Slashdot Mirror


Rightscorp Threatens Every ISP in the United States (torrentfreak.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Following a court win by its client BMG over Cox Communications this week, Rightscorp has issued an unprecedented warning to every ISP in the United States today. Boasting a five-year trove of infringement data against Internet users, Rightscorp warned ISPs that they can either cooperate or face the consequences. "For nearly five years, Rightscorp has warned US internet service providers (ISPs) that they risk incurring huge liabilities if they fail to implement and enforce policies under which they terminate the accounts of their subscribers who repeatedly infringe copyrights," the company said in a statement. "Over that time, many ISPs have taken the position that it was simply impossible for an ISP to be held liable for its subscribers' actions -- even when the ISP had been put on notice of massive infringements and supplied with detailed evidence. There had never been a judicial decision holding an ISP liable."

225 comments

  1. Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    If things head south, declare bankruptcy and walk away.

    1. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by shmlco · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or just find somebody to sue. Should be fun...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    2. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

      If things head south, declare bankruptcy and walk away.

      Aw, gee Wally, shucks. When I read your title, I was hoping that you would encourage Second Amendment folks to "take care" of both Comcast and Rightscorp.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OR take the Clintion "What Difference, at this point, does it make" approach. I didn't _________ (fill in the blank scandal lie)

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by sabri · · Score: 1

      OR take the Clintion "What Difference, at this point, does it make" approach.

      Why not take the Trump approach? Let the second amendment people deal with this :)

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    5. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

      OR take the Clintion "What Difference, at this point, does it make" approach.

      Why not take the Trump approach? Let the second amendment people deal with this :)

      I don't think the PAC he was referring to would bother wasting resources on it.

    6. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Or the Elizabeth Warren's approach ... and make Trump just "disappear" (veiled threat???? )

      Of course, the press didn't cover that the same way .. or at all.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    7. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about starting a rumor that Rightscorp was behind the DNC email hack. That would get them taken care of for sure.

    8. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Tell them they're coming to take away their gun videos.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    9. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was, "if things head south, ask the 'second amendment folks' to somehow get involved.

    10. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean the US government approach. We were corrupt 10 years ago? Who cares! Some bankers broke laws and deceived people, oh man that was so long ago! Remove legislation put in by the "opponent" on the other side? Oh no that's sooo dishonest it should stay on the books but we'll be really sad about it and pretend we can't do anything. Legislation was borne of racism? Who cares!

    11. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean to organize and vote against those companies right? :-D

    12. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      If things head south, declare bankruptcy and walk away.

      Aw, gee Wally, shucks. When I read your title, I was hoping that you would encourage Second Amendment folks to "take care" of both Comcast and Rightscorp.

      The previous post by sycoden just basically accused, yet again, Hillary and the DNC with no shred of proof whatsoever of murder. It all comes down to the same thing in the end. We have what 330 million citizens. It only takes one too stupid to believe the lies. That one may even believe he is a righteous freedom fighter when he finds his own second amendment solution.

      What the hell is wrong with our politics? Sure Hillary does bend the truth sometimes, but she doesn't break it all to pieces. Seriously folks, all this talk that Hillary is all these totally evil and completely untrue things has to stop. Debate the issues, not wild conspiracy theories.

      I'd really like to see Trump and the rest just stop lying, come up with a real plan, and run as I don't know a civilized human being. Hell, I'm listening to CNN right now and Trump is again saying Obama is the founder of ISIS, but today since apparently that complete pile of toxic feces didn't play well, he is now apparently saying he is just kidding, save he is not. (Bush agreed to leave at a certain time. Obama failed to get an agreement protecting our troops and had to leave. It is unclear if anything Obama could have done would have gotten that agreement. Trump said get out now and let it implode. That is the truth.)

      Trump says these things deliberately and with forethought many times and he said them for a desired outcome. Giving that this is right after he suggested a second amendment solution I can come up with no other conclusion other than at minimum he doesn't particularly give a damn if someone does seek that second amendment solution. This is all after you regularly have his rallies where his followers chant, "lock her up!" Hell that is after he globbed onto the birther crap to try to attack Barack Obama, and I'm probably missing a ton of them.

      How the heck do we as American's allow a serial liar, who is proven that he will say _anything_ to get what he wants, to get this far in election for the most important position in our country? Surely people don't actually believe anything he says? Are we really at the point where enough people believe that just different enough is better? Well, anyone who believes it can't get worse, vote for Trump and find out.

      At this point I'd almost have rather seen Romney get elected last time. At least we would likely have civility now.

    13. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rumor? I worked there at the time. They were.

    14. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      OR take the George Bush approach:

      "I don't know where he is (Osama Bin Laden) and I don't care. He's not important to me." (after 3,000 people were murdered in one day)

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    15. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by ChrisMaple · · Score: 0

      Many parts of Hillary's evil have been well documented. She's a nasty person devoid of scruples, dedicated primarily to the acquisition of money and power. Trump is awful, Hillary is vile.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    16. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Many parts of Hillary's evil have been well documented. She's a nasty person devoid of scruples, dedicated primarily to the acquisition of money and power. Trump is awful, Hillary is vile.

      Okay, just for fun, name the worst thing Hillary has done that has been documented and proven?

      The worst one that comes to mind to me is staying with Bill, likely for political purposes, and defending Bill also likely for political purposes. (The bad thing is she attacked others to defend Bill, when I suspect, on some level she probably knew Bill was cheating on her. I can't prove that of course, but she is a smart woman.) The republicans at the time had Newt doing the same thing, which isn't a defense. I'm certainly not going to defend anyone for having an affair, nor for lying under oath, though I also would not defend the whole partisan impeachment mess. I do think she is, well, a pretty standard politician, and that is not really a complement save that skill might help her get something done, though I doubt it. The only way she could get anything done is probably to get a democratic controlled congress, since I can't think the republicans would actually work with her. They have spread too much hate, and would get replaced if they did.

      She is, however, the best choice we have that can win the upcoming election. (I'd almost think the damage Trump would likely do worth it, if we could get something better than first pass the post voting, but that won't happen regardless, at least not this year.)

      I still half wish Bernie had won. Most of his history appears guided by a set of consistent beliefs. He got a bit desperate towards the end of the campaign and some of that was just not really appropriate, but was tame compared to all this. Elizabeth Warren might have been a better choice as well. Hell, you know who I would love to have in the oval office. I'd love to have Jon Stewart in there. He knows the issues and seemed to give a damn and despite his liberal leanings, he would call out anyone if the situation called for it. He has the intelligence for the job. Sadly I'm not convinced he has the resolve for it even if by some miracle he could get enough votes.

      This thread reminded me of Man Of La Mancha. The Impossible Dream

    17. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have the opposite opinion, Hillary is awful, but Trump is Vile.

      We need a viable 3rd party.

    18. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      It's so amazing that we have two awful candidates in a position where just about anyone sane and of average intelligence would likely win over each of those candidates. But the primaries are usually geared up to elect the most partisan players with moderates being shut out. Party loyalty trumps loyalty to the citizens. But Trump defies all logic in shutting down all Republican contenders, Clinton for some inexplicable reason is the heir apparent and few others even bother running.

      Get a decent candidate though and it's not inconceivable that California could go Republican or Texas could go Democrat, as almost all voters are going to be holding their noses when November comes around.

    19. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      We only think it's reality. We are in a the treehouse of horror episode about the two aliens running for office.

    20. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by theCoder · · Score: 1

      We need a viable 3rd party.

      Easily done. All you have to do is vote for one.

      --
      "Save the whales, feed the hungry, free the mallocs" -- author unknown
    21. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      According to Rightscorp, is you accept their logic, the NRA should be responsible for every gun death in the USA.

      Or better, the government is responsible for every crime committed by every convicted criminal.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    22. Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NRA didn't sell anyone anything. Your analogy is more accurate with the gun manufacturers.

  2. Tiny dog barking up big tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you threaten the safe harbor status of the ISPs you are going to get stomped.

    1. Re:Tiny dog barking up big tree by greenfruitsalad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is not Sparta, this is USA. People you are thinking about are not called Leonidas and Gorgo, they're probably named Todd and Leshaniqua. And therefore there will be no stomping other than by a rich corporate boot.

    2. Re:Tiny dog barking up big tree by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, cities and states are to be held liable for illegal good transported on their streets. Fed-ex for deliveries that support criminal activity, Utilities for supplying power to criminals, phone companies for those who plot over the phone, etc..

    3. Re:Tiny dog barking up big tree by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

      This is one issue where the FCC's categorization of ISPs as a utility, and Net Neutrality rules, work in the favor of ISPs. All content must be treated equally.

    4. Re:Tiny dog barking up big tree by geek · · Score: 2

      This is not Sparta, this is USA. People you are thinking about are not called Leonidas and Gorgo, they're probably named Todd and Leshaniqua. And therefore there will be no stomping other than by a rich corporate boot.

      Here is what I don't get. Why don't the ISPs just refuse service to Rights Corp? They are within their rights to do so. Rights Corp is obviously network scanning their customers. If it was any other organization they would be kicked off of their network for that.

    5. Re: Tiny dog barking up big tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Starting a torrent and clicking the peers tab is not scanning.

    6. Re:Tiny dog barking up big tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is on the heels of BMG winning against Cox Communications as written in the article. And the problem sounds like Cox isn't responsible for the copyright infringements its customers, but that by shielding there customers against rightsholders (by refusing to pass on notices to their customers when presented with proof that infringement has occured) Cox becomes liable for "contributory copyright infringement."

      I believe that the customer is still the only one who is liable for actual copyright infringement.

    7. Re:Tiny dog barking up big tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they did vs cox, and won. subject to appeal, of course, which i am guessing is still in progress.

      this is the labels and studios, through their mercenary lawyers (that also take the brunt of the pr heat), trying to cash-in on some settlements and get some aggressive, intrusive user surveillance and automated 'consequences' and 'judgements' in place before the ruling is overturned. because once the shit like that is done, it's hard to clean up after and many of those things will remain for years even if no longer 'needed' or justified (or even legal, for that matter).

    8. Re: Tiny dog barking up big tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they are copyright owners then couldn't it be argued that if they start or join a torrent they are officially sharing the data so there's no illegal activity done by the peers?

    9. Re: Tiny dog barking up big tree by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I don't see why the ISP's don't simply claim immunity due to their common carrier status. Of course, that would make them concede to the FCC, but on the upside they also aren't liable for things like terrorist attacks coordinated through their infrastructure.

    10. Re: Tiny dog barking up big tree by EmeraldBot · · Score: 2

      I don't see why the ISP's don't simply claim immunity due to their common carrier status. Of course, that would make them concede to the FCC, but on the upside they also aren't liable for things like terrorist attacks coordinated through their infrastructure.

      Because it's not a profitable decision. Being liable for terrorist attacks, eh, maybe a $150,000 settlement once a decade, and potentially some bad press which doesn't mean anything when your reputation is crap. On the flip side, the FCC is the only entity with significant power that wants an open Internet, and that scares ISPs shitless. If they become regulated, they'll actually be required to provide decent service for a reasonable price, and they would probably have to invest money into upgrading their infrastructure. Worse yet, there would be at least some form of compeition, as opposed to the current scheme where they all conveniently agree to not charge below certain prices. What's a few dead people and some angry bloggers compared to that red ink?

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    11. Re:Tiny dog barking up big tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is interesting that you mention the phone. See, that can't happen because phone companies are classed as "common carrier" and are protected from evil doings performed by their customers. ISPs on the other hand are "data services" and are not covered by "common carrier". They almost were during the net neutrality debates. But they whined like little babies and didn't WANT common carrier status. They would have had to offer free service in areas, more rate controls, etc. But, they would not have been able to be help accountable for the actions of subscribers. Guess they may be about to learn a tough lesson here...

    12. Re: Tiny dog barking up big tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if they didn't share any of the torrented files' data? You can connect to a tracker and ask for peers without sharing the data. And indeed, at the beginning of leeching, you're always connecting, and having other people share with you, before you ever share anything with anyone (because you have nothing to share).

    13. Re: Tiny dog barking up big tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if they disable uploading like I do because I am a master leech. Ok, so I really do it because upstream is extremely limited in the US, it literally disables my connection for anything else if I allow uploading.

    14. Re:Tiny dog barking up big tree by BitterOak · · Score: 2

      If you threaten the safe harbor status of the ISPs you are going to get stomped.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the safe harbor statute require you to do something if you receive a notice of infringement? According to the article, Rightscorp has been sending notices of infringement and the ISPs haven't been doing anything.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    15. Re: Tiny dog barking up big tree by NotAPK · · Score: 1

      Wanker.

    16. Re: Tiny dog barking up big tree by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      No, their approach is to gain immunity by buying the content creators. Thus Universal Pictures is owned by Comcast.

    17. Re:Tiny dog barking up big tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not Sparta, this is USA. People you are thinking about are not called Leonidas and Gorgo, they're probably named Todd and Leshaniqua. And therefore there will be no stomping other than by a rich corporate boot.

      The point is that the ISPs *are* the rich corporations with big boots and RightsCorp, isn't.

    18. Re: Tiny dog barking up big tree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Comcast, for example, is now a media company as well as an ISP. They own the content and the pipe.

  3. Do you want to make Hong Kong an internet hub? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that's how you make Hong Kong the biggest internet hub. These idiots won't be satisfied until everybody just uses their ISP to connect to a VPN provider outside the influence of corrupt western governments.

  4. Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nearly 100% of the drugs that are smuggled are going over the public motorways.
    Unlike the popular Slashdot opinion I am all for Intellectual Property rights, however the ISP should focus their work on moving the data not being the judge of it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be interested to know why you're in favour of IP rights, when you have seen so many stories of how people's basic human rights are violated for them.

    2. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Destined+Soul · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the same thing, "can a government be liable crimes committed by usage of public roadways?" Though I wonder if the analogy has any key differences?

    3. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there's a difference between supporting the idea of Copyright protection, and supporting our current Copyright law. Lifetime of an author plus 70 years is absolutely absurd, not to mention anti-competitive/monopolistic.

    4. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Not the OP and applies more to patents: Before IP rights, people kept innovations secret to monetize them, selling the product but keeping process to themselves.

      Never did work for things displayed in public, but there have been processes kept secret for centuries (crucible steel) and others that were kept so secret they were lost (damascus steel, modern 'equivalents' are art and not equivalent). I will grant that inventions around military technologies are still kept secret for as long as possible.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearly 100% of the drugs that are smuggled are going over the public motorways.

      A lot of those in USPS trucks. The Post Office may be the #1 drug delivery service.

    6. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PATENTS ARE NOT COPYRIGHTS. Patents expire in a reasonable time frame. Few people have a problem with patents. Copyright is for the life of the creator AND most, if not all, of the people alive when the work was created. There are literally going to be generations without any major works being released into the public domain. Copyright is a lie and used maliciously.

    7. Re: Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^^^^^ got my shipment of cocaiena today.

    8. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      What I am wondering now is if a gun manufacturer can now be held liable for the bullets that went through the barrel of the guns they manufactured..

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

    9. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government isn't held liable for crimes committed *BY* the government. Now you want to extend that to crimes committed by others. BAHAHA!!!!

    10. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      But now, many of the processes can be deduced by analyzing the product itself.

    11. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Patents expire in a reasonable time frame.

      Sure, but they are granted without any reasonable level of review. I pushed a button to trigger a cross-walk signal on the way to work, today, and noticed two patent numbers on the button! Apparently, something about that button was so earth-shatteringly innovative that it warranted protection from competition for 20 years! Admittedly, the button was kind of big, and had a nice rounded feel to it. Maybe no one ever made a button like that before for the purpose of triggering a crosswalk signal.

    12. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      Unlike the popular Slashdot opinion I am all for Intellectual Property rights ...

      I don't think that Slashdot readers want to abolish Intellectual Property rights completely. We just want reasonable terms. Start with copyright duration. Author's death + 70 years would be ridiculous if it wasn't true.

    13. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does have a difference. Cox wasn't held liable for the copyright infringement itself, they were held liable for contributory copyright infringement. This is primarily because they were not allowing rightsholders to send infringement notices to the ISP's (Cox's) customers, nor eventually dropping the customers who repeatedly infringed.

      Keep in mind, that even if Cox can send a notice to the ISP's customer, this doesn't mean they could sue for copyright infringement to the customer since if they're going through the ISP, they probably only have an IP address and a time. From this they can get the location and account owner identified by information the ISP has, but they can't prove that it was the account owner who infringed (rather than their Son, or a visiting friend/relative), so they can't directly sue the account owner for copyright infringment... well they can always try, but they probably wouldn't win.

      This is likely to end either in ISP's having to degrade or drop service for repeat copyright offenders, or in rightsholders eventually being able to sue the account owner for contributory copyright infringement if they fail to take reasonable measures to stop their connection from being used for such purposes.

    14. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Patents SHOULD expire in a reasonable time frame."

      Fixed that for you, while patents haven't gone nearly as insane as copyright they have gone far beyond their intended use, which per US law patents/copyright is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries" . Drug patents are the most obvious case, with "new uses" being dreamt up just as the patent is about to expire so the patent can be extended. Software concepts would be another, but they are starting to reign those in.

    15. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by EmeraldBot · · Score: 1

      Unlike the popular Slashdot opinion I am all for Intellectual Property rights ...

      I don't think that Slashdot readers want to abolish Intellectual Property rights completely. We just want reasonable terms. Start with copyright duration. Author's death + 70 years would be ridiculous if it wasn't true.

      This. We don't have any problem with the spec of intellectual properly and copyright, we have problem with the implementation. While we have many frivolous ones, the patent system is actually a great idea - it allows people protection to turn a profit, and thereafter turns it into the public domain. By making copyrights last almost 150 years, in some cases, you completely stunt our cultural development - do you think the Greeks and Romans would have had such a rich literature if they had to wait 150 years before they could retell a story? Do you think the US would have become a world power if everything had been locked up and restricted by the various European countries?

      --
      "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
    16. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm positive they've already tried.

      We have many hilarious creeds, and someone to vilify is one of the American ways. We absolutely require someone to point fingers at, we can't sleep until someone answers WHOSE FAULT IS THIS WE DEMAND SOMEONE BURN

      Got hosed by a decision from the higher ups? Yell at their grunts, or at customer service. Got your car robbed? Yell at the cops, or maybe some receptionist at city hall. Can't find ghosts on the internet by nature of its fucking design? Blame ISPs, blame congress, blame terrorists.

      Ha ha, kidding, you don't give a flying fuck about any of those, you just need to convince Fox or Warner or Disney or whoever that you've "protected them from $500,000 in 'copyright damages' this year! Sign this contract for another five years of our service, it's clearly a great deal!"

    17. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Quirkz · · Score: 2

      I think the trick is in having a button that you can press without being able to tell if you've really pressed it or not, because the combination of high resistance and minimal give, plus the unpredictable timing and organization of every particular stop light, ensure that you've got to hit it again and again, just in case, until you actually see it change.

      Presumably on the back end the city electrical grid is powered by all these extra button pushes, and they're making a massive profit on the generated electricity. Only reason I can come up with that they'd make them so confoundingly lacking in feedback.

    18. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 2

      Unlike the popular Slashdot opinion I am all for Intellectual Property rights ...

      I don't think that Slashdot readers want to abolish Intellectual Property rights completely. We just want reasonable terms. Start with copyright duration. Author's death + 70 years would be ridiculous if it wasn't true.

      This. We don't have any problem with the spec of intellectual properly and copyright, we have problem with the implementation. While we have many frivolous ones, the patent system is actually a great idea - it allows people protection to turn a profit, and thereafter turns it into the public domain. By making copyrights last almost 150 years, in some cases, you completely stunt our cultural development - do you think the Greeks and Romans would have had such a rich literature if they had to wait 150 years before they could retell a story? Do you think the US would have become a world power if everything had been locked up and restricted by the various European countries?

      Honestly I'd just start with adding a requirement that for all of the current protections you've got to provide a digital archival copy to the LOC & maintain some way for people attempting to locate you as the owner of that IP. The digital archival copy should serve as both legally establishing a date and content, and to ensure a copy exists to enter the public domain. Digital will be easier to store and preserve, probably.

