Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Boss Makes Case for ISP Content Filtering
creaton writes "At the annual UBS Global & Media Communications Conference yesterday, MPAA boss Dan Glickman banged on the copyright filtering drum during a 45-minute speech. Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue and told the audience that it cost the studios $6 billion annually. His solution: technology, especially in the form of ISP filtering. 'The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected ... and I think that's a great opportunity.' AT&T has already said it plans to filter content, but others may be more reluctant to go along, notes Ars Technica: 'ISPs that are concerned with being, well, ISPs aren't likely to see many benefits from installing some sort of industrial-strength packet-sniffing and filtering solution at the core of their network. It costs money, customers won't like the idea, and the potential for backlash remains high.'"
No one has told this guy about encryption yet?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue
No, the MPAA's #1 issue is their high prices and crappy movies.
I'm fairly sure it is either incorrect on "nothing" and "everything", or "lose" and "gain"...
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
Easy answer. If it REALLY costs the MPAA companies $6bn a year, they should be willing to pay quite a lot to have it done. Say, somewhere around 50% of the "pirated" revenue. So ask them to pay the ISPs $3bn a year and see if they are so keen. How many other investments do you know with a guaranteed 100% return?
- Paul
on a method of locally delivering stored digital content (Video-On-Demand) for fees, such as subsidizing the cost of VOD servers, more content would make it to the end users legally. I would see that as a win-win-win (MPI,ISP,User) for everyone. They get their cut, the ISP doesn't have to pay for the excess bandwidth in/out of their network and the end users get quick access to VoD.
Everything except public domain and governmental reports will be filtered?
By definition, all text, pictures, and video have copyright applied to them at the moment of creation.
1) the DMCA allows for safe harbor IF ISP's don't otherwise filter content. So if they start filtering copyright, they can be held liable for other illegalities - 419 scams, stock fraud, child porn.
2) The **AA's will therefore lobby for an exception to the DMCA for their stuff.
3) Congress will grant it.
Any questions?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
I hope AT&T doesn't mind getting dragged into pretty much every lawsuit involving one of their customers that comes down the pike now... "what do you mean you're not responsible for the child porn coming out of one of your client's computers!? You filter content now, don't you...?"
(I know, loopholes and such, but at least (IMHO only) the precedent and mechanisms to claim AT&T responsible for all their users' content is now in place. If they filter inbound, they can filter outbound. If they filter movies, they can filter pr0n. If they filter by discrete packet, they should (at least according to a plaintiff in such a lawsuit) be now collaterally responsible for the flow of data through their network.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
ISPs try to do the same thing with spam, and spam still arrives in my inbox. It seems logical then that the best way to get around ANY filter is to change the name to one with genitalia spelled in leetspeak. On an unrelated note, my download of TransP3N1Sformers[2006]DvDrip[Eng] - aXXo is almost done.
People in this country always tout their freedom as the single greatest thing that differentiates them from many other countries. What we filter isn't so much important as the fact that we might filter at all. And if we filter the internet on a corporate or government level, how are we any different from countries like China?
And if ISPs should filter our content, then why shouldn't other service and content providers outside of the internet be responsible for censoring what we consume, say, do as well? Parents can filter what their children consume. I can filter what I can consume. It should stop there.
...measuring the drop in growth/profitibility from the first years these jerks started claiming stupendous losses due to piracy? They've always seemed to claim billions in losses, and yet they're industry doesn't seem to feel the effects. The past few years they've been losing money due to iTunes, so that's why I ask about the early years they were crying foul...
Loading...
If they are willing to accept all of this liability, then I have no problems at all with them filtering network content. I'll still pick one of their competitors that doesn't, however.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
you can't own information
you can own atoms: a ham sandwich, your car in the driveway, but bits and bytes, sorry, not yours, never will be
you'll figure it out in 200 years at the rate you are going
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I prefer my fucking movies to be indecent.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And it's a point that is rarely if ever brought up.
These filtering systems, and by this I mean systems from Macrovision on VCRs on up to DVDs and internet video, serve not just to protect 'the content' but also serves to lock out any growing or potential competition. Just as the RIAA presumes that all MP3s are illegal, the MPAA presumes that all content online must also be illegal. How can any filter system like that ensure that legal content is permitted unhindered? And when 'legalized' video content is allowed through, what's there to prevent DRM or Watermarking from being stripped from the original data?
