Slashdot Mirror
ISPs To Filter Traffic For Copyright Holders?
Dr. Zarkov writes "At a CES forum, representatives of AT&T and other ISPs discussed the need to filter traffic at the network level, to stop the transfer of copyrighted material. An AT&T spokesman said they 'would have to handle such network filtering delicately, and do more than just stop an upload dead in its tracks, or send a legalistic cease and desist form letter to a customer. "We've got to figure out a friendly way to do it, there's no doubt about it," he said.'"
Why are they so interested in this? Because there will be pressure on smaller ISPs to do the same, with the difference that for smaller ISPs, roughly the same absolute cost divided by a much smaller number of customers is a much greater per-customer cost?
We've got to figure out a friendly way to do it, there's no doubt about it
We've got to figure out a legal way to do it, there's no doubt about it.
There, fixed it for you.
It's funny how the U.S., where the PC and the Internet first became big, seems less and less on the digital frontier. When in much of the EU and Asia ISPs respect their customers a lot more--the main ISP in my city in Romania has even set up a DC++ server so you can films and music with other people nearby--in the U.S. all the new possibilities that the Internet has brought are just going into lockdown.
In practice this means "you can only download legal music and software from our approved stores.
People who download illegal files will continue to do so by obfusticating, unless you are to ban all binary transfers! It is the people who want to download legally who will now have to put up with restricted choice as well as DRM.
So, lets see. Linux is copyrighted (it has to be to have a license on it). Does that mean they want to stop that as well? And the images on a web-page, they'll be copyrighted too so do they get stopped?
If not and they just mean "copyright infringing material" then 1) why don't they say that and 2) how do they ever plan to tell the difference between infringing and non-infringing use?
Same old same old, I guess: person of power wants to be seen to be "doing the right thing" by huge copyright holders but doesn't understand the detail or implication.
Once they have a system in place that they think will block illegal downloads (it will never really stop them)they open themselves up to lawsuits. After all they will have proved that they can stop them. Doesnt that open them up to lawsuits for those they do not stop? Then if they block something that isnt copyrighted, they open themselves to lawsuits.
I trust Microsoft as far as I could comfortably spit a dead rat
Seriously. Let's not start filtering traffic because a few companies can't or won't change their business model in the face of changing technologies.
Besides, does anyone really think that that's going to work? It would be nearly impossible to filter out copyrighted material. As always, the Net will just route around the damage. That's the nature of the network and it was built that way on purpose.
My blog
They listened in on your phone calls without a warrant, and giving them amnesty for it is being seriously discussed.
That about establishes the principle that it's their network, not yours, and the moment you put your traffic on it, that's also theirs, to review and pass judgment on, and approve.
Or not.
Isn't it nice that they plan to do it "politely", though? That should count for something.
i download copyrighted material everyday and if my ISP stopped it then I will be very annoyed.
Practically every page I download has a copyright, including the one I am reading now.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2007 SourceForge, Inc.
How can they differentiate unauthorized copyright from authorized?
liqbase
So they are looking for a "customer friendly" way to exit common carrier status, or is it a matter of monetizing the NSA infrastructure? In truth, while some speak of big brother by the state, I far more fear the social damage that can be caused by "little brothers" of corporations each potentially capable of monitoring people in far more detailed, even less accountable, and in far more subtle ways, all with a profit motive, than I do the latter.
but the corporations have stolen it, with the help of soulless politicians who want "change", aka campaign "contributions".
I want change, alright. I want the greedy IP companies thrown off OUR web and send them back to their brick and mortar. Give the web back to the people and educational institutions and companies that don't try political and USPTO lock downs.
While we are at it, let's pull health insurance companies grubby hands off of health care. Take profit out of health care. That some should profit on the suffering of the sick and injured, and others even INCREASE their suffering, is detestable, but politicos from BOTH parties are happy with it, as long as they get their campaign "contributions".
Then, let's shut down the check advance folks. 450+% interest! They feed on the poor and make the Mafia look like a charitable organization. They've replaced Louie the Leg Breaker with law enforcement to do their dirty work. The credit card companies are not much better. 35% interest? Diverting payments to the lower interest rate loans when the higher interest rate loans are older is simply theft. and hair trigger interest rate increases? Politicos from BOTH parties are happy with it, as long as they get their campaign "contributions".
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Not wanting to RTFM, exactly WHY should ISPs filter traffic? The DMCA holds the ISP blameless for what goes through their "pipes".
Like not stopping legitimate copyrighted traffic.
After all, in this century (for the first time ever) as soon as something is "affixed in tangible form" copyright is granted. Everything on the internet save anything created before 1920 is copyrighted.
All ISPs have to do to keep copyrighted material off their networks is shut down the fucking network!
My friends' music is copyrighted. They want it shared. Star Wreck is copyrighted. They want it shared. Linux and other FOSS is copyrighted and they want it shared.
Good luck filtering out "Star Treck - The Search for Spock" from "Star Wreck - In The Pirkinning".
ISPs need to mind their own damned business and leave my internet traffic alone. Keep the files I can legally transmit from transmitting and you'll hear from my lawyer. This is entirely unaceptable. My ISP has no obligation nor right to filter traffic.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I was listening to a story on NPR this am about how AT&T was whining about their revenue dropping. Well, duh. Turn yourselves into the a**hats of the telecom world, then act surprised when people cut service or go elsewhere.
Doesn't it just move you to tears when mega-corporations making billions in profits every quarter start whining about the cost of an infrastructure upgrade? We have to upgrade the system...whaaaaaaa. We have make a few less billions in profit to support our market...boo-f'ing-hoo. If it's that tough then sell all your circuits and get into a new line of work.
I despise corporate whiners.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
no no no, guys -- this would only apply to rich copyright holders and/or consortia of IP owners. Your copyright can still be infringed as per normal.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer