Net Neutrality, Freedom of speech is at stake

Re: Net Neutrality, Freedom of speech is at stake

PostBy: pvolcko On: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:11 pm

Blocking content is something else entirely. I'm against that as a general matter. Blocking certain text messages based on content on what is supposedly an open common-carrier network like SMS provided by Verizon or Comcast blocking download of (non-copyrighted editions of) the bible, etc. is gross overstep.

I would be willing to entertain ISP level blocking of copyrighted content, but there is a high level of legal and ease-of-use compliance I think needs to be met before that is reasonable. Since everything is basically copyrighted, such a system would need to work with browsers, certificate authorities, and the like to create a protected-content sub-network and then fold in common network source and content data filtering to detect copyrighted works and block or degrade transmission. It is a daunting technical challenge and realistically not able to be implemented anytime soon. In the mean time, suspect piracy sources/sinks can be closed down through court order and available legal means.

Net neutrality, to me, is about throttling (not blocking) specific sources or types of content, particularly without disclosure to customers. I think it is allowable so long as it is applied against individual customer connections on their network. Throttling types of content regardless of source/destination or throttling extra-network sources isn't reasonable. So long as it is based on their own customers and done on a connection by connection basis, and it is fully disclosed to the customer as part of their service contract, ideally with option for tiered pricing access levels, then I'm okay with it.
pvolcko
 

Re: Net Neutrality, Freedom of speech is at stake

PostBy: Richard S. On: Fri Apr 18, 2008 5:07 pm

pvolcko wrote:I would be willing to entertain ISP level blocking of copyrighted content, .


And again I would be against that for many reasons. Firstly this would require an invasion of privacy, the only way they would be able to determine what the file is would be by examining it's contents. Secondly you're putting the burden of protecting copyrights of third parties on the ISP, ultimately this burden will fall on the consumer. It would be like paying a penalty before you even did anything wrong. Lastly it can't be stopped, this has been like that whack-a-mole game. They hit one spot and it just appears somewhere else in some other form. One article I read in regards to how they cracked the original HD-DVD and Blue Ray protection had a very realistic quote it in that went something like "Once again protection fails to meet the knowledge of the internet as a collective" Many of these companies that are providing software have simply moved offshore to friendly countries out of the reach of U.S. law enforcement.

There was another great quote from the author of the original hack that beat the protection that went something like "I went to play the video on my laptop but since it wasn't compliant I could only get low resolution version, so I hacked it" You can find that thread esily if seach doom9.org . It's actually quite an interesting read bescuse you see how all these people added new information and worked together which ultimately lead to the protection becoming useless. You're going to have people such as that whether its for good or bad purposes. That particular person just wanted to watch a video he legally purchased on his computer and it lead to the protection being beaten completely.

There is simply too many ways to transfer data or hide what it is, simply encrypting a file will prevent anyone from viewing it. Anyone trying to break into your encrypted file would actually be breaking the law. That's besides the fact they wouldn't have the resources to do it anyway.
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Re: Net Neutrality, Freedom of speech is at stake

PostBy: pvolcko On: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:23 am

Richard S. wrote:Firstly this would require an invasion of privacy, the only way they would be able to determine what the file is would be by examining it's contents.


Is it an invasion of privacy if there is no lasting record of the results of the analysis and if no person ever even knows that you attempted to download a protected piece of media, much less what specific piece of media it was? If the knowledge is all in the machine, it is kept "alive" for only the duration of a connection session, and results in no fines or anything else, just simply a blocked download... is that an invasion of privacy? Certainly, if there is a court order then the results can be stored for a longer term, but only under that circumstance would I envision it being allowed, in my "high bar" standards for allowing this kind of content blocking at the ISP level.

Secondly you're putting the burden of protecting copyrights of third parties on the ISP, ultimately this burden will fall on the consumer. It would be like paying a penalty before you even did anything wrong.


There is a practical enforcement issue that the internet and digital media and broadband connections gives rise to that make it, I think, unreasonable to continue dealing with this only at a consumer level. There is also the argument, and I think it is quite true, that ISPs are profiting off of the illegal piracy that they themselves enable by virtue of providing the fat pipes to suck all this data through. The burden, as a practical matter, I think has to shift to a more centralized point in the data transfer chain.

I'm not saying my idea if good, in fact I suspect it is ultimately pissing into the wind for all the good it will do in the "fight" to maintain copyright in the internet and digital age. But there is a practical reality with digital media that is a new phenomenon which I think necessitates shifting the burdens and costs around a bit to make better protection of IP practical, or at least to build in a "tax" to partially compensate media producers who wish to enforce their copyright.

Lastly it can't be stopped, this has been like that whack-a-mole game.


I actually tend to agree with you on this point. So long as the content can be digitized it will find its way through any protection measure eventually and people will pirate it because there will always be demand for the content and there will always be those that don't respect copyright or are ignorant of it.

I have very little hope for the digital content protection industry. The solution will have to ultimately come in the form of new business methods and practices on the part of producers and distributors. As a result, I expect the tumult in the media industry to continue for another 5-10 years. Broadband speeds will continue to increase, to the point where downloading full res, high quality encodes of HD movies and TV is as short and easy as it is with mp3's today. At the same time storage space will increase and low cost, low power hardware to playback these (currently) high CPU usage codecs will become common place. At that point, if the new business model isn't in place, the industry will be circling the drain.
pvolcko
 


Re: Net Neutrality, Freedom of speech is at stake

PostBy: Richard S. On: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:54 am

pvolcko wrote:Is it an invasion of privacy if there is no lasting record of the results of the analysis and if no person ever even knows that you attempted to download a protected piece of media, much less what specific piece of media it was?


