Rightscorp Threatens Every ISP in the United States (torrentfreak.com) 225
An anonymous reader writes: Following a court win by its client BMG over Cox Communications this week, Rightscorp has issued an unprecedented warning to every ISP in the United States today. Boasting a five-year trove of infringement data against Internet users, Rightscorp warned ISPs that they can either cooperate or face the consequences. "For nearly five years, Rightscorp has warned US internet service providers (ISPs) that they risk incurring huge liabilities if they fail to implement and enforce policies under which they terminate the accounts of their subscribers who repeatedly infringe copyrights," the company said in a statement. "Over that time, many ISPs have taken the position that it was simply impossible for an ISP to be held liable for its subscribers' actions -- even when the ISP had been put on notice of massive infringements and supplied with detailed evidence. There had never been a judicial decision holding an ISP liable."
Meh. Take the Trump approach. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. (Score:4, Funny)
Or just find somebody to sue. Should be fun...
Re: (Score:2)
According to Rightscorp, is you accept their logic, the NRA should be responsible for every gun death in the USA.
Or better, the government is responsible for every crime committed by every convicted criminal.
Re:Meh. Take the Trump approach. (Score:5, Funny)
If things head south, declare bankruptcy and walk away.
Aw, gee Wally, shucks. When I read your title, I was hoping that you would encourage Second Amendment folks to "take care" of both Comcast and Rightscorp.
man, I'm not looking forward to this shitfest (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It took IBM FOURTEEN YEARS to put down SCO group.
Has SCO really been put down . . . ? They always seemed to me to be like a "Whack-a-Mole" game from country fairs, and the like. Every time they got whacked down, and someone claimed them for dead, the head would pop up again from another hole.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but in SCO's case, every subsequent resurrection is weaker, and weaker... I figure it's at the point where nowadays, IBM just has one of their janitors spend a few minutes each week to check on their status.
Re: (Score:2)
It took IBM FOURTEEN YEARS to put down SCO group.
I think it was just a reality show for all OSS and legal eyes to enjoy. Oh, and it was.
Not Part of a Tyrannical Government (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, they own a nice piece of the government
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's so amazing that we have two awful candidates in a position where just about anyone sane and of average intelligence would likely win over each of those candidates. But the primaries are usually geared up to elect the most partisan players with moderates being shut out. Party loyalty trumps loyalty to the citizens. But Trump defies all logic in shutting down all Republican contenders, Clinton for some inexplicable reason is the heir apparent and few others even bother running.
Get a decent candidate t
Re: (Score:2)
Easily done. All you have to do is vote for one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OR take the Clintion "What Difference, at this point, does it make" approach. I didn't _________ (fill in the blank scandal lie)
Re: (Score:2)
OR take the Clintion "What Difference, at this point, does it make" approach.
Why not take the Trump approach? Let the second amendment people deal with this :)
Re: (Score:2)
OR take the Clintion "What Difference, at this point, does it make" approach.
Why not take the Trump approach? Let the second amendment people deal with this :)
I don't think the PAC he was referring to would bother wasting resources on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell them they're coming to take away their gun videos.
Re: (Score:3)
Or the Elizabeth Warren's approach ... and make Trump just "disappear" (veiled threat???? )
Of course, the press didn't cover that the same way .. or at all.
Tiny dog barking up big tree (Score:5, Insightful)
If you threaten the safe harbor status of the ISPs you are going to get stomped.
The BIG problem.. (Score:5, Interesting)
So, I now assume that:
If you are caught driving around with copyrighted material, your drivers license is revoked?
If someone hears copyrighted music playing over a phone call, your phone line is terminated?
If a broadcaster accidentally broadcasts some copyrighted material without license, all their views/subscribers the service terminated?
That land of the free must be a wonderful place to live, what with all those 'protections' and all..
Oh, I forgot didnt I, civil violations over the internet are the new terrorism, and must be crushed by the state. Silly me.
