Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rightscorp's New Plan: Hijack Browsers Until Infingers Pay Up

Unknown Lamer posted about a month ago | from the guilty-until-proven-guilty dept.

Piracy 376

A few weeks ago, Rightscorp announced plans to have ISPs disconnect repeat copyright infringers. mpicpp (3454017) wrote in with news that Rightscorp announced during their latest earnings call further plans to require ISPs to block all web access (using a proxy system similar to hotel / college campus wifi logins) until users admit guilt and pay a settlement fine (replacing the current system of ISPs merely forwarding notices to users). Quoting TorrentFreak: [Rightscorp] says 75,000 cases have been settled so far with copyright holders picking up $10 from each. ... What is clear is that Rightscorp is determined to go after "Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cable Vision and one more" in order to "get all of them compliant" (i.e forwarding settlement demands). The company predicts that more details on the strategy will develop in the fall, but comments from COO & CTO Robert Steele hint on how that might be achieved. ... "[What] we really want to do is move away from termination and move to what's called a hard redirect, like, when you go into a hotel and you have to put your room number in order to get past the browser and get on to browsing the web." The idea that mere allegations from an anti-piracy company could bring a complete halt to an entire household or business Internet connection until a fine is paid is less like a "piracy speeding ticket" and more like a "piracy wheel clamp", one that costs $20 to have removed.

cancel ×

376 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy Monday from The Golden Girls (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699431)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

Re:Happy Monday from The Golden Girls (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699731)

Does anyone know who owns the copyright to this? I think we need to shut off someone's access to the cosmonaut.

"Hard redirect" (5, Informative)

Megane (129182) | about a month ago | (#47699439)

aka "extortion"

Re:"Hard redirect" (0)

meglon (1001833) | about a month ago | (#47699445)

Exactly.

Re:"Hard redirect" (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about a month ago | (#47699501)

Tribute. but, it's the same thing.

Re:"Hard redirect" (0)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about a month ago | (#47699563)

Would this technique still work on OS X browsers? If so, Apple needs to get a patch effort going.

Re:"Hard redirect" (4, Informative)

chew8bitsperbyte (533087) | about a month ago | (#47699701)

Of course it would. The redirect happens at your ISP's level. Unless you're doing some fancy ICMP tunneling or some such business, you're going to get hit by this regardless of your OS choice.

Re:"Hard redirect" (4, Insightful)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47699723)

Yes, it would work on almost all browsers and there likely would never be a patch that would get around it. Well not a legal one- you would basically have to hack the authentification system.

The browser is only in play in order to display messages with this. Access control is typically on the hardware level with the packets being redirected to control access. Of course if done by proxy, its a software/hardware combo but the router will not forward packets outside what they allow.

I see some consumer protection laws comming into play. Currently, if they shut you off, you do not continue to be charged. If they keep ylur account active but deny you the internet (which would be neccesary to display the messages) you aren't getting what you payed for. I'm also thinking some RICO statutes might be in play too if it can be determined they colluded in ordr to defraud the consumer.

Re:"Hard redirect" (4, Interesting)

sixoh1 (996418) | about a month ago | (#47699973)

IANAL but this definitely seems to fall within Tortious Interference [wikipedia.org] or similar acts which would serve to break the contract between you and your ISP. Then again there is probably a clause in your ToS which they will attempt to use to allow this based on their "need" to charge Netflix extra for network peering.

Don't forget to read your contract and notifications of change!

Re:"Hard redirect" (1)

Entrope (68843) | about a month ago | (#47700019)

Similar logic applies to having the ISP cut off your connection entirely -- if they got statutory authority for one of them, I bet they could get the same kind of permission for the other (if the original language of the law doesn't cover both already).

Next up: Booting all of your connectivity -- mobile as well as hardline -- through one, integrated, Big Brother-ish app.

Re:"Hard redirect" (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47700125)

Similar logic applies to having the ISP cut off your connection entirely

What the GP is mentioning, Tortious Interference, is what Rightscorp would be doing: interfering with your contract. Your ISP has a clause that allows them to end your contract whenever they want. Rightscorp has no right to trigger that clause, and if they do, you can sue for tortious interference. You won't win, but you can sue.

Re:"Hard redirect" (1)

arbiter1 (1204146) | about a month ago | (#47699911)

As other 2 said it would be ISP redirecting it all, But no ISP would do it as it would be a massive legal issue for them.

Now what could go wrong? (5, Interesting)

mikeiver1 (1630021) | about a month ago | (#47699695)

So just how would one handle the issue of not ever having ever downloaded any copyrighted content and still having gotten locked out wrongly? Oh yah, just pay the $20.00 fee and then challenge it later to get reimbursed....SURE! This friends is the business model of the future of entertainment. Grab your ankles and say "thank you sir, may I have another?"

Re:Now what could go wrong? (1, Insightful)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a month ago | (#47700117)

Everyone who has used the Internet has downloaded copyrighted content. You've done so just now, in fact -- the very text you're currently reading is copyrighted (by me).

The issue is whether you have not been authorized to download the copyrighted content, and that's what should require a strong burden of proof on the part of the copyright holder.

Re:Now what could go wrong? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47700135)

Oh for fucks sake, you KNEW what he meant by the post.

Unconstitutinal (5, Funny)

techno-vampire (666512) | about a month ago | (#47699863)

I don't know how it works in other countries, but here in the USofA, there's a little thing known as "the presumption of innocence," meaning that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. This does the exact opposite by assuming that anybody who's accused must be guilty and penalizing them without allowing them to present a defense. No judge would ever be stupid enough to rule in favor of Rightscorp, making the idea DOA at best, even if they don't get sued into bankruptcy the first time they try to enforce it.

Re:Unconstitutinal (0)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a month ago | (#47699943)

Can't you get anything related to "intellectual property" passed in East Texas?

Re: Unconstitutinal (2)

AveryRegier (66592) | about a month ago | (#47699945)

For the same reason speed cameras with automated fines should be unconstitutional too, but we still have them.

Re:Unconstitutinal (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699975)

Didn't you get the memo? The constitution only applies to the government, everyone else is permitted to do whatever they please to to. Don't like it? Quit breathing. -- Libertarians

Re:Unconstitutinal (4, Insightful)

sixoh1 (996418) | about a month ago | (#47700003)

While its nice to think that the Constitution prevents this kind of thing, it is generally ONLY applicable to criminal defense. You can still be indicted, arrested and jailed awaiting trial, and until you enter the courtroom this presumption of innocence doesn't event matter. You only get the benefit from this Constitutional right _AFTER_ you have been through all of the previous steps, so don't expect to pull out your laminated copy of the Bill of Rights as a shield.

In a civil matters, particularly a trial, you are not entitled to automatic presumption of innocence as a defense, and not even a tiny amount of deference is due to you in the exercise and enforcement of a contract you might have with your ISP.

About the only legal protection an individual might have is a class-action lawsuit alleging fraud against the ISP, and that's something that takes years to work its way up to the pain threshold of settlement or trial.

Re:Unconstitutinal (4, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about a month ago | (#47700051)

Correct in concept, wrong in practice. Today you are guilty first, and parallel construction will be used to ensure guilt if someone want's you that way. Unless of course you have a whole lot of money, in which case you will never see charges let alone a trial.

I hope you are right that it never happens, but in practice how long was that porn company [courthousenews.com] extorting money from people? Nobody from the company went to jail for extortion to my knowledge, they were just told by a judge to stop. I'm not going to dig past a summary, you can surely do more if you like.

The point is that you should never say never, especially with the high level of corruption we are seeing in the USA. It may be implemented just to test the waters, I personally would not be shocked.

Re:"Hard redirect" (1)

davydagger (2566757) | about a month ago | (#47699887)

so basicly like malware.

