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1985 that infringement does not easily equate with theft.
" I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft."
NO its is NOT THEFT. How can you have a conversation about copyright when you cant even get your terms straight. You cannot use the word theft in this context. You MUST use the word 'infringement' or you are not engaging in an honest discussion. Copyright infringement is NOT theft, come back with a proper argument.
Good-bye
Making or downloading a copy is generally not a criminal action. Distributing a copy is the criminal action.
However downloading a copy does open you to civil lawsuits.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blott...
Currently, copyright enforcers focus on highly active people but there is always a chance you'll be sued for being unlucky for the one download you made ever in your life.
However, the copyright enforcers have some barriers to overcome.
1) The concept that "an i.p. is the same as a fingerprint" has been killed so they have to prove it was you that did the download.
2) They need to have evidence that the data is in your possession.
3) Which means they are going to engage in an expensive legal process to have a warrant served by sheriffs who enter your house and take your computing equipment.
4) But be aware that even if it wasn't you, the file isn't on your computer, etc. etc., you could still be out thousands of dollars in legal fees.
So they mostly focus on heavy downloaders since suing a single mom for something the teenage neighbor downloaded thru their unsecured wi-fi is bad publicity
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It's worked for Jaguar, copying Aston Martin ... save on those design and prototyping costs.
So, instead of having a $200k Aston, you get an $80k Jag.
The chief designer at Jaguar is Ian Callum, who previously designed for Aston Martin.
RR