AT&T Asking For Trouble With Filtering Plans
from the let-me-count-the-ways dept
Businessweek reports on AT&T's bizarre plan to placate Hollywood by adding antipiracy technology to its network. This is a bad idea for a lot of reasons. For starters, it's completely unnecessary; ISPs are protected from copyright liability by the DMCA's safe harbor provisions (which AT&T itself helped enact), so there's no reason AT&T needs to do anything at all other than follow the procedures specified in the DMCA. Second, the technology almost certainly won't work; the Internet is far too complex and fast-changing for any one piece of software to reliably filter out pirated content. On the other hand, filters invariably make mistakes, as we learned when Comcast accidentally blocked Lotus Notes traffic when it was trying to block peer-to-peer protocols. If AT&T starts aggressively blocking content it thinks is pirated, it will almost certainly block a lot of non-pirated content in the process, leading to angry customers and a lot more bad publicity. Finally, any move to filter Internet content will give renewed momentum to the campaign for network neutrality regulation. One of the most powerful arguments against new regulations has been that proponents' concerns were almost purely hypothetical. Between Comcast's shenanigans with BitTorrent and AT&T's anti-piracy plans, a lot of fence-sitters may decide that the danger of network discrimination is no longer so hypothetical, and that the FCC needs the power to regulate ISPs' routing policies.
Tim Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Tim Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
They're already just screwing with your bandwidth by Phillip on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 7:40am
I was grabbing Fedora Core 7 again last night and my bandwidth dropped like a stone. I was only downloading at ~40kbps and any web surfing I did came to a crawl. I did a speedtest and with the download paused I'd get ~2800kbps but as soon as I started it back up even with only ~40kbps down I'd get 80kbps in the speedtest.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by 4-80-sicks on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 7:50am
It's hilarious if anybody actually thinks this can do anything. "Video DNA?" Well, this is the best way to do it, and that will work for a few files until someone figures out how to strip that info off--in a day or so. They're looking at a hole in the dam when the tidal wave is already here. Only a fool would do more than posture on this issue in the current climate.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
They are protecting thier hollywood interests by Mizchief on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 7:57am
They are doing this not to fight piracy in general, but are leveraging their market share of internet access to prevent people from sharing movies produced by the companies they have a stake in.
This is a 2 fold benefit for AT&T they prevent people from stealing thier content, as well as cutting down on the total bandwith usage of thier ISP customers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 8:19am
"This is a 2 fold benefit for AT&T they prevent people from stealing thier content, as well as cutting down on the total bandwith usage of thier ISP customers."
LOL, yeah, that'll work... :)
Oh, and tell me when it's become possible to transmit physical objects over the interwebs - until then,it is not possible to "steal" content, only infringe on copyrights...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
As usual, the pirates will go deeper underground by Haywood on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 8:34am
They won't be hard to find, it will soon be announced on the evening news; Movie monger XVR protocol sites shut down by XXia, with screen shots of the new XVR software in action.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
duh!, all I need to do is transcode the file/image by Ajax 4Hire on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 8:36am
or simply encryption or any other of a number of simple obfuscation/translation of the file image to fool even the most intelligent software filters.
I write software to revere flip 17-byte words.
The software is good for encrypt as well as decrypt.
I 17-byte swap a file image, transfer over the net with instructions and boom, past the software filters.
The harder part would be to move the port number around to get past the network port filters. It may be that one day BitTorrent and the like will simply manage thru one port and download thru ftp=20/http=80.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Think about it like this... by Ajax 4Hire on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 8:39am
The internet is a highway.
Cars/Trucks are packets.
Government and regulation bodies and even road owners (ISPs) are trying to stop specific passengers and cargo.
But I can move passengers and cargo from car to car and truck to truck at will.
Anyway, why do ships carry cargo and cars carry shipments?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: They're already just screwing with your bandwi by Phillip on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 9:02am
damn now Fedora Core 8 is out and I'll have to start all over tonight :(
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071108-an-old-hat-with-new-tricks-fedora-8-officially-rel eased.html
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
This is why.... by ScaredOfTheMan on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 9:23am
I hope google or anyone BUT a telco wins the 700 Mhz.... I would love to see ATT try this when I have a choice to switch providers.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Think about it like this... by Harry on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 9:31am
same reason we drive on a parkway, and park on a driveway.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Welcome to the club by Anonymous Coward on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 9:53am
AT&T joins Microsoft in trying to gain favor with Hollywood at the time when people are just starting to turn their backs on DRM, filtering, and the attendant silliness that they bring. AT&T should ask themselves if they want to do to their broadband services what Microsoft Vista has done to the Microsoft franchise.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: They're already just screwing with your ba by Anonymous Coward on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 10:06am
Try changing the port number.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Bad idea all around by Kevin on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 10:20am
For starters, if they begin filtering traffic for Hollywood, then the music industry will want filtering for them too. Then the anti-porn lobby. Then the anti-anything else lobby. It's a slippery slope, and if you can filter for one type of traffic you can probably filter just as effectively for any other (note the "just as effectively", as filtering may not be all that effective to begin with.
But more importantly from AT&T's standpoint, if they do start filtering traffic are they risking their common carrier status/safe harbor? Not only "might" they be asked by others to filter additional content, but wouldn't they almost have to comply to avoid getting sued?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Joe on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 10:50am
Tim Lee, you should do more aritcle writeups. I enjoy reading yours.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: They're already just screwing with you by Anonymous Coward on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 10:58am
already did that I never used the standard port. I guess I'll have to go to I2P or tor
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
que darknets in 3, 2, 1 by chris on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 11:57am
go read the darknet paper.
so they want piracy off the internet? IF that were possible (and believe me this is a BIG if) all the bandwidth in the world is available on the one network you CANNOT filter: meatspace.
the concern hollywood should have is that piracy will no only go further underground, but that it will become even higher tech, or worse, lower tech.
essentially, you have groups that swap data using cheap USB hard drives (or iPods, like in spook country) and it suddenly becomes way more expensive to track and prevent piracy.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Anonymous Coward on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 12:10pm
Thanks!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: que darknets in 3, 2, 1 by ehrichweiss on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 12:37pm
Absolutely! Years ago when DVDRs first came out there was talk of what they were calling HDTP, hard drive transfer protocol. Basically filling up hard drives or DVDR media with files you want to trade and swap via mail, etc. It was all based on trust but several people I know traded several terabytes of data in under a couple weeks.
If a ruler is gentle, the people are simple; if a ruler is cruel, the people are cunning.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: They're already just screwing with by Anonymous Coward on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 3:01pm
Some ISP's are start to block those too. In fact, any encrypted traffic other than HTTPS and when P2P starts to use that they'll probably block it too.(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: que darknets in 3, 2, 1 by Anonymous Coward on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 3:05pm
I've heard that M$ is working on DRM that will keep the next version of Windows from transferring files it determines to be infringing to or from portable media.(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Bad idea all around by Anonymous Coward on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 3:33pm
That's what I expect to happen and I think AT&T is betting on it. If you can control what people see and hear then you can control what they think. If you can control what they think then you own them.It is a common mistake in the US to think that ISP's have common carrier status like regulated telephone companies. They don't. That's why they need safe harbor protection (and telcos don't).
The DMCA is super good for ISP's. Not only does it give them protection from lawsuits for stuff just passing through their systems but it then still lets them go on and filter information to their little heart's content. It's authority without accountability. They get to have their cake and eat it too.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Snoops by Anonymous Coward on Nov 8th, 2007 @ 3:36pm
This is the same AT&T that has already been caught snooping on it's telephone customers without warrants or court orders. This is just the way they operate. Why should anyone expect anything different form them?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: que darknets in 3, 2, 1 by chris on Nov 9th, 2007 @ 10:37am
I've heard that M$ is working on DRM that will keep the next version of Windows from transferring files it determines to be infringing to or from portable media.
god i hope not for microsoft's sake. if they implement that, they won't be able to PAY people to use windows. the history books will all it the "DOH!" heard round the world.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: They're already just screwing by chris on Nov 9th, 2007 @ 10:39am
Some ISP's are start to block those too. In fact, any encrypted traffic other than HTTPS and when P2P starts to use that they'll probably block it too.
that will never happen. https is what makes internet shopping possible. no provider in the world, even one as dumb as AT&T will block https.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
at&t yahoo already blocks soulseek by Robert Davidson on Nov 15th, 2007 @ 9:33pm
you can't access it anymore if you have at&t yahoo internet.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: que darknets in 3, 2, 1 by some guy on Nov 19th, 2007 @ 6:49pm
"god i hope not for microsoft's sake. if they implement that, they won't be able to PAY people to use windows. the history books will all it the "DOH!" heard round the world."
As long as people are stupid, Microsoft will always be able to sell Windows. I wouldn't worry too much.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment