Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ISPs to Ban P2P With New European Telecom Package?

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the no-torrents-for-you dept.

The Internet 367

An anonymous reader writes "ZeroPaid is reporting that ISPs could be turned into the copyright police through European legislation that received a number of 'intellectual property' amendments. Many of these amendments can be found here. Judging by the amendments, ISPs could be mandated to block legitimate traffic in an effort to 'prevent' illegitimate traffic. To help stop this legislation, you can check out the action page. Additional coverage can be found on EDRI and Open Rights Group."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I agree (-1, Offtopic)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040579)

completely with whatever the second post says.

Re:I agree (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24041197)

You're a silly sausage.

Glad you agree.

Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HORDE" (5, Funny)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040587)

When WoW stops working because the updates are blocked the Hord and the Alliance might finally put their differences aside to fight a bigger foe!

Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (1, Insightful)

a_n_d_e_r_s (136412) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040623)

Well I think half of them will shout - FOR THE ALLIANCE.

But other than that - you are probably correct!

Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (5, Funny)

BorgDrone (64343) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040747)

And there will probably be at least one guy shouting "LEROY JENKINS!"

Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (5, Funny)

PackRat Q. Winnebago (1116945) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040935)

Five bucks says he'll be the one with the bomb.

Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (4, Funny)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040789)

I'm free for raid tonight at 8pm GMT. Bagsie not tanking Merkel.

I lol'ed (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24040903)

It's funny because it's true.

Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (5, Funny)

Vehlin (1221094) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040937)

The Judean People's Front?

Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (5, Funny)

rugatero (1292060) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040963)

Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea.

Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (3, Funny)

hostyle (773991) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041123)

Splitters!

Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (1)

Erie Ed (1254426) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040995)

I hear brutallis has been giving horde and alliance a pretty big problem

Re:Storming the EU parliment shouting "FOR THE HOR (1)

emilper (826945) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041127)

Caldari might make peace with Gallente too ... ... they'll ruin all the game stories with that law ... how are we going to set up gatecamps in Maila (security status 0.4) after gatecamping together in Bruxelles (sec. status 0.0 around the railway station after 9PM)?

I guess they still don't get it yet (5, Insightful)

Erie Ed (1254426) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040607)

P2P isn't just about illegal file sharing, it's bigger than that. The way we download linux distros, the way we download game updates, hell even Pure Pwnage distributes their videos using P2P methods. I really think they are missing the point of how this technology has made an impact on how we get our content from the internet. If this passes they might as well ban people from driving cars because they can be used to traffic illegal drugs.

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (3, Insightful)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040617)

Well, yeah. That is the point of the "story" though. The suggestion is that all P2P traffic will be blocked to protect the copyrights--which will, of course, hurt legitimate uses of the technology.

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (1)

malinha (1273344) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040663)

But at least the copyright holders can sit down and relax for the next 100 years...

Too bad they can't "surf" on the internet, because its shutdown...

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (2, Funny)

ringo74 (970328) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040819)

But the copyright holders don't know how to surf on the internet anyway, soo.....

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (1)

Erie Ed (1254426) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040761)

Well, yeah. That is the point of the "story" though. The suggestion is that all P2P traffic will be blocked to protect the copyrights--which will, of course, hurt legitimate uses of the technology.

my appologies what I was saying is that the politicians don't get that P2P has more uses than just for music and movie downloads.

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (2, Insightful)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040981)

See how much copyright laws are costing us?

We the people need to fight them at every corner.

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (5, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040641)

I really think they are missing the point

Politicians missing the point? I am SHOCKED!

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (3, Insightful)

flape (1114919) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040669)

or IP holders are paying enough money to politicians to push such a nonsense.

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (1)

Racemaniac (1099281) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040655)

If this passes they might as well ban people from driving cars because they can be used to traffic illegal drugs.

from the lawmakers point of view, the illegal part is indeed the main reason.
but for the isp's to take action, it's obviously another reason, it's more like
"If this passes they might as well ban people from driving cars because they clog the roads"

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (1)

weetabeex (1065032) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040909)

"If this passes they might as well ban people from driving cars because they clog the roads"

Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea at all. It's getting rather usual (where I live) finding people cloging the main streets for no apparent reason, except, maybe, the pure fear of driving and hit something.

I'm not in a big, big city, but it causes enought damages in the morning, when most of the people are hitting the highway accesses.

The only real problem is that in this streets there is no lower velocity limit (like in highways, everybody must go above 40kph). For what the law states, they may as well cross the car in the middle of the street and leave it there.

At least, with internet connections you expect to "drive" at a given speed (assuming you're not being caped), and your old neighbour won't be slowing you down. The road... the road is a totally different story.

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (5, Interesting)

Lavene (1025400) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040731)

One of our great lawmakers here once said in a TV interview that a good solution would be to simply ban file sharing!

The interviewer asked if she meant all kind of sharing, like if he had a document he had written him self on his computer and wanted to share it, would it be illegal? And the great lawmaker answered: "We are talking about files here, not documents and stuff like that."

The point is: They haven't got a clue! The haven't the faintest idea what they're talking about. But that doesn't stop them from passing laws...

