Rightscorp's New Plan: Hijack Browsers Until Infingers Pay Up 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.
"Hard redirect" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Now what could go wrong? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Now what could go wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh for fucks sake, you KNEW what he meant by the post.
Re:Now what could go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you didn't sign it over to dice when you posted here? No, I am not willing to go wade through the Slashdot TOS to check right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey if I signed over any comment so it becomes their property, then I can't wait to see and what happens when someone posts something that falls under libel laws.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure you didn't sign it over to dice when you posted here? No, I am not willing to go wade through the Slashdot TOS to check right now.
No need. Just read the bottom of the page.
Comments owned by the poster.
Re: (Score:3)
and that's what should require a strong burden of proof on the part of the copyright holder.
Not any more! That's kind of the point of these pushes to alter the way copyrights are enforced online: They want to shift the burden of proof from the copyright holder to the alleged infringer.
Unconstitutinal (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Unconstitutinal (Score:2)
For the same reason speed cameras with automated fines should be unconstitutional too, but we still have them.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I have heard all you have to do is claim it wasn't you driving your car and that you don't know who it was. I haven't tried it. I was told that works though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unconstitutinal (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a civil and not criminal matter?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the real problem is not so much presumption of innocence, but rather lack of due process.
Re: (Score:3)
I think he meant that because Rightscorp isn't a government, they cannot initiate criminal proceedings, just civil proceedings, and under civil proceedings, there's no presumption of innocence or need to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, just "preponderance of evidence". If the FBI got into it, then presumption of innocence would come into play. But at the scale Rightscorp likes to try to play, the FBI doesn't want to deal (too many folks, too little money involved).
So essentially, it's highly likely tha
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Unconstitutinal (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Unconstitutinal (Score:4, Insightful)
That only applies to the legal system. Rightscorp is bypassing the legal system and instead getting the ISPs to do the work of law enforcement, and with no analogue to the court system. Basically there are three private parties, Rightscorp, the ISP, and the ISP's customer, and any of the three is legally allowed to presume the other two parties are guilty bastards without proof. Also any of the three are able to sue if they feel unfairly treated if they think some laws are being broken, and they can countersue if anyone sues them, if they'd rather spend that kind of money doing so.
Re:Unconstitutinal (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
You really do not understand how the US legal system works. I'm not an attorney, but my best friend is. He has taught me a lot about how the legal system really works here. I can assure you that it is indeed quite possible to find a judge who would rule in favor of Rightscorp. Anything can happen in a US court - anything. I know of a case involving a business dispute in my city where an appellate court ruled that the court that decided the case made up the law out of thin air. Think about that - a court was found to have made up the law they ruled on. My friend told me he had never heard of that happening before. The Naxos vs. Capitol case,which had devastating results for those of us who hoped that copyrights might actually expire one day, in my opinion also resulted in a ruling where the court that heard the case made up the law they ruled on out of nothing. If the US Supreme Court was to get some kind of hypothetical case where the law technically was very clear and required a certain ruling but actually giving that ruling would destroy the United States, plunge it into civil war and directly lead to the deaths of tens of millions of people, at least 4 members of the current court would shrug their shoulders and give that ruling, acting powerless to do anything else. There were all kinds of crazy decisions made by courts allowing mass mailings of infringement notices some years ago and that was probably as big a violation of due process as is even possible, yet it took years before judges in general began to oppose the practice. And this isn't even getting into the practice of having juries decide complex patent cases. All I can tell you is that if you haven't served on a jury, you really cannot even comprehend how stupid and technically challenged many if not most jury members are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Silly rabbit. Property rights and contract laws don't apply in the digital world. Control is 99/100ths of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Without a case in court, it is absolutely extortion. This is, in itself, a potentially worse crime than piracy. Wow.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: "Hard redirect" (Score:3)
Re:"Hard redirect" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Hard redirect" (Score:5, Insightful)
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" (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
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" (Score:4, Interesting)
The key element of a tortious interference claim is not the existence of a contract, it is third-party interference with a business or contractual relationship. sixoh1 was suggesting that someone might have a cause of action against Rightscorp, not the ISP, so the ISP's prerogative to terminate customer contracts is not relevant.
Re:"Hard redirect" (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah. My question is what malware are they stealing the idea from.
Something their CEO caught probably.
Amost sounds like a good deal ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Amost sounds like a good deal ... (Score:2, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
how is that not an advertising slogan.. "New! Radioactive Horse Piss - The Thirst is Real! " (Pepsi makes some sick energy drinks brah!)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
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 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is false. The most obvious example from history is the Michaelson-Morley experiment,. which disproved the existence of a luminiferous aether.
You can easily prove a negative, as long as there are enough constraints on the positive to do so.... for example, you can prove entirely by a process of elimination that there is no prime number between 31398 and 31468. On the slightly crazier side, you can also prove that there are no elephants in your freezer by stipulating that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 y
Re: (Score:2)
All the alternatives are there - but not for something that's illegal, or, in your own words, "illegal dow
The 4th amendment... RIP (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, but that was a while ago. Now the legal system is using rationales like "hey, your MONEY doesn't have any rights, so we don't need due process to seize it, just suspicion [journalgazette.net]" and also "terrorism", "you are on this list", and the big winner, "I think I'll just shoot you [cnn.com]" (and often your dog, even, every once in a while, your cat), plus "we like searching your finances and communications without a warrant, so we do (IRS, NSA, DEA, other TLAs)", etc.
