Anti-Piracy Firm Rightscorp Will Hijack Pirates' Browsers Until a Fine is Paid (torrentfreak.com) 339
An anonymous reader writes: Anti-piracy firm Rightscorp says that it's working on a next-generation technology called Scalable Copyright, under which it plans to extract cash settlements from suspected Internet pirates. The company says its new technology will lock users' browsers and prevent Internet access until they pay a fine. (Sounds familiar?) To encourage ISPs to play along, Rightscorp says the system could help to limit their copyright liability. For those unaware, Rightscorp works with copyright owners such as movie studios, music labels, and game developers, and tracks the IP addresses of people who are torrenting copyright infringing material. Sadly, the company's previous tactics haven't worked so well. The company doesn't have many clients, and it posted a net loss of $3.43m in 2015, up from the $2.85m net loss recorded in 2014.
If ever a company and its people deserved to die.. (Score:5, Insightful)
... this is a prime example.
Re:If ever a company and its people deserved to di (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If ever a company and its people deserved to di (Score:4, Insightful)
"Slide into oblivion?" In this case, more like firebombing their offices and making good use of our Second Amendment rights.
We have always wanted to know where to find a ransom ware operator, and now we have one who self-identifies.
Re:If ever a company and its people deserved to di (Score:5, Interesting)
Well... if the person actually IS distributing copyrighted material that would come out in court if they decide to fight...
It may end up costing the person more in the end.
I am guessing they are relying on the old "make the cost less than that of hiring a lawyer" strategy that patent trolls use.
Re:If ever a company and its people deserved to di (Score:5, Insightful)
This is EXACTLY what they are counting on. Suppose I were sued for downloading/distributing Random Movie via this method. They lock my browser (how, I have no clue) and I can't go online. Now, let's also suppose that I was innocent. Perhaps their software was flawed (I was distributing a public domain movie clip called "Just Another Random Movie") or maybe there was a typo in the IP address entry (entered .215 when they should have entered .251). In any event, they were accusing me without merit.
My recourse would be to respond to their accusation by hiring a lawyer, mounting a "Not Guilty" defense, and hoping that they didn't sway the judge with technical sounding (but ultimately false) evidence. I'd have to hope that my lawyer would work pro-bono during this case, would need to endure the media looking into my private life and labeling me some sort of hacker/pirate (and all the fallout that would cause professionally), and would need to dedicate a lot of time/effort/stress to my defense.
Or I could take a quick, relatively inexpensive settlement and avoid all that.
Sadly, most people would take the settlement so they could just get on with their lives. I know I'd be very tempted to sign it.
It's legalized Mafia tactics. "That's a nice life you have there. It'd be a shame if your reputation were dragged through the mud, you lost your job, tons of cash, and years of your life to a lawsuit. Just sign here and you'll be 'protected' against all that from happening. If not..." *knocks browser off shelf, shattering it to a million pieces to prove a point*
Re:If ever a company and its people deserved to di (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares if you are guilty or not, they clearly don't. Actually this type of hacking would very easily fall under the Computer Fraud act. Whoever at rightcorp did it would be in risk of jail time.
The lawsuits would be damn near immediate, look at how much Sony paid for the trojan they deployed on music CD's and it arguably did less damage.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like they need an offshore shell corporation to do the hacking for them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is EXACTLY what they are counting on. Suppose I were sued for downloading/distributing Random Movie via this method. They lock my browser (how, I have no clue) and I can't go online. Now, let's also suppose that I was innocent. Perhaps their software was flawed (I was distributing a public domain movie clip called "Just Another Random Movie") or maybe there was a typo in the IP address entry (entered .215 when they should have entered .251). In any event, they were accusing me without merit.
My recourse would be to respond to their accusation by hiring a lawyer, mounting a "Not Guilty" defense, and hoping that they didn't sway the judge with technical sounding (but ultimately false) evidence. I'd have to hope that my lawyer would work pro-bono during this case, would need to endure the media looking into my private life and labeling me some sort of hacker/pirate (and all the fallout that would cause professionally), and would need to dedicate a lot of time/effort/stress to my defense.
Or I could take a quick, relatively inexpensive settlement and avoid all that.
Sadly, most people would take the settlement so they could just get on with their lives. I know I'd be very tempted to sign it.
It's legalized Mafia tactics. "That's a nice life you have there. It'd be a shame if your reputation were dragged through the mud, you lost your job, tons of cash, and years of your life to a lawsuit. Just sign here and you'll be 'protected' against all that from happening. If not..." *knocks browser off shelf, shattering it to a million pieces to prove a point*
It's funny - the older I get, the more tempted I am, should this happen to me, of taking matters in my own hands and solving a whole lot of other people's problems - if you catch my drift. I mean, if they're gonna fuck up my life beyond repair, and I've only got a decade or so left anyway, why not go out with a bunch of folks grateful for what I did to get justice? I might die, I might end up in prison for a few years before I croak. I can't be the only one who feels this way.
Re:If ever a company and its people deserved to di (Score:5, Insightful)
"Well... if the person actually IS distributing copyrighted material that would come out in court if they decide to fight..."
No, what you do is file criminal charges with the DA for violation of the CFAA, Hacking, and Extortion. They won't be able to use copyright as a defense as copyright is not an affirmative defense against the elements of the crime under any of those crimes listed. You can easily prove those elements of the crime (your computer is all the evidence you need) and their ass is sunk. Their copyright claim won't matter for shit, because they'll be too busy defending themselves against the massive onslaught of criminal suits.
Re:If ever a company and its people deserved to di (Score:4, Insightful)
Until the copyright cartel get a narrow law passed stating that things that would otherwise be a CFAA violation or hacking or whatever aren't in fact illegal if they are being done in connection with enforcing copyrights.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have comcast and when I run a vpn, they can TRY to inject all they want. it bounces off the side (lol).
then again, they disconnect me when I use my vpn and I have to have an auto 'redial' script that pings gateways and reboots the modem when comcrap decides I used enough opaque bw for the day.
https needs to be everywhere, so that rogue isp's can't fuck with your stream. they want to. we can't let them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to d (Score:4, Informative)
*whistles innocently*
http://john.bitsurge.net/publi... [bitsurge.net]
(Add that to your blocklist - set to automatically update.)
Re:If ever a company and its people deserved to di (Score:5, Insightful)
So they want to bypass any proof of wrong-doing, any proper due process, and just be able to assert you infringed and you need to pay.
Sorry, but that is complete bullshit.
Rightscorp isn't in a legal position to impose "fines".
This is a shakedown racket, pure and simple, and Rightscorp wants the right to have ISPs act as the collection muscle with absolutely ZERO standard of proof.
I'm sorry, but we'd trust the assholes at Rightscorp to make these assertions without backing them up with proof, why, exactly?
This isn't a fine, it's fucking protection money which comes with it an implicit admission of guilt. No way in hell there is any legal basis for that.
Doing anything to legitimize these lying bastards is a terrible idea.
Re:If ever a company and its people deserved to di (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder why the feds aren't pursuing RICO charges. This is racketeering plain and simple.
Oh wait, follow the money.
Re:If ever a company and its people deserved to di (Score:4, Informative)
It goes way beyond "malware." In my State, it is a felony.
(3) Any person who knowingly and without authorization alters, damages or destroys any computer, computer system, computer network, or any computer software, program, documentation or data contained in such computer, computer system or computer network, commits computer crime.
... ...
(5)(a) A violation of the provisions of subsection (2) or (3) of this section shall be a Class C felony.
There is no exception for, "I thought he committed a civil tort against me." Even if they sue you for copyright infringement and win, they still can't alter your computer without a very specific court order.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused... wasn't April Fools 3 days ago?
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to d (Score:5, Interesting)
I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft. It's not like driving some else's car, since in this case the original owner retains a copy; it's like taking some else's car design and using it to build your own car without their consent.
No we can't all agree on that. I don't see anything wrong with taking someone else's car design. I don't necessarily agree that intellectual property in the copyright sense has any value. While the patent system is in need of reform I do see some value there in encouraging invention. If car design does not advance the art and technology of car design in any patentable way than I see no reason at all why anyone else should be denied its use. Now if you do some actual R&D and come up with novel and improved way to do something as a result and integrate it into your design yes I would agree you should have a limited time right to license that.