No Free Content (5, Informative)

EzInKy (115248) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040793)


I really think they are missing the point of how this technology has made an impact on how we get our content from the internet.

No, they see the point perfectly clear. Their view is that people need to stop thinking that they can get free stuff from the internet. The last sentence of this BBC article [bbc.co.uk] sums up the industry's position pretty well:


"We don't believe that society can allow the free consumption of content to persist"

Re:No Free Content (4, Insightful)

ijakings (982830) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040859)

You mean the free consumption of infinately reproductable content?

I think we all can see the Industrys position, they dont want to evolve and create new business models so they are paying off politicians to pass laws so they dont have to.

Having actually read both the article and the proposed legislation itself none of it makes sense.
Pirates will find ways around it, and those of us who legally consume things from P2P will be screwed. They clearly havent heard of VPN's based in countrys without amazing industry Lobbying. Sure itll be slower but they wont beat the determined Pirate, they just make everyone elses life that much harder.

centralise, regulate and control (5, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040983)

I think they do get it. the one thing governments hate is the uncontrolled spreading of information. Whether that's pr0n, plans for bombs, propaganda or state secrets doesn't matter. What they would all like - whether a country has a bill of rights, a constitution or whatever - is to have ultimate control over what their people get to see.

So far the internet has been seen as a necessary evil. Something that has some benefits (outsourcing, e-commerce) and some small disadvantages. Now we have a situation where a large pressure group (the media) want to change the order of things and are using their influence to put a halt to this unregulated area.

Governments like the idea of people paying for things. That way they get to tax them more and also put in place commercial frameworks where it is in the suppliers interests to toe the line. (For some reason they haven't managed this with the drugs trade - yet). It also allows them to regulate the content, by controlling the providers. So far, because of their general cluelessness in technical areas, governments haven't come up with an effective way to do this - while keeping the veneer of freedom/democracy that they like people to think they have. Just as soon as they can come up with a "think of the children" strategy that works, they'll implement it and the internet will become a top-down hierarchy with laws, penalties and controls.

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (5, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040827)

They aren't missing the point at all. The understand the point perfectly and that is why they don't like it.

P2P, especially torrenting, massively decentralises the process of distributing information. For centuries such technology has been held only be a self-selecting elite, who have appointed themselves as gatekeepers for societies discourse, believing they know what is best for us mere plebs to think. People using their bandwidth to help each other broadcast information instead of just downloading it from corporate and government sources scare the EU parliament. They can't be controlled, you see.

It is part of a wider move to reshape society that has been going on for at least a century.

If you imagine society as a tree structure, with the leaders at the top and the citizens at the bottom, and connections between members of society. Some of these are vertical ones that transcend the 'levels' of the tree, and represent the unequal relationships we have with those more powerful than us or less powerful. Some connections are horizontal ones between peers and equals. The method of control that has been preferred by western civilisation is the elimination of horizontal connections in society to make people more dependent on vertical ones.

In terms of the Internet, this is reflected by the constant legislation aimed at eliminating the Internet as a global communication network with a low barrier for entry for those wishing to transmit, and turning it into a mere conduit for delivering products and services of those in power. That is what the Internet has been to these people for the past 15 years - the fact we can use it for our own needs is to them a fault which needs to be corrected.

Rant over. Seems you caught me at a philosophical moment.

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (5, Insightful)

initialE (758110) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040899)

If those in power want to kill the internet for the common man, what is there to stop the common man from killing the internet for those in power? I like the way the politician the parent was talking about put it - "We are talking about files here, not documents and stuff like that." Well guess what, documents are files. You ban our files and we will ban yours. You find a loophole to suit your purposes and we will abuse it to suit ours. The only insight that those in power haven't understood is that everything is joined at the hip here - what works for you works for me, and what won't work for you won't work for me.

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (1, Insightful)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041021)

"...the fact we can use it for our own needs is to them a fault which needs to be corrected."

P2P could have been a massive force for good, enabling, as you said, the massive distribution of user-created information and content. Instead, however, 99% of the time it's used to steal the latest 50-cent song or to snag a copy of Iron Man.

As such, I don't think the politicians are the ones you should be blaming...

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (5, Interesting)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041051)

You can't steal data. Its a physically nonsensical concept. The only way I can see actual theft working is if you were to use quantum teleportation to extract the electrons from one persons computer and place them in your own.

Distribution of trash media is part of what helps level the playing field. It means that people used to getting their data through conventional means now get it through the new medium, and thus are looking in the right place to find user generated content.

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (-1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040971)

"P2P isn't just about illegal file sharing, it's bigger than that. "

No, it's smaller than that. Last set of numbers I saw said that P2P is burning up 50% of the current total bandwidth. And "legitimate" P2P isn't even 1% of that number. P2P could have had legitimate uses, sure, but the parasites took over the host and killed it.

Besides, we can always go back to getting our "Linux distros" off mirror sites...

Re:I guess they still don't get it yet (1)

jessica_alba (1234100) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041085)

so if you can't afford to buy music written over 250 years ago you are a parasite right?

I am sure this is newsworthy (-1, Flamebait)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040611)

... but a link to a Wiki that I am supposed to take as fact? I can't be sure what is true or not true on a damn wiki!

