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.
... this is a prime example.
Installing a fucking piece of malware you fucking twits, you've literally reinvented cryptolock trojans, Slow clap for you. Not only is this not feasible (you'd have to bribe EVERY security researcher and pay to get whitelisted on EVERY AV site) unless you work a deal with the browser creators. And hey, I don't know about anyone else, but I certainly don't pay for a fucking browser, so there's no benefit from them adopting this unless having a lower userbase is something they are interested in. Here's a fucking CRAZY idea. Give us the content we want the way we want at a reasonable price. I'm 100% confident that would work, and be cheaper than whatever asshat ideas your NON ENGINEERS can dream up after a long night of doing whippits.
They want to be be internet tough guy vigilantes.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Nope, that's too simple. They deserve to slide into oblivion, watching their business model fall to obscurity, while they eventually get caught up in litigation for the blackmail tactics they've burned consumers with.
I want to check out their website http://www.rightscorp.com/ and it's not loading.
I keep clicking refresh over and over and over and its still not loading .....
Hmmmmmm I wonder why?
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
of the Sony rootkit fiasco, or back when the MPAA used to pay people to DOS file sharers
Good luck with tracking ip's on technology like LTE. IP leases only typically last a few hours. Most ISP's likely aren't going to pay someone to baby sit lease requests and given that these copyright holders preform abuse requests with no set standard for the information it's very hard to script a automated system to handle them.
-Pizentios
How would it limit liability? Don't they have a long history of let us remove whatever we wan't and then we will sue you into oblivion anyway after you have done everything we asked?
Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
In the absence of some sort of legal judgement allowing these thugs to shake people down for cash, doesn't this just go by the plain old-fashioned name of "extortion"?
Wait, I've missed the bigger picture here! Apparently all the crypto-locker authors just need to make up a random crime to accuse people of, and then their ransomware becomes perfectly kosher, right?
Time to go write an "anti-piracy" app that only targets Rightscorp!
"No your honor. These files were retrieved via FTP not torrent."
Well, To be an advocate for the devil: Being a software developer myself, I'd imagine i would be pretty upset of my software was taken without concent and compensation for use elsewhere. The companies right haven have as clients do make intellectual property, and I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft. It's not like driving some else's car, since in this case the original owner retains a copy; it's like taking some else's car design and using it to build your own car without their consent. Now, what I disagree with in this case is two private companies arranging a punishment based on someone's illegal activities. I believe whole-heartedly that punishment can only be at the hands of the justice system. That's what it's there for. If you believe someone stole your property, you should sue them in court. You should have to prove your case, and you should ask the justice system for damages and/or punishment of some kind. But as a society, we can not allow private enterprise to be judge, jury, and executioner because that amounts to vigilante justice. We can all agree that we'd be better off with the justice system, can't we? These content owners really should be hiring a law firm to sue these infringers in court, and should have to pay court fees to do so, and should seek damages, and should have to prove their case!
There's no honor among thieves.
Also, how on earth is this not very very illegal?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
How could that possibly be legal under the CFAA?
Sounds like criminal tampering with someone else's computer to me. If this happened to me I know I would tell RightsCorp, "Of course I did nothing wrong and infringed no copyrights you are in error, but by the way if you ever even think of filing any complain against me, I'll be on the DOJ tip line so fast it will make your head spin. I'll be in writing editorials everywhere you can imagine about how you guys appear to be committing federal computer crimes against innocent members of the public. "
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Wow vigilante hacking with no legal burden of proof and so they can run a shakedown racket?
Sorry, this is an asshole copyright troll, who has consistently demonstrated they lie about owning copyrights, who make illegal shakedown requests, and expect to do this with zero evidentiary standard, and have ISPs put in the infrastructure to support it.
Sorry, assholes. You have no legal basis to do this, and if you do it's hard to see how this won't get you some actual criminal charges. They want to make claims for which there is no basis in law, and for which they do not have a legal right to make.
Then again, putting these clowns in jail under a RICO conviction would be awesome.
These guys can't even convince judges they're not a scam, because they are a scam. The idiots who run Rightscorp are nothing more than crooks and thieves abusing the legal process to send shakedown notices about infringements they aren't in a legal position to be pursuing.
They're lying bastards, and any ISP which lets them tie into anything is likely going to open themselves to some major legal action.
This is just delusional bullshit PR by a company who greatly overstates their legal position here.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft. It's not like driving some else's car, since in this case the original owner retains a copy; it's like taking some else's car design and using it to build your own car without their consent.
No we can't all agree on that. I don't see anything wrong with taking someone else's car design. I don't necessarily agree that intellectual property in the copyright sense has any value. While the patent system is in need of reform I do see some value there in encouraging invention. If car design does not advance the art and technology of car design in any patentable way than I see no reason at all why anyone else should be denied its use. Now if you do some actual R&D and come up with novel and improved way to do something as a result and integrate it into your design yes I would agree you should have a limited time right to license that.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft
No, it's not theft, it's copyright violation. There's no good reason to confuse the two concepts.
I'm pretty sure someone breaking the law is not an excuse for you to also break the law.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I agree with you especially since they want to hijack suspect pirates' browsers.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
This sounds like a great business model: Let's post losses for years one end, and see how well that works for us.
I'm sure they're losing a little on each transaction, but they're planning to make it up in volume!
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
What are you talking about? A design has usefulness and therefore value just as utility patents do. If they didn't have value, there would be no reason for someone else to use it. By copying the car design, you see some value in it, and should compensate the designer appropriately, it's their design!
constitutes hacking, gross misdemeanor under a 20+ year old law, 90 days and $2000 per instance if I remember correctly.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Sure, you can't just make everyone install a browser, but you can have a forced windows update that puts this right into the kernel. They already do it with a "punk-buster"esque anti-cheat engine and for DRM, why not add anti-piracy? Sure it won't stop the hardcore 'nix folks, but it will stop little jimmy from not paying for his music and entertainment.
