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?
The friendly way about it is not to mess with people's traffic in the first place. Once you have filtering equipment in place it can easily be misused to filter out anything any power with enough money might wish to black out.
You do not want to open that box...
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.
Since pretty much everything these days is automatically copyrighted at the time of creation or fixing, I guess the days of network congestion will soon be pretty much over then?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
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.
What they really mean, is that there's no way it can be done without pissing off enough customers for a class-action lawsuit against them.
Who gets to identify "copyright" and how do those with permission to use said materials bypass the system for legitimate reasons? Who is going to pay for the resources needed to store signature files for each copyrighted work on earth and the hardware needed to perform comparisons of any download with the signature database in realtime in such a manner that it doesn't adversely affect network performance?
Finally, wouldn't all these techniques be rendered useless by encrypted tunneling software short of making encryption over the internet illegal in itself? And who gets to enforce that?
8==8 Bones 8==8
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.
Why do the ISPs even give a damn? How do they make money by pissing off their customers? Are the record companies going to pay them? Are they hoping to so bore their customers so much by limiting their access to entertainment that they will be forced to buy some other over-priced approved proprietary cintent?
So what exactly is in it for at&t?
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
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.
Anybody home? More and more p2p apps are including encrypted p2p sessions at the application layer. Did anybody think about that?
because future product development includes high speed transmission of copyrighted video. As such they will probably get hammered while trying to cut deals with the big media companies. Meaning, where the studios cannot get laws passed to do what they want they can go after anyone who both provides the underlying service as well as the content.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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
Is it the postal service's responsibility to open every package and check what's inside, in case I'm trying to send you a photocopied novel?
And I think this is total Bullsh*&*^&*(&^*& CARRIER LOST...
This is quite interesting to follow since here in Sweden the debate climate has just made an interesting turn. For the first time, politicians in our parliament has come out in support of scrapping the current laws against file sharing on the grounds that enforcing them requires giving either ISP:s or rights owners too much insight into people's personal communications, thus violating our privacy.
This was sparked by a government report suggesting that the law should be changed to require ISP:s to scan the network traffic of their customers and possibly terminate the internet service if multiple violations were made. One thing we should not here is that in Sweden, the ISP:s are strongly opposed to monitoring their customers and wish to remain providers of a service, not the internet police of rights owners.
The main problem in this whole issue is that people tend to think that just because something can be done with new technology (such as monitoring what I send over the internet to my friends) it's ok to do so. Free societies value personal freedom and the freedom to keep our private lives to ourselves. No one would dream of suggesting that the postal service should start opening people's mail to see if there's something illegal inside. If it's not right in the analog world, it's not right in the digital world either.
Now I'm just waiting to see how long it takes the rest of the EU to catch on. There's a big chance that we'll see soon see the largest changes to copyright laws since they were originally thought up. Personally I'll be satisfied with a clarification that clearly states that it's illegal for anyone to monitor my personal communication regardless of what medium I use, unless specifically required to do so by a court of law (as in other wiretapping cases).
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.
Everybody, flip off the cable/adsl and get a mobile broadband contract. It's cheaper, you're not constrained by wires, and (believe it or not) it's quicker. I went the whole hog, partly because I can't get a SIM on contract, and used a Sierra Aircard 720 with a T-Mobile SIM on pay-as-you-go. I pay £10/mo for 40kbps always-on, don't miss broadband one iota because I can get online anywhere on the planet on an unmetered cellular connection.
Also, don't ever underestimate the bandwidth potential of a pack of blank DVDs and a parcel post.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
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!
AT&T will only be filtering stuff copyrighted by "big media". Your stuff, or Slashdot, will not be affected. AT&T obviously has an agenda here, and it's not about protecting everybody's copyrighted material, just copyrighted material that's owned by their "partners". Of course, you could become AT&T's partner, if you would like to pay them some large amount of money...
If I had to guess, I'd say this is about AT&T not getting sued by the big media companies. They seem to be bending over backwards, but hey, they're already forwarding all your traffic to the NSA, so maybe they've figured out a way to reuse the same equipment to filter media files?
"Piracy" (copyright infringement) is only allowed to continue because it makes ISPs more money than the alternative.
;)
ISPs know too well that without piracy, there would be little demand for expensive broadband connections. Of course, on the other hand, it has to be kept under control, lest it starts costing ISPs too much money.
Once legal alternatives become more profitable to ISPs, pirate networks will dry up overnight. The recent assault on net neutrality is an attempt to get there... making legal download service pay for "protection".
Yet, there is a more sensible way: the universal hosting marketplace. Imagine a P2P network where anyone can host files, and is guaranteed to be paid for each upload. ISPs could provide a large chunk of the capacity (à la Usenet), and make a bundle from that.
