MPAA to broadband providers: Pull the plug on pirates
Jim Williams, the MPAA's chief technology officer and senior vice president, says broadband providers need to filter out pirated material.
(Credit: Declan McCullagh/News.com)HOLLYWOOD, Calif.--The Motion Picture Association of America is calling on broadband providers to pull the plug on copyright-infringing users.
Jim Williams, the MPAA's chief technology officer and senior vice president, said on Thursday that it's in the best interests of Internet providers to sift through data traveling across their networks and interrupt transmissions that violate copyright law.
"Much of the Internet is being clogged up with stolen goods," Williams said at a technology policy conference here. "Basically you have a bunch of free riders who are hogging the bandwidth (and taking) it away from legitimate consumers."
For years, of course, copyright holders have been pressing Internet providers to block access to offshore piracy havens or inspect the traffic to block transfers that are unlawful. As long ago as 2001, the major record labels called on Internet providers to block access to Napster clones, and a number of U.S. senators followed suit two years later.
So far, nothing much has changed for broadband users. But as the amount of pirated material has continued to balloon, as Congress has grown more concerned, and as filtering technology has become more sophisticated, the MPAA's call to arms stands a better chance of succeeding. So might worries about the terrific amount of bandwidth that protocols like BitTorrent consume--which led to Comcast saying Thursday it would find new ways to limit traffic on its network by the end of the year.
"I believe they will find the incentive to make their networks more efficient for all of their paying customers," Williams said. "If they can reduce some of the infringing content, then there will be more capacity for their paying customers."
Another milestone in the copyright lobby's push for filtering came in January, when AT&T said it was voluntarily experimenting with copyright-filtering technologies and was working with the MPAA and the Recording Industry Association of America. AT&T said it was testing a range of filtering technologies including from Vobile, a start-up in which AT&T has invested.
There's a big difference, of course, between copyright filtering that's done voluntarily by broadband providers and filtering done because it's mandated by law. The MPAA made it clear on Thursday that it's not calling for new legislation--"we don't need additional laws"--at least right now. The RIAA has said the same thing, recently too.
On one hand, that reticence could simply be a sign of political pragmatism on the part of the MPAA and RIAA: they'd likely be outgunned on Capitol Hill by the hundreds of lobbyists that broadband providers could (and would) dispatch to shoot down any such proposal.
But on the other hand, major copyright holders are mounting an international push for filtering. Canada's copyright lobby has pushed for legally-mandated filtering. A Belgian court has said that Internet service providers can be forced to block copyrighted material, a ruling that copyright holders applauded. A European Union committee has rejected the idea, at least temporarily. U2's manager loves filtering.
And some U.S. politicians have shown interest in laws requiring filtering--a recent bill in the Tennessee legislature would make it mandatory for state universities. Rep. Mary Bono, a copyright-friendly Republican, likes filtering too, but stopped short of saying it should be mandatory.
If AT&T begins to voluntarily filter copyrighted content on a widescale basis, that could weaken any argument from other broadband providers saying that such a move is technologically infeasible, too expensive, or overly intrusive. Filtering of child pornography is another possible opening.
When contacted with complaints by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Verizon routinely deletes from its servers material posted by customers that it reviews and concludes will violate child pornography laws. If Verizon already polices its users for child pornography reasons, the MPAA argues, it should be able to do the same for copyrighted material too.
Verizon strongly disagrees. Richard Lynch, Verizon's executive vice president and chief technology officer, said here on Thursday:
Our philosophy, a well-considered philosophy I might add, is that we are not the enforcers of the Internet. Our job is to deliver the bitstreams that our customers either ask for or send. We feel pretty strong about that...Can I even realistically assume that I could do those kinds of things? I'm not sure I could if I wanted to, but I don't think that's our job.
It's worth noting, by the way, that Verizon has a long history of taking a strong position on behalf of its customers interests--it did this in the RIAA subpoena case over the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and was validated when a federal appeals court agreed.
If the MPAA can find other network providers to take it up on its suggestion, there are still a large number of unanswered questions--including ones about customers' privacy and how filtering will work in practice. Will piratical transfers be automatically interrupted? Or just slowed? Will MPAA and RIAA lawyers be automatically alerted? How to detect whether content is licensed, or protected by fair use rights, which vary based on the details of every situation?
MovieLabs did conduct tests last year of about a dozen "digital fingerprinting" technologies from companies such as Gracenote, Vobile, and Audible Magic. Certain products worked well in some environments, like on user-generated Web sites and on university networks, MovieLabs' chief executive told News.com in January. But that's not the same as saying it'll work well for tens of millions of Comcast and Verizon subscribers.
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 




Plus, if ISP's started to filter standard transfers somehow, based on content, bittorrent would respond most likely by encrypting all data transfers. It would slow down the transfers a bit, but it's better than getting blocked completely.