I could just as well cry that the sky is falling and post a link to some random page on wikipedia where I edit randomly and play Chicken Little and run around with my head chopped off.

Re:I am sure this is newsworthy (2, Insightful)

AlterRNow (1215236) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040647)

Wiki, website, books, TV.. the air. They are all just mediums in which information is shared. Why do you ( and others.. ) seem to think they one is more trustworthy than another?

Fly-by anon vandalism? (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040683)

Most books, for example, aren't vulnerable to the kind of fly-by anonymous vandalism which many wikis allow.

> Why do you ( and others.. ) seem to think they one is
> more trustworthy than another?

Don't be hypocritical --- do you really trust me just as much as you trust your closest friend? Everyone estimates and prioritizes the reliability of the information sources they encounter.

Re:Fly-by anon vandalism? (1)

skreeech (221390) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040715)

Speaking of this do any wikis have a way to view only certified accurate articles? There is such a variety of information that wikipedia would be a good start if it weren't for more stealthy abuse and inaccuracies. Stephen Colbert can nip African Elephants off an endangered species list and if someone loads a page at that moment they have no idea.

I've caught a really blatant part of an article (that didn't seem to be popular) and it was gone within minutes with no trace. I wonder how often that has happened before while looking for research sources.

Re:Fly-by anon vandalism? (2, Informative)

rugatero (1292060) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041235)

Wikipedia does give a list of featured [wikipedia.org] and good [wikipedia.org] articles.

Some may find it rather telling that of the almost 2.5m articles on WP, only 6,500 make the grade for either of the lists

Re:Fly-by anon vandalism? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040741)

Thing is that wikipedia gets a lot more flack than others for no good reason. Most of the vandalism on the site is akin to a kid drawing a penis in a library book. When the word "asstoast" is added to every 3rd sentence in an article it's not really hard to spot. This means what you really have to be cautious of is people with an alteria motive writing something or removing bits that go against their view. But then this is automatic with a normal book, you get all the biases of the author and no edit log to check. Personally I think what bothers people more is that wikipedia has few clear biases which carry through the whole site unlike most news sites or pay encyclopedias. You can't just dismiss something on there with "it's all conservative crap" or "it's all liberal crap" or anti/pro X.

Re:Fly-by anon vandalism? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24040881)

I assure you, I have a degree in my chosen subject to vandalise and I find it very easy to insert hundreds of inaccuracies or skews of viewpoint which remain for weeks / forever. You say "most of the vandalism is akin to a penis drawing" because most Wikipedia editors know sufficiently little even about their chosen subjects that this is the only type of vandalism they have a hope of spotting. It's like standing on a tall platform in a cosmopolitan city centre and saying "I see more blacks than I see homosexuals". Bravo, your eye is more trustworthy than your gaydar.

My agenda is simple: giving people who use Wikipedia what they deserve. Think of it like putting laxative in the chocolates of people who attend a pro-Scientology rally.

Re:Fly-by anon vandalism? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24041143)

[Citation needed]

Re:Fly-by anon vandalism? (1)

AlterRNow (1215236) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040929)

I'm not being hypocritical and I fail to see how you could think I am.

You and my friend are sources of information. I would trust my friend more as he has a record of being honest. I wouldn't dismiss what he said on the sole basis of having read it on a Wiki ( whether I knew it was him or not ) just like I wouldn't take what you said as gospel if it was written in a book.

ISP ESP (4, Funny)

dotslashdot (694478) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040627)

So the ISP has ESP for P2P unless you're L33T enough to have L2TP or PPTP?

Weird (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24040639)

I've always thought that encrypted and suitably tunneled P2P traffic cannot be blocked without blocking the non-P2P traffic whose protocol is used as a channel. Do they want to shut down the Internet?

Re:Weird (5, Interesting)

flape (1114919) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040651)

There are already claims that its possible to distinguish the protocols inside encrypted channels based on packet size and timming with quite high accuracy

Re:Weird (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040777)

In that case I rewrite the program I'm using to tunnel into my vpn a little so it tries to look like another protocol at the cost of a little bandwidth.
Arms race which can only be won by encryption being outlawed or enshrined in the constitution.

Re:Weird (1)

flape (1114919) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040837)

If you read the consequences suggested on wiki(on of them is mandatory Trusted computing) which could lead that you wont be even able to write/run your own altered program, as only certified programs would be allowed and that would be end of IT as we know it and that must NOT happen

Re:Weird (5, Insightful)

phoenix321 (734987) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040925)

Oh yeah, mandatory Trusted Computing, the magic bullet. Because enumerating and safeguarding against all known good or bad software products has worked sooo well in corporate environments.

Last time I checked, online gaming had a massive problem with cheaters of all sorts, despite a decade's effort to secure their client code and to check against known badware. With no luck.

Good luck trying to keep an updated, effective list of all known intellectual-property-respecting, human-rights-compatible, hate-speech-free and politically-absolutely-correct software products.

Excuse me while I'm off to my hidden stash of guns and ammo, adding loads of paper and several unregistered mechanical typewriters to the loot.

Don't forget: the Soviet Union required the registration of any and all typewriters and printing devices with the authorities. Unregistered possession of such items was a felony and severely punished.

But in Soviet Europe, Trusted Computing registers YOU! Ihre Papiere bitte mein Herr!

Re:Weird (3, Insightful)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041091)

You know what, its a fair cop.

People compare the current actions of the US with the Nazis and on that basis it is far from unreasonable to extend the analogy and compare the EU to Communists.

We do much the same stuff, except instead of invoking national pride and military glory we simply tell you we are doing whats best for you, and you will understand one day, you poor deluded child.

Re:Weird (5, Informative)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041181)

Oh yeah, mandatory Trusted Computing, the magic bullet. Because enumerating and safeguarding against all known good or bad software products has worked sooo well in corporate environments.

Apparently, you don't grok how "Trusted Computing" works. It works on a "white list" principal. If any of the software/OS/applications/BIOS/hardware isn't on the white list, then the machine in question will not certify as "trusted" when queried when you attempt to connect to your ISP or any other "trusted" machine, appliance, or service. Any time you attempt to connect, "T.C." authorization servers verify the "trusted" or "not trusted" state of the machine with a hash generated from the machines' hardware/software and the unique keys stored in the silicon against hashes/keys on a "T.C." authorization server.

Currently, the "T.C." chip is a discrete IC on the motherboard. It will soon be integrated directly onto the CPU wafer. There's no "getting to" the keys contained, as they never leave the IC, never resides in RAM or on a data bus. So unless you have advanced, very expensive equipment for reverse-engineering and fabricating microchips at the micron level you're out of luck. Even were someone to succeed, all that trouble and expense would only allow *one* machine to falsify a "trusted" state, and only until it was discovered and its' unique keys revoked at the T.C. authorization servers, all but "bricking" the machine as far as any use in conjunction with the "trusted" network.

I truly believe this will be the next major battle in the arms race between those who wish to control information and people, and those that want freedom, and might very well be the last if they succeed. They've already committed themselves to this path and fired the first shot with the inclusion of the outboard "T.C." chip on many/most(?) motherboards. If they succeed in fully rolling this system out, times will surely get "interesting" indeed, in that bad old Chinese curse kind of way.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Weird (2, Interesting)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041137)

As I said in another post, you can attempt to encrypt it, change ports, fiddle with the timing, run a VPN, or simply wave your hands in the air as misdirection, but the fact is that to be effective a P2P program MUST send gigabytes of data upstream to multiple destinations. It's inherent in the nature of the beast.

All one has to do to spot it is meter the connection and count bytes...

Re:Weird (2, Insightful)

Xiph (723935) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041115)

the obvious fix to this, is to fill the empty space with zeroes (which encrypted will appear as random noise) to encrypted sockets.

It's not good enough to do only for bittorrent, since the exploit can be potentially be used for similar things against other protocols.

But only in certain case (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041119)

Only if the protocol are locked down to a few and known. And it only works if no jitter is intentionally added for non time critical applications.

There are many legal uses for filesharing (4, Interesting)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040649)

BitTorrent was originally designed to distribute Open Source software installation CD images.

Jamendo [jamendo.com] uses it to distribute Creative Commons-licensed music, all of it with the explicit permission of its copyright holders.

BitTorrent is crucial to my musical aspirations, as distributing my music [geometricvisions.com] with it allows me to provide formats that would use a lot of bandwidth, such as FLAC, without incurring expensive bandwidth charges.

While musicians can host their music for free at places like MySpace, it's really best to for artists to have their own websites, and to host their own music. That way, growth in the popularity of their sites will enrich the artists, rather than the music hosting service.

But a hit song can bankrupt struggling musicians if they just supply regular HTTP downloads; p2p enables mass distribution at a very low cost.

It's very important to get the message through to lawmakers and the public that filesharing, while it can be abused, is inherently perfectly legitimate, and should be kept both legal and technically possible.

Re:There are many legal uses for filesharing (5, Insightful)

i'm lost (1247580) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040657)

BitTorrent is crucial to my musical aspirations, as distributing my music [geometricvisions.com] with it allows me to provide formats that would use a lot of bandwidth, such as FLAC, without incurring expensive bandwidth charges.

While musicians can host their music for free at places like MySpace, it's really best to for artists to have their own websites, and to host their own music. That way, growth in the popularity of their sites will enrich the artists, rather than the music hosting service.

And you think the record companies want that?

Of course they don't - but we shouldn't let them (5, Insightful)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040687)

... run the government. In democratic countries at least, the government serves at the pleasure of the people, not the corporations.

And yes I'm well aware of the corrupting influence of campaign donations and lobbyists. If those lead to bad laws being passed, it's because the voters don't care about their own rights.

There are definitely more voters than corporations, so it's well-within our abilities to put those who pass bad laws out of a job.

Re:Of course they don't - but we shouldn't let the (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24041189)

Good luck with that. I've lost all hope here.

-- An Italian.

Re:There are many legal uses for filesharing (4, Interesting)

thermian (1267986) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040695)

It's very important to get the message through to lawmakers and the public that filesharing, while it can be abused, is inherently perfectly legitimate, and should be kept both legal and technically possible.

No problem, say, you wouldn't happen to have millions of pounds and a whole bunch of lobbyists/lawyers we could use would you?

That's what it will take.

The media companies see p2p as a deadly threat, so they will just keep hammering on about it, rewording, restating, and lobbying different groups, until they eventually get what they want.

That's how things seem to work in the US (not US bashing here, that's a genuine observation), and the technique is being applied in the EU by the same companies.

Not that the EU is perfect. Not for nothing is it known as the french farmers fan club. Those guys get pretty much anything they want.

A hit song bankrupting struggling musicians (1)

patio11 (857072) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041017)

It costs about a buck a gig these days for reliable transfer from my hosting company. Seventeen cents if you use an ounce of planning and get an account with Amazon S3.

A hit song is what, 4 MB? So 1 GB supports 250 users. One *million* users is, cranks the math, $680. If a million people are listening to your music, you laugh in the general direction of $680 worth of hosting bills. (Which is, in any case, far cheaper than your gear, recording studio time, software, and PC for uploading the stuff was.)

BitTorrent solves two problems really well: flash crowds (not something you have to worry about as a niche artist, and getting less of a problem by the day thanks to utility computing -- what is your flash crowd gonig to do, crash Amazon?) and continuous, sustained transfer of enormous binary files. In practice, that means either Linux distributions or pirated things. And the pirated things are far and away more popular than the Linux distributions.

Most musicians can't use unmanaged hosting (1)

MichaelCrawford (610140) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041129)

Amazon S3 would only work for artists who have day jobs such as sysadmin or programming.

If a musician is to run their own website at all, all but a few would need managed hosting, where the bandwidth is much more expensive.

I know this very well, because I'm designing the website for a musician who wasn't capable of downloading and installing Adobe Reader on her own computer - and she was completely flummoxed when I sent her a link to my MP3s.

This is not an unintelligent woman; she is a virtuoso pianist, and has a Master's degree from a top conservatory.

Fixing Problems (5, Insightful)

Derosian (943622) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040673)

This type of solution solves nothing (People will always find ways to share files illegally, just like people will always find ways to do illegal drugs), increases tension (Any regulatory legislation or law increases tension between those that create and enforce the laws and those the law is being enforced upon), and removes a useful service. (Peer to Peer is used for many purposes outside of illegal file sharing.)

Besides, the only people pushing for this type of legislation are large companies and their shareholders. As a regular Joe, I can say I can disagree strongly with this.

Re:Fixing Problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24040825)

just like people will always find ways to do illegal drugs

1. Find 'something' they like to consume more that alcohol
2. share what they like with others
3. profit (sequestered from incumbent drug producers)
4. 'something' gets defined as an 'illegal drug'

'illegal drug' - no such thing, its illegal possession

Not going to happen... (5, Interesting)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040675)

Sure, it might sound plausible when the RIAA/MPAA paints a picture of P2P = piracy and stack up all the "favorable facts" but there's no way something like that would pass. You don't hear much from other uses because they have no interest in political mudslinging, but they're there. While all the countries of the EU have their own laws, I know at least my own (which isn't part of EU but.. long story) has freedom of speech written into the constitution. Trying to block legitimate speech because it's not approved by the "authorities" would fall so flat on its face in court it'd be an embarrasment to any politician that passed it.

Re:Not going to happen... (1)

Bazer (760541) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040783)

Trying to block legitimate speech because it's not approved by the "authorities" would fall so flat on its face in court it'd be an embarrasment to any politician that passed it.

You must be new here. I'd like to welcome you to the wonderful world of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Not going to happen... (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040833)

You must be new here. I'd like to welcome you to the wonderful world of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act

There's plenty speech that isn't legal as copyright is a restriction on freedom of speech itself (as is libel, slander, fraud, deceptive marketing, threats, shouting "fire" in a crowded theater abd so on), but they all go towards the content of the speech not the means of its transmission. If I record my own political speech, convert it to mp3 and put it up on bittorrent except bittorrent doesn't work because it's been shut down by the state apparatink, do you understand where I'm going with this? There's a reason "freedom of the press" is in the first amendment, look at the old Soviet Union or the current China, when the government can shut down any media they want you're well on the way to fascism.

Re:Not going to happen... (1)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041231)

>> If I record my own political speech, convert it to mp3 and put it up on bittorrent except bittorrent doesn't work because it's been shut down by the state apparatink, do you understand where I'm going with this?

That would help - political speech is also protected, and often violently so. If a semi-major candidate started using P2P to distribute his campaign communications, then shutting down that media channel would be a huge no-no. I'm not saying it would stop it on its own, but it would certainly add to the difficulty of doing so.

MadCow.

As in p2p =~ tcp/ip? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24040721)

As P2P is just a TCP/IP connection between two points, wouldn't that ban all forms of connections as in the whole Internet?...

In other news (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24040723)

Citizens banned from cities streets in a move to prevent mugging.

No way to kill P2P without killing the ISP market! (4, Insightful)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040759)

1. A lot of customers, especially home ones, use internet almost just for the P2P applications.
2. As they will close the P2P protocols, new ones will arise.
3. Investments for heavy throttling will never pay back as people will find new interesting ways to bypass it or to switch to a different ISP!

