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.
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)
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.
If the feds have any money in the project these little scrotum suckers will get their asshole buddies in congress to let them on.
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.
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.
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. */
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.
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