I have 6 different browsers, which one will they try to block?
Not to mention, that 95% of my stuff gets downloaded automatically by uTorrent from TvRSS, no browsers involved,
By copying the car design, you see some value in it, and should compensate the designer appropriately, it's their design!
That's one way of looking at it. Alternatively, you could say that any car manufacturer can copy the other's design, just like scientists can copy each other's ideas. I'm not sure that we'd end up worse that way.
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.
So they're going to just bypass all that pesky legal stuff like people's rights and impose punishment on people who haven't even been arrested or had their day in court? Sounds to me like vigilantism at best, or quite a bit like cybercrime or cyberterrorism at worst. Sounds to me like they're the ones who need to be arrested by the FBI, not alleged 'copyright infringers'.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I can't access that site from work, so please pardon me if this question was addressed.
How are they going to do this in the United States without committing a federal felony?
Some adware/spyware gets a legal pass because it's bundled with other software and its installation is "authorized" when the user accepts the terms/EULA. Without consent, they cannot legally install anything.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Can you say 'money laundering' and 'tax evasion'? Can it be any more obvious?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I suspect that Rightscorp will not, in fact, be able to hijack browsers until a fine is paid due to myriad technological and legal issues.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
...is what all the Russian proxy services going to do when all their IPs are blocked?
Theft != IP violation. This has been something the *AAs have been trying to confuse for decades now. Read the many, many threads on this issue before stepping out with the same cow waste we have been reading. I never hear someone calling jaywalking the same as murder, nor speeding the same as homicide.
Yes, IP violations are an infringement, but it is more akin to someone sitting on a fence overlooking a stadium and freeloading than actual theft (where something salable has been deprived.) Yes, the owner may feel they were deprived a sale, but legally, there is still a difference.
There is a difference between IP infringement types. Someone copying a movie and playing it in a theater without paying the royalties is a different issue than someone grabbing a movie from a torrent and playing that, or someone copying a DVD to their hard disk to play on their phone during a long trip.
Want to know how to handle IP infringement? This is what governments are set up to do. Have a clearinghouse paid for by taxes, and peoples works who are downloaded or used from there, the owner gets paid by that number. Yes, there is a lot of tuning, and the system can be abused, but it decriminalizes the primary form of IP infringement out there.
That what corporations do to protect their interests?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
" 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
I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft
No, I don't agree with that.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
I'm confused. It sounds like you are totally opposed to what they're doing, and calling them out on their absurd bullshit. This is like saying, "Hey, people are flaming Trump for being a piece of shit and an embarrassment to America, but to play devil's advocate, he is a piece of shit and an embarrassment to America."
You need to practice more at this devil's advocate thing. It is a damn fun thing to do, but you're got to do it right, or else it doesn't work at all.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
A utility patent has some utility (e.g. usefulness), thus its name. A design patent lacks that utility.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
even though I'm against piracy, this is certainly NOT legal, this falls in the same category as actual mallware/ransomware which in many countries is illegal.. Especially with ransomware these days, you can bet your ass that some other asswipe will use it (their logo/message) to extort money..
consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft.
No. It's not. This is also far too broad of a definition of 'consumption without consent'. Consent is what exactly?
It's not like driving some else's car, since in this case the original owner retains a copy; it's like taking some else's car design and using it to build your own car
This is called a free market. You can't pass off your car as an original 'Chevy Malibu', but certainly all cars have 4 wheels, a steering wheel, turn signals etc.
without their consent.
Again, what, exactly, is consent here?
Now, what I disagree with in this case is two private companies arranging a punishment based on someone's illegal activities. I believe whole-heartedly that punishment can only be at the hands of the justice system
Of this I completely agree. In today's era of SJW activity it's hardly unusual.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
No, no, let them live. It's free money for anyone who they try to extort.
I'm not sure how they think they can get away with such behaviour, but malware is malware and they're going to be in a shitload of trouble if they start damaging people's computers, regardless of whether or not that person is distributing copyrighted software.
People who are at the origin of intellectual creation have to come to term with one very simple fact: they lose any kind of proprietary rights the moment they release their creation to the public (whatever it is you've made, however it inspires me, what's inside my head isn't yours). That is the very nature of such things. What society has decided is to grant them a monopoly in the reproduction rights of said work. Of course, when compared with what this right was originally, it has been abused on a scale beyond imagination (but commensurate with the wish most people have to get a rent of whatever kind forever).
That's fair enough. But if your software shows me an FBI warning for 15 seconds every time I start it, has embedded ads that cannot be skipped, only runs on certain kinds of computers "because piracy", and is not available in some countries or priced very differently there for arbitrary (not legal) reasons, then it's off to the Pirate bay for a copy that has all those stupid restrictions removed. Copyright is a privilege granted by society, and it's high time that society starts setting a few reasonable conditions of its own. Fair use, format shifting and ripping, and reasonable availability are just a few.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
So they will kill any chance they have at suing you by using illegal extortion tactics. I say go for it. They have no legal right to demand money form you without a court order.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
If you mean you'd copy it the same way one car manufacturer might copy the design of another manufacturer's car, I'd say go for it. It's not like the design details are published in a read-and-reproduce format, you don't get the CNC instructions to cut the stamps and molds used in the production, you don't even have a paper with basic measurements available. You have to get your hands on the actual physical car and derive all of that yourself (and any variation thereof makes your design its own unique derivative, rather than a copy), which is every bit as much work as taking the actual designer's clay model and translating it into a real object. The only work saved, then, is that of the designer doing their day or two worth of sketches and maybe a week on a clay model; the remaining several thousand man-hours still need to be spent in measuring, documenting, tooling, testing, correcting, lather, rinse, repeat, until the copy is identical to the original. If someone would rather do all of that than come up with their own original design, well, I would welcome them to do it.
