MPAA: Net neutrality could hurt antipiracy tech
Hollywood hasn't decided what it thinks about the whole "Net neutrality" debate, but it knows one thing: Any rules that would stunt roll-out of the next new whiz-bang filtering technologies or encourage unfettered sharing of copyrighted works over peer-to-peer networks would be very, very bad.
That's the gist of the 9-page comments (PDF) that the Motion Picture Association of America filed with the Federal Communications Commission this week. Monday was the deadline for comments for an FCC inquiry into "broadband industry practices," and most of the some 27,000 filings focused on the thorny issue of Net neutrality--that is, whether the FCC should impose a new policy prohibiting network operators from making special deals with content providers for priority service.
Whatever the FCC decides on that front, the MPAA said it's "crucial" not to take any steps that would inhibit the development and rollout of new technologies like watermarking, deep packet inspection, acoustic fingerprinting and other forms of filtering--all of which are still in the early stages and are far from perfect.
"Any policy efforts relating to Net neutrality must promote the protection of intellectual property," MPAA lawyer's wrote. "It is crucial that FCC policies not interfere with the efforts of broadband companies and content providers of all kinds to solve problems of free riding."
A prime example of such "free riding," the MPAA said, is the "unauthorized" swapping of massive amounts of copyrighted materials via peer-to-peer networks. The group argued such activities pose a triple threat: to the copyrighted content creators, to the consumers who actually pay for the works and to the "light" Internet users who may be indirectly forced to pay for the high bandwidth use of those file swappers.
"It would be Pyrrhic indeed to adopt a set of principles asserting that consumers have a right to a cornucopia of excellent content, but fail to provide an environment in which such content can actually exist," the movie industry concluded.
This filing, which was noted Wednesday night by Ars Technica, isn't first to evoke copyright issues in this proceeding. The general counsel of NBC-Universal has already suggested the FCC should require broadband providers to be more proactive about filtering copyrighted content that traverses their networks. About a dozen public-interest and consumer advocacy groups hit back at those comments this week, arguing such a proposal is not only technologically impractical but could also threaten fair use and free expression rights.
What they don't like is that Net Neutrality may force them to spend more of their own money doing it. Given that's that's how it should be. I don't see a problem.
I'm sorry, but I have a problem with this kind of lobbying effort that says the MPAA or the RIAA can decide first how the internet is going to be shaped.
The MPAA and RIAA should have 0 (read: zilch, nada, zippo, nothing) power of any kind of decision making just so they can feel better about their bottom line.
Let's put it this way - the movies and some music have actually been pretty passable this year.
If the MPAA and the RIAA would tell their membership to produce better quality entertainment at lower cost for media, I don't think piracy would be that much of a problem and we wouldn't need failed technologies like DRM.
Aside from all of that, it's already proven that lawsuits don't work very well - especially in light of the $70,000 the RIAA has to pay in legal fees to the lady they wrongfully accused of illegal file sharing.
So with that said, these two organizations are really just two kids in the sandbox making a whole bunch of noise, crying and whining because they can't have what they want.
To the MPAA and RIAA, I say, "SHUT THE F*** UP ALREADY AND LET LIFE GO ON!"
Seriously I have found a solution for the **AAs. They simply build their own internet, their own 'tubes', their own ISP..we will call it Entertainment Net (or something equally as catchy ;) Then they can fill it with all the content filtering, Premium advanced DRM'd, consumer enablement they want. And did I mention all the Awesome targeted advertising!!
While they are at it, they can create their own OS too, maybe a revive the Amiga and make it a secure end point for delivering their oh so precious content!
Then...maybe...just maybe... they will leave my (internet and OS) alone!
For the Record I am completely against any copyright infringement $1.39 is not a lot of money to pay for a song you like. Every time we share something illegal we give these people an excuse to come after the law abiding content consumers that simply want to have some wiff of control and flexibility of the media they legally purchased.
If you only wanted a song or two, you might be lucky if it was released as a CD single and then you could spend $4-5 for it and a remix or two of the song and maybe some B-Side track. But not every one listens to top 40 pop crap and a lot of that never got released as a single, so if you wanted the song you were sort of forced into dropping $15-20 for a CD.
Perhaps it's me being a cheap-ass, but I do not think any CD should cost over $10 unless it's a double CD or special/limited edition.
Napster brought us the MP3 revolution and it was iTunes who really capitalized upon that and got us the 99¢ per song price. Like it or not, that never would have happened if it weren't for MP3s and PIRACY!!! So while you may be against copyright infringement, there is in fact a direct benefit to it.
2) This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Anti-piracy efforts won't be hindered.
3) I say, I hope all the anti-pirating efforts work and then the MPAA looks at how much money they lost developing it AND THEN watch as they still lose money because their products still suck. Plus, they'll lose more money from the amount of advertising that was inadvertently caused by the pirating.
realize their irrelevance?
Robert
- Creative commons, baby.
- by ethana2 July 24, 2007 4:15 PM PDT
- Boycott that copyrighted crap. Let it die. Hopefully we won't have to put up with this kind of thing after that.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)And don't give me the starving artist argument. We're in the post- industrial revolution era. We have "free time".