>Anti-piracy outfit Rightscorp says that it's working on a new method to extract cash settlements from suspected Internet pirates. The company says new technology will lock users' browsers and prevent Internet access until they pay a fine. To encourage ISPs to play along, Rightscorp says the system could help to limit their copyright liability.
https://torrentfreak.com/rightscorp-plans-to-hijack-pirates-browsers-until-a-fine-is-paid-160402/
>>53883991
will this work on linux too?
>legal ransomware
What the fuck
lol good luck with that.
>>53884028
It's like getting your tyres clamped for parking infringement
The internet is gonna get seriously fucked, really soon. Too many people freaking out about security without actually knowing anything about security, and just letting any company do anything
>>53884068
Britfag detected
Sounds like a good way to get criminal charges for violation of the computer fraud and abuse act.
Remember: piracy is a civil offense. You can get sued for it, and will probably end up paying a much larger amount than you actually cost them in damages. Installing malware on someone's computer, or otherwise accessing without permission, or accessing by means that exceed given permissions, is a federal crime that can get you sent to pound-you-in-the-boipussy prison.
>>53884068
No it's not.
>>53883991
>The company says new technology will lock users' browsers and prevent Internet access until they pay a fine.
>lock users' browsers
>>53884028
No such thing. You get code running on someone else's computer without permissions, or exceeding given permissions, and you have committed a felony under US law. Many other countries have similar laws.
>>53883991
>mfw this malware gets flagged by every virus protection program on the internet the second its out in the open.
and nothing of value was lost.
Since they're getting the ISP involved, I assume it'll done similarly to data cap warnings; i.e. it's nothing.
>>53883991
So basically their going to make ransomware and put it on torrent sites as though it's their product? Bravo.
>>53884190
How do you bypass data cap warnings?
>>53884161
>They try to lock your browser
>minimize window continue in terminal
Why do these faggots feel the need to ruin the internet even more?
One of these days they'll actually get something through and fuck everything.
Is the clearnet going to die?
>>53884200
>>53884169
This wouldn't even work to begin with.
This has to be inside of a popular torrent to be downloaded by anyone to begin with.
It's not like 2000+ seeders are going to stay quiet about a bugged torrent. That shit will get caught in the first five peers.
>>53883991
>To encourage ISPs to play along
Sounds like they want to set up a captive portal on the ISP side, which would be returned on all web requests with a page that tells the pirate to pay up.
the simple solution to this is to pirate on someone elses wifi
Pretty sure blackmail is a crime. I hope they like getting sued by grandma who didn't secure her wifi network.
>>53884241
Wait until the torrent gets 5000 completed downloads, then send the ransom threats out.
>>53884028
I'm not sure this is legal at all. An IP address may not be enough to prove anything and if you disconnect someone based solely on an IP address you might actually be infringing on their right to internet access because they haven't legally done anything wrong yet. This might actually be viewed as extortion in court and could backfire in a hilarious way.
>>53884270
That would only happen if it was at the ISP level and not a form of malware.
If it was a form of malware, the first fucker that downloads it will notice, if he's not some sort of mongoloid sub-human of some sort.
ISP level sounds like hell on a bun.
>>53884352
>right to internet access
You very obviously do not live in America.
There is no such thing.
Yeah that's never gonna happen.
>>53884390
If you pay for internet access you sign a contract that basically says as long "as you don't do these things we wont disconnect you without prior warning." Since no one can prove you did anything if they disconnect you without warning they're putting themselves in a bad position. An IP address isn't always considered enough evidence.
>>53884471
An IP address isn't considered proof of an IDENTITY, but the ISP could easily just use this software to target IP address and then say that you're revealing your identity publicly if you try to sue them.
>>53884496
>An IP address isn't considered proof of an IDENTITY
If that's true then they cannot use an IP address to do anything. If they accuse you of copyright infringement and come armed with nothing but an IP address then I think you could technically (counter)sue them for defamation. I would consult a lawyer first though. If they don't have rock solid evidence before going after you then they cannot accuse you of something that would otherwise damage your reputation. A few judges have ruled that IP addresses are not evidence of anything since they don't always correspond to the actual infringer and these notices may be used to bully completely innocent people into paying for things they didn't do.
>>53884669
>If that's true then they cannot use an IP address to do anything.
They most certainly can. Not to you, but to the IP address.
Let's say a peer scan points to ip address 172.18.0.1 being used to download illegal software. That that IP address was receiving illegal downloads is not in question because it was in the peer network. The ISP now can easily see that IP address 172.18.0.1 is coming from within their network due to how network structure works. It would be absolutely trivial for them to redirect all new traffic from 172.18.0.1 towards their special software that blocks further access until the ransom is paid.
That never goes back to YOU, your identity is never relevant at any point during this process.
If you tried to sue them, you'd have to prove in a court of law that you, the plaintiff, are the person being redirected by the ISP, which would obviously mean you'd have to admit to using that IP address. The only legal leeway you'd have then would be to say that you weren't the person using the IP address at the time of the illegal action, and that'd be a hard fight to win.
>>53884765
>If you tried to sue them, you'd have to prove in a court of law that you, the plaintiff, are the person being redirected by the ISP, which would obviously mean you'd have to admit to using that IP address.
You cannot prove the person in court is the one who infringed on the copyright. The one in court might be an old lady who cannot get on facebook anymore. The actual infringer might be some kid down the street using her wifi network without her permission or knowledge. Just showing up in court is not evidence of anything.
>>53884909
Perhaps not, but the ISP could very easily make the argument that it was the network subscriber's network service that performed the illegal activity and thus it was that service which was taken action against. Delinking it from the actual person in question.
IP laws are not nearly lax enough to let those kind of "It wasn't me, it was somebody else who just happened to be masquerading as me!" kind of arguments pass in court, no matter how true they are.
Now if they tried to actually prosecute the person in question for copyright infringement, well that would have basically no merit unless the police pulled some hardcore parallel construction. But the ISP isn't confined to the law like governments are.
>>53884955
>But the ISP can disregard the law unlike governments.
>>53883991
I want to start pirating stuff just to trip this. Then take it to court and see just how well it holds up...
>What is innocent until proven guilty
>What is a felony
>>53885387
Well, to be more specific, governments would be dealing with the law while the ISPs would not be.
>>53885414
No one is assumed innocent in a civil case, the one that has more evidence to support their side of the story wins. In this case though the company would probably be breaking the law if they actually disabled or hindered your ability to use the internet with something as flimsy as an IP address as proof. I doubt this would hold up in court and the company might get counter-sued for a lot of money if they actually tried.
>>53883991
>ransomware on my computer
'no'
>>53885554
senpai, copyright infringement is criminal in burgerland, not civil (see DMCA)
>>53883991
>lock users' browsers
Kek, I'd like to see them try.
>>53885643
DMCA makes circumventing certain copy protection schemes illegal but it doesn't change anything about copyright infringement itself.
>>53884765
/g/ used to be populated by people with half a brain. I miss those days
>an IP address is proof of anything
I can randomly generate valid IP addresses and send DMCA letters to their ISPs.
Just because a copyright troll firm claims to have observed an IP address being involved in copyright infringement doesn't mean it's true or that it will hold up to a challenge in court.
>>53885674
With that Intel/AMD 2009/2013 blobs I think they could.
>>53884227
Use ssl
>>53886056
nsa broke it
>>53886101
The NSA doesn't tell you when you are about to hit your data cap with a popup your ISP does
Anti-piracy people are worse than Jews.
The ransomware isnt going to be put on client machines,
its going to be done at a ISP level.
they're going to make the ISP lock your IP
and redict all your port 80/443 traffic to the LOCKED page
>>53886896
At which point, the ISP gets a class action lawsuit for breach of contract.
>>53886896
So I get a VPN and then what?
>>53887145
and then you cant connect to shit because they locked every other port including VPN
>>53887040
They'll just create a new contract for new subscribers where it's allowed. and then when existing subscribers contract expires in a few years they'll have to sign the new one if they want internet access again.
ISPs already get away with locking pages, port throttling, ad injection into webpages
so it's not like this is really a new concept.
>>53887159
Guess time to get a new ISP.
>>53883991
So it's malware? What the fucking shit
>>53887291
it's not malware
it's an ISP feature for defending copyright
>>53887298
ISP feature that actively fucks over the consumer at absolutely no benefit to the ISP
gee I'm sure this will be a smash hit
>>53887298
It's malware.
>>53883991
>get locked
>uninstall browser
>reinstall
>wa la
And if they "lock" me out of that I'll just format + reinstall the whole fuggin' thing.
>>53887341
>wa la
>>53887341
Just use a live CD.
>>53883991
>
mfw dutch and running redstar os. come at me.