Re:No way to kill P2P without killing the ISP mark (1)

mopflite (693070) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040805)

3. Investments for heavy throttling will never pay back as people will find new interesting ways to bypass it or to switch to a different ISP!

Except that ever increasing consolidation in the ISP market is rapidly reducing consumer choice, and will continue to do so. In five years time, I doubt that a typical USA or UK resident will have more than two or three broadband ISPs from whom they can obtain service.

Re:No way to kill P2P without killing the ISP mark (1)

VincenzoRomano (881055) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040845)

Still the throttling investments need to pay back.

Re:No way to kill P2P without killing the ISP mark (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24041037)

If they can't get what they want, they can trot on down to the library and use the Internet there or buy a laptop and use the free WiFi around at a coffeehouse or other place of business. We are at the point where using free sources of Internet connectivity make sense if all of your ISP choices suck.

ISPs need to be more aware of this. Sure, they can implement Sandvine all they want and try to tier their bandwidth for maximum theoretical profit instead of maximum return on investment and maximum customer satisfaction. I can also tell them to pound sand and walk down to the corner coffee shop, buy a $1 cup of coffee, and check my email.

Re:No way to kill P2P without killing the ISP mark (5, Insightful)

flape (1114919) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040889)

The proposed law, suggest that the state would pay for the ISP's losses, so it might even be profitable for ISP to cut a customer. This is not just about p2p anymore. This is about basic freedom/survival...

Re:No way to kill P2P without killing the ISP mark (1)

Therefore I am (1284262) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040905)

The P2P toothpaste is not only out of the tube, it is spread so far and wide that it can never be retrieved for repacking. Only dummies, and the desperate, would even think that legislation will achieve the impossible. Get a new business model or join the dinosaurs.

Re:No way to kill P2P without killing the ISP mark (5, Funny)

robably (1044462) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040985)

And the thing is, dinosaurs didn't even use toothpaste. That's how far out of whack the laws are with the technology - toothpaste and dinosaurs don't even exist in the same world. How can a dinosaur even attempt to squeeze the toothpaste back in to the tube - the toothpaste is millions of years away in the future, being squeezed out more and more while the dinosaur is powerless to stop it. All it can do is waggle its little front legs and roar in frustration. For all it's mighty strength and razor-sharp teeth, it is impotent in the face of future toothpaste.
And even if it could get to the toothpaste it couldn't even brush its teeth because its tiny arms won't reach its terrible mouth. How the mighty fall - not through asteroid strike or an ice age, but through lack of toothpaste. We have all the toothpaste, here in the future. True, much is gone forever, washed down the plugholes of the past, but the lion's share of the toothpaste is still to come, and we shall spread it far out of the tube, beyond this horizon, beyond the reach of the dinosaurs of the past with their smelly breath and dirty teeth. Yes indeed, my friend - the toothpaste is, indeed, well and truly out of the tube, and the dummies and the desperate can only stand and quiver. Stand and quiver.

Counting bytes... (1)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041071)

Books, music, and movies are multi-billion dollar industries. Did everyone just expect to be able to steal them blind and continue to get away with it?

Further, only dummies, and the desperate, would think that the continuous downloading and uploading of gigabytes of data from a home DSL or cable connection to hundreds of other connections doing the same exact thing is a pattern that can't be spotted, tracked, and dealt with.

You can attempt to encrypt it, change ports, or do whatever, but the fact is that to be effective a P2P program MUST send gigabytes of data upstream. All one has to do is count bytes...

Re:No way to kill P2P without killing the ISP mark (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041217)

Considering that many ISPs want to close P2P as well, because they do not actually want traffic on their lines, I do not see it as a problem for the ISP.

What the ISP want is to sell you X amount of traffic and each MB another Y amount of money, while they themselves do not need to pass on that money. Less traffic is GOOD for the ISP

Encryption is the Next step (5, Interesting)

secondhand_Buddah (906643) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040773)

The only feasible solution at this point to to encrypt streams between clients and servers. the obligatory reply about performance may be crossing your mind right now, but is there actually any other solution?
Globally, legislation is being forced through parliaments, to take away our rights. This legislation has come in many forms, but the result of it is that someone wants to access and read your streams of data for whatever reason.
The only way to render this closer to impossible is to stop them being able to read your private correspondence with a web information service provider. The cost for this privacy - faster servers - will be a small price to pay.
Decrypting private data is generally regarded as a serious offence in most countries, and while, only the USA security organisations have access to Verisign's root servers, they will not admit this in public, because it would take away their advantage.

Re:Encryption is the Next step (1)

Permutation Citizen (1306083) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041009)

Sure NSA has big computers and talented cryptography experts. They may know some flaws in encryption schemes or in their implementations, and may be able to decrypt your private data.

But having access to verisign root server is no help to decrypt verisign customers private data.

Re:Encryption is the Next step (1)

secondhand_Buddah (906643) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041099)

Having access to Verisign's root servers, means that they have both your public and private keys. This means they can decrypt your encrypted RSA streams on the fly without any really serious hardware or specialised talent

Re:Encryption is the Next step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24041107)

Actually, it is! It allows a man in the middle attack.