Re:"Hard redirect" (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about a month ago | (#47700067)

Silly rabbit. Property rights and contract laws don't apply in the digital world. Control is 99/100ths of the law.

Re:"Hard redirect" (1)

joocemann (1273720) | about a month ago | (#47700131)

Without a case in court, it is absolutely extortion. This is, in itself, a potentially worse crime than piracy. Wow.

Hahahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699441)

No.

Amost sounds like a good deal ... (4, Interesting)

BarbaraHudson (3785311) | about a month ago | (#47699459)

If you download stuff that the rights-holders don't want to sell you, and you end up paying $20, of which $10 goes to the copyright holder, that's pretty damn decent.

Amost sounds like a good deal ... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699515)

So, if I say that I have evidence that you're using water flowing into your house to make drugs, I guess you're absolutely fine with having that water cut off until you can prove that you're not indeed using it to make drugs. If you are making drugs, I guess you're ok with your family going thirsty even though it's not their crime.

Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699607)

You cannot prove a negative.

The thirst is real.

Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ... (1)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about a month ago | (#47699627)

how is that not an advertising slogan.. "New! Radioactive Horse Piss - The Thirst is Real! " (Pepsi makes some sick energy drinks brah!)

Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ... (1, Flamebait)

sexconker (1179573) | about a month ago | (#47699685)

You cannot prove a negative.

Sure you fucking can. Anything defined in such a way as to exclude other possible definitions can have the latter definitions be proven in the negative just as surely as the former definition can be in the positive.

3 != 4.
A triangle is not a square.
Red is not blue.
Hydrogen is not helium.
A dog is not a cat.
If the coin landed heads-up, the coin did not land tails-up.
If someone was in location A at time T, they could not have been in location B at time T committing crime C.
You are not smart.

Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ... (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | about a month ago | (#47699789)

You cannot prove a negative.

Sure you fucking can. Anything defined in such a way as to exclude other possible definitions can have the latter definitions be proven in the negative just as surely as the former definition can be in the positive.

3 != 4. A triangle is not a square. Red is not blue. Hydrogen is not helium. A dog is not a cat. If the coin landed heads-up, the coin did not land tails-up. If someone was in location A at time T, they could not have been in location B at time T committing crime C. You are not smart.

In your examples you are not actually proving a negative (that something didn't happen). You are proving that something is not possible or could not have happened.


Possible or not possible are easy by comparison. Proving a negative means, "take this thing that really could have possibly happened, and prove that it didn't happen". A shape cannot both be a triangle and a square. A pure color at a single wavelength cannot both be red and blue. You are drastically underestimating the scope of how difficult it is to prove a negative. "This couldn't have happened because it is impossible" is actually a positive claim and as such, can be proven.

Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ... (1, Interesting)

BarbaraHudson (3785311) | about a month ago | (#47699757)

You cannot prove a negative.

Sure you can. I was once falsely (and maliciously) accused of something, and was able to prove that I was 100 km away in a different city for the extended weekend, with hundreds of witnesses. 7 witnesses was more than sufficient.

Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699913)

You cannot prove a negative.

Sure you can. I was once falsely (and maliciously) accused of something, and was able to prove that I was 100 km away in a different city for the extended weekend, with hundreds of witnesses. 7 witnesses was more than sufficient.

Then you're a durn sight luckier than this guy http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/08/justice/new-york-wrongful-conviction/ [cnn.com] who spent 25 years in prison on a false accusation despite having evidence in his pocket that proved he was more than 100 km away at the time of the crime.

Re: Amost sounds like a good deal ... (1)

anarcobra (1551067) | about a month ago | (#47700107)

Police shouldn't be allowed to make deals with people to testify against other people. Often enough when you hear one of these things it's because the cops convinced someone to lie that they saw that person.

Re:Amost sounds like a good deal ... (1)

BarbaraHudson (3785311) | about a month ago | (#47699741)

So, if I say that I have evidence that you're using water flowing into your house to make drugs, I guess you're absolutely fine with having that water cut off until you can prove that you're not indeed using it to make drugs. If you are making drugs, I guess you're ok with your family going thirsty even though it's not their crime.

