Dear RIAA: It's Not 'Working Together As A Team' When It's Under Threat Of Regulation

from the do-these-guys-ever-make-sense dept

I've been trying not to respond to every RIAA blog post these days, but it's hard to let certain things go when they so rarely make any sense. For example, RIAA President Cary Sherman recently talked up the new regulations that force colleges and universities to "take proactive steps" to stop file sharing. He goes on to make it sound like universities decided to do this in the spirit of "teamwork" with the RIAA, rather than because they risked serious financial consequences under the law for not complying. He also leaves out the fact that tons of colleges and universities are pissed off and complaining about how much time, effort and money they're wasting on this just because Sherman and his friends still don't seem able to embrace modern music business models. Colleges and universities have enough to worry about without the government forcing them to act as the RIAA's police force. If it were truly about teamwork, Cary, you wouldn't have had to spend so much time getting Congress to pass a law to force them to do this.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Malaysia Wants To Filter The Internet, But Swears It Won't Be Used To Stop Political Dissent

from the yeah,-sure... dept

Malaysia's government has had something of a love-hate affair with citizens and opposing politicians using blogs and other social media to protest the government -- and has even sent opposition bloggers they don't like to jail. So, you can imagine the concern when the government announced plans to install widespread internet filters modeled on China's fault "Green Dam" software. Not surprisingly, the government officials back the plan insist it won't be used against political targets, but just obscene material. Opponents find that hard to believe. Even if (and it's a big "if") that's the intent of the government, having it be so easy to "accidentally" start blocking opposition sites is probably too tempting for many.

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Research Paper Shows How Useless It Is To Require ISPs To Be Copyright Cops

from the why-do-i-get-the-feeling-this-will-be-ignored dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in the link to Boing Boing's report about a new research paper highlighting just how useless, ineffective and damaging it will be if governments or the entertainment industry force ISPs to start trying to crack down on file sharing. The researchers make a pretty compelling case (though, certainly, I was inclined to agree with them going in) that any such attempt will not do a damn thing to slow down file sharing, but will represent a significant risk of violating users' privacy or disconnecting them from the internet for perfectly innocent actions. So, the next time we hear politicians pushing such a solution, it might be worth sending them a copy of this report -- though, it probably won't do much good if that politician has received enough campaign contributions from the entertainment industry.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Senator Feinstein Trying To Sneak ISP Copyright Filtering Into Broadband Stimulus Bill

from the just-what-we-didn't-need dept

One of our big fears with the stimulus bill was that with such a huge deal, there would be plenty of small opportunities for lobbyists to slip in absolutely awful language. Well, it's happening. Sen. Feinstein has inserted language into the stimulus bill that would officially "allow network management" for "deterring unlawful activity" including "copyright infringement." Of course, right before "copyright infringement" it also lists "child pornography" because no politician wants to be seen as voting against something that stops child pornography. As Public Knowledge points out, the whole thing doesn't make much sense. Network management tools are different than content filtering tools -- so saying that the use of network management tools is necessary for the sake of content filtering is a red herring. And, if this does involve deep-packet inspection, as is implied by the amendment, it seems like a huge privacy violation, allowing an ISP to spy on everything you do online. Public Knowledge is trying to get out the word that this should not be allowed in the stimulus bill.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Some ISPs Push Back On RIAA Plan

from the good-for-them dept

While there was big news on Friday concerning the RIAA's supposed plan to stop suing everyone in favor of having ISPs police networks for the RIAA, it seems that some ISPs are clearly not on board with the plan (and, in fact, the details of the plan seem rather lacking). News.com has the story of one smaller ISP that has been responding to every RIAA notification by sending a request back for a billing address where he can send an invoice for the time it takes to respond to takedown requests. For the most part, the RIAA simply ignores these responses, though in some cases its representatives seem to feign ignorance, claiming "In regards to billing, we fail to understand what you mean with that!"

At the same time, it appears that Verizon is one large ISP refusing to cooperate. This is not really that surprising, given that Verizon was really the only major ISP to stand up to the RIAA's original campaign of demanding the identity associated with IP addresses without first filing a lawsuit (the end result of which was the RIAA's filing large lawsuits against multiple "john and jane does" in order to get the names). Verizon has also pushed back in the past when other big ISPs like AT&T seemed willing to act as copyright cops for the RIAA.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIAA Gets Tennessee Law To Force Universities To Filter Networks For Copyrighted Content

from the the-riaa-never-sleeps dept

After more than a decade of watching the entertainment industry (mainly the RIAA and the MPAA), one thing I've learned is that the organization never gives up in pushing its legislative agenda. If there's a setback in one area, you can be sure that others from the organization are eagerly pushing the exact same rules through some other angle. The typical MO is that they try to get federal legislation passed in their favor. However, if that fails, they switch to the fallback plans which involve international treaties and state laws. Both of these are great because they tend to get a lot less scrutiny. State laws are a bit of a pain, because you have to get a few of them approved to create the "groundswell" that makes other states jump on board, but changes to state laws can often pass through under the radar.

That appears to be what's happening in the effort to force universities to install filters monitoring their networks for any unauthorized transmissions. You may recall that the RIAA pushed strongly to get Congress to pass laws requiring filters. Basically, the entertainment industry first flat-out lied (yes, lied) about how big a problem file sharing on campus was, and that got some Congressional Reps (with plenty of campaign contributions from the entertainment industry) to introduce legislation punishing universities if they didn't filter their networks. Widespread outcry against that legislation helped water it down, but it appears the industry just moved on to state legislatures.

The RIAA is now celebrating the fact that Tennessee has passed legislation that requires universities to install filters if they've received at least 50 DMCA requests. Considering the massive number of DMCA notices that the RIAA has been known to file, this is hardly a large hurdle. The law will cost Tennessee taxpayers nearly $10 million in the first year, and another $1.5 million each year -- based on the state's own estimates. And for what? To put in filters that won't work, just to try to prop up an obsolete business model from legacy players in an industry that needs to learn how to adapt to the market?

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Belgian Court Realizes That ISPs Shouldn't Be Forced To Block File Sharing

from the about-time dept

A year and a half ago, we wrote about a Belgian court requiring an ISP to block all file sharing, and saying that after six months to implement a filtering solution, the ISP would be fined 2,500 euros per day that file sharing still occurred on its network. The court had been convinced by the IFPI that blocking all file sharing was as simple as installing the filtering software from the entertainment industry darling, Audible Magic. Of course, as has been seen over and over again, Audible Magic's "magic bullet" solution isn't particularly good, and certainly does very little to stop file sharing. Apparently, Belgian ISPs have finally been able to convince the judge of that fact, and he's reversed the original ruling, saying that the ISP in question is no longer subject to the fine. Apparently, even the recording industry lawyers had to admit that they misled the court over the efficacy of Audible Magic's filtering software.

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..

What Kind Of Filtering System Thinks W3C Is A Porn Site?

from the one-that-won't-stay-in-business-long,-hopefully dept

We've all heard stories of various online filters that block perfectly legitimate sites as being "porn" or something else objectionable, but sometimes there are such extreme cases that it makes you wonder what people are thinking. Apparently, some ISPs are using a filtering system that believes the W3C site should be blocked as porn. W3C, of course, is the body that manages standards for the web. It was founded, and still run, by the creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee. Any filtering system that classifies the W3C as porn doesn't deserve to be in the filtering business. Hell, they barely deserve to be on the web at all.

21 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mark Cuban's Wrong: Porn Filtering On YouTube Doesn't Mean It Loses Safe Harbors

from the porn-ain't-copyright-infringement dept

Mark Cuban has a weird obsession with trying to convince people that YouTube is illegal, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary. His latest discussion on the topic is a real stretch. In response to the bad ruling that gives YouTube log files to Viacom, Cuban is saying that Viacom can now wipe out Google's DMCA safe harbors by showing that the company filters porn.

This is simply incorrect. The DMCA safe harbors do not claim that if you filter any material you must filter it all. Filtering out porn is a different beast than filtering out infringing content. You can tell that porn is porn simply by looking at it. But you cannot tell if content is infringing just by looking at it. It could be put up there on purpose by those who own the copyright. It could be fair use. It's not as simple as just saying that because YouTube removes porn it loses its safe harbor provisions. Also, while not specifically concerning the DMCA, other lawsuits involving the similar safe harbors in the CDA have found that intervening with content on a site does not mean that the safe harbors go away. Having knowledge that some content is porn is quite different than having knowledge of what content is infringing on someone's copyright.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Why AT&T's Plans To Filter The Internet Will Only Do More Harm To AT&T (And Everyone Else)

from the not-a-good-idea dept

AT&T announced last summer that it was going to start filtering traffic for copyrighted content -- so we're still not entirely sure why many in the press seem to think it was something new when discussed at CES a few weeks ago. However, this new burst of attention has many more people pointing out all the reasons this is bad for AT&T itself. As we said, this seems to make no sense at all, unless it's some bizarre attempt to come up with an excuse to get rid of net neutrality. In that post, we noted that any filtering would likely open up additional liabilities for AT&T, potentially losing its safe harbors from being a service provider (safe harbors that AT&T itself spent a lot of effort lobbying to have put into the law). Tim Wu has a lot more detail on that aspect of this plan (which he calls "corporate seppuku"). However, there are many other problems for AT&T as well. For example, it won't take long for someone to accuse AT&T of violating wiretap laws, a charge which may be accurate. But the biggest point is that this won't even do what they hope it will do. It won't stop unauthorized transfers from happening and it won't reduce network traffic. As we've discussed in the past, every move to do this kind of filtering will only drive up the market for encryption technologies, and that encryption actually adds more overhead to internet traffic. The PC World article linked above notes that 20% of all bittorrent traffic is encrypted, and if that number goes up, as it will under a filtering regime, the network load will only increase. So, if AT&T actually thinks (as it sometimes claims) that filtering will decrease the burden on the network, it's likely very mistaken.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is AT&T Siding With NBC To Get Rid Of Neutrality?

from the there's-an-explanation dept

I tend to be skeptical when people start screaming "net neutrality" when it's not warranted, but here's a situation where it may be worth asking a few questions. We've been wondering for some time why AT&T would agree to help NBC try to block the transfer of any unauthorized content on its network. It made very little sense at the time. AT&T (in its previous versions) had actually been one of the big proponents of the "safe harbor" clause in the DMCA that meant it didn't need to police the content on its own network. So why would it suddenly, voluntarily, be saying it wants to spend time, money and energy in an impossible effort to police the content shared across its own network?

A clue may be found in an MPAA FCC filing over the summer, where it spoke stridently against any network neutrality rules, for fear that such rules might make it impossible for ISPs to police content -- something the MPAA has been pushing for over the last few months, resulting in the recent PRO IP bill (which is actually very anti IP, but that's a different story). Basically, the MPAA (mainly NBC Universal) was offering up a compromise plan to the telcos: you support us by policing your network and we'll support you in trying to double charge popular websites.

With that said, it should come as no surprise that NBC Universal and AT&T are now acting like best buddies as they discuss plans for filters. Lobbyists from both companies were at CES saying typically misleading things. AT&T's James Cicconi talked about how what was being done to stop piracy wasn't enough -- but fails to note that it's not his problem. Legally. Legally, AT&T shouldn't even get close to trying to police its own network, as it actually opens the company up to more liability. But, in its greed to be able to set up extra tollbooths, the company appears to recognize that using "piracy" as an excuse for blocking is a way in the backdoor, potentially even around the very promises AT&T made to keep the net neutral for 30 months in order to get approval to buy BellSouth.

The statement from NBC Universal is even worse -- but not at all surprising, coming from the man, Rick Cotton, who gave us the easily proven false statement about how piracy was hurting the poor corn farmers of America (who aren't hurting at all, and on whom piracy has no impact). When it was pointed out to Cotton that blocking content could be legally questionable, his response wasn't to address the actual concerns over filtering, but to go with the ever creative defense of throwing up his hands in frustration: "The volume of peer-to-peer traffic online, dominated by copyrighted materials, is overwhelming. That clearly should not be an acceptable, continuing status." Yes, because as long as the threats to your obsolete business model are "overwhelming," no one else's rights matter in the slightest. It's similar to Doug Morris at sister company Universal Music. Basically: "we're too clueless to recognize that the market has changed and that we need to adjust our business models -- so instead, we will demand that everyone else change in an attempt to keep the world the way it was a decade ago." Back here in the real world, those strategies tend not to work, though they can cause plenty of damage in the short term.

About the only good news concerning all of this is that when asked to join them, Apple told AT&T and NBC Universal to get stuffed. Microsoft, on the other hand, joined right up to help. What we're witnessing is a collaboration among companies too short-sighted to recognize how the market is changing, who will team up to pretend to bolster each other's outdated business model. Hopefully, if Congress and the FCC don't make it impossible, the rest of the world will simply route around them and build the new business models for tomorrow. Still, with the FCC potentially cracking down on Comcast's efforts at traffic shaping, it'll be fascinating to see how the FCC responds to AT&T being even more proactive in blocking content. Given Kevin Martin's earlier statements about ignoring AT&T net neutrality promises combined with his close relationship with the telcos, somehow we get the feeling they won't face very much pressure.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

FCC To Investigate Comcast Filtering; Questions Why Comcast Wasn't Forthcoming

from the what-about-if-it-had-been-a-telco? dept

The FCC hasn't appeared to have much of an issue with the various telcos spouting off about how they need to block certain kinds of traffic. In fact, even when AT&T agreed to keep its network neutral (sort of, but not really), FCC chair Kevin Martin made it clear that he wouldn't hold AT&T to its concessions on network neutrality. However, when a cable company, such as Comcast, starts doing some traffic shaping... well, that's a different story. There was a big fuss last year about Comcast's traffic shaping efforts. While it took a little while, the FCC has now said that it's going to probe Comcast's traffic shaping actions. Now, as we've said from the beginning, if Comcast feels it needs to do this kind of traffic shaping, that's one thing -- but there's simply no good reason (and a number of bad ones) not to be upfront and let its customers know about this. In fact, that appears to be a part of the FCC's thinking, as well, noting that the FCC allows "reasonable network practices" to protect a network, but: "when they have reasonable network practices, they should disclose those and make those public." Martin clearly has no love for cable companies, but how the FCC handles this issue could become important in determining how the FCC deals with other traffic shaping issues in the future.

5 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Hollywood Continues Its Worldwide Push To Have ISPs Block Sites Like Pirate Bay

from the why-innovate-when-we-can-legislate! dept

It would appear that the IFPI is following in the footsteps of the US entertainment industry in pushing government around the world to force ISPs to block access to sites and content that the entertainment industry wishes weren't available online. This is the latest in an ongoing effort for the entertainment industry to pretend that the internet needs to conform to the way it wants the world to act, rather than conforming to the way the internet actually works. The push would include requirements such as having ISPs set up massive filters, similar to China's "Great Firewall," to block sites like the Pirate Bay (despite the non-infringing uses of such sites) and also to block any downloads of certain digital audio and video tracks as recorded by a digital fingerprint. The fact that the IFPI is pushing for this is no surprise, given the RIAA/MPAA's similar push within the US, as well as recent efforts in both France and the UK to implement such policies.

There are many, many reasons why such policies aren't just bad, but dangerous to innovation. As we're already seeing elsewhere, the entertainment industry now seems to think that any new innovation that makes it easier to distribute, copy or promote content now needs to get approval from the industry (while also paying a royalty fee). If Hollywood had its way, things like the VCR and the iPod wouldn't even exist -- despite the fact that both devices have helped to provide new life to the entertainment industry. The same will be true of various internet services -- but not if Hollywood succeeds in getting them blocked completely. It's amazing how many times Hollywood will need to relearn this lesson. Every time some new technology comes along, Hollywood freaks out that it might need to adapt -- and yet, time and time again, that new technology has only helped to reinvigorate the industry. Yet, by spreading FUD all over the place, the entertainment industry has become much better at bending politicians' ears to the point that those politicians incorrectly believe that the industry is doomed if it actually needed to adapt and change its business model, despite plenty of historical and economic evidence that those adaptations will come if the market is left alone to innovate.

20 Comments | Leave a Comment..

72.8 Percent Of All Statistics Are Made Up -- Or Maybe Twice That When It Comes To Facebook Blocking

from the this-again? dept

Another "web security firm" (I'm not going to give them undeserved publicity by naming them but you can click the link if you care) is getting some easy publicity by announcing the results of a survey finding that half of their customers block MySpace or Facebook surfing at work. That's not too surprising, since this was a survey of the customers of a company that sells blocking software. We covered a similar publicity stunt back in August (and indeed we've been debunking these stories for years). That study found that 43 percent of workers are blocked from accessing Facebook at work. But the latest study finds that only 25.6 percent of the firm's customers block Facebook. There are a couple of ways we might interpret this data. One is that Facebook blocking is actually falling, and that we can extrapolate no Facebook blocking at all sometime next May! The more likely explanation, though, is that these numbers are totally meaningless and self-serving. Of course, these stories inevitably go on to quote a company executive about how personal surfing at work is a "growing concern." In the latest story, the company predicts that two-thirds of companies would be filtering by next year. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the company is selling the software companies would need to do that filtering.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

4 Comments | Leave a Comment..