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
By copying the car design, you see some value in it, and should compensate the designer appropriately, it's their design!
That's one way of looking at it. Alternatively, you could say that any car manufacturer can copy the other's design, just like scientists can copy each other's ideas. I'm not sure that we'd end up worse that way.
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to (Score:5, Informative)
It's worked for Jaguar, copying Aston Martin ... save on those design and prototyping costs.
So, instead of having a $200k Aston, you get an $80k Jag.
The chief designer at Jaguar is Ian Callum, who previously designed for Aston Martin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to d (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind, before you respond, that DarkOx specifically mentioned the difference between design and utility. If my design includes something novel (and patented), like a unique mechanism for automatically-adjusting front and rear spoilers, that would be utility rather than design. You'd be welcome to copy every element of the design, including the body of the vehicle and the shape and default placement of the spoilers, but you'd have to either implement them as fixed spoilers or develop your own adjustment mechanism. Of course, I'd be happy to license my adjustment mechanism to you for a relatively small fee, with a clause in the license stipulating that you must integrate it into your own design and/or license my design (of course at a much larger fee). The difference between that contract and the social contract that is Copyright, of course, is that we'd have sat down at a table and negotiated it and I'd have your signature on paper stating that you agree not to use my design without compensation in exchange for the right to use my adjustment mechanism.
Consideration is a huge part of any contract, some would say the most important part. The consideration due the public in the social contract that is Copyright was that, after 14 years, the work would belong to the public. That consideration has been removed, rendering the contract void.
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to d (Score:4, Funny)
Your argument it twisted beyond all reason.
While true that the GPL makes use of copyright law to have power behind it, the purpose of the license is to be a bullwark against the kind of madness that Rightscorp and pals are up to.
Also, with software the potential to completely rebrand the code under a completely new name and claim it as new and proprietary exists. THAT is what the GPL is out to stop. Not small scale redistribution. Last I checked, music pirates arent out taking EG, Madonna's album backlog and reselling them wholesale under a fake artists name and claiming them as original works. The closest you are going to find in that vein is the "club mix" scene. The club mixers are a tiny minority of "music pirates" though, and NOT who rightscorp and their ilk are targeting here.
Like most copyright shills you fail to see the forest for the trees.
The GPL exists because of copyright bullshit, for the purposes of preventing software freedoms from being trampled on.
Without copyright bullshit, there would be no need for it, and free software makers would use BSD license instead.
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to d (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft
No, it's not theft, it's copyright violation. There's no good reason to confuse the two concepts.
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
No, it's not theft, it's copyright violation. There's no good reason to confuse the two concepts.
I don't know if there's a good reason, but there's a useful reason. It allows people like the RIAA and MPAA to justify things like suing their customers, or installing ransomware on their computers.
You know, I just thought of a fun thing for developers to do. If someone inputs a known bogus serial to unlock your software - bam! - you install some ransomware! They've just authenticated for you when they installed, right? (unless they have the sense to install apps in their Home directory). Now you hold their
ILLEGAL (Score:5, Insightful)
If the RIAA/MPAA installs any software doing what they suggest, the developers and businesses should all be jailed under the US Computer Espionage and Hacking laws.
If you or I even attempted to look at their networks without written and explicit permission, we are in violation of the law. Accessing software inside their systems is at least 2 felonies.
Hold people accountable, and if the Government does not then it's time to replace people in Government.
Re:ILLEGAL (Score:5, Funny)
With Trump?
I think sexbots would be a better choice, but I a not a US voter.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, the government did shake their fingers at Sony. That's got to count for something, right?
Re: (Score:2)
What you don't eat your DVD after watching it?
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to (Score:3, Funny)
I keep trying, but every time I microwave a DVD it catches fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to d (Score:5, Informative)
NO its is NOT THEFT. How can you have a conversation about copyright when you cant even get your terms straight. You cannot use the word theft in this context. You MUST use the word 'infringement' or you are not engaging in an honest discussion. Copyright infringement is NOT theft, come back with a proper argument.
