MPAA lobbies Obama for Internet filtering
THE MOVIE MAFIAA is lobbying US President-Elect Obama's transition team to make Internet filtering a priority in the next administration to block illegal file-sharing of films and television shows. If that proceeds, it will be a costly boondoggle that won't even work.
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the litigation and lobbying arm of the Hollywood motion picture studios and the US television oligopoly, posted a position paper (PDF) on Obama's transition website, change.gov, exhorting the incoming administration that it is "imperative to curb the theft of online content."
In its paper, the MPAA urges the importance of "the fight against online piracy, including through automated detection and removal of infringing content."
Hollywood might well find sympathetic ears in the new administration.
Vice-President-Elect Joe Biden has represented Delaware in the US Senate for many years. Delaware is a small state that domiciles many US companies because its laws are slanted to favour the interests of corporations against those of shareholders, consumers and the public. As Senator, Biden shilled enthusiastically for the Big Media interests by drafting, sponsoring and voting for a raft of legislation that was lobbied for by the large media corporations. Biden also supported the Bush administration's illegal wiretapping and Internet surveillance as well as retroactive amnesty for the telecoms that perform it.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has also signalled in the past year that it might be amenable to considering adopting regulations mandating or facilitating network traffic filtering by Internet Service Providers (ISPs).
For their part, the large ISPs, many of which are telecoms and cable companies, would like nothing better than to break down the Network Neutrality doctrine that has enabled the Internet's rapid development and meteoric growth. They would like to impose tiered networks - similar to traditional broadcast and cable television business models - in order to monetise Internet traffic every way they possibly might, by charging content providers, advertisers and subscribers for access and traffic. They view Internet filtering as a wedge to provide them with the technology and regulations to overthrow Network Neutrality.
Furthermore, the large ISPs would likely welcome mandated Internet filtering, because they believe that either the federal government or subscribers would have to pay for the additional infrastructure that filtering would require. They would also like to throttle the rate of growth in network traffic volume - much of which is driven by the ever-widening adoption of media streaming and P2P file-sharing activity - that is forcing them to make larger investments in networking infrastructure to support, squeezing their profitability.
To support its campaign for Internet filtering, the MPAA requested views and information from academia and technology companies. Eleven universities and companies responded, including Advestigo, Audible Magic, Auditude, Gracenote, Intellivision, Magix/AudioID, NTT, Philips, Thomson, University of St. Andrew of Scotland, VidyaTel and Vobile, according to an MPAA spokeswoman.
If only a few of those names look familiar - like NTT, Philips, Thomson and St. Andrews - that's because Internet filtering is a new technology frontier that is, much like the dot-com goldrush ten years ago, attracting startups slavering for federal and telecom money.
The corporate security state establishment sees dollar signs in the prospect of installing pervasive Internet filtering in the US. And it's correct. If approved, the implementation of universal traffic filtering throughout the US Internet infrastructure will be tremendously expensive. It's just the sort of boondoggle that sustains the US military-industrial complex.
But Internet traffic filtering to block media content cannot possibly work in the long run.
That's because, faced with Internet filtering, people will develop and adopt capable and easy to use encryption that defeats it. At best, Internet censors will find themselves locked into a technology arms race in which they'll always be playing catch-up and cannot win.
Suppose Internet filtering is in place and can detect and block copyrighted movie and televison files.
And suppose that I have an online respository of such files and that I want to make them available to you for download over the Internet.
Initially, I encrypt the files and provide you with the keys along with the files. Those who are filtering traffic acquire copies of those files and start filtering the encrypted versions too. All I have to do is change my encryption keys and they are back at square one again.
The filtering censors change their approach. They start filtering based on my encryption keys, that is, they trigger blocking of file transfers when they detect my known encryption keys. That cat and mouse game could go on for a long time, but it won't. I'll get smarter.
I can distribute my public key to affiliated sites... and elsewhere. You can encrypt your public key using my public key, and request a file. I can then encrypt that file using your 'public' key - which has never traversed the Internet in its unencrypted form - and send it to you. The Internet filterers won't be able to detect what file is being sent. Checkmate.
Infinite variations of such encryption schemes are possible, including the use of one-time encryption keys and file sharing sources at many Internet addresses, but the point is that Internet filtering to block file transfers cannot be successful for very long, and it will fail.
That's why Internet filtering is a potentially very costly bad idea that can never succeed. µ
L'Inq
Wired
Share this:
Business Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
The MPAA and RIAA member companies are bottom-feeding scum who treat their paying customers like criminals and use our government like their own private gestapo. Other companies with business models which don't work are forced to adjust or go out of business. That's how free enterprise is supposed to work. Instead, these evil companies buy government officials who shove unconstitutional legislation down our throats and prosecute legitimate consumers in order to support their failing business models.
We all need to stop buying their products so they fade from existence and are replaced by modern companies who understand and embrace the technologies of the 21st century. I suggest we target the RIAA first. Check out http://www.boycott-riaa.com for more.