>>53887298
>it's a feature goy---- I mean, guys
>>53884169
Perpetual copyright has been ruled unconstitutional in the US. These people are above the law as a profession.
>>53887431
HEY RUSSIAN HACKERS INSTALL MALWARE
OY MY ISP FEATURED ME WITH THIS...
>>53887391
rather not
>>53884241
1. Provide DMCA notice to compliant ISP.
2. ISP puts you in a walled garden, like always, but the page they show is different. Any HTTP requests just return a settlement form with scare legal looking insignia and language.
3. Your identity has not been disclosed by the ISP, and no software has been installed on your system.
This is why collusion is so scary. It circumvents legal controls entirely.
>>53887456
If it's not American, it's malware.
If it's American, it's good for you.
>>53885712
What's wrong with this? Besides the sticky legal ISP stuff and loss of ISP trust this would work fine. When an offending IP requested a page it would be redirected to a site with a list of all the offending IPs and various payment options. After a transaction is confirmed the IP would be removed from the list of offenders and requests would not be redirected. It's definitely racketeering and grotesque by any measure of that word, but it would work.
>>53884068
It's like getting your tires clamped for walking to work instead of driving
>>53883991
>lock user's browsers
holy shit guys i'm using firefox and i think they already implemented it.
>>53886819
They are Jews.
insert win 10 joke here
>>53888239
DELET
>>53884068
It's like a parking company clamping your tyres in your own driveway.
>>53883991
>ctrl alt dlt
>find process locking browser
>kill task
>enjoy free movey
>>53883991
Then just block America - let them be secluded - rest of the world is going to move on p2p, underground self administrated networks.. really no big deal.
You have American IP or you're connected trough VPN ? Instant block from the network.. fuck off fatso.
Sounds like a good way to get money from all of those deadbeats.
>>53888239
kek
>>53884028
>>53884116
Are you retarded? The quote is obviously suggesting ISPs block your internet access, not install shit on your computer.
>>53883991
Interfering with my computer without my knowledge and/or consent is a crime in my country. No excuses. No exceptions.
>>53890153
What country? I want to move there.
>>53884254
/thread
REALY, REALY
Who ever believes this belongs in /b/
>>53883991
I'm all for this because it will stump the SHIT out of the average tech illiterate, and provide endless lulz for me
I can't fucking wait actually, this is one step closer to the dystopian cyberpunk future we secretly crave
>>53888239
Topkek
>>53883991
You asked for this, amerilards.
>ISP blocks your internet thanks to this new system
>Call them up telling them you're cancelling
>They ask why
>Explain
>They immediately unlock your internet
Every time.
>>53884019
Freetards btfo
>>53892750
Okay sir, however our contract comes with a $500 cancellation fee, and it's only $50 to remove the block.
>>53890153
Does the FBI shutting down megadownload also count as interfering with your computer?
>>53894408
Aren't cancellation fees illegal?
>>53895516
Are you retarded or just pretending to be?
>>53894408
>cancelation fee
is that an american thning?
>>53884254
Which, I'm sure ISPs won't like, as they will not be legally allowed to charge for a service that they do not provide.
At least where I live, putting up a captive portal would mean that they would also need to stop taking money from you (and cancel any lock-in contracts associated). This would be a cue for people to jump ships to other providers.
>>53894408
Except where you pull them up for failure to provide service, and they have to let you go for free.
>>53895609
It starts with 1-2 ISPs, in the end they will all be compelled to join, by the law, if it works.
>>53883991
Fucking retarded
>>53884019
Of course it will, though the way it's worded might make you think otherwise.
Basically if you try to access the internet and these tards have concluded that you're a pirate, AND your ISP is actually cooperating with them, you'll be seeing these notices wether you like it or not, inplace of the actual website you're trying to view.
Depending on how it's implemented, a simple proxy or Tor could get you around the block though.
>>53886819
Why do millennials think shit will just run without money?
>>53889644
It's like a parking company clamping your cock for not being a cuck
The cyberpunk future IS NOW
Yeah, if my ISP cooperates with these fuckheads, I'll drop them immediately.
>>53895886
>ISP blocks me
>terminate contract, sign up with another ISP
I don't see the problem
>>53897796
burgers usually have only one ISP choice because murika is so large
>>53887524
A VPN or proxy would likely negate #2. Hell HTTPS would likely stop it. Can't really change data in transit if its encrypted. Well you can but one end would be just receiving garbage data.