Becuase, yes, you can't decrypt the traffic between client and server, but if you have the verisign certificate, you can get in between the 2, and make the client think you're the server while making the server think you're the client. All traffic can then be seen unencrypted by you.

Re:Encryption is the Next step (0)

shmlco (594907) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041097)

"... to take away our rights..."

You, or others, have a right to steal? You, or others, are somehow magically entitled to all of the free content you can download?

"... only feasible solution at this point to to encrypt streams..."

I guess not stealing content doesn't count as being a feasible solution? Sad, really, when you stop to think about it.

Re:Encryption is the Next step (1)

Xelios (822510) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041125)

Decryption won't hide the fact that you're using a Bittorrent service, for example. The traffic usage pattern alone will give it away.

Though P2P services will continue to evolve. If they close one door, another is opened. It's been that way since long before Napster, when people used IRC's DCC and newsgroups to share files. Filesharing can't be stopped without destroying the internet, because the internet was created to share files.

Unfortunately, because they control the network destroying the internet is within the telco's ability. I'd imagine they're heading toward an internet where only approved packets are sent on to their destination. They'll create a list of approved hosting services and approved applications then throw out everything else. Since everything has to run over their backbones they could control it.

Encrypted packets are a problem for them, but they'll figure that one out eventually. Even if they have to replace today's encryption with a whole new public key encryption scheme, and ignore everything else. Certificates would be given from central servers controlled by the Telcos only to approved services (like online banking for example), whom they'll charge a pretty penny for a 'subscription' to this service. Any encrypted connection that doesn't possess this certificate is thrown out.

I don't really believe any of this will stop filesharing, because they're fighting against millions of geeks around the world who will always find a hole to exploit. But the telcos could do a lot of collateral damage in process of trying.

That's it, I'm fed up with this BS (1)

zugurudumba (1009301) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040855)

Is Freenet ready? What do you mean they're still coding it in Java?

Re:That's it, I'm fed up with this BS (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041007)

That will be blocked aswell it's p2p.

I guuess Skype and Tor will also be blocked.

They don't get abundance (5, Interesting)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040919)

All our models for running a society and an economy use scarcity as a starting point; there is more demand for something than supply, and thus there must be a strong rule of law to make sure the resource is distributed properly (although I think its fair to say plenty of people disagree on the definition of 'properly')

Data is not scare though. In a P2P network, every person who demands also by definition supplies, thus demand can never outstrip supply.

They will lose this battle for mathematical rather than political reasons (the level of control they desire is impossible, and if they understood the technology they would know that) - but it interests me as a foreshadowing of a possible future.

Our society could well die from a resources shortage, but we might be able to save ourselves. Three technologies currently being researched, controlled nuclear fusion, autonomous robots, and universal fabrication, could conceivably bring the abundance we see in data to the majority of physical products and services. I listed them in order of the maturity of each field, but I believe that in my lifetime (I am 27 for reference) we could see them all reach a point where want can be effectively eliminated.

Of course, there are some people, the same people we are complaining about now, who don't want to see that. Desperate people are controllable people.

The nice thing about music and movies (3, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040941)

Is that I can live pretty well without them. Who knows, I may even get more work done.

bla (0, Redundant)

luther349 (645380) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040951)

bla bla bla bla lol thats all i hear with this p2p is just 1 of the many ways to get what you whant and the cheapest. they will never be able to block it thers always a work around and even if they managed that thers plenty of other ways.

Everything's Backwards Here (0, Troll)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 6 years ago | (#24040989)

Instead of trampling over the rights of people (and this will effect the US also) everywhere by fucking up the communications, they should instead, be telling copyright holders, if you don't want your shit online, don't publish it.

And for people under the telco power, should be telling the telco to fuck off. Everyone globally should cancel, close out or let run out their accounts in protest. You don't need a fucking cell phone to survive, we didn't have that shit in the 70's!

Keep paying their bills and they will keep having the money to lobby your rights away. In the USA that's FISA, FISA will fuck up the 4th Amendment sure, but what people don't see is that it will also fuck up the 1ST Amendment. You can't have anonymous sources, if your being snooped on. IF you can't have anonymous sources, then you can't have freedom of speech. (Which is already fucked up by the fascist media anyway)

We should go back to hand delivery of everything.

Turn off the fucking networks.

Stop paying for CABLE, DSL, DIALUP or whatever the fuck you got.

Or else take it up the ass. And let them fuck you.

They are going to destroy the internet next. It's the last piece of the puzzle.

You can call me paranoid I don't give a shit what you think of me, just do the right thing for yourself.

Re:Everything's Backwards Here (NOT TROLL) (1)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041185)

I bet you like abusing your mod points. I bet your one of the US Cyber-warfare fucks.

Additionally use of open source not compatible (3, Insightful)

kirthn (64001) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041023)

this worries me the most :

"Free Software is not compatible with standards used to try to restrict the run of a  lawful application  : Free Software can be studied and modified by the user himself to check the security of the software or to create a new lawful application as Free Soffware authors grant the right to do so to every user. And technologies used to check if an application is lawful consider user modified software as unlawful. So beside pushing dangerous technologies for privacy, this amendment mays create by itself a barrier in the internal market even if an ISO standard of treacherous computing emerges like the following (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=50970)."

how far off (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24041031)

how long is it gonna be till ppl decide to say fuck off isp's
and go for mesh networking
i mean in spots it would be bad but easyly
by shear volume u could connect together
atleast intercontinentally
and i mean then what are they gonna do?
start blocking radio waves
if we want to have the internet remain what it has been in the past we'll have to do this
because its not like our government
will stand up for our rights or at all repersent what the people want
doesnt matter how many times the **AA keeps at it and it gets swated down the government still wont get that we dont want these sort of laws...
need to completely take the control out of anyones hands
and make the internet a wireless version of what it was designed to be
with all the inherited redundancy that comes with that

peace

Re:how far off (1)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041057)

I'm already starting to do that. In a slightly different way.

All the radio stations here have nothing but corporate fascist media owned content, So I stream, a progressive station 24/7 across FM wireless, although it doesn't cover very far, it's enough that several homes in all directions can receive the station.

The same thing could apply to communications.
Convert your CB's and HAM equipment, etc.

So, how long? / torrent relays? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24041069)

How long will it be before ISPs end up becoming WSPs (Web service providers)?

It is becoming downright pathetic.
Even more so are the people who are caving to such a desperate industry.
Either get with the fucking times, or stop producing, period.

In other news, isn't there some site (torrent relay or something) that allows torrenting through a web browser?
Would a system created solely for doing this be able to defeat them?
Obviously this would require several servers from people willing to pay for bandwidth, maybe people could even help by running a web server, it would be similar to Tor in a sense.

Re:So, how long? / torrent relays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24041169)

Labelled a troll?
What the hell is wrong with Slashdot these days?

This is not only not a troll, it is on-topic, twice!

Either someone failed at reading, or someone is abusing the mod-points system.

Re:So, how long? / torrent relays? (1)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041193)

You ain't no troll, they're fucking me too! just above you...

Re:So, how long? / torrent relays? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24041207)

Yeah i had noticed that, and several posts above that had been labelled the same.
I bet it is one of them actually.

The modding system really needs to be done another way, too many people already use it to beat away opinions they don't like.

utterly clueless (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041103)

let's go out on a limb, and say the "internet police" can do this (as it is incredibly daunting): we are going to go out and define every node of the internet as "client" and "server". that's a leap of faith, and resources, but lets just go and say that someone can do this

the "client" can only consume, and never serve traffic. ok. so you can never make a form request. you can never upload a youtube video. you can never send an email. you can't chat

oh, ok, ok, you can serve some things... certain ports, certain packet headers are ok... we'll just filter out any unauthorized served content

wtf?

so let's make a second huge leap and say the "internet police" can (with whatever magical resources) identify all nodes as client/ server AND police all traffic formats as allowed/ not allowed. and these are two huge suspensions of disbelief, that anyone can have the willpower and the mandate and the resources to do these two things

now you STILL have issues like:

1. obfuscation. why can't i encrypt my copy of "iron man" as a bunch of supposed form requests. i can't label p2p traffic with a bogus packet header? i can't encrypt it? i can't send it down an "authorized" port?
2. gateways. rogue servers that merely reflect data to another client. perhaps taken over. perhaps just tricked into using "allowed" modes of communication to communicate "iron man"
3. spoofing. trick the watchdogs into thinking p2p traffic is actually legit server to client traffic (ip spoofing but one example, there are a dozen more spoofs)
4. etc., etc. smarter people than me can think up a myriad more ways

it's a game of whack-a-mole. it's a pointless, endless, arms race: every technical effort to kill p2p merely results in the creation of hardier versions of p2p. furthermore, on one side you have a bunch of disorganized, passively interested, technically astute, and most importantly, POOR teenagers. millions of them. on the other side, you have a bunch of expensive hired guns, funded by a pool of money that is, get this, being siphoned off by the unorganized teenager's efforts. take a wild guess where i place my bet on who is going to win this contest

morons: the ONLY way to kill p2p is to pervert the nature of the internet to the point that anything compelling and useful about the internet is not also destroyed. if the information flow is not also free, and only one way, you stifle the creation of new services, and bureaucratically choke any existing useful ones. the internet becomes stagnant, passive, just a form television delivered over tcp/ip. the internet is killed

so how about another option for you: p2p isn't going away, and fucking get used to it! reality accept it, don't fight it, you stupid twits

Pirate WiFi? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24041201)

This shit is going to escalate until it's too late. Telcos make money anyway through landline and cellphones rates, cable TV and stuff, so I wouldn't expect them to fear losing customers. People should consider getting the necessary equipment to set up a pirate radio station like they did in the 60s and 70s, but this time by using common Wi-Fi equipment. I wish every home recycled an old PC with wireless card setting up a minimum file server, a dynamic routing daemon (OLSR, b.a.t.m.a.n., etc) and a p2p client.

Re:Pirate WiFi? (1)

myspace-cn (1094627) | more than 6 years ago | (#24041213)

Exactly! I wish I could mod you up, but there's some idiot running around marking us as TROLLS.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?