ISP Sued By Irish RIAA

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "An ISP in Ireland has been sued by the Big Four record labels because its subscribers have engaged in P2P sharing of the record companies' song files. The record companies claim the ISP should be buying Audible Magic's CopySense, the software being peddled by the RIAA's expert witness, which supposedly would filter out copyright infringement. Of course, not everyone agrees."

Comments

Bad Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't the title read: Irish ISP sued by RIAA ??

Re:Bad Title

[Anonymous Coward]

I read "Irish" and transposed "RIAA" to "IRA(A)" - shadows of another terrorist group.

Re:Bad Title

[Jafafa Hots]

He meant the Irish version of the RIAA - One of the As in RIAA stands for "America."

Re:Bad Title

[Anonymous Coward]

But what would the "Recording Irish-Americans of America" have against an Irish ISP? (Tongue firmly in cheek)

Re:Bad Title

[Bazman]

Be thankful it's not the IRA

Re:Bad Title

[Ozrius]

What's the difference?

Re:Bad Title

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference? One's evil. The other is Irish.

Re:Bad Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on what I'm seeing so far, the title should have been "Comments containing moronic analogies".

Re:Bad Title

[radaos]

The organisation is IRMA, the Irish Recorded Music Association http://www.irma.ie/index2.htm Their website mentions other legal actions taken against file sharers.

Re:Bad Title

[Anonymous Coward]

IRMA were always way worse than the IRA

Re:Bad Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Regrettably this may start a flame war, but the difference is as follows:

IRMA (Irish Recorded Music Association) is using bully-boy legal tactics to attempt to enforce their will on others.

The IRA uses/used guns and bombs against UK troops and civilians to attempt to enforce their will on others.

Should the IRMA 'get' their target, their target may have to pay a substantial fine.

Should the IRA 'get' their target, the target was dead, lost limbs or was otherwise disabled or disfigured for life.

Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing

Yeah, there's a difference alright.

Re:Bad Title

[Barn-eye]

Have a read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omagh_bombing Yeah, there's a difference alright. That was the Real IRA, not the IRA.

Re:Bad Title

[Anonymous Coward]

The Lines are blurring here between the RIA and the IRA, both organisations excelling at extortion.

Re:Bad Title

[ltrm]

You are correct about the Omagh bombing but before you start thinking that the IRA are all fluffy perhaps you should consider: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day_Bombing ..not to mention punishment beatings and other atrocities.

Re:Bad Title

[thegermanpolice]

The organisation is IRMA, the Irish Recorded Music Association http://www.irma.ie/index2.htm Their website mentions other legal actions taken against file sharers. So IT Crowd "Aunt IRMA visits" is appropriate then?

Re:Bad Title

[Gordonjcp]

Yeah, there's a difference alright.

But they are both funded by wealthy right-wing Americans, so they do have some similarities.

Re:Bad Title

[sm62704]

"Soulskull" is Arthur Dent's slashdot name. It's Thursday, give him a break!

Re:Bad Title

[sm62704]

Wilipedia is often inaccurate. I mean, would you cite Wikipedia on your doctorate thesis? Instead, you should cite the real Uncyclopedia!
"Noy ya lissen ta me ba, thur's ten poynds o' saimtex under yer carr, an' it's gonna fockin' bloe ya ta kingdom come!" ~ Oscar Wilde

Re:Bad Title

[Anonymous Coward]

U D A - All the way!
fuck the pope and the RIAA.

Re:Bad Title

[red star hardkore]

The IRA are the military wing of Sinn Fein. Sinn Fein is a marxist party. The opposite of right-wing.

Re:Bad Title

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference? One's evil. The other is Irish. And what's the difference?

Re:Bad Title

[Peil]

To be a little more clear the Provisional IRA carried out most of the fighting/terrorism since the early 70's, the original IRA having decided to lay doen its arms to pursue their interpretation of marxism.

Try looking online for a documentary called 'Age Of Terror â" 10 Days Of Terror' broadcast on 21st April on BBC 2, a very interesting account of the Rememberance day bombing and the gun running from Libya.
The most chilling part was a member of the police force also revealed that the IRA planned a simultaneous attack on a Boys' and Girls' Brigade parade at the border village of Tullyhommon a few miles away from Eniskillen, but the bomb failed to go off.

Re:Bad Title

[sumdumass]

You forgot to add,

IRMA's goal is to extort money from people and control access to content

IRA's goal was to expel the British occupiers which according to most who like to bash bush from the england side of the pond, is justifyable like when it is insurgents from Iraq.

Re:Bad Title

[red star hardkore]

I'm not defending the scumbags, just stating that they are left-wing rather than right-wing.

fight it

[DKP]

fight it all the way and if the iaa wants software installed then let them pay for it not that it would work.

Re:fight it

[mwvdlee]

Sueing somebody to force them to buy a product... isn't that kinda, I dunno, anti-competitive?

Re:fight it

[L4t3r4lu5]

IANAL, but I thought threatening legal action (and engaging in it for not conforming) into parting with funds for a particular purpose was Demanding Money with Menace.

Extorsion, maybe?

Re:fight it

[zoney_ie]

Also ironic in this instance. The ISP involved is the former state telco Eircom, which the govt. screwed up the privitisation of such that they have a monopoly on last-mile, exchanges, etc. and have ensured LLU and DSL reselling is not something other telcos can make money out of (the few "players" in that game are just spending millions to "buy" customer base, with a step 2: ... before step 3: profit).

Actually, I would probably classify Eircom as vastly more evil than the Irish version of the RIAA (IRMA - Irish Recorded Music Association).

Re:fight it

[ouder]

By suing the ISP they can anger a customer and a distributor at the same time.

Re:fight it

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Eircom are a stumbling block in the proliferation of broadband in Ireland. they have a strangle hold on infrastructure here. I myself am limited to a 2Mb connection because the line from our house to the exchange (5 years old) is crap.

having said that, 2 fingers to the RIAA.

Let me guess...

[mudshark]

Paul McGuinness is behind this?

Smells like standard record company BS

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Irish version of the RIAA thinks this software is sooooo great ans sooooo necessary, why don't they buy it and give it to the ISPs?

Re:Smells like standard record company BS

[calebt3]

Because that would make sense.

Re:Smells like standard record company BS

[kpainter]

Well, it sure doesn't smell like Irish Spring!

Re:Smells like standard record company BS

[Tuoqui]

Because the ISPs don't want their shitty ass code cluttering up their networks. So they need to use the legal system to try and strongarm them (read: Force by means of court order) into installing this crappy glorified spyware onto their networks.

Re:Smells like standard record company BS

[MightyMartian]

Because they seem to think there's a business opportunity in a new line of extortion revenue based on a faulty software package that won't do what they claim it will.

Re:Smells like standard record company BS

[aproposofwhat]

we will never see deep packet inspection inside providers, as this is absolutely expensive to do an no provider would do it without coercion

I wouldn't be too sure - the infrastructure needed for Phorm's 'targeted advertising' could easily be adapted to inspect more of the data - it already intercepts HTTP requests, and it's not a great step from there to data inspection (though the lookups are going to cost a lot of latency).

Once the ISPs allow themselves to be corrupted by Phorm, expect to see packet inspection proliferate massively.

Re:Smells like standard record company BS

[L4t3r4lu5]

Expect /. to have significantly less hits due to contract cancellations.

Re:Smells like standard record company BS

[Ralph Spoilsport]

I agree with you, and, I would add this:

That the idea of file sniffing software is sheer idiocy, prima facie. Why? Because all you have to do is "compress" the mp3 into a zip file, and bingo: no more mp3, just a zip, and if they start opening up every zip that's emailed or set up in the net, the entire interweb thingie would grind to an instant halt.

All of this was dealt with at Napster (I used to work there) and we scenario-ised all different combinations of spoofing and clamping etc. We thought of going after file names, so then we started writing names in 1337, Nirvana-SmellsLikeTeenSpirit.mp3 started popping up as n1rv4n4-sm3lzL1| That was also circumventable by editing the file using a destructive editor and recompressing it. Even still the system would catch a massive number of files. We were concerned about people skipping around Napster because Napster was developing a billing client. The efforts did not mollify the RIAA and the rest was history.

Since then, I've thought of compressing the files into a zip, and if there was a client that could autozip-unzip on the client side, then it wouldn't affect the network at all.

Also, there was a program called metasynth that could turn sound into an image file (like a BMP), and then people could trade BMP files that could then be turned into audio.

So, the research is still there, and all it takes is an open source free-as-in-beer translational file system to circumvent ANY sniffer from the RIAA, especially now that drive space is practically free. Such a translator would take the contents of an audio file, translate it into a BMP and then automatically compressed into a zip. At the other end, the translator takes the zip, unzips it, and then translates the BMP into an mp3. Done. The zip file is left in a "sharing" folder, and the mp3 is autoloaded into iTunes. Today's Multiprocessor machines would make this kind of computation a trivial task.

If anyone decides to build such a thing, please be kind and let me know by naming it "Pushover", because that's what it does. Personally I have neither the time, inclination, or skillset to program such a thing. Next life time, maybe.

There is NO way the RIAA can win this. They are fighting a losing battle. The ONLY way they can win is by getting in with the major ISPs (ATT, SBC, Verizon, Sympatico, Rogers, etc.) and collude with them to enforce selective traffic shaping/blocking. Some ISPs are already doing that to optimise bandwidth - all it would take is something more organised. Which is why Net Neutrality is so crucial.

RS

Re:Smells like standard record company BS

[JCSoRocks]

The whole thing is ridiculous. I can't think of a time when ISPs have been responsible for what their users are doing. Are we going to start suing ISPs that are providing hackers with access to the net? pedophiles? old men looking for high schoolers? political dissenters? You might as well start suing the government every time someone steals something and then escapes using a road.

Re:Smells like standard record company BS

[d34thm0nk3y]

Also, there was a program called metasynth that could turn sound into an image file (like a BMP), and then people could trade BMP files that could then be turned into audio.

Hell, UUencode has been around for ages. For the younguns it was how you encoded binary data into text so you could send a file via Usenet or email.

Re:Smells like standard record company BS

[darthflo]

You don't even need all that BMP/ZIP layers, encrypted BitTorrent is a way better solution to the same problem and currently being used.
Also, unlike your solution, ISPs cannot realistically crack encrypted torrent traffic and check it's contents for illegalities (some governments probably have the necessary kind of processing power on their hands and may be using it for military intelligence, but as of now that's quite far from some personal filesharing); metasynth-style unpacking would be within their reach.

Here's the only two things you need to know

[TubeSteak]

While the record companies had taken various measures to discourage record piracy, including public awareness campaigns and legal actions against individuals engaged in piracy, these had proven very costly and time consuming and were not enough to stop people using illegal services on a broad scale. AND

[Eircom] ... had no legal obligation to monitor traffic on its network. There isn't much more to say.
The ISP has no obligation and the *AA can't seem to "educate" themselves out of their problem.

Re:Here's the only two things you need to know

[Kjella]

Pointy-Haired Boss: I don't see anything that could stand in our way.
Dilbert: Sanity? Reality? The laws of physics? Never underestimate a manager that think he's missing out on the big bucks. I assume they'll go by some sort of "willful ignorance" logic, that Eircom is purposely not monitoring to learn any specifics of copyright infringement. It's a rather weak argument though...

Re:Here's the only two things you need to know

[Skrynesaver]

Actually an alternative defence for Eircom could be that their network is crap, their broadband rollout has been pathetic and if they were doing their job properly IMRO would be seeing waaay more music downloads.

Seriously though this one just isn't a runner, the various record label umbrella groups have realised they can't go after every 12 year old with computer access (or in the US case suing indigent men for their shopping trolleys) so they will try to tackle the access, however any company that put this cruft on their servers would lose their subscriber base overnight as people fled to other providers.

Re:Here's the only two things you need to know

[The_DoubleU]

Actually an alternative defence for Eircom could be that their network is crap, their broadband rollout has been pathetic and if they were doing their job properly IMRO would be seeing waaay more music downloads. I'm with NTL in Ireland, but I could say the same :)

Re:Here's the only two things you need to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Digital Rights Ireland is campaigning against this.

Excerpt:

Privacy

This technology will result in ISPs being obliged to monitor everything internet users do â" in effect, acting as private censors for all users without any warrant or even mere suspicion that a particular user is doing something wrong. If the music industry has evidence that a particular person is sharing copyrighted files then they can and already do take action against that person. If they do not have that evidence then they should not be demanding that ISPs monitor innocent users.

Cost

Estimates based on other jurisdictions suggest that, if successful, this action will cost Eircom at least â3,300,000 per year â" which will be reflected in higher costs for Irish broadband subscribers. It is remarkable that the music industry â" private, profit making companies â" now seek to have Irish broadband users pay for the costs of its enforcement. (This figure is based on the Belgian case Sabam v. Tiscali where it was found that using Audible Magic to filter would cost approximately â6 per user per year. Eircom has approximately 560,000 broadband subscribers. Of course, this may be a complete underestimate of the costs if Eircom has to redesign its network to facilitate monitoring.)

Overblocking

This filtering technology is not perfect. Some copyrighted files will slip through the net. But more worryingly, many perfectly legitimate files are likely to be blocked. Files that are out of copyright, excerpts used for documentary purposes, even home videos where music is playing in the background â" all of these are likely to be blocked by this technology, infringing freedom of expression.

Damage to Irish knowledge economy

This action will harm Irelandâ(TM)s reputation as a web- and internet friendly country. By requiring companies to police the actions of their users â" a duty which they are not subject to in other jurisdictions such as the US â" it will harm inward investment and encourage technology firms to relocate elsewhere.

Futility

The music industryâ(TM)s proposal is technically very easy to circumvent. If implemented, Irish file sharers will simply move to encrypted peer to peer systems, which are impossible for the ISP to monitor. This will completely negate any benefit of the system while still leaving Irish consumers to pay its costs.

Function creep

Once a system is in place to monitor internet users and prevent them from transmitting certain things, what other interests might like to take advantage of it? Who else might like to block certain files? The Church of Scientology, for example, has a track record of trying to silence criticism by claiming that its copyright has been infringed, while the makers of electronic voting machines have also abused copyright law to try to conceal flaws in their technology.

Link:
http://www.digitalrights.ie/2008/03/11/irma-v-eircom-why-isp-filtering-for-the-music-industry-is-a-bad-idea/

Re:Here's the only two things you need to know

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The ISP has no obligation and the *AA can't seem to "educate" themselves out of their problem.

This is Ireland. We don't so much have laws here as we have sort of "tribal customs". Over here, even if a law is struck down as unconstitutional, the supreme court has ruled that you can still be imprisoned under it. It used to be illegal for Irish ISPs to hold certain types of data for more than about six months, I believe. It was at one time discovered that Eircom, the ISP mentioned in this article (effectively the Irish AT&T), was retaining this information for three years, the government passed a bill making it mandatory to store it for at least three years.

That's how things work in this country. We're kind of a one party state meets banana republic meets laissez faire capitalism. Basically, laws here are universally subject to interpretation and arbitrary revision. That's when they're not being ignored outright. If Eircom agrees to the censoring and monitoring, then it will become legal. If it doesn't, it won't. I doubt the IRMA is anywhere near as well connected or influential as Eircom representatives, so unless they're willing to pay up, in either bribes or in financing the system, this surveillance simply isn't happening. Anyway, we're all under surveillance anyway, so this entire issue is rather moot.

Re:Here's the only two things you need to know

[Em Adespoton]

...however any company that put this cruft on their servers would lose their subscriber base overnight as people fled to other providers. Not really an option in Ireland; Eircom owns too much of the infrastructure -- pretty much EVERYTHING internet-related goes through at least one Eircom switch. In order to avoid Eircom, you have to leave Ireland.

Re:Here's the only two things you need to know

[marnues]

We're kind of a one party state meets banana republic meets laissez faire capitalism. Just for clarification, isn't that roughly what fascism is? This question is for educational purposes only.

Re:Here's the only two things you need to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, laws here are universally subject to interpretation and arbitrary revision. That's when they're not being ignored outright. I agree, but I think you're overly pessimistic about it: Irish history (and history in general) has taught us (I'm Irish...) that belief in the rule of human law is a fool's game, since it's generally the most corrupt, power-hungry and despicable people who write the law in the first place. So Irish people don't respect the law, and that's a good thing: copyright infringement is certainly illegal in Ireland, but does the average Irish guy, including the average garda (garda: irish police officer) give a crap - hell no! We'll continue to do exactly what we think is right, and fuck the law - illegal is not immoral, and the only way you'd get Irish people to stop copying music is to convince them it's immoral, and the boat sailed on that a long time ago.

Differentiating legal downloads

[Anonymous Coward]

If this software does what it claims, a user who legally downloads a song file which they purchase from an online music store would have their connection terminated when the system detects the 'fingerprint' of the file in transit, just the same as a non-legal download, yes?

Re:Differentiating legal downloads

[Skapare]

I'm sure the software has a list of legal download sites. Those would get a pass. And most of those downloads won't be using a P2P sharing protocol, so that's another way around. It doesn't have to be perfect (e.g. get 100% of all illegal downloading). It just has to do enough to discourage people from continuing the practice. Of course the die-hards will figure out how to fool it or bypass it, or crack into the machines running it and change it around to do something else like block certain pro-corporation political sites.

Re:Differentiating legal downloads

[sm62704]

I'm sure the software has a list of legal download sites.

And I'm just as sure that the list can't be comprehensive. What if ten new sites pop up tomorrow? What of sites selling non-IRMA indie music, which is the RIAA/IRMA's real enemy and the one they really want destroyed?

The fight against file sharing isn't to keep you from hearing Britney Spears, all you have to do to hear her is turn on the radio. And that radio stream is easily sampled. The fight against file sharing is a fight against their commercial competetion - the indies.

Honda car used to steal my parking spot!

[Kenja]

All Honda cars should be forced to use my special "No park in my spot" tires to prevent this in the future. Only $999 per set of four!

Re:Honda car used to steal my parking spot!

[Solandri]

Police sue automakers for allowing drivers to exceed the speed limit.

Parents of child porn victims sue camera manufacturers for allowing pedophiles to make child porn.

Corporate hacking victims sue computer manufacturers for providing hackers tools to break into their systems.

Violent crime victims sue weapons manufacturers for enabling criminals to harm them.

China sues Western democracies for giving its citizens subversive ideas of freedom and civil liberties.

Re:Honda car used to steal my parking spot!

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporate hacking victims sue computer manufacturers for providing hackers tools to break into their systems.

If my memory serves me correctly Germany already made "hacking tools" like nmap illegal.

It's much like banning hammers because someone decides to beat a person to death with it.
How about we eliminate hard objects altogether, then nobody can steal cars!

Re:Honda car used to steal my parking spot!

[Anonymous Coward]

This could also come with a great new troll...

Buy your "Honda No park in my spot" tires you bunch of cock smoking tea baggers!

Re:Honda car used to steal my parking spot!

[Ceiynt]

Violent crime victims sue weapons manufacturers for enabling criminals to harm them. Already happened, numerous times in the US. Also, people who injury themselves while breaking and entering have sued homeowners for damages, and have won in the US.

Re:Honda car used to steal my parking spot!

[c00rdb]

Are you talking about the Wet Bandits? I'm surprised they even survived the first time, let alone in NY when they tried to rob Duncan's Toy Chest!

Re:Honda car used to steal my parking spot!

[Vr6dub]

Do you have a source for that claim? I've heard the same thing but have never been able to find any conclusive evidence. It's fun for people to repeat because it makes our legal system sound so screwed up. http://google.com/answers/threadview?id=217602

Re:Honda car used to steal my parking spot!

[Em Adespoton]

How about we eliminate hard objects altogether, then nobody can steal cars! True... you can't steal something that doesn't exist ;) Or do you have a patent on a new car design made out of 100% soft components?

Then again, the smothering lawsuits would begin, and you'd have to eliminate soft objects that can smother as well....

Lets burn our public libraries

[CrazyJim1]

People are using books that they didn't even pay for there. I think this is causing a big impact on book sales. More authors would make books if it wasn't for the Library. It is in the public's best interest to burn their libraries.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[wvmarle]

Not a very apt comparison.

Books from the library are read there, or borrowed to be returned later. The number of copies in existence remains the same (unless people go to a copy machine to copy the book - a non-trivial and fairly costly operation, probably more costly than going to the book shop and buy yourself a copy).

Libraries can be compared to music/video rental shops (many book libraries also do this). Those disks are rent or lent, and are returned a week or so later.

Music and video downloads (and e-books) however DO increase the number of copies. And copying is as good as free in effort and cost.

Of course the publishers also complain about libraries (not so much, they are considered a given due to their long historical existence), and video rentals. They claim it also lowers sales. Just like reselling used copies of books/CDs/DVDs. But no matter what, on-line file sharing is in a league on its own.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[mr_matticus]

Of course they paid for them. It's a public library, paid for through municipal taxes and whatever endowment scheme your local library uses to supplement that tax income.

The materials in the libraries are all duly licensed for lending, through a combination of statutory exceptions in the US Code, and, where applicable or gapped, through licensing with the copyright holders permitting such use.

The copyright holders have indeed been compensated, both through license payments from libraries (often on DVDs and CDs and similar materials by acquiring the more-expensive rental copies [which often include media replacement]) and through the inherent copyright law bargain.

Incidentally, many library collections include video and audio content licensed for commercial use, which is a great way for a community organization (say, a church or club) to put on such a performance without having to buy a license or negotiate one with the rightsholders. You just check out the video with the commercial license and you're good to go. Your tax dollars at work, literally.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[Anonymous Coward]

The Library has paid for one copy of the book, which does in the end withhold possible profits from authors and publishers as hundreds of people can read the book for free. If a book costs $20, and one hundred people read it at a library instead of buying it, the publisher is out $2000. Libraries don't pay a special version of the book licensed for lending, publishers are not compensated any more for books going to libraries then to anyone else. Multiply that across libraries in every minor city across the United States, that starts to add up to real money.

In addition, people generally only read books once, whereas they listen to music over and over again and still get the some enjoyment out of it. Which means that even if I check out a CD from the library, there is still incentive for me to buy the music because I'll want to listen to it again. There is rarely incentive for me to buy the book after I've read it at the library.

The point is, it's been decided that books and literacy should be available to everyone, not just those with the money to afford it, and so laws have been passed that don't just allow it, but encourage and set up the system. Does it mean that publishers and authors make less money? Probably so, but the good has been weighed as far more important then the bad.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[mr_matticus]

The Library has paid for one copy of the book No, usually libraries buy many copies, particularly for important or popular works. Those copies wear rapidly and will slowly be pulled from circulation. Eventually, the library's collection will stabilize at a lower number, lasting a long time. The kinds of books ordered individually are not ones that sell tremendously well to begin with. Multiplied across the thousands of libraries in the country, most specialty books are quite buoyed by library sales--sales they would not have otherwise made because the market for the book is limited, or the cost of the production run is more than most of the market would spend on it.

which does in the end withhold possible profits from authors and publishers as hundreds of people can read the book for free. No. Reading the book is always free. Possession of the copy is what costs money, and it's not free. Running even a small library system costs millions of dollars per year--it's more like social insurance, spreading cost instead of risk. And again, many of these books rely on libraries for a significant portion of their revenue in the first place--revenue that would not be replaced by customers if libraries were to vanish suddenly.

Libraries don't pay a special version of the book licensed for lending, publishers are not compensated any more for books going to libraries then to anyone else No kidding--that's because there's a statutory license for libraries. It's part of the negotiated copyright bargain. Furthermore, there was a time when libraries did pay more for the books. Not for licensing, but for library binding. Today, mass production and lower overall product quality just means that libraries just replace worn out copies more frequently instead of investing more in a longer-lasting copy to start (also because people are far more abusive with library materials than in past years).

There is rarely incentive for me to buy the book after I've read it at the library. If that's the case, then there isn't incentive to buy it, independent of the existence of a library. A library offers a large collection available to all at a lower cost, because everyone contributes a fixed amount. There's absolutely no reason to expect that net sales would increase without libraries. My city's library materials budget is approximately $7 million annually. I sincerely doubt that if that number dropped to zero, that people would offset that loss with increased spending. I think instead that people would just read less. The people who buy books might even buy less without a library, especially given the cost of investing in them--and they are an investment, except trade paperbacks.

laws have been passed that don't just allow it, but encourage and set up the system. Libraries predate the library exceptions to copyright law. We have decided as a society that libraries are a valuable resource, and we protect them in copyright law and other places because that's part of the social contract in granting copyrights. It's not accurate to say that publishers lose money to libraries, because copyright wouldn't exist without libraries to ensure that knowledge doesn't get bound up in copyright. It's explicit in the simple passage of the Copyright Act, and contrary to popular Slashdot belief, it is still a functional bargain.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[mariushm]

You're right, all books do return to the library.

However, some people prefer to read a book in their own time, not limited to a specific amount of time that libraries allow.

So what do they do?

Well, for example, you go out and buy 500 sheets of A4 paper, costing your about 3 dollars, and you use a Xerox machine to copy your book for about 2-3 more dollars.

So, yes, I've spent 5 dollars, but if I didn't do this I would have spent about 25 dollars on the buying it in the first place.

Let's not go into medicine related books that are about 800 pages and cost in my country about 200 dollars. We have students here that buy one copy and then use it to make copies of the book because 200 dollars is about two-three months rent in the university housing here.

No, you shouldn't feel bad about this because you're not actually stealing from the author... from those 25 dollars about 2 dollars goes to the author, same as in music and movies.

The author of the book would make more money if you would be able to buy it directly from him, but as it is right now from 25 dollars about 5-7 dollars are distribution costs (to cover for books that don't sell,books damaged and not saleable, transportation to stores), 5-10 dollars are the profit of the retailer,5 dollars go to the publishing house, a few dollars goes to the printing company and the rest goes to the author.

So you see, as with music, the same happens with the books. The only difference is that it's much easier for people to copy music than to copy books, it takes more time to copy a book than a music file.

The conclusion is simple... music and movie companies have to change their distribution model and face the facts. By cutting out the middle men (retailers, distributions) they'll be able to lower the prices and people will no longer be interested in pirating the music, they'll prefer to get music at a high quality they usually get from CDs and DVDs.
Buyers will always prefer the easiest, unencumbered method of buying what they want. Give them the possibility and they will buy.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[howlingmadhowie]

if i consider the films i've downloaded, i can't say i've watched many of them more than once. and with most of them, i'd have been pretty annoyed had i spend money on them.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, you shouldn't feel bad about this because you're not actually stealing from the author... from those 25 dollars about 2 dollars goes to the author, same as in music and movies."

So, wouldn't that equate to taking $2 of the author's money? I'm not following your logic here...

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[psychodelicacy]

So the solution is to send two bucks direct to the author!

I guess, though, that the author will have difficulty in getting a new edition published or in getting a contract for another book if the first one didn't appear to be popular - which is how it will appear if one copy is bought and then Xeroxed twenty times. So you're damaging the author's ability to do his job in the future, as well as depriving him of current royalties.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[bumburumbi]

Books from the library are read there, or borrowed to be returned later. The number of copies in existence remains the same (unless people go to a copy machine to copy the book - a non-trivial and fairly costly operation, probably more costly than going to the book shop and buy yourself a copy).
Many library patrons prefer to photocopy a page or two from a magazine rather than borrow it from the library or buy a copy at the bookstore. Photocopying instructions for knitting a particular sweater will only cost a few cents but saves a trip to the library to return the magazine and you can write notes on your copy if you need to make any changes.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[mochan_s]

One book or DVD in a public library can be read by hundreds of people.

Most people who watch a movie after downloading it will delete the movie or delete the ebook after reading it.

File sharing is very similar to a public library. For popular items, the file maybe in simultaneous use. When the item is not very popular but under non-zero use, it is very likely that the probability of simultaneous use is close to zero. At this point, the public library and file sharing have almost the same characteristics.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[moosesocks]

These are also the same people ferociously fighting against consumers copying/renting/lending digital media.

I'd be fairly happy even if they allowed some sort of digital public library to be set up...

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[mariushm]

Well, they're probably not even taking those 2 dollars. If the book has no success (as in sells few copies) the author won't make any money.

I'll give you a real example here, that happened to me when I went to university.

In order to get promoted and be able to earn titles like "Doctor Honoris Causa", a teacher is required to have some works of his published, the minimum being at least three books printed and about 10-15 articles in different magazines.

So, the teacher talks to a printing house, which says they have no guarantee that the book will sell, so the author has to pay for the printing process.

If a book costs 6 dollars, the publishing house requires the author to pay 3.5-4 dollars for each book.

The teacher obviously wants the have the book published, he goes on and publishes the minimum of about 250 books and then he wants to get his money back.

So what does he do?

At the start of a semester, he tells his students that at the end of the semester there will be a yes and no test with questions from his book, and students will be allowed to use the book at the exam, but not copies of the book.

The second edition of the book, the third and so on, belongs to the publishing house, they have the rights, and if the publishing house won't get their money back for the printing process, the author won't get any money in the future.

This is probably the best scenario, where the author can move the books, has guaranteed buyers for the books.

Not all authors afford to pay in advance, which makes them reach an agreement to not receive any payment until the publishing house gets all the money back. This may never happen (Hollywood accounting).

The author would make more money if you just send him a 5$ check in the mail.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe this means that we need a Public Music Library?

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[sm62704]

The materials in the libraries are all duly licensed for lending

There is no such thing as "licensed for lending" and you don't have to be a public library to lend a book. I can loan any of my books to anybody I want. I can loan my CDs to anybody I want. They are mine - I own them.

The entire concept of copyright has been turned upside down since the advent of computers. A license is a license to copy and distribute - the author licenses the work to the publisher, who pays the author for each copy made and sold.

But computer software started out incredibly expensive, running on incredibly expensive machines. When there are only a hundred GargantuaMainframe100s in the world and they cost ten million dollars each to build, you license the end user; the owner of the GargantuaMainframe100. You write a contract for its IT department or fiscal people to sign.

But somebody wound up making the equivalent of the GargantuaMainframe100 affordable for the average joe. Instead of a hundred of them there are a hundred million of them. And the sooftware manufacturers try to keep the same paradigm that they had when there were only 100 copies of that software needed, that of the end user license.

Only they neglected to have a contract. Now people assume that there is a "license agreement" on their OS, word processor, book, or music CD.

Sometimes evolution produced daisies, and sometimes it produces snakes. With law, it usually comes up "snakes" without devine intervention (legislation).

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[sm62704]

The people who buy books might even buy less without a library

I know I certainly would. It would be incredibly stupid to just buy some random book from some random author that the odds are you won't get through the first chapter on. But if I've borrowed a book and found it enjoyable, I'll buy books by that author.

This is actually why the RIAA labels let radio play their music and want to kill P2P and why indie bands usually have free MP3s on their websites.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[jedidiah]

Quite so.

Book authors have the same problems that musicians do.

Not only may they be in debt to the publisher for an advance that never
matches the expected royalties, lesser known authors have to go out and
market the book on their own dime and be their own salesmen.

Writers will gladly tell you how thankless it is to not be Stephen King.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[jedidiah]

Public libraries have been lending music probably since before you were
born. Some of us here have probably been borrowing music from public
libraries since before you were born.

It's been done, just not digitally.

Although it would be pretty trivial to go into a library listening booth
with a headphone splitter and a digital recording device.

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[mounthood]

Not a very apt comparison.

Books from the library are read there, or borrowed to be returned later.

... Those disks are rent or lent, and are returned a week or so later.

I'm going to the library after work today, to get a CD (Pink Moon), which I'll be returning right after I rip it. Your argument is literally true, but misses the point. Library's are used to make illegal copies. The RIAA could argue for shutting them down, but our society has objectives other then making the most money.

(Besides, if we burn the libraries won't our illiteracy problems go away?)

Re:Lets burn our public libraries

[mr_matticus]

There is no such thing as "licensed for lending" and you don't have to be a public library to lend a book. You do if you're a commercial operation, and yes, there are separate licenses for multimedia works for renting out. They are not required for books and periodicals because there is a statutory license.

I can loan any of my books to anybody I want. Yes, you can. You are not a business, though, non-profit or otherwise.

Only they neglected to have a contract. Now people assume that there is a "license agreement" on their OS, word processor, book, or music CD. They neglected to do no such thing, and the assumption is usually unnecessary because there is indeed a license agreement on their OS and word processor. There is also a license agreement on the book and music CD--a statutory one called Title 17.

"Obvious ways"?

[Damon Tog]

The two "obvious ways" to defeat Audible Magic (as listed in the article) do not seem very promising to me. If large numbers of filesharers begin to send huge transfers amounts of data over SSL, it's going to be pretty noticeable. In this day of ISP "traffic shaping," I wouldn't be surprised to see SSL throttled down to the point where transferring large files becomes painfully slow. The second strategy is not currently possible (as the article itself states). It goes on to admit that future OS upgrades would be required. I'm sure Microsoft will be more than happy to modify their TCP/IP stack to help make filesharing as easy as possible.

This technology is not foolproof, but it does require filesharers to jump through additional hoops to distribute files. Hardcore filesharers will no doubt toil obsessively to workaround the issue, but some casual downloaders may conclude that the hassle and risks associated with filesharing is becoming greater than the costs of paying $0.89 to get the song from Amazon, etc.

Eliminating %100 of copyright infringement is not a requirement for the RIAA to regard its strategy as successful. Simply making the process risky and aggravating enough that most people will switch to paying for music is enough. Each generation of this cat and mouse game between the "pirates" and the RIAA has resulted in an increased compartmentalization of p2p networks. Sure the "hydra" will grow more heads and live on, but it's hard to ignore that something that could immediately be located and downloaded on Napster in the Year 2000 now frequently takes time to hunt down and leech via bittorent.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[timmarhy]

it's easy to make a p2p app too much of a moving target for any monitoring software to prevent.

first step is to encrypt, when you encrypt something it's not possible to tell it's encrypted, you just can't read whats there. the only way to tell it's encrypted is to monitor a port. this is where you could introduce port hoping, where you use a standard https port to do a handshake where you and the tracker make a randomised set of port changes every 1 hour.

now i know what your going to say - the isp's software could start monitoring trackers and joining in and getting the port changes that way, but have you seen the number of torrents out there? i just don't think such a thing is possible.

I also think it's bullshit to claim it was easier to download a song in 2000, go on any of the dozens of torrent websites and you'll find anything you want in 2 seconds flat.

lastly, why should it be up to the isp's to monitor this? how the hell is it their problem? only luddites suggest isp's are responsible to people browsing kiddie porn or other sick shit, yet somehow it's different when it's the RIAA.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[msimm]

I'm sure Microsoft will be more than happy to modify their TCP/IP stack to help make filesharing as easy as possible.

Ya, good thing that's my only choice...

But seriously, how many additional hoops do you think ticking the SSL button is? And hey, it's conceivable that most popular torrent clients in the near future come defaulting to SSL. What do you think the result would be? Do you think the software developers would have to explain when SSL traffic begins to be shaped en mass or would people be more inclined to ask their ISP's? Maybe even change them?

I see a few simple twists and this whole fight can back-fire. You can't stand in the way of change.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't simply ZIPPING the mp3s or video files up defeat this as well? Audible magic has to snoop inside the packets and reconstruct parts of the Mp3 stream.

Simply sending the file in a bz2/zip/targz would prevent trivial packet/mp3 reconstruction. The app container would have to download all the parts, uncompress, and then analyze, and this is nearly impossible.

That, or simply encrypt the file, and include the key as part of the download.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[Damon Tog]

"lastly, why should it be up to the isp's to monitor this? how the hell is it their problem?"

I half agree with you, but something like %30-50 of traffic on the internet is bittorrent, and a big chunk of bittorrent traffic is regarded as illegal activity (in most jurisdictions) by a good many folks. If there was a highway where %30-50 of the vehicles were widely known to be transporting something illegal, would you be surprised if the local authorities took an increased interest in that particular road and began to watch things a bit more closely?

"I also think it's bullshit to claim it was easier to download a song in 2000, go on any of the dozens of torrent websites and you'll find anything you want in 2 seconds flat."

You'll find them listed, but they aren't necessarily current or well-seeded. I'm not saying it's necessary *difficult* now, but it's not quite as easy or as immediate as it was back in the Good ol' Days of Napster. Those small increments of difficulty and gratification delay are increasingly significant when DRM-free music is now much easier to get legally and quickly.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[Divebus]

lastly, why should it be up to the isp's to monitor this? how the hell is it their problem? My take... because some recent litigation has mopped the courtroom floor with the RIAA over their John Doe "discovery" tactics. This is just a different vector for the same kind of attack and Ireland is small enough for a test case... or so they thought. It's time for ISPs, the EFF, Music stores of all kinds, Universities, The EU and State Attorney Generals in the U.S. to bring suit to disband the RIAA. This is extortion, plain and simple.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[CodeBuster]

I wouldn't be surprised to see SSL throttled down to the point where transferring large files becomes painfully slow Why would the ISPs want to do that? They can plausibly claim that they have no idea what exactly is contained in those encrypted packets and thus no legal obligation to do anything. I am not sure about the precedents (IANAL) but I seem to recall that the courts have already ruled substantially in favor of the ISPs as NOT being responsible for the activities of their individual users provided that they can meet the low bar of reasonable steps such as complying with subpoenas, responding to takedown letters, basic monitoring etc. Otherwise, why would the RIAA be wasting time suing individual users with little or no money when they could go after billion dollar corporations like Verizon, AT&T, and Sprint/Nextel? Throttling or otherwise breaking (practically impossible) encyrpted traffic for the potential benefit of third party businesses probably goes beyond the call of reasonable. The ISPs have a primary fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to earn the best return possible and spending money to placate third parties under legal threat without getting any compensation or benefit (other than perhaps relief from legal harrasment) in return probably doesn't pass muster.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[Kwirl]

The author did not imply those were the ONLY two methods to render the software worthless, merely the first two options at hand I'd imagine.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[calebt3]

If there was a highway where %30-50 of the vehicles were widely known to be transporting something illegal, would you be surprised if the local authorities took an increased interest in that particular road and began to watch things a bit more closely? Increased interest, sure. But forcing many of those cars to take other routes seems counterintuitive.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[WoollyMittens]

Throttling SSL traffic is not going to make businesses happy. "I'm sorry sir, you'll have to sync your extranet databases insecurely, or it'll take about 3 weeks."

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't need to send the audio files via SSL, just send the decryption key via SSL ( once per session ) and then send the audio files as regular, albeit encrypted, data.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[burgundysizzle]

... but something like %30-50 of traffic on the internet is bittorrent, and a big chunk of bittorrent traffic is regarded as illegal activity (in most jurisdictions) by a good many folks. If there was a highway where %30-50 of the vehicles were widely known to be transporting something illegal, would you be surprised if the local authorities took an increased interest in that particular road and began to watch things a bit more closely?

Using the logic at hand if the road was a toll road the government would be filing charges against the operator of the toll road for not making sure that all of the traffic on the road was in fact not transporting anything illegal.

Clearly in that particular case the onus would be on some level of government to ensure that the illegal transportation of goods was stopped not the operator of the toll road.

Since copyright is something granted to the copyright owner it should be up to the owner to enforce their copyrights.

Perhaps it would be less onerous for the ISPs if the copyright owners had to install their own appliances on specific networks. They would need to pay for the software, hardware, software and hardware support, traffic costs, and rack space (including power, aircon, etc) assocated with it. There would have to be limits on how many and where but the cost of enforcing copyrights should lay with the copyright owners as I have a feeling that they definitely want the enforcement costs to be paid for by anyone else but them.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[emjay88]

Do you think the software developers would have to explain when SSL traffic begins to be shaped en mass ...
They aren't getting shaped, it's the delay you experience while the ISP is cracking the encyption to make sure you aren't breaking the law.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point is right, but your facts are wrong.

You are confusing encryption with steganography (which by the way, we're fairly bad at). You can most certainly tell if data is encrypted. The problem is that if the ISP can't tell it from other encrypted data that users require to be low latency (like SSL connections to bank websites) they can't throttle it or users will get angry, and they'll lose too much business to other providers.

I can fileshare with any protocol that can send data. The ISP can't tell what I'm encrypting, just that it's encrypted. So as long as most users would get up in arms over traffic shaping of some type of encrypted traffic, I can fileshare using the same protocol.

So. To repeat. You CAN tell data is encryped, you CANNOT tell what is encrypted. The handshake alone gives you away, and if not that then the fact that your bits are statistically way too random is quite reliable for detection.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[syousef]

This technology is not foolproof, but it does require filesharers to jump through additional hoops to distribute files. Hardcore filesharers will no doubt toil obsessively to workaround the issue, but some casual downloaders may conclude that the hassle and risks associated with filesharing is becoming greater than the costs of paying $0.89 to get the song from Amazon, etc.

Garbage. Historically what happens is that a tool is created to automate getting past the file sharing restrictions which requires no more knowledge to use than any user oriented piece of software. Copyright extortionists then respond with more software, some of which cripples legitimate use. The process repeats and escalates.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[aj50]

However, BitTorrent and P2P in general do have some quite specific traits. Since they all rely on connecting to other peers to download, you can easily guess that someone's using bittorrent because they have ~40 open connections, most of which aren't doing much. Encryption does nothing to help this.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[Anonymous Coward]

lastly, why should it be up to the isp's to monitor this? how the hell is it their problem? only luddites suggest isp's are responsible to people browsing kiddie porn or other sick shit, yet somehow it's different when it's the RIAA. ISP's want to oppose this to their dieing breath, for exactly the reason you just listed.

As long as they do their 'common carrier' thing where they are simply providing a service and not trying to moderate that service they can't be held liable.

As soon as they start trying they open them selves up to potential liability, if they do this for the RIAA, soccer moms will go 'so why is there still kiddy porn on the net?' and then somebody will jump in and sue the ISP for not filtering the kiddy porn out, after all they can get the music right? Or remember the parents who sued myspace because their daughter met somebody dangerous through the site? What happens when everybody who suffers identity theft starts suing the ISP's because the ISP didn't filter out the spoofed page? Or the spam flooding their inbox. And best off all, botnets.

Of course the internet is fucking huge, and even the best software (and the RIAA's sure ain't it) will never catch everything. Any ISP cooperating with the RIAA on this will be committing suicide. By admitting they CAN, somebody will force them to DO, and once they start taking an active hand they become responsible for what they miss.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[JosKarith]

Mod parent up. Seriously, this cannot be said enough times. Things like this, seemingly reasonable things are the thin end of a very painful wedge. Perfect example for this - Ex-PM Tony Blair gave himself an effective "veto" to force through his promised ban on fox hunting against the objections of the House of Lords. Most people didn't object - Fox hunting is a horrible thing and needed to go. Later on he used the same mandate of power to take the country into an illegal war that we're still caught up in. No matter how ressonable something seems you have to look at the long term repercussions - how will somebody abuse it. Supposedly that kind of long term safeguarding is the job of the legislative branch of whichever government you happen to live under. Shame they seem to have forgotten it.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[ZeroExistenZ]

you can easily guess that someone's using bittorrent because they have ~40 open connections

Consider this:

• Several RDP Connections open to misc servers
• FTP upload/download with several threads
• Your fancy 2.0 website constantly calling home to "create a richer experience"
• Constant updates on your versioning software (as SVN) generating quite the traffic
• Your machine searching for networked PCs
• Browsing networked machines for some archived filed
• Outlook syncing
• An open IM with serveral conversations
• VPN connection to client hosting network
• ...

Now combine a few and you'll easily max out 40. You can't possible base yourself on the amount of connections.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[Anonymous Coward]

"So. To repeat. You CAN tell data is encryped, you CANNOT tell what is encrypted. The handshake alone gives you away, and if not that then the fact that your bits are statistically way too random is quite reliable for detection."

This is false. Statistical randomness does not require encryption. Any decent compression produces statistically random output because any remaining patterns could be condensed to improve the compression ratio. And remember that virtually everything transmitted over the internet -- pictures, movies, music -- is already compressed. Likewise, there isn't any reason why the handshake has to be so obvious. If the first thing you do upon connection is to transmit an AES key encrypted with the other party's public key, well, that's all the handshake you need and it's encrypted from the first byte.

There isn't any way to tell an encrypted data stream from some arbitrary unknown data stream. You may be able to sometimes tell conclusively when something *isn't* encrypted (white lists, etc.) but there really is no way to tell the difference between the random garbage of encryption and the seemingly random garbage of some novel protocol you haven't previously encountered.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Encryption doesn't need to do anything. Having 40 connections open isn't nearly the giveaway people claim it is. Yes, it's uncommon for a single program to open 40 connections like that. Now tell me how the ISP can tell which connections correspond to which programs. Having 40 connections open on one modem is *not* uncommon -- 5 IM sessions means 5 mostly idle long standing connections to the people I'm talking to + 1 for the login server, video games likewise generally open one connection to each of the other players, etc. And you can multiply that number by some arbitrary number of computers when you throw in a NAT router and put an entire family worth of computers behind one modem.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[lafiel]

So what? There is absolutely nothing about the protocol (and consequentially, traffic shape) that actually suggests copyright infringement. Using BT is not criminal.

The GP actually said this a number of times, but it seemed to fly right over your head.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[redxxx]

I'd rather people use the various encryption schemes built into bit torrent clients already, rather than letting the bad people win, and forcing me to download torrent where I can't tell what the actual content is and need to get the whole thing before I can check the quality.

Seriously man, screw that.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[mochan_s]

There is no inherent reason in P2P to open 40 connections. You can do P2P will 2 or 5 or 10 connections.

If the number of opened connections gets you into trouble, it's no problem changing it.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[sm62704]

If there was a highway where %30-50 of the vehicles were widely known to be transporting something illegal, would you be surprised if the local authorities took an increased interest in that particular road and began to watch things a bit more closely?

If that many people were breaking transportation law, I'd question the rationality of the existance of those laws.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[Damon Tog]

At least %30-50 of drivers have exceeded the speed limit or run a red light, yet we still have speed limits and traffic laws.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[sm62704]

If you didn't get pulled over and ticketed and most importantly didn't plead guilty or were found guilty then you did not, in fact, speed or run a red light. YOU ARE INNOCENT. If you're not proven guilty then you're innocent.

Do you have doicumentation that half of all drivers ignore red lights and speed limits? If it isn't documented it isn't true. Some people won't believe it even if it is documented (e.g. athiests believe that the bible is fiction).

And they did repeal the national 55 MPH speed limit, as well as alcohol prohibition. Two down, ten million to go.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[aj50]

I am well aware that there is nothing illegal about bittorrent and if you read my post again, you'll see that I never mentioned legality. I merely commented that using encryption does not automatically hide the fact that you are using P2P as the parent was suggesting.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[aj50]

Several RDP Connections open to misc servers Which won't consume nearly as much bandwidth as bittorrent

FTP upload/download with several threads Which will likely have constant traffic all the time they are open, unlike bittorrent where nodes get choked and unchoked

Your fancy 2.0 website constantly calling home to "create a richer experience" Which makes lots of short lived connections regularly, unlike bittorrent which tends to keep connections for as long as both peers are up

Constant updates on your versioning software (as SVN) generating quite the traffic Possibly, but wouldn't that only be to one (or a few) servers?

Your machine searching for networked PCs Which if you're local would use some sort of broadcast and never leave the local network. If you're checking that remote hosts are still up then that's probably just some regular ping packets.

Browsing networked machines for some archived filed Almost certainly only on a local network

Outlook syncing Possibly, I don't know anything about outlook's syncing

An open IM with serveral conversations Most IM programs pass messages through a central server unless you're sending files.

VPN connection to client hosting network Possibly, but probably only one connection

While I admit that there may be other activities which may have similar traffic patterns, I certainly wouldn't rely on encryption to being the silver bullet that stops ISPs throttling torrents.

Re:"Obvious ways"?

[darthflo]

All of the examples you mentioned will vary in how much data is sent at what point in the life of a connection. Remember, Pattern is Data:

RDP: Long-lasting connection, tends to transmit a comparably large amount every now and then (whenever you move your cursor).
FTP: Typically a data/control conn pair per server. Control isn't all that traffic-heavy while data will max out the connection for some amount of time. Only one of the two tends to be active at any given time.
Ajaxy websites: Loads of normal http requests, seldomly encrypted. Request pattern is always request - response.
Bittorrent: Tracker connection looks like a regular http request, happens in predictable intervals. Peer-to-peer traffic happens from/to ports >1ki and tends not to max out either endpoint's total bandwidth. Also, a lot of p2p-connections tend to be active at any given time, created shortly after a tracker connection.

I wouldn't quite trust myself to build a classification app, but a team of some developers, combined, if possible, with some data mining/pattern analysis experts shouldn't have too much trouble identifying most kinds of traffic on a typical ISP network.

Sued for not buying something?

[zmjjmz]

That's messed up.

Re:Sued for not buying something?

[Faylone]

Well, they wouldn't be the first to try it... http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/03/26/1431258.shtml

extortion.

[Bishop Ebonhand]

Doesn't this sound suspiciously like extortion? "buy our 'partner's' software/protection or we'll sue you for infringement" I wonder what kind of kickback they're getting on it?

Re:extortion.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Doesn't this sound suspiciously like extortion? "buy our 'partner's' software/protection or we'll sue you for infringement" I wonder what kind of kickback they're getting on it? Yeah, to me it sounds exactly like extortion. See what happened when Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, paid $76,000 in "protection" money to Dr. Jacobson's business partners.

Re:extortion.

[Max Littlemore]

Doesn't this sound suspiciously like extortion?

The slashdot summary does. TFA says that they are being sued for allowing file sharing on their infrastructure. The fact that they don't use filtering products such as (but not limited to) CopySense is evidence that they are complicit with file sharers.

I'm not saying they're not a pack of F**king idiots who are sure to lose in any justice system where the 'just' part of justice is meaningful, just pointing out that this is not exactly extortion.

Re:extortion.

[L4t3r4lu5]

"evidence that they are complicit with file sharers."

The same way Porsche is complicit with speeding, H&K are complicit with gang violence and murder, and Boeing are complicit with the World Trade Centre attacks?

I hope to God you're never called for Jury service.

Re:extortion.

[Helix666]

Nobody takes your drivel seriously either, so.... what's your point?

Re:extortion.

[Max Littlemore]

I never said I agree with them. Just said that's the case they're attempting to make. Paying attention doesn't make me an idiot.

Re:extortion.

[Svartalf]

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

I'm seeing enough to wish there were more RICO suits filed against the whole lot of them.

Re:extortion.

[One Childish N00b]

Ray Beckerman takes the time and effort to explain the legal ins and outs of the RIAA's position and that of the people it sues to those of us (i.e. the vast majority of people on this website, which is fully of highly intelligent people but very few qualified to comment on copyright law) who don't have the time or knowledge to try to comprehend the convoluted legalese in the huge stacks of court documents that come out of these cases. He is a shining light of actual knowledge of the issue in a sea of ad-hoc hysterical shouting from people who are at best uninformed and at worst the kind of pro-piracy everything-for-free freeloading assholes at whom you _should_ be directing your ire.

Yes, he comes down on the side of the people being sued by the RIAA, but haven't they got enough lawyers to be getting on with without Ray Beckerman? How does him not liking how the RIAA conduct themselves mean he is pro-piracy? There have been plenty of examples of legally qualified people - lawyers, university lecturers, law professors - who see problems with the RIAA's tactics and speak out against them - you can get more time in jail for copyright infringement than you can for rape or manslaughter, and that's patently rediculous to anyone with a mind, so it must drive to distraction anyone who went into the legal profession to look out for people rather than to make a big pot of money. I know you're probably just some idiot troll stirring up trouble, but I've seen a lot of people giving Ray a lot stick on here lately and it's simply uncalled for - you don't know Ray Beckerman's view on copyright. You don't know if he torrents every last CD on TPB or if he's never illegally downloaded a single byte in his life. He could be anywhere from sensibly but vigorously anti-piracy to a raging closet commie with six terabytes of pirated Britney Spears FLAC files, you just don't know. As far as I can see his problem lies with the rediculous penalties the RIAA tries to leverage against people, and with their cynical gaming of a legal system that he clearly still believes is supposed to be there for the reasons it was put in place - to ensure justice is done, not to prop up failing corporate business models.

He's that rarest of things, an honest lawyer. We need more like him. Don't start driving them away.

Re:extortion.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Don't start driving them away. Don't worry, One_Childish_N00b, no one's driving me away.

I'm sure the AC comment to which you were responding was a paid RIAA troll. (They don't like me much.)

By the way, the answer to the question is:

I've been working in copyright law since 1974. I am not against copyright law. It's the RIAA lawyers who are against copyright law, fighting hard to rewrite it in their own economic best interests despite a clearly written statute, decades of caselaw, and unanimity among legal scholars. See, e.g. their ludicrous "reconsideration" motion in Arista v. Does 1-21. They made a similarly ludicrous "reconsideration" motion in Atlantic v. Brennan, which the Judge rejected in short order, even though the defendant never even responded to the motion. The judge adhered to her previous, correct, decision.

Re:extortion.

[One Childish N00b]

Wow, that's a job I'd love to have. Impotently flailing my tiny balled fists at the unyielding screen in a terrible apoplectic rage at the truth and it's inherent liberal commie something-for-nothing bias.

Do you think they pay in MP3s?

Re:extortion.

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Wow, that's a job I'd love to have. You're not qualified. You have an ounce of self respect.

Right

[dissy]

If they wanted them to use the software so bad, they would give them a copy for free.
Greedy bastards

Re:Right

[Tsu-na-mi]

I wouldn't call this funny. I thought the same thing -- that if giving away hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars worth of their blocking technology would prevent the "billions of dollars" per year of losses in music sharing, it would be a no-brainer for the RIAA to offer their product for free. The only logical conclusions you can draw from their stance are that their losses are not so large as they claim, or their tech will not be effective in stopping it.

Re:Right

[Skapare]

Just because they can get it for free does not mean this will work. Imagine the level of traffic that has to run through it. Who is going to pay for that hardware? They should give them a turnkey box that does all the monitoring, one for each DSLAM.

Re:Right

[wvmarle]

Copyright holders should at least provide:

• The hardware to run it on,
• The software itself, including O/S and other required software,
• Money to pay for the energy bill caused by this hardware,
• Pay for the modifications to the network required by their system,
• Pay for any and all maintenance on their servers,
• Pay rent for the space used by their hardware.

I think that about sums it up. It is after all not in the network operator's interest to do this, nor is it a legal obligation for them to monitor their network. I can't think of any reason for a network operator to willingly install this software - it goes against the interests of the users, and does not give any advantage to the operator. Not even a legal immunity against subpoenas from the RIAA. It gives them nothing, it only costs money and inconveniences their users.

By the way, does anyone know what happened to "common carrier" status for ISPs? I do recall they were fighting for that. Installing this kind of sniffer systems completely goes against such a possible status.

Re:Right

[Detritus]

By the way, does anyone know what happened to "common carrier" status for ISPs? I do recall they were fighting for that. Installing this kind of sniffer systems completely goes against such a possible status.

Most ISPs wouldn't want it. Common carriers have to offer service to anyone who can pay for it. They can't pick and choose customers, or offer special rates to favored customers. Their rates are often regulated by the state or the federal government.

Re:Right

[monxrtr]

All the tracking software will do is add *more* bandwith loss than is already caused by "illegal" file sharing. The cost isn't anywhere near limited to the cost of the trafficking software. That software will just multiply the size of files, multiply the number of human man hours to continuously update the filters, and open huge legal liability for errors and degradation of service to all related profit and non-profit business on the internet. The cost of filtering and tracking is impossibly too large to be undertaken at any level of remote efficiency. It would be cheaper to predict with 100% accuracy the exact contents of every future post ever made by every single person combined on the internet on sites like /., and just as accurate !

Anybody who thinks filtering and monitoring can work, let alone the incorporated costs be recovered from consumer revenue, is a complete fool, who needs to go back to astrology & horoscope "school".

Following their fucked up lawsuits...

[Doug52392]

... Let's all file a class action lawsuit against the RIAA because they refuse to supply us all with something to guard us against illegal lawsuits by the RIAA!

Sales by litigation...

[WoollyMittens]

"Buy our snake-oil or we'll sue you!", how droll. Still, this is what ISPs are facing if they are against net-neutrality and the end-user will indirectly be stuck paying the legal bills.

That's nothing, my house was robbed...

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm suing my town and state because their roads were used to transport the stolen items away. That could have been easily avoided had they employed a security guard from my company at each of the intersections...

RIAA wants someone else to do the dirty work:

[Fluffeh]

A funny story that sort of shines out as an example here of how this all fits together:

In Australia in recent years there has been a push to stop selling cigarettes to under 18's. There are harsh fines and so forth to both the business and to the individuals who would do the selling.

One smart (or lazy/tricky depending on what way you look at it) cookie decided that as a shop owner who sold tabacco products, he was being asked to do regulatory work on behalf of the state government here who said that he shouldn't sell to minors. He took the government to court - and amazingly won the case. (I couldn't find anything on google though).

THe basic premise is the same here though, the RIAA and governments are imposing rules about what can and can't be done by users of something else, but they want someone else to do all the dirty work imposing the law. It's a bloody great way not to do any work if you ask me - by getting someone else to do it, and pay for it.

While I support copyright, I think that they should stop trying to get ISP's to do all the dirty work.

Re:RIAA wants someone else to do the dirty work:

[Anonymous Coward]

The case you are talking about is Dickenson's Arcade Pty Ltd v Tasmania [1974] HCA 9; (1974) 130 CLR 177 (1 April 1974).

See the full judgement here: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1974/9.html

The case wasn't about selling tobacco to minors, the case was about him collecting taxes for the Tasmanian state government without being paid for the work by the said government. Part of the bargain struck when the Colonies of Australia agreed to federate at the beginning of the 20th century was that individual states would not levy customs excises on goods or services, leaving that to the new federal government. This was to ensure that customs excises were uniform across the country, preventing a state from favouring its own producers over those of another.

The retailer in this case didn't actually win - in fact, he 'lost' in the High Court. Except that the bit that he was mostly interested in - not having to collect the taxes - was held to be unconstitutional so he did in fact 'win'.

Trouble is, this has very little relevance to the present article. This is about a private citizen using their legal rights (and large fund for paying lawyers) to threaten another private citizen into submission. There is nothing illegal about that. It may be immoral in some people's view, but when the legal system tries to enforce morality, it inevitably ends in farce.

Don't feel so bad for Eircom though - they are as good a representative for sleazy business practices as anyone else. Feel sorry for the Irish consumer who has to put up with this monopolist, and their paragon of free-market capitalism, Charlie McCreevy.

Re:RIAA wants someone else to do the dirty work:

[cliffski]

I don't see why this is so wrong. Unless you want 10% of the population to be government employees watching everything that goes on, corporations HAVE to work with government to avoid breaking the law.
It's illegal in the UK for kids to walk into a store and buy alcohol. And amazingly, the checkout workers are trained to not sell it to them. I'm sure they would find their job easier if they could operate like total drones and not bother looking at the customer, or asking for ID, but they have to do so.
Pretty much everyone accepts that as a reasonable thing to do. And they have other laws to obey too, you can't even buy more than a certain amount of headache pills in one go in the UK, and if you buy a TV, the store has to inform the TV license people where you live.
This is all a case of private companies having to report or prevent illegal activity. Theres nothing unusual here. The only reason people are upset is that the people who are losing out when copyright is infringed are private companies, whereas in the cases I list above, it perceived to be the public as a whole.
I can understand an argument against draconian copyright law, and understand how you would want to lobby to change that law, but don't kid yourself that there is anything unusual or unacceptable about the government requiring private companies to assist them in enforcing the law. This is nothing new.

People who want to change copyright law should lobby politicians and vote accordingly. Just breaking the law and complaining that its too easy to get caught isn't achieving anything. Real campaigners against unjust laws WANT to get caught so they can fight their case in public.

Re:RIAA wants someone else to do the dirty work:

[phorm]

In most cases, it seems to depend on the impact upon the business. It takes about 5 seconds to card somebody who might be underage. Installing and running dubious software into your place of business is a different matter. Similarly, the issues of government-mandated-logging tends to run into situations where to do so becomes a prohibitively-high addition to the business's margins.

RIAA, enough is enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it's not just slashdot. It's everyone. We're tired the whole thing. Like Y2K, your time came, and your time left. The whole thing from the RIAA standpoint is about as effective as until you're red in the facte, yelling, into the roaring ocean, "Hey you! Ocean! Stop trying drown me!" At the beginning of the thought, yeah, anyone who read this would think, "ok, ocean, beach." That is until they realize that you have no groud to stand on. Then they're with me in thinking, "wow, they don't have ground to stand on. They're gonna drown... Hmm, i wonder how long they're gonna tread there, before they just run out of energy?" RIAA, don't get me wrong, you had your time. You had the 15 minutes. As they say in this company, of music, "Sometimes you win, kid, and sometimes you lose."

That goes for the MPAA too. Kinda like the movie, "Titanic." Do you think they can see the ending of this? Taking on unthinkable numbers of downloaders, in every country in the world? How long do you think they can compete with Chinese bootleggers? (The Chinese, who make DVD's and burners, who operate countless warehouses! These warehouses are full of electronics, sitting there, waiting to ship? Think you'd notice a DVD burner that had been used before, just from outward appearance?)

The whole thing, including the corporate lawyers, reeks of elephant dung. Why? Because, in the case of the ant versus the elephant, the ant must be always looking up. He can only look up. To look out for falling elephant terds. Public opinion, being the ultimate elephant turd, to fall on any company. If they company were to survive, it might be able to wash off the appearance of the elephant dung, but it will smell of it... forever.

In the gaming industry, on network games, the situation would be a much more childish, yet more efficient conversation.

This is how it would play out:

Billy:: "Oh! PwNd some n00bs!" (While Billy just pwnd you, he was actually in someone else's sniper scope... But he didn't know it. Poor Billy became a victim of stranger danger...)

WannaBmyFriendASL:: "Awesome Billy! Wanna come have nacho's in my van? Your mom said it's alright. I've got a 360! we can play all night!"

This was the last time Billy would ever be able hear Michael Jackson's voice, without sobbing, silently to himself. The stories over folks. Give it one final push to tell the RIAA to shove it. Big enough public opinion shift, from there the ant is the victim of the bowel movement from hell.

Talk about a shit storm. I appologize for talking about fecal matter. That's all I can think about when I read about the RIAA, MPAA, and Michael Jackson. Except Mike wasn't into getting shit on... And R. Kelley was into urine. I'm gonna go smoke a cigarette while I try to kill the part of my brain that thinks about this.

Fighting Back

[hyades1]

It seems to me that a good way to fight the RIAA is to turn their whole numbers game on its head. Hit them with so many lawsuits that their legal strategy collapses.

Would it be possible for law schools in various countries to assemble "how to" kits that would allow average people to harass the big labels, individually or collectively, in this way? I'm not sure what grounds would be best to surpass the "nuisance" threshold and protect the litigants from charges of malicious prosecution (or whatever it might be called), but something must surely exist.

Can you imagine the drain on their financial and manpower resources if the RIAA suddenly found itself on the receiving end of 15,000 suits in 20 countries?

Re:Fighting Back

[Lunarsight]

Can you imagine the drain on their financial and manpower resources if the RIAA suddenly found itself on the receiving end of 15,000 suits in 20 countries? Another way to financially harm the RIAA is to stop purchasing music from the labels that comprise them. Sadly, for all the 'outrage' over the actions of groups like this, who actually gets off their butt and boycotts the parent labels?

Don't just stop there - do everything you can to reduce exposure for their artists. Shut off television sets playing music videos. Unplug radios playing their music. Flip over their CDs in music stores, or hide them behind other discs. Get your friends hooked on independent bands.. .. and last, but not least, MOD them to holy hell online!

Just think of all the spots on the internet where the big four try and promote their wares - many of those places have ratings systems. Take Youtube, for instance. Universal Music Group in particular posts a ton of music videos over there. Each of those videos you can rate between one star and five stars. Imagine if the entire Slashdot community were to descend upon Youtube and give all UMG videos the minimum rating.

Would it change the world? Probably not.

Could it potentially mess with their Youtube video ratings? You bet.

Here's a link to the Universal Music Group channel on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup

That's just one of many major record label channels there.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea. This is an example of how swarm computing can work. Think we can get a botnet to sue on behalf of the owners of the compromised machines?

In response to lawsuit

[Gauthic]

IRA bombs Irish RIAA

In other news....

[HomerJ]

I can sue ISPs, if they won't install software I wrote to protect copyrights that I owe? Wow, if there was every an answer to..

1) Write software to protect your copyrights

2) sue ISPs when they call shenanigans

3) PROFIT!! ..this is it!

stupid...

[Eth1csGrad1ent]

Its the equivalent of sueing a bus company because a passenger bought a ripped DVD at
a flea market before getting on board.

Its the equivalent of strip searching everyone leaving a flea market, just in case they bought a ripped DVD.

I'm sick of the MAFIAA/Patent Trolls etc. being able to circumvent existing laws that alrteady exist to prevent real world abuses simply because of two words "via computer".

Email vs snail mail
Snooping Traffic vs Phone wiretapping
Patented Algorithm vs Real Wold Business Practice

etc....etc....etc...ad nauseum

Oops. "commercial use" -- "public performance"

[mr_matticus]

The mind, it wanders.

Libraries often have content licensed for public performance, for churches, school teachers, and clubs to use.

For free?

[mr_lizard13]

Or they could just get it off bit-torrent.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

eircom sucks

[ionix5891]

Does anyone in ireland in their right mind use eircom for broadband?

their service is slow, their customer support consists of an annoying automated robot, and this ex-state monopoly has managed to hold back the development of broadband in this country by a decade, and then theres the very very expensive "line rental", sheesh

Re:eircom sucks

[Skrynesaver]

I got through to their customer support once, they had bought a company which had hosted the email for a domain I was looking after. As a result any mail sent from eircom to this domain got redirected to their alias.

I spent 3 days trying to get past their support line to someone who had a clue.
Seriously each time I had to explain to a numpty that it wasn't a problem with my Outlook settings as I used mutt and could I talk to their manager, everytime they resisted and everytime when I eventually got through to the manager they hadn't a clue either and couldn't give me a number for someone who did, eventually got a name from the Irish Linux Users Group list, but that was a very frustrating 3 days.

By the way I see their crappness as a defence in this case, "If we were doing our job properly there'd be loads more downloads"

Re:eircom sucks

[zoney_ie]

Just about anyone with DSL has no choice but to rely on Eircom. Most with non-Eircom DSL are just resold wholesale Eircom DSL. The downside is fixing Eircom-related problems if you are not an Eircom customer, there can be little your own telco can do for you in this instance. Even those on LLU exchanges are still relying on Eircom for the phone line. LLU is actually more expensive for other telcos than reselling Eircom DSL wholesale (guess who has complete freedom to arrange prices that way?) so LLU is still not rolled out in many places.

The only tech that can provide service levels comparable to DSL and doesn't require a phone line is Digiweb's "Metro", which uses DOCSIS cable broadband, but with each customer on a dedicated "line" with the signals shifted in frequency for wireless microwave transmission (you get an antenna with freq converter and normal cable modem attached). Metro is only available in certain areas however - Dublin, other cities and a handful of other locations.

Re:eircom sucks

[EvilIdler]

I remember Eircom. Ugh. A Norwegian company, Telenor, tried to buy shares in Eircom at some point, but I hope they failed. Telenor
is just as screwed up in many of the same ways Eircom is, for the same reasons. Not a customer directly with them? Too bad. That broken
line of yours will just stay broken. Have a nice life!

FFS.......

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't the editor even RTFA! Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) not the RIAA. We are not the United Planet Of America just yet you know.

Re:FFS.......

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Can't the editor even RTFA! Irish Recorded Music Association (IRMA) not the RIAA. We are not the United Planet Of America just yet you know. . OK. Here's a correction.

ISP Sued By IRMA

You really think that's an improvement?

How long before they sue Tim

[virtualonliner]

...Berners-Lee??

"irish RIAA"

[91degrees]

Or to put it another way, an organisation that is not the RIAA.

Why not call it the Irish record association, or even better, Irish Recorded Music Association, since that's what they're called.

Re:"irish RIAA"

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

an organisation that is not the RIAA It is a clone. The 4 companies who brought the suit are the exact same "Big 4" who have launched a plague of lawsuits in the US.

Re:"irish RIAA"

[Anonymous Coward]

Like McDonlads?

And things you need to know about Eircom...

[PinkyDead]

Eircom used to be a semi-state company.

What does that mean? Well, if a normal business needs to handle a business crisis they will create new products, modify their business model, reduce their costs etc etc.

When Eircom was a semi-state the solution was: write a cheque for the amount you need, put in the post (also a semi-state body) to the respective minister. Minister signs cheque, problem solved.

This mentality didn't necessarily wash when the company was privatized, but it certainly prevailed for a long time. And I'm quite sure that attitude is hanging around their offices like a bad smell. For example, Eircom has the highest broadband prices, even though they control the infrastructure.

IMRO, the snivelling little toerags that they are (it wouldn't surprise me if the RIAA learned their tactics from these shites), have gone after the easy target in the hope that it will draw a mark in the sand. Thing is though, in order to survive against a pseudo-monopoly like Eircom for so long, the competition are not so "roll-over tickle-my-belly".

(And if you think that sounds like hell, you should see our semi-state bus service!)

FOSS community!

[andhar]

Come on all you programmers out there! Time to create a free alternative to this evil proprietary software!!

Oh, wait.

makers of grammophones to sue too

[howlingmadhowie]

this is strange. in tfa it says:

The Irish market for sound recordings suffered a decline in total sales form 146m in 2001 to 102m last year, a fall of 30%, and a substantial portion of that decline was due to illegal peer-to-peer downloading services and the increasing availability of broadband internet access here, he said. i wonder what dvd recordings did at the same time? is it possible that the average person has a certain budget for entertainment and just spends the money buying what they want? maybe the record companies should instead consider suing the film companies.

Re:makers of grammophones to sue too

[sm62704]

is it possible that the average person has a certain budget for entertainment and just spends the money buying what they want?

Most people don't work on a commission or have an unlimited amount of funds. Normal people have a certain FIXED INCOME* (salary, wages, retirement, etc). I don't know about Ireland but we're paying a hell of a lot more for gasoline here in the US. Every dollar I spend at the gas station is a dollar I can't spend on a CD.

-mcgrew

*If it's a fixed income how come I'm always broke?

Re:makers of grammophones to sue too

[howlingmadhowie]

an excellent point.

where i live, the price of a packet of pasta has gone up from 29c to 55c in one year. maybe the riaa should sue my supermarket for depriving them of revenue.

The real deal

[sysconp1]

The real deal on this story is that Eircom (Irelands national carrier) said they wouldn't install the software suggested by RIAA on its systems. RIAA have tried a number of bullying tactics against Eircom and taking Eircom to court is just the latest of these. If RIAA have its way they will have the software installed and then this is meant to only filter copyright material from Eircom's subscribers. However this could also prevent legitimate P2P use by limiting the bandwidth avaiable, as well as blocking any number of sites that they see fit. Correct me if I am wrong here but wasn't the goal of the internet to be a free and easy exchange of information on a global network? Having these self proclaimed internet police trying to stop actions on a global scale should not and must not work. The internet should be self regulating and a FREE exchange of information. Record companies and movie companies to a lesser extent have been pushing junk onto the consumer for far to long and the internet has simply allowed the consumer to identify the difference between junk and gold. If the record and movie industries are so worried about this "Piracy" (doubtful as sales have gone up whilst production costs have gone down = more profit for record companies), then they should consider working with the consumer rather than against it. Here is a suggestion that I don't seem to have read anywhere yet... but why don't the record companies put the deleted items up on a site for purchase or whatever... then your consumers wouldn't have to "Pirate" material that is not readily available. As a closing note... if you deal with the "Piracy" problem at source and regulate it properly with good attention to delivery methods etc. then everyone wins. Up to now there have been a number of Knee jerks resulting in bad press, mainly emenating from RIAA. These guys are just looking for back handers from the record companies and winning dubious cases in courts for publicity and shock factor. If you push the exchanging of media files underground by the use of RIAA and excessive pricing you can expect that dodgy organisations and "Pirates" will ultimately win. (Take a look at the drug situation across the world... if governments regulate (not ban) then it is manageable and the underworld is put out of business. If you push it underground it flourishes and the wrong people benefit. No one says it is right but we must be grown up about how we manage these things)

Road analogy

[bLanark]

Hmm, let's take that road analogy a little further

Roads: Internet
Road owners (local government): ISPs
Illegal goods: dodgy song downloads

So, the equivelant of Audible Magic's CopySense to detect infringers is, I guess roadblocks and vehicle checks set up, manned and paid for by the road owners. That does not seem right to me, especially the part about who has to pay.

We don't prosecute the postal service for aiding and abbetting those who send letter bombs. We don't prosecute road owners or car companies for making something that all those getaway drivers using roads and cars can use to getaway from bank robberies. Why should the ISPs pay to monitor this?

This is Europe, not the USA!

Re:Road analogy

[Damon Tog]

I think the right analogy about the road is that the police would simply be used to monitor traffic, not to sue the "road owner." For the postal service analogy, the FBI already intercept mail that is suspected of being involved in something illegal. The sort of thing is already well-established.

It does not make sense to expect copyright owners to install network software for ISPs at their own expense any more than it seems fair to expect individuals to pay for the police to investigate a illegal activity.

Obligatory

[ezzthetic]

In Soviet Union, RIAA sue you.

Oh wait, they do that here too ...

Irish RIAA?

[jollyreaper]

Shouldn't that be the IRAA?

Re:Irish RIAA?

[eneville]

That's *EXACTLY* what I was thinking, why didn't this get tagged IRAA? Seems like it got through the firehose a little too quick - it used to be that the tags were funnier than the article itself.

How exactly does CopySense work ?

[Mornedhel]

How exactly does CopySense work ? I just read a PDF of their propaganda. Apparently an artist wishing to "protect his copyrighted works" registers in their database. Then CopySense makes a "media fingerprint" of the files - what do they mean by that ?

If they mean an actual audio fingerprint like MusicBrainz does, wouldn't the entire file need to be downloaded first ? So they're scanning the entire P2P traffic for relevant packets and recomposing the file on their own systems (including compressed files, since they could be an entire discography, hey, who knows ?), and *then* comparing the fingerprint ? Sounds really resource-expensive to me. Then on with bigger, more complex files (movies, HD movies...). Then they also say they can filter out porn/kiddie porn P2P traffic. Have they got fingerprints of THAT ? All existing porn movies ? Sounds like the largest porn collection on Earth. And you would only need to distribute the files with the video turned upside down and the audio playing backwards to defeat the system. Or are they relying on torrent file names for that ?!

If they mean an SHA1/MD5/whatever fingerprint, it's even less feasible, as they would need one for every possible encoding (MP3 CBR 128kbps, MP3 CBR 192 kbps, MP3 VBR... Vorbis... FLAC...) and compression (.gz, .zip, .rar, .7z, .bz2...) and combination of both.

Does anyone here know exactly how CopySense work, and IF it works at all ?

Re:How exactly does CopySense work ?

[azrider]

Then they also say they can filter out porn/kiddie porn P2P traffic. Have they got fingerprints of THAT ? All existing porn movies ? Sounds like the largest porn collection on Earth.

Not only that, they have now confessed to possessing child pornography!!

Take that, Audible Magic!

Re:How exactly does CopySense work ?

[monxrtr]

Not only that, they have now confessed to possessing child pornography!!

Take that, Audible Magic! That's the sort of information that will get industry executives and politicians well hung from the most dangerous criminal element correctional facilities.

WTF?

[ilovecheese]

Why the hell is it the ISP's duty to stop file sharers? Defnitley, that is extortion in the clearest example. Myself, I'd tell em (the IRMA) to go to hell. ISP's are not the police, nor should they ever be put into that position. Get a clue RIAA, et al, before you go the way of the dinosaur.

Or are they already there? ;)

Packet Shaping

[Bonzodog01]

"The record companies believed greater availability of broadband will lead to a further escalation in the volume of unlawful distribution of recordings, he added." It looks like they don't like the idea of Broadband getting to Ireland. I live in Galway and use ntl/chorus cable for my Broadband. I have discovered that they are packet shaping my connection, as I cannot get a Bittorrent connection to sail above 5k/s for more than a few minutes at a time, it's hopeless, even downloading legal torrents for ISO's for Linux Distro's. Yeah, I'm Galways Linux User.

Re:Packet Shaping

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, there are many linux users in galway? Ask on ILUG http://linux.ie/ some time.

Celtic Pussy

[Anonymous Coward]

These guys know what they are doing. Ireland went from being the poorest godforsaken backwater in the EU to being the world's largest exporter of software with the highest GDP per capita in the world in the space of about 20 years.
The gombeen men in Dublin owe everything to the US, & to a lesser extent, British multinationals who took advantage of the almost total absence of labor law and the ridiculous tax-breaks on offer and created the infrastructure of a modern economy. Of all the governments in Europe, they are the most likely to roll over and create the precedent the MAFIAAS are looking for.

What about false positives?

[Gordonjcp]

I *want* people to redistribute my copyrighted material over P2P networks. Preventing this from happening causes me a problem. If my material is wrongly detected as something the RIAA don't want shared, it harms *my* profits.

I suppose the question is, how do you detect false positives, and when they happen who do I sue?

Re:What about false positives?

[sm62704]

If you have a song named "unforgiven" and I hear of it but can't remember the name of your band, the RIAA has just fucked you - because if I search for "unforgiven" I'm most likely to find a Metallica song or a Clint Eastwood movie.

And this is exactly how the MAFIAA wants it. You are their competetion. The RIAA wants to keep your music out of my ears, not keep Metallica's music out of my ears (or they wouldn't play it on the radio).

Re:What about false positives?

[argmanah]

I suppose the question is, how do you detect false positives, and when they happen who do I sue?
If it happens in the U.S., that's easy.

Everyone.

Re:What about false positives?

[monxrtr]

That's precisely why no company will ever dare implement such a filtering program. Because every single individual and business work that is blocked from such file name filtering can sue for big damages. It would be practically impossible to not cause massive harm to innocent third parties. Such a filtering program becomes nothing more than a giant DDoS attack on the entire internet. And tens of millions of copyright trolls will intentionally name their files with non-infringing content such that they are blocked by the filter and just sit on Go collecting their infinite moneys from idiot copyright trade groups and ISPs, until both are bankrupt.

Even if they started thoroughly examining contents of files, the processing power and bandwidth costs would escalate beyond what is currently paid in total by all internet customers. You would literally be trying to flush absolutely everything which exists on the internet bit by bit through some filtering program EVERY SINGLE DAY. And you thought P2P pirates were bandwidth hogs!

Golgafrinchans

[sm62704]

Music and video downloads (and e-books) however DO increase the number of copies. And copying is as good as free in effort and cost.

And a certain western superpower wants to base its economy on "intellectual property" that can be copied and transmitted free. The same western superpower that has convinced its population that "free" equals "worthless".

Maybe I shouldn't try to talk my kids into giving me grandkids. They'll grow up in a third world country if the US continues to let the plutocrats run America.

New Round of Lawsuits please.

[BuckaBooBob]

So using the same logic the RIAA uses... They should be on the hook for the cost of keeping gang related criminals in jail as they distribute music that promotes gang activity. or could atleast be listened to while crimes are being commited.

Re:Internet TV will Kill ISP Tracking

[monxrtr]

If large numbers of filesharers begin to send huge transfers amounts of data over SSL, it's going to be pretty noticeable. All web pages must send data to be viewed. All content whatsoever must send data to be viewed. File sizes are going to increases *exponentially*! There will be absolutely no way for the isp to distinguish between phone traffic, "illegal" p2p traffic, and even the isp's own "movie" file offerings.

It will become nearly impossible for anyone to know the contents of any file by merely looking at size, distribution, origination, etc. ISPs will lose a helluva lot more money with their free speech violations that end up blocking news feeds, public domain library contents, etc. There's a helluva lot of *expired* copyright content to be exchanged and hosted, and the amount of that content will only continue to mammothly exponentially grow.

You might also think it's "quite noticeable" that just the sheer number of files grows every single day. For a microcosmic example, the number of posts on a site like /. grows every day. Now multiply that out over the entire internet, and legitimate "legal" information compendiums on topics will start to dwarf all the "copyrighted" content combined.

If copyright police and ISPs decide to make information flow a war they are living in la la dreamland in they think they can win. Big businesses like Comcast are already having their asses handed to them by minor "scooby-doo kids" groups. These efforts are only going to become more professional, better organized, better funded. The RIAA is doing nothing more than setting up a copyright troll business model to be copied that will screw those with the biggest pockets the hardest.

When the history books are written, this will be regarded as a mammoth world-wide Boston Tea Party-esque Victory for consumers. Copyright is doomed because it's economically inefficient. The costs of filtering and policing will only continue to soar with the sheer size of content available on the internet. The government could 24/7 audio-visual record everyone in the world. Do you have any idea the time and budget constraint costs actually listening to all that would cost? It's practically impossible, and as effective as a police officer on the African planes ordering a stampede of animals to "stop!" The private police going to be run over at best, and pay bankrupting legal settlement costs for the privilege of being run over at worst. In the end, they will choose to just move aside and abandon copyright.

Install software.... test it... sue!

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Install software
2) Test it
3) If anything at all gets through then sue the makers of the software for potential damages at current per song rates per number of 'pirates' world wide (They are all potential customers) as set by RIAA. $600 trillion should cover it.

Re:Install software.... test it... sue!

[monxrtr]

Excellent point! Put a clause in the contract that makes the RIAA + software vendor indemnify all ISP and all ISP customers from legal liability by assuming the legal damages. Hahaha. I wonder what market rate any insurance company would charge for such a policy? It would probably exceed the rates charged for million dollars homes on Florida beaches PER ISP CUSTOMER USER! Well out of Geico's league.

Further proof copyright is already de facto dead.

LISTEN UP ISP COMPANIES!

Insist on the Microsoft-Novell copyright-patent indemnity model paid by the RIAA, along with all extra associated costs, including price of software, maintenance, and bandwith loss of running the program. That would (theoretically) more than double your broadband monthly revenue. Too bad the RIAA simply can't afford it. If the RIAA aren't willing to accept that contract then they are by definition admitting their software is total vaporware.

Dear Irish People

[Anonymous Coward]

You're in Ireland. How would a few car bombs *not* solve this problem?

Oh Danny Boy...

[TrebleJunkie]

Huh. I thought all those drinking songs were in the public domain.