Really, the industry needs to stop relying on a failing model for sales, and start realizing that most of the 'pirates' are people who could not afford the MPAA member companies stuff in the first place.
If they would LOWER THEIR PRICES, they might get more sales.... enough to make 2 times or more what they are making now with that lower price.
Also, fingerprinting technology falls afoul of fair use laws, as you *are* allowed fair use on short clips of copyrighted media, which fingerprinting will eliminate.
Finally, if only some ISP's follow the plan, users will switch to other ISP's, and it will just be a matter of time to see if an ISP losing customers can leverage the increased network stability to maintain profitability with a smaller customer base, or if a an ISP gaining customers can juggle the increased network traffic and related costs and run the other ISP's out of business.
every time they shutdown a service there are at least two to take their place, napster, kazaa, lime wire, bearshare, now isohunt, demonoid, torrentspy, etc.
you can't block all encrypted traffic since that would stifle VPN, SSL, and SSH. no ISP in the world is dumb enough to do that.
the net result: the technology improves, and the communities fragment and go further underground but continue to grow in size.
the future: private trackers, encrypted transfers, followed by whole encrypted networks, ad hoc wireless mesh networks, and physical trades of encrypted hard drives. when it comes to that, there will be no way to stop it, especially since USB hard drives are so cheap and you can get them in 1TB sizes. imagine going to a "party" with a laptop and pulling hundreds of gigs at a time.
people have been sharing files since the BBS days and they will continue to do so no matter what the industry does to stop them.
I don't buy it.
paying for it, it's stealing. And I hope you all get caught. Too
bad for you that BitTorrent has had to shut down it's most
popular share software. But when you're wrong, you're wrong,
and I say that BitTorrent should have been shut down years ago.
If you want to fight the high prices in our economy, stealing is
not the way, that will only make it worse. Get your ass out from
in front of your video game and become a part of the society
you live in and VOTE, you idiot.
There should be no difference in how I am treated on the web vs. my snail mail. Should the US post office be allowed to open and examine any package large enough to contain a DVD? If it did contain a CD/DVD should they be able to then read the contents?
What these archaic organizations need to do is harness the power of the internet, not seek to limit it. If they provided quick, cheap access to content then I think a vast majority of people who do download pirated content would stop.
For instance, why spend 1-2 days downloading a bootleg copy of a movie when you could watch it instantly, in high quality, on Netflix?
Didn't the MPAA just say last year they had sales growth and more profit than in years? So why all the whining?
It is not the job of an ISP to filter traffic, they are a neutral conduit. Soon as ISP's filter they will either lose their customers, or all traffic will become encrypted.
When a business model becomes obsolete, you change or you die, simple capitalism.
There's talk (from the Bittorrent group) of a new protocol to replace the "broken" TCP. In essence it would make the P2P protocols a "polite" citizen on the net as it would "step out of the way" for a few seconds while other requests (such as websurfing/email downloading) are made. It would then step back in and continue the long-running download.
The great part would be that:
-the long-running download time would barely be affected
-the smaller (non-p2p) requests would be allowed higher priority and make surfing more enjoyable. (This includes the p2p users themselves!)
-the ISPs wouldn't have to be so 'evil' and target certain protocols; they could fully be neutral and hands-off. (ie. they wouldn't have to be the internet police). This would also allow them to continue getting protection against the traffic content that is moving over their lines. (I suspect that's a big one for them.)
-p2p users would be allowed unfiltered usage since the "polite" protocol would not slow down non-p2p users. Also, I think most p2p user are polite and don't mind allowing websurfers/email users to pass through
-it would be protocol agnostic; so no specific protocol would be targeted
-oh, and for your xmas stocking, the MPAA couldn't use the "evils" of p2p to scare the ISPs into man-handling the protocol. The only loser in this would be the MPAA...which brings full circle to your main point...the MPAA has to change their business model, and not use a big stick + FUD to prop up a failing dinosaur business model from the '70s. ...my goodness...they might actually have to make good movies AND charge reasonable prices <gasp>.
This is one of the most interesting ideas I've read about p2p in 5 years:
>>> everyone should read George Ou's article. (got it from SlashDot)
"Fixing the unfairness of TCP congestion control"
(http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=1078)
Comcast goes to 8
Charter goes to 10 and about to offer 16Mgs
Pirates are putting money in the broadband providers pockets.
Streaming TV is perfect with only a 3mg signal. (Good thing because theres a lot of it out there now, which has GOT to be lowering piracy. Why download when you can stream the same content faster?)
Games like World of Warcraft can actually be played on a 56k modem (albeit strained)
Webpages refresh? The difference in load times between a 3mg and a 10mg signal is about a second, MAYBE 2.
The only reason broadband providers are able to successfully make money on their "premium" speeds is because of pirates. Because really, whom else needs more than 3mgs?
What do they expect when the people developing the filtering software are probably downloading "illegal" files themselves..