Keep in mind, before you respond, that DarkOx specifically mentioned the difference between design and utility. If my design includes something novel (and patented), like a unique mechanism for automatically-adjusting front and rear spoilers, that would be utility rather than design. You'd be welcome to copy every element of the design, including the body of the vehicle and the shape and default placement of the spoilers, but you'd have to either implement them as fixed spoilers or develop your own adjustment mechanism. Of course, I'd be happy to license my adjustment mechanism to you for a relatively small fee, with a clause in the license stipulating that you must integrate it into your own design and/or license my design (of course at a much larger fee). The difference between that contract and the social contract that is Copyright, of course, is that we'd have sat down at a table and negotiated it and I'd have your signature on paper stating that you agree not to use my design without compensation in exchange for the right to use my adjustment mechanism.
Consideration is a huge part of any contract, some would say the most important part. The consideration due the public in the social contract that is Copyright was that, after 14 years, the work would belong to the public. That consideration has been removed, rendering the contract void.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
So you think it's ok to go vigilante and run an extortion racket. Because that is what this is.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
No, it's not theft, it's copyright violation. There's no good reason to confuse the two concepts.
I don't know if there's a good reason, but there's a useful reason. It allows people like the RIAA and MPAA to justify things like suing their customers, or installing ransomware on their computers.
You know, I just thought of a fun thing for developers to do. If someone inputs a known bogus serial to unlock your software - bam! - you install some ransomware! They've just authenticated for you when they installed, right? (unless they have the sense to install apps in their Home directory). Now you hold their data ransom for $15, or whatever, and fill their monitor with scary 8-bit graphics until they pay up. Hilarious, am I right?
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Well... if the person actually IS distributing copyrighted material that would come out in court if they decide to fight...
It may end up costing the person more in the end.
I am guessing they are relying on the old "make the cost less than that of hiring a lawyer" strategy that patent trolls use.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
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.
Why does this text begin with the word " Sadly "? It is certainly not the word that I would use.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
It isn't malware like you think it is. The ISP just redirects your web requests to Rightscorps servers until you pay the fine. Comcast already will inject HTTP into your traffic with copyright notices.
What you don't eat your DVD after watching it?
That's just it it isn't theft. I haven't taken anything away from you. You failed to provide me with a legal method to view your product and you under capitalized your selling. If you were not an idiot and properly sold your product I wouldn't have to find other means of acquiring it.
In software pirates versions are stable and more functional than the broken dem laden versions.
In movies you can't charge $50 a movie ticket and expect sales to be the same as when you charged $ 10 a ticket. Why are you charging me more for an HD version vs SD version of the same movie? You filmed it in HD the SD version cost more as it if to be cut down. But you charge more for the less work used to make the HD version.
The same goes for DVD's. Vs on demand rentals.
Piracy is an economic problem. If your product is suffering from piracy you are failing to captialize on potentional markets properly.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
I'm confused... wasn't April Fools 3 days ago?
I have comcast and when I run a vpn, they can TRY to inject all they want. it bounces off the side (lol).
then again, they disconnect me when I use my vpn and I have to have an auto 'redial' script that pings gateways and reboots the modem when comcrap decides I used enough opaque bw for the day.
https needs to be everywhere, so that rogue isp's can't fuck with your stream. they want to. we can't let them.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
The CEO of this company is the Chief Exec of the Jerry Garcia estate. The hippies have grown up!
So they want to bypass any proof of wrong-doing, any proper due process, and just be able to assert you infringed and you need to pay.
Sorry, but that is complete bullshit.
Rightscorp isn't in a legal position to impose "fines".
This is a shakedown racket, pure and simple, and Rightscorp wants the right to have ISPs act as the collection muscle with absolutely ZERO standard of proof.
I'm sorry, but we'd trust the assholes at Rightscorp to make these assertions without backing them up with proof, why, exactly?
This isn't a fine, it's fucking protection money which comes with it an implicit admission of guilt. No way in hell there is any legal basis for that.
Doing anything to legitimize these lying bastards is a terrible idea.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
This is EXACTLY what they are counting on. Suppose I were sued for downloading/distributing Random Movie via this method. They lock my browser (how, I have no clue) and I can't go online. Now, let's also suppose that I was innocent. Perhaps their software was flawed (I was distributing a public domain movie clip called "Just Another Random Movie") or maybe there was a typo in the IP address entry (entered .215 when they should have entered .251). In any event, they were accusing me without merit.
My recourse would be to respond to their accusation by hiring a lawyer, mounting a "Not Guilty" defense, and hoping that they didn't sway the judge with technical sounding (but ultimately false) evidence. I'd have to hope that my lawyer would work pro-bono during this case, would need to endure the media looking into my private life and labeling me some sort of hacker/pirate (and all the fallout that would cause professionally), and would need to dedicate a lot of time/effort/stress to my defense.
Or I could take a quick, relatively inexpensive settlement and avoid all that.
Sadly, most people would take the settlement so they could just get on with their lives. I know I'd be very tempted to sign it.
It's legalized Mafia tactics. "That's a nice life you have there. It'd be a shame if your reputation were dragged through the mud, you lost your job, tons of cash, and years of your life to a lawsuit. Just sign here and you'll be 'protected' against all that from happening. If not..." *knocks browser off shelf, shattering it to a million pieces to prove a point*
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
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.
I'm pretty sure someone [potentially] breaking the law is not an excuse for you to also break the law.
At this point, they don't even have solid proof that the person they're infecting broke the law.
True...if you run a VPN you won't be detected anyway. I doubt they are that sophisticated. https doesn't matter, they just look at the IP endpoints/ports to determine if you are "torrenting".
Hate to break it to you, but most people don't use VPNs and the ISPs are already monitoring your traffic. It is only a matter of time before they start disconnecting/fining people. The Internet was fun while it lasted though!
I'd go the "rip the copy you legally bought into another format" route instead of the "download from the Pirate Bay" route. The weird thing, though, is that the MPAA would consider both to be copyright violations of equal magnitude and would prosecute them the same if they could. The only thing stopping them is that it's hard to detect when a computer rips a DVD/Blu-Ray. (Especially if you don't share them and just use them for your own personal use.) It's easier to see if a computer is downloading something and automatically sharing it at the same time. If they could get a "magic ripper detector", though, I have no doubt I'd be sued for $750 - $150,000 for each legally purchased movie I ripped.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
They want to be judge jury and executioner. With very week evidence.
Just think if they executed some one the day after the non trail. Where all they have is a security camera with low quality video that they miss content id matched to you.
With no DNA, No weapon tied back to you, No finger prints.
If the RIAA/MPAA installs any software doing what they suggest, the developers and businesses should all be jailed under the US Computer Espionage and Hacking laws.
If you or I even attempted to look at their networks without written and explicit permission, we are in violation of the law. Accessing software inside their systems is at least 2 felonies.
Hold people accountable, and if the Government does not then it's time to replace people in Government.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yes they want to bypass it. Comcast will disconnect you if they think you have too many copyright violations. It is just another added step to "fine you" to allow your access to remain. This is coming no matter what people think. The days of open Internet are coming to a close. The next step will only allow people to connect to the Internet via "approved" devices.
No we can't all agree it's theft. It's copyright infringement.
Battery is not assault.
Kidnapping is not murder.
Copyright infringement is way down. The growing entertainment glut has more to do with falling sales in particular industries.
I'm retired and I *literally* can't keep up with the entertainment options that I'm interested in (much less the entire field of entertainment).
So I start by choosing the less expensive entertainment. And voila, a lot of the expensive entertainment is inexpensive by the time I get to it... if I ever get to it.
People who used to pirate terabytes of material a decade ago don't pirate, or pirate only a few items per year now, and never even used/watched 95% of the stuff they pirated back in the day.
We are not better off with the justice system once it was bought by corporations. That's why people have lost respect for the law. Every time the copyright on Disney's snow white is extended, it makes people respect copyright law less. Disney took something from the public domain, and then did not return their own creation to the public domain for other creators to use in the future.
That's wrong.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
There is no reason to let them live. Exactly none.
I can see your motivation, but you have to think of the greater good.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
From a company that allegedly (*snicker*) has had nothing but losses over losses during the past years? Can't squeeze blood from a turnip.
That whole letterbox corp is a sham if there ever was one. It's basically the MAFIAA finding out just how far it can go and how many laws it can break and flaunt it before some governmental body can't look the other way anymore. Then we have established what we may really do.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
vpn use is big with corp travellers. lots of people know about them.
true, lots don't but I do expect people to hear more about this as time goes on, and if the media ever grows a pair of stugots, maybe they can start INFORMING people how to defend themselves against all the spying going on.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Now, I saw your later corrected post, so I don't mean to lay it on with all the others, but...
If copyright infringement and theft are to be equated, then when I rob a bank, how do I get the prosecutor to charge me with copyright infringement?
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
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
Who cares if you are guilty or not, they clearly don't. Actually this type of hacking would very easily fall under the Computer Fraud act. Whoever at rightcorp did it would be in risk of jail time.
The lawsuits would be damn near immediate, look at how much Sony paid for the trojan they deployed on music CD's and it arguably did less damage.
"Slide into oblivion?" In this case, more like firebombing their offices and making good use of our Second Amendment rights.
We have always wanted to know where to find a ransom ware operator, and now we have one who self-identifies.
For everyone screaming "How will that work?! That's illegal! It's hacking!" they are not planning to "h[ij]ack your browser."
They want ISPs' cooperation to hijack and futz with browser traffic and insert popups and warnings and the like.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
They hold no intellectual property of their own, they're scummy fucking bandwaggoners. They come anywhere near me, I will ram their malware so far up their arses I will hit teeth.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Could there be a better example of *actual* piracy than hijacking somebody's ship^Wbrowser?
designing it
Design is a bit of a strong word. The English language is crowd-sourced open source (unlike French). And with all the bugs and "features" present, it shows.
I'd go the "rip the copy you legally bought into another format" route
That's the one problem in the US. The DMCA makes that illegal too.
Chaucer.
Shakespeare came much later.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Making or downloading a copy is generally not a criminal action. Distributing a copy is the criminal action.
But thanks to protocols like Bittorrent, you generally don't just download without also helping with distributing. So you violate both.
you could still be out thousands of dollars in legal fees.
And computer hardware.
You filmed it in HD the SD version cost more as it if to be cut down.
Worse, they filmed it in 4K (or 35mm with at least that much visual data). So just wait for there to be 3 tiers in every digital venue.
There are also businesses that use ISPs. What happens if a store loses its method of processing credit card orders? Of course, they can pull out the ka-chunk machines and paper, but there will definitely be revenue lost.
No ISP in their right mind will pull a link on a business without more than just the word of a third party. Either it will be a succession of strikes or a court order.
After all, why would you just assume that you can use those ideas without compensating their "owners"?
Because those were protected by patents rather than copyright, and the protection has expired.
Have to admit I was never a big fan of TLS everywhere.. I think permissionless access without unnecessary dependencies on trust providers is worth more to the Internet than privacy or guarantees on integrity of information in some contexts.
However sometimes I find myself rooting for it because of crap like this. If everyone uses HTTPS the browser hijacks schemes various ISPs have employed no longer work at all. Even today that increasingly nobody is even likely to ever see these messages I happen to think is rather amusing.
The typical experience will end up being customers calling in pissed the Internet is down, waste all kinds of a low paid CSRs time and god forbid there is any competition in the market cancel service upon learning the reason Internet doesn't work is because it was intentionally sabotaged.
We'll be watching you
Every breath you take and every move you make
Every law you break, every browser you take (We'll be watching you)
Every single day and every suit you lay (We'll be watching you)
This company makes so many wrong moves and has set such precedent for losses I would hope every wrongfully blocked browser results in punitive damages in the hundreds of thousands for willfully violating the law and violating the computers integrity of those wrongfully blocked. There is federal law to turn on them for a change. They will have 'damaged' the affected computers without due process or service. and the demand for money puts them in the category of racketeering subject to RICO in my opinion.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Your argument it twisted beyond all reason.
While true that the GPL makes use of copyright law to have power behind it, the purpose of the license is to be a bullwark against the kind of madness that Rightscorp and pals are up to.
Also, with software the potential to completely rebrand the code under a completely new name and claim it as new and proprietary exists. THAT is what the GPL is out to stop. Not small scale redistribution. Last I checked, music pirates arent out taking EG, Madonna's album backlog and reselling them wholesale under a fake artists name and claiming them as original works. The closest you are going to find in that vein is the "club mix" scene. The club mixers are a tiny minority of "music pirates" though, and NOT who rightscorp and their ilk are targeting here.
Like most copyright shills you fail to see the forest for the trees.
The GPL exists because of copyright bullshit, for the purposes of preventing software freedoms from being trampled on.
Without copyright bullshit, there would be no need for it, and free software makers would use BSD license instead.
Back in the 80's I wouldn't hire anyone who hadn't been arrested for civil disobedience in the 50's, 60's or 70's...
Take up a job in a field where people have the same ideals as you. Fly the "Pirate" flag as a badge of honor. There are even political parties that do so... Ninja the lawsuit and use it to promote a go-fund-me to promote the root-kit practices of evil copyright profiteers.
Fear is only as powerful as you let it be.
I wonder why the feds aren't pursuing RICO charges. This is racketeering plain and simple.
Oh wait, follow the money.
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
I hate to think this way, because it kills brain cells and makes me dumber-- but:
There *IS* something that gets consumed (in the scarcity sense) from being exposed to media. That being, the original state of having never been exposed to that media. A kind of media "virginity."
That "virginity" is valuable to media companies. Without it, they have a much more difficult time monetizing known lacklustre properties, like shitty movies and album filler music. A public that has lost that virginity wont go see the shitty flop of a movie in the theater, so the media company loses money when they invest poorly in a script, etc.
This is the single biggest thing that gets lost from things like theater cams.
A theater cam is in no way a suitable substitute for a quality theater experience. What it DOES do is let you know if you will get a good show at the theater without having to drop the theater showing cash. It lets you go to the movie being an old whore, and not a niave virgin.
The media companies, naturally, hate that.
A lot of stories have been drawing that kinds of reaction lately :)
I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft
No, it's not theft, it's copyright violation. There's no good reason to confuse the two concepts.
Wrong again. "Consumption of intellectual property without consent" isn't copyright violation. Copying intellectual property without consent is. Or to be more precise: copying copyrighted material without consent is copyright violation.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
The US has a similar law. This would absolutely be "tampering with the normal operation of a computer". The point here is that no matter whether or not the owner/user of the computer had provably committed copyright theft [which we still have no transparent way of evaluating] then the act of tampering with that computer constitutes a completely separate criminal act. A Federal crime in the US, no less. This is one of those "Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right" scenarios...
This is a classic case of "let's do something illegal to deal with someone suspected of doing something illegal". Wouldn't it be ironic of someone targeted them with ransomware, which is what they are making anyway. If ISP's "went along", they would be an accomplice to blackmail.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
This is EXACTLY what they are counting on. Suppose I were sued for downloading/distributing Random Movie via this method. They lock my browser (how, I have no clue) and I can't go online. Now, let's also suppose that I was innocent. Perhaps their software was flawed (I was distributing a public domain movie clip called "Just Another Random Movie") or maybe there was a typo in the IP address entry (entered .215 when they should have entered .251). In any event, they were accusing me without merit.
My recourse would be to respond to their accusation by hiring a lawyer, mounting a "Not Guilty" defense, and hoping that they didn't sway the judge with technical sounding (but ultimately false) evidence. I'd have to hope that my lawyer would work pro-bono during this case, would need to endure the media looking into my private life and labeling me some sort of hacker/pirate (and all the fallout that would cause professionally), and would need to dedicate a lot of time/effort/stress to my defense.
Or I could take a quick, relatively inexpensive settlement and avoid all that.
Sadly, most people would take the settlement so they could just get on with their lives. I know I'd be very tempted to sign it.
It's legalized Mafia tactics. "That's a nice life you have there. It'd be a shame if your reputation were dragged through the mud, you lost your job, tons of cash, and years of your life to a lawsuit. Just sign here and you'll be 'protected' against all that from happening. If not..." *knocks browser off shelf, shattering it to a million pieces to prove a point*
It's funny - the older I get, the more tempted I am, should this happen to me, of taking matters in my own hands and solving a whole lot of other people's problems - if you catch my drift. I mean, if they're gonna fuck up my life beyond repair, and I've only got a decade or so left anyway, why not go out with a bunch of folks grateful for what I did to get justice? I might die, I might end up in prison for a few years before I croak. I can't be the only one who feels this way.