      The latter would simply neatly solve the orphan works problem: If you don't make an effort to be identifiable, you lose your claim permanently. You might get arguments when the problem is nobody's quite sure who owns it but multiple parties are willing to come forward and fight over it...but that happens with real estate, too, and has for thousands of years. I'm pretty sure we've got a decent idea how to sort that problem out...

    19. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      damascus steel

      I get your point but maybe a bad example because Damascus steel was made in India at a small commercial scale until a bit after WW2 and the "secret" was used with similar steels with two different starting materials in a lot of places. It was supplanted with a cheaper process that resulted in a material almost as good with far less effort but never really "lost". Before WW1 there were wrought naval artillery pieces made the same way but with steam hammers (Imperial Japan).
      Cool stuff, but the "quenched in the blood of a redhead" or "ground up and fed to chickens then the powder forged" fictions have overwhelmed the real information about huge amounts of forging, careful temperature control and long tempering times that is of interest to metallurgist but dismissed as boring by people craving the romance of the lost. A lot of historical artifacts have been polished up and examined under the microscope to see if that banding is from that same pattern welding as seen in India, and those same materials as seen in India, so it's pretty conclusive that the "it's been lost" people were just not asking the people who knew how to make it.

    20. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Damascus steel being currently made by folding and pounding is not the same as historic damascus steel, which came out of the furnace with islands of high and low carbon steel.

      They can tell the difference and there is still active research.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    21. Re:Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Folding, pounding and a LOT of heat treatment. There's been a few good papers published on it based on examining old examples and an material used in India for over a thousand years. They were from the 1970s but there may be something more recent online, I suppose I'd better take a look and it may help here.

      which came out of the furnace with islands of high and low carbon steel

      No that's what a modern steel looks like - look up "pearlite". It's not just islands but "large" distinct bands of metal carbides (not just iron) rich "bainite" broken up a lot by heat treatment in the Damascus steel (so that the stuff doesn't just shatter). Japanese craftsmen do something similar but not quite the same with some slightly different precursor materials (not much other than iron carbides) which is a bit easier to follow since there is almost no post forging heat treatment.

      It's a really good example to teach students about alloys since it's making a material with desirable properties from the two parts - one a really brittle thing with a lot of iron and many other metal carbides and the other very soft almost pure iron. Similar to the body of a katana but with far less distinct layers since there is a lot more diffusion - the layers blend into each other a lot with damascus steel. Also katanas are made of plain carbon steels so a bit of a different structure.

      The hobby stuff is just pattern welding but the real stuff is not a mystery. A challenge is getting all those different metal carbides in there in the same quantities without it being from the same ores as in the historical pieces, a bit much for a hobby.


      One thing that probably has you fooled is thinking full modern furnace temperatures were used in making the steel instead of the much lower temperatures needed to pour cast iron. A thousand years ago it wasn't easy to get ordinary coal or charcoal that hot - hence a mixture of wrought "sponge iron" and white cast iron being forged together instead of pouring low carbon steel out in ingots. Look at the top end of the iron-carbon phase diagram to see how much hotter you've got to get things to pour 0.5%C steel than a cast iron.

  5. ISPs as the target by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, Here is where the ISPs have to quit walking the fence. Either they can throttle users connected to streaming or competing services
    ( which means they control the users ) or not ( then the ISP can claim no control...).

    This is also a good time to opt for a utility status...

  6. Question by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

    Does the creator(s) of the "infringed" content see any of this money or is it all hoarded by these "rights groups"?

    If they see any of it, then please, by all means, rape and pillage Comcast, etc (mostly Comcast, Fuck You Comcast) as much as possible, otherwise it's just money changing from one evil hand to another...

    1. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the people who put in the actual effort to create the things will not be seeing a dime of this money. It all goes to the "rights holders", with a cut for Rightscorp.

      Remember, poor people shouldn't have access to art and culture!

    2. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to copyright law, only the original creator can own the copyright.

    3. Re:Question by blackomegax · · Score: 1

      Duh, they're poor. They shouldn't be binge watching the latest torrent of game of thrones, they should be out making minimum wage 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, to afford to live in absolute squalor in a first world nation.

    4. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, dude... you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

    5. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, poor people shouldn't have access to art and culture!

      It's sad that people who lock down our culture for their personal profit are considered to be legitimate businessmen, and the people who want to free our culture for all are compared to people who rape and kill people on ships. Our for-profit culture has some serious problems.

    6. Re:Question by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      That is extremely wrong.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    7. Re:Question by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      Does the creator(s) of the "infringed" content see any of this money or is it all hoarded by these "rights groups"?

      The actual creators? Probably not. The musicians, authors, actors/directors, etc usually don't have deep enough pockets. The owners of the copyright (e.g. the record label, movie studio, publisher, etc), they may get a some, but it's probably a small percentage or just a fixed amount (e.g. Label A receives $10,000 in exchange for Rights Group B to go after infringes as agents of Label A. They work on kind of a contingency basis.

      The "Rights Groups" have to be careful though, lest they end up like Righthaven or Prenda Law.

    8. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to AUTHORS AND INVENTORS the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

      What part of the law is ambiguous? It says it right there in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution. The fact that the lawyers and politicians working at the behest of the rich have "reinterpreted" simple English to mean something completely different than what it says (as they have done with most of the constitution, such as the "interstate commerce clause") for their own gratification is immaterial.

    9. Re:Question by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Part of having a right to something is the right to sell it. The purchaser then has the copyright.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:Question by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I believe that there are countries in which this is true. The US is not one of those countries.

      You can argue that the law *should* be interpreted that way, but to argue that it *is* interpreted that way just looks silly.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  7. Why can't the crazies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever pay a visit to places like Rightscorp and give them an education.

    1. Re:Why can't the crazies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the PO boxes aren't where the people are. These are made up entities usually. There is no physical place for someone to visit. Lawyers are all generally gutless and pay other (poor) people to be their meatshields. They think that their lives are worth more than ours.

    2. Re:Why can't the crazies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that's why they are crazies.

  8. Cox Vs RIAA by generic_screenname · · Score: 1

    Who do we hate more?

    1. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by dejitaru · · Score: 2

      RIAA... I actually like Cox (the internet provider not... well... yeah...)

    2. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      RIAA. While we might hate our ISPs, at least there's something useful about them - the Internet Service they provide. It might be subpar quality (speed, customer service, etc) and they might overcharge for it, but there's a bit of value there. With the RIAA - or more specifically in this instance, RightsCorp - there's nothing of value there for us. They exist solely to serve themselves and at no point does their existence give us anything of value.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      Easy. Comcast. Cox is only AMATEUR evil compared to Comcast. .

    4. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by sabri · · Score: 1

      Who do we hate more?

      As a Cox customer, I can definitely tell you that they are pretty good. I've been an AT&T Uverse, Comcast and Charter customer before moving in a Cox area.

      My experience has been good. I don't have cable TV, and I pay $64.99 for 150/10. During non-peak times I get that speed, and at peak times I still get a good 120mbps down. They don't bomb me with TV offers all the time, and I've had one outage (which lasted for less than an hour) so far.

      The RIAA on the other hand... Let the second amendment people handle those fuckers.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    5. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 1

      Cox was a halfway decent ISP when I had them. I would have gladly continued service with them had I not moved out of the area for work, because they're far better than any of the other large cable ISPs (coughComcastcough).

      More importantly, they also tried to stand up against this extortionist crap, rather than just voluntarily roll over on their customers. They went to court to fight it, and sadly lost, but that effort counts for something in my book at least.

    6. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by I4ko · · Score: 3, Informative

      As another Cox customer I can tell you that their recent transition to carrier NAT is a clusterfuck.

      While my CPE is being assigned an IP address that is outside of RFC 6980 space I can't complete a inbound handshake consistently, as I do receive more than one SYN/ACK on the other end or don't receive any. It works only when I have recently sent a packet with that source port.
      I also receive SYN/ACK packets from hosts I never sent SYN to. And because my router is configured to blacklist unasked inbound connections for an hour the first time, increasing it to 5 hours on repeated packet, or just outright permanently blackhole the source if it sends some nonsense as sending me SYN/ACK without me sending a SYN first, I can't open anything on the popular internet, like facebook, twitter, Netflix, news sites and such any more unless I purge my blacklist first. And it is quite unlikely that someone is trying to SYN attack popular websites and choses to spoof my IP, right at the time when they changed the last 2 upstream routers from me to have interfaces within RFC 6980 address space. My outbound SYNs now also at random times are not answered, but if repeated in a minute or two the handshake completes just fine. Before this change, my blacklist averaged around 15 temporary entries and grew with ~300 permanent entries in 6 months. Since this change, my blacklist has grown to 6000 permanent IPs within 1 week and the temporary entries average 300. I get around 20 packets per second inbound consistently without sending any outbound traffic (blocked and routing removed)

      The only way that makes any sense is if they are either incompetent and have configured their NAT and assign the same non-RFC 6980 IP address they have assigned my CPE to other CPEs of other customers and I can only speculate that they are throwing some sort of anycast in the mix there as well, but the fact is that they are misrouting/misNATting packets - I get someone else's packets every now and then, and I'm sure someone else gets some of mine. Or, that they are doing that on purpose, trying to fool me, thinking that if I see a non-special address I won't get to know that I'm NATted, and they are trying to use the same address as both the local and the global side of the NAT. And as a residential customer I can't even reach a competent technical support who can understand my compliant.

      I wish they weren't trying to hide the fact and putting in a complex setup and have just given me a plain 10. or 192.168. address, so I don't have to deal with this shit. I can live with a regular NAT upstream just fine.

    7. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by KlomDark · · Score: 3, Funny

      Enhanced capacitors has to be aligned, because the critical singularity has been reversed. There is a weak singularity next to the plasma which causes temporal ripples around the quantum singularity. I have to boost the core sensor array at the special region. Invert the energys! Strange energy must have been stumped, because the strange hyperdrive has been contained! The singularity power has been not calibrated. The special sensor arrays reverse the special bursts near the galaxys. Expanding plasma conduit, running delta region. Expanding temporal galaxys re-routes the another bursts. I must invert the vortex power near the auxiliary area. The singularity crystal is stumped. Auxiliary gravity dampener must have been aligned, because the weak delta region appears to be inverted. Causing enhanced vacuums boosts the weak sensor arrays. I should boost the burst, because the gravity dampener appears to be in the fluctuations. The matter stream delta region appears to be not aligned.

