A VPN service which uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Elastic_Compute_Cloud as its in/out points.
Could be physically in any country so could be immune to subservient courts.
The IP addresses keep shifting so hard to block by IP address and adding new addresses is easy.
All traffic is encrypted and therefore unable to be spied upon. "Your Honor, they have locations open in both the US and Australia at the same time so they MUST be infringing!", would be difficult for even a sympathetic judge or politician to agree to knowing they would face public ridicule.
Actually I think personal/private VPNs are the primary target.
Having just a few companies to pressure into giving up the keys to hundreds or thousands of customers is much more feasable than needing to locate a pressure point for each of those customers individually.
The RIAA has given up trying to sue single customers and the MPAA is outsourcing all of those to copyright trolls.
Of course if a troll manages to get to profitability then their law teams will immediately move the trolling back inhouse quickly.
The only way for them to get the ability to see the contents of every VPN is to have the keys available to their designees, like Content ID, so all packets can be compared before they are forwarded. Not just once every time they cross into/out of a geolocation.
That means Content ID holds all keys all the time, making them the number one target of government spies, hackers, and criminals in the world.
Still while unsafe for everybody that would not outright destroy the Internet. That would be the next step. Outlawing all communications not into or out of a copyright owner's system would nail the lid shut.
So, is me renting a server in the US illegal ? No. Can I sign up for Netflix US to deliver movies to it ? Yes. Still nothing illegal ? No. My server in the US can encrypt streams to my Desktop in NZ. Since that data is encrypted my ISP does not know anything about what it is or where it came from. So they cannot be sued ? No. Since the encryption was Open Source and only I have the key you cannot know what is in that data either. Anything you can charge me with yet ? No. Since I obtained that content legally are you now saying it became illegal when I sent bits from the US to NZ ? That is what we would prefer. Under what rationale ?
Since nobody but me knows what is in those bits how can you PROVE I owe you anything ?
Those bits could really be video of my friend visiting the Grand Canyon. The only way you have of proving they are not is by compelling me to give you the key. I tell you now that I will not volunteer the key. Are you going to ask for the right to torture me for that key ? We might. If I die under torture is that "justice" ?
Now, there are a lot of fallacies in play here, not the least of which is that budgeted income will always meet planned figures forever -- a conclusion made while operating in a vacuum devoid of external circumstances, perverted incentives or the foibles of the public.
Even Viacom has begun to see how far from true the "Consumer Habits will never change" mantra is... http://recode.net/2015/04/06/viacom-says-the-internet-made-its-reruns-less-valuable/
That is why these "projections" will fall short and the "fix" will be to block even more sites and to outlaw VPNs.
This is why "following the law" without adding a little judgement was long ago found to be inadequate.
It is as stupid as a computer. Never a consideration of the costs nor what the benefit of applying a given law is this instance would be.
So we got judges to reign over zealous prosecutors and have "jury nullification" to fall back on when both prosecutors and judges insist on a law being used against a particular defendant when common sense says it should not be.
Still we get cases like this occasionally.
How noble the law, in its majestic equality, that both the rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the streets, sleeping under bridges,and stealing bread! Anatole France [The Red Lily] (1894)
http://sitasingstheblues.com/ There is the question of how I'll get money from all this. My personal experience confirms audiences are generous and want to support artists. Surely there's a way for this to happen without centrally controlling every transaction.
The old business model of coercion and extortion is failing. New models are emerging, and I'm happy to be part of that. But we're still making this up as we go along.
You are free to make money with the free content of Sita Sings the Blues, and you are free to share money with me
People have been making money in Free Software for years; it's time for Free Culture to follow. I look forward to your innovations.
And of course, Wikipedia is just a shared delusion.
Just time when you started viewing this page subtracted from time of next click gives the duration.
Both will be in the log he wants ISPs to keep.
Of course the next panic will be when they realise that https only allows tracking to the IP address.
Then they will insist that the ISP must be able to decrypt everything because "good" sites and "bad" ones can share the same IP address.
That means that everybody inside a firewall must be branded "guilty until proven innocent" by the firewall logs.
All your home routers track all URLs and encryption keys don't they ?
Brings to mind the case where my Wi-Fi connection, totally encrypted, is hacked because of a bug in the manufacturer's software. Am I "guilty" because somebody accessed kiddie porn through it ?
Even top level domains would not get him the tracking they are after. If you limit to IP address for trackin/block then what about ?
Web Sites Sharing IP Addresses: IPs Hosting 225 to 249 Domains http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/edelman/ip-sharing/list-24.html
So if they block by IP address then one baddie on a particular IP gets up to 248 innocents punished for no action of their own.
Plus that puts the "metadata" at the level of the pages you looked at and the time till your next click.
