RightsCorp To Bring Its Controversial Copyright Protection Tactics To Europe 196
judgecorp (778838) writes "RightsCorp, the controversial copyright enforcer, is planning to begin operations in Europe. In the U.S., the company scans torrents for IP addresses on behalf of media companies, shares them with ISPs, forcing them to send lawyers' letters (using the DMCA) demanding money from the supposed copyright infringers. RightsCorp says Europe needs its help in fighting piracy."
They recently expanded operations into Canada as well.
Re:RightsCorp (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RightsCorp (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I happen to live in Canada and these guys are having some real problems pulling off their "jane and john doe" lawsuits here (and rightflully so).
The position many have taken is these lawsuits are a form of "Speculative invoicing" and the Canadian courts don't allow this (it is considered "fraud on the courts").
They have also attempted to "bundle" the lawsuits to keep their court costs low, and again this is being questioned.
You can read more here: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6805/125/
I guess given enough pressure from the US canada will take a similar view and start all the lawsuit stuff where single moms are forced into bankruptcy when they would face no such charge had they actually just stolen the CD.
Re: Indie (Score:3, Informative)
i think, copyright holders should pay a small fine for every wrong infingement notice that could have been avoided.
You mean, copyright pretenders. I disagree. They should pay a large fine. We are talking about tortious business interference here.
And preferably with a three-strikes scheme. Three wrongful accusations, and you get put on a national copyright offender registry and are barred from making DMCA claims. Instead you have to go to court, and when you don't prevail, pay the court fees of the defendant as a rule.
The cost of handing those industries a free pass for abuse is just too high and interferes with civic life. Some misdemeanors are not worth the cost of pursuing to society.
Re:RightsCorp (Score:5, Informative)
What is this supposed to be, a badge of honor? Or is this stockholm syndrome? "Well I subjected myself to systemic abuse and overwork to just barely keep myself from becoming homless! There's nothing wrong with that!"
At the moment it was obvious that corporations were more powerful than most people, and would would abuse them to the extent they could get away with.
You're a mean spirited jerk because you assume that people who live in poverty have the time and resources to improve their skills.
Which works well for a small subset of people.
Indeed, in the richest country that ever existed why are people paid such poor wages and so often do without basic necessities (that they can't afford due to said same low wages)? Don't worry, the corporations you exalt are doing a great job at removing incentives for people to work hard by ensuring that hard work doesn't necessarily pay off.
No, it's about pointing out how the system is rigged and they are being taken advantage of for the sake of quarterly profits.
Re:RightsCorp (Score:4, Informative)
It's impossible for me to understand your logic.
I've certainly lived off a lot less than that (either of your numbers), quite comfortably. I once worked three jobs to be able to afford 1/2 a bedroom in a two bedroom apartment with three other guys. It created an incentive for me to find a more efficient way to earn what I needed in order to live in the style I wanted to live.
At what point did it become necessary that the government mandate a wage level so that people can live the way they want without incentive to live better?
Really, you think I'm a mean-spirited jerk with no empathy because I want people to have an incentive to get a better life and improve their skills?
What is your hierarchy of needs list that makes it so difficult to "live on" $1,000/month? Do we need to mandate a wage so that people can live alone in their own apartment or house? How large? Should they be able to have cell phone service, internet service? How about a computer? What kind?
Get a roommate or two and pool your resources.
In the richest country that *ever* existed, in an era of post-scarcity (at least here in the US) with productivity through the roof and increasing rapidly, how can we allow the removal of incentives for people to work hard and get ahead and make something of themselves.
Just because some fail doesn't mean we should dumb down the entire system so you don't hurt. Fear of failure is a great incentive.
I'd prefer to keep telling people that with hard work they can become something. It might not be easy but they will be all the more satisfied when they succeed.
Your argument strikes me as wanting to tell people the "man" is keeping you down and you'll never succeed so don't work hard and we'll make sure you can live a life of relative luxury.
Forget all that and explain the economics that would allow raising everyone's pay to live the standard you've set without causing a rise in the cost of living at that level.
Just to make sure I understand what you're saying. You believe that there is equal opportunity for all in this country? You should get out more, friend. I'm not going to try to disabuse you of your illusions. I just feel sorry for you.
Yes. Because that works so well for us. With 30% of the children in this country living in poverty? That we incentivize greed and graft? That it takes the *average* (not the lowest paid) worker in a large corporation more than a week to earn what the CEO earns in an hour? You can't tell me that the CEO works hundreds of times harder, can you?
In the incredibly rich society that we live in, we should be able to provide equal opportunity for all and create an environment where social mobility is increasing, not decreasing. Which it has been for the last 30 years or so.
Re:RightsCorp (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, but don't worry. They are already lobbying for "IP address == real person". The "internet passport" is coming sooner than you might think.
Nonsense.
They've tried to pull the "ip address = person" BS for years. And they've been losing, right and left.
Not just frequency but increasingly courts are recognizing that not only does IP address not equal a person, but that it's not even CLOSE.
Take my case, for instance. I run an open guest internet account as a public service. Not just somebody next door but anybody in my neighborhood can connect to the internet from my router, and often do. In fact, I just looked and I see that there are 3 people outside my household who have connected just in the last 24 hours.
Sometimes it's someone living nearby. Sometimes it's someone walking or driving by with their cellphone. It could be someone in a car with a laptop. I don't know and I don't care.