"Well... if the person actually IS distributing copyrighted material that would come out in court if they decide to fight..."
No, what you do is file criminal charges with the DA for violation of the CFAA, Hacking, and Extortion. They won't be able to use copyright as a defense as copyright is not an affirmative defense against the elements of the crime under any of those crimes listed. You can easily prove those elements of the crime (your computer is all the evidence you need) and their ass is sunk. Their copyright claim won't matter for shit, because they'll be too busy defending themselves against the massive onslaught of criminal suits.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Sounds like they need an offshore shell corporation to do the hacking for them.
Frankly said, is there anything that's reasonably hot/current in the content world that isn't for purchase on U.S. iTunes? These days, for current releases, iTunes is way less hassle than bittorrent...
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
My recourse would be to respond to their accusation by hiring a lawyer,
Good luck finding a capable lawyer and case law for that purpose without using your now locked browser.
I don't think I'd pay a Chaucer tax. His design sounds like gibberish.
"Whan that Aprill, with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote"
I mean, who talks like that? I'm already working on submitting defects. I just need to know who to send them to.
I keep trying, but every time I microwave a DVD it catches fire.
The influence of l'Académie française is vastly overstated. Like all other natural languages, French came about naturally rather than by design. In no real sense do they control or design the French language.
It is not theft, it is infringement.
Theft prevents their enjoyment of their goods and services. In no way is someone deprived of their work by copying a file using your own resources onto your own media with your own time.
What they might not do is profit from that work. Fair enough. And that's why the law exists, to allow that to be captured for a limited time.
But make no mistake, if the law did not exist, someone making a copy of what I happen to own, using their own time and materials, would not be an offense and happens in many ways even today. That's because you making a copy of my car doesn't keep me from using my car. It might cut the business for my taxi service in half, if two people in my town now have cars, but that is an entirely separate story. You could additionally argue that a town would be better served by having more than one taxi available, which serves a societal purpose which is higher than letting me become obscenely rich by being the only one allowed to have a car.
Of course, I can't condone the practice of not paying for software that someone else wrote. After all, I do derive my living from software sales.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't consider that to be theft. Instead, it would be more like a disincentive for me to produce more software. If that is the case, then the "pirates" hurt themselves in the process by removing people from the software industry that might give them what they want.
I don't think software copyright infringement is worth people losing serious civil rights over. I think there are enough adults in the world who will buy software because they know that it supports the creators and they want the support or the game titles to keep coming. I have little sympathy for a Sony or another company who needs to lay the smackdown on some kid or his parents somewhere so they can make that much more money on a game they already made millions on.
Yes, you must protect and defend your copyright and trademarks, but we're talking about preventing something like widespread distribution of your software under a different name while you did nothing about it. Nothing about copyright defense requires that you go to the levels suggested by Rightscorp.
And I have an enormous problem with the idea of breaking someone else's computer purposely, as that comes closer to actual theft than any sort of copyright infringement ever has. As laughable as the idea of "locking your browser" is, even considering that line of attack as a valid one puts these people squarely in the same vein of black hats who run data ransom scams. It shows the level of ridiculousness that the line of thought that infringement == theft leads one to.
You can blather on all you want. Infringement is not theft and never will be. Calling it theft only makes you look stupid and ends the conversation.
Good-bye
It goes way beyond "malware." In my State, it is a felony.
(3) Any person who knowingly and without authorization alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, or any computer software, program, documentation or data contained in such computer, computer system or computer network, commits computer crime.
... ...
(5)(a) A violation of the provisions of subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be a Class C felony.
There is no exception for, "I thought he committed a civil tort against me." Even if they sue you for copyright infringement and win, they still can't alter your computer without a very specific court order.
No, it goes quite the other way; if they commit a felony alteration to my computer, then they have "unclean hands" regarding the whole matter, and they won't be able to sue me. Crimes heavily outweigh torts, and in this case it is related because the crime would be retaliation for a perceived tort that hadn't been adjudicated.
I don't play games or pirate music or movies, but the arrogance of Rightscorp with this extortion parallels Sony when they quietly released their rootkit. I for one would not be shy in informing each and every client of Rightscorp that I will cease to patronize their business if this gets in the wild.
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
Lots of people feel that way, that's why we have so much gun violence.
People even kill themselves to try to get attention to a cause.
Neither approach is effective at gaining interest in your cause, though it might indeed rally people to the opposing cause. But only if they already felt that way but didn't care very much.
Until the copyright cartel get a narrow law passed stating that things that would otherwise be a CFAA violation or hacking or whatever aren't in fact illegal if they are being done in connection with enforcing copyrights.
Losing the copyright case costs you money, losing an extortion case puts them in jail. What happens if someone is willing to make that trade?
You forgot 'copyright infringement is not piracy' on your list. The copyright cartels work very hard to trick or convince people that copyright infringement (equivalent to graffiti) is a huge crime deserving of serious criminal persecution.
Oh no! I'm quaking in my boots. I might have to use another browser, or start another VM on another service, or on a local Linux VM before I copy the file to dropbox. Oh, the humanity...
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
I have to call bullshit on that. While you do get sparkling goodness (and a nasty stench) there isn't any fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I agree, even if my mother or my son worked for them I'd still McVeigh that sumbitch.
A part of me wants to go pirating and have this browser hijack happen to me - just so that I have standing and can take it to court. I've got a few dollars, it'd be worth it to see the case play out. I even have some lawyer friends who will be more than happy to lend me a hand at reasonable costs.
