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."

26 of 485 comments (clear)

  1. Dear MPAA, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    No.

    Love,
    Internet2

    1. Re:Dear MPAA, by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Funny
      > No.

      They didn't quite hear it the first time.

      Then again, they didn't hear us the first time Internet1 laughed in their face of their business model, reached down its throat, cut through its esophagus, pulled out its still-beating heart, seasoned it, grilled it, ate it, shat it back out through a million fileservers, and shoved it back down its still-steaming gullet.

      So it's not too surprising they didn't hear it the first time on Internet2.

    2. Re:Dear MPAA, by worst_name_ever · · Score: 5, Funny
      shat it back out through a million fileservers

      Thanks, you've just put me off of downloading music completely. Good job, you've accomplished what the RIAA never could.

      I mean, eww.

      --

      In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
    3. Re:Dear MPAA, by wannasleep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Dear MPAA, by Panther_Wyvern · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, I'm worried about my copyrighted materials, too, ya know... so, um... hook me up?

      --
      I decided to go sig-less and am so excited, I had to tell you about it!
  2. Can you say: "Hell No."? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So they're asking to become a member of a limited group, for the sole purpose of suing other members of the group?

    Can you say: "Hell No."?

    1. Re:Can you say: "Hell No."? by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Interesting
      So maybe all of us who code or write for a living can also demand access/membership "just in case our material is being traded".

      All it's going to do is get a bunch of researchers pissed off to the point where they'll set up honeypots filled with all sorts of mis-named files.

      In any battle of wits between the MPAA/RIAA and researchers, it doesn't take much brains to figure out who will win. We're not talking about a bunch of AOL-ing grandmas here.

    2. Re:Can you say: "Hell No."? by bstarrfield · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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. */
  3. This is a true disgrace by metlin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Laws are designed to help us co-exist with each other, to respect one another and bring order and a set of rules to abide by so that we can pool in our interests and progress as a civilization.

    People or "things" like RIAA and MPAA abuse these laws, which were written to help bring progress. They abuse them into filling their coffers with wealth that is meaningless when it does not really help anybody. More so when it happens at the expense of others, and at the expense of progress.

    Internet2 is primarily designed for scientists and research organizations, to pool in their resources and create a powerful network to facilitate better research interaction. Experimental particle physics data goes over several gigabytes, cosmic ray measurements are tremendously huge, gene databanks are big -- this is the kind of information that these networks are built for. Sure, some kid may be misusing them, but the percentage of people doing this would be far too less to be of any consequence (it has come down from 30% to 7%).

    People like MPAA just will abuse the system, bring in more bureacracy, more rules and more regulations that will hinder how genuine users will use the system. They will wrap it nice and dandy around money and laws, and buy out our corrupt politicians who will dance to the jingle of wealth. And in the progress, they just will affect real people doing real work.

    They are dragging everyone to the level of technology that they can control. Rather than adapt to the new technologies and grow with it, they try and exert their control by legal battles and money. Why can't they admit and move on to an era where their policies and principles encourage the technology, rather than deter it?

    I sincerely hope that they are not let on board the Internet2. And I sincerely hope that one day our society is rid of parasitic savages of the likes of MPAA and RIAA. They're the scum and a disgrace of our civilization. They are the true deterrents to progress.

    1. Re:This is a true disgrace by MrLint · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

    2. Re:This is a true disgrace by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful
      But you are probably ok with that misuse of Inet2, arent you?
      Yes, I am!

      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

  4. This seems simple enough... by Spazholio · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. microcosm by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  6. Where does this end? by J-B0nd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Too bad I'm funding their shenanigans... by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've got about 300 DVDs, and I probably buy at least 1 per week (if not more when I visit the Wal Mart $5 bin). It concerns me that they focus so much attention on the few who download movies. I would prefer that they.....say.....spend that money to develop enhancements to the DVD experience (something that isn't included in an encoded pirate version of any particular movie).

    There have been times that I've downloaded a movie from the Internet, enjoyed it, and purchased that movie from a local store so that I could watch it in higher quality and benefit from the additional DVD features (Southpark Movie). Other times, I've realized that the time spent downloading a particular movie (Blair Witch Project) could've been better spent playing solitaire.

    Sometime soon, I hope, the MPAA will realize that the money they spend sniffing out pirates (who ,like cockroaches, will ALWAYS exist) could be better spent to enhance their own industry....or (more likely to peak the interest of the MPAA) line their own pockets. Litigation isn't cheap, nor is computer/network forensics.

    Somewhere, there is an MPAA representitive reading this article who is thinking "Hmmm....he's right...I could get a raise and people like Trey Parker and the /. crowd would stop hating us"

    --


    "Lame" - Galaxar
  8. Well shit, it's ruined now by AvantLegion · · Score: 5, Funny
    *starts working on Internet3*

  9. government should regulate internet2, not MPAA by etaluclac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Membership denied by AnalogDiehard · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Hollywood used its lobbying powers to get the DMCA into law.

    The DMCA was used to threaten Ed Felton and his students into silence when they was about to present a research paper on the weaknesses of digital music security. The case sent a chilling tidal wave through the educational system.

    With the spirit that Internet2 is designed for educational and research purposes and the precedent set by the Felton case, Hollywood's membership request should be denied in about three nanoseconds.

    They are not welcome.

    --
    Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
  11. Wait till they get a taste of IPv6... by Olmy's+Jart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Internet2 is a hotbed of IPv6 as well.

    Wait till they get a taste of "privacy enhanced addresses" on IPv6 and find out some of those machines can change their addresses at random and not be tracable (only tracable to the subnet and no address server required or logs kept). They'll have to track'm down by MAC address (assuming no one is spoofing and morphing MAC addresses - how long will that take?) and wire by wire, switch by switch, once they're on the subnet itself, with the "cooperation" of the local techie staff. That's not even counting the really wicked stuff you can pull with multiple addresses (thousands, if you like) and different client and server addresses). BitTorrent already has IPv6 patches and some v6 BitTorrent seeders and servers.

    Hmmm...

    Internet2 + High Bandwidth + IPv6 + Privacy Enhanced addresses = good time to buy in stock in antacid vendors.

    The MPAA and RIAA and going to make for a run on their wares... :-)

    Oh... This is gonna be good...

    1. Re:Wait till they get a taste of IPv6... by Olmy's+Jart · · Score: 5, Informative

      Obviously you are not thinking about it... Think Internet2 (that's what this was about, right). Think a university. Think a dorm room. Think the university has no records of the "EUI" (that lower 64 bits that makes up your host field of the address) that you chose for that 5 minutes and then went on about your business (you can change it as often as you like and you don't have to ask anyone's permission or ask for another address). All they can do is isolate it down to a network and an SLA (that's a subnet in IPv4 lingo). It don't get you to the end user. And it don't get you into the past. And it don't make you telepathic.

      Oh, and BTW, your ISP doesn't typically give you a /64 (unless you are an exceptional shmuck with only one subnet). The standard allocation is a /48. That's 65,536 subnets. You can get a /64 from Hurricane Electric just by filling out a form, no questions asked. Send them a message telling them you've got more than one subnet, and you can get a /48 for the asking. Freenet6 is handing out full /48 networks even easier and they are now shifting from 3ffe::/16 6bone (6bone is being retired in the next couple of years) to 2001::/16 production even now. Commercially, Verio (as I understand it) is charging $300 USD per month for a /48 to their commercial customers, native to the POP, in the US. The /48 still gets you to the network and a court order on the SLA might get you to the subnet, but there is still NO RECORD of who WAS using that privacy enhanced EUI WHEN it was in (ab)use.

      Now... For the home user, that's another story. Your network identifies a household and that's pretty tight. And, of course, all you home users can already use IPv6 any way you want (6to4 gives every IPv4 user an entire IPv6 NETWORK that you can use immediately without asking anyone's permission, including your ISP), and, yes, that's traceable to your IPv4 address. But, in real world IPv6 land, you can only get to the network (TLA/NLA) and subnetwork (SLA), if the user is assigning his own EUI (host) addresses, and you can't get any further without tracing on the subnet, when the activity is occuring.