At least the general public still get their fair half of copyright, by the timely entry into the public domain of the works that WE, through the tax
funded state, have protected for the holders. Oh wait, damn! how did that happen?
Re: (Score:2)
...If a broadcaster accidentally broadcasts some copyrighted material without license, all their views/subscribers the service terminated?...
...and their TV towers will fall to inversely represent the enormous penis size of those who are falling back on ridiculous laws (that don't work) to get rich quick. Congrats, oh Lords of the Penis(tm)! You have now just encouraged thousands of times more "stolen works" from the American and probably world populace to overload your choices of who to pick on AND, to have the companies that pay you to pull their little whackers out to punish you for not getting them enough fast "returns". Bravo, RightsCor
Re: The BIG problem.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. Eventually they will label all traffic they can't snoop as terrorism, and that will be enough for them to raid your house.
Re:Tiny dog barking up big tree (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not Sparta, this is USA. People you are thinking about are not called Leonidas and Gorgo, they're probably named Todd and Leshaniqua. And therefore there will be no stomping other than by a rich corporate boot.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not Sparta, this is USA. People you are thinking about are not called Leonidas and Gorgo, they're probably named Todd and Leshaniqua. And therefore there will be no stomping other than by a rich corporate boot.
Here is what I don't get. Why don't the ISPs just refuse service to Rights Corp? They are within their rights to do so. Rights Corp is obviously network scanning their customers. If it was any other organization they would be kicked off of their network for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Wanker.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Tiny dog barking up big tree (Score:2)
I don't see why the ISP's don't simply claim immunity due to their common carrier status. Of course, that would make them concede to the FCC, but on the upside they also aren't liable for things like terrorist attacks coordinated through their infrastructure.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't see why the ISP's don't simply claim immunity due to their common carrier status. Of course, that would make them concede to the FCC, but on the upside they also aren't liable for things like terrorist attacks coordinated through their infrastructure.
Because it's not a profitable decision. Being liable for terrorist attacks, eh, maybe a $150,000 settlement once a decade, and potentially some bad press which doesn't mean anything when your reputation is crap. On the flip side, the FCC is the only entity with significant power that wants an open Internet, and that scares ISPs shitless. If they become regulated, they'll actually be required to provide decent service for a reasonable price, and they would probably have to invest money into upgrading their i
Re: (Score:2)
No, their approach is to gain immunity by buying the content creators. Thus Universal Pictures is owned by Comcast.
Re: (Score:3)
If you threaten the safe harbor status of the ISPs you are going to get stomped.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the safe harbor statute require you to do something if you receive a notice of infringement? According to the article, Rightscorp has been sending notices of infringement and the ISPs haven't been doing anything.
Rightscorp *already* won in court. Law change need (Score:2)
Rightscorp *already* won in court. They sued Cox, the fifth largest ISP in the country. To fix the situation, a few words need to be added to the relevant law, the DMCA.
While we're at it, also adding a significant penalty for filing negligent DMCA notices would go aa LONG way to fixing the other problems related to the issues the act was intended to address.
Re: (Score:2)
Rightscorp *already* won in court. They sued Cox, the fifth largest ISP in the country. To fix the situation, a few words need to be added to the relevant law, the DMCA.
While we're at it, also adding a significant penalty for filing negligent DMCA notices would go aa LONG way to fixing the other problems related to the issues the act was intended to address.
Honestly, I suspect at this point it might be worth floating a law that basically says that the moment your demands to somebody to settle gets hard to distinguish from extortion? It will automatically result in you losing the case, possibly with you having to pay for everybody's legal costs. That, and basically point out that we need to let a third party be assured that they're safe--if you're going to insist Alice, who has an established reputation of borderline-at-best extortion via lawsuit, be helped t
DMCA covers both clearly in this case (Score:2)
In this case, existing law already covers both your point about "extortion" and safe harbor from liability. What it doesn't cover adequately is RightsCorp's high volume of negligent complaints.