    8. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      The IM design specs use the blogs. We keep asking why marketing wants a productized toolkit when websites (soon to be released in beta) have a DOM-aware database server. An extensible server really uses virtual tier-1 providers, so database servers are going to grow the objectives. If we we had the resources of Google, a zero bug count objective has the configurable web application framework. A lightweight executive steps up to the challenge of debuggers.

      Design-driven wags
      If you know that the interfaces suck less than a functionality freeze, then you can check out constraints and see that design-led warning flags sync up with Internet Explorer. We know for certain that:

              a hack is a Web 2.0 test case
              hosted executives will not improve the performance of feedback
              a do-it-all web site prevents an enterprise bean
              content sweetening is worse than web consulting

      Most elegant progress is not in the manual, but the specification is compatible with a non-standard group. As a company, we have never been good at the features. We do embedded enterprise beans way better than anyone else, because an object-oriented constraint has a plug-in. It used to be true that big-company root users brick contexts, however that's all changed, and now the applications leverage the user scenario. Although we haven't yet made it to release, I can say that the most sophisticated interface utilizes a legacy functionality document. Our third parties tell us that use cases have the GUIs. Environments ride the wave of the embedded applet. We will eventually take over the Linux-based market for mobile-generation tier-1 providers. We have to concentrate on the customer base. So, the plug-ins grow groups. The Windows-based internet allows the principles, so Opera grows the LGPL'ed host. It could be that a kernel context crashs Internet Explorer. We must finish the PHP database servers so that the established product line bravely works well on protocols. Nobody can figure out why revolutionary user scenarios become neophytes. I read on Wikipedia that Python enterprise beans suck balls. In summary:

              Now we know Steve Jobs was full of it when he said that servers are more elegant than a featue-packed warning flag.
              The design of constraints is completely messed up, and as a result Vista has a browser-hosted hack.
              Management doesn't understand that a mysql emulator leads to debugging.

      Why do you think the plans are the balls-on dead-accurate executive? Because better development initiatives rapidly fail. As always, disclosures have an open-ended protocol. We can finish FireFox by implementing a C compiler, but it has to be both on-the-fly and open-source. An awesome guesstimate causes bugs with scripts. A group leverages hosted architecture. We feel that the debuggers will enable customer bases. The beta managers probably provide an indication of a skinnable web application framework. Having an emulated assembler that is resource-constrained, it follows that a heuristic seriously works poorly on an internet service provider. This year, in his keynote about rootkits, Bill Gates said “the scriptable next-generation systems have a Perl servlet.” The hosts take ownership of a shared opportunity, I think. You just don't get it, do you? Scenarios mess with web authoring. Digital bug reports have an improved dialogue.

    9. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by sabri · · Score: 1

      As another Cox customer I can tell you that their recent transition to carrier NAT is a clusterfuck.

      Interesting. What's the address that they gave you? (or /24, I don't need your IP). I'm curious to see what happens and why. I don't have CGNAT (at least not that I know of), yet.

      Did you contact their helpdesk?

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    10. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enhanced capacitors has to be aligned, ... The matter stream delta region appears to be not aligned.

      Did you check the turboencabulator? They can be used nowadays to calibrate cardinal grammeters.

    11. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess RightsCorp is going to have even a bigger problem finding the infringer if Cox is in fact using Carrier grade NAT.

      I have some suggestions for Cox:

      1) Create a setup that NAT's the traffic from more than one federal district on the same public IP address. Fifty percent from 2 districts will ruin any chance that they will file in the right district. Splitting it among 3+ districts would lower it to below chance. Document this network fact, so that any lawsuit filers are on notice that they might not be filing in the correct district.

      2) Reduce log rotation to 1 week. This gives enought info for DDOS, spam or otherwise, but as far as Rightcorp goes, by the time they file and get the ability to obtain information, the answer is "We do not know". Consider not even having a nat log, as a connection log would be huge and a hardship.

      3) The DMCA does not have a minimum suspension time, so just adopt a short time, say 1 week. This way you can clearly show you did cut them off, at least for a while

      4) When you restore a suspended customer, maybe place them on a nat with other similar customers, and rotate the outbound IP daily all over the nation.

      5) When you file your agent designation with the Library of Congress, ONLY accept US Mail Notices.

      I do believe they had to have appealed that verdict, so rightscorp may not have the final word.

    12. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RIAA ... back in the 1950s, the RIAA published a standardized equalization curve for LP records. It was largely based on RCA practice, but ALL the record companies switched to it because now they could all sell records that worked on all record players, and the record player companies loved it because they only need to build one equalization curve into their equipment. So back then, they did serve a function: standard setting for the industry.

      That role kind of went away later, though: tape had a different standard (several of them, ranging from NAB to Philips (cassette) to Dolby on top of those); CDs of course were standardized by a group headed by Philips (did everybody making CDs have to pay them royalties?); and likewise other formats tended to be standardized by a company that let others use the standard, perhaps with a small enough royalty that it worked. Not sure what RIAA did (other than, possibly, being a convenient club to sit in when needing to have meetings off company property) after the 1950s until all of this rights stuff got going.

    13. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was awesome,

    14. Re:Cox Vs RIAA by I4ko · · Score: 1

      First /24 of the second half of NETBLK-PH-RDC-68-2-0-0. Try a traceroute to something, preferably in another country. For me, the "fun" started when the IP of the CMTS and the router after it changed to 1918/6890. No luck with tech support. Luckily the arin record does have a good deal of contacts I may write to.

  9. Next up: Tor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Arguments like these could be used to the music companies to shut down Tor exit nodes and VPNs.

    1. Re: Next up: Tor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That will probably happen anyway.

  10. The BIG problem.. by thesupraman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, I now assume that:

    If you are caught driving around with copyrighted material, your drivers license is revoked?
    If someone hears copyrighted music playing over a phone call, your phone line is terminated?
    If a broadcaster accidentally broadcasts some copyrighted material without license, all their views/subscribers the service terminated?

    That land of the free must be a wonderful place to live, what with all those 'protections' and all..

    Oh, I forgot didnt I, civil violations over the internet are the new terrorism, and must be crushed by the state. Silly me.

    At least the general public still get their fair half of copyright, by the timely entry into the public domain of the works that WE, through the tax
    funded state, have protected for the holders. Oh wait, damn! how did that happen?

    1. Re:The BIG problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_market

      Just sayin...

    2. Re:The BIG problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Fuck rightscorp and the MAFIAA, share at will.

      2) Get your head out of your ASS and start sharing entirely within darknets like I2P, Tor, Phantom, GnuNet, Maid-Safe, etc.
      There are programs and tools out there to let you do this, including using your favorite torrent apps.
      Once you're all set up and configured to use those networks without EVER touching or using anything on clearnet,
      you can SHARE AT WILL 24x7x365 with ZERO fear of these fucks ever coming after you or your peers.
      The speed is totally acceptable and I can get at least one new CD and DVD-9 quality movie uploaded to share
      and downloaded on disk to use every day... more than I could ever watch or listen to :-)
      I also run nodes from home on those networks so people can use them, it's my way of giving back.

    3. Re: The BIG problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wrong. Eventually they will label all traffic they can't snoop as terrorism, and that will be enough for them to raid your house.

    4. Re:The BIG problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I now assume that:

      If you are caught driving around with copyrighted material, your drivers license is revoked?
      If someone hears copyrighted music playing over a phone call, your phone line is terminated?
      If a broadcaster accidentally broadcasts some copyrighted material without license, all their views/subscribers the service terminated?

      That land of the free must be a wonderful place to live, what with all those 'protections' and all..

      Oh, I forgot didnt I, civil violations over the internet are the new terrorism, and must be crushed by the state. Silly me.

      At least the general public still get their fair half of copyright, by the timely entry into the public domain of the works that WE, through the tax
      funded state, have protected for the holders. Oh wait, damn! how did that happen?

      I read your post, and laughed hysterically. This is pretty much what it's come down to. I have a feeling there will be a spike in private VPN traffic in the near future. Then what? Ban VPN?. This will be a shit-fest indeed.

    5. Re: The BIG problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure that is the "ideal" situation from their twisted point of view, but it only works if they can con/threaten a majority of the population avoiding encryption. If enough of the population utilizes difficult to break encryption it would be extremely difficult for them to justify from a legal standpoint. And it is happening, many companies (Microsoft, Google, Apple, etc) are encrypting their information and resisting subpoenas.

    6. Re:The BIG problem.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a war against VPN services and they are using money to stop them (no credit cards no paypal ...)

    7. Re:The BIG problem.. by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      ...If a broadcaster accidentally broadcasts some copyrighted material without license, all their views/subscribers the service terminated?...

      ...and their TV towers will fall to inversely represent the enormous penis size of those who are falling back on ridiculous laws (that don't work) to get rich quick. Congrats, oh Lords of the Penis(tm)! You have now just encouraged thousands of times more "stolen works" from the American and probably world populace to overload your choices of who to pick on AND, to have the companies that pay you to pull their little whackers out to punish you for not getting them enough fast "returns". Bravo, RightsCorp, Bravo! Oops.. Just violated two copyrights and/or trademarks in SOME ridiculous way there! =->

      *sigh* I don't understand why bottom feeders don't learn the lesson from past attempts. Wait, yes I do. It happens in all areas of life: "But we're different and better than the rest, and ours won't fail!" .......waiting for the ./ post on the collapse of your entity....

      Sorry, supraman. I'm on your side. Just got a little carried away with the past repeating itself. Heh.

  11. And the phone companies just about anything. by thesupraman · · Score: 1

    Make sure you discuss all contracts, deals, etc over the phone now.

    Since, by this logic, you can therefore require the phone company to file papers against the person at
    the other end, and in fact to cut off their phone service if they repeatedly cause you a problem.
    Should bring a whole new level of fun to iffy craigslist deals.

    Nice! that shouldnt backfire at all... No, really, I am sure.

    1. Re:And the phone companies just about anything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      to bad you can't redbox pay phones any more.

  12. Makes sense by LichtSpektren · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I mean, we prosecute mailmen for drug trafficking. We prosecute telecoms because terrorists use their phonelines every day to conspire against the United States. We prosecute sulfur miners murder, since they provide society with the element required to make gunpowder, which enables mass murderers via guns. When a company goes bankrupt due to mismanagement, the CEO always ends up penniless for the damage he caused.

    In our country, if you can't catch the people who break laws, we ALWAYS make sure some unaffiliated distant party takes the fall for it.

    1. Re: Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much, this case should be thrown out... But RIAA get so much favoritism in the courtroom, they sue everyone! The backwoods bar down the road got sued for 100 grand for karaoke by RIAA and it held up.

    2. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean sulfur pharaohs, right?
      http://boingboing.net/2016/07/05/the-great-sulphur-pyramids-of.html

  13. Solution for the people by operagost · · Score: 2

    Get the justice department to bring racketeering charges against Rightscorp.

    Threatening an entire industry should bring consequences.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:Solution for the people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not libel. There's nothing wrong with legal posturing but it's up to the ISPs to decide if the threat is a valid one or if it's entirely baseless. The content industry has been trying forever to get various entities to police their profit model, essentially committing public funds to bolster their private profits (which is more than a little tasteless).

      Eventually you get to some Stasi-esque nightmare where the industry will demand family members inform against each other. Failure to do so will become a federal offense. Screw it...make it a capital offense punishable by lethal injection. Meanwhile murderers and rapists are still getting 10 years. All this nonsense over 3 minutes of Ke$ha.

  14. How are they to know what is allowed by MooseTick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just because something has a copyright doesn't mean it is illegal to share it. If the owner of the copyright allows their content to be shared on site x, then it is ok. Therefore, how is an ISP supposed to know a content's owner has given site "x" the right to store/share/distribute their content. Also, that right could be granted for an hour, a day, a month, or longer. Most mainstream artists license their work to be used via multiple venues. There is no real way for an ISP to know who has a legitimate right to store/share/distribute content for any particular time period. It would be like holding UPS responsible for me shipping antibiotics to someone. They don't know the contents of the package and if they did, they don't know whether the recipient has a legal prescription for that medication.

    1. Re:How are they to know what is allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's easy: Rightscorp tells them. Rightscorp is not complaining about ISPs failing to determine which ones of their customers violate copyright. Rightscorp's complaint is that ISPs refuse to sanction customers who have been pointed out to the ISPs as infringing.

    2. Re:How are they to know what is allowed by number17 · · Score: 1

      Following on this thought, I would imagine almost all traffic on the internet is of copywrited material. Most of it comes from the copywrite holder, such as Slashdot, to end users.

    3. Re:How are they to know what is allowed by Calydor · · Score: 1

      I would like to see Rightscorp prove that all of their data, NO EXCEPTIONS, is valid and accurate.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:How are they to know what is allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True to a point about copyright but as this is not an issue of the small person giving rights, or not enforcing their rights, you have to be pretty clueless to not understand that the topic is about those not granting rights to others. Wake up and smell your ass moosedroppings.

    5. Re:How are they to know what is allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be like holding UPS responsible for me shipping antibiotics to someone. They don't know the contents of the package and if they did, they don't know whether the recipient has a legal prescription for that medication.

      The difference is that while the ISPs are not responsible to know if content is being infringed upon, they are apparently supposed to comply with copyright holders claims with evidence. Which makes sense, because at that point, the ISP is passively - but knowingly - aiding "illegal" activity.

      Unfortunately, the way tackle this problem is reforming copyright, but we all know how well that will work.

    6. Re:How are they to know what is allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you read their name? They're the corp that decides the rights!

    7. Re:How are they to know what is allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trademarks property of their respective owners. Comments owned by the poster. Copyright © 2016 SlashdotMedia. All Rights Reserved.

      On the bottom of every page. Slashdot is a rare site where the content made by the users remains property of the users.

    8. Re:How are they to know what is allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rightscorp's complaint is that ISPs refuse to sanction customers based only on accusation, without any judgement by a neutral third party.

      FTFY.

    9. Re:How are they to know what is allowed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because something has a copyright doesn't mean it is illegal to share it. If the owner of the copyright allows their content to be shared on site x, then it is ok. Therefore, how is an ISP supposed to know a content's owner has given site "x" the right to store/share/distribute their content. Also, that right could be granted for an hour, a day, a month, or longer. Most mainstream artists license their work to be used via multiple venues. There is no real way for an ISP to know who has a legitimate right to store/share/distribute content for any particular time period. It would be like holding UPS responsible for me shipping antibiotics to someone. They don't know the contents of the package and if they did, they don't know whether the recipient has a legal prescription for that medication.

      Logic and reason are only relevant in ethical legal systems. The USA does not have an ethical legal system, or ethical legal profession. It hasn't had an ethical legal profession since day 1: having slavery in the legal system of a nation founded to protect the rights of man was certainly unethical practice of law. This was the reason we had to have a Civil War to end slavery: the lawyers weren't going to do anything about it on their own, even though everybody with a function brain knew that slavery was wrong. That particular symptom of the legal ethics disease was eventually cured (though African-Americans would have their legal rights routinely violated until the 1960s), but the disease remains.

      Fair use rights are a consequence of the highest law in the land - the Bill of Rights. They exist as a consequence of the 9th and 10th Amendments: unspecified rights retained by the people, and unspecified rights reserved to the people. Many aspects of copyright law and the DMCA - and the things that are done under the illusion of authority granted by these laws - violate a number of rights arising under these amendments, including the right to reasonable conduct, the right to not be subject to extortion or false threats under the "colour of law", the right to not have a portion of one's life unlawfully stolen, and the right to ethical practice of law.

      The RightsCorp lawyers are violating their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights, and engaging in unethical practice of law. The RightsCorp executives, in allowing them to do this, are also violating the Bill of Rights. Any court that doesn't treat them accordingly becomes an accessory to illegal conduct. It's that simple, but the lawyers are never going to allow anything to be done that would alter the unethical status quo in US law - and the huge "campaign contributions" aka bribes that associations of legal professionals give to both political parties ensures nothing will be done about this. That means scum like RightsCorp get away with breaking the law. Crime does pay, if you can position yourself on the right side of a mostly unethical legal profession.

  15. You wanna put an end to this? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Demand that the ISPs become common carriers.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:You wanna put an end to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Demand that secondary liability lawsuits be banned.

    2. Re:You wanna put an end to this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's bitztream, the moronic autism-hating Slashdot troll!

    3. Re:You wanna put an end to this? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      Drop a nuke in the Rightscorp office and move on.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  16. ENEMY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rightscorp is an enemy of people, enemy of freedom and is now an enemy of Anonymous and every other freedom fighter out there.

    The Internet is OUR domain, and we do not recognize copyright, or any EULA.

    1. Re:ENEMY by HBI · · Score: 2

      The problem of course is that Rightscorp is a shadow entity, and attacking it directly will be difficult. You'll end up at the doorstep of the copyright cartel. Which i'm shocked hasn't been a target up until now.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    2. Re:ENEMY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem of course is that Rightscorp is a shadow entity, and attacking it directly will be difficult.

      Eventually they will screw with the wrong people. Donald Trump was right about one thing, there are lots of Second Amendment people out there that are tired of all the bullshit. Perhaps it's not wise to provoke them.

  17. man, I'm not looking forward to this shitfest by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    It took IBM FOURTEEN YEARS to put down SCO group.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:man, I'm not looking forward to this shitfest by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      It took IBM FOURTEEN YEARS to put down SCO group.

      Has SCO really been put down . . . ? They always seemed to me to be like a "Whack-a-Mole" game from country fairs, and the like. Every time they got whacked down, and someone claimed them for dead, the head would pop up again from another hole.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:man, I'm not looking forward to this shitfest by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      True, but in SCO's case, every subsequent resurrection is weaker, and weaker... I figure it's at the point where nowadays, IBM just has one of their janitors spend a few minutes each week to check on their status.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:man, I'm not looking forward to this shitfest by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      It took IBM FOURTEEN YEARS to put down SCO group.

      I think it was just a reality show for all OSS and legal eyes to enjoy. Oh, and it was.

    4. Re: man, I'm not looking forward to this shitfest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you, Gozer?

    5. Re:man, I'm not looking forward to this shitfest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCO is like a nut sedge weed. You can hit it with roundup and it comes back. You can pull it and it comes back. Heck, you can burn it and it comes back. But if you keep after it, over 10 years or so, it gradually comes back weaker and weaker until you are no longer infested but can, potentially, control it.

    6. Re:man, I'm not looking forward to this shitfest by thevirtualcat · · Score: 1

      True. They do eventually stop when people stop putting money in the machine, though.

  18. Dumb pipe by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

    I really don't get how all these ISPs that discriminate traffic can get away with remaining non-liable. The safe harbor is ONLY if they are unaware, thus this should be encouragement for not knowing what is happening on their network.

    1. Re:Dumb pipe by tsqr · · Score: 2

      I really don't get how all these ISPs that discriminate traffic can get away with remaining non-liable. The safe harbor is ONLY if they are unaware, thus this should be encouragement for not knowing what is happening on their network.

      I agree with you, but that's not what this particular issue is about. Rightscorp isn't telling the ISPs they have to detect users' copyright infringing activities. Rightscorp is telling ISPs they have to implement and enforce policies whereby users' connections can be terminated if they (the users) engage in excessive copyright infringement. The ISP cooperation they want works like this:

      -- Rightscorp identifies copyright infringement
      -- Rightscorp notifes ISP
      -- ISP tells user to knock it off
      -- User continues infringing and Rightscorp identifies it
      -- Rightscorp notifies ISP
      -- ISP terminates user's internet connection

    2. Re:Dumb pipe by ArtemaOne · · Score: 1

      Actually that is exactly what this is about. The fact that they know that their users are abusing copyright should remove their safe harbor protection.

    3. Re:Dumb pipe by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

      I really don't get how all these ISPs that discriminate traffic can get away with remaining non-liable. The safe harbor is ONLY if they are unaware, thus this should be encouragement for not knowing what is happening on their network.