      You COULD set up tools on each subnet to log each IP address and each MAC address that was associated and what switch port (assuming you are using managed switches that can be quiried over SNMP for IPv6 type stuff) was in use for that operation, but I don't know of any tools available for that purpose at this time and it sure as hell isn't being logged anywhere.

      So what if they come to your door demanding those logs! There are no logs to be had! It's stateless! No dhcp! No server! It's autoconfigured. God himself would have to have a time machine to figure out what IPv6 address you were on when they sniffed that traffic. If they get on NOW and they get the organization to log all activity through ALL their layer two switches, they MIGHT have a shot at catching you IF you hit the net again (and you weren't using IPSec or some other tunnelling mechanism)... Fat chance... Fat chance they will even get to the point where they even realize how badly they are screwed.

      Better still, if you've got wireless involved (you better bet your sweet bippy that IPv6 native works just fine over 802.11* - I'm running it now). You can set up stand-alone wireless devices that sit out on the ether and throw IPv6 tunnels back over the Access Points they're sitting behind. Play IPv6 on P2P and tunnel it back to netland and no hard wire to be found (outside of the wall wart to power it). That's to say nothing of all these universities firing up 802.11 like they were stoking a blast furnice. Wifi to the Max and IPv6 to take it into orbit.

      It's not impossible. Just a real BITCH compared to IPv4. A real major BITCH just to pony up to the bar and figure out how deep the well is just to begin searching... And that's where the fun begun.

  12. MPAA has obsessive-compulsive disorder by Simonetta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:MPAA has obsessive-compulsive disorder by Phleg · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      Perhaps you haven't realized this, but computers can be left on while you pursue other activities.

      --
      No comment.
    2. Re:MPAA has obsessive-compulsive disorder by imuffin · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Movie trading is a relatively new phenomenon. I think they've seen what P2P has done to the music industry, and they're taking pre-emptive action. Those who download MP3s are addicted to it. It may be too late for the RIAA. But if the MPAA can nip movie downloading in the bud before it starts, they may greatly delay their demise.

      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.

      Ten years ago, you could say this about the RIAA. Everyone was on dialup, and it took hours to download a single album. Fast forward to now and you can get a whole album in minutes. In 5 or ten years, Joe Downloader will be able to get movies as fast.


      Why are they so obsessed with ten thousand or so people sharing rotgut quality Div-X copies?

      I well-ripped XVID or DIVX movie looks almost identical to a DVD at bitrates that allow it to fit onto a CD. They're even being distributed with 5.1 surround sound AC3 audio. If your DIVX movies look "rotgut," you're downloading the wrong ones.


      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.

      Not true at all. One can search for movies with Kazaa or load a torrent from a web site in the morning, and by the time one returns from work, the download is finsihed, happily awaiting my watchful eyes. Total time invested: 5 minutes. Sure the computer downloaded for hours, but the user can be away doing his own thing.


      It will probably just fade as embarrassment when the MPAA actually examines the real numbers involved and comes to its senses.

      It's not the numbers they should examine, it's the trends. What is a small problem for them today can blossom into a huge one in a few years.

      Don't get me wrong. I think that the MPAA is doing some really terrible things. I don't want to get sued for downloading a movie that I own a license for but is damaged. And I don't think that suing a customer base is a good way to engender good-will. But the consituent corporations of the MPAA are only interested in profit. And intimidating those who use their products without paying for them may actually be a smart strategy to protect those profits. -InsectMuffin

    3. Re:MPAA has obsessive-compulsive disorder by crankyspice · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't want to get sued for downloading a movie that I own a license for but is damaged.

      Sigh. Have you read the copyright act? 17 USC? You don't have any license for the movie. Buying a DVD does not convey any rights to the copyrighted work it contains (17 USC 202). Further, DVDs are sold for private performance only, which is *not* a right exclusively reserved to the copyright holder (see the enumerated list at 17 USC 106). So you neither buy nor need any license in the copyrighted work. And while there may be a statutorily created right for private copying of sound recordings (aka music), as the Audio Home Recording Act has been interpreted (see the space shifting analysis in RIAA v. Diamond), and while computer software may be copied for backup purposes (17 USC 117), there is no carte blanche rule to "back up" by copying, and certainly not by downloading, a motion picture or audio-visual work. No, the motion picture contents of a DVD are not "software" (though the menus may be). See the definition for a "copy" in 17 USC 101. Thanks for playing.

      --
      geek. lawyer.
  13. Pardon, MPAA, your hypocrisy is showing... by laughingcoyote · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The following two quotes are from the MPAA's own 11/11/04 press release:

    "With access to high-speed Internet access increasing, and the movie industry already losing $3.5 billion annually to piracy, Glickman asserted that legal action is necessary to protect the future of moviemaking."

    Must be terrible...the industry is losing $3.5 BILLION a year in revenue? They must just be drowning in the losses!

    "The movie industry's share of the American economy is growing--faster than the rest of the economy. And the copyright industries are creating jobs at twice the rate of the rest of the economy."

    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.
  14. MPAA "sniffing" is a laughingstock by Frater+219 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I work for a research institution. We have an Internet 2 connection. I'm the security guy, and (as if that ain't enough work) I sysadmin the mail exchangers, including maintaining anti-spam and anti-virus there. If you send email to the abuse or postmaster addresses at our site, I get it. If you send email to our domain contact about a security or abuse matter, he forwards it to me, and I answer it.

    We get complaints every once in a while from the MPAA or their lackeys, claiming that some host on our network is sharing copies of movies -- The Matrix, Harry Potter, Star Wars: Revenge of George Lucas's Crack Pipe ... you name it.

    Here's the funny thing: they're all wrong.

    Every one of them. Wrong. I have never received an MPAA copyright-violation complaint that even had the slightest chance of being correct.

    Here's how I know: We have a ridiculously big IP allocation, several times more than we need. Most IP addresses in our space are not used, and have never been used. Like, say, X.Y.1.1, or X.Y.64.64. And yet it is for addresses just such as these that we get complaints.

    As far as I can tell, the cause of it is that shitheads somewhere in the world abuse our IP addresses behind NAT, instead of using RFC1918 private addresses as God intended them to. And just like with SIP or any other protocol that uses IP addresses in the protocol level to name hosts, file-trading protocols leak NAT addresses.

    The abused addresses get published onto file-trading networks as places to get files. The MPAA's drones pick up these leads, and -- without checking -- give them full credence, and fire off complaints to us. They do not even bother to ping the host and listen for our router screaming back, "You blithering fool, there's no such host. There isn't even such a network!"

    Any network operator who still gives any credence to these complaints is a fool. They are all wrong. Even if I got one for an address that actually had a host on it -- or, at least, had ever had a host on it! -- I expect it would also be wrong.

    Every once in a while I get a complaint from these losers on a slow day, when I have some spare time and am feeling bored in the office. So I put on my slowest, laziest "I've been working a cushy, do-nothing public-sector IT management job for years, I don't know my ass from a router" tone of voice and phone up the MPAA lackey whose number's on the complaint.

    I'm oh so very concerned. There's a pirate on our network? Is he breaking the law? What's his computer? You know -- what's his computer? Yeah, I mean, his eye pee. How do I connect to his eye pee and prove he's got these files? Do I need kazz-uh to do that? Wait ... can I do that legally, or am I breaking the Constitution? What's a pee-to-pee anyway, is that some kind of sex perversion?

    You get the idea. I thoroughly encourage every other research and educational site network operator to do the very same. Waste their time. Get your stupid out. Stall 'em, stymie 'em, but be very concerned that you don't want any of them Internet pirates pirating your Internet. (Or ask if they know where to find hot lesbian porn.) Most important -- keep the stooge on the line; the MPAA is probably paying him hourly.