Rightscorp sound like the bastard child of Prenda Law and the RIAA.
Prenda take it up the RIAA?
I do not wish to scar my imagination by speculating which would be the ātopā in that horrid pairing.
Iāll be interested to see what release Rightscorp demands of people who pay up. If the history of IP shakedown companies is any indication they Rightscorp will demand cash payment, but offer nothing in return other than a chance for people to confess, sign away all of their rights, receive no rights to the IP they just paid a high fee for, and no indemnity from suit from others who may own an interest in the IP. For instance, Rightscorp could demand payment and an admission of guilt over the master recording rights to a song, but they might not represent the owners of the copyright of the composition or the copyright of the lyrics who could choose to sue and use the coerced confession as evidence of infringement in a subsequent civil law suit.
so, ISPs are an accessory to Rightscorpās thuggery.
Damn thatās a good point, but it screws their business model. A whole lot of people will pay the $20 and say bad words and go right back to their cat videos. But if just one guy pays up and then gets sued again by a different party, the story will be everywhere, and very few people will pay the danegeld.
The end result would probably be a whole bunch of class-action suits, while the real violators just go to Starbucks to get their free tunes. Also, the first whiff of countersuit might make Comcast back off, if they have little to gain and much to lose.
This doesnāt make sense. The only thing in it for the ISPs is a cut of the settlements paid by filesharers. But if the ISPs start cutting off filesharers (redirecting them to a shakedown page,) detectable filesharing will decrease to the point where there arenāt any more settlements to be had, plus theyāll have lost a whole lot of customers. And whatever percentage they get from whatās been squeezed out of ordinary customers ā ordinary customers they can already squeeze a dozen different ways, without losing them, and without Rightscorp ā would be a pittance to the likes of Comcast and AT&T.
Sounds like bullshit or a stock scheme or just plain stupidity. I donāt think Rightscorp is āin talksā with anyone at these unnamed major ISPs except the security guards in the lobby.
Could be, but the terms of the āsettlementā will undoubtedly include waiver of rights to sue, waiver of the right to class action, a requirement for mandatory binding arbitration (contracts often have fall backs, in case you succeed in over turning a part of the contract), etc. Alll in favor or Rightscorp.
I donāt know if it would be legal since IANAL, but I wonder if they could have a clause that declares the settlement void if you object later, reinstating their right to sue, but keeping your signed confession for them to use against you in court? Regardless, this will be a huge mess of liability for consumers.
I mean its not like Iāve ever heard a story about someone opting to settle one of these small claims and ending up with a much larger bill presented because oh hey we found more stuff you did wrong. You already contacted us and pretty much admitted guilt so you should just pay this entire invoice or weāll bankrupt you.
Pretty sure Iāve seen this model before in the world of trollsā¦ it really is a shame they canāt find a new idea and keep copying each other.
Iāve gotten the redirect from Century Link twice over the course of the past year.
Prior to this, Iāve received two separate disconnects with no warning. Century Link, which bought out Qwest, did not notify me until something like 10 DMCA take down notices had piled up on their doorstep.
I responded the first two times, by angry letter, asking them to identify a specific machine or MAC ID or some other evidence that would allow me to manage the situation in a reasonable & legal manner by identifying a person.
They never responded, except in the first instance of the disconnect, they printed out all the info some random company who claimed IP rights (not the actual owners, 3rd party like rights corps) had submitted to them.
I forwarded the information and letter I sent to them to EFF, and informed them that they would be a party to any lawsuit due to their negligence in timely notification to me of these āviolationsā.
Now century link has the redirect setup, and itās still a joke, as anyone with access to my network can go through it and claim to be me. Itās no more protection than āI agree Iām 18 and willing to see adult contentā.
When I first investigated this stuff, I found that CenturyLink/Qwest had setup an automated form that allowed these 3rd party IP litigators to mass report all these details; in my first letter, I requested any information from Qwest as to their due diligence in verifying any of this information. Again, as I said above, they did not reply.
Either way, if anyone decides that my wallet is their property because someone on my network accessed their IP, Iām bring the ISP into it as the faulty link in their argument.
The main point I have, is that ISPās received āSafe Harborā but theyāre not regulated under common carrier status, and these two things appear to be virtually the same. Either the ISP is responsible for the content of itās users, or itās a neutral communication infrastructure.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