If the data collected and archived (for how long ?) is harmless then he should be willing to release a week's worth of his own "metadata" for everybody to see just how unintrusive it really is.
If they really intend to limit to IP address then lots of innocents will be guilty by being in the same neighborhood.
Orville Wright developed the idea of twisting a plane´s wings to enable lateral control of the craft. For this great idea, the Wright Brothers were the recipients of an early “pioneer patent” – a right not only to the specific invention, but to the general concept. Even though Curtis developed flaps and ailerons on the wings to bring control to the craft, the Wrights fought in the courts (and often won) to stop him and other rivals from trespassing on their turf of general aircraft control.
The effect on flight innovation was more than noticeable at the time. The patent war they unleashed took the steam out of the budding industry. In 1912, only 90 aviators were in the air each day in the United States. Across the pond in France, nearly 1,000 airmen were flying, testing and further developing their craft. http://mises.org/blog/patents-and-birdmen
After WWII the US reduced the patent litigation and went on to maintain the lead gotten by the infusion of technology from around the world for years.
The US forced mandatory licensing of Semiconductor and chip manufacturing for years, that grew rather spectacularly without the legal friction.
They don't envision YOU keeping the keys till they come hunting.
They will insist that anbody using encryption they don't already have keys to is a criminal, convicted by your own actions, and failure to immediately surrender ALL keys will be grounds for immediate execution.
For that to happen they would need to change from the "its only valuable if it is hard to come by" thinking to realizing that if nobody knows Ed Wood directed movies how will they know to rent one.
Content has no value to society without cultural links and since 1976 at least they have been doing their best to kill off culture via starvation.
Do not underestimate the importance of the upload speed though.
Upload speeds are currently under 2 Mbs almost everywhere. The real danger of Google is that they do not throttle uploads.
Every seeder on a Google net is like 500 on one of their pet ISPs.
That multiplier means every seeder on a Google link brings their "time till bankruptsy or change" closer and faster.
No wonder their panties are brown.
They want Washington to say that they can force Google to disconnect those seeders on a notice without going to court.
To do that they need to have a ruling that Google is liable for their users behavior. Since the courts have already said no to that for a different ISP they need a law or a treaty which says it is.
Hence this is propaganda to give Politicians cover.
Whoever wrote the original article is either unable to read or is deliberately lying to panic his readers.
The St. Louis answers differ by no more than 5% which tells me that speed has nothing to do with peoples' behavior.
They will not lose nor gain very much no matter what happens.
This is another case of Copyright owners claiming a disaster is coming in hope of getting lawmakers to get a new technology squashed or at least delayed rather than changing themselves.
They always do the same thing and Politicians have been willing to pander to them because they can help a reelection campaign.
That YouTube is having 100 hours of video uploaded per minute shows how far away from the public taste they have strayed. They are losing control of the public and they know that means Politicians will wander away too.
Once again funneling money into the pockets of a few is being sold as "it means more money so that is good for everybody". Ignoring that "everybody" is US, so the money taken from US to engorge the robber's pockets benefits THEM at our expense. That is the opposite of what we should want.
Copyrights and patents were initially to impede the sharing of ideas so that the holders' capital could spread and harvest returns before the ideas' spread choked the rewards down.
In a world of wire transfers between banks capital has no problem keeping up but the impediments are still there so business models don't have to change (because change runs the risk of reducing revenues). The Politicians never seem to learn that the cries of pending doom if anything changes are always shone to be false after the fact.
Growing the pie by sharing instead of restricting use to a few is always better for everybody, both US and what would have been the original holders.
Re: Re:
"All they see is that the customer is going elsewhere to purchase the content" full stop.
That means they lose their monopoly. The monopoly is what makes the copyright valuable.
Take that away and you might just as well beg for money, that is all the power you have left.
No multi-million dollar bonuses down that path. Next up might be "downsizing" !
Bankruptsy !
Looking for WORK !!!
Re: Re: Vast majority of VPN use is business critical
How about...
A VPN service which uses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Elastic_Compute_Cloud as its in/out points.
Could be physically in any country so could be immune to subservient courts.
The IP addresses keep shifting so hard to block by IP address and adding new addresses is easy.
All traffic is encrypted and therefore unable to be spied upon. "Your Honor, they have locations open in both the US
and Australia at the same time so they MUST be infringing!", would be difficult for even a sympathetic judge
or politician to agree to knowing they would face public ridicule.
Re:
Ultimately injunctions involve courts.
Takes too long. Having the kill switch in their hand with no right of dispute or redress is the goal.
Re: Re: Vast majority of VPN use is business critical
Actually I think personal/private VPNs are the primary target.
