Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Goes After Its Customers
EyesWideOpen writes "The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) is issuing 'takedown' notices to ISP's to alert them that customers are using their internet service to transmit or post copyrighted movies. The ISP's in turn send a letter to the customers threatening to disable their internet connection unless the offending material is removed. The MPAA is using software that 'cruises file-swapping networks like Gnutella to find copyrighted materials, hunts down the IP address of the poster, then discovers which Internet service provider is being used.'"
Nope, it's not an invasion of privacy. You are using a publically accessable program to break the law (whether I see it this way or not is not the point).
The MPAA didn't come to your house and serve you w/a fine, warrant, etc. They called your ISP, told them you did X and asked them to stop you.
The ISPs usually have a TOS agreement that you agreed to when you started the service. By downloading this shit, you broke that TOS. The ISP has the right at that point to stop you from breaking those TOSs.
It's not invasion of privacy until they actually arrest you for doing it. That would be crossing the line.
Since the 'False Positives' section seems to make it clear that all the MPAA is doing is looking at filenames, wouldn't it be trivial to use some sort of '133t' type phonetic coding to mess with the search algorithms that they are running?
"In order to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe." -- Carl Sagan, Cosmos
Before submitting a song to AudioGalaxy, a user has to 'appropriately identify' themselves. Once a user is identified, they can submit songs to the AudioGalaxy universe to be authenticated for distribution.
When an identified user submits a song for use, the song is fingerprinted, and identified as 'good'. A properly identified song is the responsibility of it's submitter. AudioGalaxy is simply a tranmission medium. If a copyright holder feels that their song is improperly submitted, then they can go to the person responsible for the song for the 'publishing' of it. If a user is identified as consistently submitting unauthorized copyright material, then their entire set of authentications can be revoked.
user authentication
Users can be authenticated by any of a set of means -- eg:
- A credit card authorization (should appear on credit card summaries as something obvious like "ID verification audogalaxy-id.com" with the domain (and www.domain) pointing to a page that precisely describs what the ID was for and about and what the associated person would be responsible for [[in case the ID was the result of a credit card theft]]).
- Thawte (www.thawte.com) allows all sorts of ways to authenticate the identify a person -- including their 'web of trust' system which is free, and various paid methods.
- Persons who don't have access to (or don't want to use) other methods, could mail in a notarized copy of personal ID,
- Pick your favorite other method of verification.
Once a user is verified, they would be issued an SSL certificate that would allow them to submit songs (automatedly) for authentication.SSL certificates allow for repudiation, so if someone's ID was used inappropriately, they would be able to issue repudiation.. It should be possible to issue repudiation starting from a specific date (when the certificate was compromised), generally (e.g. if the identity was issued improperly), or even for specific songs (if a publishing authorization turns out to have been mistaken, or the publisher has second thoughts.).
Sharing would then be checked for authentication of a song, rather than a record company claim (after the fact) of copyright infringement. If a record company claims copyright on a song, they would identify it by fingerprint (or a fingerprint summary) then DMCA procedures for notifying the 'owner' of the impugned song would follow.
The point here is that the users are then explicitly responsible for the songs that they post -- combining this with the fact that the RIAA is now proving themselves capable of going after the individual violators, this means that they should have a much harder time going after distribution services like AudioGalaxy for actions that individual customers are really responsible for. (and able to be held responsible for)
On the other hand, the RIAA's high-handed tactics may backfire on them, and provide a real boost to the indie music industry.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Interesting form of vigilante justice I see. They go after and punish everyone that they deem as wrong. And perhaps they are right, but the reason for the justice system is not to punish everyone who commits something wrong, but to avoid punishing those who have no committed wrong.
I remember hearing a great man say that "it is better to let 30 men go free, then have one innocent man condemned for life."
Vigilante justice has the problem that while it catches more of the guilty, it punishes more of the innocent, as well if I remember correctly it is illegal in the states (could a lawyer check me on this?)
I understand the need for the MPAA and RIAA to solve these piracy problems, but becoming the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner is not the way to go. When you are all four, you are guaranteed to false positives and punish those who don't deserve it.
~ kjrose
There is going to come a moment when the people who get rich off restricting availability of readily copyable content go after Usenet.
If it becomes impossible to post arbitrary content to Usenet, I believe a line will be crossed.
It is already the case that the law, especially in the US, is tilted too far away from the consumer and into the hands of copyright holders who figure that by so perverting the system, they can take shortcuts to profit like DVD region coding that spit in the face of their customers.
As the parasitical feeding frenzy between media owners and our representatives - who fear the disapproval of those media - goes on, at some point there will be a flashover where we realize just how screwed we are.
Remember these prophetic utterances: Usenet is the tiber, the last stand of liberty.
I mean if they automatically hunt down offenders.. and also put bogus files on the network..
how long until they are accusing ppl of sharing content they put on the network in the first place?
In the battle between better warhead and better shielding, the warhead always wins. But who's got which here?
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
--Winston Churchill
It's called "probable cause". If a cop stops you for a traffic violation and sees a fat sack labeled "COCAINE" in your back seat, he has probable cause to search your car. This has been stretched quite far, for instance, having a locked gate on one's yard has been construed as probable cause for police to go in and look for marijuana plants. ('Cause if you weren't hiding something, why would you lock your gate?)
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
our message follows as an example:
2 people=BS
I have received one of these threats through my crappy ISP. It was about a movie file I had never touched on a P2P network I had never used and noted an IP address I had never had. Plus it's not just a case of them getting the details wrong, I don't download or share such files.
I never received a response to my reply to their threat.
There is nothing positive about the MPAA going after Internet Service Providers. The MPAA is very much like a lot of commercial software companies. With ISP's in their pockets consumers will be the next to suffer. What we have is a shift towards something that will resemble the way Microsoft has released their XP products; consumers will be accountable for everything and our names will be associated with whatever we purchase or use.
While some people will have no problem having their name attached to software/movies/music, it's time for a reality check. Take Microsoft for example. Microsoft would not have such a strong grip on the software industry if their software was not pirated. How many people have been truly altruistic and never copied any non-free software? Very few. Yes, company X might buy all their software. But is it installed only on machine X as perscribed by the restrictive licensing agreement? Chances are the answer is no. What the means, however, is that more people are exposed to the software. They in turn go out and purchase the software for their home machine. I'm not advocating software piracy, but pointing out that piracy has helped spread the popularity of some (not all) software. I can hear the moans now, but let's move on to the music industry example:
Consumer X downloads one of Bif Nakked's songs from GNUtella. There is something wrong with the encoding - half the song is missing, or the song is encoded for radio instead of CD. Consumer X likes what they hear and goes out and buys the CD, to rip it for themselves. Or consumer X doesn't like the song and decides not to buy the CD. Chances are that the song will be deleted to make space for something else, new music, a game, etc.
Video encoding is even worse than music encoding. Why store a pixalated movie when you can buy a high quality DVD? Those who download movies and archive them are not likely to have bought a DVD or VHS tape in the first place. But many people do download movies, watch part of the movie, and end up buying a copy. They then tell friends about the movie (just as they would with good software) and the friend ends up doing the same thing or going out and buying the movie.
What the real issue is, is that the MPAA wants to entrench their position as monopoly over all movie distribution. They want to be able, just as the RIAA wanted with Napster, to overthrow all free trading, and make money on those spotty, poor quality movies that get traded over GNUtella and other networks. In the process, they are doing the equivalent of a police officer coming up to your home and conducting an illegal search of your house (without a warrant) in order to gain proof of some impropriety.
Cheers,
Charles,
Can IP adresses be faked? I think it can (i'm no expert, correct me if I'm wrong). So simply because RIAA has an IP address that matches mine that's not proof it was me. It is a bit of a strech now, but if RIAA presses the issue... presto! p2p client complete with built in ip spoofer!
I've spoken to a number of people who seem to have no qualms about downloading illegal material that someone else has shared -- their view: "Nobody's gonna catch me anyways, so why should I bother obeying an unenforceable law?" Every single person that I have spoken to who does this is FULLY aware of its illegal nature, but don't give a damn because they believe that unless some self-righteous bastard such as myself draws attention to their activities, they'll never get caught -- and even if I did say something to someone, it'd be my word against theirs. Stalemate -- no point in pushing the point any further. But I have yet to find a single person that thinks it's "grey"... Everybody knows it's wrong, but they just don't care.
It is this attitude of feeling untouchable, I believe, that is the cause of the degree of piracy we see today. Going after the people who illegally share material might do a lot to make it inconvenient enough for such people to stop doing what they are doing, but until we can change the underlying attitude, we won't have really done anything to solve the problem -- only hidden it from public view.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
My friend who works at the Medical Sciences building of a major university got a call from the U's IT department, who in turn got a call from the U's lawyers, who in turn got a call from the good ol' MPAA. Apparently someone in the building was sharing movies illegally (is there really any other way?). Not sure what the repercussions are yet, since this happened 3 days ago. My friend feels kinda bad about it, seeing as he was the one who suggested installing Kazaa Lite.
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
The MPAA is violating the law, the FTC regulations state that traffic going over a dial-up voice network are protected and regarded as private. The MPAA can only go after cable and xDSL suscribers now that the FTC has classified these as information services. Dial-up is still protected as voice and is protected by the constitution and freedom of speech, the Telcos cannot dictate or allow others to dictate what happens over a dial-up connection.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
It's very easy to eliminate false positives. You do a search on the P2P network for songs whose copyright you own. Then you download that song, and check that it is "yours". Whatever IP address you made the TCP connection to is breaking the law.
As an efficiency step, you can save the checksums of the verified songs which are yours.
this has probbaly already been said but
what about dynamic ips? what happens when Tommy Warez kiddie gtes 10 new movies and his ip changes and you get the cease and desist order?
i hope some really big class action lawsuit puts them back in tehir place, the mpaa is being even more stupid than the riaa -- movies are much harder to trade (since they're massive even the divx's are not manageable over dialup) and there are fewer of them...
besides they still seem to assume that just because you have a copy you both a.) don't own it legally and b.) even if you didn't when you downloaded it that you *would* have gone out and purchased it (which is what they base their losses on)
If a landlord provides internet service and someone misuses it, does the landlord get punished for trying to provide a service? What if one of your teenagers has a friend over for the afternoon and the MPAA comes a knocking. Everyone denies knowledge. Shall we prosecute you?