You gotta keep up a little better.
Also, the 4th constrains the federal government. With significant optimism poured on the 14th amendment, plus a judge who hasn't received his most recent bribes, the 4th also constrains state governments. It does not, however, constrain corporations or individuals. That is, of course, if anyone was still paying it serious notice, which is clearly not the case anyway.
This stuff actually depends upon civil law, and there, the rules are *completely* different and not at all what you expect. Or will enjoy. Civil law exists specifically so the system can hammer you in the event that criminal law is not up to the job. Any other usefulness is wholly coincidental.
Re: (Score:2)
remind me how many dollars sony was sued for over the walkman.
remind me how much has apple had to pay for illegal downloaded music playing on ipods.
the internet is a service, and with net neutrality it is not up to the isp to issue a court order to stop the infringement. they are not a court. neither is these stupid companies who harass people for using bittorrent or jigdo or ftp for crying out loud. the DMCA has clauses for takedown notices which the isp is allowed to essentially ignore unless the burden
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't you mean "If RightsCorp claims you downloaded stuff, you end up paying $20"? Because that's all it would take, a claim. If I were RightsCorp and this was in place, I could claim you downloaded my copyrighted material and have your ISP block all of your access. You would then have 3 options:
1) Cancel your ISPs account and sign up with a
As long as... (Score:5, Insightful)
they can be sued out of existence for every mistake they make, I'm cool with it.
Re: (Score:2)
You can sue for damages. Please provide documentation of monetary damages resulting from being disconnected from the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why I'm glad my ISP is run by the Tulalip Tribes. See how far you get sending lawyers after them!
Infingers? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
none of my fingers are going to pay up.
Oh, so you are going to NOT give them the middle finger then?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently they think it's ok to put your fingers in, so long as you pay.
Tor (Score:2)
It's what's for dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you run a P2P connection through Tor with any efficiency?
Re:Tor (Score:4, Informative)
Hey, thanks for that, Mr AC. I didn't know about I2P.
https://thetinhat.com/tutorial... [thetinhat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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 tim
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They offer a kickback to the ISP for doing a good job, and everyone is happy!
Re:nuisance fee (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
You know the answer to that... once you've paid the Danegeld, you'll never get rid of the Dane.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Worse, unless they agree in writing that the $20 settles the matter in full, they'll then sue you and use your payment as an admission of guilt (true or not).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The false positives are much less frequent than slashdot commenters would have you believe.
But presumably you're not claiming zero false positives, right? If it's non-zero then some innocent people will inevitably get hit up for the fine.
CFAA (Score:5, Insightful)
These Rightscorp asshats should be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and serve multiple-lifetime prison sentences each.
Re:CFAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Extortion laws ought to apply here as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Extortion laws ought to apply here as well.
Right, and now. IANAL, but it sounds to me like this already counts as criminal conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
racketeering?
SMH (Score:5, Funny)
Cryptolocker malware creators should sue Rightscorp for stealing their idea.
ISPs becoming liable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems to me that any ISP that redirects browser HTTP requests becomes liable to suit from the customers - for substantially more than $20.
wouldn't that be... (Score:3, Insightful)
"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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Mr. Steele is my porn name. Am I exempt?
Re: (Score:3)
How many of them ended up in prison?
Useful Tip (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
dont close the door after the horse has bolted.
you use the vpn BEFORE so you dont get caught.
Sign me up! (Score:2)
Darknets... (Score:2)
Focus on cable ISPs because.... (Score:3)
I note in the OP that they are focussed on "Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cable Vision and one more" which is basically means they are only going to bother with cable providers that have localised monopolies where subscribers can't just switch to a new ISP.
While that may work where cable monopolies exist (i.e. USA) it would fail utterly in markets where xDSL is the more predominant carriage method as most people would just churn from one ISP to the next rather than pay a "fine" and admit guilt, especially if the "fine(s)" add up to more than the cost of changing.
Wouldn't Hold Up in Court (Score:2)
I'd really love to see them do this to somebody who takes them to court for it. Rightscorp and the ISP will have to prove the guilty party is the account owner. If they can't, then they still have to prove who the guilty party is, and make them pay. It's called burden of proof [cornell.edu]. This company is simply attempting to circumvent the U.S. legal system because in most cases, they won't be able to prove who was downloading the copyrighted material.
The problem is rooted in the fact that an IP address is not the
all traffic? more than just web ports? (Score:2)
suppose you run a vpn from home. they can't easily put a redirect in when its not port 80 (etc) traffic.
wonder what they plan to do with us vpn guys?
There Is a Minor Flaw In This Endeavor (Score:2)
Doing it wrong. (Score:5, Funny)
You don't want to cut off their web browsing, you want to cut their power. Get the electric companies to cut the power till they pay up. Can't download or watch them infringing files with no power.
Cut the power!!!!
metaphors (Score:4, Interesting)
is less like a "piracy speeding ticket" and more like a "piracy wheel clamp"
No, it is not. A wheel clamp is attached by police, i.e. the executive branch of the government elected by the people. Like it or hate it, it's part of the democratic system and it is authorized to do this.
Re: (Score:3)
Just like that speeding ticket. Rightsflop is, at least last time I checked, not part of the executive branch of the legal system. In other words, they have no right whatsoever to demand anything like this.
Unless someone bought a new law and I missed it...
Great idea! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they have common carrier status... ISP's do not. At least in the USA..