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.'"

38 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. Why does AT&T want this? by nb(a)Quibux · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In the article, AT&T's Mr. Cicconi is quoted as having said: "We are very interested in a technology based solution and we think a network-based solution is the optimal way to approach this."

    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?

    1. Re:Why does AT&T want this? by Rosyna · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why are they so interested in this?


      I still think it's because they oversold their network capacity and don't want to spend any new money on upgrading their infrastructure to match the capacity they advertise. The fix to this is to implement network filtering that prevents customer from using the bandwidth AT&T has sold them.
    2. Re:Why does AT&T want this? by Alexpkeaton1010 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Parent is 100% correct. AT&T doesn't care at all about protecting content holders rights. The AT&T bosses look at the huge expense in upgrading the infrastructure and ask, "Why do we need to do this?". The poor engineers then have to explain that x% of there traffic is due to Youtube, y% is due to World of Warcraft, and z% is due to Bittorrent. To solve the Youtube and World of Warcraft problem, the answer to AT&T is of course a tiered internet where Google and Blizzard have to pay extra to guarantee that there packets get through. There is no one to charge for Bittorrent, so the answer is clearly to ban it. This is all about saving AT&T the cost of upgrading there infrastructure.

    3. Re:Why does AT&T want this? by Antony-Kyre · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be easier for them to switch to a pay-per-gigabyte-downloaded scheme? So instead of paying $X/month for unlimited access, you'd be paying something less than $X per month. Perhaps $10 less. But you'd get charged $1/GB downloaded, which, I think with most people, wouldn't be that much anyways.

    4. Re:Why does AT&T want this? by Maniac-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Technically, everything is copyrighted. My website, your website, this website, all copyrighted. It may not be officially registered in the copyright office, but anything that is created by anyone is subject to (and protected by) copyright law. Does that mean that they're going to filter the copyrighted content on my personal website (ie, everything I created that's up there) as well? This is a legal breach of net neutrality. Comcast is already under investigation by the FCC for this, and they're looking at $195,000 per affected customer. I expect if AT&T goes through with this plan they'll be fined as well, so the bigwigs should really look at that while figuring their money-saving options. Spend X amount of money on upgrading their bandwidth capacity to fill demand, or spend $(customer*200,000) on fines for violating Net Neutrality.

      --
      (A)bort, (R)etry, (I)gnore?_
    5. Re:Why does AT&T want this? by compro01 · · Score: 5, Informative

      simple, they make tons of money overselling. they love people who pay for, say, a 5MB pipe and only use it for checking their emails and looking up recipes and whatever.

      if they switched to an actual-transfers system, they'd lose all kinds of money on those people.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:Why does AT&T want this? by halber_mensch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't it be easier for them to switch to a pay-per-gigabyte-downloaded scheme? So instead of paying $X/month for unlimited access, you'd be paying something less than $X per month. Perhaps $10 less. But you'd get charged $1/GB downloaded, which, I think with most people, wouldn't be that much anyways.

      That's a fantastic idea. I think you should sign up right now, and tell us all how quickly you go broke paying for unsolicited traffic to your node from John Q. Cracker and his army of bot-machines.

      Wait, did I say 'fantastic'? What I meant was 'fantastically retarded'.

      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
    7. Re:Why does AT&T want this? by bckrispi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, if ISP's start "sniffing" for copyrighted traffic, wouldn't that nullify their Common Carrier status? IANAL, but wouldn't this then make them liable for the content of *all* the traffic that flows over their network?

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    8. Re:Why does AT&T want this? by hanabal2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ive had this exact plan for 3 years now. FYI its $33NZD for the plan with $1NZD per GB after that. The ISP even provides a tool bar app to monitor the recorded usage in real time. The usage the ISP reports is so very close to my actual usage that I don't think there is any unwanted traffic coming from anywhere. NZ has terrible net options, but the pay as you go option is really the most sensible way for most

  2. The friendly way about it... by Loibisch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...

    1. Re:The friendly way about it... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:The friendly way about it... by computational+super · · Score: 4, Informative

      Check out Freenet - total anonymity and total encryption is the goal. All that's needed for it to work is for more people to download and run nodes.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  3. ahem by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. No More Network Congestion? by zotz · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
    1. Re:No More Network Congestion? by griffjon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
  5. The U.S. seems to be losing its tech edge by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. In practice by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. uh huh... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:uh huh... by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who is going to pay for the resources needed...?

