NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad

NNSquad Home Page

NNSquad Mailing List Information


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[ NNSquad ] Re: Speculation, how AT&T can implement "copyright filtering" without wiretapping/dpi...

question - if i'm uploading or downloading a large file to/from/for a
client, and i am suddenly blocked in error, and i lose the client due to
the error, (could be a deadline or similar) what happens? who fixes that?
i wouldn't give a damn if i was part of a tiny percentage. i would be
screaming. what do you think would be reasonable to compensate?

> I think you're exaggerating a bit, Kevin. My slide from Mininova shows a
> list of torrents that all carry Microsoft Office and a key generator.
> There is nothing ambiguous about these torrents, they're not fair use,
> they're not mashups, and they're not Digital Culture, they're simply
> theft. That's needed to shut down these illegal transactions is a
> request from the copyright owner to the ISP that's carrying the traffic
> to shut it off. Due process doesn't come into it unless somebody is
> prosecuted.
> There is a risk of unfair shut-offs, but it's very, very small and can
> be dealt with after the fact in some reasonable way.
> I agree that the system involved is non-neutral, but that doesn't mean
> it's bad a priori. I imagine most copyright thieves would prefer to have
> their streams blocked than go to jail or pay a fine, wouldn't you?
> RB
> Kevin McArthur wrote:
>> There's nothing inherently offensive in this methodology until you
>> realize that it bypasses due process of law.
>> The difference between copyright violation and fair use is not
>> possible for a piece of software to decide. While many uses are
>> clearly infringing, there currently exists no system that can tell the
>> difference between legitimate fair use (like appropriation art or
>> criticism) and true copyright infringement with any level of accuracy.
>> Some questions arise:
>> Will the software, network or content owner be liable for a false claim?
>> Will a user falsely accused of downloading be able to make a libel
>> claim?
>> Will the artist be able to make a claim for censorship, undue
>> preference or collusion between the network owner and big media
>> companies?
>> If the ISP _can_ police the network, do they not then have a _duty_ to
>> police it -- and do they not waive their special intermediary
>> immunity, instead opting for the legal environment of broadcasters and
>> publishers?
>> These proposals bring more questions than answers, and I'm frankly
>> surprised that these ISPs would even think about opening the pandoras
>> box that is intermediary liability.
>> Even the very basic idea that one could take a currently-downloading
>> torrent, and unilaterally decide it is infringing, is ludicrous;
>> you're talking about acting on allegation before proving it in a court
>> of law. From a legal perspective, its shoot first and ask questions
>> later.
>> And thats not good enough,
>> K
>> Richard Bennett wrote:
>>> I presented this technique at the NN2008 symposium yesterday. I
>>> showed a screen-grab from Mininova showing pirated Microsoft
>>> Office, and the peer list from an Azureus leecher. It's pretty easy
>>> to connect the dots from Microsoft's monitoring of the tracker to
>>> action by an ISP in response to electronic requests from the
>>> copyright owner. One technique that comes to mind for stoppng piracy
>>> transactions is Reset Spoofing, of course.
>>> I showed the technique to clarify that enforcement of copyright
>>> doesn't involve Deep Packet Inspection or anything that scary.
>>> Is there any reason that such an automated system should not be used,
>>> or does Net Neutrality now connote a license to steal?
>>> RB
>>> Nick Weaver wrote:
>>>> I've done some speculation on how AT&T might actually implement their
>>>> proposed copyright-filtering mechanism, without actually having to do
>>>> deep-packet inspection or even providing new hardware. After all, if
>>>> their motive is to save money, they will select a mechanism which
>>>> doesn't cost money.
>>>> The idea is to rely on someone else (MPAA or an affiliate) to spider
>>>> the torrents and identify participants, and once the graph of
>>>> participants is generated, to dynamically block just that graph using
>>>> router ACLs, which would allow the MPAA to play Whak-a-mole on
>>>> individual torrents.  This would be very different in practice
>>>> compared with either deep packet inspection or traffic analysis.
>>>> I think such speculation is useful because if AT&T really does follow
>>>> through on their stated goals, we should get ahead of the curve and
>>>> understand what this might look like in practice, and how to detect
>>>> the difference between possible techniques (DPI vs generic traffic
>>>> analysis vs spider-blocking).
>>>> The solution space is actually pretty limited.
>>>> More details/thoughts on my blog:
>>>> http://nweaver.blogspot.com/2008/01/security-thought-at-copyright-fighting.html