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to d (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not theft, it is infringement.
Theft prevents their enjoyment of their goods and services. In no way is someone deprived of their work by copying a file using your own resources onto your own media with your own time.
What they might not do is profit from that work. Fair enough. And that's why the law exists, to allow that to be captured for a limited time.
But make no mistake, if the law did not exist, someone making a copy of what I happen to own, using their own time and materials, would not be an offense and happens in many ways even today. That's because you making a copy of my car doesn't keep me from using my car. It might cut the business for my taxi service in half, if two people in my town now have cars, but that is an entirely separate story. You could additionally argue that a town would be better served by having more than one taxi available, which serves a societal purpose which is higher than letting me become obscenely rich by being the only one allowed to have a car.
Of course, I can't condone the practice of not paying for software that someone else wrote. After all, I do derive my living from software sales.
Nevertheless, I wouldn't consider that to be theft. Instead, it would be more like a disincentive for me to produce more software. If that is the case, then the "pirates" hurt themselves in the process by removing people from the software industry that might give them what they want.
I don't think software copyright infringement is worth people losing serious civil rights over. I think there are enough adults in the world who will buy software because they know that it supports the creators and they want the support or the game titles to keep coming. I have little sympathy for a Sony or another company who needs to lay the smackdown on some kid or his parents somewhere so they can make that much more money on a game they already made millions on.
Yes, you must protect and defend your copyright and trademarks, but we're talking about preventing something like widespread distribution of your software under a different name while you did nothing about it. Nothing about copyright defense requires that you go to the levels suggested by Rightscorp.
And I have an enormous problem with the idea of breaking someone else's computer purposely, as that comes closer to actual theft than any sort of copyright infringement ever has. As laughable as the idea of "locking your browser" is, even considering that line of attack as a valid one puts these people squarely in the same vein of black hats who run data ransom scams. It shows the level of ridiculousness that the line of thought that infringement == theft leads one to.
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to d (Score:4)
I think we can all agree that consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft
No, I don't agree with that.
The devil fires his lawyer (Score:2)
I'm confused. It sounds like you are totally opposed to what they're doing, and calling them out on their absurd bullshit. This is like saying, "Hey, people are flaming Trump for being a piece of shit and an embarrassment to America, but to play devil's advocate, he is a piece of shit and an embarrassment to America."
You need to practice more
Re: (Score:3)
consumption of that intellectual property without consent is theft.
No. It's not. This is also far too broad of a definition of 'consumption without consent'. Consent is what exactly?
It's not like driving some else's car, since in this case the original owner retains a copy; it's like taking some else's car design and using it to build your own car
This is called a free market. You can't pass off your car as an original 'Chevy Malibu', but certainly all cars have 4 wheels, a steering wheel, turn signals etc.
without their consent.
Again, what, exactly, is consent here?
Now, what I disagree with in this case is two private companies arranging a punishment based on someone's illegal activities. I believe whole-heartedly that punishment can only be at the hands of the justice system
Of this I completely agree. In today's era of SJW activity it's hardly unusual.
Re: (Score:3)
People who are at the origin of intellectual creation have to come to term with one very simple fact: they lose any kind of proprietary rights the moment they release their creation to the public (whatever it is you've made, however it inspires me, what's inside my head isn't yours). That is the very na
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to d (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd go the "rip the copy you legally bought into another format" route instead of the "download from the Pirate Bay" route. The weird thing, though, is that the MPAA would consider both to be copyright violations of equal magnitude and would prosecute them the same if they could. The only thing stopping them is that it's hard to detect when a computer rips a DVD/Blu-Ray. (Especially if you don't share them and just use them for your own personal use.) It's easier to see if a computer is downloading some
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to d (Score:5, Informative)
Making or downloading a copy is generally not a criminal action. Distributing a copy is the criminal action.
However downloading a copy does open you to civil lawsuits.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/blott... [findlaw.com]
Currently, copyright enforcers focus on highly active people but there is always a chance you'll be sued for being unlucky for the one download you made ever in your life.
However, the copyright enforcers have some barriers to overcome.
1) The concept that "an i.p. is the same as a fingerprint" has been killed so they have to prove it was you that did the download.
2) They need to have evidence that the data is in your possession.
3) Which means they are going to engage in an expensive legal process to have a warrant served by sheriffs who enter your house and take your computing equipment.
4) But be aware that even if it wasn't you, the file isn't on your computer, etc. etc., you could still be out thousands of dollars in legal fees.
So they mostly focus on heavy downloaders since suing a single mom for something the teenage neighbor downloaded thru their unsecured wi-fi is bad publicity
Re: (Score:3)
I'd go the "rip the copy you legally bought into another format" route
That's the one problem in the US. The DMCA makes that illegal too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's just it it isn't theft. I haven't taken anything away from you. You failed to provide me with a legal method to view your product and you under capitalized your selling. If you were not an idiot and properly sold your product I wouldn't have to find other means of acquiring it.
In software pirates versions are stable and more functional than the broken dem laden versions.
In movies you can't charge $50 a movie ticket and expect sales to be the same as when you charged $ 10 a ticket. Why are you charg
Re: If ever a company and its people deserved to d (Score:5, Insightful)
No we can't all agree it's theft. It's copyright infringement.
Battery is not assault.
Kidnapping is not murder.
Copyright infringement is way down. The growing entertainment glut has more to do with falling sales in particular industries.
I'm retired and I *literally* can't keep up with the entertainment options that I'm interested in (much less the entire field of entertainment).
So I start by choosing the less expensive entertainment. And voila, a lot of the expensive entertainment is inexpensive by the time I get to it... if I ever get to it.
People who used to pirate terabytes of material a decade ago don't pirate, or pirate only a few items per year now, and never even used/watched 95% of the stuff they pirated back in the day.
We are not better off with the justice system once it was bought by corporations. That's why people have lost respect for the law. Every time the copyright on Disney's snow white is extended, it makes people respect copyright law less. Disney took something from the public domain, and then did not return their own creation to the public domain for other creators to use in the future.
That's wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
After all, why would you just assume that you can use those ideas without compensating their "owners"?
Because those were protected by patents rather than copyright, and the protection has expired.
good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: good luck (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how many ISPs would actually be willing to do this, however, and whether it would even be legal in the US.
Re: good luck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many such contacts include a 'we can change the terms any time we want, and a lack of written objection from you will be considered agreement to the new terms' clause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if they hijack dns, you use someone else's dns (hopefully they don't block dns queries over your wan).
if they insert data in your stream, you run a secure link or even a vpn.
if they block vpn use, THEN its time to find another isp. (good luck; most people have just 1 local choice.)
Re:good luck (Score:5, Insightful)
Arrrr, me crew and I have taken ye browser and seek 200 gold pieces for it's safe return.
Although "extortion" might be the better word for it in the modern parlance.
In other words (Score:2)
They want to be be internet tough guy vigilantes.
Website not working (Score:5, Funny)
I want to check out their website http://www.rightscorp.com/ [rightscorp.com] and it's not loading.
I keep clicking refresh over and over and over and its still not loading .....
Hmmmmmm I wonder why?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Website not working (Score:5, Funny)
...Most internet service provider contracts state that the contract holder is responsible for actions taken on their internet service.
What is an IP Address?
Every machine on the Internet has a unique identifying number, called an IP Address.
What is[sic] the IP Address shown does not match the IP Address on the notice?
Occasionally, your ISP may change the IP Address that your computer uses. Your ISP has verified that at the time your computer was used for copyright infringement, it was using the IP Address stated in the notice.
Sounds legit to me!
Re: (Score:2)
You should write a script to click refresh for you. So you can get the very latest RightsCorp news as soon as it's available, of course.
Actually, this is not a bad idea for any company that has a terms of service with a line stating that it could change at any time. But your honor, the TOS says it's my responsibility to stay current. I was doing that to the best of my abilities (and helped everyone else do so as well).
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah! Nothing shows companies what's what like a DDoS! Oh, except telling your mom what they've done. I bet she'll give them a good talking-to. That'll teach 'em!
