Comcast Kills Business Model of Piracy Settlement Firm

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Now this is funny. What happens if every internet service provider decides to do what Comcast is doing?

Comcast is threatening the business model of Rightscorp, a publicly traded firm that uses DMCA notices to demand piracy settlements from U.S. Internet subscribers. Unlike other Internet providers Comcast is not forwarding the settlement requests to its customers, only the infringement details. For Rightscorp this effectively kills all anti-piracy revenue from the largest ISP in the United States.
 
I wish I could dig up the picture I once had of Steve Jobs (RIP) and pals popping the cork on a bottle of champagne during a party celebrating passage of the DMCA....The old adage about a picture being worth a thousand words is certainly true in this case...;) I just can't find the link for it...

Good for Comcast, though. It's obvious that if not for the DMCA the ISP would not be accommodating these bloodsuckers like Rightscorp even a little bit. The so-called, alleged "violators" are, after all, Comcast's customers.
 
Rightscorp needs to be prosecuted for extortion. That's all they're doing.
 
I'm glad Comcast is taking these steps, but that still doesn't remove them from the category of evil ISP's IMHO.

Their CEO has made a big deal about fixing their reputation among consumers though, and something like this is a good start, but they have a LONG way to go.
 
Its a win-win for us and them. I imagine if this extortion business model goes out of business then that would greatly reduce the load of "spam"-work from ISPs have to deal with.

worm
 
Zarathustra[H];1040443252 said:
I'm glad Comcast is taking these steps, but that still doesn't remove them from the category of evil ISP's IMHO.

Their CEO has made a big deal about fixing their reputation among consumers though, and something like this is a good start, but they have a LONG way to go.

This is, quite frankly, a huge step. Complain about data caps all you like, but this is serious consumer value. Until the day comes when we can buy piracy-charge insurance(oh, and it will come into existence), this kind of protection is golden.
 
For anyone that doesn't know - Comcast started off as the WORST ISP by making threats to their customers. After they got the worst of the backlash, they started to realize that bashing their own customers probably isn't the best idea.

I see they have learned well apparently....
 
Rightscorp needs to be prosecuted for extortion. That's all they're doing.

Absolutely. There's very little difference between the business model of companies like them, and old-fashioned mafia "protection."

I can just hear someone straight out of The Godfather or Goodfellas saying "So, ahhh, I hear you've got an internet connection. It would be a shame if some hot-headed lawyer were to accuse you of piracy and sue you for everything you've got. Lucky for you, I can make sure that doesn't happen... for a small fee."
 
This is, quite frankly, a huge step. Complain about data caps all you like, but this is serious consumer value. Until the day comes when we can buy piracy-charge insurance(oh, and it will come into existence), this kind of protection is golden.

Meh,

While I think it is a positive step, the truth is, piracy is technically not cool either, so I am not terribly concerned about this.


I am more concerned about problems like data caps and their opposition to net neutrality. These are MUCH more important IMHO.
 
Comcast is trying to be the good guy. They are hemorrhaging customers... I mean money.

37,000 people "cut the cord" with Comcast in the first quarter of 2012.

176,000 more abandoned its service in Q2 2012.

Three months later, 117,000 more left. Only 7,000 left in Q4 (when cable companies push big discounts to attract customers for the coming year). But then 60,000 were out the door in Q1 2013, 159,000 in Q2 2013, and most recently, another 129,000 in Q3.

I just cut my Comcast bill in half with this promotion. I was paying $82 a month for 50Mbps and now I am paying $40 (with basic & HBO) for 25Mbps - a cut I can live with. They tried their hardest to convince me that I should not downgrade my internet though. While I had them on the phone I mentioned that I believe their 300gb data cap is unrealistic to which she replied... "I have been here (Comcast) for the past 3 years and have only seen someone hit their cap 3 maybe 4 times". I called BS seeing how PS4 games are weighing in at 20+gb and a Bluray movie could easily hit 50gb.
 
On behalf of these clients Rightscorp usually asks for $10 or $20 per infringed title, demands that are concealed in DMCA notices so they can bypass the courts.
Wow, what are these guys the cheap Chinese knock offs of the lawyer world? Although at those costs I'm guessing they're not lawyers at all and they simple send out the notices and if people ignore them then they do absolutely nothing.
 
Comcast is trying to be the good guy. They are hemorrhaging customers... I mean money.



I just cut my Comcast bill in half with this promotion. I was paying $82 a month for 50Mbps and now I am paying $40 (with basic & HBO) for 25Mbps - a cut I can live with. They tried their hardest to convince me that I should not downgrade my internet though. While I had them on the phone I mentioned that I believe their 300gb data cap is unrealistic to which she replied... "I have been here (Comcast) for the past 3 years and have only seen someone hit their cap 3 maybe 4 times". I called BS seeing how PS4 games are weighing in at 20+gb and a Bluray movie could easily hit 50gb.

My friends dad is a manager for our comcast district. What I can tell from what he's said it's a policy on the books so they can charge people using outlandish amounts of data but generally it is overlooked or not enforced. ymmv though
 
Comcast is trying to be the good guy. They are hemorrhaging customers... I mean money.



I just cut my Comcast bill in half with this promotion. I was paying $82 a month for 50Mbps and now I am paying $40 (with basic & HBO) for 25Mbps - a cut I can live with. They tried their hardest to convince me that I should not downgrade my internet though. While I had them on the phone I mentioned that I believe their 300gb data cap is unrealistic to which she replied... "I have been here (Comcast) for the past 3 years and have only seen someone hit their cap 3 maybe 4 times". I called BS seeing how PS4 games are weighing in at 20+gb and a Bluray movie could easily hit 50gb.

Huh...nobody downloads a Bluray...not even serious pirates. I doubt many are downloading 15 PS3 games a month. Plus...the lady is clearly in sales or retention or the like since she is on the phone with you about switching plans. It's unlikely she deals with customers over their cap regularly as that stuff probably goes to another department. It seems entirely believable she's only seen a couple in three years.
 
I guess Comcast's managerial forces are just kinda slow. I woulda read that notice and told my employees "EPH that, we are not thier BIT...Billing Department (unless they want to negotiate that too)"
 
To be perfectly frank, while I don't think companies like this should exist in principle because they're more trollish than anything, the fees they allegedly seek from accused infringers are actually quite reasonable: $10-20 per title of alleged downloaded content. That's pretty much the purchase price of an average movie (I assume most content is movies or shows; $10-20/song is not reasonable IMHO). If there was some sort of system or clause whereby if you pay the settlement fees over the content, and as a result you actually get rights to have that content and can't be sued over the same content, this might transform into a decent content distribution method that is currently not available for consumers that are actually okay paying for the content, but either don't have a reasonable distribution mechanism, or have to deal with draconian DRM.

Speaking of distribution mechanisms and draconian DRM, I wish amazon (or more specifically, the recording companies) didn't have such pain-in-the-ass DRM with their digital videos. I purchased 3 videos from Amazon, and that's all I'll buy as long as they use their DRM. Each video file had some sort of playback problem, or was locked to an absurdly low number of associated devices (IIRC, it was like 2-3, but in our household there may be 5 or 6 devices we use for watching media). I'm fine paying for content I enjoy watching (and if there's content I don't enjoy, I just don't watch it). Just, for the love of god and as has been said so many times before, make it EASIER for people who want to pay for content to actually have it.
 
To be perfectly frank, while I don't think companies like this should exist in principle because they're more trollish than anything, the fees they allegedly seek from accused infringers are actually quite reasonable: $10-20 per title of alleged downloaded content. That's pretty much the purchase price of an average movie (I assume most content is movies or shows; $10-20/song is not reasonable IMHO). If there was some sort of system or clause whereby if you pay the settlement fees over the content, and as a result you actually get rights to have that content and can't be sued over the same content, this might transform into a decent content distribution method that is currently not available for consumers that are actually okay paying for the content, but either don't have a reasonable distribution mechanism, or have to deal with draconian DRM.
I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds to me like you're saying extortion is okay if the amount is small enough, and that you would like a distribution method in which companies can use legal trolling to extort anyone into buying their products.
 
The problem is someone gets a notice and never downloaded everything. Then it becomes a giant mess.
 
I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds to me like you're saying extortion is okay if the amount is small enough, and that you would like a distribution method in which companies can use legal trolling to extort anyone into buying their products.

It's not extortion. Rightscorp claims to act as a representative of the content makers. They are simply collecting settlements on their behalf. Everything they do to acquire said funds is handled by our societies legal system, by using you in court for example. Extortion would be if they threatened you via use of force.

Anyway I dont agree with their business model since what they are really doing is preying on peoples inability to resist charges. Regardless we all know stealing is wrong and if you are actually found guilty and only charged $10 per offense, thats pretty reasonable assuming they dont charge you with 1000 offenses. Remember, fines are meant to penalize you so you learn your lesson and dont do it again. Not cripple you with $650,000 that you cant declare bankruptcy for.
 
I may be misunderstanding you, but it sounds to me like you're saying extortion is okay if the amount is small enough, and that you would like a distribution method in which companies can use legal trolling to extort anyone into buying their products.
Yes, you misunderstood me. I'm not excusing the company as they are behaving now, only that a $10-20 per-item settlement is much more reasonable than a $20,000 per-item settlement that other suits have tried and won. I won't bother re-typing what I wrote, you're welcome to re-read it for better comprehension. And this isn't extortion.
 
It's not extortion. Rightscorp claims to act as a representative of the content makers. They are simply collecting settlements on their behalf. Everything they do to acquire said funds is handled by our societies legal system, by using you in court for example. Extortion would be if they threatened you via use of force.

Anyway I dont agree with their business model since what they are really doing is preying on peoples inability to resist charges. Regardless we all know stealing is wrong and if you are actually found guilty and only charged $10 per offense, thats pretty reasonable assuming they dont charge you with 1000 offenses. Remember, fines are meant to penalize you so you learn your lesson and dont do it again. Not cripple you with $650,000 that you cant declare bankruptcy for.

It is a form of extortion, because people are stuck between paying a small settlement or the threat of fighting them in court. The difficulty and cost of a court battle is so much higher than the settlement cost that most people will feel forced to settle, whether they are guilty or not.

It is a terrible misuse of th elegal system, and companies like this need to burn in hell.
 
Huh...nobody downloads a Bluray...not even serious pirates. I doubt many are downloading 15 PS3 games a month. Plus...the lady is clearly in sales or retention or the like since she is on the phone with you about switching plans. It's unlikely she deals with customers over their cap regularly as that stuff probably goes to another department. It seems entirely believable she's only seen a couple in three years.

I usually hit around 200-230GB/month according to Comcast.net, and I don't hardly download a thing. When MS comes out with new OSes, I'll download a few from my MSDN account, but that's not a major impactor on my usage. I also don't pirate download any movies or music. The big thing is that I watch all my TV shows through Hulu and Amazon Prime. I watch about 2-3 hours of TV per weekday evening, three days per week, and another 4-5 hours on weekends. I also play an equal amount of WoW.

I don't have cable, and my TV has been blocked with a stack of boxes since I moved in September. I simply have no use for the old TV way of doing things. I am exactly the type of customer Comcast fears.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040443739 said:
It is a form of extortion, because people are stuck between paying a small settlement or the threat of fighting them in court. The difficulty and cost of a court battle is so much higher than the settlement cost that most people will feel forced to settle, whether they are guilty or not.

It is a terrible misuse of th elegal system, and companies like this need to burn in hell.
By that logic, all settlements are a form of extortion then. It doesn't mean that someone is better off going to court.

I'm not defending the absurdity of these situations that have only been exacerbated by the DMCA, and the absurd settlement amounts reached in civil courts for other lawsuits. But don't treat things on a universal basis. If someone is issued a notification that they were found to be downloading/uploading item X, I'm fine with the person having the option of paying a settlement amount for having conducted those actions where the amount is pretty close to the actual retail price for the item(s).

And this action by comcast does not mean it's good for the accused customers. If anything, it's worse, as people who are being sent notices are not being sent complete notices. If given the choice, I'd rather know up-front that I can pay $10 for downloading a movie, rather than being shielded that info by comcast, and getting a more severe lawsuit filed against me.

Though as someone else already pointed out in this thread, the company issuing these settlement offerings probably doesn't follow through to actual litigation, and just relies on some small percent of people just paying--and essentially collecting work-free money.

Again, my point isn't to excuse these entities. But I'd rather get a notification to pay $10 for downloading a movie than a notification to pay $20,000 for downloading a movie.
 
By that logic, all settlements are a form of extortion then. It doesn't mean that someone is better off going to court.

I'm not defending the absurdity of these situations that have only been exacerbated by the DMCA, and the absurd settlement amounts reached in civil courts for other lawsuits. But don't treat things on a universal basis. If someone is issued a notification that they were found to be downloading/uploading item X, I'm fine with the person having the option of paying a settlement amount for having conducted those actions where the amount is pretty close to the actual retail price for the item(s).

And this action by comcast does not mean it's good for the accused customers. If anything, it's worse, as people who are being sent notices are not being sent complete notices. If given the choice, I'd rather know up-front that I can pay $10 for downloading a movie, rather than being shielded that info by comcast, and getting a more severe lawsuit filed against me.

Though as someone else already pointed out in this thread, the company issuing these settlement offerings probably doesn't follow through to actual litigation, and just relies on some small percent of people just paying--and essentially collecting work-free money.

Again, my point isn't to excuse these entities. But I'd rather get a notification to pay $10 for downloading a movie than a notification to pay $20,000 for downloading a movie.

I would agree with you if an IP address were an actual person, but we all know this is not the case.

This can be done surreptitiously as in this paper:
Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice, or by unauthorized use of Networks/Wifi, or simply by shared network use.

Not to mention to porn copyright trolls who indirectly threatened people to tell the world they downloaded porn unless they pay the settlement...

It also short circuits the subpoena process. Businesses can be compelled via a subpoena to disclose the identity of their users, but including a settlement notice circumvents this, which is a real legal abuse.
 
Early this year, I was sent legal correspondence from Malibu Media regarding my "illegal" download of some stupid indie movie that had Micheal Biehn in it. After several phone calls from the shoddy firm, and correspondence threatening to sue me for $10,000 in damages if I don't fork over $3000, they eventually stopped contacting me.

Needless to say, it was very fun messing with them.
 
Huh...nobody downloads a Bluray...not even serious pirates.

You don't know serious pirates.

They might not download direct Bluray images much, but they do. The rest download 720P/1080P/1440P+ rips which, even with the newest codecs, aren't tiny.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040443739 said:
It is a form of extortion, because people are stuck between paying a small settlement or the threat of fighting them in court. The difficulty and cost of a court battle is so much higher than the settlement cost that most people will feel forced to settle, whether they are guilty or not.

It is a terrible misuse of th elegal system, and companies like this need to burn in hell.

That's just not true. These are forms of settlements. Pure and simple. If you remove the ability to settle out of court, our legal system would collapse.
 
Just stop.

Depending on who you ask, 90% of civil lawsuits settle before reaching trial. More are settled before reaching trial. If suddenly you couldn't settle beforehand, how do you think our already over-burdened and underfunded legal system would fare?
 
Depending on who you ask, 90% of civil lawsuits settle before reaching trial. More are settled before reaching trial. If suddenly you couldn't settle beforehand, how do you think our already over-burdened and underfunded legal system would fare?

I would tend to agree, but really think about it: a good portion of those cases are going to end up going to trial, and think about how many months you have to wait these days for a trial date. Get rid of settlements, and your trial dates are going to be 5-10 years from now while you potentially sit in jail. I bet bail amounts will increase.
 
I would tend to agree, but really think about it: a good portion of those cases are going to end up going to trial, and think about how many months you have to wait these days for a trial date. Get rid of settlements, and your trial dates are going to be 5-10 years from now while you potentially sit in jail. I bet bail amounts will increase.

Uh... civil suits, not criminal. No jail time for civil suits, and no settlements for criminal cases.
 
Zarathustra[H];1040443806 said:
I would agree with you if an IP address were an actual person, but we all know this is not the case.

This can be done surreptitiously as in this paper:
Why My Printer Received a DMCA Takedown Notice, or by unauthorized use of Networks/Wifi, or simply by shared network use.
This is going to sound like I'm defending the DMCA accusations of piracy and all these trolls; I'm not. But an IP address-account holder relationship has been upheld in courts. An IP address is not a person, but an ISP account (with tracked IP addresses for the account) is assigned to someone who is designated as the responsible-individual, and by the TOS (and other stuff that's been legally-upheld in courts) the person is accountable for the traffic on the account. I skimmed that pdf very coarsely, it's trying to use a logical fallacy in a specific condition to discredit an entire process. Yes, not ALL methods used in tracking P2P activity to a person are reliable. That doesn't mean by extension that that ALL methods used in tracking P2P activity to a person are always unreliable. Some cars are not reliable to get me from point A to point B. Does that mean that ALL cars are not reliable to get me from point A to point B?

Zarathustra[H];1040443806 said:
Not to mention to porn copyright trolls who indirectly threatened people to tell the world they downloaded porn unless they pay the settlement...
Now that IS extortion--and would also result in legal penalties if there was evidence presented against such troll entities. But general notifications of infringement and settlement offering are not by extension extortion.

Zarathustra[H];1040443806 said:
It also short circuits the subpoena process. Businesses can be compelled via a subpoena to disclose the identity of their users, but including a settlement notice circumvents this, which is a real legal abuse.
This doesn't circumvent the subpoena process. You don't need a subpoena to ask someone for something; an ISP can require a subpoena. Some do, some don't. ISPs can respond with however much info they want when someone asks for info re. a DMCA takedown/accusation. Just because you must respond with info when served with a subpoena doesn't mean that a subpoena is always required when info is exchanged. No-backbone ISPs already give up tons of info on customers without subpoenas.
 
That's just not true. These are forms of settlements. Pure and simple. If you remove the ability to settle out of court, our legal system would collapse.

Settlements are an important part of civil law, I agree, but these types of settlements are carefully crafted to scare people into agreeing to the settlement regardless of their guilt.

I mean, there really isn't anything stopping them from just sending them out to random people without any evidence of piracy at all, as the effect would be the same. Pay this fee, or fight us in court....

(Oh and we are all lawyers, and you're not, and hiring a lawyer costs at least $250 an hour...)

The legal system is simply so burdensome and expensive to navigate, that even most completely innocent people will pay the settlement just to avoid having to do it.

This is not justice.

It's a terrible misuse of the system, and something needs to be done about it.
 
Its extortion.
Basically a company like that contacts you, and says "You can pay up $20 right now or you're going to spend thousands you'll never recover in court." Guilty or not, you're tempted just to pay to not have to spend the time and money in court.
Grant it, IF you were pirating a $20 settlement is MUCH more desirable than a $10k to $20k fee per song/ movie.
But, no matter what the amount, its still extortion.
 
But how? How do you separate companies with legitimate rights in a product, legitimate belief they have located someone who has violated their rights to that product and wants compensation and an agreement to stop infringing?
There was an interesting article on Ars a few months ago with an interview with a small "adult movie" company, and the piracy issues they run into gutting their revenue. How do you enable that company to send out C&D letters and even compensation requests/lawsuit threats and also stop (c) trolls?
 
Contempt of court is a crime. Not a civil infraction.

The citations in the article weren't concerning contempt of court. In some of these cases where people have been unable to meet their debts, the courts add on various charges or fees for the failure to pay...and if you don't pay those charges and fees, they toss your ass in the can.
 
The citations in the article weren't concerning contempt of court. In some of these cases where people have been unable to meet their debts, the courts add on various charges or fees for the failure to pay...and if you don't pay those charges and fees, they toss your ass in the can.

SMH...
When the court "adds on various charges or fees for the failure to pay," which are statutory in most cases, they do so via a court order. To disobey a court order is... wait for it... contempt of court: A criminal issue, not civil.
 
Back
Top