      It's only copyright infringement if it's not fair use and you don't have a license. The ISP may be able to detect that you're transmitting certain material, but they have no way to know whether what you are doing is actually copyright infringement. That is something that could only be determined in court after the fact.

      Also, there is no way that implementing a handful of automated filters equates to the ability to exercise effective editorial control over the entire Internet.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    4. Re: Dumb pipe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day they do that is the day I take a drive with my laptop and get my whole city banned from the internet. Well, at least all the wifi users(which is almost everyone.) Hell, I might even be able to get the hospitals banned. No more peak hour slowdowns.
      Then I'll never lag in games again!

    5. Re:Dumb pipe by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Sounds like RIghtsCorp is trying to interfere with a contract they are not a party to, one between you and the ISP.

      Seems like the correct thing to do in that situation is turn round and sue rights corp for contractual interference.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:Dumb pipe by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Seems like the correct thing to do in that situation is turn round and sue rights corp for contractual interference.

      That might work, if the ISP's terms of service don't include provisions for termination for unlawful use; I think most of them do include such provisions. Contractual interference (known in the legal trade as tortious interference) usually occurs when a one party attempts to induce a second party to breach a contract with a third party. A party that merely points out that a second party has already breached a contract with a third party (e.g., when someone points out that a user has breached the ISP's TOS) is not engaging in tortious interference. Of course, I Am Not A Lawyer, so I may be completely full of shit.

    7. Re:Dumb pipe by ameline · · Score: 1

      Let me fix that for you;

      -- Rightscorp ALLEGES copyright infringement (with little or no evidence to back up the assertion)
      -- Rightscorp notifies ISP, claiming airtight proof, when all they have is some tracker somewhere saying that your IP was part of a swarm at some (unverified) time.
      -- ISP tells user to knock it off
      -- User continues infringing (assuming they were, or not) and Rightscorp allegedly identifies it again.
      -- Rightscorp notifies ISP
      -- ISP tells Rightscorp to piss off with their unproven assertions with no evidence.

      --
      Ian Ameline
    8. Re:Dumb pipe by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Let me fix that for you;

      Yeah, I was describing the way they want it to work as outlined in TFA, not the way a random internet user sees it. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

    9. Re:Dumb pipe by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Also, there is no way that implementing a handful of automated filters equates to the ability to exercise effective editorial control over the entire Internet.

      This is pretty much what Rightscorp seems to want, though, but it would be interesting if somebody argued that what they are demanding you do is as reasonable as trying to sue a corpse back to life--and thus the entire thing, right down to asking if the laws says they can demand it, is an utter waste of the court's time and needs to be treated as such.

    10. Re:Dumb pipe by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      If they did that to me, my workaround would be to just sign up again.

      If they wouldn't let me do it under my name, I would make up a name.

      I have ever had to show my ID to get phone, internet or cable TV.

      They always ask for a SSN, but I always tell them I don't have one. And they will tell me I have to pay in advance - not a problem

  19. They only use copyright as an excuse... by MindPrison · · Score: 0

    ...to hide their real agenda, total user survellance.

    user data is a goldmine, way more worth than any copyright breach, but the copyright breach paves the way for alienating every users civil rights to privacy and freedom.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  20. Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man the judge just goes waaaay off the rails here:

    https://torrentfreak.com/images/coxdetails.pdf

    "In support, Cox relies on two more recent cases from the Ninth Circuit, Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007), and Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa International Service Association, 494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007). This Court is of course not bound by either decision, nor does the Court find the reasoning in those decisions warrants summary judgment here."

    Which is hilarious considering the judge makes quite a few arguments citing 9th circuit decisions. The decisions cited here are directly applicable to the case.The defendants made a compelling argument, and the judge admits they ignored them. The judge blithely argues that there's no undue financial burden induced when a users internet service is permanently terminated. Yeah...none of us use the internet for work or finances or taxes...

    1. Re:Yup by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well...IIUC summary judgment is a very high bar to reach. And if that's what this is about, then the whole headline, story, etc. is a pile of crap. Summary judgments are issued before the trial and avert the trial.

      So if that's what this is about the whole story is click-bait...except the part that RightsCorp is using a lack of summary judgment as an excuse to threaten all the ISPs. If that's what's going on this is an even more reprehensible summary than usually occurs...and is good grounds for doubting every single thing that Slashdot posts.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  21. Might be a blessing disguise by Facekhan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, TW, all sued into bankruptcy, then the government steps in and nationalizes the last mile infrastructure. FTW!

    1. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, TW, all sued into bankruptcy, then the government steps in and nationalizes the last mile infrastructure. FTW!

      And then what do you think the government is going to do with all those bit they now control?

    2. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 2

      Look at the state of the nations roads, bridges, and overpasses and ask yourself if you really think the government would really be an improvement.

    3. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, TW, all sued into bankruptcy, then the government steps in and nationalizes the last mile infrastructure. FTW!

      Be careful what you wish for. "Nationalizes" means you want the federal government to do this. There's a lot that can go wrong with that.

      Municipal broadband can be very nice, however. At least at the local level there is some semblance of accountability and representation. And if worst comes to worst, you have the option of moving and maybe not even very far. The feds are not so easily escaped and there's no hope of them becoming non-corrupt and they won't even pretend to care about you. The Internet is becoming ever more important over time, not less, so this would only worsen.

    4. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Given the lack of investment and overselling of access by all the above named companies, how much worse could it be?

    5. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 1

      Any one of the major ISP's, if they bother to take RightsCorp seriously, have far, Far, FAR more capitol to put into lawyers than RightsCorp ever will.
      If, at any point, these guys even feel the slightest twinge of threat from RC, they will roll over RighsCorp like a tidal wave.

      Besides, once this issue reaches a real court ( and it will ) the entire thing will get tossed out. That whole bit about due process and whatnot.
      That or all it will take is one mistake on RC's part demanding a potential " infringer " be punished and THAT lawsuit will put them completely out of business in one fell swoop.

    6. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know photons, and electrons caused wear and tear to communications infrastructure lines.

      Fascinating...

    7. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, TW, all sued into bankruptcy, then the government steps in and nationalizes the last mile infrastructure. FTW!

      <sarcasm>Yeah, that's exactly what I want: the government controlling my Internet!</sarcasm>

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    8. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever used 56K dialup?

    9. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to suggest that those companies are presently acting as impediments to whatever the government would be doing if the government owned their networks outright?

    10. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I know people don't RTFA, but really? RTFS!!!!!

      RC won against Cox *IN COURT*. That's what triggered this whole mess.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    11. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by dunkindave · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to suggest that those companies are presently acting as impediments to whatever the government would be doing if the government owned their networks outright?

      Actually, yes. Right now they would need to break the law to do it, and I am sure there is some of that going on. If they owned and controlled the networks though, they can legally monitor them for the "protection of the rights or property of the provider", i.e. the provider exemption to the Wiretap Act [18 U.S.C.2511], which I am sure can be weasel worded into all sorts of ways to then legally monitor it.

    12. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The roads, bridges, and overpasses have been in successful, regular use for decades, with a standardized set of regulations posted every few miles and often vigorously enforced? In aggregate we might not have the nicest roads in the world but they're there and they work.

      When you tie the police budget to the traffic ticket revenues, though, you see the kind of abuses that a private company like Rightscorp would perpetuate. We already know Rightscorp and the RIAA will abuse the system because they already have a long history of doing so. The last mile of fiber honestly, in my humble opinion which is probably wrong, falls under "infrastructure" and "regulating free trade" and is solidly within the responsibilities of the US government as set out in the constitution.

    13. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Replying to myself, since your username suggests you are canadian; since I am american I admit I don't have the foggiest notion what the state of your roads and bridges are like, or what your national constitution says about free trade. Sorry!

    14. Re:Might be a blessing disguise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and nationalizes the last mile infrastructure. FTW!

      I never keep up with these ISP acronyms. Fiber to ... wall?

  22. Those Bastards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those bastards!

    They're making me root for Comcast to win in court!

  23. Thanks A Lot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now I have to torrent 300 again!

  24. Shit like this is what will destroy the Internet by kheldan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As someone else said: one direction this could go, is that ANY traffic that isn't sent in the clear could be classified as some sort of copyright infringement. That would even include https:/// traffic, since technically an ISP is not supposed to be snooping on that; under current laws they would be committing a cybercrime if they did. Also anyone using TOR or any other onion-routing network would have to be considered potentially infringing on someone's copyright, since it's encrypted and therefore they would have to assume that it's something illegal. Add to this the well-known fact that technology-ignorant (or just power-hungry; you be the judge) politicians, government officials, and law enforcement all would love it if all encryption was outlawed (except, of course, for them, and doubtlessly the rich 1%, who will have 'exemptions' because they're 'important' or somesuch bullshit; but I diverge..) and everything was sent in the clear -- even banking transactions, I'm sure, since they want to know where every penny you have is going (you might be funding terrorism, or buying something illegal!), all of which would essentially make the Internet completely unusable for any serious purposes; after that point only a fool would use it for anything, knowing that every single byte that goes in or out would be sifted and analyzed even worse than it is right now..

    Nope, nope, nope.. 'Rightscorp' needs to be destroyed, completely erradicated; they are part of the Cancer that is killing the Internet; they are why we can't have nice things. Them, them, fuck them. ISPs should not be part of law enforcement. ISPs may be the gateway to the Internet, but they should not be the GATEKEEPERS.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  25. Why just the ISPs? Why not everyone else? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly the ISPs carried the data, but who provided the electromotive force that runs the equipment that was used to infringe? Shouldn't they be held accountable? Who made the wires that carried the data? How about the network devices? Who made the computers used to commit these crimes?
    Who provided the energy to drive the electric companies? And who is keeping those copyright pirates alive and breathing so they can continue infringing?
    What about the parents that created those criminals in the first place?
    I doubt that any person or company is truly doing all they could to stop this deplorable infringement problem.

  26. IP Address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >even when the ISP had been put on notice of massive infringements and supplied with detailed evidence

    Really, I just thought is was just an IP Address they supplied.

  27. Bit torrent must DIE by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    There must be a workable solution for people to exchange data amongst themselves without everything they do broadcast to every copyright shakedown company and LEA in the world.