It is time we had a consumer bill of rights. A consumer who purchases a license for a particular piece of media (song, movie, whatever) should be able to utilize that piece of media on ANY playback device that consumer owns. Period. It's common sense. For example, if I buy a license to listen to a song, I should be able to listen to it, not on one player, but on any player I own. Any company who employs DRM, proprietary formats, or another technique to prevent that private usage of my media, should be prosecuted for violating my consumer rights. It's time our government started serving us rather than the Big Media special interests.
I laugh at the tripe posted by the Inquirer regarding piracy. You'd think theft of copyright protected materials was some God given right. Who knew?
Thankfully neither the dribble posted by the Inquirer nor denial by pirates will prevent prosecution of pirates for their crimes. I hope that the new U.S. administration imposes mandatory $10,000 per copy fines plus minimum six month jail sentences - for first time offenders. Repeat offenders should go to prison for a long time because they are too stupid to be on the streets.
It's funny them commenting on filtering, when they have such a grasp on things. like their $60,000 internet filtering system, with its $15,000/year update fee, that doesn't actually work for bittorrent (Copysense).
They're selling products that don't actually work, and worse, they were touted heavily by the MPAA and RIAA when thye introduced the system - to the point they were introducing Audible Magic people to congress.
Filtering, it just doesn't work.
http://torrentfreak.com/copysense-sleek-predator-or-white-elephant-080926/
Ben Jones
Reading the post on TorrentFreak you linked to gives this gem: "The CopySense Appliance uses a patented packet-resetting process, and it sends a packet reset to both the requesting and sending IP addresses each time they attempt a P2P transfer that is to be blocked." I did not realize one could patent sending spoofed TCP RST packets in both directions since that is what fancier NIDSs did in the days before inline NIPSs were the norm.
Seriously, lets think about this. While the illegal sharing of copyrighted material is well, illegal. However, why does one company think it has the right to filter all information on the net based on 'you might be stealing something'. What if I am not? What would you say then? Personally it is a violation of my privacy. The whole premise of the US democratic system, or most democratice sociaties that share a common legal system is that you are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. Not the other way around.
What they propose is painting everyone with the same brush, as a criminal. It is wrong, immoral and ILLEGAL. Even more so than downloading Sony's latest movie.
Sony's latest movie = theft under $4000. A misdemeaner. Violation of privacy = federal offence.
Andrew
How many people are pirating BECAUSE of the lawsuits. As long as these stupid RIAA people are suing people for 100s of times the value of the file I WILL NOT buy their stuff. Period.
When they start respecting the cruel and unusual punishment clause in the Constitution, I will very happily delete all my BT files and go back to being a law abiding citizen. Until then, they can go **** themselves.
I remember when, in the early 80s it cost about £12 for a vinyl album and about £3.50 for a 12" CD.
In todays terms thats more like £50 for an album and £15 for a single.
The record companies got fat and rich from huge profits selling music at vastly inflated prices. It was a high price low quality product.
Piracy or the ease of copying has had a hugely beneficial impact for the consumer resulting in sensible pricing for DVDs and music alike. It has reigned in the real thieves which is the hugely fat record companies.
The time is coming whereby the record companies will run out of the huge amounts of money they have currently which allows them to undertake these outrageous and obscene methods to protect their profiteering. When they do run out of money this nonsense will stop, it will also run out of steam when the current generation of record bosses moves into retirement and younger blood takes over.
Then we will see artists earning their money by selling merchandise and doing concerts rather than by stealing it from their fans through grossly obsence pricing structures and freedom limiting DRM.
I would rather go without music than pay these bloodsucking parasites.
This is payback for consumers and its been a long time coming.
Why should the RIAA think its a special case and go bleating to congress about special measures to protect them? What makes them so special that we all have to adjust our technology to protect them? Where is the justice in that?
Meet the new government... same as the old government. Do you think after all the campaigning (and money) for Obama, Hollywood and the entertainment industry is not going to want some payback?
Seriously, how is filtering the internet for illegal activity, different than filtering cars on the road to stop car thefts? Car theft is a big deal... I think the US should come up a way to search the roads to identify what might be stolen cars (think the ACLU might have a problem with that?). Also for folks who drive more than others, there will be a signal transmitted from the odoemter and they will pay an extra usage road tax.
Unfortunately between Obama's coziness with Hollywood and Biden - I think we will see "change" (even though noone believes in it). Unfortunately during the election people didn't ask the question change to what? (and were just interested in change "from")
morals,religions,and opinions never mattered to me. i dont have the money to buy software i pirate it, because i need or want it so what about it.my personal thoughts and experiences are my laws.if i go to jail then i messed up and need to be cleaner with my work lol
i always found it funny that sheeple will always tell you something is wrong when they were told it is,even though they dont understand the whole story.
I am sure God wouldn't like the proposed fines on pirates. He is forgiving and loving to all, remember! Also I don't think he would support going after a 12yr old little African American girl who lives in a trailer park with her frail grandmother. Whom is tempted to download what she finds, as she can't afford anything.
Your solution would be to throw her in with other criminals in a youth camp? and to drive her grandmother broke with a $8,000,000 US fine.
At least the young African American girl shall be shown how to make money off the other criminals. A potential street hooker? drug dealer? I think so, especially with her grandma now behind bars as well.
