Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Looks to Sniff Internet2 Traffic for Sharers
Danathar writes "It looks like the MPAA is pretty scared that Internet2 users are able to trade movies at high speed without them being able to know what's being traded, since you have to be a member of the Internet2 network to have a connection. As a result, they are asking to become a member."
The article mentioned "researchers successfully sent data from Switzerland to Tokyo at speeds of 7.21 gigabits per second" ... and if they want to watch the traffic for "neferious" content, that is gonna require one heck of a Network IDS (Intrusion Detection System - SNORT is a popular open source IDS) to keep up ... and the vast majority of the traffic will be about as exciting as watching grass grow
Hulk SMASH Celiac Disease
First they take the Eternet speed record out of context ( "Recently, researchers successfully sent data from Switzerland to Tokyo at speeds of 7.21 gigabits per second. That was enough speed to transfer a full-length DVD anywhere in the world in less than five seconds, researchers said." ) and make this seem like the standard. I'm sure there just TERABYTES of DVD and mp3s sitting on Internet2 using their "new math".
Just say NO!
From internet2.edu: Internet2 is a consortium being led by 207 universities working in partnership with industry and government to develop and deploy advanced network applications and technologies, accelerating the creation of tomorrow's Internet.
I don't want to give them any ideas, but the MPAA has a chance at getting in by claiming to want to devise a method for distributing movies legally. However, hopefully I2 will look beyond that and deny them entry...
Robert Bindler
A Computer Science student's views on technology.
"We've been working with Internet2 for a while to explore ways we can take advantage of delivering content at these extremely high speeds
Funny how that's conveniently left out of the submission.
Internet2 was designed (and funded) for use by universities and educational facilities, as well as governments so they could "[develop] and [deploy] advanced network applications and technology, accelerating the creation of tomorrow's Internet." It doesn't really seem as though the MPAA has anything to bring to the table. Their membership application should be denied on that basis alone. Plus the fact that there is simply no evidence that there is anything untoward happening on Internet2, just that it's *possible*.
Get a life, MPAA.
You are forgetting one critical thing. If they cant get in by being nice they will so one of 2 things 1) sue their way in, 2) just assume that content is being traded illegally without checking (as we've seen before) and just send spurious DMCA notices until internet 2 is beaten into submission. Welcome to the consequences of corporations having 'rights', they get to buy their way into politicians and well to hell with the voters, they dont give enough money
Right now Internet2 is primarily a research network, and I think it should stay that way. It's useful for shuttling (large amounts of) research data back and forth, as well as examining new router/switching/etc technology. (No coincendence that many of the speed records are set on Internet2).
What it doesn't need is the massive commericalization that has occured on good oi' internet 1. Yes, piracy and filesharing that is unmonitored is definately a problem. But the real problem is not that it's unmonitored, it's that students with no need for access to the network have it. Why can Joe DormLiver piggy back on Internet2? Does he need research access?
They should politely tell the MPAA to fuck itself, and then develop some controlled access. I suggest only connecting research computers to the net, along with a few proxy servers so professors and grad students (and undergrads also doing research) can still use it remotely.
It would be interesting to do bonafide p2p and network research over Internet2, but that is not what the MPAA is looking for.
-Ryan
AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
Would being a member even make it technically possible for them to "sniff" the traffic? I'm a member of the exclusive Internet One club, and I can't sniff arbitary traffic.
Get your own free personal location tracker
There are many good reasons for the MPAA to join the Internet2 research project. Huge bandwidth, multicasting architecture, realtime multimedia: all these features might have a legitimate association excited about the future, and their role in bringing better service to their members and market. Instead, the MPAA has become interested only as a cop, not in contributing to the development of the technology itself. They'll just wait for Internet2 to be developed, at great expense in time, money and inspiration, by others - then they'll eventually cash in. Their only attitude towards the future is fear, emboldened a bit by greed.
The great lesson here is that Internet2 is only a litmus test. The MPAA acts exactly the same way on Internet1, and everywhere else. We're just witnesses to the miracle of the birth of their racket on Internet2. Burn, Hollywood, Burn (our should I say "Stream").
