Pirates Held Hostage! - The Know

i dont like the sound of this

I actually have a jack for my car and Cox Communications. Great service, reccomend it to everyone..

All they will be doing is giving their IP and annoying people. do that to the wrong person (massive chance if you do it to pirates) and you may get hacked, and possibly big time, destroying (or disabling) all of your systems and rendering your service useless. Rights Corp should be very careful with what they do here

Personally i don't like companies that force their shit on you so i hope they get DDOS'd and digitally destroyed, but you know, one can dream.

I don't pirate. But fuck this still would be such a pain.

hey! the last good Sid Meyers game!

How is that shit even legal? I mean, for real though, how?

From that description, I don't think that counts as ransomware, as it doesn't sound like it installs anything on your computer. It instead sounds like your network is just redirected to the ransom site in the same way that a hotel network connection redirects to their login page until you actually log in. It's still going way too far, particularly with the impact it could have on a multi-user network, but doesn't cause near the damage that actual ransomware can.

Anti-pirate groups like RightsCorp can do all they want to fight it, but eventually all software, even ransomware, will cracked, hacked, or worked around. It's the dark truth of the internet, but porn and piracy tend to drive its innovation.

It's a fight of ambigious gains with credible loss to the entire network (both the internet and the sale of goods). Companies like RightsCorp 'battle' for the losses that creators of media like Music and Film suffer due to piracy. But again the more information that comes out as 'loss' looks more like "Clearly x number of downloads is x numbers of lost sales". Where as the sale of media has been on a rise every year. The only difference is the means at which it's sold and not the quantity of it at all. While you can argue there is less money to be made in sales of songs and albums and also films due to the price of it vs the cost of producing it. I think that's a bit more telling of an industry that isn't willing or capable of adapting, which is strange as it is the 'new media'.

I feel the market as a whole is more skewed to artificial numbers like "Opening week" sales figures and emphasising retail sales, this is espeically the case with video games and films. A lot of music is now rated by both combining both Digital and traditional sales together but Film and Gaming has still a very deep rooted measure of sales only in brick and mortar sales. Where as money generated from Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Now TV and many more similar services are not part of this measure of TV and film sales. I have said for years a system where all film and television content is shared openly for subscribers to view when ever they want would be the ideal set-up for everyone. Both content creators and the content suppliers. Instead of bulk buying content for a period of time and paying a pre-alloted amount to have rights to it, they get paid per view in a month or period of time. The money generated to any specific content producer or an owner would be generated solely by the viewers of the content. Meaning if your shows are being watched you will generate more money and if not you don't get paid. While that would be horrifying to a lot of people who are stuck in the TV and Movie paradigm that has existed for so long before now. I think it would be far more telling of the market and allow a lot of content that would be making money and building a fanbase to grow and gain value.

If you want an example you should take a look at Breaking Bad. The show succeeded more due to Piracy and people watching it outside the TV scheduled time. It was by the companies own admission that they were cancelling the show as it wasn't making them money as far as they seen it. They had it in a really bad time slot and their internal metrics didn't show it as being a good show. Yet there was a LARGE market they then managed to make a lot of money from due to the clearly large audiance it gained else where. This show with all it's acclaim and fandom was not successful in the tradtional medium and it would have died if it hadn't broken free of that. Yet piracy is viewed as the sole thing that destroys the market. I am not arguing we should be able to pirate, but all I see when I read about piracy is a market that wants a product that isn't delivered in acceptable way. To quote Gabe Newell "We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem.". I think this is more true of anything in this market than what companies like RightsCorp says. Because frankly if Piracy was actually effecting sales in direct 1:1 then by the measure of people who participate in Piracy we'd hardly sell anything at all. Instead it's a significant measure of people wanting content unavailable to them in their prefered medium or sometimes not early enough.

This is kind of a lose-lose for media companies and creators. I assume RightsCorp keeps all the money from these fines, so media companies won't see any of that. It's highly unlikely that all this piracy is going to turn into actual reclaimed sales for the company either, and the fanbases for the movies, music and shows being pirated will shrink, creating a significant drop in the number of people willing to buy merchandise, concert tickets, dvd/blu-rays, etc.

Who is RightsCorp to be the all powerful voice in hunting pirates. Sounds like they be breaking anti-monopoly laws. And over stepping and infringing on the rights of users.

Seems locking the content pirated is legal but to break all contact from the internet would infringe on freedom of speech. And if they lock out legitimate users by mistake that would be further grounds for lawsuits against RightsCorp. costing them even more more as a business.

This has already happened and the RIAA and MPAA didn't learnt their lesson the first time around... the only difference is that instead of the RIAA and MPAA getting blaimed for suing old grannies who'd never used the internet or five year olds playing on their parents iPad it'll be WritsCorp.

The assumption that the data they have on users is accurate is an assumption that advertisers on Facebook, Google and all the other social media sites that require a real name and/or address make... one that is so easy to falsify that said five year old could do it.

WritsCorp. are assuming that the file actually breaches the copyrights they protect (potentially ignoring fair use, hash clashes, mislabled files etc.), that the IP that is recorded as requesting the file matches a single user who intentionally requested the file (potentially ignoring hi-jacked IPs, open wireless routers, Tor/onion exit points, NAT servers, proxies, (semi-)public access machines etc.), that accurate enough records are kept of IP to user pairings (given most ISPs don't guarentee you a constant IP address), that the name/address/billing details you have for the user of a particular connection are accurate (cf granny with no internet connection being sued).

I honestly don't anything but a greater complication of all these problems over time since the last round of this rubbish happened so I can't see who WritsCorp. ever expects to make a dent... and this doesn't even start to take into account their ability to deal with jurisdiction issues - there's at least one country where they recently made it so you are required to fight you own copyright battles and may not have a third party do it on your behalf.

If companies made what people want available to them how they want then there'd be much less of a problem and if there was less dross dressed in fancy clothes (celebrities, blockbuster films and AAA game titles have a lot in common it seems - all style and no substance) then people would trust companies and buy things without the want to check them out first... ask any fan of children's Anime whether they would trust Studio Ghibli or not? All the ones I know buy that film studios films on spec. without even having known they existed before seeing them on the shelf (real or virtual)... Anything with M. Night Shyamalan's or Michael Bay's name attached is something I would only watch if you forced me to at gunpoint but there is a lot of stuff in between that I've no idea about and most advertising by big studios makes me think it is going to be rubbish so I stick with the small stuff, other people pirate it and then decide, others can only watch this stuff on the move (due to life or work circumstances) but it takes forever to come out (or never comes out) on a portable device for them... there are huge largely untapped markets for these things when it comes to big studios and that's where you find thousands of indie studios making money... so, big studios, by all means leave the money on the table, but don't expect people to not think you're dicks when you chastise and jump on people for bowing to your advertising might but not moving the money from the table to your pocket for you.

Long story short; I agree with many of the comment here as to why this is a bad idea in general because they have been well rehearsed and some even tested in science and court... because this is all just treading over old ground, again and again and again... *sigh*