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.
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
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!
There's no honor among thieves.
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.
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!
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 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
Other than getting ISPs to block users (where the ISP now has to deal with a potential subscriber lawsuit because of the word of a third party), I just don't see how this is going to work:
1: Browser makers won't allow a third party to disable their software at the third party's whim. Even if were mandated (perhaps a DMCA2 treaty), there would be some people in Russia who will just fork off a pre-bongoed source and offer that for download.
2: If it gets nailed through a browser or add-on, it will be patched by the browser or third parties. They better stand in line behind the real ransomware makers if they want to go for 0-day security day holes.
3: People have multiple browsers. To separate tasks, I use sandboxie, multiple browsers, browsers on USB flash drives, and different types of browsers. Will they shut them all down? Perhaps if they inject malware that does redirects.
4: People have virtual machines. Destroy the VM that I use for browsing the web, I just run "vagrant destroy --force && vagrant up", and in a few minutes, I have my browser virtual machine back up, running, with all my extensions present, courtesy of provisioning scripts.
5: People have and use VPNs, both in the same country and offshore. Good luck with sending copyright notices to the VPN in Switzerland, Sweden, or even Canada. Even a VPN in the same area, unless the party decided to press a legal case, they won't be handing names and other info over, if they are to remain in business for long.
6: People use combinations of the above. Push too hard and even Joe Sixpack will start using an offshore VPN service for $5 a month, pretty much making any IP enforcement impossible without having to make it an international event.
tl;dr, Rightcorp's existence depends on trying to get ISPs to do the belling the cat (with the legal risk that entails for the ISP) for them... and all it takes is 1-2 false positives for that ISP to start seriously hurting. Even worse, it will just make the pirates "go dark" and ensure that nothing but the most elaborate tracking will actually work.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
"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.