      You, the customer, who else?

      --
      What?
  8. Stop transfer of copyrighted material? by IBBoard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... need to filter traffic at the network level, to stop the transfer of copyrighted material


    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.
  9. I cant wait. by Kilz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  10. See, this is what telecom amnesty gets you... by rbrander · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Encryption??? Hello?? by dogganos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anybody home? More and more p2p apps are including encrypted p2p sessions at the application layer. Did anybody think about that?

  12. i download copyrighted material everyday by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 :: faster than paper
  13. Carrier? by pr0nbot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  14. AT&T is my ISP by An+anonymous+reader · · Score: 5, Funny

    And I think this is total Bullsh*&*^&*(&^*& CARRIER LOST...

  15. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic by Slyswede · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

  16. Friendly way to exit common carrier status? by dyfet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  17. My solution... by Tastecicles · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:My solution... by domatic · · Score: 3, Funny

      Also, don't ever underestimate the bandwidth potential of a pack of blank DVDs and a parcel post.



      Yeah, but the latency is just awful.
  18. The Internet "used" to be owned by the people by Jerry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  19. ISPs and piracy by killbill! · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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. ;)

  20. What? This is stupid! by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "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

    Not wanting to RTFM, exactly WHY should ISPs filter traffic? The DMCA holds the ISP blameless for what goes through their "pipes".

    ...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.'"

    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
  21. LOL by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.
  22. And then they wonder by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...the answer to AT&T is of course a tiered internet where Google and Blizzard have to pay extra to guarantee that there packets get through

    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
    1. Re:And then they wonder by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nope. It's upper management that insists on thinking of the stockholder as their ultimate customer rather than the person they actually sell to. This is an idea that's been popular on Wall Street for a long time now. Couple it with the "this quarter" mentality and you have a real recipe for disaster.

      A board chairman really shouldn't give a rats *ss what the stock price is.

      That represents money that the company has already raised.

      Management chooses to be not to be in it for the long haul and are incapable of providing any leadership.

      Mangement needs to be able to sell the idea of proper management too.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:And then they wonder by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but when it's a publicly traded company, you really need to focus your hate on the people who sell the stock at the slightest hint that the company won't be making those absurd profits in the near future. That's the reason that the corporate bigwigs whine--their value is dependant solely upon the speculation that they'll make more money this year than last year, since stock traders will dump the stock if they don't.

      It's a terrible system that leads to inflation of the company's actual worth, and the need for short-term profits over long-term goals. I think this can't be said enough. The current corporate milieu, which is driven almost entirely by short-term profits, is itself driven by the stock market, which is dominated by investors looking to turn a quick buck. That's really the root cause of the problem.

      If you're a corporate executive, heavily invested in your own company's stock (which isn't a bad thing, since it means you're putting your money where your mouth is), you stand to lose a lot of money if the share value tanks. So you do whatever's required to keep it up -- and what the market demands in many cases isn't long-term, stable profitability, but short-term growth and dividends. Nobody plans for further out than a few years, nobody can engage in really visionary or transformative projects; everything is about making this quarter's or this year's numbers so that all the Wall Street traders don't dump your stock.

      I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. I've wondered for a while if some regulative penalty on stock flipping wouldn't be beneficial; something like the penalties that exist on most mutual funds to discourage 'market timing' that hurt long-term investors. On one hand you don't want to do anything to the market that creates a dead-weight loss (like stick a per-transaction tax on stock trades, which would be the obvious route to prevent flipping), but the culture of short-term profits seems to be so destructive to our economy and industrial base as a whole that even as a quasi-free-marketer, I'm not inherently opposed to the idea.
      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  23. Re:More like the friend code way about it by Kjella · · Score: 3, Informative

    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? It's an open network, where you have some deniability that the traffic comes from other nodes. Basicly it's back to where it was with 0.5 a few years ago, before they started with the whole "darknet" thing in 0.7. It's definately better than regular P2P but with easy corrolation attacks it's not exactly bulletproof. Better anonymity would be a premix network, but that's waaaaaaaaaay off. On the whole, they're still pushing the darknet strongly which is in my opinion a stillborn idea for several reasons.

    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? Yes and no, changing IPs it not a big issue and can be improved with dynamic DNS. Dial-up users are pretty much screwed given the way Freenet works, and they don't seem to have any plans to change this.
    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings