Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Communications Crime Piracy

Class-Action Suit Claims Copyright Enforcement Company Made Harassing Robo-calls 67

Posted by samzenpus from the will-you-pay-us-now?-how-about-now? dept.
An anonymous reader writes Morgan Pietz, one of the lawyers who took on Prenda Law, has a new target in his sights: copyright enforcement company Rightscorp. In a class action suit (PDF) Pietz claims the company made illegal, harassing robo-calls to people who were accused of illegal downloading and by doing so Rightscorp broke the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which limits how automated calling devices can be used. "They robo-called Jeanie Reif's cell phone darn near every day for a couple of months," Pietz said. "And there could be thousands of members of this class."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Class-Action Suit Claims Copyright Enforcement Company Made Harassing Robo-calls More

Class-Action Suit Claims Copyright Enforcement Company Made Harassing Robo-calls

Comments Filter:

  • Can we also sue the Business Software Alliance?

  • If the FCC actually did its job (Score:3)

    by Rigel47 ( 2991727 ) on Monday November 24, 2014 @10:18AM (#48449071)
    and weren't a complete waste of taxpayer money these robo calls would never happen. I have for YEARS been getting the same pre-recorded message call to my cell phone promising me to lower my credit card payment. Searching the internet shows hundreds of folks complaining about the same -- down to the very spoofed caller ID number. I've filed numerous complaints online at the FTC and yet fuck all happens.

    • It sounds like a really, really good place to put the massive NSA data collection to some good useful purpose for the citizens.

      There might be some justification, after all, if we can get rid of the robocallers.

    • Well, there's several reasons for that ...

      1) Lobbyists for the people who claim to be "legitimate" telemarketers had provisions in the law gutted so they could continue to call us even if we didn't want them to.

      2) Since it's so trivial to spoof caller ID (in part for these exact same companies), knowing who is actually calling is almost impossible

      3) Many of those callers are calling from another country entirely (again, because those companies who lobbied for exemptions wanted to use offshore call center

      • Then repeal the law and give it teeth. No exclusions for charities or politicians. if you don't want a call, you don't get a call, period. If a complaint is filed, the call will be traced back to find out who paid for it at the expense of the offending organization. Make a fine of $5,000 half of which is payable to the consumer.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The biggest problem with these situations is that the FCC doesn't have much control over the bulk of these callers now that the companies have learned how to game the system. Telemarketers targeting the US will have their operations calling from Canada or elsewhere, and in Canada they'll be calling from the US or elsewhere.

      It's kinda similar to how governments who are bound by law to not perform certain forms of espionage will hire it out to another nation to perform.

      Not saying this excuses it, it's just th

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        Telemarketers targeting the US will have their operations calling from Canada or elsewhere, and in Canada they'll be calling from the US or elsewhere.

        What we need is a law prohibiting telemarketing from an overseas operation to be passed in both countries, and a cooperative agreement to enforce the other country's law locally.

        And a regulation that companies which provide termination for overseas calls either refuse any call, or ensure through their contractual agreements and technology on their network

        • You seem to be suggesting a solution in which someone will both cooperatively pass laws spanning multiple nations, and which could be construed as limiting the "free speech" and commercial activities of corporations.

          I predict the chance of that happening to be practically non-existent.

          Someone with deep pockets will claim that preventing a commercial entity from cold calling you is unfair. And they'll throw a lot of money at this to ensure those laws are watered down so far as to be useless.

          Just like the la

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by mysidia ( 191772 )

            You seem to be suggesting a solution in which someone will both cooperatively pass laws spanning multiple nations,

            Actually.. I guess I would rather not. Another alternative that would not require it would be to require providers impose a $1 to $5 per call termination fee for any oversea telemarketing call, regardless of whether a product successfully sold or not, and at least 25% of any extra fee collected needs to be paid to the person who was called.

            I would like to add a "Telemarketing call

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bengie ( 1121981 )
      I had this once, complained to the police department, they put a trace on my phone line and found who was calling me. I never found out who, but I stopped getting calls.

    • The FCC is doing its job. Have you forgotten who they work for?

  • These places tend to be asset-less companies that do not care about being sued, they simply form another shell and fold.

    • These places tend to be asset-less companies that do not care about being sued, they simply form another shell and fold.

      Per TFA, the lawsuit also has 10 John Doe defendants and they intend to go after the copyright holders Rightscorp represents. Given their deep pockets, if the lawsuit successfully includes them then who has what assets is moot since they all are on hook for the judgement so if one can't pay the other must.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bengie ( 1121981 )
      In this case, they were a company that has public stock and got investment funding with the promise of monetary returns. The investors are not happy.

    • That's why the suit also names their clients, who are also ultimately responsible for the actions of their "agent". Those are deep-pocket record companies who DO have assets, and lots of them.

  • If only we had robotic defenses against robotic phone call attacks...

    • I like Google Voice for this reason. If I mark a caller as "spam", they get a message saying "This number has been disconnected." My phones don't even ring. I think Google even auto-marks numbers as spam if enough people do so. (Similar to how, if enough people mark an e-mail as spam, all further instances of that e-mail will be marked as spam.)

    • The worst debt collection practice I was hammered with, called, didn't state for who they were,, did not leave any options to complete the call from them, but only gave a call back number for Jeromy to call Bob. I'm not Jeremy, so I let it run for a couple of months to see if it would quit. It didn't. Collectors continued to call even after my new number was not so new at 8 years.

      I pity anyone who does not speak English as they wouldn't understand the message, there was no option to respond to the call,

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by bswarm ( 2540294 )
        I had this happen. Google the number, find an email address, send them an email that you are getting these calls but you are not the intended recipient and you do not know the person, and to stop the calls or legal action will be taken. Never got another call.

  • Citation (Score:3)

    by ProzacPatient ( 915544 ) on Monday November 24, 2014 @11:22AM (#48449685)

    Very rarely do news articles saying "X is against the law" ever actually cite the law in question. The applicable law in this case, if I understand correctly, is 47 U.S.C. 227 [cornell.edu].

    • Re:Citation (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Bengie ( 1121981 ) on Monday November 24, 2014 @11:43AM (#48449867)
      Based on another site, the issue seems to be that this company is claiming to be able to call under the pretenses that they are a debt collector trying to collect the "debt" of paying for infringements or face a lawsuit. The problem seems to be that because this is a civil issue, there cannot be a "Debt" until they win a lawsuit. They put the carriage before the horse. They can sue, then attempt to collect debt, but not the other way around. Because there is no official debt, they are not allowed to robo call.
  • Last time someone harassed me calling every day, after a week, I changed the damn number. Problem solved.

    • And I got issued your number. Your bill collector still calls on occasion Mr Taylor. Pay your bill!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ruir ( 2709173 )
        Nobody said it was a bill collector. Someone else wont get your new number. Plus, you can ask the new number in someone else name.
  • Regulations, like the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, are for little people. This is about corporate profit and we will decide which regulations we will observe and which we will ignore. And if you don't like it, by your own legislators and regulators.

    Regards,
    Your Friends at RIAA/MPAA

  • "...harassing robo-calls..."

    Also known as 'robo-calls'.

  • I got a number of harassing calls from them. All for the US Serviceman who previously had my phone number.

    Time and time again I explained to them that I wasn't the person they were looking for. Then I'd launch into a tirade about their business practices - which I'm glad to see they have been called on.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close