    It has always been universally understood those interested in obtaining or distributing "illicit" goods and services would be required to at least put some effort into concealing their activities, watching their backs and limiting trading networks to guard against having to suffer consequences.

    Once shit like Napster started everyone who wanted to benefit from the underground got it without ever having to actually venture underground. Virtually no risk/input effort required commensurate with their illicit gains.

    There are a number of political problems from illegitimacy generated by laws a critical mass of people both disagree with and routinely break to corporations having too much influence or effectively short circuiting matters in the governments domain. Yet my primary concern is the continual damage the type of very detailed and complete information about majority of illicit shit people are trading using bit torrent online is causing to the Internet.

    If these SIGs can't see anything they not only can't enforce anything themselves they lose the ability to use insane treasure troves of data detailing vast majority of all P2P participants and exactly what they are doing to petition governments to fuck up the Internet even more.

  28. Rightscorp may want to read ISP terms of service by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....where they state the end user is liable for their activities. That is all.

  29. I honestly don't care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Access to free entertainment media is about as important to free access to mud.

  30. Less than $5M by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Take a look at the market cap..
    https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

    For less than $5 Million dollars an ISP could buy these idiots out and fire them.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    1. Re:Less than $5M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's probably what they want. IBM could have done the same with SCO, but that's basically paying the ransom which encourages more people to take hostages. Better to cure it with fire so they don't start a new company, take the small amount of IP they had to base the case on and start all this over again...

    2. Re:Less than $5M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe that's their exit strategy.

    3. Re:Less than $5M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For less than $5 Million dollars an ISP could buy these idiots out and fire them.

      That's paying ransom. It will only encourage more attacks. The proper response is to litigate them into the ground, as IBM did with SCO until there is nothing left but a burnt out shell company. Then you stomp the ashes into the earth and go after the attorneys who worked for the burnt out shell of the company. You pursue them professionally until their right to practice law is revoked or severely curtailed. In other words, you crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentation of their women. By the time you're done making an example of them, all potential copycats are too scared to take the field. That's the IBM way and you know what? It works. It might cost more in the short run, but the long term returns on the strategy are solid gold.

    4. Re:Less than $5M by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at the market cap..
      https://finance.yahoo.com/quot...

      For less than $5 Million dollars an ISP could buy these idiots out and fire them.

      Let's start a kickstarter campaign. I'll lead it, and we'll get 5+ million dollars, and then I'll throw them all into the fire at Mount Doom. It'll be extremely easy ... to do ... because .... shoving them over ... the edge... is ... all ........ ..... My Precious.

  31. Historically False by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Pretty much across the board you are wrong. Patents and Patent protection existed for a few hundred years, but it was a measurable patent award on real inventions. While the machine was patented ideas were not, so competition existed and people created competing products. They could not copy the exact machine, but the first run is not normally the best. Go look at how many variations of a Cotton Gin, automobile, motor bike, Steam engine, etc.. etc.. etc.. existed. People could see that something worked and smarter people got ideas on emulating and improving. We have thousands of years of innovation by improving whats there, which would and could not ever happen if people claimed to own idea like shitbag companies do today.

    Amazingly the successful people did not normally starve to death because someone "stole" their idea.

    People often point to Tesla and Edison and I agree that Tesla was shat upon, but he did not die broke because of the fued. Tesla decided to stop petitioning and building small things, and went to huge inventions costing boatloads of wealth, attempting build free power for everyone. It's a nice altruistic goal, but won't make any money or attract investors.

    You would similarly lose the same arguments against Copyrights by using facts.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  32. A new approach: Sarsbane-Oxley against CEOs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they are clever they will use Sarsbane-Oxley against CEOs. As the ISPs are stating that somehow it is impossible for their software to do what others can do, they are risking their own futures as it can be proven against them. As SO requires all items that have a material effect on a corporations bottom line, and I will pretty well guess that in the past 5 years no ISP has made a statement in their reporting to this effect, they are in effect in violation of federal U.S. law and the CEOs of the ISPs can be facing personal charges.

    In addition, the ISPs have been put on notice that their users are committing crimes in which it can be proven that technology can prevent and they once again have denied responsibility, they are themselves then an accomplice. This river is deep and they have no canoe yet oars to defend themselves from the crocs.

  33. Bravado by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    You know why Rightscorp is "threatening"? Because they have no chance of winning.
    If they had a case they'd just directly sue instead of threatening. It's quite obvious.

    But sure, let's see how Rightscorp goes against telecom giants. LET THEM FIGHT

    Nothing would please me more than mutual destruction in this case. Rebuild everything from scratch.

    1. Re:Bravado by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cox Communications is not your local mom and pop ISP.

    2. Re:Bravado by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darl McBride found a new job?

              http://www.groklaw.net/

  34. Damn this zionist scum! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn this zionist scum!

  35. VPN is the solution by argee · · Score: 1

    Think VPN. And, speaking of VPN, why can't an ISP have its own VPN and use it as default, unless a user wants a routable IP address.
    When I browse on my cell phone or tablet, and go to view my network settings, I see my IP is 10.x.y.z. This is called "Carrier grade NAT"
    and is just one breath away from VPN. But my local cable ISP gives me a routable IP by default.

    1. Re:VPN is the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you use a VPN you are presumed guilty of copyright infringement. See above regarding encryption.

  36. Not Part of a Tyrannical Government by Kunedog · · Score: 1

    Naw, neither Comcast nor Rightscorp are (technically) part of the government.

    1. Re:Not Part of a Tyrannical Government by jmccue · · Score: 1

      Correct, they own a nice piece of the government

    2. Re:Not Part of a Tyrannical Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why be a part of the government when you can have a part of the government be a part of yourself, by having the idiots use your technology and then using it against them by consolidating all those browser history data collections that would make juicy public scandals.
      Or threatening to send them to their families if they don't lobby some shit in your interest.

  37. DNC Staffer Treatment by sycodon · · Score: 0

    Maybe the executives of TrollCorp should be given the DNC staffer treatment.

    Can't sue when you are dead.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  38. Here's what I think of Rightscorpse... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Compared with Rightscorpse, herpes sounds pretty good.
    Can you guess what would make me exceedingly thrilled? Rightscorpse being forcibly fucked by an angry mob.
    In a year, I'd be surprised if Rightscorpse weren't porking a sex offender in an unoccupied meat processing plant for spare change.
    My understanding is that the only loving Rightscorpse gets is from a tube sock.
    Insults courtesy of http://www.insultgenerator.org...

  39. isp threats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can all switch ti an IP less system of tokens that expire.
    1

  40. Family Accounts or NATed Business Accounts? by DaZZl3R · · Score: 1

    So you punish the whole family because little Jimmy has downloaded some movies? What's to prevent signing up for another account in another family member's name? Internet access is almost a utility these days, as crucial to living in the modern world as power and water. Denying it to the whole family because one member has abused it, or a neighbor has guessed the WIFI password, seems excessive. What about businesses that NAT their traffic through a single IP but don't have the resources of an ISP to determine who the culprit is. Seems like too many innocents will be punished in their aggressive approach to dealing with the problem.

    1. Re:Family Accounts or NATed Business Accounts? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      as crucial to living in the modern world as power and water

      Ummm, look, I like the internet, I like it a lot. I'm a huge fan of the internet, honest, a really huge fan. And it's super useful and it makes life better. I got nothin' bad to say about the internet.

      But get a grip, dude- it's not as crucial as power and water.

      Internet, power, and water: pick one of them to not have in your home.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    2. Re:Family Accounts or NATed Business Accounts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really?

      Self employed and state taxes are internet only after a certain dollar amount per year.
      Payroll taxes are internet only now too i believe. Certainly required for business now.

  41. Get a chair by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    ...and some popcorn.

    On second thought, there isn't enough popcorn in the world to cover this level of chutzpah.

    This sounds like Hail Mary pass, make it or break it for Rightscorp. It looks like there are only two realistic outcomes:

    1) They win big and are owed 50 gazillion kabillion bleptillion dollars (all the money on Earth times 2 plus infinity), or

    2) The court will incinerate them down to the molecular level and what's left over could be cleaned up with a Dustbuster.

    I'm betting on incineration.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  42. Rightscorp *already* won in court. Law change need by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Rightscorp *already* won in court. They sued Cox, the fifth largest ISP in the country. To fix the situation, a few words need to be added to the relevant law, the DMCA.

    While we're at it, also adding a significant penalty for filing negligent DMCA notices would go aa LONG way to fixing the other problems related to the issues the act was intended to address.

  43. disappear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone needs to make the head honchos "disappear."

  44. Re: Shit like this is what will destroy the Intern by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let them kill the internet. Then we can finally get everyone to put their APs into mesh mode and have a real internet for once. Onion routing and DHT and encrypted tunnels should be the way, not this centralized BS we have today.

  45. Re: Shit like this is what will destroy the Inter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mesh network? My nearest neighbor is 1/4 mile away. It would be a series of disconnected MANs not a global network.

  46. The question that needs to be asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What ISP does Rightscorp use? Surely the ISPs can get together and ban those fucktards off the internet.

  47. Internet, Water, Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Water... I can bring it home in buckets, catch it from the sky and recycle it, especially if I have power.

  48. Execute everyone who works for "Rightscorp" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem solved. Getting sick of human garbage fucking up the planet for everyone.

  49. Space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Astronauts are in the -Power category. They are beamed the Internet and are resupplied with water, but they capture their own power.

  50. Aww man ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought sure these asshats were on the way out https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/05/18/0019211/copyright-trolls-rightscorp-are-teetering-on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy I guess maybe they are SCO v2.0.

  51. Can someone explain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone explain to me why Rightscorp still has an internet connection? :)

    Looks like their service provider might be GoDaddy/SecureServer.net. I'd say that constitutes tacit support of Rightscorp's position... Unless it's not, in which case they could simply deny them access.

  52. When punks at RIGHTSCORP die.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we won't have this problem.

  53. Re:Rightscorp *already* won in court. Law change n by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

    Rightscorp *already* won in court. They sued Cox, the fifth largest ISP in the country. To fix the situation, a few words need to be added to the relevant law, the DMCA.

    While we're at it, also adding a significant penalty for filing negligent DMCA notices would go aa LONG way to fixing the other problems related to the issues the act was intended to address.