Give financial value to uploads, and the most active file sharers will view illegal file sharing as a financial loss. Similarly, piracy will become an observable, tangible loss to ISPs.
Until now, piracy was producers' problem. Give value to bandwidth, and it becomes everyone's problem.
Disclaimer: I am currently working on an open-source solution to achieve just that (see sig). Feel free to join us.
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
Isn't the idea that, if you start policing for some material, you become responsible for policing all material?
Dear ISPs,
You are hereby notified that the content of this slashdot post is Copyright (c) 2008 by myself. I reserve all rights to this post. Please filter it appropriately to prevent duplication of this post.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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
All they will do is ban material that the big players (read: RIAA MPAA) want stopped.
I doubt it will work, as the studios will still have to have a means of digital distribution, so I'm guessing that "legitimate" content will have some sort of pass- phrase or encrypted header applied. The filters will let that stuff through (to the destination in the header?) but would prevent it going elsewhere,
What happens next is people learn how to hack or decrypt the headers (or apply their own over the top of the old header) and we're back here again.
Plus ca change
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
You're kidding, right? That's like deciding between Stalin and [censored by Godwin], between Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti, between Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, etc....
One thing Freenet has in common with Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection is friend codes. In both Freenet and Nintendo WFC, you need to add the other user, and the other user needs to add you. So how does one find other trusted users' friend codes in order to connect to the network?
But I noticed that since the last time I checked freenetproject.org, the page Connecting to Freenet has added a few sentences discussing an "insecure mode". Is this any better than just using a system built around eMule, Gnutella, or BitTorrent?
The page also states that it takes a couple days for a Freenet node to get up to speed. Do the developers plan to make Freenet compatible with dial-up or with broadband providers that use PPP over Ethernet, where IP addresses change every 24 hours or so?
Can you cite what "Net Neutrality" law you believe they are violating?
A lot of people don't understand what the internet is. It is a network of networks. There is no entity that oversees the entire internet. This is something that is hard for many people to comprehend because in meatspace everything is controlled by "the government". Local (e.g. city/state/country) governmental laws only apply to the networks in that locality. Most internet traffic crosses one or more of these locality boundaries which makes it next-to-impossible to determine whose laws should apply to any given "infraction". In meatspace we have import/export laws, customs, tariffs, treaties, etc. There is no system to make any of those work on packets sent over the internet. This is why spam is so hard to stop - the spammer lives in one place, uses computers in another place, to send messages to people in yet a third place. Whose laws apply? It is extremely difficult to craft a law that works in real life.
As a result of how the internet is laid out and the lack of governance and laws, any given network (e.g. ISP X) CAN block any traffic they want. On any given network, the rule is my network, my rules. They don't answer to anyone except the other networks they exchange traffic with (their upstream providers, or their peers if they are a Tier 1 network with no upstream provider). If you don't like it, don't use that network: Get another ISP.
Comcast is in hot water not because they block file sharing traffic but because they accomplish this by sending forged packets. The FORGERY part is against the law - the blocking is not.
Networks routinely block traffic. Over 90% of all email traffic is spam - if they didn't block it your inbox would be flooded and email would be unusable.
Copyright law is going to be fundamentally changed by the internet - and there is simply nothing that the major "rights holders" (music and movie industry companies) can do about it. Look at the math - we have hundreds of millions of people who want the copyright laws eased, people who are thumbing their noses at existing copyright laws. And we have what - maybe 1 million people (copyright holders - people who are paid royalties from their copyright works) involved in the production of those copyright protected works? How do the copyright laws benefit the "average person"? Ultimately, the people's desire to have less restrictive copyright laws WILL be reflected in the law.
Copyright laws were enacted in a time when such laws were necessary to provide benefit to people who would not otherwise create these works and share them with others. The marketplace has changed. YouTube shows how readily people create content and share it freely with others without needing to be paid to produce these works, paid for their creativity.
The movie and music industry needs to come up with a new business model. The present model, that they can prevent people from copying and sharing movies and music is not, and will not, work in the future. No amount of agitating for new laws, no amount of trying to get internet companies to block file sharing, no amount of suing people is going to put this genie back in the bottle. The old system worked because they could control the distribution medium (the physical media such as the CD or DVD or video tape). Now they no longer control the media. In order for the movie or music to be played on a computerized system, it can be copied. Copy protection systems simply do not work.
My predictions:
jc
p.s. I've worked at ISPs and have an in-depth understanding of how the i
"I'd much rather be mistaken as a lesbian by a bigot than be mistaken as a bigot by a lesbian."
If ISPs start editing and controlling content then they become responsible for the content carried on their systems. This wipes out the common carrier status they fought so hard for and won.
If they do this what I'm saying is there must be a huge financial incentive for them to take on such a huge risk. Where's the money?