Reminds Me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reminds Me (Score:4, Insightful)
It was also self-limited to Sony customers. Granted, you didn't get to approve the trojan install, but once it was public you could avoid it by avoiding Sony. With this plan, Rightscorp will get your ISP to redirect your traffic purely based on "we say this person is a dirty pirate." If they're mistaken? Oh well, either prove it to them (without using the Internet, mind you) or pay up. And you can't say "don't pirate and this won't happen to you" because there's no guarantee that Rightscorp's pirate identification methods will be foolproof. You can get caught in the web simply because some data entry clerk at Rightscorp typed an IP address in wrong.
limit liability? (Score:2)
How would it limit liability? Don't they have a long history of let us remove whatever we wan't and then we will sue you into oblivion anyway after you have done everything we asked?
Re: (Score:3)
Scalable Racketeering (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait, I've missed the bigger picture here! Apparently all the crypto-locker authors just need to make up a random crime to accuse people of, and then their ransomware becomes perfectly kosher, right?
Time to go write an "anti-piracy" app that only targets Rightscorp!
Re: (Score:2)
In the absence of some sort of legal judgement allowing these thugs to shake people down for cash, doesn't this just go by the plain old-fashioned name of "extortion"?
It's a variation of what these people have been doing all along, what with offering music downloaders an "easy $1500 payment" or a $200,000 court judgment... I don't know if the courts still buy that load, but it often comes down to who can afford the lawyers, and it's rarly the person getting the shake-down.
The issue here that will be litigated is the browser malware, not the monetary shake-down itself.
Everyone Back To FTP!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pirates stealing from pirates (Score:5, Funny)
Good luck hijacking dillo, asshats! (Score:3)
Also, how on earth is this not very very illegal?
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, it is illegal. And if you can duke out and finance a multi-year legal battle you might even get a title. A title to get money from a shell company that has made nothing but losses during its existence that will go POOF before the ink on that title has dried.
5 minutes later Legalcorp will appear somewhere.
CFAA (Score:2)
How could that possibly be legal under the CFAA?
Sounds like criminal tampering with someone else's computer to me. If this happened to me I know I would tell RightsCorp, "Of course I did nothing wrong and infringed no copyrights you are in error, but by the way if you ever even think of filing any complain against me, I'll be on the DOJ tip line so fast it will make your head spin. I'll be in writing editorials everywhere you can imagine about how you guys appear to be committing federal computer crimes a
Re: (Score:3)
There is likely not going to be any trojan involved. How would you make someone install it anyway? "I am Rightscorp, please install the enclosed trojan on your PC so we can hijack your browser?"
That's something we had to very slowly and in very simple terms get into the skulls of our politicians over here: Infecting a specific computer with a targeted attack is VERY hard to pull off and it is virtually impossible to avoid collateral damage. So you better immediately forget using trojans against terrorists.
W
Wow ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow vigilante hacking with no legal burden of proof and so they can run a shakedown racket?
Sorry, this is an asshole copyright troll, who has consistently demonstrated they lie about owning copyrights, who make illegal shakedown requests, and expect to do this with zero evidentiary standard, and have ISPs put in the infrastructure to support it.
Sorry, assholes. You have no legal basis to do this, and if you do it's hard to see how this won't get you some actual criminal charges. They want to make claims for which there is no basis in law, and for which they do not have a legal right to make.
Then again, putting these clowns in jail under a RICO conviction would be awesome.
These guys can't even convince judges they're not a scam, because they are a scam. The idiots who run Rightscorp are nothing more than crooks and thieves abusing the legal process to send shakedown notices about infringements they aren't in a legal position to be pursuing.
They're lying bastards, and any ISP which lets them tie into anything is likely going to open themselves to some major legal action.
This is just delusional bullshit PR by a company who greatly overstates their legal position here.
Wait (Score:5, Insightful)
Business Model.. (Score:2)
This sounds like a great business model: Let's post losses for years one end, and see how well that works for us.
I'm sure they're losing a little on each transaction, but they're planning to make it up in volume!
this is illegal in Minnesota (Score:3)
constitutes hacking, gross misdemeanor under a 20+ year old law, 90 days and $2000 per instance if I remember correctly.
Re: (Score:3)
constitutes hacking, gross misdemeanor under a 20+ year old law, 90 days and $2000 per instance if I remember correctly.
It's illegal in lots of places. Where I live modifying, or interfering with the operation of, somebody's computer without their consent is a crime. So as the saying goes "good luck with that".
Re: (Score:3)
But that applies only to the plebs, not corporations. Or do you see any Sony C-Levels in jail?
Welcome to the Windows 10 experience (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sure it won't stop the hardcore 'nix folks
How hardcore is it to run Ubuntu?
I'd like to see that. (Score:3)
I have 6 different browsers, which one will they try to block?
Not to mention, that 95% of my stuff gets downloaded automatically by uTorrent from TvRSS, no browsers involved,
Re:I'd like to see that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Other than getting ISPs to block users (where the ISP now has to deal with a potential subscriber lawsuit because of the word of a third party), I just don't see how this is going to work:
1: Browser makers won't allow a third party to disable their software at the third party's whim. Even if were mandated (perhaps a DMCA2 treaty), there would be some people in Russia who will just fork off a pre-bongoed source and offer that for download.
2: If it gets nailed through a browser or add-on, it will be patched by the browser or third parties. They better stand in line behind the real ransomware makers if they want to go for 0-day security day holes.
3: People have multiple browsers. To separate tasks, I use sandboxie, multiple browsers, browsers on USB flash drives, and different types of browsers. Will they shut them all down? Perhaps if they inject malware that does redirects.
4: People have virtual machines. Destroy the VM that I use for browsing the web, I just run "vagrant destroy --force && vagrant up", and in a few minutes, I have my browser virtual machine back up, running, with all my extensions present, courtesy of provisioning scripts.
5: People have and use VPNs, both in the same country and offshore. Good luck with sending copyright notices to the VPN in Switzerland, Sweden, or even Canada. Even a VPN in the same area, unless the party decided to press a legal case, they won't be handing names and other info over, if they are to remain in business for long.
6: People use combinations of the above. Push too hard and even Joe Sixpack will start using an offshore VPN service for $5 a month, pretty much making any IP enforcement impossible without having to make it an international event.
tl;dr, Rightcorp's existence depends on trying to get ISPs to do the belling the cat (with the legal risk that entails for the ISP) for them... and all it takes is 1-2 false positives for that ISP to start seriously hurting. Even worse, it will just make the pirates "go dark" and ensure that nothing but the most elaborate tracking will actually work.
No due process (Score:5, Insightful)
How? Legally? (Score:2)
I can't access that site from work, so please pardon me if this question was addressed.
How are they going to do this in the United States without committing a federal felony?
Some adware/spyware gets a legal pass because it's bundled with other software and its installation is "authorized" when the user accepts the terms/EULA. Without consent, they cannot legally install anything.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect the headline is wrong (Score:2)
Is there anything more sinister (Score:2)
That what corporations do to protect their interests?
uhh... (Score:2)
Due Process? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly? (Score:3)
Sadly, the company's previous tactics haven't worked so well. The company doesn't have many clients, and it posted a net loss of $3.43m in 2015, up from the $2.85m net loss recorded in 2014.
Why does this text begin with the word " Sadly "? It is certainly not the word that I would use.
Re: (Score:3)
Jerry Garcia (Score:2)
"Browser hijack" is the dumbed-down (wrong) phrase (Score:3)
For everyone screaming "How will that work?! That's illegal! It's hacking!" they are not planning to "h[ij]ack your browser."
They want ISPs' cooperation to hijack and futz with browser traffic and insert popups and warnings and the like.
Re:Good luck with that on tech like LTE (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Subpoenas count as "required by law."
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously, with losses like that, how do they pay their employees?
and who are these employees, anyway, engineering these ingenious malwa^H^H^H^H^H property-protection products?
and hey! if this works to lock-up your system, and you hack to remove it, have you violated DMCA? liable for criminal charges?
what a fun way to make a living!