I suppose I'll need to use Windows for that. 'Cause, good luck trying to lock my jailed browser. That's just not gonna work very well. Hell, if I double check --help, I'm pretty sure that any file I even *saved* while running it in a jail would be deleted when I closed it. Even if I saved them to a different directory. Hmm... I guess I could save them to a drive and then unmount the drive - I might be able to get past it that way.
At any rate, I've got CPU cycles and disk space. I suppose I could get a Windows VM up and running. Now, what to pirate? I suppose I'd have to pirate something popular and be really obvious about it. Dead Pool wasn't bad. I've got a friend in the distribution industry (and another in the theater industry) and two relatives who work in the production industry. I don't know how much help they'll give me but the guy who owns a couple of theaters has let me get away with a few interesting (not really piracy-related) things in the past.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
This is Slashdot. Not only would that be unlikely to hinder any of us for very long, we all have multiple devices and multiple browsers. I do mean all of us. A good half of us probably have a browser loaded onto something never meant to have a browser in the first place. Sure, it might be in plain text or we might need to use CURL but, damn it, we can still get our messages out.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
*whistles innocently*
http://john.bitsurge.net/publi...
(Add that to your blocklist - set to automatically update.)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Yup. There is a loss, it's called potential. It actually is a balance sheet item but hard to put an exact number to. It has lots of names, like "anticipated growth" or "market segment." But, it's there, it exists, and is as real as most anything. It's easy to ignore, easy to deny, and most pirates seem disinclined to be intellectually honest.
Yes, yes I do pirate. Worse, I've amply money to pay for things that I consume. I do have things like paid Netflix and Hulu subscriptions but I haven't used either in months. I'd probably pay handsomely for a service that combined it all and just charged me whatever and made it a functional site with a variety of options. I've gone into the details before but I don't think I'll bother with that tonight.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
> Making or downloading a copy is generally not a criminal action.
Maybe - until you throw the DMCA on top of it. At that point, chances are, you're circumventing and that is, in itself, a criminal act.
This should not be read to say that I agree with the DMCA, it's just a statement as to the matter of legality.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
This is EXACTLY what they are counting on. Suppose I were sued for downloading/distributing Random Movie via this method. They lock my browser (how, I have no clue) and I can't go online.
This is where te cooperation with ISPs as mentioned in TFS comes in play of course. They want them to cut your internet connection until you pay, and I'm guessing the ISPs will be offered a share of the proceeds for there help.
there/their proofreading fail :-(
they still can't alter your computer without a very specific court order.
That's why they won't. They'll ask your ISP to disconnect you. Much simpler.
Nope, system restore would be a quick fix for average folk. Personally I'd just delete the VM I'm in and start a new one.
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
A science fiction novel I read recently had the protagonists break into a car to use a GPS to do a google search because they didn't want to turn their phones on and be tracked.
Right there in TFS.
How is that even remotely legal? I could almost understand if they were trying to get fines from confirmed and convicted pirates. I certainly wouldn't support such behavior, but I would understand it.
But this? This is a clear violation of due process.
This signature is false.
Good point, but these losers keep on pushing hard to make copyright issues a criminal matter so in some places their felony may not be enough to throw the case out.
They are not installing malware into a browser or system.
They are redirecting traffic so that when you request web pages you can only get to their server.
For it to work they need your ISP to assist, which sucks in every way since they could block your email, VPNs, or anything else if they wanted as well. Tunnelling through allowed ports (eg. back in the day I used get ftp access via email) is hard when they own the only endpoints you can get to and everything else is blocked.
It is feasible but only if they can force or convince the ISP to do it.
That's all you need to do when any ISP plays along with this bullshit.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Notice the identity in "pushing hard to make [some law]?" The pushing is a thing, but the law isn't one. So it is just hand-waving to continue from there and analyze it as if it is a thing.
Another thing we have in my State: direct democracy. That law might not have much chance of surviving a vote of the People. And in my State, the legislature only does routine or finance-related things; controversial bills get referred directly to the ballot, because when laws have been repealed the lawmakers who voted for those laws get primaried. (100%; both parties. No lawmaker who voted "yes" on a law later repealed has stood in the general election as an incumbent. That goes back over 100 years now, since we established direct voting.)
Ok, and how do they determine what I'm torrenting? Will they hack my browser for downloading Ubuntu? or Battlefield? or any number of peer-to-peer updating software?
How will they catch those that are simply streaming from legitimate sources and recording the screen?
Oh, come now. Every one knows there are no lawful uses of torrent it's purely for nefarious online crime. In fact even being aware of it makes you a pirate, pay up Mr.....Anonymous Coward, wait, damn.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Hoo hoo hoo! :)
Really? This is hardly scary, and only effective against the most inept likely, which probably couldn't figure out out to torrent anything in the first place. I suspect most ransomware is used against older non-tech savvy folks, which isn't really the pirating demographic anyway.
I mean, there are so many ways to potentially defeat their "technology". Clearing you settings, using a different browser, re-installing you browser, re-installing your OS, likely would be picked up by various anti malware/adware/virus scan for removal... All of which might be irritating, but none of which are really all that hard to do.
Unless they really do something at the ISP level, that is less in your control, all they can really do is be annoying.
Though as many point out the dubious legality of all this anyway.
It's not circumvention to get an unrestricted copy of something. You might be able to make a fair use defense if you downloaded nothing but what you had legitimately acquired.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Actually, many of the same laws put on the books to combat those tactics by the Mafia could likely be used here, which means that we're talking criminal court instead of civil since extortion is extortion is extortion. The question of if the person who is being extorted did something illegal is irrelevant...and the fun thing is that if their clients can be in any sense construed as having approved/taken part in this behavior...well, guess who gets to join them on the stand? Here, the PR does matter: do you want to risk being on trial because the people you hired weren't willing to pass their bright ideas in front of competent lawyers and listen when told it is not actually legal? Who basically decided to follow the rule that it's only illegal if you get caught? Even if they do think they could bribe their way out of legal consequences, it's not exactly ideal to be having that be caused by idiot sub-minions. It burns through favors and money you could have used to get out of trouble you got yourself into.
EMI released a trojan on their CDs that frakked up the sound drivers on PCs. It happened to me. My crime? I bought one of Leahy's frakking CDs.
I never made that mistake again. No more Leahy purchaes, no more EMI purchases.
This would be nice except it could be sidelined by the MPAA member companies (and other big content owners) donating large funds to politicians to make this extortion scheme legal. At the very least, they could have their politicians work their influence to make sure that no "MPAA extortion scheme" sees the light of day or that, if it does, they are given a cheapo plea bargain deal that requires no admission of guilt. "We'll settle without saying we did anything wrong and will pay $1 million. In unrelated news, we expect to pull in $2 million from the next batch of victims."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
>They lock my browser (how, I have no clue)
The ISP hijacks the browser (after being bullied or bribed by Rightscorp). I've seen AT&T do this if you get behind on your service payments. Rightscorp could work out a kickback (er, revenue sharing) scheme with the ISP.
The ISP can grab you're initial connection to their servers (before you connect to the VPN servers) and inject anything they want. This has nothing to with packet inspection or whether you're torrenting.
AT&T does this when you're behind in your account and puts up a web page about it, telling you how to contact them to get your service restored, etc.
Yes they want to bypass it. Comcast will disconnect you if they think you have too many copyright violations. It is just another added step to "fine you" to allow your access to remain. This is coming no matter what people think. The days of open Internet are coming to a close. The next step will only allow people to connect to the Internet via "approved" devices.
But I don't WANT a Mac/iPad!
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
I use a VPN on my bloody tablet. If I am going to be going around on public WiFi a lot, I don't want to have to worry about some punk with a sniffer.
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
they still can't alter your computer without a very specific court order.
That's why they won't. They'll ask your ISP to disconnect you. Much simpler.
Why THAT won't stop ME! I'll just get another ISP! The free market and FCC guarantee me multiple broadband opt... oh...
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
Just submit a pull request to the repo already.
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
It's already illegal, chanimg the law won't really save them because that generally isn't retroactive, and with the PR issues the case and the legalization effort would bring, the odds are that it'll be vastly more than they can actually afford which has already happened to them.
Throwing Rightscorp under a bus, however, will be cheap and do an equally good job of saving their rears. It would also leave Rightscorp facing the court by itself without the aid of the powerful friends it almost certainly was expecting to have in order to try to convince the courts this isn't a new version of the already tested threatening letter routine...
I'm going to call bullshit again.
RICO requires criminal convictions.
Otherwise I suspect they probably could.
Mind you, as soon as there's a criminal conviction for the shakedown operations (Prenda?) then the RICO path may well be open.
That's a nice computer you have there. Would be a real shame if something were to happen to it......
Sounds like it, but it's probable just two or three guys doing all the dirty work and the rest comes out of india. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
You take that to the next step and under US conspiracy laws, they have already committed a crime with their demonstrated intent to commit the crime of computer fraud and should be prosecuted for that conspiracy, especially for any tools they have already produced with the intent to commit the crime, they have publicly announced, they intend to commit.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
It could also be a way for the MPAA to test the waters for anti-piracy laws even further in their favor. If RightsCorp succeeds and their browser hijacking program is upheld as legal (remote chance but still a possibility), the MPAA steps in with their own "cut off the pirates" programs. If RightsCorp fails (as is likely) and is torn to shreds by the courts, the MPAA gasps in feigned shock about how anyone would think that a program like this would be allowed. Then they scale back their plans a bit until they find out just how far they can push it and still be allowed.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Because everyone only has one browser. On one device. Sorry I realise that's totally obvious but you didn't say it.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I wonder if you could also take them to civil court for depriving you of something you paid for; your computer.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
If you run the VPN over TCP/443, it won't get dropped, but the other end has to cooperate on that configuration.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Um, since when did a DMCA notice come with a bill attached? This is exactly not how DMCA works, the DMCA allows you to respond saying you don't believe your media infringes, and if the would liek to sue you, here is your address. There is nothing stopping you from defending your usage in court, and likely you would win if it really didn't infringe.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It doesn't really matter who you have on your side when you are clearly breaking the law.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Last I checked, RightsCorp is not a law enforcement agency, and thus has precisely zero Rights as a Corp to do any such thing with my personal, private property based on their suspicions or accusations. This proposal on their part would amount to trespassing, theft, extortion, and racketeering at the very least.
I don't care what you think I've done, or what I've actually done. My neighbor has no more right to break into my home (except in clear emergencies, or to stop/prevent the commission of a forcible felony) and hold my stuff hostage until I pay them money any more than RightsCorp or any other person or business does, which is precisely what they're stating their intention to do here. Even IF I had committed the crime in question, it's up to LAW ENFORCEMENT to investigate and prosecute, not individuals or private entities. The private business can investigate all it likes - within the limits of the law, and with/by licensed private investigators - but not violate my private, personal property and privacy rights. They could film video of me pirating and then watching said pirated movie and STILL not have a single shred of authority to do what they are proposing here.
RightsCorp has long needed to change their name to something less deceitful like "WrongsCorp", but with this, they're trying even harder to earn the title "RightsViolationsCorp", and I hope they get slapped down hard, if not permanently, when they overstep their "rights" with this.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
I believe that doing something like that would violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Even if the ISP does it. An ISP could shut off the connection, but they don't have the authority to hack into anybody's computer.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us