ISPs should take note: if you are spying on customers you probably will not have many customers.
"Basically you have a bunch of free riders who are hogging the bandwidth (and taking) it away from legitimate consumers."
The "free riders" paid the same monthy broadband access fees that the "legitimate consumers". Some of those "free riders" are trading perfectly legitimate freely distributable content (yes it is a tiny fraction). The difference between "mpaa members make money off this activity" and "mpaa members do not make money off of this activity" is NOT the difference between free riders and legitimate broadband consumers.
He is attempting to conflate the two and convince broadband providers that the MPAAs definition of legitimate should also be the providers definition of legitimate.
how about this one;
"I believe they will find the incentive to make their networks more efficient for all of their paying customers," Williams said. "If they can reduce some of the infringing content, then there will be more capacity for their paying customers."
They are ALL paying broadband customers, they are not all paying MPAA member company customers. Some of the perfectly legitimate paying broadband customers simply utilize that bandwidth in a way the MPAA disapproves of.
Williams is once again attempting to convince the rest of the world that his problem is their problem and shift readers' legal, economic and commercial views by misusing language. I believe he should be called out and resisted on every front by reasonable individuals for his ham handed attempts at manipulating any audience willing to endure his bought and paid for prattle.
The MPAAs problem is that they have an outmoded business model which no longer satisfies or serves its' customers. We should resist all attempts to criminalize the demise of a no longer valid business model.
$.02
What if I am transferring a file from my TiVo to my hotel room? Will conent filtering be able to determine that it is a legitimate MP2?
The blocking/choking of "illegal" files is just a convenient excuse for the ISPs to reduce the load on their systems (instead of bringing their systems up to the standards of Europe & Japan).
Trust me, if all p2p was 100% legit, they would STILL come up with some reason to stifle it. The word "illegal" just seems like they're doing 'the right thing' for mankind.
Most p2p is now encrypted, so they can't (easily) tell what's what. In a nutshell, the long-running encrypted vpn connecions to your multi-branch offices will be treated the same way as downloading the latest movie. For the sake of humanity, they'll choke all those connections...you know...just to be sure.
That includes your daughters birthday party video or tivo transfer to your hotel. ...Thanks for taking one for the team!
The MPAA and RIAA are completly misguided and fighting a desperate rear guard action to slow down the erosion of their business-as-usual head-in-the-sand business models. Trying to shore up a failing model with legal penalties and stupid attempts at roadblocks like this won't work. What is required is for them to find a way to harness the Internet itself, as has already been mentioned, not treating their customers like criminals and alienating them further.
airplanes so as to shutter highjackers? America is beginning to
look more and more like communist China each day.
Thankfully ISPs have a huge stake in staying out of the content monitoring business because they know it has no end.
If they have to monitor for illegal movie downloads then Software makers want that too. Oh, and the Porn evangelists want that monitored too. Oh, and the copyright holders don't want song lyrics being viewed online because they own the rights and want to make money doing that, etc etc etc
Bottom line:
MPAA has a lot of lobbyists that may get this on a bill in front of congress but the ISPs will fight it in court where it will be tossed out.
You are also right that there is a crack for almost anything: from Windows Vista SP1 to TweakNow Powerpack to Hellgate:London.... there are cracks for all of them.
Content owners have to realize that most people who pirate do so because they CANNOT AFFORD THE THING IN QUESTION AT THE PRICE THAT THE CONTENT OWNER WANTS.... and usually the content owner is charging MAJORLY too much for their product, ala Windows Vista Ultimate.
Well you can but you won't catch the big crowd they are aiming for
They say that the filtering has gotten sophisticated, well so have the piraters.
There's programs and ways to remove any of the copywrite protection on all the materials such as music, videos, programs, etc.
So if you are simply filtering copywritten materials. You will simply only catch the idiots on the internet
There will always be ways around the filtering and such
So it's pointless to push for something that simply won't make a difference
And you can't simplu target streaming audio and video for the fact that some businesses legally run through selling streaming audio and video
YOu can't target bittorrent or the likes, like Comcast did, because it is used for legal purposes as well
So really it's an up-MOUNTAIN battle. There is no beating or defeating the piracy out there
It's going to happen. We just have to get over it and live with it
While I agree there is a priracy problem, they need to come up with a more convincing reason to get the ISPs to impose such restrictions.
- Youre ONLY a pirate because they say youre a pirate..
- by zincmann March 28, 2008 12:52 PM PDT
- Maybe we should start calling the RIAA and MPAA, Extortionists. From now on, I insist that all MEDIA outlets including CNET, refer to any of the Entertainment industry that are pressing for all these reforms and suing consumers for sharing their copyrighted hard copy works, Extortionists. Articles should be started with the words, "The Extortionists MPAA and RIAA....". Seems that all the name calling is one sided here...
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (58 Comments)