--
make install -not war
If the MPAA is allowed on Internet2, where else will they want access to? Your college's intranet? Your corporate network? ISP's LAN networks? There are many other fast network connections where piracy could take place.
Do they have any idea what kind of equipment would be needed to monitor all Internet2 traffic in real time? And how exactly do you determine that a specific bitstream is a copyrighted movie, especially if it is encrypted? I don't think they wan't to "sniff" Internet2, I think they just want to look at everybody else's file shares for any file name with the word "Grudge" or any other word used in a movie title, then sue the owner of the file share. FTP passwords, anyone? How about IPSec?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
If the feds have any money in the project these little scrotum suckers will get their asshole buddies in congress to let them on.
i can't remember the last thing the mpaa or the riaa developed that was advanced. unless you count the practice of suing those you rely on to make money, but i think sco has prior art there. they're not interested in innovating anything beyond the scope of a new process for suing people that allows them to file suits more efficiently. this is, frankly, the most disturbing news i've heard in a while (including all the legislative bullshit) because they'll probably get it. this is disgusting.
The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
-Oscar Wilde
Sure, Internet2 is 'members only'. But I think it's safe to say that most if not all of the members have standard commodity connections as well. So anything you can get to from I2 you can get to from the regular Internet, just at a reduced speed. There might be a small number of exceptions, but in general it's true. Being on I2 only affects the path taken by the traffic. It doesn't affect what's reachable.
I suspect the MPAA wants to be a member more so they can go to the member meetings and make a stink. Keep an eye on things from the inside so to speak.
1) An ass, and abusing a serious network.
2) Part of the 'problem' that has the RIAA/MPAA sniffing around a network they should stay the hell away from.
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
While it seems ridiculous to include MPAA as a member of Internet2 under the pretense that it is helping research, we still cannot let Internet2 turn into a free-for-all of file sharing and illegal movie swapping. There is a reason that sharing copyrighted material is illegal. Intellectual property forms that basis of our society, and certainly it is critical for research institutions that "trade" in information. Being a member of Internet2 should be a privilege, and one with responsibilities taken seriously. Governments and universities are spending millions to get their systems on I2, and it is not the public's job to finance piracy. It would be terrible to see I2, which is quite powerful now, turn into another (regular) internet filled with all its trash, and with all its bandwidth consumed sharing movies.
That said, I cannot support commercialization of Internet2 or an invasion of it by MPAA just to allow them to sue I2 users. But in order to keep internet2 aligned with its true goals of promoting research, we will have to give some governing council the authority (even imperative) to fight this piracy and THEN take it to the respective IP owners like MPAA. I think it is silly that the burden should fall on MPAA to regulate such things, and it is because of this lunatic system that we are forced to deal with lawsuits from companies who snoop at file sharers. Pirating movies should have a penalty similar to stealing them physically: go to the city court and explain yourself in front of a judge your crime and regret, rather than dealing with expensive lawyers and publicized cases as is happening now.
You're forgetting that the people who post on Slashdot with Inet2 access are most probably the only kind who do any kind of file sharing, because the rest are almost all serious researchers who do not really care too much for this kinda stuff. It is mostly the students who do this stuff, I'm quite certain that my professor would care two hoots about sharing a movie, especially when it's a lot easier for him to just order it off eBay or buy it from the nearest Blockbuster.
And another thing is that filesharing is awesome only initially on Inet2, when you realize the immense amount of bandwidth at your disposal. You trade your favourite movies/videos or whatever, and then the novelty wears off. And most schools with Inet2 access have quite rigid protocols which prevent filesharing in many ways.
There will always be a small percentage of misuse, and we've all seen how the RIAA and MPAA gather their statistics. That does not give them the right to enter a research network, just for the purpose of suing others.
I agree with you, however like I mentioned in my post the MPAA and RIAA try enforcing older laws to a new medium, ones where the older rules do not really hold true. Rather than adapt to the new technology and medium, they are trying to control it through lawsuits and strong-arming techniques.
That is what pisses me off. Theirs is the exact kind of mentality that make adoption of new technology hard.