What's this - BadAnalogyGuy posting anon, or what? Seriously ... if someone gets hit with a redirect, it's not like they still don't have other avenues to pursue. For one, they can fight the ban legally with their ISP (unless, of course, they're guilty and their ISP has the records to prove it). Then there's free wifi networks. Going to a friends. The library. Buying a data plan for your smartphone. Switching ISP.

What it boils down to is simple. If you're not guilty, you have both the right and the duty to fight. If you are, then maybe it's time to grow up and face the music, because these programs only exist because people ARE breaking the rules in the first place. And if you don't think a particular program/show/song is worth the asking price ("how much? What a ripoff"), that's not an excuse for downloading (ripping it off).

Re:Amost sounds like a good deal ... (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about a month ago | (#47699981)

If you're not guilty, you have both the right and the duty to fight.

This is a terribly scary proposition. We've been here before, and it didn't work well the last time, either. This is why we Americans now have the Fourth Amendment, requiring due process (with various levels of proof) before interfering with someone's life.

For one, they can fight the ban legally with their ISP (unless, of course, they're guilty and their ISP has the records to prove it). Then there's free wifi networks. Going to a friends. The library. Buying a data plan for your smartphone. Switching ISP.

It's amusing that all of the things you mention, if used for illegal downloading, would generate "proof" at the ISP. If I used a coffee shop's free network for downloading, there would be records of that at the ISP tracing back to the coffee shop. Under your guilty-until-proven-innocent system, the coffee shop would be legally stuck behind a redirect until they pay the ransom or pay to fight. Of course, a coffee shop won't likely have a sysadmin able to prove that it was a guest (rather than an employee) that performed the downloading in question. Even if they miraculously win and get reconnected, I can just walk in next week and download again.

Re:Amost sounds like a good deal ... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a month ago | (#47699957)

You mean as opposed to buying something they do want to sell you for $20 and the artist only gets $0.20?
You've mixed up artist and rights holder.
In this case you'd pay $20 and the artist gets $0.00

Re:Amost sounds like a good deal ... (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a month ago | (#47700053)

And if you don't do that, but some twats claim you are doing it or their shitty system has a false-positive, you can pay for something you didn't do or lose a vital service.

I'm fine with them doing this. Once they have taken you to court and received a judgement in their favor against you.

Re:Amost sounds like a good deal ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47700077)

How about just cancel service from your ISP if this happens?
If they see it as losing $2000 per year in subscription fees over the next 5 years, then they may tell Rightscorp to take a hike.

Just because your connection did something doesn't mean that you or anyone else in your household did it.

Re:Amost sounds like a good deal ... (1)

jrumney (197329) | about a month ago | (#47700133)

Are you sure that $10 is going to the actual copyright holder, not the multinational corporation that holds the distribution rights? If it is, then I'm going to have to start pirating content to support the artists. Because that's a much better deal than they're getting under their current contracts.

As long as... (5, Insightful)

mad-seumas (59267) | about a month ago | (#47699463)

they can be sued out of existence for every mistake they make, I'm cool with it.

Re:As long as... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699719)

they can be sued out of existence for every mistake they make, I'm cool with it.

They should not be sued out of existence. The key people involved need to spend a decade or two in a federal prison. That is the only way to make these copyright trolls understand that crime doesn't pay.

Re:As long as... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47700111)

what crime? copyright infringement doesn't kill or maim anyone, and the owner still has their words or pictures after a copy made. cartels have extended the copyright period to absurd lengths, against the founding father's intention that things eventually become part of culture.

you sound like a shill for the entertainmen cartel shylocks

Re:As long as... (1)

Smallpond (221300) | about a month ago | (#47699745)

You can sue for damages. Please provide documentation of monetary damages resulting from being disconnected from the internet.

Re:As long as... (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a month ago | (#47699769)

You can sue for damages. Please provide documentation of monetary damages resulting from being disconnected from the internet.