What these systems serve best, just as in the case of DVD CCS, not to protect the copyright...or really even the ability to copy, but the right of playback and content formatting and presentation control. How many times have you bought a DVD only to find that there are stupid commercials or previews that you are prevented from skipping? That's the REAL intent as far as I'm concerned.
TELLING YOUR PARTNERS TO MAKE DECENT FUCKING MOVIES. Maybe then people might want to pay 30 bucks to see your movie in a theater...
But Fucking Movies are the ones doing well...
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_6059391
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/60minutes/main585049.shtml
And you can use your own partner, or someone else's.
e=mc^2
so m=e/c^2
therefore, i owe you e/c^2 for the mass of yours i am using
do you take picodollars?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
> Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue
Can't the Navy or Coast Guard help them with this?
Filter away.. but wait, aren't they then blocking all traffic of a certain type (bittorrent for example), I mean, they can't really easily and reliably distinguish what is legal and what is illegal content, though i'm sure that certain companies will offer products/services that claim to do just that (hello MediaPretender). If you can only filter by traffic type and not based on content, then all one needs to do to make all the money in the world is:
-start a company that delivers content via bittorrent
-have a few friends "buy" products and then be unable to complete the download
-have them then proceed to mock this company
-file lawsuit against ISP, claim loss of business damages for $100k and $20M in punitive damages
-repeat
Then again, if bittorrent and all other dedicated P2P protocols are somehow filtered, there's still many protocols that can be "hijacked" to carry payloads but cannot really be filtered (IRC, NEWS.. heck, if you encrypt the content, even email).
Try as they might, illegal filesharing will never end.. it may only diminish if they start offering a reasonably priced and featured legal alternative.
Could somebody repost Glickman's comments? My ISP had its "whiney bullshit" filter set on high and the original didn't come through.
Have gnu, will travel.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
The RIAA and MPAA claim billions of dollars in damages due to piracy each year, yet when asked how much an individual download costs, they have no clue.
Get a clue: Clamping down on casual trading is not going to bring increased revenues. People aren't paying because they either see no value, or they feel the process is flawed. Making it harder to find these works won't make anyone suddenly feel as though there is value. People will just start to look elsewhere, or - as usual - get smarter, and find means around this. Virtually all deep packet inspection can be thwarted by encryption, so what exactly is there to be gained except more headaches for those running ISPs and higher prices for their customers?
Worst. Porno. Ever.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
OK so piracy is an issue for the MPAA, but I would love to see the numbers that show which act of pirating is costing them the most money. Is is Joe Schmo on bit torrent in his mom's basement seeding away, or is it some not-so-underground pirating company churning out copy after copy of bootlegged movies to anyone and everyone for pennies on the dollar somewhere over in Asia. It seems obvious to you and I what the correct answer is here, but the MPAA wants you to believe otherwise.
My other point is, that while piracy is a concern for the MPAA, their bigger concern should be getting a quality product to consumers. I think the real money is lost on crappy movies that nobody wants to see. I'm sure they also love to blame that loss of revenue conveniently on oh noes teh piratez!!!111!
If I EVER catch you filtering *ANYTHING* to my internet connection
you will lose my internet business, my phone business and wireless business
to the local cable company.
Oh, right, I forgot; this is Slashdot. No-one has girlfriends, much less spouses and/or children :-)
- "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
I'll take that as a "yes." Thanks! But no thanks on the sexual offer. I'm straight.
everything in moderation
Notwithstanding all the technical problems (which themselves are probably insuperable), Dan Glickman misses the point. He says copyright infringement costs the studios $6bn per year. But he wants the ISPs to fix the problem. I can't think of a suitably wacky analogy for the moment, but this is fundamentally not the ISPs' problem (and installing filtering would likely annoy much of their customer base). So what possible motivation do they have to spend money to fix it? (I don't see the studios offering to buy any of the necessary kit for the ISPs even though it's indubitably more in their interest to implement filtering than it is the ISPs' interest.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.