    Honestly, I suspect at this point it might be worth floating a law that basically says that the moment your demands to somebody to settle gets hard to distinguish from extortion? It will automatically result in you losing the case, possibly with you having to pay for everybody's legal costs. That, and basically point out that we need to let a third party be assured that they're safe--if you're going to insist Alice, who has an established reputation of borderline-at-best extortion via lawsuit, be helped to reach Bob by Charlie? Then Charlie should be absolutely safe legally if this time Alice finally faces criminal charges.

    Note that I'm suggesting this across the board, too--you might well have an easier time getting this into law if you have it be just civil suits in general, especially since I suspect you could sell it to companies as protecting their asses too. After all, they might not always be playing Alice...

  54. HA by SilverBlade2k · · Score: 1

    haha,. Good luck with that.

    Going against ALL ISP's in the US is like trying to go against God.

    Rightcorp will lose. They might as well declare bankruptcy now and walk away.

  55. DMCA covers both clearly in this case by raymorris · · Score: 1

    In this case, existing law already covers both your point about "extortion" and safe harbor from liability. What it doesn't cover adequately is RightsCorp's high volume of negligent complaints.

    First, extortion. Suppose I scratch your car, a big scratch. You want $2,000 to have it repainted. I offer $100 to have just the scratch covered with touch up paint. You're not happy with that because even with the touch up paint, the damage will be visible. You say "if you don't pay to have my car painted, I'll take the issue to court. I'll sue you for the $2,000." Is that extortion? No, it's not extortion to state that you'll pursue a claim that you believe to be legitimate. It would only be extortion if you said "if you don't pay for my car, I'll lie and sue you for sexual harassment". Does Rightscorp believe they have a legitimate complaint? The court ruled that they do! And by the letter of the law, they *should* have won. Cox didn't do what the law says they must do in order to avoid liability. Since Rightscorp is pursuing an arguably legitimate claim, it's clearly not extortion. (Not that I LIKE Rightscorp, but the court ruled that their claim was correct.)

    Cox could theoretically counter-sue for the cost of handling negilgent notices, but that's a side issue.

    The DMCA is mostly about providing safe harbor to carriers such that they can't be sued by either the copyright holder or the person accused of violating copyrights, provided that they follow the prescribed process. The carrier can't be sued by anyone for what they the carrier does, if the carrier does the process outlined in the DMCA. Cox chose not to follow the DMCA process with Rightscorp notices. (Because Rightscorp sent a lot of questionable notices and apparently Cox didn't realize they could just tell the customers to fill out a counter-notice form, if they weren't actually violating.)

    1. Re:DMCA covers both clearly in this case by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      The issue with the extortion is the negligent notices and the practices--this is not 'you scratched my car,' this is 'me claiming that you scratched my car (with you not being able to verify this was even possible and having no idea what evidence I might have to support my claim), demanding $20,000 (when that's significantly above what the repair will cost), and you not being able to afford to defend yourself against my army of bottom-feeding ambulance chasers.'

      The 'demanding significantly more than the cost of the necessary paint job' thing is an outright equivalent to something I remember having come out, too. I do remember a court outright determining when somebody challenged the amount that Rightscorp or one of its relatives was suing for. The court did take as given that their claim on the number of lost sales was correct...but then calculated exactly just how much they'd have made on said sales using the price they were selling the song for on iTunes. The amount was significantly lower. (If you want the case, find it yourself.)

      I honestly don't think it ought to be necessary to sue anybody for the cost of handling negligent notices. Aside from the rather basic fact that the volume of negligent notices ought to have hit the threshold for a failure of due diligence, something lawyers are supposed to practice on these sort of things, it seems reasonable to require the party sending them out cover the costs--they can tack it onto what they ask for when they win, if nothing else.

      The way the DMCA process is written, the party making the claim doesn't really face much penalty for effectively lying to the court--while the risky and difficult task of defending yourself against false claims can be quite costly and you're unlikely to get Rightscorp or their ilk having to pick up the tab for that.

    2. Re:DMCA covers both clearly in this case by raymorris · · Score: 1

      > The way the DMCA process is written, the party making the claim doesn't really face much penalty for effectively lying to the court

      Absolutely agreed. That's a major problem with DMCA. In mynexperience handling DMCA issues and advising people on both sides, it's THE major problem. Other issues flow from this.

      > it seems reasonable to require the party sending them out cover the costs--they can tack it onto what they ask for when they win, if nothing else.

      In the Rightscorp vs Cox example, it seems perfectly reasonable. Consider a tube site set up solely for the purpose of people unlawfully uploading other people's content. It would be crazy to allow the tube site operator to triple their revenue by charging their victims $100 per video to remove them. If that were the law, we'd immediately have a flood of sites and services whose primary purpose is to demand payment for removing content they shouldn't have ripped off in the first place, demanding payment from the very people they took the content from in the first place. So while we'd all like to charge Rightscorp any fees we can think of, it would be a horrible law.

    3. Re:DMCA covers both clearly in this case by Cinnamon+Beige · · Score: 1

      Like any law, it'd depend on how it was written--for example, if the law says you can charge only postage on the basis that under normal circumstances handling ought to be a negligible cost due to automation, then you should be able to make it quite hard for anybody to justify charging $100 for forwarding notices...especially if they can be asked to explain how they managed to make mere postage cost that much to the court. "Do you feel it somehow necessary, perhaps, to send each notice lovingly packaged in a special envelope that includes an artisanal brick?" (And, well, it might get notices sent to the middle man needing nothing more than the correct address applied before being sent on--postage already paid.)

      Personally, I'd prefer overall the simplest solution: instead of fees for forwarding notices, just explicitly make bad DMCA claims subject to the same consequences faced for pretty much any other sort of bad claim made to the court. There's penalties for other forms of frivolous and vexatious litigation, and there seems no particularly good reason for the unquestioned assumption of competence and good faith with DMCA-related litigation. Well, aside from the practical and effective barrier created by the fact that Rightscorp and the ilk can afford a bevvy of ambulance chasers to make it very costly for anybody to actually fight them unless the claim's so absurd that you can get the judge to laugh it out of court, but that's a general problem with the civil process in the US...

  56. kill rightscorp employees and executives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the world would be a better place

  57. Someone please tell Hillary by russotto · · Score: 1

    ...that Rightscorp execs have the rights to all her under-the-table dealings and are going to release them if the piracy doesn't stop. Then I can finally applaud an addition to the Clinton Body COunt.

  58. Re: Shit like this is what will destroy the Intern by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Hi there drinkypoo. Your idea is still as stupid as the first time this week you said it. Your 'mesh network internet' would rapidly become a haven for pedophiles trafficking in child porn, and other criminals and their criminal activity, including invading other people's computers on the network, stealing their data and personal information, and stealing their identities; the FBI would step in, there would be lots of arrests, and before too long the whole practice would be outlawed, ruining it for everyone, and mesh networks would be regulated to within an inch of their lives just like drone-toys are now, all because of some jackasses and assholes who can't control themselves. So think we'll skip that and deprecate people like you who come up with such fucktarded concepts instead and avoid all the hassle.

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  59. Death of the internet by Contract+Gypsy · · Score: 0

    This is just another cog in the wheel of its destruction.Lets see, add Rightscorp to NSA, unyielding ads, viruses, and so on. Hell you can't even type in a valid search term without having other ads pop up disguised as "real hits" with a Hillary or Trump face on it. Heck, there are websites that are spelled slightly different than normally used websites just so they can feed you ads and download viruses/trojans. Don't even get me started on FB, the 180 degree bias of Faux news. There is little to no truth left on the internet. I'm going to show my age here, but the internet, when it started, was an experiment so that colleges and researcher could communicate with one another in a text form. Yeah, a 300 Baud modem was slow, but back then I could get tech info faster than I can at 12MBPs today. Don't forget the good ol' days where Terraterm, VT100 terminals, and a few servers, but no ads, no music, and so on. FB and sites like it put you at risk more than any benefit it provides. Our neighborhood has a FB page where we can yack back and forth. Heaven forbid though if you go to a neighbors house and knock on their door before alerting them ahead of time. Social interactions are a thing of the past, how about real friends, of the physical type vs. a hey, I just clicked your like button! There is no hate button, but the lewd responses say it all, even if you type about giving autonomy to military drones so they can defend themselves... sooner or later they will fly over your own country... Why typing that idea out makes you a joke Skynet hater! Its the politicians that scare the fuck out of me.

    --
    Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
  60. Let's have a little perspective here... by martinfb · · Score: 1

    It seems an unsure thing that ISP should be required to 'police' their users activities. ISP primarily sell access to the web.

    Seems more appropriate that ISP provide infringers' info (who and where they are). Then Rightscorp can enforce those rights directly.

    It just seems that ISP should nt be held liable for users' infringements.


    Sorry, dear deserving artist. Sue the infringer.

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  61. Call their bluff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I say RightCrop, hereby referred to a AHI (Asshats Inc) are blowing steam, ignore them and call their bluff, make them prove it. INAL, or an American, but I am curious to know if what ISP's do is actually protected in some convoluted way under the First Amendment, which surely supersedes alleged copyright infrigements.

    Secondly, how did AHI get this information? With malware, hacking, illegal trackers? If so the evidence is inadmissable(?).

  62. A bit more by dbIII · · Score: 1

    The thing to look up is Indian wootz steel. It has huge amounts of carbon (1.5%C) and a lot of chrome among other things. There are people that say the art was lost in the 18th century in Europe, but that's just a case of moving on to less difficult materials in a place where they could be made. Elsewhere around the world the technique was still used.

  63. It's not forwarding that is required by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > quite hard for anybody to justify charging $100 for forwarding notices

    The DMCA doesn't require service providers to forward notices. It requires them to follow a specific process, but mailing things isn't part of that process.

    The first step, which very much applies to the problem "notices", is determining whether or not the communication is in fact a qualifying DMCA notice at all. (Many of Rightscorp's alleged notices did not meet DMCA requirements.) You can easily spend a couple of man-hours on a handling a case, sometimes a few hours. For a rough estimate of the cost, twice the employee's salaries - you have to pay for their office, computer, health insurance etc as well as their salaries.