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!

MPAA Boss Makes Case for ISP Content Filtering

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the same-old-routine dept.

282

creaton writes "At the annual UBS Global & Media Communications Conference yesterday, MPAA boss Dan Glickman banged on the copyright filtering drum during a 45-minute speech. Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue and told the audience that it cost the studios $6 billion annually. His solution: technology, especially in the form of ISP filtering. 'The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected ... and I think that's a great opportunity.' AT&T has already said it plans to filter content, but others may be more reluctant to go along, notes Ars Technica: 'ISPs that are concerned with being, well, ISPs aren't likely to see many benefits from installing some sort of industrial-strength packet-sniffing and filtering solution at the core of their network. It costs money, customers won't like the idea, and the potential for backlash remains high.'"

cancel ×

282 comments

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

Neat (4, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#21600967)

No one has told this guy about encryption yet?

Re:Neat (5, Funny)

junglee_iitk (651040) | more than 6 years ago | (#21600993)

Encryption is only for criminals.

Captain Copyright told me last night.

Re:Neat (4, Informative)

caffeinemessiah (918089) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601445)

No one has told this guy about encryption yet?

This is why the recent BitTorrent lawsuit against Comcast is so important...once they realize that they can't look inside encrypted packets, they're just going to block all p2p traffic. But even that is going to be hard, because at the encrypted UDP packet level, what really distinguishes a BT packet from, say, a Skype packet which is also encrypted by default? Screw encryption, what differentiates a DRM-free MP3 flying in from iTunes or Amazon from one coming through a modified BT protocol which uses port 80 and fake http headers?

In short, this is the dumbest idea and any implementation will be necessarily half-assed and is going to affect people.

Re:Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601603)

He probably thinks that encryption requires the encryptor to provide the necessary decryption keys. After all, that's what he's been told about why the DRM solutions he's spent billions on don't amount to much.

Re:Neat (5, Funny)

wamerocity (1106155) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601655)

I think we should take a note from modern day politics. I think they should stop referring to music that people downloaded without paying as "stolen" or "illegal" but we should refer it "undocumented music" or is on a "guest-listenership plan"

After all, people are just taking the music that no one wants to buy, right? :D

Re:Neat (4, Funny)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602177)

I'm not a pirate, I'm an undocumented customer.

Re:Neat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21602099)

How about filtering based on all of the steps before a secure connection has been set-up?

What if they simply look at how bittorent works, then filter the data stream by content, ex: pattern of torrent file. etc etc

Re:Neat (1)

nermaljcat (895576) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602189)

I opened this story ready to comment about encryption... and bang! It was the first reply! Must be a lot of ppl thinking the same thing. Stupid corporate business monkeys. The only thing their minds are capable of is greed.

Wrong. (5, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#21600983)

Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue

No, the MPAA's #1 issue is their high prices and crappy movies.

Re:Wrong. (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601015)

No, the MPAA's #1 issue is their high prices and crappy movies.

I think he meant the #1 issue they could do something about.

Re:Wrong. (2, Insightful)

Dance_Dance_Karnov (793804) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601061)

like they can really do anything against piracy? well, I suppose they could make shit no one would want to bother seeing at all.

Re:Wrong. (4, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601257)

like they can really do anything against piracy?

Nice point. People will still get sent to jail, but that won't stop piracy. Eventually, they'll have to admit that the only way to minimize (not stop) piracy is to step on the citizens' legal rights like privacy and free speech.

But even with that, they can't control the world and enforce the same laws without stepping on the other nations' rights.

And not even that will stop piracy.

Re:Wrong. (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601721)

Well, they can't send the Hollywood (or Bollywood, or wherever) producers to jail for making crappy movies, those are the guys that pay their salary!

Re:Wrong. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601851)

I believe that the MPAA should be more concerned about people like the creep on my street corner selling pirated DVDs than they should be with people downloading from the internet.

Re:Wrong. (4, Interesting)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601205)

I disagree. I think movies have in general been pretty good (contrast with the music industry) and the prices are for the most part fair (although theater tickets could stand to be $2-3 cheeper).

The MPAA doesn't have a problem. It's making money hand over fist. I'm sure Dan Glickman wants more money, but don't we all. The MPAA's core business is selling seats in theaters, and they're doing fairly well, not as well as in the mid-90's but that's a measure of the overall health of the economy. The MPAA could sit back, not make any technological changes, and they'd still do well for probably about a decade (again, contrast with the music industry).

If I were pressed to name the MPAA's #1 issue, I'd probably say consumer ambivalence over HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. I wouldn't say piracy.

Re:Wrong. (4, Insightful)

TallMatt (818744) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601447)

I think subscriptions like Netflix are part of the reason why people are not going to the theaters as much as they used to, not the economy. Instead of paying $10 to drive in traffic and sit in a crappy theater, I can watch as many movies as I want at home in comfort, for the whole month! Now with HD-DVD and a nice surround system, there is almost no reason to go to the theater as far as I am concerned.

Re:Wrong. (4, Insightful)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601575)

I have a netflix subscription, and it hasn't stopped me from going to the theater. What it has done is stop me from going to blockbuster (or jumping on thepiratebay). While this is certainly an anecdote, I wouldn't be surprised if it were the general trend.

If I were to guess why theater attendance is a bit down from a decade ago, I'd point to gas prices, and less spending money, but also to the fact that with videogames and the internet there is more competing for our entertainment dollar (or hour) than there was 10 years ago.

Re:Wrong. (1)

Danse (1026) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601989)

I have a netflix subscription, and it hasn't stopped me from going to the theater. What it has done is stop me from going to blockbuster (or jumping on thepiratebay).
Seconded.

Re:Wrong. (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601775)

Actually, Netflix doesn't hurt theater sales too much, but it's murder on DVD sales. DVDs have been taking it in the rear for the past year or so and the MPAA is using it as an excuse to get lawmakers to pass legislation to stop them thar pirates who be stealing arr sales.

I have to admit, after getting Netflix my urge to actually buy DVDs dried up pretty quick. I'll still get stuff here and there (especially if I plan to show it to friends/lend it out), but for the most part my collection has been stagnant for a couple of years now.

Re:Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601773)

(although theater tickets could stand to be $2-3 cheeper).
Forget about ticket prices, what about the ~2000% markup on popcorn and soda?

Re:Wrong. (4, Insightful)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601267)

Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue

No, the MPAA's #1 issue is their high prices and crappy movies.
I wonder where the ongoing WGA strike fell on this list of issues

Re:Wrong. (3, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602095)

Windows genuine advantage is on strike?

Re:Wrong. (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601281)

But they can't get someone else to fix the crappy movies. Getting someone else to stop piracy for free is a good thing for them. I wonder if I can get someone else to pay my rent?

Re:Wrong. (1)

omeomi (675045) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601461)

No, the MPAA's #1 issue is their high prices and crappy movies.

Agreed. My first thought was that the Motion Picture Association of America's #1 issue should be creating quality motion pictures...

Can I borrow his dictionary? (4, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 6 years ago | (#21600999)

The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected


I'm fairly sure it is either incorrect on "nothing" and "everything", or "lose" and "gain"...

Re:Can I borrow his dictionary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601115)

the sentence continues, by -not- filtering copyrighted material. so it's just really awkward wording :P

Re:Can I borrow his dictionary? (2)

Sigismundo (192183) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601155)

The article mentions that ISPs could benefit from content filtering because it could lower overall bandwidth usage. I have a hard time seeing any other benefits to the ISPs though.

Re:Can I borrow his dictionary? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601435)

The ISPs will have to get equipment that can tell the difference between encrypted BitTorrent traffic & all other encrypted and non-encrypted traffic. Eventually, the equipment requirements to do that will cost as much as any bandwidth savings.

That still wont address other issues like legal BitTorrent use, the large amount of false positives they'll get, customer complaints about Service X being slow for some reason.

Theres no way this will be s good thing for ISPs in the long term.

also...

if ISPs join together and reject this, theres a chance they can use a common carrier type of defence but once they try to actively filter BitTorrent, wont they be blamed every time they fail.

Interesting response if you get a letter from the MAFIAA... My ISP filters piracy so I shouldn't be able to download anything illegal and if I can its their fault.

Re:Can I borrow his dictionary? (1)

Sigismundo (192183) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601717)

The ISPs will have to get equipment that can tell the difference between encrypted BitTorrent traffic & all other encrypted and non-encrypted traffic. Eventually, the equipment requirements to do that will cost as much as any bandwidth savings.

But wouldn't the cost of hardware and software that does the filtering be a more or less one time cost? The bandwidth savings would be in effect all the time. It might take a while, but in the long term, the filtering would pay for itself, in addition to any assistance that the MPAA may provide... it would definitely be in their interest to do so. In addition, there are still lots of areas where consumers have only one ISP available to give them internet access. In these markets, ISPs have little incentive to address customer complaints of false positives being filtered.

Re:Can I borrow his dictionary? (1)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601905)

Because hardware doesn't require maintenance, and software never needs updating...

Re:Can I borrow his dictionary? (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602171)

Tell the difference between encrypted traffic? I'm sure the NSA would love to have a talk with the company that is selling that.

If they discover our 128bit key, we'll use a 256, 512, 1024... If set up right there is absolutely no way to tell the difference between encrypted BT and encrypted anything else. That's the point IT'S ENCRYPTED.