Having just a few companies to pressure into giving up the keys to hundreds or thousands of customers is
much more feasable than needing to locate a pressure point for each of those customers individually.
The RIAA has given up trying to sue single customers and the MPAA is outsourcing all of those to copyright trolls.
Of course if a troll manages to get to profitability then their law teams will immediately move the trolling
back inhouse quickly.
The only way for them to get the ability to see the contents of every VPN is to have the keys available to
their designees, like Content ID, so all packets can be compared before they are forwarded.
Not just once every time they cross into/out of a geolocation.
That means Content ID holds all keys all the time, making them the number one target of government spies, hackers,
and criminals in the world.
Still while unsafe for everybody that would not outright destroy the Internet. That would be the next step.
Outlawing all communications not into or out of a copyright owner's system would nail the lid shut.
When does the illegality appear ?
So, is me renting a server in the US illegal ?
No.
Can I sign up for Netflix US to deliver movies to it ?
Yes.
Still nothing illegal ?
No.
My server in the US can encrypt streams to my Desktop in NZ.
Since that data is encrypted my ISP does not know anything about what
it is or where it came from. So they cannot be sued ?
No.
Since the encryption was Open Source and only I have the key you cannot know
what is in that data either. Anything you can charge me with yet ?
No.
Since I obtained that content legally are you now saying it became
illegal when I sent bits from the US to NZ ?
That is what we would prefer.
Under what rationale ?
Since nobody but me knows what is in those bits how can you PROVE I owe you anything ?
Those bits could really be video of my friend visiting the Grand Canyon. The only way you
have of proving they are not is by compelling me to give you the key. I tell you now
that I will not volunteer the key. Are you going to ask for the right to torture me
for that key ?
We might.
If I die under torture is that "justice" ?
Of course changng incentives NEVER changes behavior
Now, there are a lot of fallacies in play here, not the least of which is that budgeted income will always meet planned figures forever -- a conclusion made while operating in a vacuum devoid of external circumstances, perverted incentives or the foibles of the public.
Even Viacom has begun to see how far from true the "Consumer Habits will never change" mantra is...
http://recode.net/2015/04/06/viacom-says-the-internet-made-its-reruns-less-valuable/
That is why these "projections" will fall short and the "fix" will be to block even more sites and to outlaw VPNs.
Re: Oliver Twisted
This is why "following the law" without adding a little judgement was long ago found to be inadequate.
It is as stupid as a computer. Never a consideration of the costs nor what the benefit of applying
a given law is this instance would be.
So we got judges to reign over zealous prosecutors and have "jury nullification" to fall back on when
both prosecutors and judges insist on a law being used against a particular defendant when common sense says it
should not be.
Still we get cases like this occasionally.
How noble the law, in its majestic equality, that both the rich and poor
are equally prohibited from peeing in the streets, sleeping under bridges,and stealing bread!
Anatole France [The Red Lily] (1894)
Re: "now that many people see no reason to continue to fork over money"
http://sitasingstheblues.com/
There is the question of how I'll get money from all this. My personal experience confirms audiences are
generous and want to support artists. Surely there's a way for this to happen without centrally controlling
every transaction.
The old business model of coercion and extortion is failing. New models are emerging,
and I'm happy to be part of that. But we're still making this up as we go along.
You are free to make money with the free content of Sita Sings the Blues, and you are free to
share money with me
People have been making money in Free Software for years; it's time for Free Culture to follow.
I look forward to your innovations.
And of course, Wikipedia is just a shared delusion.
Get back under the bridge where you belong.
Re: duration?
Just time when you started viewing this page subtracted from time of next click gives the duration.
Both will be in the log he wants ISPs to keep.
Of course the next panic will be when they realise that https only allows tracking to the IP address.
Then they will insist that the ISP must be able to decrypt everything because "good" sites and "bad" ones can share the same IP address.
That means that everybody inside a firewall must be branded "guilty until proven innocent" by the firewall logs.
All your home routers track all URLs and encryption keys don't they ?
Brings to mind the case where my Wi-Fi connection, totally encrypted, is hacked because of a bug in the manufacturer's
software. Am I "guilty" because somebody accessed kiddie porn through it ?
Re: Re: Re: There is a distinction between the address an the content
Even top level domains would not get him the tracking they are after. If you limit to IP address for trackin/block then what about ?
Web Sites Sharing IP Addresses: IPs Hosting 225 to 249 Domains http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/archived_content/people/edelman/ip-sharing/list-24.html
So if they block by IP address then one baddie on a particular IP gets up to 248 innocents punished for no action of their own.
Plus that puts the "metadata" at the level of the pages you looked at and the time till your next click.