Actually, I'm contracted with my ISP to provide Internet access. Could Rightscorp be sued for tortuous interference with a business relationship?

Re:As long as... (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a month ago | (#47700031)

You can't sue anyone if the ISP is following the law. That would be a clause in the contract.
All Rightscorp need to do is lobby hard enough.

Re:As long as... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47700059)

That contract isn't there to protect YOU. It is there to protect your ISP's interests. If it doesn't already say that they don't have to actually provide service, it will at least say that they can change the contract at any time upon giving you written notice, so they can add that feature in when they need it.

Re:As long as... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699947)

I work from home. They will have to compensate me my pay, reputation loss and for the stress they caused.

Re:As long as... (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a month ago | (#47700057)

The difference is, you can't do much to force them to pay up, while they can cut off your internet access (and your livelihood) to get *you* to pay up.

Re:As long as... (3, Insightful)

Harlequin80 (1671040) | about a month ago | (#47700091)

I run my own business from home where the internet is critical. I literally have to stop working if it goes offline. Now I have redundant internet connections because of that but if they turned those off it would be very easy for me to prove substantial losses.

Infingers? (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about a month ago | (#47699475)

none of my fingers are going to pay up.

Re:Infingers? (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47699629)

none of my fingers are going to pay up.

Oh, so you are going to NOT give them the middle finger then?

Re:Infingers? (1)

buckfeta2014 (3700011) | about a month ago | (#47700035)

No, but I'm willing to put my third leg straight into their ear. Or maybe their eye, I haven't decided.

Re:Infingers? (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about a month ago | (#47699663)

The infingers fatfingered it

Re:Infingers? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | about a month ago | (#47699851)

Apparently they think it's ok to put your fingers in, so long as you pay.

Tor (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a month ago | (#47699487)

It's what's for dinner.

Re:Tor (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a month ago | (#47699533)

Can you run a P2P connection through Tor with any efficiency?

Re:Tor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699653)

I think that's what I2P is for.

Re:Tor (1)

Pharmboy (216950) | about a month ago | (#47699573)

If the ISP is redirecting every port coming from your IP, it doesn't matter what protocol you use. Instead of getting the "hotel" like page, you get nothing.

Re:Tor (1)

mcl630 (1839996) | about a month ago | (#47699641)

I think he's saying use Tor to avoid being caught in the first place. Of course there's nothing stopping Rightscorp from just accusing people at random, since there's absolutely no recourse for the falsely accused but to pay up or lose your Internet connection.

Re:Tor (2)

The Phantom Mensch (52436) | about a month ago | (#47700005)

I'm sure they wouldn't just accuse people at random. They'd do market research and select targets that meet a profile. Something like middle class households with parents that aren't particularly tech savvy but with teenage kids that might be, all of which use decent amounts of data. All they'd have to do is convince the parents that the kids downloaded something that could illegal or hint to the fathers that it might be the porn their wife doesn't know about. And boom $20 faster than you can blink.

Re:Tor (2)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47699687)

Depends on how they do this. The cheap way is to just catch HTTP and HTTPS at some router someplace then do some filtering on IP addresses. Problem for the ISP is that now they have to actually THINK about their network design, because it has to work at some point, then redirect at others.

For me, this would be loads of fun to bypass. About all I'd have to do is change my MAC address and restart the router and presto, I am somebody else. I even managed to run TWO independent connections from time to time (both getting my full bandwidth). I didn't do that on purpose, it just happened once when I plugged in a new router to my switch network. I think the ISP figured it out before I did and killed one, but it was a day or so, and swapping the MAC got it back while I transitioned everything over.

I don't think ISP's would be very good at doing this, but it doesn't matter to me... At least until I get hit for something I never do..

Re:Tor (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about a month ago | (#47699771)

If the ISP is redirecting every port coming from your IP, it doesn't matter what protocol you use. Instead of getting the "hotel" like page, you get nothing.

If the ISP is redirecting/blocking everything, there will be hell (and a lot of its lawyers) to pay the moment someone with VOIP tries to dial 911 after they were blocked.

If data of any form can get out of the pipe to a host not controlled by the ISP, then the blocking can be circumvented.

nuisance fee (4, Interesting)

bored_engineer (951004) | about a month ago | (#47699489)

The trouble is, that this is just a nuisance fee. I can pay $20 out-of-pocket to make a bogus "piracy claim" go away. I'm sure, though, that they'll include contractual language asserting my guilt, even though I've never downloaded from The Pirate Bay or its ilk. Once they've confirmed that I'm willing to pay, how many times will they come back? The article mentioned settling accounts exceeding $300 for multiple "infringements."

Also, how are they going to convince my ISP, with whom I have both an ongoing relationship and competitive alternatives, to do this?

Re:nuisance fee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699519)

You have competitive ISP alternatives? Must be nice! I'm still waiting on a single competitive ISP option.

Re:nuisance fee (2)

bored_engineer (951004) | about a month ago | (#47699543)

"with whom" -->"with which"

Re:nuisance fee (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699815)

Jawohl mein herr!

Sieg Heil!

Re:nuisance fee (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | about a month ago | (#47699553)

They offer a kickback to the ISP for doing a good job, and everyone is happy!

Re:nuisance fee (4, Informative)

mcl630 (1839996) | about a month ago | (#47699655)

As the article states, it's very rarely only $20... they're charging $20 per song. And yes, they expect you to admit guilt along with the payment.

Re:nuisance fee (4, Insightful)

russotto (537200) | about a month ago | (#47699753)

Once they've confirmed that I'm willing to pay, how many times will they come back?

You know the answer to that... once you've paid the Danegeld, you'll never get rid of the Dane.

Re:nuisance fee (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about a month ago | (#47699755)

They are going tp say they will sue them if they don't take steps to prevent you from pirating their material. That is what they did to get the 3 strikes process started.

So The ISP has a choice of caving to their demands and getting a kickback or fight a costly battle that they may or may not win.

Re:nuisance fee (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699827)

If you've never downloaded from there, then you won't be caught. The false positives are much less frequent than slashdot commenters would have you believe. We are all saints around here. Neverhttp://yro.slashdot.org/story/14/08/18/2259202/rightscorps-new-plan-hijack-browsers-until-infingers-pay-up?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed# done anything the slightest bit wrong.

CFAA (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699507)

These Rightscorp asshats should be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and serve multiple-lifetime prison sentences each.

Re:CFAA (3, Insightful)

mcl630 (1839996) | about a month ago | (#47699659)

Extortion laws ought to apply here as well.

Re:CFAA (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a month ago | (#47699775)

Extortion laws ought to apply here as well.

Right, and now. IANAL, but it sounds to me like this already counts as criminal conspiracy.

SMH (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699517)

Cryptolocker malware creators should sue Rightscorp for stealing their idea.

ISPs becoming liable? (5, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about a month ago | (#47699531)

Seems to me that any ISP that redirects browser HTTP requests becomes liable to suit from the customers - for substantially more than $20.

Re:ISPs becoming liable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699829)

Indeed. Wouldn't this negate ISP's safe harbor protections?

wouldn't that be... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699549)

"The Computer Misuse Act (1990) was introduced to help deal with the problems caused by the misuse of computers and communication systems, especially that of âhacking' and âunauthorised access.' The Act introduced three offences; it is illegal for any unauthorised person to access programs or data, the unauthorised modification of that data, and having unauthorised access with further criminal intent."

Seems clearly within the description of this law.

Re:wouldn't that be... (2)

rogoshen1 (2922505) | about a month ago | (#47699591)

Only applies to plebes. As a corporation with serious sounding people in positions like CEO, and names like "Mr. Steele" they are in fact exempt. Parasites that they are.