First, extortion. Suppose I scratch your car, a big scratch. You want $2,000 to have it repainted. I offer $100 to have just the scratch covered with touch up paint. You're not happy with that because even with the touch up paint, the damage will be visible. You say "if you don't pay to have my car painted, I'll
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with the extortion is the negligent notices and the practices--this is not 'you scratched my car,' this is 'me claiming that you scratched my car (with you not being able to verify this was even possible and having no idea what evidence I might have to support my claim), demanding $20,000 (when that's significantly above what the repair will cost), and you not being able to afford to defend yourself against my army of bottom-feeding ambulance chasers.'
The 'demanding significantly more than the cos
Re: (Score:2)
> The way the DMCA process is written, the party making the claim doesn't really face much penalty for effectively lying to the court
Absolutely agreed. That's a major problem with DMCA. In mynexperience handling DMCA issues and advising people on both sides, it's THE major problem. Other issues flow from this.
> it seems reasonable to require the party sending them out cover the costs--they can tack it onto what they ask for when they win, if nothing else.
In the Rightscorp vs Cox example, it seems pe
Can I sue the government for drug smuggling? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nearly 100% of the drugs that are smuggled are going over the public motorways.
Unlike the popular Slashdot opinion I am all for Intellectual Property rights, however the ISP should focus their work on moving the data not being the judge of it.
And the phone companies just about anything. (Score:2)
Make sure you discuss all contracts, deals, etc over the phone now.
Since, by this logic, you can therefore require the phone company to file papers against the person at
the other end, and in fact to cut off their phone service if they repeatedly cause you a problem.
Should bring a whole new level of fun to iffy craigslist deals.
Nice! that shouldnt backfire at all... No, really, I am sure.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that Slashdot readers want to abolish Intellectual Property rights completely. We just want reasonable terms. Start with copyright duration. Author's death + 70 years would be ridiculous if it wasn't true.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that Slashdot readers want to abolish Intellectual Property rights completely. We just want reasonable terms. Start with copyright duration. Author's death + 70 years would be ridiculous if it wasn't true.
This. We don't have any problem with the spec of intellectual properly and copyright, we have problem with the implementation. While we have many frivolous ones, the patent system is actually a great idea - it allows people protection to turn a profit, and thereafter turns it into the public domain. By making copyrights last almost 150 years, in some cases, you completely stunt our cultural development - do you think the Greeks and Romans would have had such a rich literature if they had to wait 150 years b
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think that Slashdot readers want to abolish Intellectual Property rights completely. We just want reasonable terms. Start with copyright duration. Author's death + 70 years would be ridiculous if it wasn't true.
This. We don't have any problem with the spec of intellectual properly and copyright, we have problem with the implementation. While we have many frivolous ones, the patent system is actually a great idea - it allows people protection to turn a profit, and thereafter turns it into the public domain. By making copyrights last almost 150 years, in some cases, you completely stunt our cultural development - do you think the Greeks and Romans would have had such a rich literature if they had to wait 150 years before they could retell a story? Do you think the US would have become a world power if everything had been locked up and restricted by the various European countries?
Honestly I'd just start with adding a requirement that for all of the current protections you've got to provide a digital archival copy to the LOC & maintain some way for people attempting to locate you as the owner of that IP. The digital archival copy should serve as both legally establishing a date and content, and to ensure a copy exists to enter the public domain. Digital will be easier to store and preserve, probably.
The latter would simply neatly solve the orphan works problem: If you don't mak
Re: (Score:2)
Not the OP and applies more to patents: Before IP rights, people kept innovations secret to monetize them, selling the product but keeping process to themselves.
Never did work for things displayed in public, but there have been processes kept secret for centuries (crucible steel) and others that were kept so secret they were lost (damascus steel, modern 'equivalents' are art and not equivalent). I will grant that inventions around military technologies are still kept secret for as long as possible.