If the data collected and archived (for how long ?) is harmless then he should be willing to release a week's
worth of his own "metadata" for everybody to see just how unintrusive it really is.
If they really intend to limit to IP address then lots of innocents will be guilty by being in the same neighborhood.
Re:
"It is only metadata, no message content was read by anybody other than the sender and the recipients !"
History could shed some light here
Orville Wright developed the idea of twisting a plane´s wings to enable lateral control of the craft.
For this great idea, the Wright Brothers were the recipients of an early “pioneer patent” –
a right not only to the specific invention, but to the general concept.
Even though Curtis developed flaps and ailerons on the wings to bring control to the craft,
the Wrights fought in the courts (and often won) to stop him and other rivals
from trespassing on their turf of general aircraft control.
The effect on flight innovation was more than noticeable at the time. The patent war they unleashed
took the steam out of the budding industry. In 1912, only 90 aviators were in the air each day in the United States.
Across the pond in France, nearly 1,000 airmen were flying, testing and further developing their craft.
http://mises.org/blog/patents-and-birdmen
After WWII the US reduced the patent litigation and went on to maintain the lead gotten by the infusion
of technology from around the world for years.
The US forced mandatory licensing of Semiconductor and chip manufacturing for years,
that grew rather spectacularly without the legal friction.
Re: Whack-a-Mole time
They don't envision YOU keeping the keys till they come hunting.
They will insist that anbody using encryption they don't already have keys to is a criminal, convicted by your own actions, and failure to immediately surrender ALL keys will be grounds for immediate execution.
Re: Give yourself power!
Since "digital" is just bits and a photo can be transformed into bits.
Is the ITC saying that they can censor photos and text as well ?
How will they know if that prime number I got from Spain is a GIF rather than a class assignment ?
So the ITC is only supposed to believe Hollywood. Hollywood is supposed to pass judgment on Japaneze and Indian movies too ?
Hollywood plans to approve all BBC stories to assure that US citizens do not learn about torrent sites from a news story ?
That sounds to me like much more work than they have been willing to sign up for in the past.
The danger is that this Supreme Court might actually rule that censorship in the name of commerce trumps the First Amendment.
Re:
Pol Pot.
Re:
For that to happen they would need to change from the "its only valuable if it is hard to come by" thinking to
realizing that if nobody knows Ed Wood directed movies how will they know to rent one.
Content has no value to society without cultural links and since 1976 at least they have been doing their
best to kill off culture via starvation.
Re: Re: Connection speed is NOT imporatant
Do not underestimate the importance of the upload speed though.
Upload speeds are currently under 2 Mbs almost everywhere. The real danger of Google is that they do not throttle uploads.
Every seeder on a Google net is like 500 on one of their pet ISPs.
That multiplier means every seeder on a Google link brings their "time till bankruptsy or change" closer and faster.
No wonder their panties are brown.
They want Washington to say that they can force Google to disconnect those seeders on a notice without going to court.
To do that they need to have a ruling that Google is liable for their users behavior. Since the courts have already said
no to that for a different ISP they need a law or a treaty which says it is.
Hence this is propaganda to give Politicians cover.
Re: You should fear far worse than Google fiber
Whoever wrote the original article is either unable to read or is deliberately lying to panic his readers.
The St. Louis answers differ by no more than 5% which tells me that speed has nothing to do with peoples' behavior.
They will not lose nor gain very much no matter what happens.
This is another case of Copyright owners claiming a disaster is coming in hope of getting lawmakers to get a new
technology squashed or at least delayed rather than changing themselves.
They always do the same thing and Politicians have been willing to pander to them because they can help a
reelection campaign.
That YouTube is having 100 hours of video uploaded per minute shows how far away from the public taste they
have strayed. They are losing control of the public and they know that means Politicians will wander away too.
Re: Re: Common good needs recognition
Once again funneling money into the pockets of a few is being sold as "it means more money so that is good for everybody". Ignoring that "everybody" is US, so the money taken from US to engorge the robber's pockets benefits THEM at our expense. That is the opposite of what we should want.
Copyrights and patents were initially to impede the sharing of ideas so that the holders' capital could spread and harvest returns before the ideas' spread choked the rewards down.
In a world of wire transfers between banks capital has no problem keeping up but the impediments are still there so business models don't have to change (because change runs the risk of reducing revenues). The Politicians never seem to learn that the cries of pending doom if anything changes are always shone to be false after the fact.
Growing the pie by sharing instead of restricting use to a few is always better for everybody, both US and what would have been the original holders.
Not to worry, you can't make any money if you give things away
Zenefits growth must be a delusion or a fraud.
Zenefits should be hoarding that software as their vital IP.
What kind of loonies are these Zenefits people ?