Re:Can I borrow his dictionary? (5, Insightful)

Elemenope (905108) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601199)

Yeah, I had the same reaction. If ISP customers buy internet service for (among other reasons) clandestinely downloading movies, then that customer is one more customer you might not have had before. The only thing ISPs have to lose by limiting downloads is more customers.

...Unless you take his quote as a veiled threat, i.e. "You'll have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing things our way, since we will bend legislators over our knee to provide us with the tools to bitchslap you into line if you don't come around." I'd say that's a logical reading of the quote that seems to conform well with the **IA modus operandi and way of thinking.

Re:Can I borrow his dictionary? (1)

Dr. Slacker (31348) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601847)

Also, shouldn't they work on filtering spam and viruses first?!

First (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601007)

First

Make the MPAA pay for it (4, Insightful)

Paul Bristow (118584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601017)

Easy answer. If it REALLY costs the MPAA companies $6bn a year, they should be willing to pay quite a lot to have it done. Say, somewhere around 50% of the "pirated" revenue. So ask them to pay the ISPs $3bn a year and see if they are so keen. How many other investments do you know with a guaranteed 100% return?

Re:Make the MPAA pay for it (5, Insightful)

KeatonMill (566621) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601293)

See the problem here is that the MPAA is calculating this $6 billion/year number by saying multiplying the number of pirated copies (a number they can only estimate and they probably highball it) times the retail cost of a legitimate copy.

The problem with this is that it completely bypasses all microeconomic theory.

In simple terms, there are a huge number of people that will consume your good if it doesn't cost them anything (or next to nothing), but as soon as you raise the price a little bit, the number of people willing to buy the good drops substantially. This is called the price elasticity of demand.

While there is some limited evidence that the market for piracy has shrank the overall market, it's difficult to tell how much of an effect piracy really has. There are so many other factors (dilution of purchase points, ease of access to new/unsigned bands, etc) that there's some evidence that the total market for media has actually increased substantially, but the record labels are being left out of the equation.

Piracy isn't good, but it is a result of a free society and the deadweight loss (basically: if you tax someone or restrict prices via regulation, the decrease in income from the economy is greater than the income from the tax, so there's 'lost' production that never occurs) incurred by preventing it is astronomical.

IANAE, BIAAEM (I am not an economist, but I am an economist major and I hope to get a PhD in economics down the road)

Re:Make the MPAA pay for it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601585)

WTPOYSAIYHTWIANTITEIA? (What's the point of your stupid acronym if you have to write it all next to it to explain it anyways?)

Re:Make the MPAA pay for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21602059)

While there is some limited evidence that the market for piracy has shrank the overall market, it's difficult to tell how much of an effect piracy really has.

Really? There is? Real evidence?

Do you have any sources? I'd be interested in seeing this - I didn't think there was anything hard yet either way.

Re:Make the MPAA pay for it (2, Funny)

lucky130 (267588) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601471)

They'll have to pay them in "theoretical" dollars, not real ones.

Re:Make the MPAA pay for it (2, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601485)

Easy answer. If it REALLY costs the MPAA companies $6bn a year, they should be willing to pay quite a lot to have it done. Say, somewhere around 50% of the "pirated" revenue. So ask them to pay the ISPs $3bn a year and see if they are so keen. How many other investments do you know with a guaranteed 100% return?

I, for one, don't want anyone offering my ISP a few hundred million $ to start filtering content. They just might accept the offer.

Re:Make the MPAA pay for it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601957)

I'll do it for $85 million, that'll buy me a huge fat tube to download movies with.

Re:Make the MPAA pay for it (1)

sumnerp (1017130) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602129)

Dan is clearly right, technology is the solution. All the *AA have to do is use technology to indelibly mark their IP, and only their IP, while allowing for fair use. Once they have solved this problem it will be simple for ISPs to remove their content and no one else's. With $6bn at stake a year I'm sure the MPAA will quickly solve this minor technological issue.

Re:Make the MPAA pay for it (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602373)

I would be amazed that any ISP would touch this with a 10 foot pole. They fought hard to try to get a sort of "common carrier" status, where they are not legally responsible for illegal material going over their network (child pornography, libel, etc). If they turn around and start monitoring their streams for copyright violations, why shouldn't they be on the hook for everything else as well.

And your argument about MPAA paying 1/2 the "damages" is obviously a straw-man, but it does raise an interesting point. I don't think any of these companies should be allowed to claim "damages" without quantifying that lost revenue on their 10-Q and 10-K reports and to their investors. I suspect most of that figure would instantly evaporate if the CFO's were told the numbers had to be accurate or they would go to jail for fraud.