Historically False (Score:2)
Pretty much across the board you are wrong. Patents and Patent protection existed for a few hundred years, but it was a measurable patent award on real inventions. While the machine was patented ideas were not, so competition existed and people created competing products. They could not copy the exact machine, but the first run is not normally the best. Go look at how many variations of a Cotton Gin, automobile, motor bike, Steam engine, etc.. etc.. etc.. existed. People could see that something worked
Re: (Score:3)
I get your point but maybe a bad example because Damascus steel was made in India at a small commercial scale until a bit after WW2 and the "secret" was used with similar steels with two different starting materials in a lot of places. It was supplanted with a cheaper process that resulted in a material almost as good with far less effort but never really "lost". Before WW1 there were wrought naval artillery pieces made the same way but with steam hammers (Imperial Japan).
Cool stuff, but the
Re: (Score:2)
Damascus steel being currently made by folding and pounding is not the same as historic damascus steel, which came out of the furnace with islands of high and low carbon steel.
They can tell the difference and there is still active research.
Re: (Score:2)
No that's what a modern steel looks like - look up "pearlite". It's not just islands but "large" distinct bands of metal carbides
A bit more (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the trick is in having a button that you can press without being able to tell if you've really pressed it or not, because the combination of high resistance and minimal give, plus the unpredictable timing and organization of every particular stop light, ensure that you've got to hit it again and again, just in case, until you actually see it change.
Presumably on the back end the city electrical grid is powered by all these extra button pushes, and they're making a massive profit on the generated ele
Re: (Score:2)
Question (Score:2)
Does the creator(s) of the "infringed" content see any of this money or is it all hoarded by these "rights groups"?
If they see any of it, then please, by all means, rape and pillage Comcast, etc (mostly Comcast, Fuck You Comcast) as much as possible, otherwise it's just money changing from one evil hand to another...
Re: (Score:2)
The actual creators? Probably not. The musicians, authors, actors/directors, etc usually don't have deep enough pockets. The owners of the copyright (e.g. the record label, movie studio, publisher, etc), they may get a some, but it's probably a small percentage or just a fixed amount (e.g. Label A receives $10,000 in exchange for Rights Group B to go after infringes as agents of Label A. They w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is extremely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that there are countries in which this is true. The US is not one of those countries.
You can argue that the law *should* be interpreted that way, but to argue that it *is* interpreted that way just looks silly.
Cox Vs RIAA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cox Vs RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
RIAA. While we might hate our ISPs, at least there's something useful about them - the Internet Service they provide. It might be subpar quality (speed, customer service, etc) and they might overcharge for it, but there's a bit of value there. With the RIAA - or more specifically in this instance, RightsCorp - there's nothing of value there for us. They exist solely to serve themselves and at no point does their existence give us anything of value.
Re: (Score:2)
Easy. Comcast. Cox is only AMATEUR evil compared to Comcast. .
Re: (Score:2)
Who do we hate more?
As a Cox customer, I can definitely tell you that they are pretty good. I've been an AT&T Uverse, Comcast and Charter customer before moving in a Cox area.
My experience has been good. I don't have cable TV, and I pay $64.99 for 150/10. During non-peak times I get that speed, and at peak times I still get a good 120mbps down. They don't bomb me with TV offers all the time, and I've had one outage (which lasted for less than an hour) so far.
The RIAA on the other hand... Let the second amendment people
Re:Cox Vs RIAA (Score:4, Informative)
While my CPE is being assigned an IP address that is outside of RFC 6980 space I can't complete a inbound handshake consistently, as I do receive more than one SYN/ACK on the other end or don't receive any. It works only when I have recently sent a packet with that source port.
I also receive SYN/ACK packets from hosts I never sent SYN to. And because my router is configured to blacklist unasked inbound connections for an hour the first time, increasing it to 5 hours on repeated packet, or just outright permanently blackhole the source if it sends some nonsense as sending me SYN/ACK without me sending a SYN first, I can't open anything on the popular internet, like facebook, twitter, Netflix, news sites and such any more unless I purge my blacklist first. And it is quite unlikely that someone is trying to SYN attack popular websites and choses to spoof my IP, right at the time when they changed the last 2 upstream routers from me to have interfaces within RFC 6980 address space. My outbound SYNs now also at random times are not answered, but if repeated in a minute or two the handshake completes just fine. Before this change, my blacklist averaged around 15 temporary entries and grew with ~300 permanent entries in 6 months. Since this change, my blacklist has grown to 6000 permanent IPs within 1 week and the temporary entries average 300. I get around 20 packets per second inbound consistently without sending any outbound traffic (blocked and routing removed)
The only way that makes any sense is if they are either incompetent and have configured their NAT and assign the same non-RFC 6980 IP address they have assigned my CPE to other CPEs of other customers and I can only speculate that they are throwing some sort of anycast in the mix there as well, but the fact is that they are misrouting/misNATting packets - I get someone else's packets every now and then, and I'm sure someone else gets some of mine. Or, that they are doing that on purpose, trying to fool me, thinking that if I see a non-special address I won't get to know that I'm NATted, and they are trying to use the same address as both the local and the global side of the NAT. And as a residential customer I can't even reach a competent technical support who can understand my compliant.
I wish they weren't trying to hide the fact and putting in a complex setup and have just given me a plain 10. or 192.168. address, so I don't have to deal with this shit. I can live with a regular NAT upstream just fine.
Re:Cox Vs RIAA (Score:4, Funny)
Enhanced capacitors has to be aligned, because the critical singularity has been reversed. There is a weak singularity next to the plasma which causes temporal ripples around the quantum singularity. I have to boost the core sensor array at the special region. Invert the energys! Strange energy must have been stumped, because the strange hyperdrive has been contained! The singularity power has been not calibrated. The special sensor arrays reverse the special bursts near the galaxys. Expanding plasma conduit, running delta region. Expanding temporal galaxys re-routes the another bursts. I must invert the vortex power near the auxiliary area. The singularity crystal is stumped. Auxiliary gravity dampener must have been aligned, because the weak delta region appears to be inverted. Causing enhanced vacuums boosts the weak sensor arrays. I should boost the burst, because the gravity dampener appears to be in the fluctuations. The matter stream delta region appears to be not aligned.
Re: (Score:2)
The IM design specs use the blogs. We keep asking why marketing wants a productized toolkit when websites (soon to be released in beta) have a DOM-aware database server. An extensible server really uses virtual tier-1 providers, so database servers are going to grow the objectives. If we we had the resources of Google, a zero bug count objective has the configurable web application framework. A lightweight executive steps up to the challenge of debuggers.
Design-driven wags
If you know that the interfaces suc
Re: (Score:2)
As another Cox customer I can tell you that their recent transition to carrier NAT is a clusterfuck.
Interesting. What's the address that they gave you? (or /24, I don't need your IP). I'm curious to see what happens and why. I don't have CGNAT (at least not that I know of), yet.
Did you contact their helpdesk?
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, they also tried to stand up against this extortionist crap, rather than just voluntarily roll over on their customers. They went to court to fight it, and sadly lost, but that effort counts for something in my book at least.
Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
In our country, if you can't catch the people who break laws, we ALWAYS make sure some unaffiliated distant party takes the fall for it.
Solution for the people (Score:2)
Get the justice department to bring racketeering charges against Rightscorp.
Threatening an entire industry should bring consequences.
How are they to know what is allowed (Score:5, Interesting)
Just because something has a copyright doesn't mean it is illegal to share it. If the owner of the copyright allows their content to be shared on site x, then it is ok. Therefore, how is an ISP supposed to know a content's owner has given site "x" the right to store/share/distribute their content. Also, that right could be granted for an hour, a day, a month, or longer. Most mainstream artists license their work to be used via multiple venues. There is no real way for an ISP to know who has a legitimate right to store/share/distribute content for any particular time period. It would be like holding UPS responsible for me shipping antibiotics to someone. They don't know the contents of the package and if they did, they don't know whether the recipient has a legal prescription for that medication.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to see Rightscorp prove that all of their data, NO EXCEPTIONS, is valid and accurate.
You wanna put an end to this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Demand that the ISPs become common carriers.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Demand that secondary liability lawsuits be banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's bitztream, the moronic autism-hating Slashdot troll!
Dumb pipe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I really don't get how all these ISPs that discriminate traffic can get away with remaining non-liable. The safe harbor is ONLY if they are unaware, thus this should be encouragement for not knowing what is happening on their network.
I agree with you, but that's not what this particular issue is about. Rightscorp isn't telling the ISPs they have to detect users' copyright infringing activities. Rightscorp is telling ISPs they have to implement and enforce policies whereby users' connections can be terminated if they (the users) engage in excessive copyright infringement. The ISP cooperation they want works like this:
-- Rightscorp identifies copyright infringement
-- Rightscorp notifes ISP
-- ISP tells user to knock it off
-- User contin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like RIghtsCorp is trying to interfere with a contract they are not a party to, one between you and the ISP.
Seems like the correct thing to do in that situation is turn round and sue rights corp for contractual interference.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like the correct thing to do in that situation is turn round and sue rights corp for contractual interference.
That might work, if the ISP's terms of service don't include provisions for termination for unlawful use; I think most of them do include such provisions. Contractual interference (known in the legal trade as tortious interference) usually occurs when a one party attempts to induce a second party to breach a contract with a third party. A party that merely points out that a second party has already breached a contract with a third party (e.g., when someone points out that a user has breached the ISP's TOS)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me fix that for you;
-- Rightscorp ALLEGES copyright infringement (with little or no evidence to back up the assertion)
-- Rightscorp notifies ISP, claiming airtight proof, when all they have is some tracker somewhere saying that your IP was part of a swarm at some (unverified) time.
-- ISP tells user to knock it off
-- User continues infringing (assuming they were, or not) and Rightscorp allegedly identifies it again.
-- Rightscorp notifies ISP
-- ISP tells Rightscorp to piss off with their unproven assertio
Re: (Score:2)
Let me fix that for you;
Yeah, I was describing the way they want it to work as outlined in TFA, not the way a random internet user sees it. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
I really don't get how all these ISPs that discriminate traffic can get away with remaining non-liable. The safe harbor is ONLY if they are unaware, thus this should be encouragement for not knowing what is happening on their network.
It's only copyright infringement if it's not fair use and you don't have a license. The ISP may be able to detect that you're transmitting certain material, but they have no way to know whether what you are doing is actually copyright infringement. That is something that could only be determined in court after the fact.
Also, there is no way that implementing a handful of automated filters equates to the ability to exercise effective editorial control over the entire Internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, there is no way that implementing a handful of automated filters equates to the ability to exercise effective editorial control over the entire Internet.
This is pretty much what Rightscorp seems to want, though, but it would be interesting if somebody argued that what they are demanding you do is as reasonable as trying to sue a corpse back to life--and thus the entire thing, right down to asking if the laws says they can demand it, is an utter waste of the court's time and needs to be treated as such.
Might be a blessing disguise (Score:3, Insightful)
Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, TW, all sued into bankruptcy, then the government steps in and nationalizes the last mile infrastructure. FTW!
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, TW, all sued into bankruptcy, then the government steps in and nationalizes the last mile infrastructure. FTW!
And then what do you think the government is going to do with all those bit they now control?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trying to suggest that those companies are presently acting as impediments to whatever the government would be doing if the government owned their networks outright?