Re:wouldn't that be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699749)

Only applies to plebes. As a corporation with serious sounding people in positions like CEO, and names like "Mr. Steele" they are in fact exempt. Parasites that they are.

That didn't help the Pretenda Law people, they had a Steele at the helm and they still were forced out of business by the courts over their fraudulent and illegal activities.

Re:wouldn't that be... (2)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a month ago | (#47699777)

How many of them ended up in prison?

Re:wouldn't that be... (1)

gman003 (1693318) | about a month ago | (#47699969)

Mr. Steele is my porn name. Am I exempt?

Why would I pay my ISP for service? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699583)

If I can't use it?

Useful Tip (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699599)

A top-notch, full-speed, multi-country VPN service can be had for $40/year, with $20/year deals available if you shop around a bit.

Useful Tip (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699635)

Explain how that would work when the ISP has blocked all your access? did you think they would block 80 and leave VPN open allowing this? Somewhat defeats the point doesn't it?

Re:Useful Tip (2)

mythosaz (572040) | about a month ago | (#47699671)

It would work by you using the VPN service as soon as your ISP installs the blocking plan, thus avoid ever being caught by it.

Thats a mighty fine internet connection you've got (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699603)

Be a SHAME if something happened to it..........

interference with communication (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699615)

is a crime on most countries... Good luck.

Re:interference with communication (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about a month ago | (#47699693)

Only if they have common carrier status... ISP's do not. At least in the USA..

This is actually called (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699705)

A Walled Garden.

I mean, at least call it what it is. It's a Pay Walled Garden based on how bad you are.

One word for these parasitic scum : (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699821)

Sneakernet.

Try and stop that, you pathetic bloodsucking turds.

I walk around with a 128GB flash drive full of all kinds of goodness,
and I charge nothing and I share it ALL. Take that and shove it up
your cunt, Rightscorp.

Reverse hack the B@$ta@rd$ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699833)

Anonymous needs to reverse hack these B@$ta@rd$! enough of this kind of cr@pola!

Only two ways will work to fight this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699859)

The first way is to guillotine all the executives of Rightscorp. This is messy, they probably can take counter-measures in terms of security, and it's probably technically illegal (although you could mount a plausible defense against murder charges by arguing that the execs are not, in fact, human beings). Plus, we're in general a lazy lot, so that option is probably not feasible.

The second way is to identify all companies and artists, of all media, who use Rightscorp services, and stop buying their shit. Don't buy their DVDs, don't buy their Blu-Rays, don't buy their CDs, don't buy their streaming videos, don't buy their downloaded mp3s, don't go to their movies, don't go to their concerts. Don't even torrent their shit either! Carve them out of your life, in all ways, completely.

Deny them the two things they need to survive: money and attention.

If enough people would do this, Rightscorp would have no clients (or at least, no paying clients). But not enough people will do this. We never do.

they can't do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699885)

they are forcing you to admit guilt for something you MAY or MAY NOT do, without a trial, in exchange of your right to use a service you already payed... that's because more than 90% of their prosecutions end with inocense, because more than 90% of their "proof" is false and or circunstancial (there are ransomwares that produce traffic to illegal/copyrighted content sites and wifi users that hijack accesspoints to access to that kind of content without risking their own connections, and just because you acces p2p servers dowsn't mean you are downloaded copyrighted material... ISPs may know you are using a p2p network but they doesn't know WHAT you are downloading)

Rightcorp: meet VPN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47699933)

Hmmm....$20 per song, or $60 for a year of VPN. This could take a bit of thinking.

Sign me up! (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | about a month ago | (#47700097)

It's implied that I've paid their extortion fees I'm free to download as much as I want. Right? Sure it costs a bit more than Netflix but TPB has a better selection anyway...

Darknets... (1)

DMJC (682799) | about a month ago | (#47700123)

Isn't this just another problem for encrypted darknets to solve?

How about um NO (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47700141)

I had some software I bought legitimately and one day it was suddenly deactivated with the company saying I stole the product key. That was the last time I paid for software.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>