If the MPAA focused more on assisting ISPs (4, Insightful)

bagboy (630125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601023)

on a method of locally delivering stored digital content (Video-On-Demand) for fees, such as subsidizing the cost of VOD servers, more content would make it to the end users legally. I would see that as a win-win-win (MPI,ISP,User) for everyone. They get their cut, the ISP doesn't have to pay for the excess bandwidth in/out of their network and the end users get quick access to VoD.

So... (3, Insightful)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601029)

Everything except public domain and governmental reports will be filtered?

By definition, all text, pictures, and video have copyright applied to them at the moment of creation.

It will happen, and here's why... (5, Insightful)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601033)

1) the DMCA allows for safe harbor IF ISP's don't otherwise filter content. So if they start filtering copyright, they can be held liable for other illegalities - 419 scams, stock fraud, child porn.

2) The **AA's will therefore lobby for an exception to the DMCA for their stuff.

3) Congress will grant it.

Any questions?

Re:It will happen, and here's why... (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601875)

Legal or not, there is still no business case for ISPs to install filtering equipment.

Hey guys! Great Idea here...! (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601051)

Let's get you ISP's to voluntarily revoke what little common carrier legal protections you have, all in the name of protecting our revenue from a dying business model! Wouldn't that be great!?

I hope AT&T doesn't mind getting dragged into pretty much every lawsuit involving one of their customers that comes down the pike now... "what do you mean you're not responsible for the child porn coming out of one of your client's computers!? You filter content now, don't you...?"

(I know, loopholes and such, but at least (IMHO only) the precedent and mechanisms to claim AT&T responsible for all their users' content is now in place. If they filter inbound, they can filter outbound. If they filter movies, they can filter pr0n. If they filter by discrete packet, they should (at least according to a plaintiff in such a lawsuit) be now collaterally responsible for the flow of data through their network.

/P

Re:Hey guys! Great Idea here...! (2, Informative)

AndersOSU (873247) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601327)

Good God, how many more years will the myth that ISPs are common carriers persist?

They're not, and they don't want to be.

Re:Hey guys! Great Idea here...! (0)

KeatonMill (566621) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601621)

Doesn't the safe harbor clause of the DMCA basically say that they are? As in, as long as they don't filter content, they can't be held responsible for what their users do, but as soon as they start filtering anything, they DO become responsible, according to the DMCA. IANAL.

One Solution (5, Funny)

pat mcguire (1134935) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601057)

ISPs try to do the same thing with spam, and spam still arrives in my inbox. It seems logical then that the best way to get around ANY filter is to change the name to one with genitalia spelled in leetspeak. On an unrelated note, my download of TransP3N1Sformers[2006]DvDrip[Eng] - aXXo is almost done.

Re:One Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601629)

I'm more afraid that the filter on illegal downloads will make a person like me who aren't planning to download the illegal stuff becoming a victim because the filter probably will end up blocking any legal downloads too.

So if you really are (I'm sure it was sarcasm - just making a point) downloading something like "TransP3N1Sformers[2006]DvDrip[Eng] - aXXo" then you are the fault for this happening and do not have the right to complain.

I've watched that movie... (3, Funny)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602351)

Worst. Porno. Ever.

Just because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601065)

Just because you're playing basketball on horseback, and you went out and got a zebra, that does NOT make you the referee, Dan Glickman.

Freedom? (5, Interesting)

Seumas (6865) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601071)

People in this country always tout their freedom as the single greatest thing that differentiates them from many other countries. What we filter isn't so much important as the fact that we might filter at all. And if we filter the internet on a corporate or government level, how are we any different from countries like China?

And if ISPs should filter our content, then why shouldn't other service and content providers outside of the internet be responsible for censoring what we consume, say, do as well? Parents can filter what their children consume. I can filter what I can consume. It should stop there.

Has anyone validated these loss claims by... (2, Interesting)

Assmasher (456699) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601087)

...measuring the drop in growth/profitibility from the first years these jerks started claiming stupendous losses due to piracy? They've always seemed to claim billions in losses, and yet they're industry doesn't seem to feel the effects. The past few years they've been losing money due to iTunes, so that's why I ask about the early years they were crying foul...

A lot of assumptions (1)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601089)

FTA, Glickman says, "The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected," he said, "and I think that's a great opportunity."

This claim makes a lot of baseless assumptions. Besides the fact that P2P can be used for legal purposes, how does he know that P2P is ultimately a bad thing for ISPs. Sure, more people will have access to files, but more people will also be sharing files. No one person is forced to provide everything, so any damage is spread out over several ISPs and countless users. I think ISPs are eventually going to have to realize that it is misleading to tell their customers they will be able to download at X MB/s when their system couldn't possibly handle more than a small fraction of customers actually doing so.

I don't have a problem with ISP filtering... (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601097)

...but they have to understand the flip side. If they are filtering the Internet then they must be legally accountable for everything that flows over their pipes. If I click on a link and get a virus then it's their responsibility for not filtering it. If I download something from someone who doesn't have distribution rights, same deal. If I come across classified documents, then they are guilty of trafficking in state secrets.

If they are willing to accept all of this liability, then I have no problems at all with them filtering network content. I'll still pick one of their competitors that doesn't, however.

No your number one issue SHOULD BE (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601151)

TELLING YOUR PARTNERS TO MAKE DECENT FUCKING MOVIES. Maybe then people might want to pay 30 bucks to see your movie in a theater...

Re:No your number one issue SHOULD BE (4, Funny)

Hatta (162192) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601271)

I prefer my fucking movies to be indecent.

Re:No your number one issue SHOULD BE (2, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601437)

TELLING YOUR PARTNERS TO MAKE DECENT FUCKING MOVIES. Maybe then people might want to pay 30 bucks to see your movie in a theater...

But Fucking Movies are the ones doing well...
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_6059391 [dailynews.com]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/60minutes/main585049.shtml [cbsnews.com]
And you can use your own partner, or someone else's.

I'll gladly pay $30 to see a movie (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601611)

In 2080, when $30 buys what today's George Washington will buy, I'll gladly put down $30 for a movie.

hello mpaa (2, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601161)

you can't own information

you can own atoms: a ham sandwich, your car in the driveway, but bits and bytes, sorry, not yours, never will be

you'll figure it out in 200 years at the rate you are going

Re:hello mpaa (1)

Adam Heath (8109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601405)

We can own atoms, eh? Then your data is traveling around the world using electrons from my atoms. Give my electrons back, or start paying me a fee!

mod parent up ;-) (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601469)

e=mc^2

so m=e/c^2

therefore, i owe you e/c^2 for the mass of yours i am using

do you take picodollars?

Re:hello mpaa (1)

PitaBred (632671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601649)

I didn't get any electrons from you... I got them from the power company. Yours may have started some interactions, but they most assuredly are NOT the electrons currently gracing my data storage devices. And I'm already paying the power company for them.

Re:hello mpaa (1)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602061)

We can own atoms, eh? Then your data is traveling around the world using electrons from my atoms. Give my electrons back, or start paying me a fee!

Sure, here you go. I assume your computer is not accumulating a net positive charge? Good, then you have your electrons back.

What do you mean they're not the same electrons? I suggest you just try to prove that. Distinguish between the electrons you got back and the ones you sent out, if you think you can...

Re:hello mpaa (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601765)

If by "own" you mean "hold copyright", well then yes they can according to the law and the constiution (or is that just a piece of paper these days? I forget). A lot of things only exist as created by law, this is hardly different. Do you think they were ignorant in the 1700s that a simple printing press or even an ink pen could be used for copying? And quite frankly, do you really want to live in a world where *all* information flows freely? I mean it's fun to grab all the latest vids and pics and whatnot for free, it might not be that fun to have all your dirty and not so dirty secrets on display online.

Re:hello mpaa (1)

CheekyBastard (1142171) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602291)

Yes, you can. It's called Intellectual Property.

Net Neutrality (0)

phantomcircuit (938963) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601167)

When you purchase your connection from your ISP the speed you buy is regulated by the modem, especially in cable modems.

So why not have unrestricted downloads of content from the ISP's servers when purchased.

Actual value is added to the content (I get it faster) and the pirated copy is no longer the better version.

I for one am not interested in storing massive amounts of material, I download watch seed a little more than I took and delete everything.

DRM becomes unnecessary if the content is available instantly from an un-metered connection.

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601767)

So why not have unrestricted downloads of content from the ISP's servers when purchased.

Because the typical bottleneck with a DOCSIS network is not the ISP edge, but the DOCSIS nodes themselves. Allowing someone to have full access to all of the bandwidth (even if the source of that download was within the ISPs network) would harm the other users in the neighborhood.

If your ping times went from 60ms to 300ms would you really care if the source of your neighbors download that was killing your node was local to the ISP or not?

A Triumph Salvo from the Idiot Gun (1)

CheeseburgerBrown (553703) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601235)

"Now this move will end that pesky arms race once and for all!"

Richard Dawkins chuckles, then turns back to his computer and downloads a screener of Bender's Big Score.

A fool and his money are soon parted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601237)

Step 1: Find a wealthy owner/CEO/President of a company.
Step 2: Offer to fix an unsolvable problem.
Step 3: Profit!
Step 4: Repeat!

Wrong. (1)

Lord Apathy (584315) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601261)

It's not in the best interest of ISP to filter content. They they lost what common carrier status they have. This will open them up for lawsuits and make them responsible for content carried over their "wires."

The MPAA and RIAA want this so they will have bigger fish to sue.

Re:Wrong - another reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601441)

  1. ISPs sell internet connectivity. They charge based on potentil(!) bandwidth supplied (as opposed to actual bandwidth, but that is a different topic).
  2. P2P consumes bandwidth like nobody's business.
  3. Subscribers realize they need more bandwidth.
  4. ???
  5. Profit!
Hmmm, MPAA, how well is pissing off your customers, as opposed to making them "need to" buy what you are selling, working?

Preaching to the choir... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601277)

but the problem is crappy movies. People I know are fine with renting and/or buying movies they liked in the theater, or think they'll like to watch and/or own -- especially once the price drops after being out for a while.

The problem is there aren't that many movies worth the purchase price and, perhaps it's just me, not that many worth renting or watching again after seeing it in the theater. The last few times I've browsed the video store I thought, no, no, maybe, no, ...

One VERY simple problem with this sort of thing (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601331)

And it's a point that is rarely if ever brought up.

These filtering systems, and by this I mean systems from Macrovision on VCRs on up to DVDs and internet video, serve not just to protect 'the content' but also serves to lock out any growing or potential competition. Just as the RIAA presumes that all MP3s are illegal, the MPAA presumes that all content online must also be illegal. How can any filter system like that ensure that legal content is permitted unhindered? And when 'legalized' video content is allowed through, what's there to prevent DRM or Watermarking from being stripped from the original data?

What these systems serve best, just as in the case of DVD CCS, not to protect the copyright...or really even the ability to copy, but the right of playback and content formatting and presentation control. How many times have you bought a DVD only to find that there are stupid commercials or previews that you are prevented from skipping? That's the REAL intent as far as I'm concerned.

Piracy (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21601481)

> Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue

Can't the Navy or Coast Guard help them with this?

shaking with laughter (1)

Nomen Publicus (1150725) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601523)

If (and it's questionable) the studios are losing money, they will surely be happy to pay for the development and deployment and running costs of any filtering technology the ISPs install...

Sorry, I can't finish that, shaking with laughter....

pfft (3, Interesting)

dgr73 (1055610) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601593)

Filter away.. but wait, aren't they then blocking all traffic of a certain type (bittorrent for example), I mean, they can't really easily and reliably distinguish what is legal and what is illegal content, though i'm sure that certain companies will offer products/services that claim to do just that (hello MediaPretender). If you can only filter by traffic type and not based on content, then all one needs to do to make all the money in the world is:

-start a company that delivers content via bittorrent
-have a few friends "buy" products and then be unable to complete the download
-have them then proceed to mock this company
-file lawsuit against ISP, claim loss of business damages for $100k and $20M in punitive damages
-repeat

Then again, if bittorrent and all other dedicated P2P protocols are somehow filtered, there's still many protocols that can be "hijacked" to carry payloads but cannot really be filtered (IRC, NEWS.. heck, if you encrypt the content, even email).

Try as they might, illegal filesharing will never end.. it may only diminish if they start offering a reasonably priced and featured legal alternative.

In other news (1)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601637)

KGB boss makes case for samizdat filtering

Southern farmers say that emancipation costs them $6 billion annually

Dear MPAA prick, we do not owe you or your corporate buddies a living. Our freedoms are not contingent on your business model. Stop being evil, and get a proper job instead of living off corporate welfare.

Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue (1)

sm62704 (957197) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601639)

And here [starwreck.com] is the #1 group of pirates they should fear!

These MPAA clowns are the same bozos who said the VCR was the movie industry's biggest threat a couple of decades ago.

$6B? Sure! (1)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601645)

I'm sure the "ISP Community" would be happy to accept $6B of the MPAA's money to implement content filtering.

Dan "Don" Glickman (1)

GoatEnigma (586728) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601731)

'The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected ...'

That sounds like a pretty serious threat if you ask me. I wonder if ISP's will wake up with severed horse heads in their beds...

good luck with that Mr MPAA (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601733)

Calling "protection of content from theft" the MPAA's number one issue, Glickman reiterated claims that piracy costs the studios $6 billion worldwide every year.
Half the MPAA budget goes toward reducing this number, and the trade group believes that the single best way to do so is through technology. How big is the MPAA budget? Anything close to 12Billion?
6 billion dollars - MPAA budge == ??? profit?

"Technology will be the key to determine how successful we will become," Glickman said.
Successful at what? I would have thought shareholder value would be that key? Has anyone else ever wondered how independent films, and their more recent popularity has hurt the MPAA and its members?
It's a wonder he did not mention free indy films distributed by BT.

But "technology" in isolation won't do much to help the movie business. The MPAA needs the support of those companies best in a position to implement filtering technology: ISPs. Acknowledging that the studios have often been "in tension with" the ISP community, Glickman claimed that the two groups have a much better relationship these days.

Does this mean they are admitting defeat? If only sniffing packets as they enter and leave your NIC can squelch the flow of illegal downloads, haven't they lost? Why not send an MPAA rep to your house to live in your spare bedroom so they can truly monitor what you are doing online? I'm absolutely certain that no one else would ever get that monitoring data or use it for nefarious purposes, now would they? Is the **AA funded by the NSA? WTF

Seriously, if it were not for the preconditioning that Bush and co. did with the NSA and DHS, I think wallstreet boys would be dumping **AA stock like it was anthrax about now. This article is tantamount to saying "we have a dead business plan, and we NEED help to stay in business. We probably won't be able to stay in business over the next 10 years unless the government forces ISP's to bail our sorry asses out of this sling called The Internet because we can't produce anything that people like, and all our competitors are killing us with good content"

Repeat after me, "innovate or die... innovate or die... innovate or die"

Can we all pitch in and buy a buggy whip to send to this guy?

Please repost (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601805)

Could somebody repost Glickman's comments? My ISP had its "whiney bullshit" filter set on high and the original didn't come through.

His ideas are not technically possible. (1)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601835)

Dan Glickman is the proverbial Pointy Haired Boss (PHB). He sits behind a desk at work, probably surfing the web through a websense filter and assumes that similar filtering can be applied to peer to peer traffic.

PHBs like Glickman seldom realize the technical limitations of any given technology. All filtering technologies work by inspecting the data as it crosses the wire. If you can not inspect the data - GAME OVER.

ISPs know that if every peer to peer application switches to SSL encrypted traffic, there is no way to differentiate P2P traffic, from other encrypted traffic like your credit card's web site, your bank's web site, your SSL VPN tunnel to work....etc. As an ISP you can't reasonably block SSL traffic since it would break to many commonly used things for Joe Sixpack.

I don't expect ISPs to play along with this at all. ISPs know filtering will piss off their customers, reduce revenues, and for a short term reduction in P2P traffic. Once the P2P application vendors SSL encrypt their traffic the ISPs are powerless to inspect the packets.

In short ISPs take all the risk for ZERO gain. If the ISPs have a brain in their skulls, they will tell the MPAA to get stuffed.

-ted

Re:His ideas are not technically possible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21602313)

That or by using proxies like Tor which encrypts traffic and is fairly anonymous. It would be nearly impossible for the MPAA or RIAA to track someone down using this. This is why I say there is no good technical deterrent to catching illegal file sharing. There are too many current ways to totally get around it and it will only be a matter of time when everyone is using encrypted proxies.

So now I can see down the road me just telling someone that there are ways to get around the tools making me a criminal or something. Gotta keep everyone in the dark if they are to fall for this crap! Senate and Congress are mostly made up of non-technical people who don't even know how to turn their computer on. It is easy for them to be brainwashed by the **AA. But at least for future Senators and such there will no doubt be tech savvy ones but it will be too late for our generation. :(

I'll worry... (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601879)

I'll worry when they start using some of that $6 billion to offer ISP's useful hardware that happens to contain robust filter features. But aside from offering cost without an incentive I think "what's in it for me" would be a appropriate response from most ISPs (moral and privacy issues not withstanding).

ISP's (2, Insightful)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601909)

Hollywood cartel boss says:

"The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected..."
I beg to differ. ISP's benefit from piracy because they sell more bandwidth to carry those pirated movies. It's bad enough to try to drag the ISP's in, but it's even worse to claim that it's for their own benefit.

Let's approach this from the other angle (1)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#21601911)

They make such a big deal of this because it is digital. Well, let's take their metaphor to analog medium. Why are they not demanding the post office to scan every package, letter or post card that comes through for illegal material?

FUD WTF? (1)

n3v (412497) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602039)

It's almost like this guy is straight up lying! This isn't what ISPs are for. Even if the MPAA pays them for the infrastructure. This really pisses me off..

So let me get this straight.. (3, Insightful)

devjj (956776) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602045)

The RIAA and MPAA claim billions of dollars in damages due to piracy each year, yet when asked how much an individual download costs, they have no clue.

Get a clue: Clamping down on casual trading is not going to bring increased revenues. People aren't paying because they either see no value, or they feel the process is flawed. Making it harder to find these works won't make anyone suddenly feel as though there is value. People will just start to look elsewhere, or - as usual - get smarter, and find means around this. Virtually all deep packet inspection can be thwarted by encryption, so what exactly is there to be gained except more headaches for those running ISPs and higher prices for their customers?

Good piracy?! (1)

xarien (1073084) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602063)

They should take a few pointers from Microsoft. There's a time and place when piracy is actually good for your business. The realm of emerging markets comes to mind. They've already incorporated price discrimination across the globe, piracy in some forms is just an extension to that same idea.

A win-win Threat from the MPAA (1)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602151)

This sadly is a threat from the MPAA (that I guarantee you will be followed by the RIAA) that is a double-edged sword for any ISP....

Glickman called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue and told the audience that it cost the studios $6 billion annually. His solution: technology, especially in the form of ISP filtering. 'The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected ... and I think that's a great opportunity.'

This to me is a threat. The only "everything to lose" that an ISP (who is currently protected by the Safe Harbor provisions of the DMCA) is the **AA getting laws changed to hold an ISP liable (or winning a precedent setting case that ignores those laws - which they keep trying).

...but others may be more reluctant to go along, notes Ars Technica: 'ISPs that are concerned with being, well, ISPs aren't likely to see many benefits from installing some sort of industrial-strength packet-sniffing and filtering solution at the core of their network. It costs money, customers won't like the idea, and the potential for backlash remains high.'"

Which brings us to the above part, which I think Ars is on target with. If an ISP/OSP (becomes required to and) starts filtering their content, then the **AA can hold them liable for whatever content they miss... and even if they miss nothing, it still is at a greatly increased cost to the ISP and their customers.

Basically, the **AA is saying "We are going to force you to do this or you lose everything because we sue you out of existence... and if you do follow through and do this, then we still may sue you if you miss something... so, please pick option (a) You (the ISP) Lose, or option (b) You (the ISP) Lose."

This has been something the **AA has been trying for years... it's a lot more profitable to be able to hold an ISP that has money liable for their customers' infringement - than to hold Joe Citizen liable who cant pay the amount the **AA wants. (I wonder) how much longer before the **AA actually sneaks a win through in one of their cases against an ISP - a win that violates the Safe Harbor provision...

Well, that's the way I read it.

No suprises in his speech... (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602215)

called piracy the MPAA's #1 issue
Really?

it cost[s] the studios $6 billion annually.
Why is that our problem? I'm sure user-generated video costs them lots of money too. It isn't anyone else's job to ensure the MPAA's membership makes money.

The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this
I really, really don't see that happening...

they have everything to lose and nothing to gain
What the fuck is he talking about? Ceasing to be a common carrier is not good news for an ISP.

... and I think that's a great opportunity.
For whom?
1) ISPs spend money to implement filtering of traffic
2) ???
3) ISPs profit!

It costs money, customers won't like the idea, and the potential for backlash remains high

RTFA? (1)

earlymon (1116185) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602217)

Not only did I not read the RTFA, I need to share that I stopped reading the summary when it hit "I think it's a great opportunity," out of sheer depression.

I used the old net, before public ISPs. I watched small businesses - really good guys! - in my town grow up into a service I could early adopt, then later share with friends, then later turn people on to as better and more cost-effective than AOL. I've used three of those guys locally (one of them I still do for one of our business units), Earthlink and Qwest. Despite flamey this or thats over the years, I'm going to tell you something - I've had good service for my money from all of those guys.

Now, here comes the jerk with an oh-such-clear-opportunity. Allow me to state it plainly: "Hi. I have a business problem. I can make it someone else's business problem. I have a plan to require them to solve my business problem. I am not going to pay them money, in fact, as I said, they will have everything to lose and nothing to gain. I can solve this with the expenses of political lobbying and litigation, which I'm already budgeted for. I have a very good chance of succeeding."

And if that becomes a requirement for the ISPs, then they'll meet the requirement. And how do you think they are going to recover their costs? You bet, by passing the costs on to the subscribers, you and me. So all of us will end up paying for the actual piracy of a few and peceived piracy of many.

And that will be just the beginning.

I am depressed, boys and girls. Over an opportunity. Thanks for listening.

ISPs... everything to loose? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21602239)

"The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain..."

What do ISPs have everything lo loose? They provide connection. Period. That's why customers pay them.
Not for filtering them. Period.

Is this "everything to loose" some kind of a threat? Reminds me a movie line: Go ahead, make my day...

Backwards logic (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 6 years ago | (#21602347)

The ISP community is going to be at the forefront of this in the future because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by not seeing that the content is being properly protected
Um no. They'll lose everything if they start filtering, but thanks for playing.

Don't you understand? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21602353)

Why can't you ISPs see how integral it is to your future success to prop up our failing business model by blowing your own money on worthless technology that just pisses off your own customers. Come on guys, Stand up for your future!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>