Actually, yes. Right now they would need to break the law to do it, and I am sure there is some of that going on. If they owned and controlled the networks though, they can legally monitor them for the "protection of the rights or property of the provider", i.e. the provider exemption to the Wiretap Act [18 U.S.C.2511], which I am sure can be weasel worded into all sorts of ways to then legally monitor it.
Re: (Score:3)
Look at the state of the nations roads, bridges, and overpasses and ask yourself if you really think the government would really be an improvement.
Re: (Score:2)
Any one of the major ISP's, if they bother to take RightsCorp seriously, have far, Far, FAR more capitol to put into lawyers than RightsCorp ever will.
If, at any point, these guys even feel the slightest twinge of threat from RC, they will roll over RighsCorp like a tidal wave.
Besides, once this issue reaches a real court ( and it will ) the entire thing will get tossed out. That whole bit about due process and whatnot.
That or all it will take is one mistake on RC's part demanding a potential " infringer
Re: (Score:2)
I know people don't RTFA, but really? RTFS!!!!!
RC won against Cox *IN COURT*. That's what triggered this whole mess.
Re: (Score:2)
Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Cox, TW, all sued into bankruptcy, then the government steps in and nationalizes the last mile infrastructure. FTW!
<sarcasm>Yeah, that's exactly what I want: the government controlling my Internet!</sarcasm>
Shit like this is what will destroy the Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, nope, nope.. 'Rightscorp' needs to be destroyed, completely erradicated; they are part of the Cancer that is killing the Internet; they are why we can't have nice things. Them, them, fuck them. ISPs should not be part of law enforcement. ISPs may be the gateway to the Internet, but they should not be the GATEKEEPERS.
Re: (Score:2)
Bit torrent must DIE (Score:2)
There must be a workable solution for people to exchange data amongst themselves without everything they do broadcast to every copyright shakedown company and LEA in the world.
It has always been universally understood those interested in obtaining or distributing "illicit" goods and services would be required to at least put some effort into concealing their activities, watching their backs and limiting trading networks to guard against having to suffer consequences.
Once shit like Napster started everyone w
Less than $5M (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a look at the market cap..
https://finance.yahoo.com/quot... [yahoo.com]
For less than $5 Million dollars an ISP could buy these idiots out and fire them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That's probably what they want. IBM could have done the same with SCO, but that's basically paying the ransom which encourages more people to take hostages. Better to cure it with fire so they don't start a new company, take the small amount of IP they had to base the case on and start all this over again...
Get a chair (Score:2)
...and some popcorn.
On second thought, there isn't enough popcorn in the world to cover this level of chutzpah.
This sounds like Hail Mary pass, make it or break it for Rightscorp. It looks like there are only two realistic outcomes:
1) They win big and are owed 50 gazillion kabillion bleptillion dollars (all the money on Earth times 2 plus infinity), or
2) The court will incinerate them down to the molecular level and what's left over could be cleaned up with a Dustbuster.
I'm betting on incineration.
Someone please tell Hillary (Score:2)
...that Rightscorp execs have the rights to all her under-the-table dealings and are going to release them if the piracy doesn't stop. Then I can finally applaud an addition to the Clinton Body COunt.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
as crucial to living in the modern world as power and water
Ummm, look, I like the internet, I like it a lot. I'm a huge fan of the internet, honest, a really huge fan. And it's super useful and it makes life better. I got nothin' bad to say about the internet.
But get a grip, dude- it's not as crucial as power and water.
Internet, power, and water: pick one of them to not have in your home.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...IIUC summary judgment is a very high bar to reach. And if that's what this is about, then the whole headline, story, etc. is a pile of crap. Summary judgments are issued before the trial and avert the trial.
So if that's what this is about the whole story is click-bait...except the part that RightsCorp is using a lack of summary judgment as an excuse to threaten all the ISPs. If that's what's going on this is an even more reprehensible summary than usually occurs...and is good grounds for doubting