I don't think society gets a very good deal out of it, do you? It was a lot less of a burden on society when she, was living with grandma, peacefully. Attending school every day, doing her homework and downloading a few songs (that she couldn't afford anyway).
Americans should just throw everyone in jail and make them serfs to serve the corporations. The USA has lost it's ways, it's moved from capitalism, to corporatism and now it is going to the dogs. The above scenario would have never have happened in the old Republic, it would have been despicable!
He can add it to his socialist tax plan and health system! Then we can all sit at home and wait for our government check while surfing the free, heavily restricted Internet. I hate my job anyways.
The end of the free internet is on its way. They tell us what to eat, where to live, what is great and who isnt. The rise of the corporate governments of the world are screwing with all our rights and controlling society. They dont want any free medium to express your views or share ideas (or even videos). The corporate media owns and wants to control everything you see or read so you can become another easily controlled drone, whom has no individual thoughts or ideas, but simply follows the "norm". These corporations have been ripping off the consumer for years and have become a law onto themselves by spying on people, installing dodgey root-kits and drm packages on pcs without permission, and performing illegalities themselves without consequences.
If they want to actually filter the net, stop those f@#$ing annoying video ads on their own sites, that waste extra bandwidth and slow net services. We dont need to filter the net like the great peoples republic of china does, and restrict ones' human and privacy rights.
Does anyone actually believe every illegal download means a lost sale?
If countries release a movie or game several months later in a different country or ban it altogether, can they expect people not to be curious and want to watch it or want to play it?
How many people can afford to buy every top game or go to every blockbuster movie?
Lets all leave the net alone, and worry about the true criminals of the world who murder and rape etc.
Please, Mr Obama, can you just leave the net alone, instead go over and chase after, and finally capture some of those bad dudes from al-qaeda (that mr bush couldnt find), and spread love & freedom to the world. :P
Another "free net" will appear if the current one gets poisoned by big corporations.
Onion router anyone?
I am tired hearing the same old song from MPAA and RIAA: downloading is criminal. NO! This is not! It is simply a more convenient usage of music they are unable to propose. With quality downloads at fair price without DRM, they will sell megatons of songs and piracy will be negligible because everybody prefer originals. I don't see why i must buy an expensive cripled electronic form of a record i already have on vinyl or CD form, when i can dwnload a better one not restricted who will play on all my hardware. Another point just disturbing is the equation: song downloaded = song not buyed... NO! majority of downloaders would'nt buy if they had the opportunity, for lots of reasons (poor people, curiosity download, rare, ease of dwnld).
Majors, they treat us like criminals, so boycott them...
Seriously while I don't really support piracy of things which are available for legal purchase the very concept of internet filtering in an attempt to stop it as well as DRM is at best a really bad joke. Think about it how many people work for the MPAA and these groups trying to develope systems to stop piracy along with how much it costs them to product it? Now consider the fact there has yet to be a DRM invented which isn't broken by the general public inside of two weeks. Hell the average time these days to break copy protection on new software is a few hours from when the software gets released to when the hack hits the net.
Now then specifically on the subject of media filtering how are you gonna determine the files to be filtered? I mean besides the idea of encryption think about how media files are actually put together. You could change the video encoding type or the video bit rate, the audio encoding type or the audio bit rate then depending on the file format add addition audio streams, subtitles, etc... all of which would change the final file drastically without even changing the name and container format. You could also just add a few frames at the end which would change the overall runtime of the file again potentially getting around how they are filtering it.
Also in all seriousness the RIAA and MPAA are a bunch of greedy bastards, the RIAA more then the MPAA but they are greedy bastards all the same. Piracy is not nearly as serious a problem as they like to make out if it was they would be losing hundreds of billions a year but they aren't. Hell with only being able to find net income numbers on one of the six MPAA member companies the MPAA made more money last year then the entire Sony corperation.
Well I guess we can all revel in the knowledge that this dastardly plan the MPAA wants to pull off is not even possible. TCP/IP is designed to be routed / re-routed / proxied / forwarded / encrypted / VPN'd / etc. at a whim, and that this "filtering" (ROFL) would be so simple to work around that even spending money on researching the possibility is financially irresponsible. Especially in the US who is suffering a recession.
For this to work TCP/IP would have to be replaced with a completely different protocol.
Copyright only exists by community consensus, without that consensus there would be no copyright law. In the USA, and most western democracies, the right of freedom of expression is believed to be endowed by our creator - some would say that creator is God.
Freedom of expression includes the ability to repeat an idea to another person which is fundamentally the same thing as making a copy for another person. Thus, piracy is indeed a "God Given Right" and it is copyright which is nothing more than a law of Man.
Blue Ray ads. I'm tired of that overpriced POS being shoved down my throat every time I watch a DVD. Take your $30+ dvd and shove it.
If biden has any pull obama will probably comply..
The pdf doesn't use 'theft' incidentally, it uses the word piracy, and has more interesting things than the simplification this article reduces it to, so good job providing the link.
One of the amusing things is that they want more freedom for themselves and not to have to pay taxes, not even in foreign countries.. it's a christmas list I guess and it accidentally got rerouted on the way to the northpole.