Yes I would consider at invasion, even if it did remian asimple check I have no confidence any system like that would not be used to track or stor info about you anyway. It just opens the door for them, in any event any system like that is really unrealistic.


At that point, if the new business model isn't in place, the industry will be circling the drain.


The MPAA is following the same path the RIAA did. What they need to do is open their libraries up and sell it for a reasonable price without all the protection and other baggage. If they simply offered content at a good price their profits would soar. Some of these companies have vast libraries and there is a market for it albeit a small market. It may not be worth to put "Gilligans Island" on DVD but it certainly would if you delivered it over the internet. Delivery through the internet certainly makes it worth the effort for this market. There is lot of people seeking out material like that on p2p not because they want to steal but because they have no other choice, the material simply isn't available elsewhere.

I made another point in another forum about the protection being used for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. It's tied to the hardware, e.g. if you don't have the right type of monitor, graphics card or even the cables going from your graphics card to the monitor you can't watch HD content in it's full glory on your computer. There are very few computers on the market today that have this support and any computer purchased roughly a year ago or before that most certainly does not. Even some of the original "HD Ready" TV's have no support for it either. It's not that they aren't capable, they are just prevented by the protection. How many people are going to be downloading these videos just get a copy they can play on their machine? Everyone doesn't have $2k to go out and upgrade their entire system...
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite

Re: Net Neutrality, Freedom of speech is at stake

PostBy: pvolcko On: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:07 pm

Richard S. wrote:I made another point in another forum about the protection being used for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. It's tied to the hardware, e.g. if you don't have the right type of monitor, graphics card or even the cables going from your graphics card to the monitor you can't watch HD content in it's full glory on your computer. There are very few computers on the market today that have this support and any computer purchased roughly a year ago or before that most certainly does not. Even some of the original "HD Ready" TV's have no support for it either. It's not that they aren't capable, they are just prevented by the protection. How many people are going to be downloading these videos just get a copy they can play on their machine? Everyone doesn't have $2k to go out and upgrade their entire system...


Software players on computers do enforce these restrictions and there are relatively few monitors on the market that support HDCP. Cards are starting to support it now, usually once the cards have support for decoding assists (even high end hardware has a difficult time doing all the decoding, compositing, and rendering without these graphics card assists, kind of like DVD playback on computers back in 1998). They enforce this because playing back on the computer is removing half the obstacles there are to doing rips and getting them on the net.

Hardware playback schemes are not nearly as bad on the HDCP enforcement as of yet. I believe the large majority of BD discs out there do not have the HDCP enforcement flag enabled yet (where it would key the player to output only a degraded signal on component video outputs or unprotected HDMI), exactly because there are a large number of people out there with non HDCP compliant TVs and projectors and whatnot. They'll phase its use in eventually, but probably not until they start getting some serious disc sales and see BD cutting into DVD sales.
pvolcko
 

Re: Net Neutrality, Freedom of speech is at stake

PostBy: pvolcko On: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:49 pm

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/40 ... ?nlid=1019

Article on the FCC recent (yesterday or today) session on this issue. I don't buy the Comcast argument against disclosing filtering/limiting measures they use, saying that it would be revealing trade secrets. There's nothing particularly secret about such a measure, given that their customers will be raising holy hell on the nearest internet forum about it when some new measure gets flipped on. And even if it is secret, what advantage does it give to a competitor so long as they too are required to disclose their traffic management measures?
pvolcko
 

Re: Net Neutrality, Freedom of speech is at stake

PostBy: Richard S. On: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:08 pm

''There must be adequate disclosures of the particular traffic management tools,'' Martin said. ''Consumers must be fully informed of the exact nature of the service they are purchasing.''

McDowell argued, however, that requiring such disclosures could expose companies to exposing trade secrets.


From the link above posted by Paul...

So they are suggesting you buy service and have no idea you're buying. I think one issue may be that this may stop them using ridiculously inaccurate advertising. For example on Comcast's site, if you click through the navigation Learn>High speed Internet ... this brings up a window. On the bottom click Pure Broadband speed>Why faster than DSL. Scoll down a little...

"Imagine you're downloading a zip file with 5 MP3 songs in it..."


First of all that is borderline encouraging piracy, I'm sure there may be few places you might find a legitimate file like that but overall it's going to be from P2P . Secondly its that specific type of traffic they are trying to stop.

If you watch any of those commercials or browse arounf there site you'll find nothing but "balzing fast speeds" for video , large files etc... Then they'll turn around shut the service off if you try to do that. :lol:

If you think the comment about trade secretes is BS check this one out from AT&T:

"The surge in online content is at the center of the most dramatic changes affecting the Internet today," he said. "In three years' time, 20 typical households will generate more traffic than the entire Internet today."


http://www.news.com/2100-1034_3-6237715.html
Richard S.
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Van Wert VA1200
Coal Size/Type: Buckwheat/Anthracite