Who Do You Trust On Whether Or Not PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet? The Guys Who Built It… Or The MPAA?

from the easy-question dept

We’ve already covered the white paper written by a bunch of the biggest names in internet infrastructure, explaining why PROTECT IP breaks key underlying elements of the internet. At the same time, we’ve seen the entertainment industry try to brush off these concerns. However, the guys who wrote the white paper have been speaking up lately trying to get our elected officials to recognize the consequences of passing PROTECT IP as is. But the really funny part is watching the technically clueless MPAA try to brush off these concerns. It’s almost laughable. Basically, the MPAA stamps its collective foot, and insists that it couldn’t possibly break the internet, and then suggests that “America’s technology community” can fix any problems:

DNSSEC was designed to provide consumers with a secure, trusted connection to services like online banking, commercial transactions, and electronic medical records – not to foreign websites operated by criminals for the purpose of offering counterfeit and infringing works. These evolving protocols should be flexible enough to allow for government, acting pursuant to a court order, to protect intellectual property online…. We rely on the Internet to do too much and be too much to let it decay into a lawless Wild West. We are confident that America’s technology community, which leads the world in innovation and creativity, will be capable of developing a technical solution that helps address the serious challenge of rogue sites.

Nowhere do they actually respond to the issues raised by Paul Vixie, Dan Kaminsky and others about how PROTECT IP won’t just break the internet, but also make it more vulnerable to malicious hackers. Instead, the MPAA seems to be relying on the “but we don’t think that’ll happen!” argument. And the sad thing is that our elected officials are likely to buy that explanation from the MPAA before listening to those folks who actually helped build the very internet architecture they’re about to break.

Filed Under: , ,
Companies: mpaa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Who Do You Trust On Whether Or Not PROTECT IP Will Break The Internet? The Guys Who Built It… Or The MPAA?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
duffmeister (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It doesn’t take any actual downloads, just accusations and as they are a business and thus an individual (thanks for that gem SCOTUS) they can be disconnected from the internet.

I also wonder if SOUNDEX collecting fees for music they don’t represent falls afoul of the “Rogue Sites” definition they are attempting to put into law? That seems to be diverting monies from the rightful owners of the music……

Marcus Carab (profile) says:

Actually I think you might be missing the hidden message to Vixie, Kaminsky et al in their statement:

We are confident that America’s technology community, which leads the world in innovation and creativity, will be capable of developing a technical solution that helps address the serious challenge of rogue sites.

I read that as: “Yeah, we’ll break it – and you’ll fucking fix it, nerds.”

Hephaestus (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Yes, it is an “LOL limewire”, and “Frostwire”. The thought is name every file sharing app after something the MPAA and RIAA can not ban on google look ahead, GOP, Obama, democrat, republican, Bachmann, etc. Rename torrent file extensions the same way.

It would put an end to googles censoring of file extensions. I mean is big content actually going to try and ban look ahead on democrat, republican, obama, bachmann, GOP, etc?

Every problem has a solution. This one is funny, ironic, and will cause all sorts of fall out.

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re:

I actually have an issue with that part of statement. Here’s why:

The “technology community” has already given you a solution. Adapt your business model to the new reality of today instead of trying to turn the clock back to 20 years ago.

Don’t ask me for a “technical solution” to a problem that is not a technical problem. If you bring me a computer with a burnt out PSU or a cracked motherboard, don’t ask me for a software fix – it’s a hardware problem. Likewise, don’t ask me for a technical solution to an economic (business model) problem.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’ve got a technical solution to the problem of exchanging intellectual work given an ineffective reproduction monopoly in copies. See http://contingencymarket.com

Trouble is, until everyone snaps out of the collective delusion that copyright can yet be made to work again, the credibility of anyone arguing that it’s possible to exchange work directly (without having to print out copies and sell them at monopoly protected prices) is still at a pretty low level these days.

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Just because you have a website doesn’t make it a technical solution. When I see the words “technical solution” coming from the mouth of an MPAA spokesman, my brain interprets that to “make us something so we don’t have to do anything different that still makes us oodles of money.”

The idea is interesting, and I definitely would consider it one of the many economic solutions that exist.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Well, sure. When I say technical solution I mean something that enables artists to be directly and financially incentivised by those who want them to produce more work – without necessitating giving grandmothers 3 year jail terms if they share their music collection.

That doesn’t mean it continues to provide publishing corporations with 99% of the audience-to-artist revenue. For that you’d need an Internet tax, e.g. $100 per subscriber per month, of which $1 ends up in artists’ pockets, and $99 in the cartel’s. And I suspect an Internet tax is what they’re aiming for – they just need to keep on winding up the pressure to ensure the ‘compensation package’ they will reluctantly accept is sufficiently close to the profits they require.

I suspect the cartel is so fixated on preserving copyright (or its revenues and/or channel control) that they don’t realise they can actually sell their back-catalogue copyleft with negligible overhead and still rake in the revenue for years to come (until the catalogue is exhausted).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

It won’t really be called a ‘tax’ but just wait for it ….

Secure DNS connection lookup fee of only $.25 per site per connection, want to connect to AT&T and make sure it’s the real AT&T, that will be $.25, dropped connection, need to find them again, that will be another $.25….

It may seem small, but when your ‘lookup’ fees for the month start exceeding your connection fees, perhaps people will wake up and wonder what the frak happend…..

Think people would never go for this? It’s the ‘telehpone book’ model….. Here is a list of the secure DNS names and appropriate IP addresses, in unsearchable PDF Format, all 14,527 pages, just find the one you want and use it. Want some ‘directory assistance’ with us connecting you to the person you are looking for, sure for a low connection fee of $.25 (to be fair, most phone companies charge .50, so internet users are getting a real break here)

I don’t always believe this crap as I’m writing it, but I often look back and think….. someone might actually think I’m serious and try to make this happen (sarcasm warning).

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Fix It Nerds

There is not actually a fix. But there is a workaround. If the US government will not allow DNS servers which conform to standards, then DNS servers which *DO* conform to standards will be set up outside US jurisdiction. People who want standards-compliant DNS will then point their DNS resolvers at the new servers.

The internet will then be broken, because the U in URL will no longer be universal. It will just stay broken.

Jay (profile) says:

How much law do we need?

Patriot Act – Makes it so that businesses keep records on customers in the name of national security.

DMCA – Takedown notices on allegations of copyright infringement

NET Act – Increased penalties of copyright infringement

Protect IP – Does everything but protect intellectual property law. See also mooo.com protocol. DNS filtering through targeted enforcement of rogue websites without any regard to judicial overview.

10 Strikes act – Antistreaming bill to support DVD purchases at walmart.


When you look at all of the things to try to stop piracy, how does any of it make sense?

Why not just declare wars on libraries too?

MrWilson says:

Re: How much law do we need?

This may be the one area where they are actually looking ahead, though I think it’s completely accidental rather than intentional.

Anything they can do to curb digital freedoms is declaring wars on libraries. A lot of libraries are moving more and more online with ebooks and digital archives. Especially with the costs of maintaining a building with a bunch of deteriorating analog information containers and paying older librarians who don’t understand digital archiving, it just makes sense to a lot of municipalities that are facing budget shortfalls.

In my experience, the younger generation of librarians (or library and information science graduates still looking for a job because the older, obsolete librarians aren’t retiring yet) are eager to move more and more towards this model and they’re much more rational regarding copyright issues and technology accessibility than their forbears.

So anything the IP companies can do to curb digital freedoms will curb what libraries of the future will be able to provide.

Danny says:

I think its worse than that.

Instead, the MPAA seems to be relying on the “but we don’t think that’ll happen!” argument.

I don’t know that passage you quote at the end sounds more like, “so what if it breaks, it can be fixed!”. As in its okay if the internet could be broken because someone else (the technological community) well clean up the mess for them.

In my opinion I think its worse to shrug off concerns because someone will be around to clean up the mess than to pretend the mess can’t be made.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You see, Senator, the interwebz is a series of tubes. The problem with blocking one of these tubes is that it will clog the system and eventually shit will shoot directly into your face while you’re trying to tweet pictures of your man-parts to young girls/boys (depending on if you’re democrat/republican).

A vote for this is a vote for faulty pipes, sirs. Which is why we, as your local plumbers union, are in favor of it….

Mike42 (profile) says:

Re: So....

Then obviously this law was not enough. The sneakernet’s obviously too entrenched, and they’ll have to ban portable hard drives and thumb drives over 2meg. (Most mp3’s are > 3 meg)
If this fails, then they will have had time to develop the “Pay per Play” implatable chip which detects any music or soundtrack you listen to and deducts payments from your bank account accordingly. It will be powered by brain waves, which will make it useless to implant in any member of Congress or the White House, as well as most judges.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: So....

practically nothing will change, yes this will break the dns system, but you can bet your ass any tard with google can figure out how to route to one that actually works like its supposed to.

the really interesting thing to watch change is the new attack vectors this would open up, there will be phishing dns servers, rootkit/botnet dnsservers, sniffing dns servers, honeypot dns servers, all the sudden you automatically distrust your dns.

but then someone’ll just create a p2p dns system and give em all the finger

deane (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’d prefer to trust the guys that created the internet and fully understand the technology involved. MPAA/RIAA would get sued by all the geeks I bet for their livelyhoods since they’d have to work 24/7/365 to make patches due to the fact that the internet won’t run the way it was designed. or maybe google/microsoft/all the rest of the big companies might just decide its time to BUYOUT ALL the recording companies and just shut RIAA/MPAA DOWN!

Creephhi says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If this goes to far Microsoft or Google or Apple will darken the skies with lawyers. I would be betting on Apple to be the first. Those guys have deep pockets and can cause chaos if they feel like it, it’s just a matter of when this crap gets in their way. Steve Jobs a liked by the recording industry?? No not so much even though his way has caught on in a big way…..

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“FUD”? Really?

There are only a few dozen people on this planet that I feel have a level of Internet clue that exceeds mine. Three of them are among the authors of that document.

So let me suggest that unless your Internet/ARPAnet operational experience (merely being a user doesn’t count) is measured in a significant fraction of a century that you’re completely unqualified to critique their work. You’re likely unqualified to even COMPREHEND their work.

If you disagree, then I invite you to raise *specific* technical points. Please be sure to detail your reasoning and provide references to either the relevant RFCs or working code.

ts says:

“The Motion Picture Association of America, a key supporter of the bill, issued a statement on Thursday strongly disputing these claims. Web users are unlikely to reconfigure their computers to circumvent the filtering, the MPAA said, and the security standards cited by the authors ought to be flexible enough to allow for IP protection.”


Seriously, many legitimate sites WILL be taken down.. and the evil pirates will be the only people that can actually get to the sites they want to visit. How long did it take for the Firefox plugin to be created that does exactly this? A day.. if that?

Senator Wyden sums it up very nicely:

“By ceding control of the Internet to corporations through a private right of action, and to government agencies that do not sufficiently understand and value the Internet, [the legislation] represents a threat to our economic future and to our international objectives,”

Anonymous Coward says:

“DNSSEC was designed to provide consumers with a secure, trusted connection to services like online banking, commercial transactions, and electronic medical records – not to foreign websites operated by criminals for the purpose of offering counterfeit and infringing works.”

Talk about redefining DNSSEC!

When their initial sentence is so completely wrong, it’s hard to give credence to anything that follows.

For the record, DNSSEC was designedto provide a trusted name lookup (not connection) service for all providers on the internet. What those providers provide is not part of the specification except insofar as it relates to doman name resolution.

The intent or legality of the providers is not relevant to DNSSEC, any more than it’s relevant to the old-fashioned phone books (remember those?) what those being listed do for a living. Nor should it be.

known coward says:

one more time and slowly

I can see DNSSEC being used for nefarious purposes itself, but that is no reason to give the internet, which is a transport medium to a small slice of the content providers.

The internet is about connecting users, to each other. If some of those users are content providers who can make money from the internet, god bless them. The internet is not owned by them and they have no defacto right to have any laws they like.

btr1701 (profile) says:

Rogue Sites

Why doesn’t anyone call these buffoons out on this whole “rogue site” nonsense.

A site is either legal or it’s illegal. If it’s illegal, call it that. If it’s legal, then it’s doing nothing wrong and calling it “rogue” is misleading and inaccurate at best, and defamatory at worst.

The real definition of “rogue site” is “any site we don’t like and can’t do anything about because they’re not actually breaking the law”.



the better question all should be asking is how to pay your bills before you whine about anyhting and closing up your country to 150 billion year copyright …how is that making your national debt go away LOL, is it working for ya?

NO? maybe a revolution in spirit is required and a dumping of copyright to sane levels MIGHT just do it…TILL then carry on and wreck yourselves more more and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that COPYRIGHT as is WILL NOT WORK.

hmm (profile) says:

Once again

The MPAA/RIAA show themselves in their true colors.

They want to basically police peoples actions and thoughts.

A year or two ago I’d just have assumed they were moderately stupid and greedy but it’s turned a corner since then and they’re now maliciously trying to hold technology back and harm humanity.

Surely thats a cause for anyone working for the MPAA/RIAA to be investigated/arrested as thats an international crime against our entire species.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...