They're ruled by old men in suits who know nor care a damn about technology or progress - they only care about how best they can control it to their benefit. P2P is here to stay, and the sooner the **AA's realize it, the better.
"We've been working with Internet2 for a while to explore ways we can take advantage of delivering content at these extremely high speeds, and basically manage illegitimate content distribution at the same time," said Chris Russell, the MPAA's vice president of Internet standards and technology. "Those would go hand in hand."
What a horribly unsuccessful attempt to marry two completely disparate goals. The MPAA should be allowed to join the consortium as they have a justifiable interest in high speed delivery research. But monitor traffic? Come on . . . Those goals have about as much in common as Richard Stallman and Carmen Electra (respectively). They have no right to monitor traffic, and as a fairly democratic organization I don't believe the endnode members providers/sponsors would consent to it.
And for those of you wondering if monitoring of such gigantic flows is possible - of course it is. Netflow export can dump flow data to any number of IDS facilities. Even if you can't watch a single 10GigE link, watch the ten (10) GigE links that feed into it.
It is possible to let them be a member so they can test their high speed apps but not be able to "sniff" traffic. Just because you become a member does NOT mean they will let you put SNORT boxes at every maxgigapop on Abiline/I2
I just got through reading the latest New York Times magazine which featured many long and detailed articles on DVD and the movie industry.
The amount of disturbance to the industry caused or even potentially caused by Div-X converting and downloading is so tiny compared to the amount of resources and ill-will generated by their heavy-handed response to this so-called threat that one must come to the conclusion that the MPAA leadership is mentally unbalanced.
They are acting like the people who wash their hands ten times after touching a public door handle. They just aren't being rational.
The NYT Magazine articles mentioned that each DVD sale of $15 brings $9.00 of pure profit to the film studios that they don't have to share with anyone. This is the source of all the profit in the film industry. This is the fuel that is making the current entertainment boom possible.
Hundreds of millions of DVDs are sold each year and billions will be sold in the coming years.
Why are they so obsessed with ten thousand or so people sharing rotgut quality Div-X copies? Especially when each one takes several hours to download?
Even at minimum wage the wages for the amount of time spent downloading a stupid DivX is more than the price of a pristine DVD of the same title.
Nothing about this makes any sense.
It will probably just fade as embarrassment when the MPAA actually examines the real numbers involved and comes to its senses.
Damn straight.
MPAA is attempting to throw a bone to the Internet2 community by promising "eventual" research projects. Why should their membership be accepted? Their interest in reaserching bandwidth speed on file transfer frequency can be done without being a member of Internet2. If you're attempting to join a (theoretically) academic Internet, at least have your reaserch proposal ready!
Seriously, I assue that their "negotiations" with Internet2 would likely be one-sided. None of the member institutions would want the MPAA monitoring the network - consider the liability. That's the effective technique MPAA is using to attempt to join - either work with us, let us join, or we'll make your lives hell. Blackmail negotiations.
If the MPAA joins Internet2 and gather potentially unpleasant data, they can use that information to mandate new data standards, new protocols, whatever possible to insure the maintenance of their IP. In other words, they decide the future of the Internet based on protecting copyright. Lovely.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
Maybe the Research Consortium will allow this but with a very heavy entry price? After all the MPAA is known to do that with its members who are outsiders so how about a hundred million dollar setup fee? Think how much research and new gear that could cover. I know in most parts of the world, its typical for a company that wants to join and eudcation group to help its own bottom line will tend to be charged a substantial amount to join.
You know why? Because those file traders are morally right! The point of copyright law is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," not to allow cartels to force us to pay them for our own culture. Copyright law has become so perverted that it is almost completely unjust, and I have absolutely no problem with violating an unjust law.
I say "almost completely" because some uses of copyright law actually are reasonable. For example, writers, photographers, and (visual) artists still seem to respect fair use, and things like the GPL and Creative Commons are great -- they're exactly what copyright should be used for. I don't advocate copyright infringement against everyone, just those who are blatantly abusing the system.
It's also interesting to note that the Constitution mentions inventors and writers only. Sure, recorded music and movies didn't exist, but composers, painters, and sculpters did -- and strictly speaking, the Constitution should afford them no protection. However, since they obviously get protection now, at least the purpose could be amended to "to promote Culture and the Public Domain" -- it still wouldn't be "to allow anybody who creates anything to have a monopoly on it for ever more."
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Screw "learning stuff" - what about getting drunk and getting laid?
Blockbuster, Hollywood video, Netflick.
And the Internet.
The story is about the MPAA, not the RIAA.
I'm aware of that, I used that to indicate that the economic model has gone anachronic with the new medium in place.
Quality sound and video. Additional material like "how we did it", and even games and other material. All for a reasonable price.
Never denied it. That's why I buy the DVDs for.
Now tell me again why you're justifying the abuse of a taxpayer funded, research network?
For the same reason that we are not locked up in cages and allowed to do nothing but work during our working hours.
Because we're not drones to abide by a set of rules and follow it to the dot. People use the network primarily for research, a small percentage use it for other purposes too. So fucking what?
When the rest of my taxpayer money is used to wage wars that I do not support and not in stem-cell research that I do support, you're more concerned about a bunch of kids using it for entertainment purposes.
And oh, Internet2 is not entirely taxpayer, it is supported by money from several companies -- AT&T, Intel, Sun, Cisco and the like.
not really....
This is a world where selfish people are rewarded. Hence, if you download music but then do not share it (i.e. you keep it for yourself) you are not doing anything illegal. It is illegal you (for now) to share, because essentially you are giving the right to somebody to listen to the music, but you are not paying the owner of the copyright. Essentially, you are doing what iTune does, but without authorization.
Napster got burned not because they were supplying the program, but because they were supplying the servers, hence they were helping the infringment. Same difference between supplying a gun and helping somebody to shoot.
The following two quotes are from the MPAA's own 11/11/04 press release:
Must be terrible...the industry is losing $3.5 BILLION a year in revenue? They must just be drowning in the losses!
Wait a moment. This industry, suffering these massive, crippling losses from piracy, is doing BETTER than most sectors of the economy?
Here's the problem, and that is that the MPAA's figure is grossly inflated. Effectively, the MPAA figures EVERY download as a lost sale. (The MPAA's figures on downloading are also inflated, but that's pretty technical and better left to someone who can explain it comprehensively.) However, even provided that they're correct, they presume that EVERYONE who downloads a movie would have, instead, gone to a theater or bought a DVD in place of every download. (They also assume that these people don't do that anyway, and look at a lower-quality download to decide if the movie is WORTH seeing or purchasing on DVD.) This is, quite simply, not true.
It's time for the **AA's to quit whining. DESPITE widespread downloading, and bad business practices that turn customers away in large numbers, their revenues and market shares grow daily. Given that, it's hard for them to claim that downloads, whether on Internet1 or 2, are threatening to put them out of business.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
A, um.. friend of mine, has downloaded probably a dozen movies off the Internet. He's bought 4 movies on DVD at full retail from Best Buy as a result of seeing these movies and wanting to have a DVD quality copy/support the makers/etc. Of the other 8 or so about half were bad movies, and he did not buy DVD's. The other half he only downloaded because they were still in theaters, and hollywood's idiotic policy means you can't watch it at home for months after the initial release, so he bought the DVD's once they were out. For example, he had the first 2 lord of the rings on full quality DVD almost a year before the actual DVD was out. These movies he saw in the theater more than once each, and has purchased both the normal versions and extended.
Again, him pirating movies has led to more purchases, and therefore more revenue for the MPAA.
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD
Anyone else get the image of the 'little dutch boy' when someone mentions the RIAA or MPAA? Running around trying to jam their fat little fingers in each new 'hole' that opens up.
When are they going to realise how futile their efforts are? New holes will just keep on opening.
SO let me guess, if the Internet2 body of members rejects them, then the MPAA will take that to mean that they are hiding something and should be watched. So the MPAA lobbyists will harp on congress to pass laws that make it required that all networks that are paid by tax dollars be monitored by any industry advocacy group that requests it.
Yeah. I haven't seen Elf, but chose it to emphasize my point. The term "unrated", as applied to DVDs, implies that you're getting something that couldn't be shown in the theaters. The studios developed the term with their initial "unrated" releases, which had scenes that were too (graphic|sexual|violent|whatever) to be included in a theatrical release.
The Unrated version of "American Pie" was much "dirtier" the rated. Standing with a pie held up to your crotch, and laying on the kitchen counter humping a pie are two entirely different things. One version of the scene made the cut, one didn't. When I went to the video store, I could make an informed decision, choosing the rated or unrated version, and getting an appropriate level of bathroom humor and "indecency" from whichever I chose (that'd be the unrated version, Bob).
The "unrated" version of "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" (which had plenty of hot chicks, mind you) is a dissappointment. Nothing that I saw would have made it ineligible for a PG-13 rating. Printing "Unrated" across the leather-clad butts of the 3 female stars on the DVD cover would pretty much guarantee additional sales of a mediocre movie, particularly in the male 18-35 demographic. (I won't fall for that trick again!)
"Unrated" has been exploited and reduced to a lame marketing ploy (instead of the powerful marketing tool it originally was), that will ultimately lose any meaning to the consumer. Instead of being a way for studios to push the boundaries by releasing films "as the artist originally intended" without the restrictions of the rating system, its just another lying label to be ignored.
So yes, releasing an unrated version of Elf would be stupid and pointless. That is unless your point was that you could sell a few million more units by misleading the consumer, in which case you'd be right.
blog
The MPAA will add a bureaucratic strain and have no legitimate use for the network. This is a research network being used for legitimate purposes and they have better things to do than the kind of inane crap this will lead to.
I've worked at small ISPs, I've owned small ISPs, I've worked at large ISPs, large network providers, and so on in many different jobs, so I've seen the change in things from 1995 to the present - there are very real costs to network management that are associated with the C&D letters that IP owners feel free to spam all over since the DMCA and I think it is unreasonable for everyone else to bear that cost.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
One of your fallacies is that you presume that the RIAA is being "hurt" by internet downloading of music.
They'd like you to think that they are being so hurt.
But all the studies say otherwise, citing no statistical variance in sales compared to the general economic condition before, during, or after peak Napster use.
The fact is that the "harm" only exists in the feevered dreams of averice fixed firmly in the deluded heads of RIAA executives.
The harm to the MPAA might be higher, as really bad movies dont' get purchased or re-rented. Heck, most people who buy DVDs don't watch them more than once or twice. So if somone downloads a marginal movie, they are less likely to buy/rent it by a wide margin.
Music has a much lower commitment-to-engage than a movie. You can listen to music in your car or on the bus or while you are doing any number of other things. Movies you have to stop and watch.
Since Music is more re-usable the purchase-after-download factor has to be pretty high.
I would think for movies it would be otherwise.
To some extent the MPAA's strongest argument to stop downloading would be to first _GUT_ the RIAA's claims to harm and then show why it's different for movies. Without that infighting the "**AA" effect will damn the MPAA with the RIAA's brush.
Sucks to be them.
Solidarity with shit-covered losers will likely result in you finding yourself covered in shit, think about that MPAA...
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Dear MPAA, Got a warrant? Love, Internet2
What is suprising me is that they are applying for a licence to act as the Police - not mentioning that they could in fact use the bandwidth to stream legal movies to students! Come on, there is a massive opportunity here to set up a working system that students will not only use, but enjoy, and it WILL cut down on piracy. Don't threaten your users - it only increases ill-will, bad sentiment, and people are unlikely to buy your product! Come on MPAA! Get your act together! Stop trying to punish people and just start innovating! Content delivery could save the MPAA, but instead... Their "we are the Police" attitude will kill them...
If, hypothetically, you were to be subcontracted to an external organisation, how much would you charge? $100/hour? $200/hour? Next time you receive such a complaint, I suggest you time how long it takes you to investigate it and write a full report explaining that they are idiots. Send them the report along with an invoice. If they don't pay, take them to the small claims court (where they will almost certainly not turn up, and will receive a judgement in absentia). The next time you receive a complaint from them, send a form letter back to them reminding them that there is an outstanding court order against them, and that you are not willing to comply with their investigation until they have paid the amount they are liable for under law.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News